The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05141991 - TC.2 (2) TC.2 A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 14, 1991 ,` by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: Supervisor Schroder ABSENT: Supervisor Fanden ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes The Board considered the recommendations as contained in the report of the Transportation Committee to temporarily designate the new fifth and sixth lanes on Interstate 680 between Willow Pass Road and the Martinez/ Benicia Bridge as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes during peak periods when they are opened this summer. (A copy of the report is attached and included as part of this Board Order. ) The following persons spoke before the Board: Ken Terpstra, Caltrans Albert Yee, Sr. Transportation Engineer, Caltrans . The Board Members discussed the feasibility of initially adding HOV lanes instead of mixed lanes as well as provide for efficient flow of traffic in this area. Supervisor Powers expressed support for HOV lanes as an incentive for people to car pool or ride share. Supervisor McPeak expressed her support of HOV lanes and the desire to comply with Proposition 111 congestion management plans and with the California Air Quality Act. Supervisor Torlakson concurred. Supervisor Schroder expressed his support of HOV lanes but advised that he would vote against the recommendations because he felt there wasn't supportable data for HOV lanes in this particular portion of 680. Therefore, he could not approve the proposed resolution at this time. Following discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution 91/316 is adopted. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED, -Zyla�4 Z4, / 9/ cc: Community Development / PHIL BATC�5 OR,Clerk of the Board pi Supervisors and County Administrator County Administrator By Deputy . .4:�..,v�� r,. �c::_ .`+:Vii.: C'Si;") � .. �.. "-�Y.�.`.Cl,. ., . Fri"''7%:: ��.:^F,ti �:.c.'b:3 iF]i;a�^. �;7"'.�L[>�','` 7C. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Consider adoption of a resolution (see Exhibit A) requesting Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration to temporarily designate the new fifth and sixth lanes on Interstate 680 between Willow Pass Road and the Martinez/Benicia Bridge as high occupancy vehicle lanes (two or more occupants) during peak periods when they are opened to traffic this summer and to reconsider this designation after completion of the I-680 - SR4 interchange project. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND[REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS At its April 15, 1991 meeting, the I-680/State Route 24 Task Force agreed to support the designation of the fifth and sixth lanes of I-680 between Willow Pass Road to the south and the Martinez/Benicia Bridge to the north as high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) during peak periods when these lanes are opened to traffic this summer. The HOV designation is intended to support the Transportation System Management (TSM) efforts underway by Caltrans, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the County and the cities by providing preferential treatment and reduced travel time for persons using carpools and vanpools continued operation of these lanes for carpools should be re-evaluated after reconstruction of the 680/24 interchange is completed. On April 23 , the Board of Supervisors referred this item to the Transportation Committee, MTC and Transpac for review. The Transportation Committee decided on April 29 that the full Board should consider this matter with representatives of Caltrans present to answer questions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COU TY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : I. Schroder Tom Torlakson ION OF BO ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVIS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES. ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department TESTED cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND UNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY 1miscl:I-680.bos I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes May 13, 1991 Page 2 On May 13, the Transportation Committee received an update on the proposal from County staff. The remainder of this report summarizes what County staff reported to the Transportation Committee, which includes a staff recommendation supporting the 680/24 Task Force's proposal. Staff also revised resolution proposed by the 680/24 Task Force, incorporating the need to consider including the additional lanes under construction on the bridge, and the need to develop a plan for metering traffic along the I-680 corridor. TRANSPAC Position: The 680 HOV lane proposal was reviewed by TRANSPAC at their May 2 meeting. Caltrans provided a brief presentation and distributed a copy of their feasibility study. TRANSPAC voted unanimously to endorse the concept of implementing the 680/24 Task Force's proposal with the provision that impacts on driver safety be carefully evaluated. Solano County Position: On May 8, the Solano Transportation Authority considered the carpool lane proposal for I-680. The Authority unanimously voted to request that Caltrans seriously reconsider its present position opposing the opening of the new lanes on I-680, both on the Martinez/Benicia Bridge and in Contra Costa, as HOV lanes. CCTA Position: On May 9, the Projects and Programs Committee of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) considered a recommendation by staff to consider the proposal of the 680/24 Task Force. The Committee voted 3-to-1 rejecting the staff recommendation and accepting the Caltrans staff position that the carpool lanes would not induce additional ridesharing. The CCTA will consider this recommendation on May 15. Caltrans' HOV Lane Study: County staff reviewed Caltrans' feasibility study for the HOV lanes on I-680. Its major findings are summarized