Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02262002 - C1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • - Contra 4 FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Costa County DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF EAST CENTRAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVE the East Central Traffic Management Study as requested by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the study's Policy Advisory Committee. FISCAL IMPACT NONE to the General Fund. If the study's recommendations are implemented, the County would be asked to install a traffic signal at one intersection at a cost ranging from $150,000 to $300,000. Traffic signals generally are financed from County road funds or Measure C return-to-source funds, or developers. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The East Central Traffic Management Study evaluated and recommended a traffic metering strategy to help optimize the flow of morning commute traffic in the westbound direction in the Kirker Pass Road/Ygnacio Valley Road Corridor. The study was conducted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and overseen by a Policy Advisory Committee of elected officials from the cities along the corridor (the Cities of Antioch, Clayton, Concord and Pittsburg). The County wasn't represented on the Policy Advisory Committee because one road, with one Intersection, was impacted. The majority of the study area is within cities. The study was conducted in 2000-2001. The Policy Advisory Committee adopted the final study in August 2001 and requested that each of the affected jurisdictions also approve the study. Approvals also ;were sought from the two regional transportation committees involved —TRANSPLAN in East County and TRANSPAC in Central County. A op CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE &---RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COWIN TEE _,.,APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOA ON FEBRUARY '26, 2002AP'PROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE xxUNANIM'OUS (ABSENT _-- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES:' AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:-John Greitzer (925/335-1201) FEBRUARY 26, 2002 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINIST OR BY , DEPUTY Slransportabon\board order ectms feb 26.doc EAST CENTRAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY FEBRUARY 19,2002 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) To date the study has been approved by the Cities of Concord, Clayton and Pittsburg, and by TRANSPLAN and TRANSPAC. The City of Antioch in October 2001 chase not to approve the study, although the study may be brought back to the Antioch City Council for further consideration in the near future. Antioch's decision was based in part on the absence of several Councilmembers from the meeting at which the study was discussed, and partly on questions the Councilmembers in attendance had about the study; The impact of the study on the unincorporated areas is limited to one specific area. The study recommends a traffic signal be installed for metering westbound traffic on Kirker Pass Road at Nortonville Road,which is east of the City of Concord and south of the City of Pittsburg. A metering signal at this location would result in a back-up, or "queue", of vehicles extending eastward/northward in the unincorporated area "upstream" from that intersection, according to the study. At its longest, the queue would back up 0;9 miles from the Nortonville metering site. However, the queue would stop short of blocking any upstream intersections. The length of the queue will vary throughout the morning. County staff participated on the study's Technical Advisory Committee, and asked that the final recommendations include adequate signage and other safety measures to warn motorists that they are approaching a queue as they proceed downhill on Kirker Pass Road-coming out of Pittsburg at relatively high speeds. These safety recommendations were included in the final study. The study also calls for a traffic-metering site on Buchanan Road westbound at Meadows Avenue in the City of Pittsburg. An additional metering site would be added on the proposed Buchanan Bypass if and when that road is built. These recommended metering sites would be timed to coordinate with existing traffic meters in operation at Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Avenue in Concord and Ygnacio Valley Road/Oak Grove Road in Walnut Creek. The study's recommendations would not result in a significant change in travel time for motorists traveling the entire length of the corridor, from East County to 1-680. For shorter trips within the corridor, travel times would decrease in some segments and increase in others. The most notable improvement would be a substantial reduction in the size of the morning queue projected for year 2010 at the existing Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Avenue meter in Concord. This queue consists largely of East County residents commuting to jobs located in Central County or other employment centers. The metering strategy also will result in traffic flow that is more predictable and manageable than the current condition, according to the study. The study was conducted for CCTA by a team of consultants led by DKS Associates of Oakland. The metering strategy recommended in the study may impede East County's ability to meet the traffic performancestandards for Kirker Pass Road established in the East'County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan adopted by CCTA. The standards for Kirker Pass Road include a "level-of-service" standard and a"delay index" standard. Level-of-service is a statistic that compares the amount of traffic using a road or intersection, with the maximum capacity of the road or intersection. The closer the amount of traffic comes to approaching maximum capacity, the worse the flow of traffic. Delay index is a statistic that compares the travel time through a corridor during peak commuting hours, with the travel time through the same corridor during off-peak hours. Regarding the delay index,the study found the metering strategy wouldn't cause the delay index to exceed the standards for the study area as a whole, but didn't calculate the delay index specifically on Kirker Pass Road. If the metering strategy is implemented, the delay index should be monitored to determine if the standard is being met. The standard for Kirker Pass Road`is a delay index of less than 2.0. This means, for example, that if traveling the length of Kirker Pass Road in East County takes 20 minutes during off-peak hours, it shouldn't reach or exceed 40 minutes during the peak hour. A queue reaching up to 0.9 miles in length could impact the delay index on Kirker Pass Road. CCTA expects to perform its next round of traffic monitoring within the next year to two years. The delay index on Kirker Pass Road will be monitored as part of that process. EAST CENTRAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY FEBRUARY 19,2002 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued Regarding level-of-service standards, the standard for Kirker Pass Road is level-of-service °mid-E", meaning traffic shouldn't exceed 95 percent of the road's maximum capacity. If the new traffic signal recommended for Kirker Pass Road at Nortonville Road is installed and used as a metering site, the segment of the road leading up to that point at times may exceed the level-of-service standard. This also should be monitored as part of CCTA's next round of trafficmonitoring. There is no penalty for not meeting the traffic standards. The East County Action Plan and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan are updated every few years and the traffic standards can be changed at that time if conditions warrant. It also should be noted that metering is a strategy that intentionally causes temporary recurring congestion at certain points where there is adequate "storage space" for the queue,in order to improve the flow of traffic ahead and provide better overall management of traffic along a corridor. This technique is recommended in the Central County Action Plan. The East Central Traffic Management Study is included as Exhibit A. Approval of the study doesn't committheCounty to theexpenditureof any funds or specific actions. Implementation of the study's recommendations is voluntary. OCTA staff has indicated they don't believe the metering strategy will adversely affect the ability to meet the traffic standards on Kirker Pass Road_ OCTA staff also indicated that if the metering system does cause a violation of traffic standards on Kirker Pass, this wouldn't have any growth management compliance repercussions. EXHIBIT A SOW! A" Imiaiwo"Now CAU-TaCmTRAL , TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY Final Report s .L z �. ., } Prepared by 4u DKs Associates August 10, 2001 FINAL REPORT Prepared for East-Central Traffic Management Study By DKS Associates 1956 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-2061 In association with CH21V1 Hili August 10, 2001 DKS Associates ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LEAD AGENCY Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCTA Project Manager: Martin Engelmann POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSPLAN Hon. Donald Freitas, City of Antioch Hon. Federal Glover, City of Pittsburg(4/40-11/00) Hon. Frank Quesada, City of Pittsburg,(12/00-9/01) TRANSPAC Hon. Bill McManigal, City of Concord Hon. Julie Pierce, City of Clayton TECHNICALADVISORY COMMITTEE Ed Franzen,City of Antioch John Greitzer, TRANSPLAN John Hall,City of Walnut Creek Barbara Neustadter, TRANSPAC Paul Reinders,City of Pittsburg John Templeton, City of Concord Joe Yee/Chris Bailey, Contra Costa County Public Works CONSULTANT TEAM Project Manager. Deborah Dagang, DKS Associates Loren Bloomberg, CH2M Hill Shirley Chan,DKS Associates Terry Klim, DKS Associates Dustin Luther, DKS Associates Kevin Stankiewicz, DKS Associates(formerly CH2M Hill) Joe Story, DKS Associates Word Processing: Anne Batey, DKS Associates Graphics: Inger Knox,DKS Associates pApi001001621doesltask 3lfiiurl repoiKlackirolvledgenients,doc Final Report i August'10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management System DKK Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF ACRONYMS.....................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................ ...............................ES-1 ES.I PAC Recommendation .................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Study Background.........................................................................................ES-3 ES.3 Evaluation of Alternatives.............................................................................ES-5 ESAImplementation/Next Steps...........................................................................ES-8 1. INTRODUCTION........................ . .........................................................................1-1 1.1 Study Background .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose And Objectives of the ECTMS............................................................. 1-3 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................2-1 2.1 Roadway System Summary..............................................................................2-1 2.2 Data Collection................................................................ ...............................2-2 2.3 General Observations........................................................................................2-6 3. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.............................................................3-1 3.1 Process For Developing Alternatives................................................................3-1 3.2 Alternatives Evaluated......................................................................................3-3 4. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Network Improvement Assumptions................................................................4-1 4.2 Technical Approach..........................................................................................4-2 5. EVALUATION CRITERIA...................................................................................5-1 6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................................6-1 6.1 Analysis.............................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Evaluation.......................................................................................................6-14 6.3 Selection of Preferred Alternative ..................................................................6-17 7. REFINEMENT OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE..........................................7-1 7.1 Description........................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Analysis.............................................................................................................7-2 7.3 Potential Future Improvement........................................................................7-10 8. IMPLEMENTATION/NEXT STEPS.:..................................................................8-1 8.1 Protocol For Implementation............................................................................8-1 8.2 Design And Construction Issues.......................................................................8-1 8.3 Establishing the Comprehensive TMP..............................................................8-2 Final Report j i August 10,2001 East-Centra!Traffic Management System DS Associates APPENDICES (provided under separate cover) A: Purpose,Objectives, and Principles of Governance B: Data Collected C: 2010 Network Assumptions D: Simulation Model Evaluation E: 2010 Turn Movement Forecasts F: East County Transit Information LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 Preferred Alternative...............................................................................ES-2 FigureES-2 Study Area...............................................................................................ES-4 Figure ES-3 Study Alternatives...................................................................................ES-6 Figure1-1 Study Area................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 2-1 Travel Time Routes...................................................................................2-4 Figure 3-1 East County CPM Locations Considered..................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Study Alternatives.....................................................................................3-5 Figure 4-1 Simulation Model Network.......................................................................4-3 Figure 4-2 Diversion Analysis Locations ...................................................................4-5 Figure 6-1 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Route: Somersville1101h to Myrtle.........................................................................6-1 Figure 6-2 2010 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Route: Somersville/101h to Myrtle..................................................... ............6-2 Figure 6-3 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Section: viaBuchanan.............................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-4 2010 Corridor Travel time by Alternative and Section: viaBuchanan.............................