HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04041995 - TC.1 CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION . UTHORITY-
DPAFT
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWEDE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION
r
Approved for • October • 1994
CONTRA COSTA
TRA NSPORTA TION A UTHORI T Y
^MMISSIONERS:
1slKeller November,4, 1994
i. air
bb►e Landers
Chair RE: Transmittal of the Draft Contra Costa
e
uayleBlahop Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Iytorosvis
Dear Interested Participant:
Yie Greenberg
Cathie Kosei On October 19, 1994, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority approved
�;o.'e►Ii'Landis the release of the attached Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Julie Pierce The Authority hopes that reviewers will take this opportunity to read through and
comment on the draft, which incorporates comments received on the Preliminary
Im Torlakson Draft that was circulated last summer. Comments on this draft Plan are due to
rrel'Jay'Tucker the Authority by December 19, 1994.
rmann Weim
'bert K.McCleary When adopted by the Authority, the Countywide Plan will serve as the
�iecutrreDirector Authority's long range transportation planning document. Measure C, which
established sales tax funding for transportation improvements and the Authority's
Growth Management Program, intended the Countywide Plan to set the direction for
the Growth Management Program and improvements made to implement that
program.
The Draft Plan outlines proposed goals, objectives, programs and projects to
' achieve those objectives, ways to implement those programs and actions, and
potential future actions that updates to the Plan will address. It also incorporates the
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance prepared by the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees. The Action Plans, which are now at the
Circulation Draft stage, contain assumptions about future land use, traffic service
objectives, specific actions to be implemented, and a process for review of
environmental documents and General Plan amendments.
Completion of the draft is another important step in the ongoing process of
developing the Countywide Plan. Before the Authority adopts the Final Plan in
January, 1995, all interested parties are encouraged to comment on this Draft Plan
and on its Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The public comment period for
�40Treat Blvd. the Draft EIR begins on November 4 and:ends on December 19, 1994. There will
itet6o be a public hearing on the Draft EIR on December 7, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. at the
Inut Creek CCTA offices.
91596
PHONE: To facilitate discussion of this Plan and achieve consensus on outstanding
0/938-3970
X:
41038.3993
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
November 4, 1994
Page 2
issues, a countywide workshop will be held on November 18, 1994, at the Centre '
Concord located at 5298 Clayton Road. To receive information about the workshop,
or, if you have questions regarding the Plan, please call (510) 938-3970, extension
160, and leave your name, affiliation, phone number and mailing address.
We look forward to receiving your comments on the Draft Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Sincerely,
ROBERT K. McCLEARY
Executive Director
by
MARTIN R. ENGELMANN, P. E.
Deputy Director, Planning
Artach,-nent
MRE:rls
t
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY .
DRAFT
f�
-,, CONTRA COSTA
f COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Volume One:
f Goals Objectives and Actions
c
The preparation of this report has been financed through a
grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
1 Federal Highway Administration under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Content of this report does not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
MTC and the federal funding agencies shall have the right to
reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and authorize others to use,
the information developed from federally reimbursed projects.
Note: The objectives, actions and projects recommended in this
�j Draft Plan are subject to change following review and comment
COMMISSIONERS: by affected jurisdictions, the Regional Transportation Planning `
Joel Kaller Committees, and other agencies, and approval by the Authority.
Chair
Bobbie Landers
vice Chair
~ Gayle Bishgv
Taylor Davis
Millie Greenberg
Cathie Kosel
( W.D.SJ%ancus Approved for Circulation October 19, 1994
t Julie Pierce
Tom Torlakson
Darrel:lay"Tucker
ti+
Hermann Welm
Robert K.McCleary
Executive Director
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the passage of Measure C, the voters of Contra Costa County —
responding to increasing congestion on the regional transportation system — established an
increased sales tax to fund transportation improvements and a cooperative, multi jurisdictional
planning program. The Growth Management Program established by Measure C is designed
to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while
maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance
standards."
One of the main planning tools in the Growth Management Program is the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP). The CCTP, when adopted by the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), will serve as the CCTA's long-range
transportation planning document. The CCTP outlines goals for the CCTA, traffic service
and other objectives, programs and projects to achieve those objectives, direction for
implementing the CCTP, and future actions to address in updates to the CCTP. Measure C
requires the CCTA to review and update (as necessary) the CCTP every two years.
The CCTP builds on and knits together the Action Plans for Routes of
Regional Significance prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs). The Action Plans contain assumptions about future land use, traffic service
objectives (ISOs), actions to achieve the TSOs, and a process for review of environmental
documents and General Plan amendments. There are four RTPCs within Contra Costa
County: WCCTAC in West County, TRANSPAC in Central County, TRANSPLAN in East
County, and SWAT in the southwestern part of the county. Each of these RTPCs are
preparing an Action Plan for their areas. (The SWAT area, however, has been divided into
two areas. The Lamorinda communities are preparing an Action Plan for Highway 24 and
San Pablo Dam Road. Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa County have joined with
jurisdictions in Alameda County to prepare the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.)
li
The CCTA could use the CCTP to meet the requirements of AB 3705, the
State law that allows the preparation of countywide transportation plans. The legislation
suggests that, once adopted, the CCTP could serve as the primary basis for MTC's Regional
Transportation Plan as it applies in Contra Costa County and would be considered in the
preparation of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
B:\DCECSUM2 i November 3, 1994
Executive Summary Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
Land Use. Land use and transportation affect each other. Increases in
development increase demand on the transportation system and increases in the capacity of the
transportation system affect the shape and extent of development. The Land Use Information
System (LUIS) developed by the CCTA projects a 32 percent increase in households (from
305,000 to 403,000) and a 43 percent increase in jobs (from 277,000 to 395,000) between
1990 and 2010 in Contra Costa County (and the Alameda County portion of the Tri-Valley).
Over one-third of forecast household growth will occur in East County and over 40 percent in
the Tri-Valley (combined Alameda-Contra Costa portions). Almost one-half of forecast new
jobs will be located in the Tri-Valley and almost a quarter in Central County with only '
between 12 and 15 percent in West and East County.
Travel Demand. The growth in households and jobs will affect demand on
the regional transportation system. Changes in the pattern and extent of land uses will lead to
new commute and travel patterns, taxing existing facilities. Two of the biggest increases in
commuting are from Contra Costa to jobs in Alameda County (31 percent) and from Solano
to jobs in Contra Costa County (49 percent). In addition, commuting from homes to jobs
within Contra Costa County are also expected to increase substantially (over 40 percent). Of
those "home-based work" trips in 2010 that went from one Contra Costa County sub-area to
another, by far the most significant commute was from East to Central County (54,000 daily
trips) following by trips from Danville-San Ramon to Central County (22,000 daily trips).
Mode Choice. The single-occupant (drive alone) vehicle is expected to
remain the dominant way for people to get around in Contra Costa County. Approximately
75 percent of all work trips and 97 percent of all trips are forecast to be made by automobile
by 2010. This represents a slight increase in the share of all trips made by single-occupant
vehicle but a two percent drop for work trips. While the number of work trips made by both
transit and carpools are expected to increase, only transit will increase its share of all work
trips, especially in the Contra Costa-San Francisco commute. '
Traffic Volumes. Volumes on the county's freeways and streets are forecast
to increase with increases in households and jobs and the other land uses that serve them. All
of the freeways in the county are forecast to increase their volumes between 1990 and 2010.
The biggest increases — both numeric and percentage — are forecast for SR 4 in Antioch and
across Willow Pass, 1-680 in Concord and Walnut Creek between SR 24 and SR 242, and
I-680 north of Sycamore Valley Road in Danville. Likewise, most — but not all — arterials
will have higher volumes in 2010 than in 1990. The greatest increases will occur in East
County where new development will cause new demand. Hillcrest Avenue at SR 4 will
increase 2-1h times while Lone Tree Way will increase almost six times in volume.
e• ECSUM2 it 4
.,oc November 3, 199 ,�
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary
Circulation Draft
Travel Impacts. With higher volumes, congestion will worsen on certain
roadways and the share of vehicle miles and vehicle hours travelled in relatively uncongested
' situations (LOS A to C) will drop. In addition, more freeway segments and intersections are
forecast to operate at level-of-service F. All of the new freeway segments at LOS F are
located in Central County. Increased traffic will put 16 new intersections at LOS F in
addition to the 25 existing ones.
GOALS
Building on the goals expressed in the Measure C legislation and responding
to the comments received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee's, the CCTA
' has developed the following overall goals for the CCTP:
► Enhance mobility;
► Improve safety;
► Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use;
► Coordinate local land use planning and regional transportation planning;
► Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, energy
efficiency, community character and other environmental factors;
► Maintain the existing transportation system;
► Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced
mobility; and
► Manage congestion.
These goals form the foundation of the TSOs recommended in the CCTP and
the actions designed to meet those TSOs.
POTENTIAL COUNTYWIDE OBJECTIVES AND
ACTIONS
Besides the TSOs and actions for the various issue areas within the county, the
CCTA is considering countywide objectives and actions. The objectives and actions, like the
TSOs and actions for the issue areas, are being drawn primarily from the Action Plans.- The
objectives will establish measureable targets for ensuring mobility, encouraging alternatives to
the single-occupant vehicle, linking land use and transportation planning, and managing
congestion. The actions to implement these objectives will include existing CCTA programs,
support for the actions of other agencies (such as MTC and transit operators), working with
local jurisdictions to develop transit- and HOV-supportive policies, studying potential new
programs (such as signal synchronization and a "seamless" HOV system), and developing
new CCTA programs.
a:\EXECSUM2 iii November 3, 1994
Executive Summary Contra Costa.Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE
The CCTP contains a more detailed discussion of 12 issue.areas. Eleven of
these issue areas focus on particular commute corridors. ('These eleven commute corridors
are illustrate; on the following figure.) The twelfth issue area addresses other specific issues
not tied to specific commute corridors. The 11 commute corridors are:
1 Carquinez Bridge,
2 I-80 Corridor,
3 West-Central Commute (Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo),
4 1-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway),
5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge,
6 I-680 Corridor (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudger Road),
7 1-680 Corridor (from Rudger Road to 1-580), �1
8 Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel,
9 East-Central Commute,
10 East County Corridor, and
11 1-580-Altamont Pass Corridor.
For each of these corridors the CCTP outlines the basic issues affecting the
corridor, a summary of projects, and a summary of TSOs and actions. The basic issues
discussed are described as supply, demand or operational issues. That is, the CCTP describes
the limitations and planned expansion of existing supply, current and forecast demand on the
transportation facilities in each corridor, and ways of improving the operation of each corridor
being considered. The projects outlined are divided into four categories: under construction,
programmed for construction, in MTC's Track 1, or candidate for MTC's Track 2.
Programmed projects are those programmed in the 1994-2001 State Transportation
Improvement Program cycle. Track 1 projects are those included in MTC's recently-adopted ,
1994 Regional Transportation Plan. Candidate Track 2 projects are those projects that could
be included in MTC's longer-range program of projects and actions. The Track 2 projects
are currently without identified funding. MTC, however, is investigatirb a program for
additional revenues to finance some of these projects.
In addition to these corridor issues the CCTP addresses three other issues.
These issues include truck traffic and freight movement, bicycle and pedestrian movement,
and serving the needs of the transportation disadvantaged.
BAEXECSUM2 iv November 3, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary
Circulation Draft
IMPLEMENTATION
` The CCTP outlines existing and future funding opportunities for the projects
and actions it proposes and delineates the responsibilities of various agencies and jurisdictions
in implementing them.
Funding. The CCTA will rely on three primary sources of funding for the
Track 1 projects in the CCTP — Measure C's sales tax program, MTC Resolution 1876 (New
Rail Starts Program) funds, and the State Transportation Improvement Program and federal
Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
(STP/CMAQ) funds as well as other revenues. All of this funding, however, has been
allocated to programmed projects and projects in MTC's Track 1. MTC is looking to develop
an advocacy program for projects in Track 2. This program would identify the most
( important new projects (including both new construction and maintenance and operations) and
propose the creation of new revenue sources to fund them. These revenue sources could
include a regionwide sales tax increase, bridge toll increases, and a 10-cent regional gas tax.
Responsibilities. While the CCTA has overall responsibility, the CCTP is a
collaborative effort that requires assistance from a variety of other agencies. Local
jurisdictions are primarily responsible for making a good faith effort to implement the actions
in the Action Plans. The RTPCs will maintain and update the Action Plans. MTC will
review and incorporate the recommendations of the CCTP into its planning documents,
especially the RTP and RTIP. The California Transportation Commission will also review
and incorporate projects identified in the CCTP its their programming documents, as funding
is available. Other agencies, including Caltrans, transit operators and public agencies such as
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, will review and comment on the CCTP to
ensure that the plan will best meet the CCTA's goals within the limits of other programs.
FUTURE ACTIONS
The CCTP identifies several issues that could be addressed in updates to the
CCTP. These issues include:
► Evaluating development standards that would encourage alternatives to the
single-occupant vehicle,
► Assessing the needs of freight movement in greater detail,
► Studying the effects of a "seamless" HOV system, and
► Establishing priorities between projects that maintain and projects that expand
the regional transportation system.
a:NEXFCSUM2 v November 3, 1994
Executive Summary Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
t,
e:ExECSUM2 vi November 3, 1994
v. v
A IM
� w
All
rj
4.0
- r
ce _ .
r'"i `� ��, � [ -_lam-�' \ � � � . - •..l
- -
�� �; Q P , �, .�,,� � •�` \:. 0 ' � per,
ti k
0 oil,
oit
•� _ � Y._ £ i:: �� .i`^.SIL--'i` 4 7 i
/ �" ', P` �,•=' ���?-\�,., :,i., ��r a �• /`��.
d �
�I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
VOLUME ONE
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
1.1 Purpose of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan . . I-2
1.2 Relationship to other plans and programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6
1.3 Contents of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan . I-9
1.4 Progress To Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9
2OUNTYWIDE GOALS TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND
C JE
ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11
2.1 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
2.2 Potential Countywide Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12
2.3 Potential Countywide Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16
2.4 Programmed and Track 1 Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20
3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE I-23
3.1 Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25
3.2 I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32
3.3 West-Central Commute— Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino
` Pablo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-44
3.4 I-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-52
3.5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-58
3.6 I-680 Corridor from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road I-65
3.7 I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road to I-580 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-74
3.8 Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-82
3.9 East-Central Commute Highway 4 and Other Routes . . . . . . I-89
3.10 East County Corridor including Vasco Road and Byron Highway I-97
3.11 I-580-Altamont Pass Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-I04
3.12 Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-112
4 IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-117
4.1 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-117
4.2 Responsibilities of Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-120
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) .
5 FUTURE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-123
5.1 Update Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-123
5.2 Remaining Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-124
6 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-125
6.1 West County — WCCTAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-125
6.2 Central County — TRANSPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-127
6.3 East County — TRANSPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-129
6.4 Lamorinda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-130
6.5 Tri-Valley — TVTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-131
7 REGIONAL-ROUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-134
r
VOLUME TWO
1 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1
2 LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3
2.1 Land Use Information System (LUIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3
2.2 Overall Pattern of Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4
2.3 Projected Household Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14
2.4 Projected Employment Growth . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-20
2.5 Jobs-Housing Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
. . . . . . . . . . . II-31 1
3.1 Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-31.
3.2 Congestion Management Program Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-32
3.3 Existing Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-35
3.4 Programmed Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-38
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
_ 4 EXISTING AND FORECAST TRAVEL DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . II-41
4.1 Regional Travel Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-41
4.2 Mode Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-49
4.3 Traffic Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-52
5 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-57
5.1 Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-57
5.2 Countywide Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-64
5.3 Freeway and Arterial Operating Conditions II-66
APPENDIX: (VOLUME THREE)
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE
COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (July 20,
1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Volume One
Figure 1.1 Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3
Figure 1.2 Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5
Figure 2.2 Programmed and Track 1 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21
Figure 3.1 Transportation Issue Areas of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . I-24.
Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Projects Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29
Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Actions Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . I-31
Figure 3.2-1 Proposed Projects I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-38
Figure 3.2-2 Proposed Actions I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-43
Figure 3.3-1 Proposed Projects West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-48
Figure 3.3-2 Proposed Actions West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-51
Figure 3.4-1 Proposed Projects I-580 Corridor/John T. Knox Freeway . . . . . I-55
Figure 3.4-2 Proposed Actions I-580 Corridor/John T. Knox Freeway . 1-57
Figure 3.5-1 Proposed Projects Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-62
Figure 3.5-2 Proposed Actions Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-64
Figure 3.6-1 Proposed Projects I-680 from Benicia-Martinez Bridge
to Rudgear Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-70
Figure 3.6-2 Proposed Actions I-680 from Benicia-Martinez Bridge
to Rudgear Corridor I-73
Figure 3.7-1 Proposed Projects 1-680 from Rudgear to I-580 1-78
Figure 3.7-2 Proposed Actions 1-680 from Rudgear to I-580 . . . . . . . . . . . I-8Z,
Figure 3.8-1 Proposed Projects SR.24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . I-S:
;� xt
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 3.8-2 Proposed Actions SR 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . I-87
Figure 39-1 Proposed Projects East-Central Commute I-93
Figure 3.9-2 Proposed Actions East-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-96
Figure 3.10-1 Proposed Projects East County Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . I-100
Figure 3.10-2 Proposed Actions East County Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-103
Figure 3.11-1 Proposed Projects 1-580 Altamont Pass 1-108
Figure 3.11-2 Proposed Actions I-580 Altamont Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-111
Volume Two
Figure 2.1 Developing the Land Use Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lI-6
Figure 2.2 Urbanized Land and Agricultural Preserves in Contra Costa County II-11
Figure 2.3 Households, 1.990 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17
Figure 2.4 Growth in Households, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19
Figure 2.5 Jobs, 1990 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-21
Figure 2.6 Growth in Jobs, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25
Figure 2.7 Jobs/Housing Ratios, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1-30
Figure 3-1 Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-33
Figure 3-1 Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-34
Figure 3-2 Contra Costa County CMP network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-36
Figure 4-1 Distribution of Home-Based Work Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45
Figure 4-2 Sub-Area-to-Sub-Area Home-Based Work Trip Exchanges, .
1990 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-48
Figure 4-3 1990 Peak Hour Trip Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-53
Figure 4-4 2010 Peak Hour Trip Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-54
Figure 5-1 Average Daily Traffic — Routes of Regional Significance in
West Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-59
Figure 5-2 Average Daily Traffic — Routes of Regional Significance in
Central Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-60
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 5-3 Average Daily Traffic — Routes of Regional Significance in
Lamorinda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-61
Figure 5-4 Average Daily Traffic — Routes of Regional Significance in
East Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-62
Figure 5-5 Average Daily Traffic — Routes of Regional Significance in
Tri-Valley Portions of Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . II-63
Figure 5-6 Congested Locations — West County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-69
Figure 5-7 Congested Locations — Central County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-70
Figure 5-8 Congested Locations — Lamorinda . II-71
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 5-9 Congested Locations — East County II-72
Figure 5-10 Congested Locations — Tri-Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-73
LIST OF TABLES
Volume One .
TABLE 3.1-1
Status of Proposed Projects — Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28
TABLE 3.1-2
TSOs and Actions — Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30
TABLE 3.2-1
Status of Proposed Projects — 1-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36
TABLE 3.2-2
ISOs and Actions — I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-39
TABLE 3.3-1
Status of Proposed Projects — West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . I-47
TABLE 3.3-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . 1-49
TABLE 3.4-1
Status of Proposed Projects — I-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway) I-54
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE 3.4-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — I-580/John T. Knox Freeway Corridor I-56
TABLE 3.5-1
Status of Proposed Projects — Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . I-61
TABLE 3.5-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . I-63
TABLE 3.6-1
Status of Proposed Projects — I-680 Corridor (from Benicia-Martinez
Bridge to Rudgear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-68
TABLE 3.6-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — I-680 Corridor from Benicia-Martinez
Bridge to Rudgear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. I-71
TABLE 3.7-1
Status of Proposed Projects — I-680 Corridor (from Rudgear to I-580) . I-76
TABLE 3.7-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — I-680 Corridor (from Rudgear to I-580) I-79
TA13LE 3.8-1
Status of Proposed Projects — Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . I-84
TA13LE 3.8-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — Route 24.and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . 1-86
TABLE 3.9-1
Status of Proposed Projects — East-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . I-92
TABLE 3.9-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — East-Central Commute . . . .. . . . . . . . . I-94
TABLE 3.10-1
Status of Proposed Projects — East County Corridor . . . . . . . . . I-99
TABLE 3.10-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions — East County Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . I-101
TABLE 3.11-1
Status of Proposed Projects — 1-580-Altamont Pass Corridor . . . . . . I-106
TABLE 3.11-2
Proposed TSOs and Actions - 1-580-Altamont Pass Corridor . . . . . . I-109
TABLE 7-1
Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . I-134
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES Continued
Volume Two
TABLE 2.1
Comparison of Household and.Job Forecasts . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1I-5
TABLE 2.2
1990-2010 Change in Total Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18
TABLE 2.3
1990-2010 Change in Total Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-23
TABLE 2.4
Ratio of Employed Residents to Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-28
TABLE 2.5
1990-2010 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1-29
TABLE 4-1
1990 County-to-County Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-43
TABLE 4-2
Home-Based-Work Daily Trip 1 Distribution Comparison . . . . . . . . . II-44
TABLE 4-3
Sub-area to Sub-area Trips, 1990 and 2010 Contra Costa County . . . . II-47
TABLE 4-4
Mode Choice Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-50
TABLE 4-5
AM Peak Hour Screenline Volumes — 1990, 2000 and 2010 . . . . . . . II-56
TABLE 4-6
PM Peak Hour Screenline Volumes — 1990, 2000 and 2010 . . . . . . . II-56
TABLE 5-1
Countywide (PM Peak) Performance Measures . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . I1-65
_ xv
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
1 INTRODUCTION
As with other metropolitan areas in the United States, the Bay Area is
experiencing a significant increase in the demands on its transportation system without a
parallel increase in funding for additional transportation facilities. Contra Costa County has
also been significantly affected by increased demand on the regional transportation system.
Since the end of World War II, the county has more than trebled in size and is now the third-
most populous county in the region. Recently it has also seen significant job growth.
This housing and job growth has led to increasing numbers of trips on the
county's roadways and transit systems as people travel between their homes, jobs, shopping
areas and other destinations. The first phases of post-World War 1I suburbanization were
supported by the then existing system of surface streets. Later phases of the suburban growth
of Contra Costa County were supported by the development of several freeways including
I-80 in the western county, I-680 through central county, State Route 24 to Berkeley and
Oakland and State Route 4 to Antioch. While early in the post-war era transportation
agencies developed freeways to meet the demands of suburban growth, funding has slowed for
such major new facilities and political support has dwindled. As this has occurred, local
jurisdictions have been compelled to look for new solutions and approaches to providing
mobility within Contra Costa County.
With the passage of Measure C in 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County
' established both a method for funding transportation improvements and a process for growth
management and transportation planning. Measure C responded to increasing congestion and
loss of mobility — as well as a lack of funding for new transportation projects — with an
increased sales tax and requirements for cooperative, multijurisdictional planning. One of the
main planning tools called for in Measure C is the development of a Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP). As noted in Measure C, the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority shall:
support efforts to develop and maintain an ongoing planning process
with the cities and the county through the funding and development of
a Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
The following document is the first of two volumes that make up the Contra
Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(CCTP). This first volume contains
the goals, traffic service objectives (TSOs) and actions that the CCTA has established for
e:\V0L1-1.D0c I-1 November 3, 1994
5
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
addressing transportation and land use issues in Contra Costa County, both countywide and
within the various sub-areas of the county. The second volume describes the land use and
traffic forecasts used to develop the CCTP, the regional transportation system and the Action
Plans upon whose direction and policies the CCTP builds.
11 Purpose of the Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
The overalloal of the Growth Management Program established b Measure
g _ g g Y
C is to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while
maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance
standards."'
The CCTP is one part of this growth management program. In addition to the
CCTP, the CCTA has developed a Strategic Plan, established local requirements for
compliance with the Growth Management Program, and funded the development of Action
Plans. The Strategic Plan defines strategies and priorities for funding transportation
imprnvementB in the county.
Under the Growth Management Program, each local government must comply
with five general requirements to receive funds for transportation improvements from the
CCTA:
► Adopt a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan that
establishes both level of service standards and performance standards for other
public facilities;
► Adopt a development mitigation program that ensures that new development
will pay its fair share of the costs of additional facilities needed to supportit;
► Participate in cooperative planning with other jurisdictions in the county;
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority, The Revised Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth
Management Program. Adopted August 3, 1988. Page 9.
B:1VOL.1-t.DOC 1-2 November 3, 1994
sonome z, Nopo
�, SACRA ENTO
FoidWd
1
,NAPA
SOLANO aAY�o
BeAi
:::...................
w;. Pitts Arg .�.
e Atordne2 a ntiocll
........... 0PON
0 Concord
i6mond C O N T R A C O S T A Brentwood
0 1
cerrho
` ::. Walnut Creek
LAI ne
Berkeley it 1 S A N
..
oArwie o J O A Q U I N
`fR ;iJzls Ian
Son
franduo }} �I
Son Ramon OTrory
z IN,
Castro
_ _ DuUin
�alley o
Livermore
SoudrSan OPleasonton
Hayward
Francisco I
O
O
I
» ::::
tt ALAMEDA I
Ouh /
u Fremont �•
klmwri
O Newor I �'
cabs O Redwo \.
h
SAN -------------------
`STANISLAUS
M A T E D Polo Nto�p 1
AV1pilas
S A N TA C L A R A �1
#Mmloin V'W*
ors sw.,ri
Regional Settinc
Figure 1 . 1
BLAYNEY
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners June 199.
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
► Develop a five-year capital improvement program to meet or maintain adopted
traffic service and performance standards ;
► Adopt a transportation demand management ordinance that complies with the
direction of the CCTA; and
► Addresses the balance of jobs and housing within the jurisdiction.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance are part of the
cooperative process of transportation and growth management in Contra Costa County. These
plans, funded in large part by the CCTA, address the cumulative impacts of existing and
forecast development on the regional transportation system. Each Action Plan addresses the
impacts and recommended actions for a sub-area of the county and for the designated
Regional Routes within those sub-areas. (The Regional Routes are shown in Figure 1.2.)
The Action Plans are prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs)
in the county. The RTPCs are made up of elected or appointed representatives from each
jurisdiction within the sub-area, both city and county. Each RTPC is assisted by a Technical
Advisory Committee made up of planning and traffic engineering staff rom those jurisdictions.
Within Contra Costa County, there are four RTPCs: the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
(TRANSPAC) committee in Central County, the Southwest Area Transportation Committee
(SWAT) which includes both the Lamorinda and Danville-San Ramon areas, and the
Transportation Planning Committee (TRANSPLAN) in East County. (The boundaries of
these committees is shown on Figure 1.2.)
Each RTPC will oversee one Action Plan except for SWAT, which will
oversee two. The Lamorinda cities together with Contra Costa County will prepare the State
Route 24/San Pablo Dam Road Action Plan. Danville and San Ramon and the County have
joined with Alameda County jurisdictions to form the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC). That group, which includes Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore as well as the
Contra Costa jurisdictions, will prepare the Tri-Valley Action Plan.
The Action Plans contain long-range assumptions about future land use within
the sub-area and surrounding region, traffic service objectives (TSOs) built on a quantifiable
measurement of effectiveness, specific actions to be implemented, and a process for review of
environmental documents and General Plan amendments. 'fie CCTP builds on the analysis
and recommendations of the Action Plans. The process for developing the Action Plans is
summarized iri the CCTA's Growth Management Implementation Documents.
B:\voLt-1.DOC 1-4 November 3, 1994
r
M- mon mom aft' m I'M
............................................ .
:............::..::: :::::...::
.......................... ::::::::.�::.�:::::::._:::.��.:':iS::i:�tSS;%+::G;::ti�' V1 ;�ttiii:�>:�::a:i:•r::•i::•s:�;:�:;:�>:±t.:::<.>:�::�i:�;:o>:•::�:;:i�::�i:�>i:..::.. �.. �::::::::::::::::.�.::.... .......
:.:::;::�;+>:'•»::::::.�::i:�. S::;kti?:`.:;�iiiii>i:i ::.;::..............:-.............................
. ::::�::::>::.�:::::::::. .. :::::ii»>s;i»:%>�<>iii;Si::Silt`ttS:;G>::>itttt:;:iSSSiiii;;;:;•.�r.:i•iii:n;;;;;:!........;:..,
::::^>i>i>iir:;i:�::::;»:�>:::::�>::...;.:<::>::;;;::`i'�i isiii::;:i:<;;•>;:ii:a::i:::iiit:%:;•:�.:::::::::::::: �"i:�i:
31
........................:....:::: v
QQ
............................... .......... .... ........... .. �S. .............. ��:�::: ti:�::�:'<�fi:?:�tti>:�::t:�3? it::i3> :zt<�5:;2;iiiiiiSii>::;.';•iiiiiii:•i»>:.