below: - The report assumes travel patterns and vehicle occupancies would remain the same following the opening' of the new lanes (currently, 61% of the commuters drive alone) ; - During the AM peak hour, the new freeway lanes would initially allow about 370 additional vehicles to enter the 680/24 project area. With future growth, this could increase to a maximum of about 590 vehicles; - About 900 vehicles would use the HOV lanes in the peak direction during the peak hour; - Initially, users of the HOV lanes would not experience travel time savings compared to users of the mixed-flow lanes; - With future growth, southbound HOV's would realize a five minute travel time savings during the AM peak hour; - With HOV lanes, the frequency of accidents on I-680 is likely to be higher as a result of future congestion induced by reserving a freeway lane for carpools; - With HOV lanes, the air quality impacts would be different and an environmental reassessment may be required. Analysis by County Staff: Caltrans' statistics show that congestion would not occur initially with HOV lanes. Congestion would occur later as a result of new development or changing travel patterns in the corridor. With the 2+ person carpool lanes, any future congestion experienced in the mixed-flow lanes would be less than current congestion levels. I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes May 13, 1991 Page 3 Staff questions Caltrans' claim that operation of all lanes as mixed-flow will accommodate future growth in the corridor without congestion. Current traffic flows indicate significant diversion of traffic that would likely use some segments of this freeway as indicated by queues at the southbound on-ramp from eastbound Route 4 and the northbound on-ramp from Marina Vista. Another unknown is the number of trips diverted to other times of the day due to congestion on I-680. These factors are not addressed by Caltrans and could alter their findings. Recent discussions with Caltrans indicate their preferred approach for managing future congestion along I-680 is through ramp metering. Their objective is to meter on-ramp volumes through I- 680 in Contra Costa to keep freeway volumes from exceeding capacity. Staff's concern with ramp metering is that it only affects traffic entering the freeway from on-ramps in Contra Costa. Traffic flowing southbound on the Martinez/Benicia Bridge would continue to flow unimpeded by ramp metering. Ramp metering would also not constrain the heavy volumes from Route 4 onto I-680. Implementing southbound HOV lanes on the bridge would be a preferred approach to controlling congestion on I-680 as it would limit capacity of mixed-flow traffic to the existing two southbound lanes, and only allow increased traffic from the Bridge in the form of carpools using the new HOV lane. Caltrans' safety concerns are not unique to the HOV lane concept, but are based on the fact that any congested freeway has a higher accident rate compared to an uncongested freeway. Since Caltrans data indicate the HOV lane concept will not initially result in congestion, freeway travelers will have time to adjust to the HOV lane before congestion builds. There will be an opportunity to implement further refinements to the operation of the HOV lane before congestion and the potential for resulting higher accident rates occur. Environmental clearance will be a subject of negotiation with regional, state and federal agencies following a decision to pursue this project. Operational modifications such as HOV lanes and projects proposed on a temporary "demonstration" basis typically require less rigorous environmental review. In addition, the new MTC air quality conformance resolution specifically lists HOV lanes as a mitigation for freeway expansion. The fundamental dispute with the Caltrans analysis is the assumption that the HOV lanes will not induce additional ridesharing beyond existing levels. Caltrans claims the potential travel time savings for HOV-lane users are not significant enough to increase ridesharing. Members of the 680/24 Task Force, TRANSPAC, and local TSM coordinators disagree, especially considering other efforts underway to encourage commute alternatives (e.g. subsidized bridge tolls for carpoolers, CCTA's TSM ordinance, additional bus service proposed for the 680/24 project) , which will be enhanced by the provision of HOV lanes. Aside from concerns over the freeway's operation, opening additional freeway capacity to mixed-flow traffic in a high growth corridor is not consistent with ongoing efforts to encourage commute alternatives, improve air quality, and reduce the number of vehicles entering the 680/24 reconstruction area. Caltrans data show an existing average vehicle occupancy of 1. 32 at the Solano County line, which is below the 1. 5 persons/vehicle required by state legislation to meet Bay Area clean air standards. Caltrans data show without HOV lanes, approximately 590 additional vehicles could enter the northerly portion of the 680/24 reconstruction area during the peak hour. The central issue is whether highway operational issues on this stretch of I-680 outweigh the I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes May 13 , 1991 Page 4 opportunity to use this additional freeway capacity to achieve these other objectives. Staff is not convinced by Caltrans that the 680/24 Task Forces' proposal is not worth trying on a temporary, demonstration basis, with the provision that inclusion of HOV lanes on the bridge be considered. The proposal will not create congestion initially. The HOV lanes will experience significant use by carpools during peak hours. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate if ridesharing in the corridor can be induced now in response to dedicated freeway capacity and other ridesharing strategies being implemented along the corridor. We will always have the opportunity to designate these lanes for mixed-flow use if ridesharing does not increase. 1miscl/cm/I-680.bos