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-5 2000CPM Queues: AM Peak Direction(Central County)......................6-5 Figure 6-6 2000 CPM Queues: AM Peak Direction (East County)...........................6-6 Figure 6-7 2010 CPM Queues: AM Peak Direction(East County)...........................6-7 Figure 7-1 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................7-3 Figure 7-2 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Section—Baseline vs. Preferred:via Buchanan............................................................................7-4 Figure 7-3 2000 CPM Queues: AM Peak Direction—Preferred Alternative (East County).............................................................................................7-5 Figure 7-4 2000 CPM Queues: AM Peak Direction--Preferred Alternative (Central County)........................................................................................7-6 Final Repott iii August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management System DKS Associates LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 2000 Evaluation Summary..... ................................................................ES-7 Table 3-1 Control Point Metering Locations.............................................................3-4 Table 5-1 Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................5-2 Table 6-1 Queue Length by Location........................................................................6-4 Table 6-2 System Delay by Alternative.....................................................................6-8 Table 6-3 Corridor Delay Index by Alternative.........................................................6-8 Table 6-4 Peak Hour Average Vehicle Delay ...........................................................6-9 Table 6-5 Year 2000 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results..................................6-10 Table 6-6 Year 2010 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results..................................6-11 Table 6-7 Estimated Implementation Costs.............................................................6-13 Table 6-8 2000 Evaluation Summary......................................................................6-14 Table 6-9 2010 Evaluation Summary......................................................................6-16 Table 7-1 Queue Length Comparison-2000............................................................7-4 Table 7-2 System Delay by Alternative—2000.........................................................7-7 Table 7-3 Corridor Delay Index by Alternative.........................................................7-7 Table 7-4 Peak Hour Average Vehicle Delay- 2000.................................................7-8 Table 7-5 Year 2000 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results ...................................7-9 Table 7-6 Preferred Alternative Estimated Implementation Costs..........................7.10 Table 7-7 HOV Queue Jump Lanes Estimated Implementation Costs ...................7.11 Final Report iv August 10,2001 East-Central Trac Management System DDS Associates LIST OF ACRONYMS BART - Bay Area Rapid Transit CCTA - Contra Costa Transportation Authority CPM - Control Point Metering ECTMS East-Central Traffic Management Study HOV High Occupancy Vehicle 1-680 - Interstate 680 MOU - Memorandum of Understanding PAC - Policy Advisory Committee RTPC - Regional Transportation Planning s/o - south of SR - State Route TAC - Technical Advisory Committee TMC - Traffic Management Center TMP - Transportation Management PlanCormnittee VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled W/o - west of Final Report v August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management System DDS Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 PAC Recommendation' Based on the technical analysis presented in this final report, a preferred alternative for implementing control point metering (CPM) in East County, to be operated in conjunction with the existing and planned CPM in Central County, has been developed. The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for the East-Central Traffic Management Study (ECTMS) recommends that the preferred alternative undergo review by local jurisdictions and the regional transportation planning committees. As illustrated in Figure ES-1, the preferred alternative includes the existing and planned CPM locations in Central County on Ygnacio Valley Road at flak Grove Road in Walnut Creek and on Kirker Pass Road at Myrtle Drive in Concord. In addition, the preferred alternative includes the following two CPM locations in East County: one at the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and Nortonville Road, where a new signal would need to be installed; and a second along Buchanan Road at Meadows Avenue, where an existing signal would be used to meter the flow of westbound traffic along Buchanan Road. All of these locations would comprise the East-Central Commute Traffic Management Plan. The preferred alternative will improve traffic management along the heavily traveled East- Central commute corridor. At present, as the morning commute builds, traffic congestion occurs at scattered, and often unpredictable, locations throughout the roadway network. This often results in "gridlock," where the queue from one congested intersection backs up into another intersection., compounding the congestion and delay problems at upstream intersections and driveways. In addition to creating safe "reservoirs" for storing traffic queues, each CPM location would include a carefully designed gridlock-avoidance system:in the form of queuedetectors, which would' be located as indicated in Figure ES-1. Should the queues extend back to the queue detectors, the signal timing would be changed to release part of the queue and prevent traffic from blocking upstream intersections. Estimated Cost for Design and Construction The total estimated cost for the design and construction of the preferred alternative is $600,000. This includes installing the new signal at Kirker Pass Road and Nortonville Road, installing queue detectors and conduit, re-programming the signals, field-testing, and monitoring. Final Report ES-1 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study G 4) o w m L � m t .► i 1 � 1 t a � � iB Pt3 eBpiaenojop� � pp >ry t 'gyp 0UOd&PM ti i 'pu SBPl18n0-i 1 1 � Q t s 05 7 � d � t tu� 1 w 1 J t is � �+� m 'Pt!sse 'eny P�a�jgy at ty�Gp m cz y41Wa a 'g DKS Associates Eligible FundingSources Once consensus has been reached to implement the preferred alternative, funding will need to be obtained.. At this time, no specific funding source has been identified. Potential funding sources include: • Federal funding through the re-authorization of TEA-21. STI'/CMAQ funds could be available for the signal portion of the project. + State funding through the 2004 STIP (or interim 2003 STIP). • Local funding through City/County general funds, or the Measure C Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. ES►.2 Study Background Local jurisdictions in East and Central County have been working cooperatively to develop a traffic management plan aimed at improving the morning commute on the East-Central corridor. The East-Central Traffic Management Study (ECTM5) builds on a City of Concord Study for the Central County section of the corridor. The City of Concord's study was focused on measuring the impacts of metering the flow of traffic in Central County westbound on Kirker Pass,Road/Ygnacio Valley Road in the morning peak. With East County's cooperation, the ECTMS covers a larger area - it evaluates morning commute patterns from Antioch and Pittsburg, through Concord to Walnut Creek and the I- 680/State Route (SR) 24 interchange. The study area is bounded, in general, by the Pittsburg/Antioch Highway and SR 4 to the north, 1-680 to the west, Somersville Road to the east, and Ygnacio Valley Road-Kirker Pass Road and Buchanan Road'to the south(see Figure ES-2). Commuters traveling from Antioch or Pittsburg to Central County, Alameda County, San Francisco, or Santa Clara County face a long commute. As a result, traffic problems begin in the study area earlier than one might observe at other locations in the Bay Area. In this study, significant congestion was observed'for westbound traffic on SR 4. Queues were observed as early as 5:30 AM, and were still present at 9 AM. The main bottleneck occurred west of Railroad Avenue,just past the on-ramp merge. This section has the highest volumes of any two-lane section on:SR 4. The situation was exacerbated by construction in the section west of Railroad Avenue. Queues extended`as far back as A Street in Antioch, approximately five miles. Beyond the bottleneck at Railroad, westbound SR 4 operated reasonably well. Southbound traffic on 1-680 between SR 242 and the Ygnacio Valley Road interchange was consistently slow moving in the morning commute period. In general, the heaviest arterial movement in East County was westbound on Buchanan Road to southbound'Railroad Avenue. Queues formed on Buchanan Road at the intersections with Loveridge Road, Suzanne Drive, Harbor Street, and Railroad Avenue. There was also heavy movement on westbound Leland Avenue, with some traffic continuing west past Railroad Avenue (presumably to the BART station or SR 4), and other traffic turning left at Railroad Avenue to travel southbound. Occasionally, congestion and queues were observed on westbound Pittsburg-Antioch Highway between Somersville Road and Loveridge Road. Final Report ES-3 August 10,'2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study N to m `uo 4 i r, '-V v jig vpu } L 4 v y v ��tib DDS Associates Over Kirker Pass Road, speeds were as high as 60 to 70 mph in the early part of the peak period (5 to 6:30 AM) and the later Part of the peak'period (after 8:30 AM). During the middle of the peak,'speeds were slightly lower(50 mph). In Central County, CPM has already been implemented at Ygnacio Valley Road and Oak Grove Road. During the unmetered periods (early and late in the AM peak period), there are no significant queues at the Ygnacio Valley Road/Oak Grove Road intersection. When metering was engaged, queues formed on Ygnacio Valley Road as far back as Cowell Road. In recently conducted travel time runs, delays for through vehicles were up to twelve minutes. Farther west, the performance varied. Early in the peak period, the predominant movement was westbound, and most of the green time at the downtown Walnut Creek signals was given to through traffic westbound. Walnut Boulevard and Civic Drive were more frequently congested than most. At the onset of this study, a number of major regional highway improvement projects were underway. Of particular relevance to this project were the widening of SR 242 in Concord and the widening of SR 4 between Bailey Road and RailroadAvenue in Pittsburg. These projects will improve traffic flow along the freeway system, and are expected to encourage the use of these facilities for travel between East and Central County, and beyond. Another important project is the planned implementation of control point metering on Kirker Pass Road at Myrtle .Drive in the City of Concord. The timing of this project is expected to coincide with completion of the current SR 4 improvements. According to the City of Concord study, up to 300 vehicles in the peak hour are expected to divert away from Kirker Pass Road after the control point metering is implemented. Furthermore, significant reduction in the queue length at Oak Grove Road is expected asa result of this project. The City of Concord study estimated a 25 percent reduction in queue length at this location. ES.3 Evaluation of Alternatives Initially in the study, many alternatives were generated and qualitatively examined for benefits and drawbacks. Through this qualitative evaluation process, three of the most promising alternatives were selected for extensive quantitative analysis and testing. Each of the three alternatives include the existing CPM location in Walnut Creek (Ygnacio Valley Road/Oak Grove Road) and the one at Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Drive (to be implemented in summer 2001). The distinguishing feature between the alternatives and the Baseline Scenario is the addition of; CPM locations in East County, which would comprise the Traffic Management Plan. The alternatives are illustrated in Figure ES-3. Alternative A involved adding one CPM location in East County on Kirker Pass Road at Pheasant Drive in Pittsburg. Alternative B also involved only one additional CPM location in East County= at the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and Nortonville Road. Alternative C included the CPM location at Kirker'Pass Road and Nortonville Road, as well as a second CPM location at Buchanan Road and Meadows Avenue in the City of Pittsburg. Final Report ES-5 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study ev ,r,a v �d r� d v g d 0 F Cos of 1t F Q ✓ � A21 eBP nd7 -gmllliR `t 1 (e 8... t 1 1 'PH e6pCteno7 ' a + c O + '1S etq n+o t P IS (3 m r i w � x u, ca m � ssed J".kl)4 0 ®ny 64 to 4 cl V10 n. KS Associates A setof evaluation criteria was developed to facilitate the comparison of alternatives. Initially, a broad range of potential criteria was generated. These were examined to assess their value in conducting the evaluation. The final evaluation criteria were selected following extensive discussion of the following key considerations: • Ease of understanding: Could a layperson understand how the criterion is measured and valued"?Could it be easily explained to the general public?' • Availability and cost of obtaining field data: Could the criterion be measured in the field today? And at what cost? • Modelability: Could the criterion be quantified for each alternative, through use of either the travel demand forecasting model or the operations model. The evaluation results for 2000 are presented in Table ES-1. None of the alternatives were found to noticeably increase corridor travel time, nor were any adverse affects detected on the ability to meet the key traffic service objective—delay index—in the corridor. A significant benefit of East County metering is the expected reduction in queue lengths at Myrtle Drive. While Alternative A produced only a slight reduction, the simulation tests on Alternatives B and C resulted in significant reductions in the,length_of the queue at Myrtle Drive. Alternative C offers the additional advantage of helping reduce the congestion' and queuing along Buchanan Road between Loveridge Road and Railroad Avenue. According to the model results, the introduction of CPM in East County is expected to neither increase nor decrease the length of queue observed at the Oak Grove Road CPM location under the baseline scenario. Table;ES-1 2000 Evaluation Summary Criteria Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Overall Travel Time p p n Corridor Delay Index 0 O 0 Change in Baseline Queues T Overall'1mpacton Queuing O 0 System Delay v 4 O Impact to Upstream Intersections X X X Safety Diversion Number of Metering Points 2 3 3 4 Implementation Cost' $65k-$75k $315k4485k $500k-$690k Key XX Much worse than baseline X Worse than baseline O Same as baseline q Better than baseline 44 Much better than baseline Note: The evaluation criteria are defined in Table 5-1 of the report. Source: DKS Associates Final Report ES-7 August 10,2001 East-Central Trak Management Study DKS Associates Through the evaluation process, it quickly became apparent that the choice could be narrowed down to Alternatives B and C as the two most effective and flexible traffic management strategies. Alternative A,which was found to have an extremely limited "reservoir" capacity, was not selected for further consideration. When viewed from a purely technical.perspective,Alternatives B and C had many similarities in performance; however, Alternative C was found to be more effective at reducing the downstream queue at Myrtle Drive. The simulation results also indicatedthat Alternative C resulted in potential benefits to the portion of Buchanan Road west of Loveridge Road. It was further noted`that Alternative B is really a subset of Alternative C. Therefore, it would'be relatively straightforward to shift from C to B in the future by eliminating CPM at Buchanan Road/Meadows Avenue. Based upon these considerations, the PAC selected Alternative C to be refined into the preferred alternative. In developing the recommended CPM strategy, an effort was made to balance queues and delays at the various CPM locations. Specifically, CPM operations were fine-tuned at the following two locations: 1. Buchanan Road: The queue at the Meadows Avenue CPM location could be increased or decreased, which would reduce or increase the extent of the congestion to the west on Buchanan Road between Loveridge and Railroad. By allowing a maximum queue of 0.6 miles at Meadows Avenue, the queues at Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street were reduced, and the queues at Loveridge Road and Suzanne Drive were eliminated compared to the baseline scenario. 