................. Jt iiiiiiiii�Stisi::c;Ji:,ii::::�iitt✓ttt:<.... ................ ..... ..... ,.> �::::::•:::..............................................::::':.�:.?!l'<:<::t::�iit:;'�tttttS:;�itii
::>::iitii::iit::i::i::t::S::i:�i::S:::. .:::::::::::<:::..�:.::.::.:.:...�..::...::`•>.�::::::::::.:::::. ...... .., :::•i:<;:;ii::S:::;:ittt:�ti:::SSi:%:iitt>tt;iiii::i::i::t>;>;:.>::.sr.:>:s;;..:. .:.........:::i!
:�::�::�>:.i:a;:�ii::�:�i:�i:o:�::�;::�;:�. :is:�i:�i:�i:�::•::•:,�:.5;.,':.': '�.'�:.�''';�::;'::�:�:�i:�:;�i:::•>>•�;:�>:: »::::.4:�>:�>:�>:>:�:;::oi;•is�>:�:�::�;:.>;::�>;:�>:�::�>:�;:::•>:.i:a:�i:�i:�iiii:•;:•i:�:<�. :a:�%::
..w«•..•wry.^':::::..:...::.:...:::.. ............. :. :' ♦. • ...................... .......................::::::::::::::::. :::::::::.::
• ...:..:�::::::::::..�:.:::::........ ..{............ ,�� �-. �� • �:::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::.:iii•:::::::::y4:�i:4i}i:��::.:i:i:itii ii::�i'•i:iii:::i:i:�ii
■
.:Sii::v:diii. • /
• �i:::: ::::ti::tiiii:<�:::i::: ::: ii<�i::i ittt::i:Jt:vfi isi'i:i:::i::i::ii:v:i:i:t:::::i'. � .: `:i::i:t:::t::i:' :::ii:p::::i::i::t::':::t'p:pii:.i:.}}�•�::.:::::::::::::•.:i:::::::::.�:
,�1 :. ........ :::::•:::::::::::::Y::..i:.i:.:Nt::ttitti:�itt�::titttt i:Ltt
yt
/''� 'i:�::.:::�::::�::)is�i:<.:isii::::�:::::::�::4:iiiiiiii:�i:::v:.ili:�i>i•:::::::::::..:. ... :.. ... �.......
• ;::{•:i>:is is i:a:»::•:::•:::o:i:�::o:�i:a:;:i>:•>. •..
G i--i ::.t1t:•'ii:is i::;•;;:;;:. Zi d c
•t
.i:.i:.:<.i:.;;;:.::�>i:.i:.i. :.iii:.i: � , :>:::i::i::is::::iR::::::i::i::it::tt`i:.. .i:.i:.i::.:::.i::.i:.i:.>:.::.::.:i:t:•
:::<:::;:t::t;:t::ttt::i:::<::�::t:�:2:%:i::i:;:tii::i::i::i::2:iiiS:::::.... .. ...........
:
>.:
■
' O
+�t>tii �:�i::�ittttti::ii::iit:fiititttti:4:•::
... ::..Y✓.�tt:4t i:iitii:�:
!!y�•
:w.�::::::..::•::•:::::::..:..
0
a
:.....:............:::::................::::.
e
r
0
� .rte +:.•':• n 'a
1
�-•'� !,
1
'17
1'
iii:> •.
....................:::::.......
...:::..::::..
....::- ` .............::::::iii:i:::::•:;;:,: iyt::v:::::::::
a >:a
z
"t1 y /
C
/ ^' 1
•�./• --��, F� �!�'' � and i ... r
a Imo'.....::-� •;; yy,;.
Y!t
f W,t,:
:•u
40
..........:...
�8•Rad •
V I
!i•,�''� ..;y �)+fJ+.t"y .. �o. �i�Siititti::iiS:;2�i.
r✓ y;Y '}:��:fir'+.tai::•.
z z Q C
a �
o m
:
O �
:
,
R. R.
•' • IL
IM
UQ
CD
p '
• m
R r
oy
< O \ � �r�!S''>?i YrS.:.t%� 3?:3't.•'� %' �itt:::r!''�..�..':
C ::sir �•:� Z .' ::i::>><:>::'
pCD <v• lo6u'B
411,
CD
0
F \ 4
1 •US ........ M
O
CD
9 ;♦
rf• O \ psq iiiii � ;..
O
Q•
z \
t/
O
u
z
j f
................................
�-,• ,•++
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
' The CCTP is the long-range transportation planning document prepared and
adopted by the CCTA. It is intended to provide the overall direction in Contra Costa County
for a coordinated approach to achieving and maintaining a balanced and functioning
transportation system within the county as well as strengthened links between land use
decisions and transportation. Itis also intended to knit together the Action Plans. The CCTP
provides a forum for the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) to address
issues of mutual concern and to arrive at a coordinated approach that achieves their goals and
that establishes a consistent countywide approach.
After its completion, the CCTA could use the CCTP to meet the requirements
of AB 3705, the State law that allows the preparation of countywide transportation plans.
This State legislation is permissive. It allows the countywide transportation plans to contain
(but does not limit them to): 1 j recommendations for major improvements to major arterials,
the State highway system and the public transit facilities; 2) consideration of transportation
system management alternatives designed t^ increase the capacity of the system to move
people and goods; and 3) consideration of transportation impacts associated with land use
development under adopted General Plans and population forecasts. The legislation suggests
that, once adopted, a countywide transportation plan would be the primary basis for MTC's
�'- Regional Transportation Plan as it applies to Contra Costa County and would be the basis for
preparing the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
1.2 Relationship to other plans and programs
Congestion Management Program. As directed by State law, the
jurisdictions of Contra Costa County must meet the requirements of the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) in addition to the Measure C Growth Management Program.
Since the State used Contra Costa's Growth Management Program as a model in developing
the CMP legislation, there is considerable overlap between the two programs. Both require
the adoption of TDM ordinances, the establishment of performance standards for the
transportation system, the creation of a process to analyze the impact of land use changes on
the regional transportation system and a capital improvement program to maintain the regional
transportation system. Both also require local compliance with each program for local
jurisdictions to receive funds for transportation improvements through these programs.
There are differences as well between the Growth Management Program and
the CMP requirements. The Growth Management Program allows greater flexibility in
setting standards for Regional Routes but establishes standards for local roads and requires
performance standards for additional public services such as, fire, police, and water and
WWOLI-LDOC I-b November 3, 1994
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction
sanitary sewer. The Growth Management Program requires greater consideration of the i
balance between jobs and housing within each community.
The CCTA also serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Contra
Costa County with the responsibility for preparing and implementing the county's CMP.
Air Quality Planning. Bothfederal and State legislation sets standards for
air quality and requires the preparation of plans to remedy violations of those standards.
Within the Bay Area, two plans have been adopted to address air quality violations. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the 1982 Air Quality Plan as the
required State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet federal requirements. Since then the federal
42 government adopted amendments to the federal Clean Air Act in 1990. In response, the
BAAQMD has adopted an "Attainment-Contingency Plan" for the federal carbon monoxide
standard and both an "Attainment Plan" and a "Maintenance Plan" for the federal ozone
standard. (The BAAQMD is requesting that the federal government redesignate the Bay Area
as an attainment area for the ozone standard. The attainment plan will remain in force until
this redesignation occurs.) The BAAQMD also adopted the Bay Area '91 Gean Air Plan
(CAP) to meet new requirements of the California Clean Air Act.
Both the plans to meet the federal and State requirements include
transportation control measures (TCMs). These TCMs are designed to reduce air pollution 't
caused by automobiles and other transportation facilities. They include, for example,
maintaining and expanding traffic signal timing programs (federal TCMs 24 and 25), adopting
an employer-based trip reduction ordinance (State TCM 2), improving access to rail transit
(State TCM 5), constructing HOV and express bus lanes on freeways (State TCM 8),
encouraging greater transit use and carpooling among students (State TCM 10) and
encouraging greater density near transit centers (State TCM 18).
The Growth Management Program established by Measure C also incorporates
some of these TCMs as a way of improving the functioning of the regional transportation
system. These measures include the requirement that local jurisdictions adopt a Travel
Demand Management Ordinance to discourage single-occupant vehicle trips and increase
vehicle occupancy within the county. The Growth Management Program does not require
these measures, however, to meet the provisions of.the air quality plans. Although Measure
C does not explicitly include air quality requirements for the Growth Management Program,
the State CMP legislation does. It requires CMPs to conform to air quality emissions
measures. The CCTP will review and incorporate, as appropriate, those TCMs that are not
already part of the Growth Management Program requirements.
aavoua.noC 1-7 November 3, 1994
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Transportation System.
State and federal law requires the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to prepare
and update periodically a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The most recent RTP was
adopted in 1994. The new RTP responds to both changes in conditions and transportation
needs and changes in federal and State legislation, especially the new federal Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
I
The RTP provides the overall, long-range direction for the transportation
system in the Bay Area just as the CCTP will provide similar direction for Contra Costa
County. ISTEA requires the RTP to plan for improvements to the regional transportation
system over the next 20 years and it requires the RTP to include a financial plan that shows
how it can be implemented within the 20-year time frame.
The new federal act also established 15 criteria that MTC and all other similar
transportation planning agencies in the country must consider when developing their RTP.
These new criteria expand the scope of the RTP to include a consideration of its effect on
land use and other social, economic, energy and environmental concerns. It also emphasizes
the preservation of existing transportation facilities, the relief of congestion within the region
and the connection of the region to adjoining areas.
State legislation requires each CMP to be consistent with the RTP that applies
to its county, just as the RTP must be consistent with the State Transportation Plan and
applicable air quality plans. There is no similar requirement for countywide:,.transportation
plans. To obtain funding through almost all State and federal sources, however, projects must
be included in the RTP.
Both the CCTP and CMP will draw from the Major Investment Studies (MIS)
prepared to meet federal requirements. The MIS process helps shape major transportation
investments in transportation corridors. This federal requirement requires an analysis of the
effectiveness of different travel modes and investments in meeting transportation issues as well
as their environmental impacts. Within Contra Costa County currently, MISs are.being
prepared for the.SR4 gap closure project in West County, the SR242 widening and the SR4
widening between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue in East County.
B:Wou-d.00C 1-8 November 3, 1994
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction
1.3 Contents of the.Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
The CCTP is organized into two volumes of which this volume is the first.
The first volume contains the goals and traffic service objectives (TSOs) — and the actions
and projects proposed to implement those goals and TSOs. The second volume contains the
background information and analysis as well as a summary of the policies and proposed
actions of the Action Plans upon which the CCTP builds.
Volume One has four sections including this introduction. The second section
of the CCTP outlines the goals, TSOs and actions that have regional or countywide
significance. Following this section is a discussion of the various issue areas that the CCTP
will address. For each issue area addressed, the CCTP describes the issues facing that issue
area, lists the TSOs for those areas, and outlines the proposed improvement projects and other
proposed actions that would help achieve the TSOs. The CCTP addresses eleven issue areas
from the Carquinez Bridge and I-80 corridor in the west to the East County commute
(including Vasco Road and Byron Highway) and the I-580-Altamont Pass commute in the
east. Finally, the CCTP outlines future actions that CCTA, RTPCs, local jurisdictions and
regional agencies will investigate for inclusion in updates of the CCTP.
1.4 Progress To Date
This draft of the CCTP is built on information from all five of therelimin
P az'Y
draft Action Plans available as of September 1994. This information includes both data on
existing and future travel conditions and adopted or potential goals, objectives and actions.
Volume One of the CCTP draws from the goals, objectives and actions of the preliminary
draft Action Plans for the TSOs and actions for each corridor outlined in Chapter 3 as well as
for the countywide objectives and actions discussed in Chapter 2. Volume Two, which
contains the background information on which the CCTP is based, also draws extensively on
the information and analysis developed for each Action Plan.
e:woLI-l.Doc I-9 November 3, 1994
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
BAVOLi-LDW I-10 November 3, 1994
2 COUNTYWIDE GOALS, TRAFFIC SERVICE
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
2.1 Goals
Building on the goals expressed in the Measure C legislation and responding
to the comments received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee's, the CCTA
has developed the following overall goals for the CCTP:
► Enhance mobility;
► Improve safety;
P. Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use;
► Coordinate local land use planning and regional transportation planning;
► Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, energy
efficiency, community character and other environmental factors;
► Maintain the existing transportation system;
► Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced
mobility; and
► Manage congestion.
These goals form the foundation of the TSOs recommended in the CCTP and
the actions designed to meet those TSOs.
These goals outline the overall aims of the CCTP. To measure how well
these goals are being met, the objectives will establish targets for the CCTA and the county to
achieve. These targets can be measured quantitatively to determine whether they have been
or are being achieved. The objectives are followed by actions that would help achieve them.
BAVOLI-z.DOC I-11 November 3, 1994
Goals Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The objectives and actions are drawn from the preliminary draft Action Plans
and existing CCTA policies. (The source of the objectives and actions are enclosed in
brackets.)
2.2 Potential Countywide Objectives
While Chapter 3 lists proposed objectives and actions for each issue area .
within Contra Costa County, there are also several potential objectives for measuring how
well the CCTP is achieving its goals countywide. The different Action Plans have identified
some objectives that apply not only within that planning area but could be applied throughout
the county. The objectives for particular roadways rely on measurable targets. These TSOs
include hours of congestion along freeway segments and transit/HOV share as well as more
traditional level-of-service measures. The Action Plans are also generating objectives and
actions that can form the basis for new or modified countywide programs. The Authority will
build on the recommendations of the Action Plans to develop the countywide objectives and
actions in the CCTP. Figure 2.1 illustrates some of the TSOs.for Regional Routes proposed
in the various Action Plans.
Ensuring Mobility. Ensuring mobility is a primary goal of the CCTP, both
for itself and for its role in supporting the economic vitality of the county. Forecasts suggest
that the ease with which vehicles negotiate the regional transportation system — that is, their
mobility will diminish as the county and region add jobs and housing. Objectives could
refer to targets for miles of congested roadway or hours of delay. Alternatively, the CCTP
could set a goal for an aggregate level of capacity that includes both SOV, HOV and transit.
The Action Plans have suggested several objectives related to mobility. For
example, Central County is considering the following two objectives:
► Minimum average speed of 30 miles per hour on freeways and 15 miles per
hour on principal arterials. [from Central County]
P. For roadway segments with a delay index' of 2.0 or less, maintain current
levels. Improve segments with a delay index greater than 2.0 to 2.0 or better.
[from Central County]
' "Delay index" is the ratio of travel time between two points in the congested peak
hour and uncongested off-peak hour.
B:\V0L1-2.D0C I-12 November 3, 1994
a /
L; _.. ................
. ..........
_ _ ori
.............. :...
i
j.
Z � O
O.
O:a Q v
-C.W y
._. �►/,' V�
,x .f...
O
.s�D /.. .II
./. / ....... sv
' a a
ijr
{ C Z
t/
a 3`. / r ..�.E \\
916
C4 /
0.
r Y
\� 1
C CLlZ
\ ' D C a. :\Jl 1 O
,i
V {
,
jo
JA
J C4 E. _ 0
` � :�`� S- I •~�"•0.(y„\\` v ,. �: '�/\' J v� / ' rrQ '
Lu
� {
: layJs
o
aa.
J
0,FRO
� 3
Q
O
a C4
! m �. S h
Z' y X O
Q C4
.
0 II,
Goals Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
1
Alternatives to the Single-Occupant Vehicle. The increased use of high-
occupancy vehicles — both carpools and buses — could make more efficient use of existing
roadway capacity and limit the forecast growth in congestion on the county's roadways. In
addition, shifting trips onto rail and ferry transit could reduce forecast impacts on the roadway
system. The potential objective could be stated in terms of the share of trips made by transit
or carpools. The objective could focus on all trips, only home-based work trips, or only
home-based work trips made during the commute.
Alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle are important both for commuters
and for those without access to a private vehicle. These citizens, who include schoolchildren,
the disabled, the elderly and the poor, depend on transit, para-transit or other persons to get
around.
As with mobility, the Action Plans have put forward several potential
' objectives for encouraging alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle that could be applied
countywide. They include, for example, the following potential objectives being considered
in West and Central County:
► Decrease single-occupant vehicle trips to meet BAAQMD's average vehicle
ridership performance objective of 1.35 by 1999. [from West County]
► Achieve the vehicle-employee ridership ER goals for major employment
PN ) g J P Yment
generators, as specified by the BAAQMD: 0.83 for 1995, 0.80 for 1996,
0.77 for 1997 and 0.74 for 1998 and 1999. [from Central County]
► Increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips on Routes of Regional
Significance in the peak period to 1.2 by 2010. [from Central County]
► _ Achieve an average utilization rate of 50 percent for park and ride lots by the
year 2000. [from West County]
► Attain an increase in the proportion of peak period work trips made on transit
of 25 percent by the year 2000, and 50 percent by 2010. [from Central
County]
i
1 `
e:w0w-2.n0c 1-14 Novembcr 3, 1994
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Goals
Land Use and Transportation Planning. One of the fundamental principles
of the Action Plan process is the linking of planned development to transportation projects and
programs. Each Action Plan is considering what transportation improvements are needed to
serve planned land use and what land use changes could be made to limit the impact of
development on the transportation system. In addition, the Growth Management Program
requires an analysis of the impacts of large new developments.
TRANSPLAN, the RTPC preparing the East County Action Plan, is
considering a procedure for reviewing new projects for consistency with Action Plan
requirements. This procedure would apply to projects that generate more than 100 peak
period trips. Each project would be reviewed by a subcommittee of elected officials against a
set of review criteria. These criteria define whether the project would meet the growth
management requirements of the East County Action Plan. Specifically, a project would meet
the requirements if 1) it would not cause violations of TSOs even when added to other
approved developments, 2) if it causes violations, the project also incorporates new mitigation
measures to meet the TSOs, or 3) if it causes violations, the project incorporates "in-lieu"
measures such as a design that supports transit or pedestrian use or construction of a portion
of regional transportation improvement (such as the SR 4 Bypass of Buchanan Bypass).
The West County Action Plan addressing the issue of commuting along I-80
through West County, is considering an objective of achieving a jobs-housing balance of at
least 0.90 by 1995 in areas along the I-80 corridor east of Contra Costa County. '
Congestion. Related to ensuring mobility is the goal of managing or
"containing" congestion. Congestion is defined most commonly by level-of-service measures
above LOS E or F, volume-to-capacity ratios above 0.9, hours of delay or similar measures.
The Action Plans have these and similar measures in the TSOs for many of the Routes of
Regional Significance. This section of the CCTP, however, focuses on overall, countywide
objectives and these measures may be less appropriate at this scale. One frequently-used
measure of overall functioning of transportation systems is miles of congested roadway. The
CCTP could set a percentage of all roadways as the objective for congestion — "no more than
25 percent of roadway miles at LOS F in 2010," for example.
The proposed objective being considered for congestion on SR 4 in East
County, looks at the duration of peak period congestion. This objective, which states that this
congestion should be no longer than 2.5 hours in the morning and 2.25 hours in the evening,
could be applied countywide.
iV
` 1
e:woLi-z.noC I-15 November 3, 1994
' Goals Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Congestion, however, has two faces — it inconveniences the motorist because
trips take longer, but it also makes other modes of travel, such as bus, BART or carpooling,
more attractive. Corridors with the highest levels of automobile congestion are also often
those with the highest transit ridership. As such, reductions in congestion may work against
goals to increase transit ridership. The West County Action Plan recognizes this. This
Action Plan does not contain TSOs for reducing congestion on.1-80.
2.3 Potential Countywide Actions
The actions outlined in Chapter 3 for each issue area will help meet the
countywide objectives of CCTP as well as the objectives for the specific corridor. Some
actions, however, will be undertaken throughout the county, whether to implement existing
regional requirements (such as the BAAQMD AVRNER requirements) and CCTA programs
or to put into effect new actions identified as part of the CCTP. The following potential
countywide actions, which have been drawn from existing CCTA programs and the
preliminary draft Action Plans, are suggested for possible incorporation into the CCTP.
EXISTING CCTA PROGRAMS
► Provide funds, through grants to transit agencies, that increase ridership,
efficiency and coordination among the transit agencies.
► Provide funds to develop and promote the use of park-and-ride lots in the
county.
► Provide funds to develop and promote the use of carpools and vanpools in the
' county.
IN. Continue working with local jurisdictions to implement the CCTA's Travel
Demand Management Policy requirements and to update and improve the
CCTA's model TDM Ordinance to reflect changing circumstances.
► Review and update, as necessary, the Countywide Comprehensive .
Transportation Plan every two years to ensure that it addresses changing
conditions and issues.
BAVOLI-2.DOC 1-16 November 3, 1994
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Goals ,
► Maintain and update periodically the CCTA's travel demand model to provide
local jurisdictions and RTPCs with a tool for assessing the impacts of
proposed new developments and general plan amendments.
► Maintain and update, as necessary, the CCTA's process for notification of
RTPCs of projects that would generate more than 100 peak hour trips and
require environmental review.
► Provide funds to local jurisdictions, when in compliance with Growth
Management Program requirements, for local, subregional and regional street
maintenance and improvements, especially projects that improve major
arterials.
WEST COUNTY
Transit
► Support efforts underway by MTC to improve fare, transfer, and schedule
coordination to make it easier to get from one subregion to another.
►
Encourage coordination among cities, developers, transit operators and other ,
agencies in incorporating transit needs in the design of roadways. This
coordination should cover the placement of bus stops at regular intervals so
that areas are adequately served, provision of bus turnouts along major transit
routes where feasible and desirable, and preferential treatment for transit
vehicles to improve travel times (coordinated signal timing, signal preemption,
exclusive transit lanes, bus layover/staging areas and other service
considerations).
P. Encourage station designs that. emphasize safety and comfort, ensure adequate
bus loading zones and parking supply in convenient proximity to BART ,
loading platforms, and provide for future facility expansion.
Transit Centers and Park-and-Ride Lots ,
► Develop transit centers that include transfer points for local to express bus
systems; combine with park-and-ride lots,where possible. ,
► Develop a comprehensive plan for park-and-ride lots in the county and a
process for regional review of park-and-ride lot placement and design with
e:wota-IDOC 1-17 November 3, 1994
Goals Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Caltrans, transit operators and jurisdictions. Encourage interim and
permanent park-and-ride lots as part of roadway improvement projects.
rTravel Demand Management
► In conjunction with the transit operators and "RIDES", provide ride-matching
services, facilitate formation of vanpool/shuttle service programs, and promote
transit usage.
Alternative Travel Modes
► Provide bicycle access lanes to transit stations and bicycle lockers at the
stations.
Land Use
► Evaluate and propose land use changes along regional transit routes and near
BART stations and other transit stations that would facilitate transit use and
improve jobs-housing balance. Encourage mixed-use development, high-
-employment
igh-
-employment commercial, and higher density residential development that does
not conflict with neighborhood preservation, economic enhancement and other
fiscal considerations.
► Work with Solano and Alameda Counties to address regional land use issues.
Coordinate Transit Service with Land Use Development
P. Involve transit operators in development project review to identify transit
service needs and recommend project-specific or area-specific improvements
as conditions for project approval at locations where high intensity
development is forecast.
► Integrate transit facility design with surrounding areas to minimize
neighborhood impact.
CENTRAL COUNTY
► Encourage the provision of meaningful feeder service to BART extensions.
anvoLI-2.00C I-18 November 3, 1994
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Goals ,
► Support the study of a comprehensive HOV system. If the study finds that
this HOV system would be successful, consider the use of all funding sources,
including subregional mitigation fees.
► Encourage local jurisdictions to promote transit use, priority for carpools at
employment centers, and continued support of TDM programs.
► Implement a signal metering and synchronization system to discourage use of
arterial routes as bypass routes for the regional freeway system.
EAST COUNTY
► Construct ark-and-ride lots at strategic locations to provide maximum
opportunity for transit use and ridesharing.
► Conduct a program to promote telecommuting as a transportation alternative,
including these components:
• Provide information to employers on the benefits of telecommuting
and how they can set up a program for their employees. ,
• Provide information and technical assistance to developers and
homeowner association regarding how to set up a telecommute center.
Activities might include mailings, seminars and active outreach.
• Provide information and assistance to individuals on how to most
effectively telecommute, and how to work with their employers to
allow it.
• Require telecommute centers in new developments above a certain size
that have not yet been approved. If below a certain size, require in-
lieu payment or organize with other smaller projects to develop one '
center.
The preceding summary of actions is included to stimulate discussion of
countywide actions that the CCTA could include in the CCTP. The CCTA will need to
review these potential countywide actions to identify which provide the best and most feasible
ways of achieving its goals. The CCTA could incorporate these actions — or refinements of
them — into the final Plan. The Draft Plan, which will be released for general public review,
will contain a set of draft countywide actions. The objectives and actions in the Final Plan
will represent the Authority's commitment for implementation and monitoring after adoption.
aAvou-z.00C I-19 November 3, 1994
Goals Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
2.4 Programmed and Track 1 Projects
' The tables of projects contained in Chapter 2 distinguish among projects that
are programmed or under construction, projects in MTC's Track 1, and projects that could be
included in MTC's Track 2 funding package. Track 1 refers to those projects that MTC has
included in its Regional Transportation Plan that could be funded with expected revenues.
Track 2 refers to those projects without forecast revenues. MTC plans to explore
opportunities for developing a package of new revenues sources to fund some of these
potential Track 2 projects. At present, however, the projects listed as candidate Track 2
projects have no — or insufficient — funding identified for them.
Figure 2.2 on the following page identifies those projects in Contra Costa
County that are either programmed or included within MTC's Track 1.
i
1
1
1 .
BAVOLI-2.DOC 1-20 November 3, 1994
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
r� >r r �r •r r r +� rr �ar rr r � ar r� r� r�
T iq L p
xx
o r Z
o. ..r O
Q o
-o w
RIF
5 o pN .' 7 0
D
Y
i
—I nv o { ♦ m
coo g = ♦i ?� 7 � �•` �
�- r
DCA
W
CD
o
M.Z o nm �Z
o
o -0 m
Y
■
-
�3
nod/:
—0 -• `
na'D1 K / / o J o m
77 CL
mCO Ln 0 cr
co
CL5 o
{
CL 0
CL
N '
0m Aj O Q Q ° :O r
_ _ Q O N n
o 3 { 3 a- w D p : SS22 ' n
- TD
I
o
3� o
„ X3 07
F
�Q
> o 7`:: ` o
CD
3< r) _.Az
CL z;r
Al
C CD
D�, .. ID
Tc
0 CL Val o
ol 3: LOU
�.0 /� -; i . D T� o� "( 90 Q c� TA J h o
� " o pD fti.° c'nc° � , 7c = io3 =o..,..� n ? No
rn �� 3 p m c° °_, 3 p =3 p, m } a
`` ° 3 ° 7M M n < i< <°
m �x Wim 0.
° .,4:� w ° p J €; n3 :.�N
i
€ o �: m N o� �{c o �
o
t3 _ o
CD
-.
� o, 'a Vit, ; ° �,
o c
No I _,
09,
:CL-T 2' f' ��n , m �?
} 3 — `
11 cn;
CL
^, ao
r`G i f 4'•
F `
3 =o = ca:
}
j ? \ f
rn
log •r
ZF
J O
CLi
` � <� €.::)� �• . iii �.�... s { A \l••. _— s,, ,.
i \ 3
CC o
i < •� ��� 1 • ..............
mI<
{ •
3 ., ; ..... }'.�...
f \
o "0 11
3
.� - _ _ u
\ Q ss I1
� • 1
{
•y t , � Z
` m d
;:..
n
.........
o
O( nn
0
p. fD
DIA m
CL
cZ '
...... . . Z :., I
to
:
n
r
z
^+'f f
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
F
3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE
This chapter of the CCTP addresses regional transportation issues within
Contra Costa County. It focuses on different transportation issue areas in the county and the
problems of ensuring mobility and accessibility within and through them. The general
location of each issue area is shown in Figure 3.1. For each of these areas, this chapter of
the CCTP will describe the existing and future problems there, the recommended Traffic
' Service Objectives (TSOs) for each, and the actions — both specific transportation projects
and other actions — proposed to meet those TSOs.
' Issues. Resolving the issues described below will require analysis and
resolution of three controlling factors: supply, demand and operations. All of these raise
difficult questions. The demand for an expanded supply of transportation facilities is a
function both of population and job increases and the pattern that new land uses take. It can
be addressed through changes in land use patterns and site design, telecommunications,
congestion pricing, incentives for carpooling and transit use and programs that limit trip
making in general.
' Increasing supply — that is, the size and capacity of the facilities in the
corridor — is difficult given the limited funds available to make improvements. Perhaps as
importantly, these improvements can create additional problems. Increased capacity can
encourage increased trip-making resulting in the demand for even more facilities. It can also
have secondary environmental impacts — noise, air pollution, habitat loss — that make such
improvements controversial. The expansion of both roadways and transit present difficulties.
Changes in the operation of facilities can also help to resolve transportation
issues. The placement of toll plazas, the coordination of traffic signals, the coordination of
transit schedules, ramp metering and HOV lanes can all address problems by improving the
efficiency of the existing regional transportation system. With the end of the "interstate era"
with its substantial federal support, making the most of existing facilities has become a basic
' tenet for transportation investments through the year 2000.
eav01a-345.noc 1-23 Novcmbcr 2, 1994
• / ..........s .._.....J
a„
'G
:
......••1 M.r'. l�' .. N Q .... 00 O
ifi ii �� •E
i "'`'^��•L.—ter-.`. ' i .'� �v,......_........' / .. Va
io
a:J: i
wj
fir
• liE \\��.=�.J• Y .