2. Kirker Pass Road: The queue at the Nortonville Road CPM location could be increased or decreased, which would directly affect the length of queue at Myrtle Drive in Concord. By allowing a maximum queue of 0.6 miles at Nortonviile Road (which would not impact the intersection at Pheasant Drive), the queue at Myrtle Drive was reduced by one-third compared to the baseline scenario. ESA Implementation/Next"Steps Defining a preferred alternative for CPM locations is an important stepping stone toward improving the East-Central commute. But, many additional steps will need to be taken before the preferred alternative and a full "Traffic Management Plan" can be implemented. This section'provides a look at the next steps, and begins to frame some of the issues expected to be encountered as the preferred alternative undergoes further review by all interested parties, and as the project moves closer to implementation. Final Report ES-8 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates Protocol for Implementation Clearly, implementation of the preferred alternative will be contingent upon all of the affected local jurisdictions accepting the proposal. The step'-by-step process for completing this level of review and achieving',a consensus is set forth below. The TMP shall be implemented only if the PAC, and its constituent jurisdictions, achieve a unanimousagreement on the proposed TMP. The following protocol for TMP implementation assumes that TAC and PAC` members provide a dine of communication back to the local jurisdictions to ensure that the proposed TMP alternative reflects the concerns of each involved party.To implement the TMP,the following steps would be required: a. The TAC prepares and forwards the Draft ECTMS to the PAC. b. The PAC approves the Final ECTMS and forwards it to local jurisdictions and RTPCs for review and adoption. c. Each Council (Antioch, Pittsburg, Clayton, Concord, and Walnut Creek), Board (Contra Costa Board of Supervisors), and RTPC (TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN) reviews the Final ECTMS and considers whether or not to adopt it. d. Once all involved parties have adopted the proposed Final ECTMS constituent jurisdictions submit(s) the TMP or its components to CCTA for eligible funding cycles. Design and`Construction Issues Assuming agreement can be reached on implementation of the preferred alternative, detailed design drawings and cost estimates need to be prepared, environmental clearance documents may be required, and individual components of the plan would need to be installed and tested. The following is a "first cut" 'listing (in no specific order) of the necessary design and construction components to the project. • Prepare a signal design for the Nortonville/Kirker Pass Road intersection. • Develop new signal timing plans for each CPM location. • Construct signal at the Nortonville/Kirker Pass Road intersection. + Program signal controllers to be responsive to queue detection. • Install queue detectors, including connection to controller. • Install advanced signing prior to each CPM location. + Conduct a public awareness program. + Implement CPM and refine signal timing as needed. • Consider whether or not to establish a centralized Traffic Management Center (TMQ to coordinate and manage the Traffic Management Plan via CPM signals.-The TMC could be designed to only control the CPM locations in East County, and could also control other priority signals in East County as well. CCTV cameras would likely be Fina/Report ES-9 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study LKS Associates incorporated into the TMC design, as a method to observe queues and signal operation in the field (rather than relying solely on controller and queue detector data). Establishing the Comprehensive TMP The Preferred Alternative described in this study should be incorporated into a Comprehensive Transportation Management'Plan (TMP) to address travel between East and Central County. A Comprehensive TMP would include a multimodal approach to examining: • AM and PM peak travel periods; • Eastbound and westbound travel; and • Freeway and arterial travel. Strategies and policies established in the TR:ANSPLAN and TRANSPAC Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance should be incorporated into the Comprehensive TMP. Furthermore, the Comprehensive TMP should be considered`in future TRANSPLAN and TRANSPAC Action Plan updates or amendments. A concept for future consideration is the addition of HOV queue jump lanes at the CPM locations. The recommendation of this study does not preclude the future addition HOV queue jump lanes, however, the current analysis indicates that the probable benefit does not justify the estimated expenditure. With the reduction in the queue at Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Drive,transit vehicles do receive some benefit from reduced delay at this location. p:lptOM01621rlocsltask 5lftrral reportlexecutive srurrrnary.doc Final Report ES-10 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DDS Associates 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Background Local jurisdictions in East and Central County have been working cooperatively to develop a traffic management plan aimed at improving the morning commute on the East-Central corridor. The East-Central Traffic Management Study (ECTMS) builds on a City of Concord Study for the Central County.section of the corridor. The City of Concord's study was focused on measuring the impacts of metering the flow of traffic westbound on Kirker Pass Road/Ygnacio Valley Road in the morning peak. With East County's cooperation, the ECTMS covers a larger area - it evaluates commute patterns from Antioch and Pittsburg in the AM commute period, through Concord to Walnut Creek and the I-6$4/State Route (SR) 24 interchange. The study area is bounded, in general, by the Pittsburg/Antioch Highway and SR 4 to the north, I-680 to the west, Somersville Road to the east, and Ygnacio Valley Road-Kirker Pass Road and Buchanan Road to the south (see Figure`1-1). For the purposes of assessing travel times, the 10`' Street/SomersvilleRoad was defined as the starting point for the network, and the I-680/Ygnacio Valley interchange as the end point. ECTMS participants include the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for Central County (TRANSPAC) and East County (TRANSPLAN) which include the cities of Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Pittsburg and Antioch, and Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is overseeing this study. To guide the development of the ECTMS, a'Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), composed of elected officials from TRANSPLAN and TRANSPAC, was established. Technical recommendations were provided to the PAC by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of staff from TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN jurisdictions, the County and OCTA. The members of the PAC and TAC are listed in the Acknowledgements provided at the beginning of this report. Final Report August 10,2001 East-Central Trak Management Study td k { f l K 5 '" cl KS Associates 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the ECTMS Before work began on this project, the PAC convened to develop a paper called "Purpose, Objectives, and Principles of Governance." This document, which is shown in Appendix A, provided the framework for proceeding with the ECTMS. Below are the purposes and objectives that the PAC developed in May 2000, then adopted in September 2000. The purposes of the ECTMS are to: 1. Analyze the benefits and impacts of establishing additional traffic control points and other traffic management strategies- in East County to ;complement"the existing and proposed Traffic Management Programs in Central County 2. Perform qualitative analysis of the impacts of the TMPs on SR 4 during construction; and 3. Develop an East-Central TMP that integrates existing, planned, and proposed transportation projects and programs. The objectives of the ECTMS are to: 1. Manage operations of the local arterial street system of affected jurisdictions to improve overall mobility during the morning peak period; 2. Coordinate arterial and freeway operations to ensure efficient operations of both facilities within the SR 4 corridor; 3. Establish a program that provides flexibility in addressing anticipated future traffic growth within the Study Area; and 4. Avoid diversion of traffic onto neighborhood streets. Throughout this study, and especially during the public outreach process, the above purposes and objectives served as reliable guidelines for piloting the ECTMS work effort toward successful completion. p:Ipi0010016PdoesVask Slfrnal repor•tisection Ldoc Final Report 1-3 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study v D> S Associates 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS In this section, the existing conditions for the ECTMS studyarea are summarized. More detail on the data collected for this study is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 Roadway System Summary There are two primary ways to reach Walnut Creek and the I-680/SR 24 interchange from Antioch and Pittsburg: 1) via SR 4 to SR 242 to I-680; or 2)via Kirker Pass Road to Ygnacio Valley Road. Within Antioch and Pittsburg, loch Street, Somersville Road, Loveridge Avenue, Leland Road, Buchanan Road, and Railroad Avenue are the primary means by which drivers gain access to either SR 4 or to Kirker Pass Road. Freeways State Route 4 (SR 4) is the major freeway corridor for northeastern Contra Costa County communities. In the Antioch/Pittsburg area, SR 4 has two lanes of travel for each direction and no HOV lanes. Before reaching the interchange with SR 242, SR 4 widens to three lanes in each direction at Bailey Road. HOV lanes are present on SR 4 between Bailey Road and SR 242. SR 4 was under construction during the data collection period for this study, as it was being widened between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue to four lanes, including an HOV lane, in each direction. State Route 242 (SR 242) is a short connector freeway that runs north-south between SR 4 and I-680. At the start of this study in May 2000, there were two lanes of travel in each direction on SR 242 and a widening project was under construction. By January 2001, SR 242 had been widened from four lanes to six lanes. Interstate 680 (1-680) runs north south through the study area and is the major freeway connection between Solano, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties. The segment between SR 242 and SR 24 is 5 lanes wide in each direction. There are currently no HOV lanes along this segment of I-680, but HOV lanes are scheduled to be added to I-680 between North Main Street and the Benicia-Martinez bridge in 2003. Arterials 10`h Street/Pittsburg-Antioch Highway runs east-west to the north of, and;roughly parallel to, SR:'4. It is four lanes wide near the intersections with Railroad Avenue and Somersville Road, but only two lanes wide through most of the study area. Typically, there are left-turn bays at major intersections along 10th Street. California Avenue is a frontage road of SR 4 on the north side of the freeway'providing a connection between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Avenue. California is one lane in each direction, with left-turn bays at major intersections. Final Report 2-1 August 10, 2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKs Associates Leland Road/Delta Fair Boulevard runs east-west from Somersville Road in the east, to Railroad Avenue and on to Bailey Road in the west. Leland/Delta Fair has two lanes of travel in each direction, with bays at major intersections. Adjacent land uses vary — commercial, residential, and college properties are all represented. Leland Road will be extended westbound to Willow Pass Road in Concord in the future. Buchanan Road is a two-lane road that runs east-west through southern Antioch and Pittsburg. Buchanan serves as a primary connection between Somersville Road and Railroad Avenue. Buchanan primarily provides access to residential areas. Typically, there are left turn bays at major intersections along Buchanan Road, including dual left-turn lanes at Railroad. Somersville Road runs'north-south in Antioch, with an interchange with SR 4. Somersville provides a connection between I 01 Street and Buchanan Road. It is typically two lanes in each direction, with turn bays at major intersections. The adjacent properties to Somersville Road in the study area are primarily commercial. Loveridge Avenue is a' north-south roadway that connects 10th Street and Buchanan Road. There is an interchange with SR'4 on Loveridge Avenue. Typically, there are left-turn bays,at major intersections along Loveridge"Avenue. Loveridge Avenue has four lanes around the interchange and to the north of SR 4, but there are only two lanes on the southern section of Loveridge. Railroad Avenue is a north-south roadway in Pittsburg that primarily provides access to commercial properties. Railroad Avenue has two lanes in each direction, with left-tum bays at all signalized intersections, and an interchange with SR 4. lUrker Pass Road'runs northeast-southwest between Buchanan Road to Clayton Road, and is the primary arterial corridor for traffic from Antioch and Pittsburg going to the Central County area. Kirker Pass Road is four lanes from the City of Pittsburg to Myrtle Drive, and then 6 lanes to Clayton Road. At this point, Kirker Pass Road becomes Ygnacio Valley Road, and continues to Walnut Creek. Typically, there are left-turn bays at major intersections along Kirker Pass Road. Ygnacio Valley Road runs northeast-southwest between Clayton Road and I-680 in Walnut Creek. From Clayton Road to Park Highlands, Ygnacio Valley Road has three lanes of travel in each direction. It narrows to four lanes from Park Highlands to Oak Grove, where it-goes' to six lanes again through the City of Walnut Creek. Ygnacio Valley Road provides access to a variety of'land uses, including residential areas, commercial` properties,.and professional services locations. Ygnacio Valley Road has left-turn bays at major intersections. 2.2 Data Collection Extensive field observations and data collection were conducted to measure existing conditions. The activities'were performed during May 2000. Consistent with the focus of the ECTMS, the observations and data collection focused on the AM commute period (5 to 9 AM) and the westbound/southbound traffic flows. The data collected includes daily traffic volumes, intersection turning movement volumes, travel times,'queue'lengths, saturation flow rates, and average vehicle occupancy numbers. Because similar data collection activities Final Report 2-2 August 10, 2001 East-Central Trac Management Study DDS Associates were performed as ,part of the Concord Study, the data collection activities for the ECTMS focused on locations within the East County portion of the study area. Data from the Concord Study included traffic volumes, travel times, saturation flow rates, andqueuelengths recorded at various times from 1997 up to April and June of 2000. The discussion in the remainder of this section emphasizes the data collected specifically for the ECTMS. Traffic Volumes Daily traffic volumes were recorded on several arterial segments throughout the study area. Within Antioch and Pittsburg, the data indicates that east-west traffic is distributed 'fairly evenly across California Avenue, Leland Road, and Buchanan Road, but the east-west traffic is lower on 10Eh Street. Along the Kirker Pass-Ygnacio Valley corridor, daily volumes generally increase with proximity to Walnut Creek, reaching a peak in the Homestead Road area before decreasing near I-680. In addition to the daily segment counts, AM period turn movement counts were conducted at several intersections In the Antioch and Pittsburg area, the primary flow of traffic is in a west and south direction, as expected. Generally speaking, traffic volumesincrease as one proceeds west along the Kirker Pass' Road/Ygnacio Valley Road corridor. The vast majority of traffic exiting the Kirker PasslYgnacio Valley Road corridor turns north on the cross 'streets. A considerable portion of westbound traffic corning from East County over the Kirker Pass was found to exit the corridor to the north in Concord; significant traffic from north and south also enters here. Travel Time Floating vehicle surveys' were conducted on several routes within the study area to determine travel time (see Figure 2-1). In general, two overall routes between the Somersville/10`h intersection and the I-680/Ygnacio Valley interchange were examined: 1) via arterial roadways including Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley, and 2) via the freeways (SR4/SR 242/1-680). As part of the arterial option, several alternatives within Antioch and Pittsburg were examined. In addition, travel times along two routes between the Somersville/1 0'h intersection and the Bay Point BART station near the SR 4/Bailey Road interchange were also recorded. The travel times were determined from multiple runs along each route recorded at various times throughout the AM commute period. For those traveling through the entire corridor, the freeway option is expected to be faster than the arterial options in each hour of the AM commute period. The average travel time for the freeway option is just over 29 minutes, whereas the average arterial travel time is over 38 minutes. The average travel time through Antioch/Pittsburg from 10`x'' Street/Somersville Road to Railroad Avenue/Pheasant Drive is roughly equal for all five arterial routes, with the route via Loveridge Road/Buchanan Road showing the shortest maximum travel time at just over 15 1 A floating vehicle survey is conducted by having a vehicle travel with the average flow of traffic and noting the time traveled at specified locations. Final Report 2-3 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study O to 00 C r � U8 i f t4 i ., ;S AA v� ,nY eNuwWtl DKS Associates minutes, and the route via Loveridge Road/California Avenue showing the longest maximum travel time at almost 21 minutes. In a comparison of travel times between 10t" Street and'Somersville Road and the Bay Point BART:station, the freeway option is expected to be faster during every hour interval, except for between six and seven AM when all three routes take nearly the same amount of time. The average travel time for the route via Somersville Road, Delta Fair Boulevard, Leland Road and Bailey Road was 