'�. �•-°•`t;-ter""' .. ...
1 An
i
z � .
ci
Yu
:.
JA
LU
Js
- -
r
• YJ
r t �
..,
,
f
` � ,�.�� ,�. 1: ,, ..lam,. ✓ i �../ /
kms,
o 17
L_.LLj
J j /
' �' 7 ' .: „ • q�lAliCL
irn
•Q I(\Jt' j/ �� i\:$: �Z~: �...ar";kms ` Y r- iS''�. � � � .��� ����
\
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
3.1 Carquinez Bridge
The Carquinez Bridge is the main gateway into western Contra Costa County
from the north along I-80. It carries both major commute traffic to and from the growing
suburban areas of Solano County and significant state and national trucking traffic from
Sacramento and the east. Together, these two types of traffic make the I-80 corridor over the
Carquinez Bridge one of the most congested in the state.
' The bridge itself is made up of two structures, both of which carry three lanes
of traffic. The western span is the older of the structures and Caltrans is investigating
replacing it (or supplementing it) with a new western span. As with other bridges in the Bay
' Area, the Carquinez Bridge has a toll plaza, like the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, located on the
eastbound direction of I-80 past the bridge itself.
Although the majority of trips from Solano County and east on the I-80
corridor cross the Carquinez Bridge, two other modes of commuting are available. The
Vallejo ferry carries some commute trips from Vallejo to San Francisco. In addition, the
Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK rail service carry some other commute trips between San
Jose and the East Bay on the one hand and Solano County and Sacramento on the other.
Vallejo transit provides express bus service over the bridge during the commute period. This
express bus service, which runs from Fairfield, Vallejo and Suisun City to BART'S El Cerrito
del Norte station, frequently operates above capacity (standing room only) during peak
periods.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Currently, demand at the Carquinez Bridge exceeds capacity during
peak periods. The average daily traffic across is about 105,000 vehicles. Modelling suggests
that average daily demand across the bridge will increase by about 30 percent between 1990
and 2010, up to 134,700 vehicles. This forecast increase will result primarily from housing
growth north of the bridge (without compensating increases in jobs) and from continued job
growth south of the bridge (without compensating increases in housing supply). Although
jobs in Solano County between 1990 and 2010 will grow at a faster rate than employed
residents will, the county will still add more workers than jobs during that period. Since
' ABAG forecasts that there will be one employed resident for every 0.8 jobs in the county, at
least one of every five workers will have to commute out of Solano County for work.
BAYOU-345.noC I-25 November 2, 1994
1
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
r
Supply. Bridges are among the most expensive transportation facilities to
build and to maintain. Without increases in their capacity, however, they can become
significant "bottlenecks" on the regional transportation system. The Carquinez Bridge is
currently at capacity during peak commute hours and Caltrans is investigating the construction
of a new western span. (The 1993 Contra Costa CMP includes about $380 million for this
project.) The bridge project would allow for the addition of an HOV lane southbound. The
new HOV lane would encourage carpooling and improve express bus access from Solano
County into West County. Restriping the northbound span to add an HOV lane will also be
considered as part of the bridge project.
Operation. In addition to the significant issues of supply and demand, one '
key issue of operation of the bridge is being discussed. As with the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, '
the placement of the toll plaza and the direction of toll collection have become controversial.
Unlike the bridges into San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula, the Carquinez and
Benicia-Martinez Bridges collect tolls as vehicles go out from the center of the Bay Area, '
rather than as they go towards it. This means that traffic is "metered" in the peak direction
of the evening commute out of Contra Costa County; morning commute trips are not
"metered" into Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa jurisdictions would prefer that Caltrans move the toll plaza to
the southbound direction on the Solano County side of the strait. Supporters of the move
hope that it would smooth out the commute on 1-80 through at least the northern parts of
Contra Costa County although it could create some backup into Vallejo during the morning
commute. Caltrans has prepared the "Carquinez Bridge Traffic Study" to look at, among
other things, the effects of potential changes in the placement of the toll plaza. The potential
replacement of the toll booths with an automatic vehicle identification system for assessing
tolls on vehicles crossing the bridge would limit the "metering" effect that toll taking would '
have on traffic across the bridge.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS '
The main project being proposed is the construction of a new Carquinez
Bridge span to the west of the existing bridges. This span would increase roadway capacity
across the Carquinez Strait. As part of this project, the West County Action Plan suggests a
broader look at other aspects of the crossing, including changes in the location and direction
of the toll plaza; additional of HOV lanes on the bridge, and possible use of the bridge for ,
rail transit. The detailed list of projects is shown in Table 3.1-1 below.
1
r
B:woLi-345.00c 1-26 November 2, 1994
r
r
Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
For the Carquinez Bridge, WCCTAC is considering two types of traffic
' service objectives. The first is the establishment of objectives — based on additional study —
for transit trips across the bridge. The second is the encouragement of additional job growth
in Solano County so that the overall ratio of jobs to employed residents for new development
in the county is 0.9 new jobs for each new employed resident. Representative actions being
considered include:
' • Expanding and encouraging HOV use over the bridge by adding lanes and
making the toll crossing free for carpools;
' • Reversing the direction of toll collection to "meter" trips into West County;
• Expanding transit capacity by increasing the frequency of existing service,
improving rail alternatives and working to extend.BART across the bridge,
and
• Working with Solano County to affect land use and development.
Table 3.1-2 outlines these TSOs and actions in greater detail.
1
&NVOL1-345MOC I-27 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
TABLE 3.1-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS -- CARQUINEZ BRIDGE
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Trach 1
I-80 *Atlas to the Carquinez Bridge HOV lanes '
San Pablo Ave. * Hercules Road reconstruction
Candidate Track 2
1-80 Carquinez Bridge Construct new bridge span '
San Pablo Ave. * Cummings Skyway Construct new intersection
* Parker Ave. Intersection improvements
Cummings Skyway * SR 4 to San Pablo Ave. Extend to San Pablo Ave.tUpgrade interchange with I- '
80/Provide truck climbing lanes
BART Crockett Extend BART
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994
RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2 '
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
B:woLt-345.Doc 1-28 November 2, 1994
Figure 3.7-1 .::........
l
' Proposed Projects
Carquinez Bridge
Freeway
.. Arterial ._......._._...-,.,,
New freeway a �•:` <��.��
e000ssonose New Roadway ._......._._......,......,......_.. ....
A
Roadway Widening <<'
' .sS 10 L A N O
Ix3r'
New NOV Lanes {
............. Road Reconstruction
\a :
}--�---�-1 Light Rail System
' ® New or Upgraded �: 1
Interchange/Intersection
Grade Separation
Comhutl
Co�quitwzn i
9e�
�:Ea"Cu nqs '�80
Skwy.w,rti .
interc6nso of 1-80 Corridor>
j 1
:New ntanecfionat- ` � `.
. Cumntrgs Skwp - ---,
tCnxo Crockett
ones.
�
r"s 1 �.
\A .
Rodeo lop
O 1-80 HOV Ion.Atlas b \
/f Corqutnez
' Road onapuc►on - / or _ ...
:.in Heradas i
�! C 0: N T R A ��-
C 'O S T A
Pinole - -�
' See To6le 3.1-1 For a more detailed description of projects.
aLAYNEY
' DYETT s.......�r..w....
EH
e e e c c c y a a• e e oG .
0 0 0 0 0 0 •u � ;, .0 8 � � .� d e o Q
v v - oo c a m 'v 'v F U
v, on m on an an eq V O d on m ... » h •� U U
Oa � u � � � u ci°i � � U % •e u a � u c� F > U � U
a .a .3L 3u
o u
o o 3 �,
� OF
' F w d = h
C Clu
h V LY. > C1 O a0. •p
3 c g .= y 4 m d $ alus
0 p .�.1 ,s,, C •p W d •� .
x O O � .% •� O C - V K C
rte. C O � O f4
cc, 00
ba
u E u o e
cc an
vm 5 3 ° e U v U a m u
C « q y d W
% O.
c a E lu l 3 a E o aci
v w c v u E o o c $ o ,, v ° cc '
z U a v a v� V 3 c
y
� Y
OG •� � Q � m Q
C
•p .Y. c a
W W U
W
40
a
V o y 00 > g
r
N Y o c C s o
Q u ae •� �, ° u
.� ale � c •v e u _o t U
Ki Q F w •° ° •� t � c �
iz o
YYMMyy � � y d d
O � h V
Figure 3.1-2
Proposed Actions r
Carquinez BridgeWork-;thy.%
cgrider nenf�mt ec C7' Cetie-Ca+ny.
Park&Ride lots \ \y
r . _...._..._...._._............
_. ..
Work with responsible
r
po ,
agencies to determin*an
_._
appropriate limited stops € . rl ;
bus service for the U(� p
long-distance commuter. "•"'i M I I v I0 -- r w«k a SaMd eatr
a Seisno 6awnP..._. K'
;i 10 L A N O
i
1 a
DDnidgn b"Wwlbowd F&;c
�`
' �• < _ :: -
_ Cors d..Tell IncnpN 1
<t `
BARE b rec)wlf a .
__
. .
Ctpilal lenp,w.n,.nb -... tom..
roc e
{�
41
Rodeof—Rk6_iod
6461'nH krry.«.,v i
55 3_5
C O N T R A' �-
i C O S T A
sic
/ sP..d timid sign,on M
i
-- ---- ----- - - - - 4
-Z•�•� .'f i••• - ----------
Pinole
DMbp Pork•n•Rid.tali`'":>' .
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
'
SLAY Ey
w...
r..�r..r..�.
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft '
3.2 I-80 Corridor
The I-80 corridor is one of the most congested corridors in the Bay Area. In
West County, traffic in the I-80 corridor is split between local trips, through trips and trips
with either destinations or origins in West County. About half of the trips on 1-80 itself are
regional commute and interstate traffic that travel through West County from the gateway at
the Carquinez Bridge to Alameda County and the Bay Bridge. The other half either start or `
end in West Contra Costa (or both).
I-80 is currently congested (at level of service E or F') throughout its length
during peak commute periods. This congestion, which is forecast to continue at least until '
2010, has three impacts. First, it reduces the maximum "throughput" of traffic when speeds
fall below 30 miles per hour.' Second, it has led to "peak spreading" (that is, the period
during which commute traffic demand exceed capacity has lengthened). Third, this ,
congestion during the peak period has encouraged drivers to divert from 1-80 to parallel
surface streets. San Pablo Avenue, the only alternate route that parallels I-80 through West
County, carries considerable traffic diverted from the freeway. '
Supplementing the freeways and surface streets in the corridor are BART'S
Richmond line and AMTRAK's intercity Capitol Corridor rail service. Bus service includes ,
an extensive network of routes provided by AC Transit and Westcat on the surface streets
with some express bus service on I-80. The express bus service includes service linking
Solano County with BART'S El Cerrito del Norte station. '
ISSUE STATEMENT '
Demand. The same issues of demand discussed for the Carquinez Bridge
apply to the whole of the I-80 corridor. Development of housing in Solano County is '
forecast to continue to outpace job development leading to a growing commute volume along
I-80 with significant diversion of traffic onto San Pablo Avenue. The existing average daily
traffic (ADT) on San Pablo Avenue south of SR 4 is 20,600 vehicles. It is forecast to rise to '
' Levels of service on roadways are often described with a range of letters from A to F,
with LOS A corresponding to the highest quality of service and LOS F corresponding
to the lowest level of service where the volume on the roadway has reached or
exceeded its capacity.
' Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering
Handbook. Page 784.
e:wou-345.00c - I-32 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
28,400 vehicles in 2010, almost 40 percent above current levels. Through traffic on this
' segment of San Pablo Avenue (that is, traffic with neither an origin or destination in West
County) is also forecast to increase from nine to 17 percent of ADT. In 1990, all of I-80 and
several links on San Pablo Avenue were congested (that is, a V/C ratio above 0.90). By
2000, additional segments on San Pablo Avenue are forecast to be congested. Completion of
planned HOV lanes between SR 4 and the Carquinez Bridge by 2010 would provide free-flow
conditions for carpools, vanpools and buses but would not reduce the congestion on I-80 or
' San Pablo Avenue below current levels.
Increases in demand will vary along the I-80 corridor. The northern
' segments are forecast to increase up to 40 percent over 1990 levels while more southern
segments would increase less, somewhere between 15 and 25 percent. These differences.can
' be explained partly by the higher levels of congestion on the southern segments where
increases in demand will lead to diversion onto parallel routes, primarily San Pablo Avenue.
The segments of San Pablo Avenue between Hilltop Drive and Highway 4 show forecast
increases of between 65 and 135 percent while southern segments show no more than a 30
percent increase.
The growth in the number of jobs in West Contra Costa, particularly in
Richmond, will also change commute patterns and demand within West County. If this job
growth materializes, West County will attract more trips from other areas and "capture" more
of the trips now passing through the county. Modelling suggests that 52 percent of trips in
1990 on I-80 during the a.m. peak hour traveled through West Contra Costa County. By
2010, the same modelling suggests that only 41 percent would travel through West County
while the other 59 percent would have either an origin or destination in West Contra Costa.'
Similarly, in 1990, around 55 percent of trips on San Pablo Avenue were local trips (both
starting and ending in West County). By 2010, the share of local trips in the a.m. peak
period would drop to between 35 and 45 percent.
Expanding capacity to accommodate these increases in demand would require
expansions of roadway capacity beyond what is feasible given existing right-of-way
constraints, funding and environmental considerations.
Supply. 1-80 is the primary regional transportation facility in the corridor.
The primary improvements to it in the next 20 years will be the construction of HOV lanes
3 WCCTAC-TAC, Dowling Associates and Barton-Aschman Associates,Future
Conditions Background Report. January 1993.
e:\voL,--U5.noc I-33 November 2, 1994
t
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
from Solano County to the Bay Bridge. Further expansions to the freeway are not
contemplated. San Pablo Avenue, the primary parallel roadway to I-80, has similar
constraints, although an expansion from two to three lanes in each direction between Potrero
and Cutting is planned. AC Transit is, however, studying the potential for a new light rail
along San Pablo Avenue from downtown Oakland.
The increasing congestion on I-80 will lead to increased diversion onto
parallel streets. The ability to expand San Pablo Avenue and other parallel routes is also ,
constrained. Most of these routes are bordered by urban development along their whole
length. One project currently under construction will, when completed, help divert traffic
from 1-80. The Richmond Parkway will provide an alternate route for traffic heading to and
from the west. It would take traffic from the section of 1-80 south of Atlas Road.
Transportation capacity could be increased through increased 'eliance on ,
alternative modes. Currently, BART runs from Richmond south to San Francisco and
Fremont. BART is investigating an extension of this line north to Hercules or Crockett and,
perhaps, across the Carquinez Strait to Vallejo. The Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK lines
could be expanded to connect West Contra Costa with Solano and Central and East Contra
Costa with additional commuter service. AC Transit is also looking into light rail service
between downtown Oakland and the Hilltop Mall along San Pablo Avenue. The existing ferry
service from Vallejo could be supplemented with new ferries from Martinez and Rodeo and
new ferry service from Richmond has also been proposed. Together, however, these
improvements may result in a decrease in volumes in the corridor of less than 20 percent —
not enough to solve congestion problems within the corridor.
Operation. Both HOV and TDM methods could improve efficiency in the
I-80 corridor.. The addition of HOV lanes from Solano County to the Bay Bridge is an _
integral strategy in the expansion of 1-80. These HOV lanes would serve two purposes. ,
First, the availability of these lanes would encourage carpooling and more person-trips per
vehicle and second, they would provide improved access to and through the county for
longer-distance express buses. WCCTAC is also considering expanding shuttle bus service
that would link major employment centers and regional transit services to encourage greater
use of transit for commuting.
Another operational improvement — ramp metering — could also improve the
efficiency of travel on I-80 by helping to maintain a more even flow on that facility. Ramp
metering would require the installation of meters at freeway ramps all along the 1-80 corridor
in West Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.
BAVOLi-345.DOC I-34 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
A variety of projects are being considered for the I-80 corridor including
adding carpool lanes, new rail service, intersection and interchange improvements and new
park-and-ride facilities. Specific projects include the widening of I-80 for HOV lanes
between SR 4 and the Carquinez Bridge, the development of SR 4 as a full freeway between
I-80 and Cummings Skyway, the extension of BART to Crockett and eventually Solano
County, the development of light rail along San Pablo Avenue to Hilltop Mall, the
construction of intersection improvements along arterial streets, and the construction of new
interchanges on I-80 at SR 4 and Atlas Road/Richmond Parkway.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS .
x WCCTAC is considering three types of TSOs for the corridor. The first is
the establishment of objectives — based on additional study — for through and transit trips
along I-80 and San Pablo Avenue. The second is the encouragement of additional job growth
in Solano County so that the overall ratio of jobs to employed residents for new development
in the county is 0.9 new jobs for each new employed resident. For other roadways, the TSOs
would use more traditional level-of-service measures. Representative actions being considered
include:
• Expanding and encouraging HOV use in the corridor by adding lanes and
making the toll crossing across the Carquinez Bridge free for carpools,
• Developing new park-and-ride lots and improving transit service to them,
• Expanding transit capacity by increasing the frequency of existing service,
improving rail alternatives and working to extend BART across the bridge,
• Discouraging diversion from I-80 onto San Pablo Avenue through improved
signage and enforcement of speed limits,
• Improving flow along I-80 through ramp metering and variable electronic
speed limit signs, and
�i • Working with Solano County to affect land use and development.
' More traditional roadway and intersection improvements would be used to
meet LOS objectives on other roadways and intersections. Table 3.2-2 outlines these TSOs
and actions in greater detail.
jBAVOLl•345MOC I-35 November 2, 1994
1'
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan '
Circulation Draft
1
TABLE 3.2-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS— 1,80 CORRIDOR
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Under Construction
Interstate 80 State Route 4 I/C Construct Park&Ride lot
Interstate 80 Bay Bridge toll plaza to SR 4 Widen for HOV lanes
* Construct Atlas Rd. I/C, including HOV ramps ,
State Route 4 Willow Ave. Construct grade separation/On-off ramps to WB SR 4 and
extend to Sycamore
Linus Pauling Road John Muir Pkwy to West Sycamore Construct 2-lane minor arterial 15
extension
Richmond Parkway I-580 to I-80 Construct new roadway
Programmed
Interstate 80 Richmond Pkwy to Appian Way Construct eastbound auxiliary lane
Atlas Road Construct 200 stall Park &Ride lot
Central Ave to San Pablo Dam Rd Construct auxiliary lanes
Cutting Boulevard Add transit off-ramp/Interchange modifications
BART El Cerrito Plaza BART station Build a new parking facility and bus circulation
improvements
State Route 4 Bayberry Construct on-off ramps
Hilltop Drive San Pablo Ave. to Richmond Construct 4-lane major arterial
Parkway
Track 1
Interstate 80 SR 4 to Carquinez Bridge Widen for HOV lanes
Entire length Install ramp metering hardware at all on-ramp locations
Entire length Install electronic speed limit signs
San Pablo Ave Potrero to Cutting Widen to 6 lanes
Tennent Ave&Sycamore Intersection improvements
* Hercules Reconstruct San Pablo Ave.and extend bicycle lanes
Candidate Track 2
Interstate 80 State Route 4/I-80 I/C Construct full freeway-to-freeway interchange
BART Richmond to Hercules BART extension
B:wot.i-345.DOC I-36 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.2-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-80 CORRIDOR
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the.
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
San Pablo Ave Downtown Oakland to Hilltop Construct light-rail system
Appian Way Intersection improvements
Tennent Avenue Install exclusive left turn lanes at the
1intersection/Intersection improvements
Sycamore to SR 4 Stripe a second northbound right turn lane
23rd Street Restripe the northbound 23rd Street approach
SR 4 Signalize intersection
Entire length Clearty identify 1-80 feeder roads
Entire length Prior to exits,provide electronic traffic information on
alternative routes
Entire length Extend bicycle lanes where feasible
Cummings Skyway * SR 4 Extend to San Pablo Ave./Upgrade Interchange with
I-80/Provide truck climbing lanes
Willow Ave. I-80 to San Pablo Widen to 4 lanes
I-80 Install signals at EB on-off ramps
Parker Ave and San Pablo Ave. Realign and signalize intersection
EI Portal Church Lane to 1-80 Widen to 4 lanes
1-80 to San Pablo Dam Road Widen to 4 lanes
Tennent Ave. Henry Ave. to San Pablo Ave. Widen by 2 lanes
Pinole Valley Road 1-80 to Henry Widen by 1 lane
Meeker Ave. Harbour Way to Meade Street Construct 4-lane major arterial
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994
RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
�1 * Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
B:1V0L1-345.D0C I-37 November 2, 1994
Figure 3.2-1 31; 29
Proposed Projects \ .....
I-80 Corridor
-Valle'"
Freeway fy t
i'f ~\\" f Coram"nw
............................... Arterial \; I wo^
S
0 l A N; O
_
----- --• New Freeway
j`>•., New inbnecAon at mtertfwngrr of t•80 Z
..........■ New Roadway ,a.r,d
Roadway Widening lnlen�don
roc e
Cola. `
New HOV Lanes
See ilnset
Road Reconstruction
............. Roodraeomrruonee ��� e
in Herorl. .. •��
F—+—�-� Light Rail System
Tement --n --------
\ New or Upgraded &nof wd.n
® _
Interchange/Intersection Nw " �,
r at R dimond"9e NMI.t/
l Extend - P.l.y/luhtiBd. r�' ,.. ..,.�' -Volley ,.
Grade Separation Hilltop ad !' 1 tiov lon-Aj6 to
i
•� ee.sq��eee.. L ,�
-$o
anilhi° �' . EI obrante"
,. QP .
•.�..... ...:,• : ..> Corridor
O�� • .P EIPortal
,d
w .na),vall.y u.w
:
. ' �.• E��
.......... t4 Io �, � \.,.....3
..wi
l ;Son ;c mo w%....
e Pablo;; \
:i Widen San Pablo
Richrnond ' oam"pp'an Inweed on `.
'� � wq•Bomna� x - ��,
long. C O N T R A
•••, i —at San w�Key
eyBd�tS
� O S T `AC• da)
...
}�:. • W.6 Son Pablo
..........
(Poirero to Cu.irq•4 6na)
Cerrito
fW a� _.
inbn
of Cuain
8
HE
M
Realign Al ny
ino �rj�k`\\ele:ty
wdn b 4 6. , ycomom/SR 4 23, 1.80 HO"VRodeo Full in2Coratruc2 Er arterial imn
Paui^8 to Exern' ,.b.in��\�•,,,..•.,�•�,.•�.\..,•�F.r,
�
_
c..._.••
-�
/
at 1.80/SR 49e Bay Bridge 10 Adds!:
InMegio wernert— g
$ycmgr San Pablo t J`... Yf, \`
Rood n HroAm�'�.' ..^••,,,,�;� �� - �:i - {�
inole ��, / f
I A L A Iv1 D
7 Fxferd:willo toMY
Corn*,On•Olf ec'm of Mod;{ sycamorej `� �� \`�•
Baylxrry/SR d flow/SR 4 from int ned;on
33Gred. of toMrahongs
. dbw/SR d o t
Piedmont
WT
1
S A .N
F 'R A N C :1 S C :0
San Francisco Oakland
See Ta6le 3.2-1 For a more detailed description of projects.
DYEITEY .....«.yr....--.
1
F
q N M VJ V1 % Vl VJ q N H •1 F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •� 00 'OC
o a .� o o .t .2
<
99..•�'+ U .yU. ~U. V •V yU. _ .� •U' •V_ QQ� d y •°y�
•.. q y q » M CSO .0 � �•'• •O •O Li •O ...r °
ca cc
Is ccl
offic 3 3 3 3 3 .3 � 3 3 < as
q V
co
M lil
C3
y to
5 > m o
_
CIS
cc 7 y V
to
x CIS
93
p c p 3 o o S E o o0 0
U Op 'U
Oyu "
C .0 - a O opo 5 O
_ H
LL a� �aCG! S E E ::
c m 5 d E 3 0
u •o acc
5 K
Q m o c e
of U a. W .5 '
r
O L At C C k
Fop v p N
yy 00w.r � � >,
6> U
.51 to G1
u w o o
Z s o e •C
Gzl Q 'g > `� •v
8
d
1 .y
C C u C C C •0 OO O C y C C. C �
O •0 O O 02- •C O •0 O O O
••• 'C 'C 000 b 'G
is n• 0y 'G 0M '0 C
a0 ' fl 'C
an on y on o� an O m 41 q C p m an
o 0. cagci pv v
OG .°a ..1 � ►7 «.1 � GQO as U U «.1 � � U U U ..] ..7
o �+ m
°° .k 0 3 3 °
E
Cd
a
a >cp Cd
E c d .5 O =' E o 00 c��y a H
a � 7 � v, O � •� 0 � •0 C O
� v0i .� V •a7 � C h a � p `— � �
00
cc
41
cc V
a, ns c Q o — C % c E c
�? m $ Lu ca. q c p p ??
o E H Q
:; ° c
$ .. a g 00 0. _
e g _ E c E e g o u < �
£ S Cd
u s E o v °
> 0
C d o C 3 X o C 3 c o c = aTo d C 00 C T
Q O, u a o o o p Q o c cT° w $ E >
Q H O H yr �, m U U v _ a U m a m 3 F v3 u Q
e a
40
e
.� h
aa+
c
O � � •a ° a •g
c M o
pr y�j •p O N 8 C •� .% >
Q
con
� O
Z
C)
04 ° CIS
C 0 0 m 0 6. m
000 .f 'a N O 00
j Q >
C F "' W
m e as ,r ae y 2 c °° Cp "� °_ N
d c
h 0 .t� y 00 a, 0 O 0 V t
06 u o = E c c
Q `o o f o u o E o o
E■ E•' G. Q .E 5 a Q v o U c s
F
c e e e o 0
en v� ai o
F-
h c c c c a in Az q u U
c C C C
CL .g U .g U 3 3 v v v v 3 v .�
co C H C N C U C
0 0 0 .o • ai
0 to
u c
t Cdc
JD oho o E s •0 a o c c
co f 0 C
N
DvD V »cis "0
=° n
e = s < - °' c
y E °U° a`i a er_ V3 " w o
0 e H L 3 0. o a? eo 0
E o 5 E C eo
mw °' cm r
cc X, y E E U
y •p° 0 s esi u w rs 154E u r`iA.
cd U0 0
N y co t14 c 0 Q c ,'o C-co 0
a a v v' U w e m y c ° h o o E e
E = 0 = c c aci u E o f x Leo > c U 'y o u
W 0. m 3 D
a,
06
a y 4 _
78 gp
A g 0 a a y 0 0.
� g�g
a A 'G E � O ac wcs
o $o
s
Ir
VJ •� {r
o � o
a �
� d. EL.
W go '— o
U 9 U
j Q O �
C
FF a` a
i
C a
G 'G
m
nC 7 ,�
'lei
� r
O V
d
U 3
V1
G
G :% os '✓U
•�
lip, • 7
H
+'O
•�� O o-
U
d J
w �o
W sq
d o• 'GG O v '. .
E. G at •�
a ffi m dN � � GQ w
1> N
or,
:
0
F"
\. .
Figure 3.2-2 29
Proposed Actions
I-80 Corridor V." AS'a acanyaa:Banal ` f
b� g row Vallejo
\:. aemdw a(Confro coo.Ca y. �...
Park&Ride Lots
Work with responsible S O L A N Orb
agencies to determine an
appropriate limited stops t
bus service for the ,,,, �,;a,.a,.�,
long-distance commuter. / ''
rlO�Ci,�dnq b ted
roc
P6o lorAnriok "Rodeo
�i'iTlZ7A wM LrniJ k� \
x \ ��--SQ Liif U9..'t,80
•••�•
from Richmond /
and/or Rodes a.,
M A :R I N �..
Its off
Puri»jnaq POGw
/ >Enforon»i+an F80 and t
Son Pabb'A.. .., .,� I ;Sobronfe.
Ikr'Pra'+Fwd.r Sigis
_ Abng Son Pablo i ✓ 1 "�`` -� 1
:Son j'�.. / ...,�� \ Dwabp Pah-n"loh
:Pablq
Richmond `
b �.,.ng °"ro C O N T A
Along F80= `M
( C 0 S
r ....
h'. \ Cern)' k \ '
\ c �
` \ improv.Ridnwnd \ - \ ` ... ., .. � .'i
and d c.r,b Plmn \AI ny
rkeley\``,
--
Be
� A ,
,123
r 24:
A L A
a,
-Piedmont L
S A N13.
F R A N C_ �: 5: C O —.
San Francisco Oakland ..... ' �� .
BL"NEY `:- \ - - PRELIMINARY DRAFT
DYETf ...��..a.r..�. ....
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
3.3 West-Central Commute — Highway 4 and San
Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo
Two roadways form the main commute routes between West and Central
Contra Costa: Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo, supplemented by
Cummings Skyway. (Alhambra Valley Road also carries a minor amount of traffic.) The
Capitol Corridor intercity rail service connects Martinez in Central County and points north
with stations in West County.
Both Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road serve commuters travelling
between Central and West County. With the growing congestion on I-80 — especially after
the destruction of the Cypress Freeway link in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake —
commuters to Alameda and San Francisco have increasingly diverted onto San Pablo Dam
Road. These southbound trips shift from I-80 onto San Pablo Dam Road. Once through
Orinda, these trips turn west using Highway 24 and head through the Caldecott Tunnel to the
East Bay. The model has shown that as travel times on I-80 increase, commuters will shift
onto San Pablo Dam Road as an alternate route. San Pablo Dam Road, however, has limited
capacity now and limited capacity for expansion. As more commuters divert from I-80,
travel times will increase and thus discourage further diversions.
Compared to other commutes in the county, the West-Central commute carries
relatively few trips. While about 5,200 trips travel between West and Central County during
the A.M. peak hour, about 6,500 trips are made across the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and 7,700
trips are made across the Carquinez Bridge. In addition, transit service in this corridor is
limited, especially compared with some of the more important transit corridors such as SR 24
with BART and 1-80 with BART and AC Transit. The Capitol Corridor service does link
these two parts of the County, but there are relatively few runs. (Expansion of this service,
however, is planned.) The Martinez link along Highway 4 and bus service along San Pablo
Dam Road to Orinda also offer alternative ways of travelling between West and Central
County. Nonetheless, these routes, although limited in terms of capacity, provide important
links between West and Central County. In addition, these roadways provide necessary
alternate routes for tanker trucks which cannot travel through the Caldecott Tunnel except
during a few hours in the middle of the night.
e:woia-W.noc I-44 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. The commute between West and Central Contra Costa County is
not one of the most significant commutes now and forecasts suggest that it will remain of
secondary status into the future. Although the east-west volumes are not insignificant, the
primary commute between West and Central County is in the north/south direction. The
proposed construction of the western section of Highway 4 as a full freeway will increase
capacity on that route, potentially drawing trips from other more congested roadways. Its
primary effect, however, will be to improve safety through increased separation of opposing
traffic.
Supply. Te West-Central commute involves crossing the East Bay Hills
whose steepness and land ownership (much of it is in watershed and permanent open space)
limit the expansion of roadways. While it is four lanes at its western end in Richmond and El
Sobrante and at its eastern end where it becomes Camino Pablo in Orinda, San Pablo Dam
Road is two lanes through most of these watershed and open space areas. The Town of
Orinda has expressed concerns that capacity increases on San Pablo Dam Road would
encourage trips to shiftfrom Highway 4 and I-80/Highway 24. Increases in traffic on San
Pablo Dam Road would add traffic and affect levels of service on Camino Pablo. The model
has shown that there is a trade-off between 1-80 and San Pablo Dam Road. Since there is
only limited ability to expand capacity on San Pablo Dam Road, only a small amount of new
' traffic can shift from 1-80 onto San Pablo Dam Road before trips divert back to I-80. Only
minor increases on this roadway are forecast between 1990 and 2010. Likewise, the potential
for capacity increases in El Sobrante is limited.
Highway 4 is currently a two-lane highway between I-80 and Cummings
Skyway and a four-lane freeway east of'there. The reconstruction of the western part of
Highway 4 as a full freeway is expected to occur sometime between 2000 and 2010. The
capacity increases resulting from this construction (along with other improvements in the area)
could draw demand from other more congested roadways. This reconstruction would also
address significant safety hazards on Highway 4 by separating opposing lanes of traffic.
Alhambra Valley Road does not carry significant commute traffic between
West and Central County although it serves significant local traffic at its western end. It's
location in designated open space, watershed and rural areas limits its potential expansion as a
' significant commute route.
BART and the Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK service will carry a relatively
small amount of the West-Central commute. The Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK service
E:woLI-345.noc I-45 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
will serve primarily those commuters who live or work close to those rail stations in West
County or live or work close to the Martinez station and those schedules correspond with the ,
more infrequent frequencies of this inter-city service. New commuter rail service — with its
shorter times between trains and travel to more in-county destinations - could make this
alternative attractive to commuters. In addition, BART service between the two parts of the
county are not direct and require transfers at the MacArthur Station in Oakland.
Operation. One of the main operations in the corridor is safety on the
two-lane portion of Highway 4 between I-80 and Cummings Skyway. This roadway poses
one of the greatest safety hazards in the county and various agencies in the county and region
support safety improvements, Safety improvements are included in the 1994 RTP to address
this issue.
Signal synchronization along the four-lane sections of San Pablo Dam Road
could improve flow through the more developed parts of that roadway. The shuttle bus
service mentioned under the I-80 corridor could also encourage some commuters to shift from
Highway 4 or San Pablo Dam Road to transit. ,
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
As noted above, the main project proposed is the construction of SR 4 as a t`
full freeway between I-80 and Cummings Skyway. Other projects include widening of
roadways at the western end of San Pablo Dam Road and various grade separations and
interchange modifications near I-80 and SR 4.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
The TSOs proposed for SR 4 and San Pablo Dam Road are both expressed as
traditional level-of-service standards. For SR 4, the proposed TSO is to achieve LOS E or
better by the year 2010. For San Pablo Dam Road (and Cummings Skyway), the proposed
TSO is to maintain LOS D except for the intersections at Appian Way and I-80 where the
standard is LOS E.
BAVOLI-sas:Doc I-46 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.3-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — WEST-CENTRAL COMMUTE (Highway 4 and San Pablo
Dam Road/Camino Pablo)
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
' (RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Programmed
State Route 4 Bayberry* Construct on-off ramps
Sycamore* Modify from intersection to I/C, Improve I/C
Willow Ave.* Grade separation/On-off ramps for WB SR 4
San Pablo Dam Road Appian Way to Castro Ranch Road Widen to 5 lanes/Left turn pockets/Signal improvements
Camino Pablo SR 24 Improve EB off-ramp at Brookwood
Miner Road to Bear Creek Road Improve roadway
Track 1
State Route 4 I-80 to Cummings Skyway* Construct 4-lane freeway, I/C improvement at Sycamore
Intermodel Transit Downtown Martinez Construct intermodel transit facility with parking
Center
Candidate Track 2
State Route 4 I-680/SR 4* New interchange
Alhambra Ave. Alhambra Hills to Ben Ham Dr. Widen
Cummings Skyway SR 4* Extend to Old Highway 40/Jpgrade I/C with
1-80/Provide truck climbing lanes
Willow Ave. SR 4* Construct new on-off ramps
Appian Way San Pablo Dam Road Construct intersection improvements
San Pablo Dam Road Barranca to Appian Way Widen to six lanes
I-80 Realign and reconstruct roadway
Valley View Road San Pablo Dam Road to Appian Way Widen by 2 lanes
Ferry Service Martinez Institute ferry seryice from Martinez to San Francisco
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
1 Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
eAvot.t-W.DOC I-47 November 2, 1994
c C ��
c
e
' 4 V v E
0
EOX
'Q c r;: ti W �^^ IV Q �. 7.. �. �L� Z
i
sn
�v d `
\ � �� ! i5 ``•sem, �D,�\ _..
co
N `o
�F j V � _o c• -.$gym ,' �`
r L Z to
IT
�10
3 ° ,
Q< �I 2�X. f F / f p
�r
CE
lie
3
CVA
E V
`o
be
p �.. •� V1 •k t'a a. ,� M"-k".��G \'_.. O i.
}' W
z
E$, C
•� e Q
:\ a= a
4
; N O
:: ^•'o Q C
�. Qom.• ........:...... a -�
CD
Es c a U
"IN E e ... / N
A
P
� o
h U e
o Q o
as
a ? 3 U ° U V) A a 3
' m ° dcd wg m
c F Cd U s c .Ee U a F E"
Q ca ° U 'C o o o " m U 'C o u o U
a 3 3 a u m u 3 3 u a u u a u 3 F occ
Cd
u 3 m
E Cdsu a p c u
C-3cd -Sc W ° c 2 uCd
a, v a
o
as cd
Cd $ a oG
a� ro h
Cd c o, 000 $ < e o asf
st E a"0 OG ODs :: U q a y c U W G
LD or-
LD c m
w N U C L ' E u
a 3 GL
c Cd
c 'C
3 u h ° E r ry'O E u Q e c m u
Z o u >
o cd
u a� ai
ic o u E aD '� Oo •v u �o a a > > o y a " K ase
w c� Q Q Q v Q Q 0. Q a E w
� Q
dam» > • • • • • . • • • • • • • • •
ZC �
Go a, ffi a
a e m Y 0,0
O
n a
0 El .0
L s
a CL
c w x io. CL ° x
cd
Q -0 ° � � cc
p c :: c ; N 3 o a c a $
Z O E oo m u ° s .., C <
Al
.Yo B $ d ., o a o a ae g a,
h ° s m . u c R
a 3 ao
o u
12 o
N Y v s E _? y c a w a u a
U •5 u c �, h c m
F O c y c � `o � v ac 3 00 > A
'a o 5 0 p°. u 0u Z
AO dN r .e •�° Wupi9 � U.
d p�C
as to c •v c
¢ � '�a' v 0C1 .� 0
! � ra' u Qcn � cd
m
v
•G
00
g
E-
v6 W
o �
o s
� C �
v
w
d
O
5i
Y �
cs Ca w
a
�d rL Q
Y p.
k .
O :fir. .,.^_'� � •C
LL-
M r� duj
n> \ J
C3 �."..
So
r
'� �. ;'8� cs » ' •' mat" �✓„} f � �—
C20 _
fo
S :y
N
.>
i _
C42`
t .. . e
0
cc
91
0
C ItQ
0 U
u ca o_
Q o v .r-
w V
N t/1 G.
Z to
ft'� rA
iz
h Z �
\ / Qw
c A
' j %'
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
Actions proposed to achieve these TSOs focus on expanding transit, improving
efficiency and adding capacity. Transit service increases are a strategy on both SR 4 to
Martinez and San Pablo Dam Road to the Orinda BART station. Efficiency would be
improved through restricting access to these main routes and adding truck-climbing lanes to
Cummings Skyway. The construction of SR 4 as a full freeway in West County is the main
roadway capacity improvement.
3.4 I-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway)
The recently-completed John T. Knox Freeway in West County replaces r
several surface streets as the link between Marin County and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
and Contra Costa County. Before the construction of this freeway link (it is part of I-580),
trips from Marin County connected with West Contra Costa and the rest of the county along
Cutting Boulevard and Carlson Boulevard (going east and south) and Castro Street, Garrard
Boulevard, Rumrill Boulevard and others (going to the east and north).
The new I-580 link significantly expanded the capacity of the corridor for
trips between I-80 and the west, both within West County and across San Francisco Bay to ,
Marin Country. Compared with other corridors, levels of service on the freeway are good
and expected to remain so at least until 2010. Some congestion occurs, however, where
1-580 merges with congested I-80. The completion of the new Richmond Parkway will also
add significant capacity to the commute north from the Richmond-San,Rafael Bridge.
This commute is also served (at least for part of its length) by BART.
Commuters from Marin and parts of Richmond who might drive along I-580 could instead
take BART from the Richmond Station.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Supply. Although significant increases in demand are forecast within the
corridor, capacity increases made (completion of 1-580) or being made (the Richmond
Parkway) will limit congestion on both the freeways and surface streets. Back-ups, however,
are expected during the a.m. peak period where I-580 merges with I-80. Modelling suggests
that by 2000 traffic will back-up three miles on I-580 during the a.m. commute and will
back-up four miles (to Harbor Boulevard) by 2010.
Operation. 1-580 incorporates HOV lanes in both directions. Actions to
encourage greater use of these facilities could help maintain capacity in the corridor. These
B:woLI-W.DW 1-52 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
could include the creation of Park-and-Ride lots in Marin County, the extension of the HOV.
lanes across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and expanding the hours of operation of the
HOV lanes.
Demand. Forecasts suggest significant growth in travel along I-580. Current
(1990) traffic levels are about 64,000 vehicles per day on average, measured at the San Rafael
Bridge toll plaza. This demand is forecast to almost double to 121,500 by 2010. The
completion of 1-580 after 1990 and future completion of the Richmond Parkway, will divert
traffic from alternative routes such as Cutting Boulevard.
' SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Completion of the I-580 freeway through Richmond was a significant
milestone in finishing the Interstate system in the Bay Area. With this main facility in place
and sufficient to handle 2010 traffic levels, future projects tend to be smaller scale. They
include road widenings on 23rd and San Pablo Avenues, constructing a grade separation on
Cutting Boulevard and expanding the parking facility at the El Cerrito Plaza BART station.
The completion of the Richmond Parkway also effects this corridor. (See previous
' discussion.) ,
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
As with the West-Central Commute, WCCTAC is proposing TSOs for the
I-580/John T. Knox Freeway Corridor that are expressed as level-of-service standards. The
proposed TSO for I-580 is LOS E or better and the proposed TSO for Cutting Boulevard is
LOS D or better. The actions to achieve these TSOs include encouraging the use of high-
occupant modes and TDM programs as well as addressing the impacts of truck traffic within
the corridor. Expanding HOV use would be implemented through marketing of bus service
and aggressive promotion of TDM programs as well as the development of park-n-ride lots.
1 .
1 BAVO.i-UIDOc I-53 November 2, 1994
1
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.4-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS -- I-580 CORRIDOR (JOHN T. KNOX FREEWAY t
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Programmed
BART El Cerrito Plaza BART station* Build a new parking facility and bus circulation
improvements
San Pablo Ave Potrero to Cutting* Widen to 6 lanes
Track 1
Candidate Track 2 '
San Pablo Ave 23rd Street Restripe the northbound 23rd Street approach
23rd Street 1-580 to Broadway Widen by two lanes
Carlson/Cutting Cutting Blvd. and SP tracks Construct grade separation
Blvd.
Rheem Ave. 13th Street to San Pablo Ave. Widen by 2 lanes
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
t
B:wot.t-345MOC I-54 November 2, 1994
ec i
M O
GJ V IL Q P
0 vi
0
E 00
ui
3i t
LAJ
LAJ
mow,.,, l V1 y°' � ,,,,R+ ■C 2"
•
~ • \ ` ..
•
• £
a
■
■ i Jf # �
■ M1� �` _
17.
•• ^9_ a
X
Ln
L. . do 44 age
\ \ }!
lig _
4 \\:
Y
j
1
1
r � r
w g
Y
p o ai w r fl,
p� ♦ �4 J y
W
i Id c�
.N ✓ l`
✓� �✓ • 7 d Vi
v �
Ga
NN 1jr v a" �y ,Jj, r
to / 44, °♦'
A p-4 � ; ~'
i
1 � .
M
M L
0 � 0 ` ,,.jj��
a� P Els F ;+' C14 i
v� M a o x„ c / �'\ >-
r_
i Lz, � E o� E�m ~ \ t - � ' (- Q
J
et 'Ly O �rCi .� 11 -E t m a»Im _Y LLJ
�" C() [; d° .S 3 0 0.A3 -- O �- �•.....-C� aa.
O� C O \�� .--` ... ..._........_.........- i
. _:
�� � f .{ It
,1. ,-11 f M�i W i
C y,�pz— N I
i � f. _ Q
1\ 'rs
3s � /
;' ��
1 Q....
....i` a
++�.................... �� 4 _
i+ 3
sem.......�•^" ,........ FE t ',
O
-
c�
r
W a ` ��
L �. fi y
o �, 1.-
:c:
p �L' EL ,f /
'O C
00.c11'<
LN:.� - / :
1 iL �� ��
-__
�.
�� % �*
1. `:. ..
LLL
_-
' ' $\ � !
1 I
,:
°9
_::.. _h
`` : i
aa H k: t 1
mm�
H
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
3.5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge
The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is the main gateway into Central Contra Costa
County from the north along I-680. It was built in the early 1960's to replace the ferry
between Martinez and Benicia. It carries both major commute traffic to and from the
growing suburban areas of Solano County and significant state and national trucking traffic
from Benicia, Sacramento and the east. (The Carquinez Bridge carries truck traffic primarily
headed toward the central areas of San Francisco while the Benicia-Martinez Bridge carries r
more truck traffic headed for Central County, the Tri-Valley and San Jose.)
The existing Benicia-Martinez Bridge is a six-lane structure. As with other
bridges in the Bay Area, the existing Benicia-Martinez Bridge has a toll plaza and, like the
Carquinez Bridge, the toll plaza is located in the northbound direction, on the north side of ,
the bridge itself. Caltrans is preparing a Supplemental Draft EIS/EIR assessing the effects of
the construction of a new five-lane bridge across the Carquinez Strait. This new bridge
would be parallel to and east of the existing bridge. One of the proposed design alternatives
includes a toll plaza northbound on 1-680 northeast of the Marina Vista interchange and south
of the bridge in Contra Costa County. As now, tolls would be collected from vehicles
travelling northbound on 1-680.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Solano County is forecast to add both jobs and employed residents
at a faster rate than any other county in the Bay Area. Although it will add jobs at a faster
rate than employed residents between 1990 and 2010, the county will still add more workers ,
than jobs. With a one employed residents for every 0.8 jobs, at least one of every five
workers in the county will have to commute out for work. The growth of housing in Solano
County will be accompanied by job growth in Central County and areas.to the south '
(especially in the Tri-Valley) and west that will likely be the location of work for many of
these workers. As discussed in Volume 2 of the CCTP, average daily volumes are forecast
increase on the bridge by about 45 percent between 1990 and 2010. Additional job growth in '
Solano County, by providing jobs for residents there, could reduce some of these forecast
increase in demand. ,
Supply. Bridges are among the most expensive transportation facilities to
build and to maintain. Without increases in capacity, however, they can become significant
"bottlenecks" on.the regional transportation system. The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is currently
at capacity during peak commute hours and Caltrans is planning to construct a new eastern
span. Caltrans is studying the lane configuration and the potential incorporation of HOV, '
e:woLI-345.DOC 1-58 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
bicycle and transit facilities. With the new span, there would be adequate width for five
traffic lanes in each direction. MTC's adopted "Benicia-Martinez Bridge — General
Principles" envision four mixed-flow lanes in each direction plus an HOV bypass lane at the
toll plaza and a northbound truck-climbing lane.
This proposed expansion in capacity could make the bridge adequate for
forecast demands at least until 2010. In the longer term, however,jurisdictions in Contra
Costa County are concerned that the design of the new bridge should accommodate both
single-occupant vehicles and other modes of travel. These could include HOV lanes and
' room for future transit, whether bus or rail. The most recent design includes a separate
bicycle lane.
1 Congestion at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge results when the two lanes of
traffic on I-680, the two lanes of traffic on I-780 and additional traffic from developments in
Benicia funnel onto the three southbound lanes on the bridge. One potential mitigating action
would be to put HOV lanes into place south of the bridge before the construction of the
bridge itself. This action would provide additional capacity to deal with the vehicles and
congestion shifted to the south by the completion of the I-80/1-680 interchange.
Operation. Decisions on the capacity of the bridge and the incorporation of
operational approaches are intertwined. The existing congestion on the bridge serves as a
"meter" on I-680 and helps limit congestion to the south. This metering effect would remain
if the new span were not built.
rIf the new span is built, Central Contra Costa jurisdictions are looking for
other metering measures. One of the most controversial measures is the location of the toll
plaza. Caltrans has indicated that moving the toll plaza to the southbound direction on the
north side of the bridge would have unacceptable impacts on operations. Likewise,a location
on the south side of the bridge in the southbound direction would have unacceptable safety
' impacts. Caltrans has proposed locating it on the northbound direction at the south end of the
bridge.
' Jurisdictions in Central Contra Costa are concerned that locating the toll plaza
there could lead to backups on I-680 past its intersection with SR 4, creating significant
congestion on several roadways. These jurisdictions favor a northside toll plaza for traffic in
' the southbound direction which, as with the Carquinez Bridge, could also help meter trips into
Contra Costa County. Caltrans studies indicate that toll plazas, if they contain enough
collection booths that are adequately staffed, do not meter traffic. In addition, the
implementation of automatic vehicle identification (or AVI) could reduce or eliminate
BAVOL1-345MOc I-59 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan '
Circulation Draft
whatever metering effect current manual toll taking would have. One alternative would be to
install metering lights like those used at the Bay Bridge. ,
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
The primary project in this corridor is the construction of the new Benicia-
Martinez Bridge span. The location, design and operation of the span is currently the subject
of considerable study. In addition, the extension of HOV lanes south from the bridge to south
of the SR 242 merge are proposed. Currently proposed projects for the bridge and adjoining
roadways are listed in Table 3.5-1. ,
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
TRANSPAC has adopted three tenets to form the basis of their Action Plan. ,
Two of the tenets — supporting HOV and expanded transit service — would apply directly to
actions affecting the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and the third — traffic management and signal
synchronization — would affect it indirectly. TRANSPAC has developed several TSOs
including standards for average vehicle ridership and transit trips as a percentage of all trips.
These standards would be achieved through actions such as extending HOV lanes and giving
HOV traffic preference at toll plazas and freeway ramps.
Jurisdictions in Contra Costa and Solano Counties are now addressing how '
best to manage traffic flows across the Carquinez Strait and to optimize transportation
investments. This study, which is being managed by the CCTA and funded by a PVEA ,
grant, is looking at traffic management within the triangle formed by I-80, I-680 and
Highway 4. The so-called "Triangle Study" will address ways to moderate demand, improve
operations and encourage alternative travel modes. '
A:wou-345.noc 1-60 November 4, 1994
Contra Costa-Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.5-1
' STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — BENICIA-MARTINEZ BRIDGE
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
' (RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
.Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Programmed
1-680 Benicia-Martinez Bridge* New Bridge and new approaches
' Martinez SR 4 to Alhambra Hills Widen
Track 1
1-680 Route 242 to Benicia Bridge* Widen for HOV lanes
Intermodel Transit Center Downtown Martinez Construct intermodel transit center with parking
Candidate Track 2
Alhambra Ave. Alhambra Hills to Benham Widen
Ferry Service Martinez Institute ferry service from Martinez to San Francisco
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate,Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
' Transportation Project list.
1
BAVOLI-345.DOC I-61 November 2, 1994
,SOLAN O '
Benicia'Martinez Bridge
Benicia \
± nq „
CONTRA
- � CO, THOV
�~
lmwmodo
Faa,iq . : Martinez _.
Y4j4
k
Arterial #. wld.nAN.„6
(SR 4 to BwAarnt
Freeway ;:.
j=E3C= New HOV Lanes
■■■■�■■■■■■ New Roadways
�i Roadway Widening ,
Other Improvements See Ta6le 3.5-1 For a more detailed description of projects
New or Upgraded Figure 3.54
® O Interchange/Intersection Proposed Projects
Benicia-Martinez Bridge
BLAYNEY ,
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
6
' u
°� " a v q cads v, c U
a u �
' a a � am v a o � a 0 � �
•p a .Y a •� a s E.. a a •C a .Q '� z
� yV. co C .+ h C y � V t?o, c
q Q `e < 'c a e w a g ow Q w Q a 0 s
a p a u F o a .0 'v'' a u a c F
U F ° f- v F 'v a U
v > )
F a -5
' $ W u u p c o c
lu
y u O nr
t C 4 °
Q m
> o W c E
cdu
aEi 4 °WY .B a `w = c ° `o
,o W o s •, u o
E v
m •; o c
E x m u E '� E a o •E
Q E n 75 U r c° ' E
p q v, 4 3 0 ° v
W QpC4� u 9a aou 00 EE. vuy as
. 00
eh mcw du $ oe
c u cd v; op '
co E °E .'o v ?E-:E cis m0 .y u
to Q o c e
N o cn co G� W a'ci in c C� ° u] .5 aca U
ZW Jeo • • • • • • • •
Q �
e
a
r < F v u c
DDcc
I
' Gr a o 6r o
iV. 0 0p
ah a
o v
x bo
Q a a h `Q .. .o E' NN
y > v •� °' � •4 e a v � a � o
0 L p tl a�, tl '•. � � v gE�
e o a v z rk
Q S C Ur•
4
Q d=a a a
DRAFT
t ,SOLANO
t
Benicia=Martinez Bridge
s
� t
Benicia
kn \'
i
/
i \
CONTRA
C 0 ;T
i+�OmTrz ,r \
4 y.
\ i w AHOV
»f
1-680 3qd MOV«
`t D� tip timed tromfw Mn rt e I b F�Oid b,. 242 `
sbtion W Mwti-x Amtrk.a
f
Figure 35-2
Proposed Actions
Benicia-Martinez Bridge
BLAYNEY
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners ,
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues — Third Draft
3.6 I-680 Corridor from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to
' Rudgear Road
State and federal agencies responded to the growth of housing and jobs to the
' east of the East Bay. Hills.after World War II by establishing I-680 as an alternative to 1-80
and I-880 along San Francisco Bay. This freeway facilitated the north-south commute to and
through Central County.
This corridor carries some of the hi hest volumes within the county. Only
g tY Y
Highway 24 (at the Caldecott Tunnel) and I-80 have higher volumes. I-680 is the main
roadway in the corridor, connecting Central County with Solano County and I-80 to the north
and Alameda and Santa Clara Counties to the south. At its northern end, I-680 links trips to
and from Solano County, East County and West County. At the southern end, it links with
routes carrying trips west on Highway 24 to Alameda County and San Francisco and further
south on I-680 to the Tri-Valley and Santa Clara. I-680 is a three- to four-lane freeway
' through this segment with no HOV lanes or ramp metering. Existing average daily traffic
volumes range from 95,000 north of Highway 4 to 215,000 between Monument and Contra
Costa Boulevards.
' The older roadways that I-680 replaced Contra Costa Boulevard, Main
Street and Danville Boulevard — remain in place but carry significantly lower commute
' volumes. The roadways run within no more than several hundred feet of I-680 and cross it
twice in Walnut Creek. In addition to these routes, other arterials further to the west,
including Pleasant Hill Road, Taylor Boulevard and Alhambra Avenue, provide commuters
alternatives to I-680.
The Concord BART line provides another commute method from Central
' County to the west. This BART line starts in Concord with stops at Pleasant Hill and Walnut
Creek before turning west. BART is currently extending the Concord line to North
Concord/Martinez and West Pittsburg/Bay Point along the Highway 4 right-of-way.
' ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Central Contra Costa County is the most populous and job-rich
area in the county. This concentration of jobs and housing makes it one of the main
' destinations and origins of trips in the county. After World War II, Concord, Pleasant Hill,
Walnut Creek and the other cities of Central County grew as residential suburbs for San
Francisco and Oakland. More recently, these cities have added considerable employment
' while still retaining their "bedroom community" role to Oakland and San Francisco. (The
BART line serves commuters travelling between Central County and the west). Many of the
' e:woLi-345MOc I-65 November 2, 1994
Issues —Third Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
new jobs in Central County, however, have been filled by new residents living east in Antioch
and Pittsburg on I-680. In addition, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco will continue
to draw commuters who will use the I-680 corridor.
Supply. Caltrans is significantly upgrading the interchange of I-680 and
Highway 24 in Walnut Creek. This work, which will remove a significant bottleneck along
I-680, will expand the freeway to ten lanes (plus auxiliary lanes) between Highways 24 and
242. In addition, all freeway ramps, which are currently two lanes, will be expanded to three
lanes in both directions. This project will also improve interchanges both to the north and '
south. A later project would add HOV lanes to I-680 between SR 242 and the Benicia-
Martinez Bridge. (HOV lanes are under construction south of the interchange project area on
I-680.) '
The existing urban development along I-680 itself will limit further widening. ,
Local jurisdictions have discussed the development of the Contra Costa Commuterway —
bus/van commute lanes connecting the residential areas of East and Central County with job
centers in Central County and the Tri-Valley. This commuterway, as described in Measure
C, would follow the I-680, Highway 4 and Highway 242 corridors. The commuterway is
being better defined through studies by TRANSPAC.
Although the extension of BART to East County could take some trips off '
I-680 and reduce the impact of housing growth there, growth in automobile trips will remain
significant. Some discussion of constructing a new light rail line from Martinez in Central
County south to the Tri-Valley along the corridor has occurred. Significant questions about
_funding, demand, alignment and environmental impacts (especially noise impacts on adjoining
residents) need to be answered before such a project could go forward.
Operation. This section of I-680 does not now have HOV lanes or ramp
metering although these operational improvements are being developed. TRANSPAC '
proposes — and the CMP contains — a project that would involve restriping lanes and adding
a structure to add HOV lanes between the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and to the south of
Highway 242. (This project is included in Track 1 of the proposed 1994 RTP.) The lack of
vacant land along the freeway limits the ability to expand the right-of--way to add any
additional lanes, whether HOV or mixed-flow.