15 minutes 38 seconds, whereas the average travel time for the route via 10`" Street and Bailey Road was 15 minutes and 21 seconds. The maximum travel times for routes solely within East County were observed around 7:00 AM, plus or minus approximately fifteen minutes. For the Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley trunkline and freeway routes, maximum travel times occurred slightly later, at 7:30 AM and 7:40 AM respectively. In the Concord Study, the reported average travel time for the segment of Kirker Pass Road/Ygnacio Valley Road between Pheasant Drive and Oak Grove Road was 19:22 during the period between 6:30 and 8:30 AM. Over the same segment and period, the data collected for this ECTMS study indicated an average travel time of 18:28. Queue Lengths Queue lengths, or number of cars waiting during a red light, can be a useful indicator of system performance. As part of the Concord Study, extensive queue length data were collected at several intersections throughout the Central County area(See Section 2.3 below). For this study, aerial photographs were taken to capture queuing characteristics throughout the study area. Hight runs over the study were conducted every 30 minutes between 6 AM and 9 AM (earlier runs were not possible due to insufficient daylight). For each flight, a series of photos were taken to capture the entire East County study network and the Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley corridor. These photos provide a "snapshot" of queue conditions at different times during the morning commute period. While such photos tell only part of the story for locations where'queues are short and typically clear each cycle, they are extremely valuable for locations such as at Oak Grove Road or on SR 4 where queues can become quite long. In addition to the aerial photos,general observations of queue lengths,particularly at locations throughout the East County area, were made. These observations typically did not involve the collection of detailed data such as that;,collected for the Concord'Study, but rather focussed on periodic observation of conditions at various locations. However, a limited set of queue length data was collected at selected signalized intersections. These observations'were made at varying times of day. Along SR 4, the primary bottleneck in the Pittsburg/Antioch area is located near the Railroad Avenue on-ramp. Queues were observed to begin forming around 5:30 AM, and were still present at 9 AM. In the peak, the queues extend as far back as A Street in Antioch,a distance of about five miles. On the westbound approach to the Leland Road/Railroad Avenue intersection, early morning (6:30 AM) queues averaged approximately 26 vehicles, whereas late morning (8:30 AM) queues averaged approximately 5 vehicles. At the peak near 7:30, Fina!Report 2-5 August 10, 2001 East-Centra(Trac Management Study DDS Associates southbound queues at this intersection averaged approximately 11 vehicles. For all approaches, queues''typically cleared each cycle. At most other locations in the East County area, queues were typically short and cleared each cycle. The exception to this occurs along Buchanan Road between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road. For westbound traffic, the combination of high volume, a single travel lane, and signals at multiple locations, including a school crossing at HarborStreet, result in what is essentially a slow-moving queue along this segment. On the southbound approach at Buchanan Road/Railroad Avenue, average queues of approximately 12 vehicles were observed. 2.3 General Observations In addition to the data that were collected, observations were made during three weekdays in May, 2000: Tuesday May 16, Wednesday May 17, and Tuesday May 23. Observation times were 5 AM to 9 AM. There were no apparent major"incidents on the surface streets or freeway on those days. The weather was generally clear (there was some fog early in the mornings, but it did not have any visible impact on traffic). Freeway Observations Commuters traveling from Antioch or Pittsburg to Central County, Alameda County, San Francisco, or Santa Clara County face a long commute. As a result, traffic problems begin in the study area earlier in the morning commute than one might observe at other locations. Also, the duration of congestion on the freeway is significant (three to four hours). On the three days that the freeway was observed, there was significant congestion for westbound traffic on SR 4. Queues were observed as early as 5:30 AM, and were still present at 9 AM. The main bottleneck occurred west of Railroad Avenue,just past the on-ramp merge. This section has the highest volumes'of any two-lane section on SR 4 (the freeway widens to three lanes over Willow Pass), and the demand exceeds capacity. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that there is construction in the section west of Railroad Avenue, and the barriers and narrow'lanes reduce capacity. Also, there was considerable friction between the heavy on- ramp volumes at Railroad' Avenue, and the through movement on SR 4. The net impact is that queues extended as far back as A Street in Antioch. Beyond the bottleneck at Railroad, westbound SR 4 operated reasonably well. While there was some minor slowing over Willow Pass, no queues formed. Southbound traffic on SR 242 was intermittently observed between SR 4 and I-680 during construction of that segment. Southbound traffic on I-680 between SR' 242 and the Ygnacio Valley Road interchange was consistently slow moving in the AM commute period. East County(Pittsburg/Antioch) Observations In general, the heaviest movement in East County was westbound on Buchanan Road to southbound Railroad. Avenue. Queues on Buchanan Road formed at the intersections of Loveridge Road, Suzanne Drive, Harbor Street, and Railroad Avenue. The biggest bottleneck was at Railroad, with queues of westbound traffic backed up several hundred feet. Further Final Report 2-6 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study s Associates east, there was "stop and go" traffic and rolling queues, as traffic slowed through the signals at Loveridge Road and Harbor Street. There was also heavy movement on westbound Leland Avenue, with some traffic continuing west past Railroad Avenue (presumably to the BART station or SR 4) and other traffic turning left at Railroad to travel southbound. Long queues formed during each cycle at the Leland Road/Railroad Avenue intersection (particularly on Leland), but the queues generally cleared with few cycle failures. Occasionally, congestion and ,queues were observed on westbound Pittsburg-Antioch Highway between Somersville Road and Loveridge Road. The apparent bottleneck was the signal_at Loveridge, which also had heavy northbound traffic. The train tracks on Loveridge Road south of Pittsburgh-Antioch Highway may have caused occasional delays, resulting,in queues extending nearly to Somersville. More commonly, queues were relatively short, although traffic was consistently heavy on Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. Most other intersections in the area operated reasonably well. There was only minimal queuing at the signals at the SR 4 interchanges with Railroad, Loveridge, and Somersville. Traffic on Delta Fair Boulevard and the north-south streets (Railroad, Loveridge, and Somersville)generally operated efficiently. Concord Observations Over Kirker Pass, speeds were;,as high as 60 to 70 mph in the early part of the peak period (5 to 6:30 AM) and the later part of the peak period (after 8.30 AM). During the middle of the peak, as traffic flows increased, speeds were slightly lower (50 mph) as the number of platoons increased in size and frequency. However, there were no significant delays for westbound vehicles until Clayton Road. The operations at the intersection of Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley Road and Clayton Road' were generally satisfactory; although relatively long queues formed during each cycle. There were occasional cycle failures for vehicles making",a northbound left turn from Clayton onto Ygnacio Valley, but a high proportion of the northbound vehicles on Clayton continued through the intersection to Concord. Walnut Creek Observations During the unmetered periods (early and late in the peak period), there are no significant queues at the Ygnacio Valley/Oak Grove Road intersection. When metering was engaged, queues formed on Ygnacio Valley as far back as Cowell Road. Many vehicles were observed turning right onto Oak Grove, although it was not clear how marry of them were jumping the queue by using the back streets (i.e., Shadelands and Via Monte). In travel time runs conducted, up to twelve minutes of delay was experienced by through vehicles. 7 A cycle failure occurs when not all of the vehicles waiting at a red light make it through the intersection when the light,turns green. Final Report 2-7 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DIGS Associates Farther west, the performance varied. Early in the peak period, the predominant movement was westbound, and most of the green time at the downtown Walnut Creek signals was given to through traffic westbound. Very high volumes were observed, but traffic did not experience significant delays. As the peak period progressed, there was an increase in eastbound and crass-street traffic. This resulted in less green time for the westbound movement, and long queues (with some cycle failures) did occur. However, the intersections with operational problems were not consistent certain signals would back up for a few cycles, and then the problems would shift to others. Walnut and Civic were more frequently congested than most. There were often queues observed on the loop ramp to WB SR 24. The cause varied; the primary cause of the 'bottleneck may be the 'design of the ramp (and some ongoing construction) that limits the throughput of vehicles from Ygnacio Valley. At other times, there was congestion on mainline SR 24 (likely caused by the merging NB and SB 1-680 traffic before the Pleasant Hill interchange), that affected the ramp. Queues on Ygnacio Valley occasionally reached as far back as the Walnut Creek BART station, p;ipi00t00162trlocsttask 5tftttnl reporttseetion 2.doe Final Report 2-8 August 10, 2001% East-Central Traffic Management Study ELKS Associates 3. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Process for Developing Alternatives At the outsetof this study, a broad range of traffic management strategics was considered. However, upon closer review, most of these' strategies were found to work,primarily,on the margin. For example, providing signal pre--emption for buses could reduce travel time for transit users, but this technique would benefit only a narrow segment of the commuting public. Giving carpoolers a separate lane for bypassing congestion was also considered, however this technique implemented independently'is believed to be only marginally effective given existing conditions, while failing to address the broader issue of 'how to manage regional traffic flows on surface streets. Given the significant arterial traffic flows from East County to Central County in the morning, commute period, it soon became apparent that Control Point Metering (CPM) would be the key traffic management strategy to employ. This technique restricts the flow of traffic on an arterial by modifying the signal timing to "allow ''less green time for a given direction at selected intersections. The traffic signal located at Ygnacio Valley Road and Oak Grove Road in the City of Walnut Creek is an example of an existing CPM location that was established to improve the flow of traffic through the downtown. CPM offers not only the greatest potential to actively manage the significant traffic flows we were facing, but could also be implemented in a highly cost- efficient manner. Having established CPM as the tool of choice, the next task was to identify the optimum CPM locations. Other traffic management techniques (such as providing HOV queue jump lanes, transit;pre-emption, and signal timing refinements) were later incorporated as refinements to the preferred CPM alternative. The following guidelines were used to help identify potential CPM locations: • Focus on the key movements towards the study corridor. • Identify locations where the targeted traffic flow movement can be isolated from other movements. • Avoid'intersections that primarily serve local needs. • Avoid intersections with high localized diversion potential. • Do not impede access to SR 4. By applying these guidelines, ten alternatives were generated for review and discussion. The East County locations considered for CPM, in various combinations for the ten alternatives, are illustrated'in Figure 3-1. Final Report 3-1 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study +� y N p G tti AS d, ca m , t cG i 1 1 1 ti i i pa 8sc>POAO r r Is em njo yt � ,�,iezrs i ti r Is r e m sssd 1et3! e�y tea � w may � LL a D s Associates The following criteria were developed to qualitatively assess which of the alternatives would warrant further study using quantitative techniques: • Minimize Neighborhood Diversion/Intrusion - Traffic may divert onto residential streets or commercial development to avoid the metering point. • Minimize Impacts on Nearby Streets/Driveways--Minimize the extent to which traffic queued at a control point meter'interferes with access from nearby streets and driveways. • Minimize Diversion to Other Arterials-Traffic may divert to arterials without control point metering. • Amount of Cross Street Trak Sufficient volume of vehicle and/or pedestrian cross traffic so that the public perceives the need for the signal timing. • Target Traffic Captured-Can effectively capture targeted''traffic flows without unduly penalizing nontargeted traffic. • Equity of Impacts -Impacts on target traffic flows are distributed through the study area. • Adequate Demand Volumes-Demand for key movements is sufficient to be effectively metered: • Adequate Storage Capacity- Sufficient storage at metering points for potential queues. • Safety- Conditions that may pose a safety hazard. • Multiple CPM Locations Encountered---Whether there will be vehicles that encounter more than one control point metering location(yes or no). A number of alternatives were eliminated based upon the desire to avoid subjecting motorists to two:'.consecutive metering sites very close together; and the desire to minimize the number of metering sites on Railroad Avenue due to the presence of driveways and other constraints that could pose difficulties with a metering system. 3.2 Alternatives Evaluated Based on the qualitative evaluation described above, three alternatives were selected for extensive quantitative analysis and testing using the CORSEVI operations model, which simulates the travel of individual vehicles on the roadway network. Each of the three alternatives include the existing CPM location in Walnut-.Creek(Ygnacio Valley/Oak Grove) and the one at Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Drive (to' be implemented in summer 2001). The distinguishing feature between the alternatives and the baseline scenario is the addition of CPM locations in East County, specifically' in the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch. The alternatives are described in Table 3-1,and illustrated in Figure 3-2. Final Report 3-3 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates Table 3-1 Control! Point Metering;Locations East County Alternative Central County 2000 2010 Baseline YVR/Oak Grove Road none None KP/Myrtle Drive A YVR/Oak Grove Road KP/Pheasant Drive-SB T KP/Pheasant'Drive;-SBT KP/Myrtle Drive KP/Buchanan Road Bypass WB L' B YVR/Oak Grove Road KP/Nortonville Road-SB T KP/Nortonville Road-SB T KP/Myrtle Drive C YVR/Oak Grove Road KP/Nortonville Road-SB T KP/Nortonvill'e Road SB T KP/Myrtle Meadows Ave/Buchanan Meadows Ave/Buchanan Road -WB T Road`—WB T Ventura/Buchanan Bypass— WB T Nates. YVR.