As Caltrans modifies interchanges, it is adding the hardware necessary to
operate ramp metering, even though this equipment will not be turned on until local '
jurisdictions concur. Full implementation of ramp metering along a corridor can improve
traffic flow, increasing capacity on a freeway. It can also create traffic problems,on local
streets by creating delays at ramp intersections and diverting trips onto parallel arterial streets. '
BAYOU-345.Doe I-66 November 2, 1994 '
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues — Third Draft
(The CMP legislation does, however, exempt traffic congestion caused by ramp metering.) A
more definitive assessment of ramp metering on I-680 and parallel streets will require
radditional studies of the particular conditions in the corridor. Caltrans is planning ramp
metering in Solano County and will add the hardware as part of any interchange
improvements in Contra Costa County.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
A wide range of projects are proposed for this portion of the I-680 corridor.
They range from HOV lanes and interchange modifications on the freeways to implementation
of the traffic operations system (TOS) on the freeways, intersection improvements, new
roadways, and new transit facilities. The HOV lanes are proposed on 1-680 and SR 242.
The new transit facilities include the Martinez intermodal facility. Diamond Boulevard would
be extended near the Buchanan Field and intersections would be improved on parallel-arterials
to 1-680. These projects are listed in Table 3.6-1.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
TSOs and actions in this corridor will be built on the three tenets adopted by
TRANSPAC. The tenets include support for expanded HOV facilities, more efficient
management of the transportation system and expanded transit service throughout the corridor.
1 While TSOs have not yet been established, TRANSPAC is considering standards for average
travel speed, delay index, transit mode share, average vehicle occupancy for peak hour work
trips, and vehicle-employee ratio. Actions could include supporting direct HOV ramps and
ramp metering on freeways, encouraging preferential HOV parking and access programs,
' implementing a traffic control and metering system and increasing the enforcement of loading
zones. Potential TSOs and actions are listed in greater detail in Table 3.6-2.
B:w0L1-345.D0C 1-67 November 2, 1994
TABLE 3.6-1 '
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to
Rudgear)
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action.Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement r
Under Construction
Interstate 680 Newell Ave to Ygnacio Valley Rd Modify local interchanges '
Ygnacio Valley Rd. to Treat Blvd. Widen freeway and modify interchanges
Treat Blvd. to Boyd Rd. Widen freeway SB and NB, Modify interchanges
Boyd Rd. to Willow Pass Road Widen freeway, modify interchanges
BART Concord to Pittsburg/Bay Point Rail extension
Route 4 Willow Pass Rd.(Concord) to Bailey Widen to 8 lanes
Rd.
Programmed
Interstate 680 Monument Blvd. at Contra Costa Intersection improvements
Buskirk Ave. Intersection improvements
Rudgear Rd. Realign and modify I-680 ramps
I-680 at SR 24 Reconstruct interchange den connectors to 3 lanes
Benicia-Martinez Bridge* New Bridge and new approaches
Route 242 I-680 to SR 4 Widen to 6 lanes, possibly to provide HOV lanes
Concord.Ave. to Solano/Grant Interchange modifications and auxiliary lanes '
interchange
Civic Drive Ygnacio Valley Rd. Modify right-turn lane
Olympic Blvd. Las Trampas Creek to Tice Valley Widen and provide intersection improvements
Blvd.
Pacheco Blvd. Potter Street to Sasana Street Widen and add bicycle lanes
Track 1
Interstate 680 SR 24 to Benicia Bridge Traffic operations system
SR 242 to Benicia Bridge Widening for HOV lanes
BART Oak Park Improved connections to Pleasant Hill BART
Route 4 SR 242 to west of Railroad Ave. Restripe for HOV_Ianes and widen Bailey to west of
Railroad Ave.
Martinez Downtown Martinez Martinez/San Francisco commuter ferry boat '
Downtown Martinez* Martinez intermodal facility
Candidate Track 2
Interstate 680 SR 4* New interchange ,
Oak'Park to Pleasant Hill BART Construct southbound fly-over
SR 4 Upgrade unterchange
Mococo overcrossing Correct vertical clearance ,
Ygnacio Valley Blvd. Cowell Rd. to Myrtle Dr. Widen to six lanes
Kirker Pass Rd. Myrtle Dr. to Clearbrook Dr. Widen to six lanes
Treat Blvd. Cherry Ln. to Bancroft Widen ,
Southern Pacific Treat Blvd. to Monument Blvd. HOV lanes
Arterial
TABLE 3.6-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to
' Rudgear)
Note: The following list does not reflectthe priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Diamond Blvd. Diamond Blvd. Extend Concord Ave. to Marsh Dr.
Evora:Rd. Willow Pass Rd. to Port Chicago Hwy Extend roadway
N. Main Geary Blvd. to Sunnyvale Rd. Widen
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's fmancially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
' Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
t
1
``�
E .,...•...yam
SOLANO
BF;nlaa
tkw MW
MEW
CONTRA C O SJ A
\ �� ` ✓ �0 widen m t
HOV /
t .f„odol arti.....ez / a bnd�
Maden P«fi.eo
w-�'•" 4 (Paur ro Su Iiol ``„-�. t • i�
\` W.J.Alifombro.
arra
(SR e b 6ntil ��/P-41 HOV
t / .242 E,eend9 r:ffoffd 81.d I;
(CopEord Aw b Monla
1-680 Corridor ,,. Pacheco Concord
(Benicia-Martinez erynt �G✓7d. bal;n«
(Contin
Brdge to Rudgear Road) era 242
Hefion. D \
�� ,,,,,•.,.Z -^^" �� is t "Lbfsh• `a
ECon"Coflal '` '
,; Pleasant ; � f
Hil
ToybrSignal mi .Udy,
ng
antid Pkaant Hill ;r • �Cashue no-AOV•ond food
on SP RDW(Mofanw+l IoTnot)
\ .i
a nut.—L,_
Creek ,
�jf � 1
� ": R.ceratrvd interdfong.at
,... . ':... . \ •.t ..�� 680 and Widen
I•
• +r.ewan"
Arterial
Freeway
q3C3C3= New HOV Lanes i�
sssssss�sss New Roadways ! -
Roadway Widening f Alamo\� '
............. Other Improvements araga
New or Upgraded
® 0 Interchange/Intersection Figure 3.6-1 r
Proposed Projects
See Table 3.6-1 For a more detailed description of proiec+s. I-680 from Benicia-Martinez '
BLAYNEY Bridge to Rudgear Corridor
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
c
F
1 F u
y v, o� v� W i0 a0 l3
U = U 2 u
co 0
cis
!
04 F U .?, F ° F 'v F 'v oFG U 4 F .?C�
7
Q y v E owCn• on Oy O .°.
N .O cd n' Itt G Z C V N U O.
E
> ° a u E
N Z w 0 > q 03 ° 6 %
E
o ° c u w s c �' g u me
S o °'
Q
>9:6 O o ell a
ca c o awp a
E y a u u E s c a°
�? o m 02
oo
_ o pp
•�
_ O
y 4 C u u opq v a e cdU E u E
1c ea o o o E, o k°
O 'E Sa c _ E c v .y a c > o > w W o a v p v E c
.o h d W ami H a 0 a 0 ° f i m .E
Q� • • • • • • • • • •
A �
E ECc C c
z oN Q o
O o � � a v = o ., � • �
Q � d � •� o v m C h v aeDe v O o�
o
Ix
y o � 0
h a y e 4 a+
0 0 G v
b Upd
c c 3 a, G ,� C O ap• a CO
.0
ee O p
F .
r
r
r
r
r
d
c
d
d v
d
s
� � c
lot, y
OL
7 .
S.
Is
p r
0
O
o � r
N
Off► �
�, a
PREL1MiNMY DRAFT
t w�.
n: S O L A tai O
enwa �doR�wW�ino��,►.Mo
-�
Croc
NVI
71)
i CONTRA COS A
.. .:.. a supQoAbomYWgnaf
^ Ilartiez� �^.-HOK6x,.anFaeD
4 ' o b aAtr
4 i t
i t Ijj
}c. 7
�. � �;� •� Sy>pe4 SR 212
Pacheco
1-680 Corridor Concord
(Benicia
( e
Bridge to Rudgear Road)
.
` Pleasant \
F j
"Ric ; t Hill ! F > a. /0. +a+..
® rynchron;.— n.= } F,680 wA of SR 2
i b nwsag.hoffic Tbw {�/ 3 rf
� y4f J
i J
Comity.b wppon f
TDM Progmms
l"{ Creek —,
C 1 - Olinda
Tina poroil n.�.o,+c�
*\ wooly and
:24 f
nwbiC
N. _ Alamo
l �
■
Figure 3.6-2
Proposed Actions
BLAYNEY I-680 from Benicia-Martinez
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Bridge to Rudgear Corridor
1
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
3.7 I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road to I-580
This section of I-680 connects trips coming from Central County (and East
County and Solano County) to job centers in San Ramon and further south in the Tri-Valley. The
commute along this section of I-680 is somewhat directional with the commute from the north to r
jobs in the south dominating. The job centers of Central County (and Alameda County, to a
lesser extent) also draw significant traffic in the opposite direction, however: The northward
commute is forecast to grow faster than the southbound commute with a shift in peak direction to
the northward, Central County expected by 2010. 1-680 is three lanes in each direction.
Additional HOV lanes are currently under construction on this part of I--680. Completion is
expected, in 1995.
Danville Boulevard, Hartz Avenue and San Ramon Valley Road form a parallel
arterial along the west side of I-680. Danville Boulevard continues south through San Ramon as
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and varies from two to four lanes in width. Interchanges along
I-680 between Rudgear Road and I-580 are relatively widely spaced compared to the segment of
1-680 north of Rudgear Road. This wider spacing along 1-680 both places additional heavy
demands on the east-west arterials and increases demand on the north-south arterials from traffic
heading for the freeway.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan assumes significant growth in
traffic demand in the Tri-Valley area. Forecast growth of housing and jobs in the county and '
surrounding areas will generate substantial numbers of new trips on I-680. This increased
demand will exceed the capacity of the freeway even with improvements under construction or
planned for the freeway. In addition, it will add significantly to traffic volumes on the arterials
which lead to 1-680. Despite planned housing growth in the Tri-Valley, the expansion of job
centers such as Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton will draw
commuters from East County, Solano County and other parts of the Bay Area south along I-680.
In addition, significant job and housing growth is also proposed in the East Dublin and North
Livermore areas as well as additional development in the East Alameda planning area. If no
alternative routes are available for those trips, many of these commuters will use I-680, San
Ramon Valley Boulevard or Foothill Boulevard.
Supply. Some of the worst congestion is expected on the peak direction near
Alamo and Danville during both peak periods. Beyond completion of the current HOV project,
there are no foreseeable capacity expansion projects planned on 1-680.. Increasing capacity on the
Tri-Valley arterials that provide access to 1-680 is also a problem. The expansion of Vasco Road
B:woLi-ses.Doc I-74 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
or the construction of some other more direct route between East County and job centers in the
Tri-Valley could potentially reduce the duration of congestion in the peak period. In addition, the
construction of an expanded SR 84 corridor that connects Vasco Road to I-680 could allow at
least some traffic to avoid the current and forecast bottleneck at the I-580/1-680 interchange.
(Current plans call for a two- to four-lane expressway funded through Alameda County's Measure
B with federal ISTEA and local matching funds from Livermore.) In addition to these roads,
Crow Canyon Road provides an alternate route for traffic that would otherwise pass through the
1 I-580/1-680 interchange, although adjoining open space uses make it inappropriate for capacity
improvements. Without capacity improvements, additional east-to-north flyover ramps may be
needed at the I-580/1-680 interchange. Developing a transit corridor along 1-680 could alleviate
future congestion although these plans are undefined as yet. (The County purchased the Southern
Pacific right-of-way for transit use using State Transit Capital Improvement funds.)
Operation. The planned HOV lanes along 1-680 can improve operations along
the freeway by encouraging trip-making in high-occupancy vehicles. These vehicles include both
carpools and buses. Ramp metering with an HOV bypass could encourage further carpooling in
the corridor and limit demand in the "mixed-flow" lanes. Reduced congestion in mixed-flows
lanes, however, could encourage "latent demand" (that is, potential drivers who have been kept
off the freeway by congestion would then use this new capacity). As discussed for other
corridors, besides these positive effects on traffic flow on the freeways, ramp metering can inhibit
traffic movement on surface streets, creating problems for local governments. Caltrans will
seriously consider ramp metering as an operational strategy along all of California's urban
freeways.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
The main current project in this corridor is the widening of I-680 from Rudgear
to I-580 for one HOV lane in each direction. Many of the other proposed projects focus on the
widening of existing roadways and the improvement of intersections. Portions of several
roadways would be widened including San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Crow Canyon Road,
Dougherty Road, Bollinger Canyon Road, Fallon Road and Camino Tassajara. Intersections
would be improved along San Ramon Valley Boulevard as well. Projects are listed in Table
� 3.7-1.
B:\V0L1-345.noc I-75 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.7-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Rudgear to I-580)
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Under Construction
Interstate 680 1-580 to Rudgear Rd. Widen for HOV lanes ,
Fostoria Pkwy. Construct overcrossing
Programmed
Interstate 680 El Cerro Blvd. Install signals at ramp intersections
Rudgear to Alcosta Widen for HOV lanes
I-580 New SB 1-680 to EB 1-580 flyover
Alcosta I/C Modify interchange
San Ramon Valley Railroad Ave. Signalization and intersection improvements
Boulevard Hartz Ave. Signalization and intersection improvements
Sonora Ave. to Town and Country Dr. Widen west-side roadway
Hartz Avenue Diablo Rd. to SRVB/RR/ Road reconstruction
Hart Way
Diablo Rd. to Prospect Ave. Frontage improvement
San Ramon Valley Alcosta to Montevideo Widen
Blvd. .
Sycamore Avenue NE quadrant I-680 Park&Ride lot
Track 1
Interstate 680 County line to Rt. 24 Traffic operations system
Diablo to Bollinger Canyon Construct auxiliary lanes 1',a
1-580 Install.hook ramps at 1/C
Candidate Track 2
Interstate 680 South Dublin Blvd. New interchange
Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Widen to 4 lanes
Canyon Road
Pine Valley to Alcosta Widen to 4 lanes
Diablo Rd. Green Valley Road Widen to 4 lanes
Bollinger Canyon 1-680 to Camino Ramon Widen to 8 lanes
Road
San Ramon City limits to Dougherty Construct new roadway
Rd.
Dougherty S. to Dougherty N. Construct new roadway
BAvoLi-W.DOC I-76 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.7-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Rudgear to I-SM)
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
' (RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Crow Canyon Road San Ramon valley Blvd. to Camino Safety improvements
Tassajara
County line to Bollinger Canyon Widen/Truck climbing lane
Dougherty Rd. Crow Canyon Rd. to County line Widan to 6 lanes
Fallon Rd. Tassajara Rd. to I-580 Widen to 6 lanes
East Branch Rd. Bollinger Canyon Ext. to Wiitdemere Construct new roadway
Pkwy.
Camino Tassajara Windemere Pkwy. to County line Widen to 4 lanes
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2 ,
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA s Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
�r
:wot.i-345.gOC -7 November 2 1994
a I 7 ,
Figure 3.7-1
r Proposed Projects
I-680 (from
� 1[Vlffut _ Rudgear to I-580)
Creek--�.-.- _., Arterial
Freeway
a
Roadway Widening
Lafayette
•nauuusNow It
�Z NOV lanes
\. ®
Widen ® New or Upgraded
den DioWo Rd.
I (Comino lossoioro Interchange/Intersection
Alamo ® Z Green valley)
�. CONTRA COSTA
Moraga
d
Inbrseclion impprovemenh:
odd eui<ilie�y boss
Denville Blvd/Stone Volley 8 ,.._Danville lUabb to Bdlingar)
Son Ramon Valley/Hortz "`"•`"��„• ,
i wldea"Crow canyon Rd '-68.0
(Crovf Canyon PI.to
Camino Tossojam)
Sycamore Rd .:,� i Corridor _
Z - Park-n-Ride bt.::.
from.
Rud ear
��6nss to 1680i': Edend Bollinger oa to
z Conyon Rd to R
'; ��•�/
Doug Rd 1-580)
WideaSan Ramon Valley Blvd, n Ram������
(Sycamore to Crow Canyon)
Widen Dougherty Rd
Canyon b
Nr
\ svo 6.6nas)
A L.. A M E D Aon\w,don ger
Bot�in
Canyon Rd it
to Camino Raeron)
Widen Son Ramon Volley Blvd
(Alcosto to Montjvideo-A longs)
s a ' \ e _/
rModc�y est
bli
,, ....:.»...... hong• � Du 'n
}
Castro
Valle ___....�
• J �� t
t
zp Modify 1nge.580/1.680
.�...,.
hhaa .
intarc
Hayward
^
.......... .,.......... t k.
leasanton
See Ta6le 3.7-1 for a more detailed description of proieds
�i
BLAYNEY '
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
CIS
00
kn
—0
Z4
00
ol
00 78%0 so -8 P.
sc — y a.
ga cl, o. it
o- 10 g r
.0 s
-r-
0 A >
0 o
20 o 0
10
4� •
it 01 cs wl R to
0
V
'0
> >
C6 m m U C 0 20 w E.
= 0
cn
rA • • • 9 •
•
W
s
uw
00
cc ci.
ffi
41
cc
At
A !S Q6.
z 0 Q.
10 '58 -C Q
in rZ
It cq ti
-at
x t t - — C4
t3 u "m
-1,34 40 Q
t3 vs
40 ti z-, -V
go
13
r. ti 40
C6
.R vKj t*Ql
* I
C) "a
40,
DRAFT /mss , Figure 3,7-2
i
Proposed Actions
_._ I-680 (from
Walnut Rudgear to I-580)
1 ;jfCreek -
24
t ,mss
Support gas tax for
Alamo transportation improvements
Support major µ � CONTRA COSTA
Mora a transit investment
Danville
- � 1-680
Corridor
ud`g'ear
� Road:.to
am Advocate HOV on 1-680~`• `
and a seamless HOV system•� Son Ramott 1-580
✓ r ,
ALAMEDA
Develo o coo ro ive
h
... f 1.... sub
-area growth t
management pr ram
,--
3 ,to€meet TSOs
.,Achieve'�jobs-housing
"`balance in Tri-Valley •�` o ,�-r
Castro •'`' 6 Dublin 1
i
PaHey i �
Implement a subregional traffic lmpoct `. .
fee and pursue developer funding
Hayward
f
Pleasanton
BLAYNEY
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council has established TSOs for regional
routes within this corridor. They include LOS D for arterial streets and LOS E for freeways,
except for those freeway segments already at LOS F. The TVTC is considering several sets
of alternative actions and projects to achieve these standards and are currently testing the
effectiveness.
3.8 Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel
i
Highway 24, which connects Central and East County with Alameda County
and San Francisco, carries some of the heaviest volumes in the county. Only I-80 in West
County and I-680 through Central County carry more trips in a day than go along SR 24 to
the Caldecott Tunnel. The commute from Central County and the Lamorinda cities on this
corridor was one of the first suburban commutes in Contra Costa County and remains one of
the most significant despite the growth in importance of I-680. The continued concentration
of jobs in Alameda County and San Francisco ensure that this commute will remain
important.
The transportation facilities in the corridor consist primarily of Highway 24
and BART. No single roadway runs the'length of the freeway corridor although roads like
Olympic Boulevard and Mount Diablo Boulevard run along parts of Highway 24. BART,
however, provides an alternative to the freeway. The Concord line now running in the
,1 median of the freeway is being extended to Bay Point (formerly West Pittsburg) which could
serve additional trips that would otherwise take Highway 24. There is no bus service
connecting Alameda and Contra Costa Counties through the Caldecott Tunnel.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Although job growth in-Central Count and the Tri-Valle will not
Y Y
generate new trips in the peak direction in the corridor, the combination of continued job
growth in Alameda County and San Francisco and housing growth'in Central and East County
will. Traffic demand modelling suggests that traffic along Highway 24 will grow about five
percent between 1990 and 2010. (Average daily traffic in 1990 is about 144,000 vehicles per
day, but is forecast to rise to 150,700 by 2010.) Volumes in the peak direction, however,
will rise between 11.5 percent for the a.m, and 12.9 percent for the p.m. peak hour.
Although this growth rate is relatively small compared to growth rates in other corridors, it
AAVOLI-345MOC 1-81 November 4, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
translates into the need for another half lane of freeway capacity. (This modelling assumes y
some increases in BART capacity.) 1
Demand along the corridor is constrained by the six-lane Caldecott Tunnel. '
In addition, with the growth of 'obs to the east, demand is forecast to row in the off-peak
g J g P
direction although at not as fast a rate as the peak direction. Because the center bore of the
Caldecott Tunnel is operated as a reversible lane, it is a significant constraint for these off-
eak commuters well.
p co as e
Supply. Any increase in roadway capacity in the Highway 24 corridor will
be constrained by the most significant bottleneck there: the Caldecott Tunnel. Currently, the
tunnel is made up of three "bores" each of which contains two lanes. While there has been
talk of adding a fourth bore, its cost is prohibitive. Adding lanes on Highway 24 without
adding the fourth bore will not address this four-lane bottleneck in the corridor.
The capacity of the tunnel appears to be greater than other comparably sized
facilities. Generally, a single freeway lane can carry up to 2,000 vehicles per hour. Through
the Caldecott Tunnel, however, volumes up to 2,400 vehicles per hour have been observed.
With little opportunity to change lanes and pass other cars, drivers typically drive through the
tunnel with little space between vehicles. This spacing behavior may increase the effective
capacity of the tunnel to 4,800 vehicles in the peak direction instead of the 4,000 otherwise
expected.
Operation. To make the most of the available capacity of the existing tunnel, '
the middle bore is operated as a set of reversible lanes whose direction is changed to provide
more capacity in the peak direction. (That is, there are four lanes in the peak direction and
two lanes in the non-peak direction.) Both HOV lanes and ramp metering could improve
traffic flow in the morning on the freeway. Currently, there is some "casual carpooling"
along the corridor to take advantage of HOV lanes at the Bay Bridge toll plaza. In the past,
Caltrans has proposed adding an HOV lane in the shoulder of Highway 24 westbound. As
noted in the discussion of the West-Central Commute, tanker trucks are restricted.to certain
hours of the night.. .'
Ramp metering would be tied both to flows along the freeway and to the
back-up at the tunnel. With the completion of the improvements to the I-680/SR 24
interchange, a major point of congestion and "upstream" bottleneck will be removed. When F
that happens, ramp metering may need to be studied as a potential option. There is
widespread concern, however, about the effects of ramp metering on local streets. Of
particular concern are proposals to meter on-ramps near BART stations. It is feared that this
AAVOLt-345MOC 1-82 November 4, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
metering could cause serious delays at intersections near BART stations and thus discourage
the use of mass transit.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
By far the most significant project in the corridor is the reconstruction of the
SR.24/I-680 interchange which includes the widening of the SR 24 and I-680 approaches to
the interchange. This reconstruction project will remove a major bottleneck in both this and
adjoining corridors. The other projects proposed for the corridor include modifications to two
interchanges — Deer Hill and Brookwood — and improvements to intersections on Pleasant
Hill Road. The implementation of the traffic operations system (TOS) on SR 24 is also
expected to increase flows on the freeway. Table 3.8-1 lists these projects.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
One TSO is being discussed currently — limiting the peak period of
congestion on SR 24 to four hours in the morning. This TSO reflects the existing levels of
congestion that have already reached LOS F on several segments of the freeway. Table 3.8-2
describes potential actions to implement this TSO now being studied. They include land use
policies such as increasing densities near BART stations and prohibiting development in other
parts of the corridor, capital projects such as park-n-ride lots and additional capacity through
the Caldecott Tunnel, operational improvements such as expanded or more efficient bus
service, and TDM programs such as implementing a focused ridesharing program.
AAVOLI-3 1DOC I-83 November 4, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.8-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — ROUTE 24 AND THE CALDECOTT TUNNEL
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The Iist shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Under Construction
Route 24 1-680 Reconstruct interchange
Programmed
Route 24 Brookwood Widen eastbound off-ramp and install new signal
Deer Hill Rd. Modify westbound on/off ramps and the Central
Lafayette I/C; Install new signal at Deer Hill, and
interconnect with signal at Deer Hill and First St.
I-680 to Caldecott Tunnel Traffic Operations System
Pleasant Hill Road Mt. Diablo to Acalanes Channelization/Pavement overlay \�
Camino Pablo Miner Rd. to Bear Creek Rd. Road Reconstruction
Altarinda Road Camino Pablo to Orindawoods Rehabilitation and overlay
Orinda Orinda Carpool lots and bus centers
Track 1
Candidate Track 2
UC Projects under construction
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer.-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
`l
i
1�
A:wota-345MOC I-84 November 4, 1994
Ci,
i S I`^ '�� r • L / V
cu
O
\ 'O
DO
—a
vZ
v
O
N
_
<;< d d
0 a
rf � c / (J
ZZE
sayCb
: o
Q
- ' ;
C%4'
r^
c v
w i
C is
gr cc
IE
f
a� C _ a
gCP
E
�? lieCLN
SS Q
W�
caG
e
T
C C
C
=C,
C C O O C C C
O O O O •Q O
zg
j
.S 6 o `o mi
c L c
V d,
E u` 3g s' c uji
u a
00 �y a Wo E u q
e
$ o E
> > s $ Up
., „ E ., .� a rn
gC4 U e c o E
r aoe E Z = e h o u t o c� e
toO u o e o ° c u eua > o = m
U oCa 0. CE
mg
V L 'O •amp U m O C •> '� OEp •C .:� G. G p= •� V
C O a C '.+ � Q C d = � O � 7 0 8 8 g O C
U
I .c v� u tz. U a U m
•V
O 4
W Q y
w :D0.
o
e a Q 3
O C6 a a �°
Z z =
►o` v
Y
N� F � 4ti v •C CI-
0p Er y E72
0
f:
.Ssa
\ , yr` _ten• ,...•''�.''?. }
f N
Lu
leve
��r.. �Mme,.,` ...�` { �•. `h.....,,,,...
Qcm
al
U
O
Or '
Co
c.el v zH
arAU min
Issue Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
3.9 East-Central Commute — Highway 4 and Other Routes
One of the fastest growing commutes in the Bay Area is from East Contra ,I
Costa County across the Diablo Range into and through Central County. The primary route
in this commute is Highway 4, a four-lane freeway from Central County across Willow Pass
to Antioch and a two-lane highway from Antioch through Brentwood to San Joaquin County.
In addition to Highway 4, commuters also use Bailey Road (which connects with Clayton
Road), Kirker Pass Road (which connects with Ygnacio Valley Road) and Clayton Road to
get to and through Central County. Marsh Creek Road/Camino Diablo, a winding two-lane
which runs from Clayton to south of Brentwood, serves a smaller number of commuters from
East County. Transit is currently limited to buses although BART is extending the Concord
line to Bay Point (formerly West Pittsburg). In addition, commuter rail service to Brentwood
using existing rail lines is being discussed as either a short- or long-term addition to the
corridor's facilities.
To achieve the planned and approved development in East County —
especially in the east Antioch, Oakley and Brentwood area — some additional transportation
capacity will be needed. Two of the most discussed facilities in East County are the State
Route 4 Bypass (a bypass to Highway 4 from Antioch past Brentwood) and the East County
Corridor which would connect the Bypass to I-580 in the Tri-Valley. Many officials in East
County rank these two facilities as the highest transportation priorities in the area. (The Mid-
State Toll Road; a separate private facility, has also been discussed. This facility — if
constructed — would run from Highway 4 to I-680 near Sunol.) These facilities would
significantly increase transportation capacity in East County.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Although the jurisdictions in East County plan for significant job
growth, significantly more housing growth is forecast. The area already contains substantially
more houses than jobs with the result that many workers commute to jobs outside of East
County. Many of these jobs are located in Central County, the Tri-Valley, other parts of
Alameda County and even Santa Clara and San Francisco. The recently-adopted Brentwood
General Plan would allow a five-fold increase to about 60,000 persons.over the next 20 years.
The City of Antioch has approved development agreements and tentative maps for aropnd
12,000 new housing units. In total, East County jurisdictions have approved about 23,000
new housing units in East County. Proposed developments in unincorporated Contra Costa
County such as the Cowell Ranch would, if approved, add more development, both jobs and
housing. East County jurisdictions have relied on additional transportation improvements in
their planning and these improvements will be needed to support forecast development.
wavow-aas.noc I-88 November 4, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue
Dealing with this dramatic increase in traffic from new housing development is the primary
concern of the East County Action Plan.
This primary route west from East County is Highway 4. Select link
information shows that traffic from East County makes up only 16 percent of trips on
Ygnacio Valley Road and only eight percent on Treat Boulevard. (Both counts were made
west of Bancroft.)
Supply. Several major capacity increasing projects are planned in East
County. These include the lowering of the Willow Pass grade, the extension of BART to
Bailey Avenue, the widening of Highway 4 through Antioch and Pittsburg, and the addition of
HOV lanes between SR 242 and Railroad Avenue. Additional capacity beyond these projects
is necessary, however, to serve forecast development. The development of even a relatively
small portion of planned housing and jobs would io,crease congestion problems on Highway 4.
The primary commute path now follows the locatign of the most capacity,
along Highway 4 over Willow Pass with some diversion onto Kirker Pass and Bailey Road.
The addition of transportation capacity in the southeastern.Antioch:and Brentwood areas —
from Brentwood, Oakley and Antioch onto the freeway. Other planned roadway
improvements such as the Buchanan Bypass and the Leland Extension would add capacity
,parallel to Highway 4. The construction of the Buchanan Bypass would provide an improved
alternative route for commuters using Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road to reach
jobs in Concord and Walnut Creek.
A significant number of trips from East County have their destinations at jobs
in Alameda County, many of them in the Tri-Valley. According to the East County Action
Plan, of the 102,000 work trips that start in East County, about 12.5 percent or 13,000 trips
travel to Alameda County. (Perhaps as many as half of those travel to the Tri-Valley
although detailed information.from the U.S. Census is not yet available.) Because Vasco
Road provides a direct route between these two areas, volumes on this road are increasing.
The capacity of Vasco Road, however, is constrained. Alternative routes would take most of
the East County Corridor has been discussed for many years as a way of serving planned
development in East County while limiting its impacts on roadways in Central County. (See
the discussion of the East County Corridor below.) Funding for these improvements,
however, is far from certain.
w:w0L1-30.DW I-89 November 4, 1994
Issue Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan '
The development of transit facilities such as BART to Antioch or commuter
rail to Brentwood could meet some of this increased demand. Much of the existing and
planned land uses in East County, as in other areas, have been designed around the f
automobile, however, making it difficult for transit to meet more than a small fraction of the
demands of all the trips that this development would generate.
Another supply issue for transit is whether commuter rail is a short-term
solution while funds are collected for extending BART to Antioch or a longer-term solution
that would remain in service to Brentwood even as BART is extended.
Operation. One of the main measures being considered to improve supply in
this corridor through operations is the Contra Costa Commuterway. This system of HOV and
bus lanes (as described in Measure C) would run from Highway 4 in East County along
Highway 242 and I-680 to the Tri-Valley. HOV lanes on Highway 4 are part of the planned
expansions for that roadway. There are operational problems for adding HOV lanes on
Highway 242 that must be addressed before the commuterway can be developed along that
stretch. Reversible lanes on Highway 242 are possible but will require additional study. As
noted above, adding HOV lanes to I-680 would require right-of-way expansions (an approach
favored by Caltrans but limited by adjoining development) or restriping. The Project Study
Report for the I-680 HOV study however, allows design exceptions that would avoid taking
major amounts of right-of-way. Improving HOV capacity on the freeways is one of the tenets
of the TRANSPAC approach to transportation problems in Central County.
To maintain levels of service on both local streets in Central County and main
freeway connections, TRANSPAC is investigating traffic management systems that would — j
among other things — address the commute from East County on Central County arterials. �I
Ramp metering is one method for improving main line flow along Highway 4. Ramp
metering would be implemented as a coordinated system that includes I-680, Highway 24 and
Highway 242. This approach would combine metering with traffic signal optimization to
improve traffic flow through the county. TRANSPAC is currently conducting an HOV-
express bus-ramp metering study for the I-680/SP4/SR 242 Traingle. This study will
investigate the effectiveness, feasibility and cost of different strategies forimproving traffic
operation within this area.
A:w0L1-a5.noc I-90 November 4, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Reflecting the considerable growth in traffic within this corridor that has
occurred and is forecast to occur, the list of proposed projects in Table 3.9-1 contains a
number of significant ones. The projects include the current lowering of Willow Pass and
widening of SR 4 over the pass for HOV and the extension of BART to Bailey Road in Bay
Point (formerly West Pittsburg). In addition to these current projects, TRANSPLAN is in the
process of implementing a regional transportation impact fee to fund three other significant
projects: the widening of SR 4 east of Bailey Road for new HOV lanes and BART in the
median, the Buchanan Bypass in Pittsburg, and the State Route 4 Bypass from Antioch to
southeast of Brentwood. Projects listed in Table 3.9-1 also include the extension of BART to
Hillcrest Avenue, the widening of portions of SR 4 east of SR 160, and the widening of
Kirker Pass Road from East to Central County.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
TRANSPLAN is studying a TSO for SR 4 that sets a maximum period of
congestion (that is, LOS F) of 2.5 hours. For most other regional routes, more traditional
LOS standards would be set including, for the non-freeway portion of SR 4, LOS D for
signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. TRANSPLAN is also
considering either LOS mid-D and LOS mid-E for other regional routes in the area.
These TSOs would be achieved through various actions. These include tying
development to existing roadway infrastructure to encourage shorter trips, TDM programs
such as setting up telecommuting centers and alternative work-week programs, encouraging
the extension of BART or commuter rail into East County, improving operational efficiency
through signal synchronization and possibly ramp metering, and expanded funding programs.
The establishment of a subarea fee program would help fund a good portion of these
much-needed capacity-expanding programs.
While the fee program would help expand supply, the East County Action
Plan also addresses demand through a process for reviewing and approving new housing
development. This new process, if adopted, would establish a set of criteria that new
developments would be reviewed against. This criteria would include such things as the
provision of pedestrian amenities and location within transit corridors at higher densities. In
general, the criteria would lead to the approval of those developments that support transit or
other alternative modes of travel. This process would be overseen by TRANSPLAN.
1
eavota-xs.noc I-91 November 2, 1994
TABLE 3.94 '
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST-CENTRAL COMMUTE
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current.STIP, and reflects the ,
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Under Construction
SR 4 Willow Pass Rd. to Bailey Rd. Widen to 6 lanes(each way)
BART Concord to Bay Point Extend to North Concord/Martinez and Bay Point stations
(approx. 7 miles)
Programmed
SR 4 Somersville Rd Modify I/C ,
East 18th St Modify I/C
Bailey to Railroad Widen to 6 lanes + 2 HOV with provision for BART in
the median
SR 242 I-680 to SR 4 Widen to 6 lanes, possibly for HOV
Concord Ave I/C Modify I/C; add auxiliary lane to Solano/Grant I/C
SR 4 Bypass SR 160 to s. of Brentwood Construct new 2-lane road
Track 1
SR 4 Loveridge Modify I/C and construct parallel truck facility
SR 242 to Bailey Add HOV lane
SR 160 to Big Break Widen to 4 lanes
Big Break to Vintage Widen to 4 lanes
Yguacio Valley Road Cowell to Myrtle Widen to 6 lanes
Candidate Track 2
SR 4 *Vintage to Sellers Widen to 4 lanes
Railroad to Hillcrest Widen to 6 lanes + 2 HOV with provision for BART in
the median
Buchanan Bypass Somersville to Kirker Pass Construct new 2-lane mad
Kirker Pass Clearbrook ad Buchanan Add truck climbing lanes
Mrytle to Clearbrook Widen to 6 lanes
BART Bailey to Hillcrest Extend BART to Hillcrest Ave
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994--2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
a Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in bhe CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Project list.
B:wota-NIDOC I-92 November 2, 1994
1.
s
L i Z Z ac z z ' Q
a
.+
ii
ii
] Off\� �.Q ��� ....� { ■ •' i.w.+ .. . �
•
i } f
l a J
AF
uj
--------------
os f T
f{ LE
V E
rm
f!1
C
s�
C C •� � C �, � � U � U C C
as
o c
CL sR6ti'4' ae $ ap a c ewa
e
u tt > p 3 < e re oo40.
�► S
Lzl pp O `'
S -40 -0.
*B d S E h
�0 .� C 4 qq ° a C C w W O C
C6 6 '' u �' m w U° S 00
� e
g g GG
y
CL
It
Z .
wo
N y v w i of .S r �.
D Zn o °oIL
� 40LM
h a ` `y .off gaGOCti1,
-4 [� s- s,
all
p
Z
T"
O
i � ^
pG ......777 .
w
s
u
a a
� a
00 ,o
� m
W
� xQa
ran
a g
e Jt ° aW
� I
V , ♦ v,�•
1 tic
W ,
■
os
ui
Ply
Is
TF
J
f
• � i
�_,._..�......... � �=.gym
a3 oa
• / lj % rj
A.
/•^—
'' o o
f} }
8i i N do ® s
W
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
1
3.10 East County Corridor including Vasco Road and
Byron Highway
As noted above, many trips from East County are destined for jobs in the Tri-
Valley. Currently, the only direct route is on Vasco Road, a winding, two-lane country road
across the Diablo Range. Although this road will be relocated as part of the construction of
the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, its capacity will not be increased. With planned and approved
housing growth in East County and jobs in the Tri-Valley, the demand for a direct route will
grow. Byron Highway provides a direct route to the east but requires commuters to cross
Altamont Pass. I-580 (as noted below) is currently experiencing congestion along several
segments and will remain so with housing growth in Tracy, Mouatain House and other
developing areas of San Joaquin County. Altamont Pass on I-580 will also remain congested,
-discouraging diversion onto Byron Highway for trips from East County.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. Basically, as with many other corridors, the number of trips
forecast by the travel demand models are much higher than the capacity of Vasco Road. East
County is one of the only parts of the Bay Area where reasonably affordable housing is
planned and supported. Even with the forecast worsening of the commute, East County will
remain an attractive area for first-time homebuyers. Over half of the new household in
Contra Costa County between 1990 and 2010 will locate in East County, reflecting housing
availability there. If transportation improvements in this corridor or the East-Central
Commute corridor are not made, the pace of this planned development could slow
substantially from historic levels (especially with local growth management programs and
Measure C and CMP requirements in place). Without these facilities, many experts predict
that growth would simply shift to the Central Valley. Transportation facilities that would
serve this Central Valley development, such as I-580, are already at capacity. While agencies
are investigating ways to increase this capacity, they must overcome financial, organizational
and environmental constraints.
In addition, with the congestion (and weigh stations) on I-580, trucks are
more frequently diverting onto Byron Highway and Highway 4 from the Central Valley. This
diversion reinforces the need for the State Route 4 Bypass to keep trucks out of central
1_ Brentwood. _
Supply. A group of East County jurisdictions is exploring the effects of
constructing the East County Corridor. (A draft EIR on the East County Corridor was
released in the Fall of 1993. This Draft EIR evaluates the effects of the East County Corridor
B:woLI-M.noc I-97 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
program as well as the project-level effects of the State Route 4 Bypass.) While the State
Route 4 Bypass EIR analyzes a precisely.defined 250-foot right-of-way, the East County
Corridor EIR analyzes a 1,000-foot right-of--way that could accommodate a full freeway and
rail transit in the median.
Environmental groups and other agencies are concerned that the development
of this corridor would spur additional land use development in East County beyond that
already planned, with attendant conversion of prime, unique and important farmland and
wildlife habitat.
Operation. No operational improvements have been discussed as part of the
East County Corridor although the location of interchanges could affect the capacity and flow
of traffic on the roadway. To improve safety and reduce vehicle conflicts, the relocated
Vasco Road will have wider shoulders and truck-climbing lanes. As buck traffic increases on
Byron Highway, it will create new conflicts as cars try to pass slower-moving trucks.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Table 3.10-1 lists only four projects. The most significant of these projects is '
the construction of the proposed State Route 4 Bypass from Antioch to south of Brentwood.
This roadway could become part of the larger East County Corridor project that would
improve connections between East Contra Costa County and the Tri-Valley area to the south.
The proposed relocation of Vasco Road contained in Table 3.10-1 would not significantly
increase the capacity of this road to carry commuters between these two parts of the Bay
Area.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
TRANSPLAN is considering a TOS of LOS mid-E for Vasco Road and Byron
Highway with an additional objective of an average vehicle ridership of 1.3 on Vasco Road.
These TOSs would be achieved through encouraging job growth and metering new '
development, setting up telecommuting centers and encouraging alternate work-day and work-
week schedules, and pursuing additional funding sources.
I
BAVOLi-NIDD I-98 November 3, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
1
TABLE 3.10-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST COUNTY CORRIDOR
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Programmed
Vasco Road Camino Diablo to Alameda County Relocate 2-lane mad
Track 1
SR 4 SR 160 to Big Break Widen to 4 lanes
Big Break to Vintage Widen to 4 lanes
Candidate Track 2
SR 4 *Vintage to Sellers Widen to 4 lanes
SR 4 Bypass SR 160 to s. of Brentwood Construct new 4-lane road
Byron Airport Byron Hwy to relocated Vasco Road sto Construct 2-lane road
Connector Camino Diablo
Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
1 Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other corridors
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Plan list.
H:woLt-W.DW 1-99 November 2, 1994
hetFigure 3.10-1
��: ,�,, Proposed Projects
n 10C �' ' East County Corridor
yak
By
� f Arterial
vv don SR 4
••• 7t _?6Q..k�! !a4�1......... s Freeway
SR Bypms SRiMrdwng� 4 � „ ■aseuseses New Roadways
� ■� � =======� Now Freeway
�4 Roadway Widening
Brentwood New or Upgraded
0
0 a ® ® Interchange/Intersection
••
r • _ Discovery
..... _„ s °•• B
ay
•
�Seseenee.e■eeneessasnseeesk:
°•••/� � { S A N
\� •.••
` J0AQ. UIN
Byron
CONTRA
1• Rai
C O S T A •.••1---•�r,.roocaR*Rid
. WnnK101 't\ �
4*1
O •sews
� • • ■
,East County •.•' -
Corridor
*4
�
A L A M E D A t
fve
# s
w
See Table 3.10-1 For a more detailed description of projects.
BLAYNEY
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
$ S
►. � � U d � �_ H h
n Al
/F
�
tic F .., i
. W Q -E •fit, v v �p ',j'+
gg
w p
CQ
C �Q '�' •� � p V O � C 't~y C e6 "p O O
co
O � � > U � � W � � •tea
•
O
At s a
LIS
► 1oC
y. fn
.0
� p $ Irk � y
M e.y V2
,a
•�
.�
v
•J
,n
G
Y
� o
�q
,,, Ei
'� .
� es
q� c
v
0
,,r •�
V ��
'� ��
` E�"
x 66��
� ��
iL� �
N E"
a
�+ � �
.e, a
...-
-�- Figure 3.10.2
Bethel ls1 n�
Proposed Actions
MOO
East County Corridor
4.
z #
kley
•
O
mwo it
zs •__.__...... EaY Coon
s NX
f7�ff
M"•., Brenf and f77
:4,200 por ` hta6Gsh fNocl w: olficfs s. �y
ir+a fund SR a fM TDM Programs
widfnins,$R
bypass,and i♦ � QIStOY@Ty,gkhanoebypass .............._.._..
.+
�
ay
• S A N
Byron
— --— .1 C> A Q U -N
CONTRA
C O S T A -
....y�
` last County
i1
Corridor
Nil
�..
F
I �•�"' A LAM E D A
#
BLAYNEY DRAFT
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
3.11 I-580-Altamont Pass Commute
As noted above, the Altamont Pass and I-580 corridor serve trips from the
Central Valley and trips through the Tri-Valley. The growth of jobs in the Bay Area and
especially Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore in the Tri-Valley have encouraged housing ,
growth in Tracy and other parts of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. The primary
roadway serving this commute is I-580 over Altamont Pass.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Demand. The Central Valley towns along I-580 have seen considerable
growth as people move to find:affordable housing outside the Bay Area. With only limited
opportunities for housing development and significant employment growth in the rest of the
Bay Area, this housing growth is expected to continue. While San Joaquin County is studying
renewed rail service between there and the Tri-Valley and Santa Clara County, I-580 will
remain the main route for these commuters. Currently, I-580 across Altamont Pass has four
lanes to meet the demands of traffic from the Central Valley. Forecast development would
demand six or more lanes of capacity.
In addition, as noted above, congestion on I-580 has diverted traffic, '
especially truck traffic, onto Byron Highway and Highway 4 from the Central Valley. I-580
is one of the prime truck corridors from I-5 to the Bay Area and trucks make up a high '
percentage of the traffic across the Altamont Pass. This high percentage of truck traffic is
especially noticeable on the grade. The Tri-Valley Traffic Model projects total traffic demand
to equal 150 percent of capacity. San Joaquin County projects even higher demand.
Supply. Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV lanes) and
expanded public transportation could be added in this corridor, little or no additional capacity
for single-occupant vehicles is expected. The extension of BART into the Tri-Valley area will
encourage commuters into the East Bay and San Francisco areas to shift onto rail transit for at
least part of their trip. The further extension of BART to Livermore could make this shift
even more attractive to commuters. It would not, however, address congestion problems on
I-580 at Altamont Pass. This congestion will encourage commuters to take alternatives, such
as Patterson Pass Road, although this road has limited capacity with no substantial increases
planned to serve commuters from the Central Valley.
The steepness of Altamont Pass limits expansion as does limited funds. Rail
service between the Central Valley and the Tri-Valley and East and South Bays is one
potential solution. A proposed Altamont passenger rail line has been suggested that would
link BART in Livermore with San Joaquin County and Stockton to the east and San Josh to ,
BAVOLI-xs.00c I-104 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
the south through Niles Canyon. Low densities for both jobs and housing, however, will
likely translate into low transit ridership.
Operations. Increased parking costs, gas taxes and other penalties for-driving
could encourage the use of transit, but are difficult to implement. New HOV lanes are
possible but none are planned currently.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
A long list of projects is being considered to address existing and forecast
traffic problems within the Tri-Valley. The.majority of these projects are widenings of
existing roadways (such as Dougherty Road, Vasco Road, Greenville Road and Bernal
Avenue) and the extension of existing roads such as the widening and extension of Dublin
Boulevard to the east of its current terminus and the construction of the new Isabel Parkway
connecting I-580 to SR 84. In addition, many of the interchanges along I-580 would be
improved and a new one created at the new Isabel Parkway.
SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS
TSOs adopted for the corridor establish a standard of LOS D for signalized
intersections on arterial streets and LOS E for freeway segments during peak hours not
already at LOS F. The TVTC has also establishes TSO's no more than two hours of
congestion during peak commute periods on I-580 and an increase in overall AVR for all
employers by 10 percent. In addition, the Tri-VAlley Action has TSO of acheiving transit
travel times that equal or exceed onto travel times. These TSO's and actions to achiev them
are descibed in Table 3.11-2 below. State, regional and local governments have also initiated
a study of issues around I-580 and Altamont Pass.
1
1
1
1
1
B:wou-xs.DM 1-105 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan '
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.11-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I–S80-Altamont Pass Corridor
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Under Construction '
I-580 I-580/1-680 interchange Northbound/eastbound ramp
Hopyard interchange Modify interchange
Programmed '
I-580 1-680 Modify I/C
Vasco Rd Modify I/C
New SR 84/lsabel Parkway Construct new I/C '
SR 84 1-580 to old SR 84 Construct new 4-lane expressway (Isabel Parkway)
Greenville Patterson Pass Rd to I-580 Widen to 4 lanes
Candidate Track 2 ,
I-580 Kittyhawk Rd. New I/C
El Charro Modify I/C
N. Livermore Modify I/C
1st St Modify I/C
N. Greenville Rd Modify I/C
Hacienda Dr. New I/C
Santa Rita Rd. Modify I/C
Isabel Parkway I-580 to Vallecitos Widen to divided freeway
Vallecitos Rd. 1-680 to Node 4164 on Vallecitos Rd. Widen to 4 lanes
(Highway 84)
Dougherty Rd. County line to Dublin Blvd. Widen to 6 lanes
Dublin Blvd. Donlan Way to Hollis Canyon Blvd. Widen and extend to Hollis Canyon Blvd.
Tassajara to Doolan Rd. Construct new roadway
Tassajam Rd. County line to I-580 Widen to eight lanes ,
First St. Portola to 1-580 Widen to 6 lanes
Greenville Rd. 1-580 to Patterson Pass Rd. Widen to 6 lanes ,
Isabel Ave. 1-580 to Vineyard Ave. Widen to 6.1anes
Vasco Rd. Dalton Ave. to 1-580 Widen to 4 lanes
Dalton Ave. to Patterson Pass Road Widen
N. Livermore Ave. May School Rd. to 1-580 Widen to 6 lanes
B:woLt-W.Doc I-106 November 2, 1994 '
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
TABLE 3.11-1
STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-580-Altamont Pass Corridor
Note: The following list does not reflect the priorities established by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs) through the Action Planning process. The list shows projects programmed in the current STIP, and reflects the
' status of future projects in MTC's 1994 RTP.
Roadway/Facility Location Improvement
Bernal Ave. Foothill to Valley Ave. Widen to 6 lanes
First Ave. to Stanley Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes
Hacienda Dr. 1-580 to Owens Dr. Construct new 6 lane roadway
Programmed Projects currently under construction or programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle
Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track 1 of the 1994 RTP
' Gndidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 2
* Projects included in other tables
Projects in italics are those projects listed as part of an Action Plan but not included in the CCTA's Comprehensive
Transportation Plan list.
1
eAvot.t-3as.noc I-107 November 2, 1994
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
r v
' _N�FfI O d O t N b S - -- --------• e�
��- a
`os
t o
o
°
3 E � g •,$
W
s '
o Q
1 9 � EE Ws�
IA a
{ \ ACL
CS
�/�// _ � p♦ ty
1r
t � •
°
1�
A
F
c
o ° ° ° o ° °
0Cc
.t oe c a
m < 9 a C3 C o C
U A CD CO 'u ` o
U � U V •� U 9 •� "'1 Itl •� U U P U U •^ U
fo
x � •= � s � B
xo oho •�. $ e 9
00
E
s
E o 5 5 ° « a 6 a S >
eC o c .0 a - ° °
to O 47 b •°C C
_ 3 E E ao ,E u }Ct
:3 0
o e an u L�
v $ m e E 0 cs v E N cc y o�D $
° E 2S
a � y a v+ �• �' �' a � .3 �' °
O ^ > I < F U 6 �° h c� e a E .�
C
C �p
Z
Q ~ r O •! r Q =f. c C6 V v
v yg Cv c
.im
W13HO
c Q6
r� � F �+ � C C C � � Y Q .Yp � V •Y V O � > � V C V ~
—N :'f1 O d O f N d S -- t --------------- c CZ
CZ
_.
r
Q °
Q --
t .2
t ► C
cad
CD E
ai S gIm
'o-a--°'~< �
o f
co SO
O�
E-° Q
ui
\ C } o O a
1E E
AD .
� V o f
.aVC
z �
CK4
i Z 9
CD
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan ,
Circulation Draft
3.12 Other Issues
.These section addresses other issues that are not limited to any one corridor
discussed above. These issues include truck traffic and freight movement, bicycle and
pedestrian movement, and the transportation-disadvantaged or dependent.
TRUCK TRAFFIC AND FREIGIHT MOVEMENT
Besides the movement of people and commuting, the movement of goods is an ,
important component of travel within Contra Costa County and the nation. Although not
discussed separately, the information in Volume Two of the CCTP on average daily traffic on
the regional transportation system includes truck traffic. In addition, the CCTA's travel
demand models are calibrated to include truck traffic. Because it focuses on roads and
transitways, truck traffic is of more concern for the CCTP. The other main methods of goods ,
movement — trains, ships and pipelines — are of less concern because they use their own
rights-of-way (although commuter rail may conflict with rail shipping).
The trucking industry has captured a growing share of the freight movement
in the United States over the last fifty years. It share has more than doubled since then, to '
about a quarter of the ton-miles of goods shipped each year. This growing share of freight
movement has meant that more and more trucks have to share the county's roadway system
with passenger vehicles, whether private automobiles or buses. The efficient movement of '
freight within the county and the Bay Area is essential for the continued economic health of
the region. Growing congestion within the central urban areas has already shifted some
warehousing uses from locations like Richmond to the Central Valley where access is greater ,
and congestion lower.
When operated on level roadways, especially on limited-access roadways,
trucks have little effect on the capacity of those roads. The main effect is that of the
increased delay that can result from accidents between trucks and other vehicles. Trucks,
however, can have a greater effect on upgrades and at intersections. In both cases, the weight
of the trucks limits their ability to accelerate at the same speeds as cars. The slowdown of
trucks on hills encourages cars to pass, lowering the volume-to-capacity ratio in the passing
lane. Where only one lane exists, trucks can encourage unsafe passing on hills. The creation
of additional passing lanes can maintain capacity and improve flows on hills by getting
slower-moving trucks out of the main traffic lanes. At intersections, the volume-to-capacity ,
ratio generally worsens as the number of trucks increases. This worsening is related to the
slower acceleration of trucks from a stop as well as their length and consequent difficulty in
turning.
BAVOLI-xs.noc I-112 November 2, 1994 '
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
The freeways that serve Contra Costa County generally have greater truck
' volumes than most arterials. These roadways link the Bay Area to the surrounding state and
nation and provide access to main industrial and warehousing destinations for the trucks.
I-80, I-680 and I-580 — in both West County and the Tri-Valley — are probably the main
' truck routes in the county. Highway 24 has limited truck traffic since the height of Caldecott
Tunnel prevents the passage of larger trailers. The east Highway 4-Byron Highway corridor,
as noted above, has increasing truck traffic as trucks divert to the north and east to avoid
congestion on I-580 and 1-680. The Richmond Parkway was designed to remove trucks from
1-80 and city streets in Richmond, thus freeing capacity on the freeway and limiting vehicle
conflicts.
The growing congestion of the county's — and the nation's — freeways and
' major arterials has added to the trucking industry's operating costs. In response, truckers
have tried to shift their travel in urban areas to the off-peak hours as much as possible and to
find alternative routes, such as the east Highway 4-Byron Highway corridor mentioned above.
The growth of truck traffic, however, has had a negative impact on the
region's roadways in one respect. Trucks have a disproportionate effect on pavement and
roadway wear. This increased wear hastens the need for maintenance and rehabilitation.
Solutions for the problem of maintaining efficient freight movement in the
region are not easy to find. A renewed emphasis on rail is one option. Richmond's "South
Shoreline Rail Study," indicates that improved rail connections to the Port of Oakland could
remove several hundred trucks per week from the I-80/1-580 between Richmond and Oakland.
Given the spread out location of warehouses and industry and the increased importance of
larger retail outlets who rely on trucking to supply them, however, this strategy would have
' limited success, at least over the next 20 years or so, although it could be successful as a
longer-term strategy. Generally, improvements to regional roadways that increase capacity or
traffic flow and help passenger movement will help truck movement as well. These
' improvements could range, for example, from simple roadway expansion to ramp metering
and intelligent vehicle/highway systems ([VHS).
' BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
One way to improve the functioning of the transportation system is to shift
' trips from the automobile to other modes of travel. Most frequently discussed among these
other modes are carpools and transit. While they make up a much lower share of trips in the
region, especially for commuting, bicycling and walking can play a supporting role in
improving the transportation system.
BAVOLI-345MOC 1-113 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
Bicycling and walking can be used for commuting where the commute trip is
short or where they are one leg of a longer trip. At least part of many transit trips, for ,
example, are.made by foot. Bikes can be an excellent alternative for trips to and from transit
stations, whether BART stations, transit centers, or-park-and-ride lots. Where jobs, shopping
or other destinations are close to homes, biking or walking can be used for the whole trip.
Both these modes of travel are sensitive, however, to distance, topography,
safety and climate. By themselves, bicycling and walking have shorter maximum distances
thaneither automobiles or mass transit. Generally, most walking trips are less than one-
quarter mile. Bicycle trips have a considerably greater average distance given their greater
average speed. Because these two modes of travel are non-mechanized, they are also
sensitive to changes in grade, especially upgrades. Bicycle or pedestrian routes that contain
significant hills can discourage use.
In addition where safe "friendly" routes are not available use b bicyclists
,
Y Y Y
and walkers will be lessened. The needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, however, are
somewhat different. "Pedestrian-friendly" environments generally provide a clear sense of
separation and protection from rapidly moving cars and, sometimes, bicycles. Trees, a row
of parked cars or a separating strip of land between the pedestrians and vehicles can all
provide that separation. Because they are more sensitive to distance and fatigue, pedestrians
also like routes that lead to their destinations in as straight a path as possible. Long blocks,
"no crosswalk" signs and curving sidewalks can all discourage walking. Pedestrians also ,
prefer routes with greater visual interest and more pleasant surroundings. Generally,
pedestrian volumes will be heavier on quiet streets with less traffic (though not necessarily
none at all) and more buildings or landscaping closer to the walkway.
Bicyclists are more like drivers than pedestrians in their needs. The bicycle is
a vehicle and, when used to commute, it mostly shares the right-of--way with cars and trucks. '
This sharing of the roadway makes bicyclists extremely sensitive to issues of safety. They,
like motorcyclists, are harder to see than cars. Unlike motorcycles, however, motorists more
often forget to give bicycles the right-of-way at intersections. Both of these conditions lead to '
accidents.
On most streets, especially on less-travelled local access streets, these conflicts r
are not sufficient to require additional actions. On other streets, however, additional actions
can help improve safety. One way to address these safety issues is to establish separate
bicycle lanes or routes. A bicycle lane is a separate lane for bicyclists within the street right- '
of-way. They are located either adjacent to the outside travel lane or on the shoulder. They
are designated through signs and pavement markings. Bicycle lanes must be one-way .
e:wot,ss.DW I-114 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas
Circulation Draft
facilities to prevent the creation of new turning conflicts. On a bicycle route, bicyclists also
share the roadway with cars but no separate portion of the paved right-of-way is designated
exclusively for bicycles. Instead, these routes are designated by signs only.. This signage
puts motorists on notice that they must share the right-of-way with bicycles.