-Ygnacio Valley Road SB—southbound KP—Kirker Pass Road WB—westbound RR—Railroad Avenue T-through movement L—left turn movement Source: DKS Associates p:1p1004O01621docsltask 5ttinal reporttsection 3.doc Final Report 3-4 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study N w' LL c� r a d o t cn+ ro ` 'pa ♦r t i 1 'PH ENipNsno� yy�ryry U3 1 i5 erst nim i m uj t. SOr I QCs, JOqJVH w ssed tF+t3C C1 .gn zcl N tL R DDS Associates 4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Network Improvement Assumptions At the onset of this study, a number of major regional highway improvement projects were underway. Of particularrelevance to this project were the widening of SR 242 in Concord and the widening of SR 4 between Bailey Road and Railroad''Avenue in Pittsburg. These projects will improve traffic flow along the freeway system, and are expected to encourage' the use of these facilities for travel between East and Central County, and beyond. Another important project was the planned implementation of control point metering on Kirker Pass Road at Myrtle Drive in the City of Concord. The timing of this project is expected to coincide with completion of the SR 4 current improvements. According to the City of Concord study, up to 300 vehicles in the peak hour are expected to divert away from Kirker Pass Road after the control point metering is implemented. Recognizing that recommendations from this study would not be implemented prior to completion of the projects described above, all three projects were assumed to be part of the base year network. For this reason, the base year network was referred to as "2000 plus Under Construction." The level to which these projects were incorporated into the analysis for this study varied depending upon the particular component of the analysis. For the diversion analysis, which involved use of the countywide travel-forecasting model, all three projects were included within the base 2000 model network. For the operational analysis using a traffic simulation model,which did not include the freeway segments, only the Myrtle Drive CPM location was included. Additional detail regarding:the operational and diversion analysis methodologies is provided in the following section. It should be noted that all Year 2000 analysis was performed using traffic volumes and demands consistent with those collected in the field as part of this study. Traffic forecasts indicate that when the SR'4 and SR 242 freeway widening projects are completed, traffic on the Kirker PassfYgnacio Valley Road corridor will be reduced as more drivers choose the freeway for their commute. Similarly, traffic diversion resulting from the Myrtle Drive CPM location could reduce traffic within the corridor. Taking the conservative approach, no initial adjustments were made to the 2000 traffic volume to account for the possible reduction in corridor traffic resulting from completion of these projects. Furthermore, it is anticipated that continued growth in the number of households in East County would likely backfill any temporary reduction in corridor travel. The 2010 analysis started with a list of improvement projects identified for 2020 in the Countywide Plan update." The TAC reviewed the list to identify those that may be reasonable to assume would be completed by 2410. Some of the major improvements assumed for 2010 include: • SR 4/Loveridge Interchange — reconstruct interchange to provide eight through lanes on SR 4 and a median for future BART extension. Final Report 4-1 August 10,2001 ' East-Central Trak Management Study DOCS associates_ • Buchanan Road Bypass: Phase I — two lanes from Kirker Pass Road to Somersville Road: • SR 4 Bypass: Phase 1 for segments 1, 2, and 3— including a four-lane connection from SR 4 to Lone Tree Way, a two-lane roadway from Lone Tree Way to Balfour Road, and two lanes from Balfour Road to Walnut Boulevard connecting to the relocated Vasco Road. • SR 4 Widening (nonfreeway portion) — widen to four lanes from Vintage Parkway to 2nd Street and from Oak Street to Discovery Bay. • Loveridge Road/Leland Road Intersection Improvements increase the storage capacity of left- and right-turn lanes, • Widen Ygnacio Valley Road — widen from four to six lanes from Cowell Road to Michigan Boulevard. A listing of the network improvements assumed for this study is provided in Appendix C of this report. It is important to recognize that not all of these projects are reflected in both the travel' forecasting and traffic simulation model networks. This is because these models differ in regard to network coverage and level of detail. For example, the travel forecasting model includes all of the major regional improvements listed, whereas the simulation model does not include the freeway system. Conversely, intersection improvements, such as the extension of left turn bays, are included in the simulation model,but not the travel-forecasting model. 4.2 Technical Approach Operational Analysis Two state-of-the-art traffic simulation tools-(CORSIM and Synchro) were used for assessing the operational benefits and drawbacks of each alternative. The simulation model uses animation to show how individual cars are expected to move'through the corridor. It also provides quantitative outputs that allow the analyst to measure differences between alternatives. For this study, the CORS'IM simulation-modeling package was selected for use in the operational analysis. In addition, a second package,Synchro, was used for entering the model inputs. This,information was then converted to CORSIM for analysis of alternatives. An evaluation of various simulation packages was conducted' to select these tools, and a summary is provided in Appendix D. For both 2000 and 2010, simulation models of the analysis network,;as illustrated in Figure 4-1, were prepared. The baseline models for each year included CPM at the following two locations: Oak Grove Road on Ygnacio Valley Road in the City of Walnut Creek; and Myrtle Drive on Kirker Pass Road in the City of Concord. The alternatives were assessed by using the traffic simulation model to reflect CPM locations at various points along the corridor. The models'developed for this study covered a four-hour morning commute period(5 to 9 AM). Final Report 4-2 August 10,'2001' East-Central Trac Management Study f° IS J 3g a 'a v � -pvRv DDS Associates For the year 2000 analysis, roadway geometries and signal timing parameters in the model were based on current conditions. Information on roadway geometry was gathered from existing models and field observations. Signal timing plans were obtained from cities and Caltrans. Traffic data for the models were based on a mix of new and existing traffic counts (at key intersections and screenlines). For the year 2010 analysis, roadway,geometries'were updated to reflect 'future improvements, 2010 traffic forecasts were developed using the countywide travel-forecasting model,and signal tinning was updated to reflect future traffic. For beth analysis years, the basic approach was the same. A baseline model was coded and tested, using,available information. Once the model ran'without errors, it was calibrated to existing conditions (for 2000) or validated using professional'judgment (for 2010), by the consultant team. For 2000, the model was calibrated to match field-measured travel time and queue length. Roadway free flow speeds, minor street cross traffic, crossing pedestrian traffic,:and truck percentages were adjusted to match the model travel time to the field measured travel time. Then, the draft baseline model was demonstrated to the TAC, and comments were solicited' and incorporated. For 2000, there were several iterations of calibration comments by the TAC. Once the TAC "signed off' on the final baseline model, the proposed CPM locations for each of the alternatives were coded into the model. These'models were run and results were extracted and presented to the TAC as summarized in Section 6. Diversion Analysis An integral element of the analysis was an assessment of the potential for vehicles to divert to alternative routes in response to delays associated with the CPM alternatives. Traditionally, such diversion is examined through the use of travel demand models. However, these models are not designed to directly analyze the detailed operational strategies examined as part of this study. Conversely, the simulation models used in this study are capable of detailed operational analysis,but lack the capability to,dynamically reassign or divert trips. The approach used in this study to forecast expected diversion required integrating the simulation analysis results with the existing countywide'travel-forecasting model. Outputs from the simulation model were translated into changes to parameters within the travel demand model. More specifically, the average delay per vehicle in minutes at each CPM location was calculated using the simulation model. This delay was then coded into the travel demand'model as a fixed delay on the corresponding link. Because the travel demand model covers only a single peak hour, the average delay used for this analysis was based on the hour between 7 and 8 AM. For both analysis years (2000"and 2010), travel demand model runs were'performed with varying CPM`delays reflecting the four scenarios: one baseline plus three alternatives. The magnitude and location of diversion was measured by analyzing`the change in travel demand between the baseline scenario and each alternative as forecasted directly by the countywide model. For reporting purposes, the change in travel demand'was calculated for selected locations along three screenlines. These screenlines, as illustrated in Figure 4-2, were selected to capture potential diversion routes both within East County and regionally. The Final Report 4-4 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study �G d" r a 40 .A rrononv�me aa. `d L h i eP�w JJJ 1 b; b b& b c� aay atm to G � mow. cr zfft � DKs Associates change in demand is also reported for two locations along Ygnacio Valley Road in Central County to achieve geographic distribution through the study area. It is important to note that the proposed CPM locations reflected in the study alternatives would only be in effect between 7 and 9 AM. Thus, no diversion due to metering would be expected during the early hours (S to 7 AM) of the study period. The ability of the countywide travel demand model to estimate diversion is somewhat limited. For example, the roadway network used in the ,countywide model does not include every roadway in the system. While the model covers most of the collector streets that drivers might use to avoid:a proposed CPM, it does not include all of the residential streets. As a result, the possibility of local diversion between minor'streets may not be fully captured within the model. The diversion analysis was conducted after the operational analysis. Therefore, the operational analysis does not reflect the estimated diversion. Development of 2010' Travel Demands The 2010 traffic demand inputs for the simulation models were derived using the 2000 Countywide Plan Update version of the Authority's Congestion Management Program travel' forecasting model. The forecasts from this model were adjusted using an approach consistent with the Authority's Technical Procedures. Link segment and turning movement forecasts were adjusted based upon the comparison of actual counts to the Year 2000 model run; The following three inputs are required to perforin this methodology: • the model output from the year 2000 validation run; • the forecast output from the 2010 model; and • the year 2000 traffic counts that were collected through field observation. The resulting forecasts were then reviewed by the consultant team and by TAC members to check for reasonableness. As appropriate, the turn movement forecasts were further adjusted to account for any anomalies. Multiple iterations of this step were conducted to achieve TAC approval of the 2010 demand inputs. Once this step was completed, the forecasts were entered into the CORSIM'operations model. A further check was conducted and refinements made to the traffic forecasts to ensure continuity of traffic between intersections. This was the methodology applied for the peak hour. For other analysis hours, the 2010 forecasts were calculated as a percentage of the peak hour using ratios from the existing counts. The 2010 peak hour turn movement forecasts used in this study are presented in Appendix E. p.Ip1001001621doesftask 51final reporAvection 4.doc Final Report 4-6 August 110,'2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study S Associates 5. EVALUATION CRITERIA A set of evaluation criteria was developed to facilitate the comparison of alternatives. Initially, a broad range of potential criteria was generated. These were examined to assess their value in conducting the evaluation. The final evaluation criteria were selected following extensive discussion of the following key considerations: • Ease of understanding: Could a layperson understand how the criteria is measured and valued? Could it be easily explained to the generalpublic? • Availability and cost of obtaining field data: Could the;criterion be measured in the field today? And at what cost? • Modelability: Could the criterion be quantified for each alternative, through use of either the travel demand forecasting model or the operations model. The final criteria used for evaluating alternatives are described in Table 5-1. Final Report 5-1 August 90,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DDS Associates Table 5-1 Evaluation Criteria Criteria/Measure DescriptionHow Measured Travel Time Travel time for the corridor as a whole and selected Output from CORSIM -segments simulation model Corridor Delay Ratio of peak [lour travel time to free flow travel time. Output from CORSIM Index Calculated for entire route from Somersville/10th in simulation model. Antioch to Ygnacio Valley Road/1-680 in Walnut Creek Compare 7-8 AM (peak hour)average to 5-5:30 AM(assume free flow Change in Relative change in queues at Oak Grove and Myrtle CPM Output from CORSIM Baseline Queue locations simulation model; Length of maximum _queue Overall impact on Relative change in queues at other-than-CPM locations Based on CORSIM Queuing(impact (e.g. Buchanan at Harbor) animation on other queues) System Delay Total system delay in vehicle-hours, plus average delay Output from CORSIM for individual trips, in minutes per mile (calculated by simulation model` dividing total delay by VMT);.compare against baseline Impact to Assess whether queues at metering locations spill..back Based on CORSIM Upstream into major intersections animation Intersections Safety Assessment of potential increase or decrease in safety' Qualitative based on Considerations due to queues backing onto downslopes, around curves location and length of or into intersections-considers sight distance and/or CPM queues braking'issues Diversion Change in forecasted'demand for selected links between Direct output from baseline and each alternative.' EMME/2 travel demand model. Number of Simple count of total locations where CPM'is Count' Metering Points implemented. Implementation Estimated cost to implementcontrol»point metering, Order-of-magnitude Cost including new or upgraded signal equipment, field work, estimate based on and warning signs. experience with similar installations. Source: DKS Associates p.1p100100l6Zdocsltask Slim!reporilsection 5.doc Final Report 5-2 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study Ks Associates 6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Each of the study alternatives was analyzed using the methodology described in Section 4. The results of the analysis were then used to apply the evaluation criteria described;.in Section 5. Based on the evaluation, a preferred alternative was selected for further analysis and refinement. 6.1 Analysis Travel Time Figures 6-1 and 6-2 compare the estimated travel time for each alternative for a vehicle traveling from the intersection of Somersville Road and /10th Street in Antioch to the Kirker Pass Road/Myrtle Drive intersection in Concord. For the year-2000 analysis, two different routes are considered: 1) via the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway and Railroad Avenue, and 2) via Somersville Road and Buchanan Road. A third rotate is added for the 2010'analysis year via Somersville Road and the Buchanan Road Bypass. Average travel tunes across all routes are shown in black (the right most bar). As shown in Figure 6-1 the simulation results from the CORSiM operations model for the year 2000 suggest that for the route via the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway and Railroad Avenue, average travel time for each alternative would be nearly identical. The model also indicates that under Alternatives B and C, the route along Buchanan Road would have a slightly higher travel time (about two minutes). Figure 6-1 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Route Somersville110th to Myrtle 0:45 E E 0:30 -- 0%ia Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy and Railroad 0:15 a ma Somers4fle and Buchanan 1. : ■Aterage IS 0:00 2000-Base 2000-A 2000-B 2000-C Alternative Final Report 6-1 August 14,2001 East-Centra!Trak Management Study DISCS Associates Figure6-2 shows a similar comparison of estimated travel times for the year 2010. According to the model results; the average'travel time for all three routes is nearly identical between the baseline and Alternatives A and B, while the average travel time for Alternative C_is expected to be slightly higher. For individual routes, the travel time varies by alternative, with those routes including CPM locations'having longer travel times: Figure&-2 20110 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Route: Somersville/10"'to Myrtle 0;45 E 0:30 �6Vff 'v f. d via Pittsburg-Antioch'Hwy and Railroadjl p� 0:15 im via Somersville and Buchanan iv Via Somersville and Buchanan Bypass . a Average IEl ��� �. � t €� 2010-Base 2010-A 2010-B 2010-C Alternative Further travel time estimates were prepared for the full corridor. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 compare the travel time for each alternative for a' vehicle traveling "between the intersection of Somersville Road/101" Street in Antioch and the I-680 interchange in Walnut Creek'(using the Buchanan Road route). Details of the travel time for individual segments are provided in the stacked graphs. According to the model results,the overall travel time for a trip through the full corridor is approximately equal for all alternatives in 2000. For 2010, Alternatives A and B are somewhat faster than the base case, and Alternative C is somewhat slower. For both analysis years, the breakdown by segment varies according to the CPM locations in each alternative. Fina/Report 6-2 August 10,2001 East-Centra!Traffic Management Study DKK Associates Figure 6-3 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Alternative and Section: via Buchanan 1:15 1:00 E . 0:$5 ' ®YVR(Oak Grove to 1-680) p KPR/YVR(Myrtle to Oak Grove rd KPR(Nortonville to Myrtle) y 0:30 0 Railroad(Bush.to Nortonville) a , t z ®Buchanan(Somersviile to RR) ■Somersville(10th to Buch.) 1✓ 0:15 0:00 2000 2000 A 2000 - B 2000 - C Base Alternative Figure>6-4 2010 Corridor Travel time by Alternative and Section': via Buchanan 1:1'S 1:00 _ 0:45 _' ! in YVR(Oak Grove to 1-680) l i u �;3 o KPR/YVR(Myrtle to;Oak Grove) o KPR(Nortonville to Myrtle)' F 0:30 : o Railroad(Bach.to Nortonville) x' m Buchanan(5omersville to RR) W1,. - 0:15 t Sornersviile(10th to Buch) 0.00 2010 2010-A 2010 -B 2010-C Base Alternative Final Report 6-3 August 10, 2001 East-Central Trak Management Study QCs Associates Queue Impacts Figures 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate the expected impacts on queue length for each alternative. Figure 6-5 illustrates the 'reduction in Central County queues at CPM locations for 20001; similar'reductions were found in 2010. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 highlight the queue length at its peak (generally between 8:00 and 8:15 AM) for each of the East County CPM locations in 2000 and 2010, respectively. The background queues in 2000 are not predicted for 2010, primarily because of the increased capacity on SR 4 and Buchanan Bypass that is in place atter 2000. Table 6-1 summarizes the queue length at each CPM location(in miles). Tabu 6-'1 Queue Length by Location Queue Length by Location(miles) Alternative Nortonvitle Buchanan Pheasant Ventura Meadows Bypass 2000 A0.3 IN 0.3 ,. $ [r B 0.9 ° s x� ��ar ..w �r��r°)l,'"r4..yi�r •=i��5 z��_,.�. .i ,.y,N4.' +;,r �, � h a l �t d15�3' "k7'rz i y-Y g-sna't h '4 fi'x xc{a,1 i tJ C 0.9 AN-�£ �b� �1iTsa . ' � �,, � ��#� � �l 1.0 2010 A s%y' r` yifi,tb; i A� # p '.. Yy''�"tt'a,. n`;4c .,1Y"sld:S7 1.L 0 E+.�.2 'jf.�a�1a�ySra-.5ig� 'k .- B ° o 0. C 0.9 0.1 4s �� n, 0.8 1.0 Source: DKS Associates` A major objective of this study was to assess the impact of CPM in East County on queue lengths in Central County. This assessment was made through application of the CORSIM model. According to the model results, it is anticipated that the introduction of CPM locations in East County will:have little or no impact,on the,queuing situation at Oak Grove Road in Walnut Creek. The model does, however, indicate that a significant reduction in the queue at Myrtle Drive could result from CPM in East County. In 2000, the queue reduction at Myrtle Drive is estimated to range from approximately 20' percent'(for Alternative A)'to approximately 67 percent (for Alternatives B and Q. In 2010, the model forecasts indicate more significant reductions in; queuing at Myrtle Drive: approximately 35 percent for Alternative A 70 percent for Alternative B; and 95 percent for Alternative C. As described' in Section 3, alternative CPM locations were selected with an eye toward minimizing the impact on upstream intersections. Nonetheless, according to the simulation analysis that was conducted, some of the queues did back up into upstream intersections. This admittedly undesirable effect is further mitigated under Section' 7: Refinement of Preferred Alternative. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 illustrate which East County intersections might be affected at the peak of the queue. In East County, the intersections of Castlewood Road/Kirker Pass, 12000 Baseline queues based on results from City of Concord study. Final Report 6-4 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study w�d1 O; cry io �CO � per„ o , (D U to d .Pa sus w x� 00 tn �q a _� rn u! Ck 1600 t Ga d to r CD w � O to tz -01 o N u. t � L t I1 1 L k� � t p2ipNen07 `L PN gap, � L Q t a x5 elq t/S It L togt N i gni t1 to V tl} CD a p b410�1� 0 vO r N_ JS7 6tID{ffif3��ye? ..'7C3' + tl 'P4e$p(�9AD� �slq n1o� � � e�uBx+tS Ld AAV ro m fj t tU 719\ DKS Associates and PheasantDrive/Kirker Pass Road are affected when CPM is introduced at Nortonville Road under Alternative B. In 2010, the intersection of the Buchanan Bypass/Kirker Pass Road is also'affected. System Delay Table 6-2 summarizes the system delay comparison by alternative'and analysis year. As noted in Section 5 the system delay measure captures the overall impact of the various alternatives. "Because the total travel'varies'somewhat between alternatives (as noted in the VMT columns below), an average delay measure was used as the main'basis for comparison.' Table 6-2 System Delay by Alternative 2000 Evaluation 2010 Evaluation Alternative Total VMTa A1reT 0; 'w � Total VMT Ave X44 a ,i DRX elay' �� deta `f Delay'` Deny Baseline 5,625 218.31 ,° 7,589 24$5 � 1�83 r A -138(-2%) +0.6 (+3a/o �.,(}a5, !� +7$ +1'/0 _0.5 -0°l0 3.02F B -199(-2%) -0.4(-G%) �0 E33, .''°f r +4$0 +60% -7.4(-3%) # .-3-06j43%. � C +19(+0%) -0.3(-0%) : Qofn y�� ..150 -2% -4.7 -2% 7+0.07' +,4% Total Delay units are vehicle-hours 2 Vehicle-Miles Traveled units are 1,000 vehicle-miles 3 Average Deiay units are minutes/mile of delay Source:',DKS Associates For 2000, Alternatives A and B provide a slight improvement in average delay, approximately two to three percent better than the baseline. Alternative C is the same as the baseline for 2000. For the 2010 analysis year, Alternative B reduces average'delay by about three percent. The other two alternatives increase delay, by one percent for Alternative A'and four percent for Alternative C. Corridor Delay Index Table 6-3 summarizes the corridor delay index for the alternatives for the two analysis years. The values in the table reflect the average travel time from 5:00 to 5:30 AM(representative of the off-peak travel time) and 7:00 to $:00 AM(the peak travel travel tune) for multiple routes Table'6-3 Corridor Delay Index by Alternative Scenario 2000 Delay Index 2010 Delay Index Baseline 1.79 2.01 A 1.74 1.97 B, 1.79 1.95 C 1.79 2.15 Source: DKS Associates Fina!Report 6-8 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates Note that the overall delay for 2010 is aboutten percent higher than 2000 This reflects the improved access provided via Buchanan Bypass and the diversion of traffic to SR 4. Overall, Alternative A provides the greatest improvement in the delay index, while Alternative C increases the delay index somewhat(5 to 10 percent). Estimated Diversion It is anticipated that at least initially, drivers will attempt to avoid CPM locations in an effort to reduce their stopped-delay time. Consequently, some traffic diversion is expected to occur upon implementation of the preferred traffic management plan. Developing a quantitative estimate of the level of diversion was a significant challenge involving application of both the operations and the travel demand modeling tools that were available for this study. The methodology for estimating diversion involved a series of steps. First, the operations model was used to calculate the average delay' time at specific CPM' locations. This information was then transferred to the travel demand model. Next, the trip assignment' algorithm of the demand model was: rerun. The results of this assignment were further reviewed and adjusted to determine the level of diversion. The forecasted average vehicle delay used to estimate diversion during the peak hour at the CPM locations is presented in Table 6-4. The maximum delay at a single CPM location may be twice as long as the average: Table 6-4 Peak Hour Average Vehicle Delay(minutes) CPM Location Baseline Aft A Alt B Alt-C Year 2000 YVR at Oak Grove 5 5 5 5 KPR at Myrtle 7 6 3 4: KPR at PheasantW, 3 KPR at Nortonville ` pag Y Rkt 5 5 Buchanan at Meadows =id _?fi ,«'. ,v ; ,� E$` � 5 Year 2010 YVR at Oak Grove 10 10 10 10 KPR at Myrtle 16 10 4 2 KPR at Pheasant MENEM 2 "01,1110 1111016' tti;i KPR at hlortonvllles= iP �� 1 16 Buchanan Bypass at KPR Buchanan at Meadows a . , �� 12 �,[deur r dsf�sf v ' fi t� ' c J i6tfw�' !`" Buchanan Bypass at Ventura l ����� ��s������a.,i.� .,l�i��� . :�, x��s�"�r��a�l � . 15', Note: 1. V4Tth CPM at Nortonville,cis were forecast to back up through the KPR/Buchanan Bypass intersection resulting in varying:queues on both the southbound KPR approach and the westbound'Buchanan Bypass approach. For this reason,the estimated average delay was distributed between links as follows; KPR between Nortonville and Buchanan KPR approach to Buchanan Bypass ^� ' is 5 5 Buchanan B ass a h to KPR 'r �° {Fnx'itt a s as`'FrR i 5 ___.__. �: YP hproac . �w ..r t , �, .- Source:"DKS Associates Final Report 6-9 August 10,2001 East-Ventral Traffic Management Study DKS Associates These'delays were coded into the countywide travel demand model, which reassigned traffic to the network for each scenario. The change in forecasted travel demand for selected links was then calculated. The diversion analysisresults for the Year 2000 are presented in Table 6-5, grouped according to screen lines illustrated in Figure 4-2. As shown in this table, all three alternatives are expected to result in the diversion of over 300 trips(approximately 12%)' from Kirker Pass Road to alternative routes, most notably'SR4 and Willow Pass Road west of Railroad Avenue. An examination of the detailed diversion results indicates that a majority of this diverted traffic appears to come from a route consisting of westbound "Leland to southbound Railroad. To'-'-the west of Railroad, SR4, Willow Pass and Leland all>experience increases in forecasted volume although the magnitude of these increases vary by alternative. The results indicate only modest changes in the forecasted volumes at other East County locations. In Central County,the decrease in East County trips coming over Kirker Pass Road is largely offset by an increase in Central County trips being attracted to the Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley corridor. Table 6.5 Year 2000 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results (Change from Baseline Conditions) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Location Description Change' %°z Change' %2 Change' %2 Screenline#1 Willow Pass Road'WB w/o Bailey 48 3.2%n 68 4.5% 96 6.4% State Route 4 WB w/o Bailey 324 4.1% 232 29% 256 3.2% Bailey Rd SB s/o Leland 74 5.5%° 92 6.9%° 76 5.7% Kirker Pass Road SB s/o Nortonville -369 -12.4% -335 -1'1'.2% -388 -13.0% Marsh Creek WB ` w/o Camino Diablo 24 2.5%fl 81 8.6% 14 1.5% Screenline#9 Total 101 0.7% 138 0.9% 54 0.4% Screentine#Z' Willow Pass Road WB w/o Railroad 127 8.4% 111 7.4% 159 19.5% State Route 4 WB w/o Railroad 161 2.3% 43 0.6% 134 1.9% Leland WB w/o Railroad 29 1.5% 112 5.8% 67 3.5% Screentine#2 Total 317 3.1✓ 266 2.6% 360 3.5% Screenline,#3 Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy WB w/o Somersville -38 -2.5% -68 4.5%° 33 2.2% Century Blvd WB w/o Somersville -34 -4.3% 13 -1.6% -21 2.7°Io State Route 4 WB w/o Somersville 19 0.3%4 -28 -0.4% 61 0.9% Delta Fair WB w/o Somersville -20 -0.8% -85 -3.5% -58 2.4% Buchanan WB w/o Somersville 37 2.9%° 78 6.1% -75 -5.8% Screerriine#3 Total -36 -0.3% 916 -0.9% -60 0.5% Central County Locations Kirker Pass Road WB w/o Alberta -81 -2.7% -49 -1.6% -87 2.9% Ygnacio Valley Road WB w/o Bancroft -1'3 -0.4% 7 0.2% -47' -1.6% Notes: 1. Reported changes are taken directly from the Countywide Travel Demand Model,and reflect changes in forecasted travel demand on selected links. 2. Percent,changes'are in comparison to the baseline volume for the selected link. Source: ®KS Associates Final Report 6-10 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study KS Associates The Year 2010 diversion analysis results are provided in Table 6-6. The CPM alternatives examined in this study are not expected to result in any significant diversion to or from other regional routes. The most significant change occurs under Alternative C, where approximately 100 trips from East County are expected to divert from Kirker Pass Road. This finding is supported by the travel time results (presented previously) that show very little , change in overall corridor travel times. Consistent with this, forecasted demands along Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley Road in Central' County show very little change between alternatives. However, Alternative C does produce a significant redistribution of trips just west of Somersville The proposed CPM location on Buchanan Road and the Buchanan Bypass results;;in the diversion of trips to alternative routes, notably SR4 and Delta Fair Boulevard.' The 2010 forecasts indicate that although many of these trips divert around the CPM locations on Buchanan Road/Buchanan Bypass, they eventually work their way back to the Kirker Pass/YVR corridor. Table 6-6 Year 2010 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results (Change from Baseline Conditions) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Location Description Change' %2 Change' %2 Change'' %z Screenline#1 Willow Pass Road WB' w/o Bailey -5 -0.3% 7 0.5% -14 -0.9% State Route 4 WB w/o Bailey 6 0.1% 124 1.4% 109 1.2% W. Leland Rd WB w/o Bailey 65 4.2% 71 -46% -26 1.7'%fl Bailey Rd SB s/o Leland -82 -4.8% 62 ` -3.6% -28 -1.6% Kirker Pass Road SB s/o Nortonville' -23 -0.7% -24 -0.7% -100 3.0%0 Marsh Creek WB w/o Camino Diablo 23 2.5% 30 3.2% 88 9.5% Screentine#1 Total -16 -0.1% 4 0.0% 29 0.2% Screenline#2' Willow Pass Road WB w/o Railroad -4 0.2% 0 0.0% -12 0.6% State Route 4 WB w/o Railroad 21 0.2%' 9 0.1% 57 0.6% Leland WB w/o Railroad -21 -0.9% -17 -0.7% , -1 0.0% Screen/ine#2 Total -4 -0.0/ -8 -0.1% 44 0.3% ScreenJine#3 Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy WB w/o Somersville - 43 3.4% -17 -1.3% 84 6.6% Century Blvd WB' w/o Somersville 31 4.0°!0 -7 -0.9% 98 12.7% State Route'4 WI3 w/o Somersville 252 2.8%° 69` 0.8% 793 8.9°l0 Delta Pair WB w/o Somersville 72 3.3% -16 0.7% 368 17.0% Buchanan WB w/o Somersville -66 -6.0% -53 -4.8%° -819 -74.2%° Buchanan Bypass WB w/o Somersville 351 -21.0% -23 -1.4% 645 -38.6% Screenline#3 Total -19 -0.1% -47 -0.3% -121 -0.8% Central County Locations Kirker Pass Road WB w/o Alberta 27 0.7% 9' 0.2% 67 1.7% Ygnacio Valley Road WB w/o Bancroft -77 -2.3% -13 -0.4% 30 0.9% otes: 1. Reported changes are taken directly from the Countywide Travel Demand Model,and reflect changes in forecasted travel demand on selected links: 2. Percent changes are in comparison to the baseline volume for the selected link; Source: DDS Associates" Final Report 6-11 August 10, 2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DDS Associates However, traffic in the East County portion of the study area is forecast;to shift between routes in response to the different metering locations. In Alternative A, the metering on the Buchanan Bypass is expected to result in the diversion of traffic to both Buchanan and Leland, and then southbound on Railroad. Under Alternative B with a single metering point at Nortonville and no local diversionroutes, forecasted''demands at most locations remain relatively constant. Conversely, the results for Alternative C 'suggest significant diversion around the proposed CPM locations on Buchanan Road and Buchanan Road Bypass. To avoid the proposed CPM location at Meadows Avenue under Alternative C, some commuters are expected to shift to alternative westbound routes, primarily Delta Fair/Leland,,'and return to Buchanan Road further west via Loveridge and Harbor. Consequently, the volume on Kirker Pass Road south of the 'Buchanan Bypass is not 'significantly reduced as a result of, CPM in East'County. However, at the eastern end of the study area, westbound volumes are forecast to decrease as a result of the metering, but more traffic is predicted to enter the Buchanan Bypass via Ventura Drive. Estimate of implementation Costs Each of the alternatives examined for the ECTMS requires some form of modification or improvement' to the existing, traffic control system. Potential changes include the development and implementation of revised timing plans at existing signals,the installation of new traffic signals,' and the installation of advance warning detectors and signs. Table 6-7 summarizes the necessary improvements and estimated implementation costs for each of the alternatives. For 2010, it was assumed that all necessary traffic control equipment on the Buchanan Bypass would be installed as part of the Bypass construction, and that new equipment would not be required for the implementation of control point metering. Final Report 6-12 August 10„2001 East-Central Trafric Management Study f. KS Associates Table 6-7 EstimatedImplementation Costs Proposed Improvements Estimated Costs Alternative A Develop, program and fine-tune signal timing plan for Railroad/Pheasant to $10,000 meter southbound'traffic Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection' $5,000 Install queue detectors on Railroad south of Buchanan, plus connection to ''$50,000-$60,000' Railroad/Pheasant controller 2000'Tota! $65,000-$75,000' --For---2------010:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --_----- -----_------- Develop, program and fine-tune;signal'timingplan for KPR/Buchanan Bypass $10,000 to meter westbound left-turn traffic 2010 Total $75,000-$85,000 Alternative B Install new signal at KPR/Nortonville including lighting, detectors, power source, $150,000-$300,000 as needed Develop,program and fine'-tune signal timing plan for KPR/Nortonville $10,000 Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection $5,000 Install queue detectors on Railroad south of Castlewood, plus connection to $150,000-$170.000 KPR/Nortonville controller 2000/2010 Total $315,000-$485,000 Alternative C Install new signal at KPR/Nortonville including lighting,detectors, power source, $150,000-$300,000 as needed Develop, program and fine-tune signal tinning plan for KPR/Nortonville $10,000' Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection $5,000 Install queue detectors on Railroad south of Castlewood, plus connection to $150,000-$170,000 KPR/Nortonville controller Develop, program and fine-tune signal timing plan for Buchanan/Meadows to meter westbound traffic $10,000 Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection' $5,000 Install queue detectors on Buchanan west of'Somersville, plus connection to '$170,000-$190.000. Buchanan/Meadows controller 2000 Total $500 --------------------------------------------------------------- - -- ----- 0 ,000_$690,000 For 2010: -- Develop, program and fine-tune signal timing plan for Buchanan $10,000 BypasNentura to meter westbound traffic Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection L5.000 2010 Total $515,000-$705,000 Motes: 1. Cost estimate assumes that existing signal controllers are capable of accepting and processing detector inputs. If not,controller software modifications may be needed at an additional Trost of$30,000. 2. It is assumed that necessary detection and communication equipment is already installed as part of the Bypass construction: Source: DKSAssoclates Final Report 6-13 August 10,2001 East-Central Trak Management Study Ks Associates 6.2 Evaluation The quantitative analysis, presented in the previous section in conjunction with;the criteria described in Section 5 were used to conduct an evaluation of the alternatives. To help- encapsulate the results of the evaluation, a simple,'graphical matrix format was adopted. The matrix'uses'a 5-point (or ordinal) qualitative scoring system, with symbols to depict whether conditions for a specific alternative are better or worse than the conditions under the Baseline scenario. This evaluation summary was prepared with considerable input from the TAC members. Evaluation of Alternatives-- 2040 The evaluation results for 2000 are presented in Table 6-8. Intuitively, one would assume that adding new CPM locations would increase'travel times, however, the results of the analysis conducted here did;not bear that out. In fact, none of the alternatives were found to noticeably increase corridor travel time, nor did was there any adverse affect on the key traffic service objective—delay index--in the corridor. A significant benefit of East County metering is the expected reduction in queue lengths at Myrtle Drive. While Alternative A produced only a slight reduction,'the simulation tests on Alternatives B and C resulted in significant reductions in the length of the queue at Myrtle Drive. Alternative C offers the additional advantage of helping reduce the congestion and queuing along Buchanan Road between Loveridge Road and Railroad'Avenue. According to the model results, the introduction of CPM in East'County is expected to neither increase nor decrease the length of queue observed at the Oak Grove Road CPM location' under the baseline scenario. Table 6-8' 2000 Evaluation Summary Criteria Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Overall Travel Time 10Ma... . 0 0 a Corridor Delay Index 0` 0 0 Change in Baseline Queues �i . €. � n.� ; Overall Impact:on Queuing' 0 0 System Delay 0 Impact to Upstream Intersections X X X Safety ., . Diversion ,�lk„ Number of Metering Points 2 3 3 4 Implementation Cost iui.)"A . °`t $65k-$75k $315k-$485k $500k-$650k Key XX Much worse than baseline X Worse than baseline 0 Same as baseline q Better than baseline 44 Much better than baseline Source: ©KS Associates Final Report 6-14 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study KS Associates Results from the simulation model indicate that Alternatives''A and B result in a modest' reduction in overallsystem delay. However, these two alternatives also result in CPM queues that impact upstream intersections. For Alternative A the queue from Pheasant extends through the Castlewood intersection, while in Alternative''B and C the queue from Nortonville' is predicted to back'up through the Pheasant intersection. By shifting queues from':.the downhill grade approaching Myrtle to the level and upslope approaches at the other CPM locations, all three alternatives may offer safety advantages. This is largely the result of capturing vehicles in lower speed locations. The modeling results clearly showed that all alternatives resulted in the diversion of some trips away from K:irker Pass Road and onto other regional routes such as SR 4 and Leland Road. In addition, for Alternative C only, traffic was observed to divert away from Buchanan Road: The need for a new signal at Nortonville with upstream queue detectors results in higher implementation costs for Alternatives B and C as compared to Alternative A, with Alternative C also having significant costs associated with queue detection for the Meadows metering location. One element of consideration that requires further analysis is the impact Alternatives A, B and C could have on bus operations. Staff from Tri-Delta and County Connection have voiced concern about the possibility of existing bus service being slowed down by the proposed CPM locations. Another'concern is the inability of a fully loaded bus to gain speed up the grade should the bus have to come to a full stop at Nortonville Road. These and other concerns will be addressed through further study of the preferred alternative. Evaluation`ofAlternatives-- 2010 The evaluation results for 2010' are summarized in Table 6-9. On average, Alternative A produces a slight decrease in corridor travel time, with Alternative B showing essentially no change from baseline, and Alternative C showing a minor increase. This pattern is also reflected in the corridor delay index. Once again, the key to this finding is that the addition of new East County metering locations does not necessarily result in increased travel times and delay. Consistent with the findings for 2000, each: of the alternatives produce a reduction in the queue .length> at Myrtle and essentially no 'change at Oak Grove. While Alternative A produces only a slight reduction, Alternatives B and C can produce significant reductions in the length of the Myrtle queue. In fact, under Alternative C, the queue at Myrtle is essentially eliminated. None of the alternatives are expected to have a notable positive or negative impact on queues or congestion at other locations. Based on total system and average delay, Alternative B performs slightly better than baseline, with Alternative A being equal, and Alternative C slightly worse. Each of the alternatives is expected to produce CPM queues that impact upstream intersections. For Alternative A, the queue from Pheasant would extend through the Castlewood intersection. For both Alternative B and Alternative C, the ,queue from Nortonville is predicted to back up through both the Buchanan Bypass and Pheasant intersections.' Final Report 6-15 August 10,'2001' East-Central Traffic Management Study DDS Associates According to the modeling that was performed for 2010, the alternatives studied are not expected to result in any significant diversion to or from other regional routes. However, traffic in the East 'County portion of the study area is forecast to shift between routes in response to the different metering locations. In Alternative A, the metering on the Buchanan Bypass is expected to result in the diversion of traffic to both Buchanan and Leland, and then' southbound on Railroad. Relatively little or no diversion is forecast for Alternative B. However, the results for Alternative C suggest significant diversion around the metering points on Buchanan and Buchanan Bypass. To avoid the Meadows metering point, traffic appears to shift to alternative westbound routes, primarily Delta Fair/Leland, and return to Buchanan further west via Loveridge and Harbor. Similarly, demands on Ventura approaching the Buchanan Bypass increase as a result of trips diverting to avoid the metering to the east on the Bypass. Compared to 2000,implementation casts for Alternatives A and C are slightly higher. This is due to the addition'of new metering points>along the Buchanan Bypass. As with 2000, the need for a new signal at Nortonville with upstream' queue detectors results' in higher implementation costs for Alternatives B and C as compared to Alternative A with Alternative C also having significant costs associated with queue detection for the Meadows metering location. Table;6-9 2010 Evaluation Summary Criteria Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Overall Travel Time � N 0 0 X MW Corridor Delay index _ 0 0 X r � , Change in Baseline Queues � RARIMR,? Overall Impact on Queuing C.���t��� �� 0 0 0 System Delay0 0 Impact to Upstream Intersections X XX XX Safety E�A "� vv lz6 WmPN �R rte,! Diversion3a Number of Metering Points 2 4 3 5' Implementation Cost X r $75k-$85k $315k-$485k '$515k-$705k � � Key; XX Much worse than baseline X Worse than baseline 0 Same as baseline 4 Better than baseline 44 Much better than baseline Source: DKS Associates Final Report 6-16 August 10,'2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates 6.3 Selection of Preferred Alternative The analysis and 'subsequent evaluation of Alternatives A, B, and C were 'extensively' reviewed by the TAC and PAC. Based upon this review, a preferred alternative was selected. Through the evaluation process, it quickly became apparent that the choice could be narrowed down to Alternatives Band C as the two most effective and flexible traffic management strategies. Alternative A was found to have an extremely limited"reservoir"capacity. When viewed from a purely technical'perspective, Alternatives B and C had>many'similarities in performance; however, Alternative C was found to be more effective at reducing the downstream ,queue at Myrtle Drive. The simulation results also indicated that Alternative C resulted in potential benefits to the portion of Buchanan Road west of Loveridge Road. It was further noted that Alternative B is really a subset of Alternative C.` Therefore it would be relatively straightforwardtoshift from C to'B in the future by eliminating CFM at Buchanan Road/Meadows Avenue. Based upon these considerations, the PAC selected Alternative C as the basis for the preferred alternative. This decision was based primarily on the evaluation of the Year 2000 simulation results, which help us to answer the question: "What would happen if control point metering were implemented tomorrow?" White the 2010 analysis is useful for assessing long-range impacts, it also raised additional questions regarding continued growth in 'housing, and the construction of yet-to-be funded''roadway and transit improvements. The selection of Alternative C was also made with the explicit understanding that refinements would need to be further studied, particularly to address concerns regarding the extent of existing and'future queuing on Buchanan Road. These refinements are discussed in Section 7. pApIOO100J62WocsVask Sifinal repoiltsection 6.doc Final Report 6-17 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKK Associates 7. REFINEMENT OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 7.1 Description As described in Section 6.3, the preferred alternative (Alternative Q was selected with the understanding that further:refinements'would'be studied. This section describes the approach, methodology'and results of that refinement 'effort. The purposes of the refinement process were to balance queues and delays at the various CPM locations, farther address potential diversion issues, fine-tune the proposed signal timing, and address queue-related impacts. Specifically, CFM operations for Alternative C were fine-tuned at the following' two locations: 1. Buchanan Road: The queue at the Meadows Avenue CFM location could be increased or decreased,' which would reduce or increase the extent of the congestion to the west on Buchanan`Road.between Loveridge and Railroad. 2. ':Kirker.Pass Road: The queue at the Nortonville Road GPM location could be increased or decreased, which would directly affect the length of queue at Myrtle Drive in Concord. At the proposed Meadows Avenue CPM location, the initial simulation runs conducted for Alternative C yielded a queue back to nearly`Somersville Road,but also showed a'significant reduction in congestion on Buchanan Road between Loveridge Road and Railroad Avenue. Upon review of these initial simulation results, concerns were raised about the extent of queuing at the Meadows Avenue CPM location, and the potential for significant delay for commuters between Somersville Read and :Loveridge Road. Consequently, the study team was directed' to balance the queuing at Meadows Avenue with observed congestion relief benefits downstream. A similar concern was raised concerning estimated queues at the Nortonville Road CPM location. The analysis of the Alternative C suggested a queue back to about Castlewood Drive, with a concurrent reduction to the queue at the Myrtle Drive CPM location. Here, the study team was directed to reduce the queue somewhat at the Nortonville CPM location, recognizing that this refinement could increase the length of the queue'at Myrtle. Following completion of both of these "balancing" exercises, the estimates of congestion downstream from the CPM location were still significantly lower than in the baseline scenario. As a further refinement, queue detectors have been included in the preferred alternative'. The queue.detectors are placed to allow a maximum queue length.. (Ince the queue reaches the detector, the signal timing would be automatically changed to allow more traffic through, thereby reducing the length of the queue. Final Report 7-1 August 90,2001 East-Central Trac Management Study` DDS Associates Figure 7-1 is a graphical;description of the preferred alternative. Note that the figure, as well as the discussion in the remainder of this section, refer to the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative C. 7.2 Analysis The refinement process involved development and analysis of numerous`'variations on the theme'established in Alternative C. To compare and rank these various sub-alternatives, an approach was adopted similar to that described in Section 4.2. Analysis criteria included'' traveltime, queue impacts, system delay and corridor delay index, diversion and implementation costs. Note that the quantitative analysis of the preferred alternative focused primarily on the year 2044, although some qualitative observations for 2010 conditions'were also incorporated Travel Time Figure 7-2 highlights the travel time for the preferred alternative as compared to the baseline. The comparison is for a vehicle traveling between the Somersville Road/10th Street intersection in Antioch, and the 1-680 interchange in Walnut Creek (using the Buchanan Road' route)'. Details of the travel time for individual segments are provided in the stacked graphs. Compared with the baseline scenario, overall travel time through the corridor is slightly lower for the preferred alternative in 2000. The total travel time on Buchanan (from Somersville Road to Railroad Avenue) is also slightly lower for the preferred alternative, as operations are much improved on the section west of Loveridge. On Kirker Pass Road, however,travel time to Nortonville Road is higher than the baseline. But the travel time to Myrtle Drive is reduced. Once past the Myrtle Drive CPM location, travel times along the remainder of the corridor are the same as the Baseline. For the 2010 analysis year, it is expected that the overall travel times for the preferred alternative would be similar to those presented for Alternative C in Figure 6-4. Final Report 7-2 August 10 2001 East-Central Trac Management Study tr- r p„ cr o as 00 tr,• ca o d ti 'P2i eBplaeno o euo4epols t PLt aBppen07 � o •gyp t IS e!q ntpC) ! m w ! th tph jogjeN 3 i tom'. Ul r Q v c v m Zq1 Y� DS Associates Figure7-2 2000 Corridor Travel Time by Section—Baseline vs. Preferred. via Buchanan 1:15 _ 1:00 B E 0:45 ii,�i:,! a YVR(Oak Grove to 1-680) M KPRNVR(Myrtle to Oak Grove) ®KPR(Nortonville to Myrtle) N C3 Railroad(Ruch.to Nortonville) 0:30 0 Buchanan(Somersville to RR) + eBg ■Somersvitle(10th to Buch.) 0:1'5 — 0:00 2000 Base 2000 Preferred Alternative Queue Impacts Figures 7-3 and 7-4 illustrate the expected queue locations for the preferred alternative in Central County and East County. The queue lengths shown represent maximum queues, which generally occur between 5:00 and 8:15 AM at each of the CPM locations. Table 7-1 summarizes the approximate queue length at each CPM location (in miles) for the baseline condition and the preferred alternative. Table 7-1 Queue Length Comparison -2000 Alternative Oak Grove Myrtle Nortonville Meadows Baseline 1.1' 0.5 "N"111" , 1460 �. � .a� s E � Preferred 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 Note: Length in miles Source: DKS Associates Final Report 7-4 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study v v i dV t� � <c 0•�I -a c R ol s tea. U r P8 sae y C' �Lg O' a0 ,re a• b" bath' � �gU6 ��� � {�•st° uleyy s x � Yfl Tv cam. c a r U' � d 03p � ay. o c ch d EL 4� ( 4 m4 t 4 4 4 'pt1 e0ppeno� a �no4� j,.