' The CCTA can directly support bicycling and walk ing by funding new bicycle
or pedestrian facilities or incorporating them into new roadway or transit projects. It can
provide indirect support of development patterns and designs that encourage people to use
bicycles and walking to get around. Both walking and riding, however, put people out into
' the elements. Rain and cold and dark can all discourage people from using these modes. Of
course, the CCTA has little ability to influence these climatic influences.
' SERVING THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
Most adults in Contra Costa County can take advantage of all aspects of the
county's transportation system. The county has a high rate of auto ownership and many
households have one car for each adult. In addition, adults have good access to transit
facilities, such as bus lines, BART and park-and-ride lots.
' Man adults in the county, however, and all children cannot take advantage
Y h' �
of much of the county's transportation system. Children cannot drive and must depend on
' their parents or other adults to get around. Transit service is sparse in many parts of the
county and children cannot use it, especially without being accompanied by an adult. The
poor, many of whom have no car in the household, must rely on public transit or on others
' for transportation. Where transit service is good,.access to jobs and shopping can also be
good. Where transit service is less extensive, the poor can be at a considerable disadvantage.
The elderly and the handicapped as well must rely much more on transit. For many of them,
transit needs to provide special equipment, such as wheelchair lifts,.so that they can ride.
' Without access to adequate transportation, these groups may have a hard time
taking advantage of employment opportunities and getting to shopping and other services, and
may suffer social isolation. To the extent that these groups can rely on others for rides,
' roadway improvements can help maintain the mobility and access to needed facilities. Where
they cannot rely on others, these roadway improvements will not benefit them without
concurrent investment in transit or paratransit service.
The two primary means for serving these groups are transit and paratransit.
Transit includes both bus and rail service running on fixed schedules and routes. Paratransit
usually involves buses or vans without either a fixed schedule or fixed route. Paratransit can
' BAVOL1-W.DW I-115 November 2, 1994
Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft '
have greater or lesser degrees of flexibility in scheduling and routing. For the elderly and ,
handicapped, paratransit provides transportation where regular transit cannot (or has difficulty
doing so). As with pedestrian and bicycle improvement, transit and paratransit projects can
improve the mobility of the poor, the elderly and the young.
Measure C explicitly lists both transit and paratransit service as eligible ,
programs for funding through grants to transit agencies.
e:woLI-30.DW I-116 November 2, 1994
4 IMPLEMENTATION
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) was created to provide a
countywide forum to oversee expenditures of sales tax funds and to implement an innovative
growth management program. The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP)
focuses on mitigating the cumulative impacts of land use decisions on the regional
transportation system. It does this through the funding of major regional projects coupled
with growth management. With CCTA as the lead agency, a cooperative planning process
was established to involve local jurisdictions in the development and implementation of the
over program.
Because the heart of the CCTP is comprised of transportation projects in
' various jurisdictions under several different agencies, good implementation, organization
strategies and guidelines are crucial to a smooth transition from proposals to construction.
Tentative funding for projects in the CCTP will be potentially derived from over ten different
' sources while the transportation projects are culled from plans at the local, county, state and
federal levels. Effective action is essential to any new policies or programs.
' CCTA will work with local, regional, State and federal agencies to provide
guidelines and funding to implement the CCTP projects. While some projects are already
included in other plans and policies, have committed funding and will most likely be
implemented, other projects are listed here for the first time and have no dedicated source of
revenue to assure construction.
4.1 Funding
Crafting a comprehensive plan that responds to county needs and fiscal
realities is a delicate balancing act requiring difficult tradeoffs. Funding for transportation
maintenance and improvements no longer keeps up with demand —there are simply too many
projects and too little money. In the past two decades, seeking adequate revenue has often
supplanted the actual improvement projects in order of importance during the planning
process. As a result, in 1988, voters approved the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement
and Growth Management Program (Measure C) which included a one-half cent Retail
Transactions and Use Tax to help fund transportation projects within the county.
e:w0L1-U5.D)C 1-117 November 2, 1994
Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
The Measure C sales tax alone, however, cannot even begin to finance all the
proposed transportation projects necessary to simply maintain the county transportation
system. Other available revenue, such as funding through the federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), or State and regional plans, such as the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and MTC's Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP), must be included in the CCTP. Under ISTEA, the STIP and the RTP must include a
realistic financial assessment that demonstrates how the plans can be implemented and funded.
Because the vast majority of its funding is derived from State and federal resources included
in the STIP and the RTP, the CCTP must also provide a financially realistic assessment of
proposed projects. In other words, the CCTP cannot simply be a "wish list" of all the
transportation projects considered necessary to maintain and improve the quality of life in
Contra Costa. Accordingly, throughout the CCTP, the descriptions of projects include both
their location and design and their funding status. Those projects with committed funding or
included within the region's financially-constrained RTP are clearly identified as are those ,
projects without an identified source of funding.
Unfortunately, the Measure C sales tax plus other existing and forecast '
revenue, including local, county, State and federal funding, falls short of supporting all the
committed and proposed projects on the Comprehensive Plan List. Indeed, major downturns ,
in the California economy.were not factored into the original Measure C revenue forecasts
and receipts over the past two years have been significantly less than expected. Similarly, the
growing burden of maintaining and operating the regional system, coupled with completion of
the interstate system, has left the State and federal commitments for new projects dramatically
below past levels. More recently, the defeat of a Statewide bond issue for seismic retrofitting
(Proposition la on the June 1994 ballot) has left the State with much reduced funding, for ,
other projects. The construction of several programmed projects in Contra Costa County may
be held up as seismic retrofitting and reconstruction are given priority for limited funds.
Because funding will be available:for only for a small percentage of projects '
deemed necessary to adequately maintain and upgrade the county transportation system, the '
current Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan list of projects is divided into four
categories: 1) Under Construction; 2) Programmed; 3)Track 1; and, 4) Candidate Track 2.
Programmed projects are projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 State
Transportation Improvement Program. These projects have committed funding. Track 1 r
projects are listed in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan's financially-constrained Track 1
alternative, have some or all funding committed and will most likely be built (although there ,
could be some reallocation of funding over the 20-year life of the RTP). Track 2 projects are
listed in MTC's longer-range, financially-unconstrained project list, or in regional Action
Plans and have no committed funding. It is MTC's intention to develop a list of unfunded '
s:wou-NSMOc I-118 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Implementation
Circulation Draft
projects for the Bay Area, and aggressively seek funding through possible increases in gas
' taxes, sales taxes or tolls, to be levied regionwide.
EXISTING AND FUTURE FUNDING
There are several existing sources of transportation funding available to the
county, some flexible and others restricted to specific programs or projects such as transit
upgrades or air quality improvement. This revenue has already been committed for approved
projects in various regional and county transportation plans and programs. As part of the
Regional Transportation Plan, MTC has estimated that Contra Costa County is eligible for the
following investment programs which will contribute to Programmed and Track 1 projects.
► Sales Tax Program: Measure C, covering the period between 1988-2009 is
' expected to generate approximately $1,289.9 million over 20 years.
► MTC Resolution 1876/New Rail Starts Program. Sufficient revenues have
been secured through this program to fully fund the West Pittsburg/Bay Point
BART extension.
► State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and federal Surface
Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
(STP/CMAQ). Combined future revenues from these two programs would
provide about $503.4 million for the county over the next 20 years. Revenue
can be used to fund new projects, address any future shortfalls in Measure C
or Resolution 1876, or address outstanding maintenance needs. STP/CMAQ
are relatively new sources created by the federal ISTEA legislation and are
considered to be flexible funding.
' Other revenue available for transportation projects in the county includes
Caltran's annual highway maintenance program, transit fares, other State and federal monies
' (State Transportation Development Act, State Transit Assistance, and federal Section 9 and
Section 3), local funds and developer mitigation fees. It should be noted, however, that all
the above funds are already committed for Programmed and Track 1 projects.
MTC, as part of the RTP, will identify projects for Track 2 and develop an
advocacy program for establishing new revenue sources. These new sources could include a
regionwide sales tax measure, bridge toll increases, a 10-cent regional gas tax, and other
potential sources yet to be determined. The Govenor, however, has established.a notorious
new Federal or State funding for roadway projects. The 1989 "Transportation Blueprint for
e:woLi-x .UM I-119 November 2, 1994
Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft r
California" identified $18.5 Billion in funding for State trasnportation projects and programs.
The Blueprint led directly to the passage-of Proposition 111 wich established additional gas ,
tax revenues (as well as the State Congestion Management Program requirements). The
recent shortfall in revenues available for these projects and programs has resulted from the
failure of bond issues (which borrow against that gas tax revenue cunsumption), the need for '
seismic retrofit programs and the general economic downturn. This shortfall is estimated at
between $4 and $5 billion.
4.2 Responsibilities of Other Agencies
The CCTA is responsible for the overall preparation and organization of this '
document. However, the CCTP is a collaborative effort and various jurisdictions and
agencies are also responsible for providing input to, preparing, reviewing and implementing ,
the plan. The CCTA will review the RTPCs Action Plan Proposals for Adoption and will
incorporate them into the CCTP. The CCTA may request that the RTPCs modify their
Action Plans to meet the requirements of the Implementation Documents. The CCTA will not '
modify an RTPC's Action Plans. Agencies, committees and jurisdictions, other than CCTA
involved in the Plan process include the following. ,
Local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions are primarily responsible for making
a good faith effort to implement the actions contained in the Action Plans. Jurisdictions that
fail to do so will be found out of compliance with the Authority's Growth Management
Program. It is through its appointed members to the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees that the local jurisdiction will review and comment on the Action Plan before its
publication. Local jurisdictions will also be responsible for identifying and analyzing projects
that generate significant new traffic as part of the Action Plan and Growth Management
Program requirements. '
Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). RTPCs, with
assistance and guidance from the CCTA, are developing the Action Plans, which they will '
maintain and update. The Action Plans, which include Traffic Service Objectives, Actions
and projects, provide the basis for the CCTP, which is produced and implemented by CCTA.
The RTPCs will forward the Proposals for Adoption to the CCTA. That action will commit r
the local jurisdictions to implementing the actions and programs outlined in the Action Plan.
RTPCs will also review and comment on the Plan before its publication. '
e:woLI-W.noc I-120 November 2, 1994 '
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Implementation
Circulation Draft
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The CCTP also
incorporates projects from other plans including the RTP, prepared by MTC. MTC will be
invited to review and comment on the CCTP during the public review period.
California Transportation Commission (CTC). For projects to receive
regional, State and federal funding, they must be included in the STIP, which incorporates
RTP, CMP and CCTP projects. The STIP is approved by the CTC. The CTC will be
invited to review and comment on the CCTP during the public review period..
Caltrans. As a State transportation agency, Caltrans maintains its own list of
transportation projects to be managed and financed by the agency. Some of these projects are
located in the Contra Costa County and are included in the CCTP. Caltrans participated in
the'prepartion of theAction Plans and reviewed and commented on the CCTP during the
public review period.
Transit Agencies. Representatives of the five transit agencies serving Contra
Costa County (AC Transit, CCCTA, ECCTA, WCCCTA, and BART) have participated in
the preparation of the Action Plans.
Other Public Agencies. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) will be consulted during the public review period as will Alameda, San Joaquin,
Solano and Marin counties.
' savou-xs.noc I-121 November 2, 1994
Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
r
t
f �
. t
t
B:woLi-M5.noc I-122 November 2, 1994 ,
5 FUTURE ACTIONS
5.1 Update Process
The Contra Costa Growth Management Program, established by Measure C,
requires that the CCTA update the CCTP and its travel demand models every two years.
This two-year update process is comparable to the two-year updating for the Strategic Plan,
the Congestion Management Programs (CMPs), and MTC's Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
Following the adoption of the CCTP, several other actions will occur. ABAG
will release new projections of population and job growth'in the Bay Area. The CC'pA will
prepare and adopt its 1995 CMP, incorporating any Deficiency Plans prepared by local
jurisdictions and the RTPCs. The RTPCs will also update their Action Plans to incorporate
these Deficiency Plans and reflect any General Plan Amendments adopted by local
jurisdictions. The CCTA will also update its Strategic Plan in 1995 to review revenues
generated through the Measure C sales tax and to program another two years of projects to be
financed with Measure C and other funds. In addition, other changes may occur in the
funding and regulatory environment for transportation planning and programming.
The next update for the CCTP will need to review these new or revised plans
P
and programs to see what in the CCTP remains sound and useful and what policies and
actions need review and perhaps change. The specifics of the update process will depend on
the size of the issues it will face. It is likely that the CCTP update process will parallel the
process used for updating the CMP.
As in the CMP process, the CCTA will generate a list of projects to
incorporate into one of MTC's regional planning documents. During the preparation of the
CMP, the CCTA proposes a list of projects that MTC will consider as it prepares its RTIP.
The RTIP contains a proposed list of projects in the Bay Area that would be funded over the
following seven years. The CMP, likewise, contains a seven-year capital improvement
program for transportation projects in Contra Costa County. The CCTP update will probably
generate a similar, but longer-term, list of projects for MTC's update of their RTP. In
y\
addition, the CCTP update could be used to help define so-called "Track 2" projects. These
projects could be funded through new regional:financing programs now being considered.
i}
B:woLI-W.00c 1-123 November 2, 1994
Future Actions Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft '
5.2 Remaining Issues
The CCTP discusses or addresses the most important transportation issues
facing Contra Costa County. These issues range from congestion management to safety and
from alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles to land use changes. The CCTP discusses
these issues and contains projects and other actions that address them. Some of these issues, '
however, could be addressed in greater detail; others will need additional action.
Commentors on earlier drags of the CCT?have mentioned some such issues.
Potential actions proposed in the draft Action Plans raise others that might be fruitfully
addressed at the countywide level. These potential issues could include:
► Evaluating which development standards and land use changes would best
support and encourage the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle,
► .Assessing methods to support walking and bicycling as an alternative to the
automobile, including a countywide bikeway system, ,
► Assessing in greater detail the needs of freight movement within the county,
► Studying the effects of a coordinated system of HOV lanes, express bus
service, ramp metering and other operational improvements on the county's {
freeways and establishing a policy consistent with those findings,
► Addressing the issue of project priorites for future funding, and
ci
► Choosing between maintenance and expansion of the transportation system,
and
► Formatting an overall vision for Contra Costa, 2010.
These issues are onlypotential issues raised in the Action Plans and b
P Y
commentors. The CCTA, as it considers the draft CCTP, will define more clearly which
issues will be reviewed in later updates of the CCTP.
BAVOLi-xs.DW I-124 November 2, 1994
6 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANS
The following chapter summarizes the status of the Action Plans for Routes of
1� Regional Significance. The Action Plans are being prepared for designated Routes of
Regional Significance within each of five sub-areas of the county. Like the CCTP, the Action
Plans will establish Traffic Service Objectives (ISOs) and actions intended to meet those
TSOs within the county sub-area. Action Plans are being prepared for West County, East
County, Central County, the Lamorinda communities, and the Tri-Valley area (in conjunction
' with several jurisdictions in Alameda County).
Each section below describes the Regional Routes addressed in the Action
Plans, the TSOs established for those Regional Routes and the actions recommended to
achieve those TSOs. Since the Action Plans are in various stages of their preparation, this
version of the CCTP summarizes the current status of the Action Plans. This summary of
Action Plan status describes the status of both the modelling for the Action Plans and the
Action Plans themselves.
6.1 West County — WCCTAC
WCCTAC released a circulation draft West County Action Plan on July 29,
1994. The Action Plan describes the Regional Routes analyzed, future conditions, capacity
improvement options, goals for the region, regional actions for reducing congestion, action
plans for each Regional Route, and a process for monitoring and review.
The Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs)proposed in the circulation draft Action
Plan describe more flexible standards than the level-of-service standards frequently used in
transportation planning.
The actions selected to achieve these TSOs focus on building the
transportation infrastructure needed for West County and encouraging creative ways of
managing travel.demand. The Action Plan, as required by Measure C, also includes a
procedure for review of general plan amendments that requires jurisdictions considering a
general plan amendment that generates more than 100 peak hour trips to either:
BAVOLi-W.DW 1-125 November 2, 1994
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
► Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan traffic service objectives, or
► Propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the general plan
amendment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.
If neither can be done, approval of the amendment may constitute a violation
of procedures and lead to a finding of non-complicane with the Growth Management
Program.
The West County Action Plan focuses on congestion and travel on the I-80
corridor. The TSO's for I-80 emphasize increasing the use of transit, park-and-ride lots, and
carpools, rather than increasing mixed-flow capacity. WCCTAC has begun a multi-
jurisdictional effort to resolve issues and develop actions for the corridor. Their first step is a
recommended set of guiding principles for this effort. These guiding principles for the 1-80
corridor include:
10. Viewing the I-80 Corridor as multi-modal transportation system vital to the
movement of goods and people in the region.
► Investment in the corridor should balance regional and local mobility with
environmental, geographic equity and economic objectives.
► Investments should be strategically aimed at the overall improvement of
performance in the corridor.
► The improvements should discourage single-occupant vehicles and diversion of
through traffic onto local streets.
D. Constraints in the corridor limit options to bus, rail and ferry service; HOV
lanes; and safety improvements.
This planning effort will involve jurisdictions in Contra Costa, Alameda and
Solano Counties as well as transit providers, the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities
Coalition, Caltrans and MTC.
e:wota-xs.r= 1-126 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
Circulation Draft
6.2 Central County - TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC released its circulation.draft Action Plan for Central County on
July 26, 1994. The circulation draft Action Plan is built on three "tenets":
1 Improve freeway corridors for through traffic via an HOV system connecting
g Y
the East, Central and Tri-Valley areas of the county;
2 Establish a traffic management and signal synchronization plan within Central
County to manage traffic flow and provide the storage capacity (reservoir) for
' that traffic; and
3 Develop efficient and effective transit network to alleviate demand on the
roadway network.
In keeping with these three tenets, TRANSPAC has selected several TSOs and
actions to achieve them. The circulation draft Action Plan outlines TSOs for traffic (based on
peak hour travel speeds, delay index and average vehicle occupancy), transit mode share and
vehicle-employee ratio. The specific TSOs are:
► Minimum average speed of 30 mph on freeways and 15 mph on arterials.
► Achieve a delay index` of not more than 2.0 on all segments.
► Increase peak period average vehicle occupancy for work trips on Regional
Routes by 2010.
► Increase the proportion of peak period work trips made on transit by 25
percent by 2000 and 50 percent by 2010.
► Achieve the BAAQMD goals for vehicle-employee ratio.
The circulation draft Action Plan also outlines 12 actions, in seven categories,
to improve the transportation network within Central County. The actions are outlined in the
following table.
4 "Delay index" refers to the ratio of travel time on a roadway segment during
the most congested period to travel time during the most uncongested period.
9AVOL1-x5.00c I-127 November 2, 1994
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft '.
PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR CENTRAL'COUNTY ACTION PLAN
Categories Actions
Comprehensive HOV 1 Support the study of a comprehensive HOV system and, if feasible,
System consider all funding sources to implement,including subregional
mitigation fees and other sources
Transit Availability 2 Promote the expansion and development of an effective transit
network within and through Contra Costa County.
3 Encourage effective feeder service to the BART system. '
. Investigate coordination with other RTPCs and transit agencies.
Transportation 4- Support and promote subregional and employer TDM programs.
Demand Management
5 Develop and implement residential programs promoting commute
alternatives.
6 Develop and implement rideshare programs for target locations or
populations(such as, colleges and high schools).
Land Use/Growth 7 Evaluate keying future development in Central and East County to
Management the phased implementation of improvements throughout the region.
8 Continue to encourage East County and surrounding areas to
incorporate growth management principles in their Action Plans.
9 Encourage local jurisdictions within Central County to promote
transit use, HOV priority at employment centers and continued
support of TDM programs.
Local Improvements 10 Implement a signal metering and synchronization system to `
discourage use of arterial routes bypass routes for the regional
freeway system.
11 Encourage actions to minimize impacts to arterial routes and keep
autos on regional freeways.
Non-Motorized Modes 12 Consider the needs of non-motorized modes in the construction and
of Travel maintenance of roadways.
Local Roadway 13 (Implemented through specific projects)
Improvements
l�
BAVOL1-W.00c I-128 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
Circulation Draft
6.3 East County — TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN released its circulation draft Action Plan on June 24, 1994. As
in the other Action Plans, the East County Action Plan describes future conditions, lists the
Regional Routes within East County, establishes TSOs and actions to achieve them, and
defines a process of monitoring and review.
For most Regional Routes, the preliminary draft Action Plan proposes
traditional level-of-service standards as the TSO. For two Regional Routes, however,
TRANSPLAN, using the flexibility of the Growth Management Program, is proposing
different kinds of TSOs. For State Highway 4, which already has areas of heavy congestion,
the proposed TSO would allow no more than 2.5 hours of congestion in the A.M. and P.M.
peak periods. For Vasco Road, where congestion is related more to volume than to particular
intersections, the proposed TSO is a peak-hour vehicle occupancy of 1.3.
The proposed actions to achieve these TSOs balances the construction of new
road, transit and operational improvements with the implementation of economic development
and growth management programs. The roadway improvements include the widening of SR 4
r� and the construction of the Buchanan Bypass and SR 4 Bypass. The preliminary draft Action
Plan also includes the expansion of BART, the implementation of commuter rail on existing
tracks and the construction of new park-and-ride lots.
The East County Action Plan proposes a growth management strategy
-' framework. This strategy is intended to reduce the impacts of new development, not
necessarily through reducing the number of units allowed, but by changing the character and
design of these developments. In the proposed framework, a growth management
subcommittee of TRANSPLAN would review any development project that would generate
more than 100 peak hour trips. Projects could meet the growth management requirements of
the Action Plan if, when added to other, already approved development, they:
1 Do not violate any TSOs.
` 2 Violate one or more TSO but propose measures to achieve compliance.
(These measures might include reducing the size of the project, making
improvements to affected facilities, or phasing development with
improvements to the affected facilities.)
3 Violate one or more TSO but propose supplementary measures including
achieving a minimum score on a checklist of design quality and constructing a
e:%VOLI-xs.00c I-129 November 2, 1994
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
r.
portion of a regional transportation improvement (such as the State Route 4
Bypass, the Buchanan Road Bypass and interchange improvements on State
Route 4).
The checklist of design quality, as described in the circulation draft Action. .
Plan, will include criteria on location and mixing of uses in the development to encourage
shorter trips, linkages to other areas by alternative travel modes, site design that encourages
walking and bicycling, economic disincentives for automobile use, and amenities and other
facilities that encourage transit or telecommuting.
The proposed economic development program for East County would help r
address transportation issues by improving the ratio of jobs to employed residents in this part
of the county. The Action Plan includes three tools — transportation improvements,
cooperative marketing, and financial incentives — to encourage greater economic development
in East County.
6.4 Lamorinda
The Action Plan for the Lamorinda area focuses on State Route 24 which is
r�
the main Regional Route within that area. In addition, San Pablo Dam Road from Bear
Creek Road to West County has been designated a Regional Route. TSOs and actions will be
added for that route as well.
The circulation draft Lamorinda Action Plan, released on September 1, 1994, t�■!,
proposes TSOs that incorporate non-LOS standards. For SR 24, there are two proposed
TSOs:
► Maintain congestion between the Caldecott Tunnel and the I-680/SR 24
interchange to no more than four hours in both A.M. and P.M. peak hours.
► Increase daily ridership on BART by 20 percent by 2010. _
The proposed TSO for San Pablo Dam Road is to maintain peak period '
P P P
congestion (both A.M. and P.M. peak hours) between Castro Ranch and Bear Creek Roads at
less than two hours.
A:woLi-W.DW I-130 November 4, 1994 �.
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
Circulation Draft
The actions proposed to achieve these TSOs range from expanded roadway
capacity and operational improvements to intergovernmental programs and land use changes.
The capital projects include completion of the I-680/SR 24 interchange, addition of an exit-
only lane on eastbound SR 24 at the Camino Pablo/Brookwood interchange, and addition of
new park-and-ride lots. The operational improvements include, for SR 24, headway
reductions on BART and a new school bus program and, for San Pablo Dam Road, improved
transit along that road to the Orinda BART and redesign of pedestrian- and horse-crossing
locations. The land use changes include discouraging development in some areas but
encouraging transit-oriented development near BART stations. The Action Plan also supports
improved TDM and speed deterrence programs.
6.5 Tri-Valley — TVTC
The Circulation Draft Tri-Valley Action Plan was released in August 1994.
Like the other Action Plans, it describes the Regional Routes analyzed, future conditions,
capacity improvement options, goals for the region, regional actions for reducing congestion,
action plans for each Regional Route, and a process for monitoring and review.
For the Action Plan, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has adopted
several TSOs, including:
► Maintain LOS D (v/c 5 0.90) on arterials, as measured at intersections.
► Maintain LOS E (v/c 5 0.99) on freeways.
► Maintain LOS E conditions for no more than four hours per day on I-580
'
(except on Altamont Pass) and for no more than eight per da on I-680.
P g Y
► Limit capacity for single-occupant vehicles at gateways to existing levels.
► Increase average vehicle ridership for commute trips by 10 percent.
► Increase the transit mode share through providing express transit travel times
that are competitive with autos.
,i
A.W01.1-30.noc I-131 November 4, 1994
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
The Tri-Valley Action Plan proposes a number of actions to help meet these
adopted TSOs. These actions are summarized in the following table:
Category Action
Advocate HOV • Support the development of a "seamless" HOV system
• Add or advocate HOV lanes on I-580 (Tassajara to San
Joaquin) and I -680
Increase Transit • Support major transit increases in the I-680 and I-580
Capacity corridors
• Support express bus service in the I-680 corridor
Encourage TDM • Require and enforce employer-based TDM programs.
Actions
• Support commute alternatives
• Oppose mixed-flow increases on gateways into the Tri-
Valley
Improve Operations • Install ramp metering where stacking room is available
• Make various intersection improvements
Control Land Use • Achieve an overall jobs-housing balance with Tri-Valley
Growth Control growth to meet intersection LOS standards
Pursue Funding • Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for
planned, but unfunded, improvements
• Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute
alternatives and provide funds for needed transportation
projects
• Pursue developer funding for projects needed to meet
P g P roJ
impacts of their developments
• Pursue other sources of funding to finance improvements
AAVOLI-W.00c I-132 November 4, 1994
i
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
Circulation Draft
The Action Plan also contains a preliminary list of high-priority projects.
This list, which contains about $700 million in projects, includes:
► Roadway operations and capacity improvements (1-580/1-680 interchange,
new State Route 84 (Isabel Parkway), safety improvements on Crow Canyon
Road, the Vasco Road realignment, and ramp metering),
► HOV projects on I-580 and 1-680, and
► Transit capacity increases (BART extension to East Pleasanton station and
express bus service).
The Tri-Valley Action Plan suggests that, because forecast revenues will be
insufficient.to fund all projects proposed, TVTC adopt a subregional traffic impact fee on
new, unapproves development. The Action Plan identifies 12 regional transportation
improvements that could be funded through this fee. This fee is estimated to translate to
$2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot of commercial, office or industrial space.
The exact amounts, however, would depend on more detailed project cost estimates, a final
1 project list and an evaluation of the relationship ("nexus") between this new development and
these projects.
AAVOL1--W.D.W 1-133 November 4, 1994
Regional Routes Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
7 REGIONAL ROUTES
Table 7-1 lists Routes of Regional Significance in the county. Routes of
Regional Significance are generally those that serve travel across Contra Costa County (for
example, eastern Contra Costa to Central Contra Costa) or between Contra Costa and adjacent
counties. Examples of existing routes includes: the Interstate and State Highway system,
Ygnacio Valley Road, Treat Boulevard, San Pablo Dam Avenue, and Lone Tree Way. The
following table also includes potential Routes of Regional Significance, which have been
proposed but not yet approved, and future Routes of Regional Significance, which will be or
are already under construction.