•""m��� J T�` a '•i0 i0®ua4gpom ♦� 4 t i 'PU ®SpNenOI i 4 4 � k 7S et nloo 19 4 i p:1 tt! t ISJo t CT♦ 1 t���a ca l tl� -$AV Fill g d c DOCS Associates Overall, the introduction of CPM locations in East County is expected to have little impact on the queue at Oak Grove Road in Walnut Creek. The preferred alternative could, however, result in a reduction of the queue at Myrtle Drive. Also, note that the CPM locations in East County were refined to minimize the impact on upstream intersections, so no existing intersections are affected by metering in 2000. The Nortonville queue would be constrained to just south of Pheasant Drive, and the Meadows Avenue queue would be constrained to just west of the Contra Costa Canal crossing. In 2010, the queue at the-Nortonville Road CPM location would pass through the intersection of Buchanan Bypass and Kirker Pass Road. System Delay Table 7-2 summarizes the system delay comparison for the preferredalternative for the 2000 analysis year. As noted in Section 3.3, the system delay measure captures the overall impact of the various alternatives. Table 7'-2 System Delay by Alternative -2000 Alternative Total Delay VMT x4 Ayes �1 Dela Baseline 5,625 218,300 Preferred 5,621 218,500 1 Total Delay units are vehicle-hours z Vehicle-Mites Traveled units are vehlde-miles 3 Average Delay units are minuteshile of delay Source: DKS Associates For 2000, the preferred alternative provides a slight improvement in average delay, approximately one percent better than the baseline. For the 2010 analysis year, it is expected that the overall average delay would be similar for the baseline and the preferred alternative. Corridor Delay Index Table 7-3 summarizes the corridor delay index for the preferred alternative for the 2000 analysis year. The values in the table reflect the average travel time from. 5:00 to 5:30 AM (representative of the off-peak travel time) and 7:00 to 8:00 AM (the peak travel travel time). Table 7'-3 Corridor Delay Index by Alternative Scenario 2000 Delay Index Baseline 1.93 Preferred 1`.88 Source: DKS Associates The preferred alternative provides a three percent improvement in the delay index for the year 2000 analysis. This difference is the same as,the travel time savings illustrated in Figure 7-1. For 2010, it would be expected that the comparison of the corridor delay index would be similar. Final Report 7.7 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DK S Associates Estimated Diversion Diversion estimates for the preferred alternative were again based on average delay reported from the operations model. The forecasted average vehicle delay during the peak hour at the CPM locations is presented in Table 7-4. As noted in Section 6, the maximum delay at a particular CPM location may be twice as long as the average. Table 7-4 Peak Hour Average Vehicle Delay-2000 CPM Location Baseline Preferred Alternative YVR at Oak Grave 5 5 KPR at Myrtle 7 6 KPR at Pheasant KPR at Nortonville 5 Buchanan at Meadows 3 Note: Delay in minutes Source: DKS Associates These delays were coded into the countywide travel demand model, which reassigned traffic to the network. The change in forecasted travel demand for selected links was there calculated. The diversion analysis results for the preferred alternative are presented in Table 7-5, grouped according to screen lines illustrated previously in Figure 4-2. As shown in this table, the preferred alternative is expected to result in the diversion of over 400 trips (approximately 14°/a) from Kirker Pass Road to alternative routes, most notably SR 4 west of Willow Pass Road. Further examination of the detailed diversion results indicates that a majority of this diverted traffic comes from commuters using westbound Leland Road to southbound Railroad Avenue. To the west of Railroad, SR 4, Willow Pass and Leland all experience increases in forecasted volume as a result of traffic diversion. The results indicate only modest changes in the forecasted volumes at other East County locations. In Central County, the reduction in trips coming over Kirker Pass Road from East County is largely offset by an increase in Central County trips which backfill any vacant capacity created on the Kirker PasslYgnacio Valley corridor as a result of diversion. These results are consistent with those reported for Alternative'C in Section 6.1. Final Report 7_8 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study Ds Associates Table 7- Year 2000 Peak Hour Diversion Analysis Results (Change from Baseline Conditions) Preferred Alternative Location Description Change' °lox Screenline#1 Willow Pass Road WB w/o Bailey 48 3.2% State Route 4 WB w/o Bailey 287 3.6% Bailey Rd SB s/o Leland 115 8.6% Kirker Pass Road SB s/o Nortonviile -412 -13.8%` Marsh Creek WB w/o Camino Diablo 25 2.6% Screenffne#1 Total 63 0.4% Screenline#2 Willow Pass Road WB w/o Railroad 111 7.4%e State Route 4 WB w/o Railroad 151 2.2% Leland WB w/o Railroad 98 5.1% Screenfr"ne 42 Total 360 3.5% Screenline#3 Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy WB w/o Somersville 27 1.8% Century Blvd WB w/o Somersville 29 -3.7% State Route 4 WB w/o Somersville -69 -1.1% Delta Fair WB w/o Somersville -57 -2.3% Buchanan WB w/o Somersville -75 -5.8% Screenline#3 Tota/ -203 -1.6f Central County Locations Kirker Pass Road WB w/o Alberta -108 -3.6% Ygnacio Valley Road WS w/o Bancroft -29 Notes 1. Reported changes aro taken directly from the Countywide Travel Demand Model,and reflect changes in forecasted travel demand on selected links. 2 Peroentcha ages are in comparison to the baseline volume for the selected link Source: DKS Associates These findings for Year 2000 suggest that for the Year 2010, the preferred alternative diversion analysis results would also be fairly consistent with those reported for Alternative C. Estimate Of Implementation Costs Implementation of the preferred alternative would require a number of improvements or .modifications to the existing roadway and traffic control system. These changes would include the development and implementation of revised timing, plans at the existing Buchanan/Meadows signal, the installation of a new traffic signal at KPR/Nortonville, and the installation of advance warning detectors and signs. Table 7-6 'summarizes the necessary improvements and the related implementation cost estimates for the preferred alternative. Final Report 7-9 August 10, 2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DDS Associates Table 7-6 Preferred Alternative Estimated Implementation Costs Proposed Improvements° Estimated Costs install new signal at KPR/Nortonville including lighting, detectors, power source, $150,0004300,000 as needed Develop, program and fine-tune signal tinting plan for KPR/Nortonville $10,000 Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection $5,000 Install queue detectors on Railroad south of Pheasant, plus connection to $140,000-$160,000 KPR/Nortonville controller Develop, program and fine-tune signal timing pian for Buchanan/M'eadows to $10,000 meter westbound traffic Program signal controller to be responsive to queue detection $5,000 Install queue detectors on Buchanan west of canal bridge, plus connection to $90,0004110.000 Buchanan/Meadows controller Total $410,000-$600,000 Notes: 1. Alt asst estimates are in Year 2000$s. 2. Cast estimate assumes that existing signal controllers are capable of accepting and prooessing detector inputs.If not oontrollersoftware modifications may be needed at an addfsnat cost of$30;000: Source: DKS Associates 7.3 Potential Future improvement One unintended impact of implementing CPM, and the resultant queues, is that transit vehicles are also delayed in a queue when it reaches a CPM location. Currently there are two transit routes that would be impacted at the CPM locations. County Connection Route 930 travels through the Buchanan/Meadows and the Kirker Pass/Nortonville CPM locations. Of the eight Route 930 buses that operate in the morning, three would be impacted by the CPM, which begins at 7`.00 AM. In addition, Tri Delta Transit Route 390 travels through the Buchanan/Meadows CPM location. This route operates every half hour between 4:15 and 7:15 AM, with one extra bus'at 7:30 AM. As a result, there are two Route 390 buses that would be impacted by the CPM. More detailed information on these routes is provided in Appendix F. Additional transit service could operate in this corridor in the future. The Express Bus'Study being conducted by OCTA is examining alternative routes and frequencies of service. An attempt to establish express bus service could be Hampered by the presence of traffic queues. To assist transit vehicles and car/vanpools avoid the queues,HOV queue jump lanes at the CPM'locations were analyzed in the preferred alternative. While not included in the preferred alternative recommendation for this study,a qualitative assessment of HOV queue jump lanes is provided as information for future consideration. If a HOV queue jump lane is provided at the Buchanan Road/Meadows Avenue CPM location, travel times for buses and carpools would be significantly below the travel time estimates for the preferred alternative or the baseline along Buchanan Road. Even without a separate latae, buses and carpools would also benefit from CPM on Buchanan Road, because Final Report 7-10 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates of being subject to queues and delay on the congested sections of that roadway west of Loveridge Road. Provision of a queue jump lane at Nortonville Road would significantly reduce the travel time for buses and carpools between Buchanan Road and Nortonville Road, as compared to the preferred alternative.. Although developing queue jump lanes in East County would have significant benefits for carpoolers and bus-transit users, there would be little or no impact on queue lengths. While queues may be marginally shorterif buses and carpools are allowed to bypass some queues, the upstream and downstream metering rates would probably require further adjustment to account for these queue jumps. It is expected that the overall maximum length of queue would remain about the same as noted previously in Table 7-1. Although there is no queue jump lane recommended at Myrtle.Drive, buses;and carpoolers benefit from shorter queues at Myrtle Drive due to the CPM in East County. Queue jump lanes would have no real impact on overall average delay, although they would provide a benefit if person delay values were calculated. As shown in Table 7-7, the total estimated implementation cost of the HOV queue jump lanes is $3.2 to $3.6 million, which is many times the cost of the CPM project. This cost does not include right-of-way, which, if required, could add significantly to the design and construction cost estimates of the HOV queue jump lanes. Because of the significant cost of this potential improvement, it is recommended the HOV queue jump lanes be addressed as a separate element, subject to further study. Table 7-7 HOV'Queue Jump Lanes Estimated Implementation Costs Potential Improvements Estimated Costs Construct queue jump lane (0.6 mile) for southbound KPR from Nortonville' $1,600,00041,700,000 toward Pheasant Construct queue jump lane (0.6 mile) for westbound Buchanan Road from $1,200.000-$1.300.000 Meadows to near the canal bridge Total $2,800,00043,000,000 Notes; I. All cost estimates are In Year 2000$s,conshdon e0ratess Include desgn and construction management cosh,but do not include rIghtof-way costs,K any. Source:DKS Associates p:IpI00tOO1621docsttask 5Vtnal reporttsection 7.doc Final Report 7-11 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKS Associates . IMPLEMENTATION/NEXT ;STEPS Defining a preferred alternative for control point metering (CPM) locations is an important stepping stone toward improving the East-Central commute. But, many additional steps will need to be taken before the preferred alternative and a full "Traffic Management Plan"can be implemented. This section provides a look at the next steps, and begins to frame some of the issues expected to be encountered as the preferred alternative undergoes further review by all interested parties, and as the project moves closer to implementation. 8.1 Protocol for Implementation Clearly, implementation of the preferred alternative will be contingent upon all of the affected local jurisdictions accepting the proposal. The step-by-step process for completing this level of review and achieving a consensus is set forth below. The TMP shall be implemented only if the PAC, and its constituent jurisdictions, achieve a unanimous agreement on the proposed TMP. The following protocol for TMP implementation assumes that TAC and PAC members provide a line of communication back to the local jurisdictions to ensure that the proposed TMP alternative reflects the concerns of each involved party.To implement the TMP,the following steps would be required: a. The TAC prepares and forwards the Draft ECTMS to the PAC. b. The PAC approves the Final ECTMS and forwards it to local jurisdictions and RTPCs for review and adoption. c. Each Council (Antioch, Pittsburg, Clayton, Concord, and Walnut Creek.), Board (Contra Costa Board of Supervisors), and RTPC (TRANSPACand TRANPLAN) reviews the Final ECTMS and considers whether or not to adopt it, d. Once all involved parties have adopted the proposed Final ECTMS constituent jurisdictions submit(s)the TMP or its components to CCTA for eligible funding cycles. 8.2 Design and Construction Issues Assuming agreement can be reached on implementation of the preferred alternative, detailed design drawings'and cost estimates need to be prepared, environmental clearance documents may be required, and individual components of-the plan would need to be installed and tested. The following is a "first cut" listing (in no specific order) of the necessary design and construction components to the protect. * Prepare a signal design for the NortonvillelKirker Pass Road intersection.. • Develop new signal timing plans for each CPM location. * Construct signal at the NortonvillelKrker Pass Road intersection. * Program signal controllers to be responsive to queue detection. * Install queue detectors, including connection to controller. Final Report 8-1 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study DKK Associates « Install advanced signing prior to each CPM location. « Conduct a public awareness program. • Implement CPM and refine signal tinning as needed. « Consider whether or not to establish a centralized Traffic Management Center(TMC to coordinate and manage the Traffic Management Plan via the CPM signals. The TMC could be designed to only control the CPM locations in East County, and could also control other priority signals in East County as Well. CCTV` cameras would likely be incorporated into the TMC design, as a method to observe queues and signal operation in the field (rather than relying solely on controller and queue detector data). 8.3 Establishing the Comprehensive TMP The Preferred Alternative described in this study should be incorporated into a Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to address travel between East and Central County. A Comprehensive TMP would include a multimodal approach to examining: « AM and PM peak travel periods, • Eastbound and westbound travel; and Freeway and arterial travel. Strategies and policies"established in the TRANSPLAN and TRANSPAC Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance should be incorporated into the Comprehensive TMP. Furthermore, the Comprehensive TMP should be considered in future TRANSPLAN and TRANSPAC Action Pian updates or amendments. p.1p1001001821docs1insk Slfrnnl repoitlseciion 8.doc.. Anal Report $=2 August 10,2001 East-Central Traffic Management Study