TABLE 7-1
ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Regional Route Portion Action Plans Affected
Existing
Interstate 80 Alameda County to Solano County West
Interstate 580(John T. Knox) Marin County to Alameda County West
Interstate 580 1-680 to San Joaquin County Tri-Valley
Interstate 680 Alameda to Solano Central, Tri-Valley
State Route 4 I-80 to San Joaquin West, Central, East
State Route 24 Alameda to I-680 Lamorinda, Central
State Route 160 SR4 to Sacramento County East
State Route 242 1-680 to SR 4 Central
23rd Avenue San Pablo Ave. to Cutting Blvd. West
Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon Valley Blvd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley
Alhambra Avenue Taylor Blvd. to SR4 West `
Appian Way San Pablo Ave. to San Pablo Dam Rd. West
Avila Road Willow Pass Rd. to Somersville Rd. central, East
Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Blvd. to Canyon Lakes Tri-Valley
Dr. -
Brentwood Boulevard Main Street to Walnut Blvd. East
Buchanan Road Railroad Ave. to Somersville Rd. East
Byron Highway SR 4 to Alameda County Fast
Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Rd, to Alameda County Tri-Valley
Carlson Boulevard Cutting Blvd. to San Pablo Ave. West
B:wot.t.xs.00C 1-134 November 2, 1994
Regional Routes Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Circulation Draft
TABLE 7-1
ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Regional Route Portion Action Plans Affected
Willow Pass Road Contra Costa Blvd. to SR 242 Central
Ygnacio Valley Road 1-680 to Clayton Rd. Central
Potential
Bailey Road Clayton Rd. to Willow Pass Rd. (Bay Point) East
Camino Pablo San Pablo Dam Rd. to SR 24 Lamorinda
Clayton Road Kirker Pass Rd. to Marsh Creek Rd. Central
Marsh Creek Road Clayton Road to Transplanrfranspac Central
boundary
Pleasant Hill Road Taylor Blvd. to SR 24 Lamorinda
_ Willow Pass Road 1-680 to Avila Rd. Central
Future
State Route 4 (as full freeway) Cummings Skyway to Willow West
Bollinger Canyon Road Canyon Lakes Rd. to Dougherty Rd. Tri-Valley
(including loop)
Buchanan Bypass Railroad Ave. to Somersville Rd. East
State Route 4 Bypass SR 4 to Byron Hwy. East
Richmond Parkway 1-580 to I-80 West
BAvot.t-W.DW 1-136 November 2, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Regional Routes
Circulation Draft
TABLE 7-1
ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Regional Route Portion Action Plans Affected
Clayton Road Treat Blvd. to Ygnacio Valley Rd. Central
Contra Costa Blvd. SR 4 to Ifi80 Central
Crow Canyon Road Alameda County to Camino Tassajara Tri-Valley
Cummings Skyway 1-80 to SR 4 West
Cutting Boulevard Garrard Blvd. to San Pablo Ave. West
Danville Boulevard 1-680 to San Ramon Valley Blvd. Central, Tri-Valley
Deer Valley Road SR 4 to Marsh Creek Road East
Dougherty Road Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Tr,Valley
E. 18th Street A Street to SR 4 East _
El Portal San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo Dam Road West
Evora Road Willow Pass Rd. to SR 4 Central
Geary Road N. Main to Pleasant Hill Rd. Central
Hillcrest Avenue Dear Valley Rd. to Lone Tree Way East
Kirker Pass Clayton Rd. to Buchanan Rd. Central, East
Lone Tree Way E. 18th Street to Brentwood Blvd. East
Main Street Big Break Rd. to Brentwood Blvd. East
Marsh Creek Road TRANSPLAN/TRANSPAC boundary to Central, East
Walnut Blvd.
North Main Street 1-680 to Boyd Road Central ;
Pacheco Blvd. Waterfront rd. Central
Pleasant Hill Road Geary Rd. to Taylor Blvd. Central
Railroad Avenue Bueh Rd. to Kirker Pass East
Garrard/13th/Rumrill Boulevard I-580 to San Pablo Ave. West
San Pablo Avenue I-80 to Alameda County West
San Pablo Dam Road I-80 to Camino Pablo West, Lamorinda
San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville Blvd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley
Somersville Road Buchanan Rd. to 4th Street East
Sycamore Valley Road Danville Blvd. to Camino Tassajam Tri-Valley
Taylor Boulevard Contra Costa Blvd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Central
(south)
Treat Boulevard N. Main to Clayton Rd. Central
Vasco Road Walnut Blvd. to Alameda County East
Village Parkway Alcosta Blvd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley
Walnut Boulevard Brentwood Blvd. to Vasco Rd. East
Willow Pass Road Evora Rd. to Railroad Ave. East
B,wota-W.Doc I-135 November 2, 1994
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORm
DRAFT
CONTRA COSTA
COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Volume Two:
Background Information
COMMISSIONERS:
Joel Keller
Chair
Bobbie Landers
vice Chair
'Gayle Bishop
Taylor Davis
� Approved for Circulation October 19, 1994
Milks Greenberg
Cathie Kosel
W.D."B#rLandis
Julie Pierce
Tom Torlakson
Darrel"Jay'Tucker
Hermann Welm
Robert K.McCleary
Executive Director
y
This Page Leff
Intentionally Blank
1 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME TWO
This document — the second volume of the Contra Costa Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) — contains the background information and
analysis on which the recommended policies and actions of CCTP in Volume One are built.
Volume Two contains four sections:
► A description of land use conditions and forecasts in the county for the years
1990, 2000 and 2010,
► A description of the regional transportation system in Contra Costa County,
► The results of travel demand forecasting conducted for the CCTP, and
► A summary of the Action Plans.
The CCTP is being prepared to fulfill the requirements of the Contra Costa
Growth Management Program. This program, established with the passage of Measure C in
1988, calls for transportation planning, growth management measures and funding for both
projects and programs to address transportation and planning issues in Contra Costa County.
One of the measures that Measure C called for was "to develop and maintain an ongoing
planning process . . . through the funding and development of a Comprehensive Transportation
Plan." .
The first volume of the CCTP contains countywide transportation goals, traffic
service objectives (ISOs), and actions designed to achieve those goals and objectives. The
TSOs and actions will be defined for both countywide issues and for specific Routes of
Regional Significance. The CCTP will build on the recommendations of the Action Plans for
tthese routes now being developed by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and
combine their recommendations into a single, coordinated approach to the-transportation
planning issues in Contra Costa County.
9:\VOL2-1s2.e27 II-1 November 3, 1994
INTRODUCTION Volume Two—CCTP
Circulation Draft
BAVOL2-W.e27 II-2 November 3, 1994 r
2 LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Transportation issues in Contra Costa County — as in other urban areas — arise
in response to urban development. The homes, stores, offices, factories and institutions that
make up the urban, suburban and rural areas of the county are the origins and destinations of
trips on the county's transportation system. As the pattern and extent of residential,
employment and other land uses have changed, so have the demands on the transportation
system. Similarly, the transportation system,especially the dominant mode of transportation
' and capacity of the system, have affected the character and pattern of development.
The pattern of land uses in the county and how it is expected to change over the
next 20 years is a key input for the modelling used in the CCTP. This modelling is essential to
the understanding of current and future transportation issues and the evaluation of solutions to
those issues.
1
The following chapter describes the pattern of land uses.within Contra.Costa
County, the demographic information upon which the CCTP is based — both existing
conditions and forecasts — and some of the implications for the regional transportation system
that this information suggests. The key source for this information is the CCTA's Land Use
Information System (LUIS). This computerized data base serves as the foundation for the
travel demand modelling described in Chapter 3. The information in the LUIS was the source
for the observations and analysis of household and job growth and changes in jobs-housing
relationships in this chapter.
2.1 Land Use Information System (LUIS)
To help understand the land use component of transportation issues in the
county — and to provide a basis for detailed travel demand modelling — the CCTA prepared
the Land Use Information System (LUIS). This computerized data base was developed in
consultation with technical staff from local jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and regional
agencies. The LUIS builds on employment information developed for Contra Costa County's
so-called "517-zone" transportation model, information from the 1990 U.S. Census and land
capacity information from local jurisdictions.
B:1V0U-1&2.$27 II-3 November 3, 1994
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two—CCTP
Circulation Draft
Using this information, consultants to the CCTA divided each of the earlier 517
traffic analysis zones (TAZs) into smaller TAZs (about 1,750 altogether) and developed
household and employment information and projections for each smaller TAZ. The data base ,
includes information on the number of jobs (by type), employed residents and households as
well as household income for each TAZ within the county. The LUIS is divided into four data
sets, one for each of the sub-area traffic demand models. For TAZs within the sub-area,
information is left at the more detailed "1,750-zone" level but is aggregated to the larger "517-
zone" level outside of the sub-area. For example, in the West County sub-area model, TAZs
in West County are at the 1,750-zone level and TAZs outside West County are recombined to
the "517-zone" — or larger — level. This process is illustrated is Figure 2.1.
The LUIS reflects local general plans and is consistent at the countywide level
with the ABAG Projections '90 forecasts. Local general plans provide the potential for growth
in each jurisdiction and ABAG forecasts provide the countywide growth rates.
Since the preparation of the LUIS, ABAG released their Projections '92,
Projections '92 (Recession Update) and Projections '94. (The LUIS, as noted above, was built
on the earlier Projections '90.) Table 2.1 compares these projections for Contra Costa County
(including the portions of the Tri-Valley area in Alameda County).
2.2 Overall Pattern of Land Use
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
One of the nine counties in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, Contra Costa
County stretches from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays in the west to California's Central
Valley in the east. The county's northern edge is formed by the deltas of the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers, Suisun Bay and Carquinez Strait. Across these waters are Solano and
Sacramento Counties. The county is bordered along the south by Alameda County and to the
east by San Joaquin County.
The hills and valleys of the county divide it into several distinct areas. Both the
Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Action Plans reflect these basic physical
divisions. The most western portion of the county represents the northern end of the East Bay
Plain. This flatland area runs the length of San Francisco Bay from San Jost to Richmond, El
Cerrito and San Pablo in Contra Costa. Dividing the East Bay Plain from the rest of the
county are the East Bay Hills. These hills run south from the Carquinez Strait and contain
some areas of settlement. The Lamorinda communities lie on either side of Highway 24 to the
a:%VOL2-1&2.e27 II-4 November 3, 1994
tVolume Two—CCTP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
TABLE 2.1
COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD AND JOB FORECASTS
ABAG Projections '94 to the Land Use Information System (LUIS) and Earlier Forecasts
Contra Costa County, including the Alameda County Portions of the Tri-Valley
% Growth % Growth
Projection 1990 2000 1990-2000 2010 2000-2010 1990-2010
�. HOUSEHOLDS (1,000s)
Projections'90 352 427 21.1 490 14.8 39.1
1 Projections'92 347 424 22.0 501 18.2 44.2
Recession Update
Projections '94' 347 420 21.0 500 19.0 44.1
LUIS (6/92) 352 427 21.1 495 16.1 40.6
EMPLOYMENT (1,000s)
Projections '90 363 473 30.2 547 15.7 50.7
Projections'92 370 464 25.3 590 27.1 59.3
Recession Update
Projections '94' 374 431 15.2 568 31.8 51.9
LUIS (6/92) 353 457 29.5 543 18.8 53.9
Projections '90 forecast series extended only to 2005. Forecasts for 2010 were made
available unofficially through ABAG staff. This data corresponded to the 2010 data in
MTC's travel demand forecasting model.
east of the crest of this range of hills. At the northern edges of the hills where they meet San
' Pablo Bay are the older communities such as Hercules and Crockett.
One of the main concentrations of population in the county is found in the
Diablo Valley. This formerly agricultural area is located to the south of Suisun Bay. It lies to
the north of Mount Diablo, the highest peak in the county, from which it took its name. Mount
Diablo and the Black Hills separate the Diablo Valley from both the San Ramon and Tassajara
Valleys to the south and the East County plain to the east. The San Ramon and Tassajara
Valleys are relatively narrow valleys that drain south into the larger Livermore-Amador Valley.
The East County plain represents the western edge of the Central Valley.
B:\VOL2-1&2.627 II-5 November 3, 1994
Sources of Employment(1985) Householus (1990) Land Capacity
Information from County's 517-zone from U.S. Census (current) from
traffic model block data local jurisdictions
Update Subdivide County's 517 zones into about 1,750 zones.
Information Update employment information to 1990.Aggregate
to 1990 household information to 1,750-zone level.
Prepare forecasts of
households and
Prepare employment for each WON can"
Forecasts sub-area,checking
forecasts against census
tract data from ABAG's
Projections '90.
Countywide and Sphere
Check of Influence Forecasts
Reasonableness ABAG's
of Forecasts Projections '90.
i
Prepare sub-area land
use forecasts using:
Prepare Sub-Area „�� Detailed information WON cxa c ..wn. e,..
Land Use from 1,750 zone forecast
Data Bases
Information aggregated
to County 517-zone level
Figure 2.
Developing the Land UsJ
wa-- y
sof� ��. p` Information S stem LUIS
LVolume Two —CCTP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT
' The pattern of land use in the county since the 1850s reflects changes in the
dominant modes of transportation. Early settlers relied first on water-borne transport and
horse-drawn vehicles. These were supplanted in the late 1800's with railroads and, in West
County, the streetcar. 'Finally, starting after World War I but having its greatest impact after
World War H, the private automobile became the main method of transport both in Contra
Costa County and most places in the U.S. Each of these modes of transportation were
associated with different forms of urban development which affect transportation-today.
Water-Borne Transport. The main early settlements in Contra Costa County
— Port Costa, Martinez, New York of the Pacific (Pittsburg) and Antioch' — were located
along the water. These cities began first, after 1849, as ports serving the miners in the gold
fields of northeastern California and as ports for local produce. Later they became as shipment
points for agricultural goods brought by rail from the Central Valley. After 1900, several ports
became the sites of.factories (for oil and munitions, primarily). The main legacy of this period
is the location of these older downtowns and the location of most heavy industrial development
(including the several oil refineries in the county) along the water. This pattern of urban
development was reinforced with the coming of the railroad.
The Railroad. The first railroad in Contra Costa — the Southern Pacific —
was laid in 1878. It ran along Carquinez Strait from eastern Contra Costa and the Central
Valley, both to serve existing settlements and to skirt the East Bay Hills. Later railroads —
especially the Southern Pacific line from Martinez to Livermore and the Sacramento Northern
electric rail line from Oakland to Sacramento through the Shepherd Canyon Tunnel — opened
' up more inland parts of the county to urban development. The railroads focused urban
development around their stations. The tightly-developed downtowns of Martinez, Crockett,
Concord, Antioch and Pittsburg, for example, date from this period. They also served as
inland transportation serving the factory ports strung out along the water.
During this period, people relied more on walking to go between their homes
and most destinations. Much of the davelopment that dates from this period (the older parts of
Martinez, for example) reflects this walking city, with rectilinear street patterns, narrow streets
and frequent intersections that minimize distances for the walker.
' Vance,James E.,Jr.Geography and Urban Evoludon in the Son Francisco Boy Arra. Institute of Governmental
Studies,University of California, Berkeley: 1964.
8:%VOL2-1k2.e27 II-7 November 3, 1994
LAID USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP
Circulation Draft
The railroad served some commuters as well. Although the San Mateo
Peninsula is the best-known example of this pattern, the Lamorinda community also developed
as a residential area whose workers commuted by train to work — in this case, the Sacramento '
Northern through the Shepherd Canyon Tunnel to Oakland. This rail line ran through Moraga
along St. Mary's Road to the east end of downtown Lafayette and on to Walnut Creek and
Concord. The spread-out, low-density suburban character of these towns was first established
during this period.
The Streetcar and Ferry. Where the railroads concentrated urban
development around stations, the electric trolley tended to disperse it. The "suburbanization"
of Contra Costa started with the coming of the streetcars in the 1890s. This suburbanization —
that is, the development of primarily residential neighborhoods in one area whose residents
commuted to jobs in primarily commercial areas of the same or other cities — began around
Oakland and Berkeley but ultimately extended north into El Cerrito and Richmond in Contra ,
Costa County.
Much of the first large-scale platting of land for single-use development,
primarily residential, occurred only after the development of the streetcar. Many of the older
subdivisions in Richmond and El Cerrito reflect the use of the streetcar with main streets
radiating out from the main East Bay job center (Oakland) or the ferry slips to San Francisco.
(The Richmond BART line follows some of these streetcar lines and the Concord BART line
follows the old Sacramento Northern railroad line from Walnut Creek to Concord.)
Streetcars were only one part of the commute during that period. A significant
number of commuters used both streetcars and ferries in their trips to and from work. Until
the construction of the Bay Bridge (and, to a lesser extent, the Golden Gate Bridge), ferries ,
were the primary way for East Bay residents to get to jobs in San Francisco. Ferries left from
terminals in Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley and Richmond to the Ferry Terminal on the
Embarcadero in San Francisco. Other ferries were important as well. The ferry between
Martinez and Benicia was the connection for automobiles between central Contra Costa County
and Solano until the construction of the bridge in the 1950s.
The Automobile. This pattern began to change with the coming of the
automobile. The automobile and the construction of new roads allowed commuters to move to '
homes away from the streetcars lines and ferries of the East Bay. The construction of the
Caldecott Tunnel, for example, allowed more residents of Oakland and Berkeley to move east
to the towns in Lamorinda and the Diablo Valley. This outward movement, which slowed
during the Depression of the 1930s and World War II, grew substantially after 1945 and led to
the greatest change in the area's land use pattern since the coming of the railroads.
eAv012-M2.e27 II-8 November 3, 1994
i
Volume Two—CCTP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
At first, neither the streetcar nor the automobile was the dominant mode of
transport. The character of"middle-period" suburban areas such as Richmond and El Cerrito
' reflects this balance between the two modes. Subdivisions in those areas developed between the
two world wars generally have wider streets and a clearer hierarchy among streets than in the
older parts of cities like Martinez and Antioch. While all streets are wider to accommodate
vehicles, there are clear main streets to accommodate both streetcars and cars. Many
intersections (West County has more than most areas) were formed where even earlier streets
meet. They were not designed for optimal functioning of automobile traffic at the levels now
being experienced. The significant development that has occurred around them has limited
opportunities for redesigning them to current standards.
rGrowth in the region combined with the increased use of the automobile led to
growth throughout the county. This growth occurred both in the older factory and port towns
' and inland, in formerly agricultural service towns such as Walnut Creek and Concord.
Between 1940 and 1950, the population of the county almost tripled, from 100,450 to 298,984
persons.' Part of this growth came from the general growth of the San Francisco region which
' grew 55 percent in that one decade, from 1.7 million to 2.7 million. The higher growth rate of
Contra Costa County reflected the movement of new households to the more suburban areas of
the region. Since 1940, the growth rate in Contra Costa County has substantially exceeded the
regional growth rate in all but one decade (1950-60).
The Freeways. Suburbanization of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area was
supported and encouraged by new transportation improvements including, most conspicuously,
the federal interstate freeway system. These major roadways both reinforced the pattern of
existing development in the county and encouraged the development of new areas further from.
the central urban areas of the region. While a facility like I-80 in the western part of the
county served existing communities in the East Bay Plain, it also allowed further development
there and travel to other areas of the Bay Area.
Within this century, Y the count has seen a shift from rural to urban and from
the west to the east. In 1900, the county had only two incorporated cities — Martinez and
Antioch — and the majority of the population was rural. By 1920, however, the county had
nine cities that contained 60 percent of the county's population.' The majority of that growth
in urban population occurred in industrializing areas of western Contra Costa, with Richmond
the center of this growth. From 1950, with suburbanization and freeway construction, the
' U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census, Censuses of Popaladon. As quoted in Contra Costa County
Community Development Department, Growth Trends. Martinez: 1985.
3 Growth Trends.
B:wots-MIB27 II-9 November 3, 1994
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP
Circulation Draft
center of population shifted east to Walnut Creek and Concord. Until recently, population
increases in central Contra Costa have been substantially higher than other areas. Only within
the last five years have the cities in eastern Contra Costa had absolute population increases that ,
have rivaled those in the central areas of the county. Currently, almost 80 percent of the
county's population live in incorporated parts of the county.
OVERALL PATTERN OF LAND USE
The current pattern of land use in Contra Costa County illustrates the ,
interaction of topography, soils and geology; economics; historic development patterns; cultural
preferences; and transportation system and other infrastructure improvements, all expressed ,
through hundreds of thousands of individual and public decisions. While the recent expansion
of urban areas in the county has lessened the distinctions among areas of the county,
distinctions still exist. Urban development in Contra Costa County is clustered in several areas:
along the East Bay plain, in the Diablo Valley, in the San Ramon Valley.and, increasingly, in
the Antioch-Pittsburg area. A considerable conversion of agricultural areas and open space is
planned in the Brentwood area of East Contra Costa County.
This pattern of urbanized land is illustrated in Figure 2.2. This figure shows
developed lands within the county. The non-urbanized areas are a combination of agricultural
lands (the majority of which is used for grazing), permanent open space and other undeveloped
areas.
This figure shows that the largest single area of urban development is in the
.Diablo Valley, where the majority of the county's jobs and housing are located. Figure 2.2
also shows substantial urban areas in West County, Lamorinda, the I-680 corridor in Tri- ,
Valley and the older areas of Pittsburg and Antioch. There are scattered urban areas near
Brentwood and the unincorporated areas north of it as well as the large urban area at Discovery
Bay at the eastern edge of the county. The urban areas of Lamorinda are almost as extensive '
as West County. The population density there is substantially lower, however, reflecting the
area's steeper topography, more recent development and local preferences.
While prime agricultural lands are located primarily in East County, active
agricultural preserves are more evenly distributed throughout the county. Most of these '
agricultural preserves are located on grazing lands rather than active croplands. (The latter are
more likely to be designated as prime agricultural land, though.) Clusters of agricultural
preserves are found on both sides of Highway 4 between Crockett and Martinez, east of Mount
Diablo and Danville in the Diablo Range, and along the San Joaquin County line.
e:w0t2-1&2.s27 II-10 November 3, 1994
r .
C
edd
i
r
a
i
. s
E
a
rcN
1
1
M
t ! ')
i E
S;)Y
e
IZ
t 5 u
r
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP
Circulation Draft
One of the most striking aspects of this feature is separation of the developed
areas. The significant areas of undeveloped land between the urban areas means that travellers
must go greater distances when going between these urban centers. This separation is common
in the Bay Area and reflects the steep hills of the Coast Range and the significant areas of open
space that are permanently set aside or that present significant obstacles to development. Much
of the hill areas in Contra Costa County are in open space use (particularly in the ownership of
State parks or the East Bay Regional Park District) or designated for long-term open space
preservation in local general plans.
West County. Western Contra Costa contains the older "factory towns" of
Richmond, Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett and Port Costa, some of which have retained significant
industrial uses. Richmond, the largest of the cities in western Contra Costa, has a significant
employment base with jobs in both its heavy industrial areas (oil refineries and warehousing)
and newer office developments. Rodeo has retained oil refineries and Crockett has its sugar
refinery. The communities closest to Alameda County — El Cerrito, San Pablo and Richmond
— experienced considerable suburban development in the first post-World War II suburban
boom.
Within the last decade, new residential developments and supporting
commercial uses have substantially increased the population of Pinole, Hercules, Richmond,
San Pablo and unincorporated communities such as El Sobrante and Rodeo. Hercules had by
far the greatest increase, growing by almost 150 percent during the decade. These new
developments have expanded out from the earlier community centers near rail lines and the
waterfront toward and into the East Bay Hills. The large ratio of employed residents to jobs in
Hercules (4.37) and Pinole (3.0) reflects the greater amount of residential development '
compared to commercial uses in newer development. Much of the hillsides themselves,
however, remains in open space and public ownership.
Lamorinda. The Lamorinda cities of Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda grew on
the eastern hills and valleys of the East Bay Hills primarily following the opening of the
Caldecott Tunnel in 1937. These communities are characterized by relatively low residential
densities, single-family detached dwellings, few large developments, relatively limited
commercial development, high ratios of employed residents to jobs and relatively high incomes.
Diablo Valley. The Diablo Valle contains two f
ab o y y o o the largest cities to the
county — Concord and Walnut Creek — as well as several other cities (Martinez, Pleasant Hill
and Clayton). It is the most populous area in the county. Major employment uses and
shopping centers are focused along 1-680 which runs north-south through the valley. Both
Walnut Creek and Concord have significant job concentrations and Walnut Creek is one of only
three cities in the county with more jobs than employed residents. (San Ramon and Concord
B:%VOL2-I&2.827 II-12 November 3, 1994
' Volume Two —CCTP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
are the others although Concord is only slightly above balance. ) The downtowns in both
cities have remained the commercial and employment centers in the valley, with employment
focused around the BART stations. Significant job and housing growth is also planned around
the Pleasant Hill BART station.
Further to the west and east of I-680, residential development predominates,
primarily single-family, with local-serving commercial and office uses located along main
streets such as Ygnacio Valley Road and Clayton Road. Martinez, the oldest community in the
valley and the county seat, retains a considerable number of jobs in its downtown and along
Highway 4 and 1-680 while considerable residential areas have been developed at the edges of
the older city. The valley is bordered on the west and east by large public ownerships,
including East Bay Regional Park District facilities and the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Tri-Valley. Development in the narrower, north-south trending San Ramon
Valley is more recent than in the Diablo Valley. San Ramon, which incorporated in 1983, and
Danville, which incorporated in 1982, are the two incorporated cities in the valley. Until the
1960s, development was very sparse with few homes and primarily agricultural land uses.
Suburban residential development began first, followed by substantial office and commercial
development beginning in the 1980s. Today, development in and around the Bishop Ranch
office park have made San,Ramon one of only three cities in the county with more jobs than
employed residents (1.29 jobs for every resident). San Ramon is the commercial and
employment center of the San Ramon Valley with most other commercial uses focused on the
roads that parallel I-680.
The further from I-680 in the San Ramon Valley, the greater share of
development is made up by residential land uses. As development moves from the level central
portions of the valley, it becomes less dense, partly in response to the increased slopes of the
East Bay Hills to the west and the Diablo Range to the east. As with the Diablo Valley, urban
development in the San Ramon Valley is bordered by public open space lands in the adjoining
hills.
The Tri-Valley area includes both the San Ramon Valley in Contra Costa
County and the Livermore and Amador Valleys in Alameda County. Until the 1960s, the Tri-
Valley area was primarily agricultural and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore were
primarily agricultural service towns. In the last 30 years, however, the Tri-Valley has
experienced significant residential and employment growth, both in Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties. Livermore, Pleasanton, the more recent city of Dublin (incorporated in the 1982) as
well as San Ramon and Danville in Contra Costa County have been the location of much of the
development in the two counties.
B:%Vol2.1&2.B27 11-13 November 3, 1994
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP
Circulation Draft
East County. The eastern parts of the county can be divided into distinct sub- '
areas. The Antioch-Pittsburg Plain, one of the oldest areas of urban development in the
county, border on Suisun Bay and the San Joaquin and Sacramento River Delta. These
waterfront areas are the site for the older parts of Antioch and Pittsburg, with their downtowns
and considerable amounts of industrial land. State Highway 4, which runs to the south of the
pre-World War 13 areas of the cities, forms the general boundary between the older urban and
more recent suburban areas. The more recent suburban areas are primarily residential with
local and regional=serving commercial centers, schools and colleges. While the majority of the
residential areas are'single-family, the two cities contain significant numbers of multi-family
development along major streets.
In the last decade, development has moved further from the traditional centers
of urban development with developments such as that occurring under the East Antioch Specific
Plan. This large development contains several thousand new units, primarily but not
exclusively single-family, and represents the most significant movement of urban uses into the
agricultural areas of eastern Contra Costa.
Other areas of eastern Contra Costa have been transformed from agricultural to
suburban ares. The City of Brentwood and the unincorporated areas in and around Oakley
have seen substantial growth in new homes, in response to affordable housing opportunities and
adequate access. This area is still predominately rural, however. Much of the area continues ,
to be used for farming, particularly fruit and vegetable growing, and livestock grazing.
2.3 Projected Household Growth
Households are the source of most trips on the regional transportation system.
Employed residents commute to their jobs, many in the peak morning and afternoon commute
periods. These so-called "home-based work trips" make up the largest share of trips.
Residents also travel to shopping, entertainment, personal business, and other purposes.
Children travel to and from their schools, often as part of the parents' commute trips.
EXISTING HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
As of 1990, Contra Costa County had the third-largest population in the Bay !�
Area with 503,732 persons. Similarly, it added the third-greatest number of persons over the
last decade (147,352) and grew at the third-greatest rate (2.0 percent). Projections '92
forecasts that it will remain the third most-populous county by 2010. It will add more residents
BAVot.2-tacz.827 II-14 November 3, 1994
Volume Two —CCTP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
than any county except Santa Clara and will tie for the second-greatest rate of growth with
Sonoma County over the next 20 years. (Only Solano County is forecast to grow faster.)
For many years, Richmond in western Contra Costa County was the largest city
in the county and most residents lived in the western edge of the county. With the suburban
"boom" after World War II, population began to shift to Central County. While Richmond
remained the largest city until 1960, by 1970 Concord had surpassed it. Today, Concord
remains the largest city in Contra Costa County with Richmond second-largest. Walnut Creek
is the county's third-largest city with the East County cities of Antioch and Pittsburg forming a
growing area of residential development. This pattern of residential land use is shown in
Figure 2.3 which illustrates the concentration of households within the county.'
Figura'2.3 generally shows concentrations of residentialdevelopment in the
' greater Richmond area (including El Cerrito, San Pablo and El Sobrante); the larger Diablo
Valley cities of Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Martinez; San Ramon and Danville;
Orinda and Lafayette; and Pittsburg and Antioch.
' FORECAST HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
While the LUIS forecasts growth in households throughout the county (and Tri-
Valley), it also shows the center of population shifting to the east and south. The county will
add about 100,000 new households in the twenty years between 1990 and 2010, representing an
' increase of about 32 percent. Together with the Alameda County portions of the Tri-Valley,
the LUIS shows an increase of over 140,000 new households, an increase of 41 percent. About
43 percent of this increase is expected in the Tri-Valley (primarily in the Alameda County
portions) and over one-third is expected in East County, especially in Antioch, Brentwood,
Pittsburg and Oakley. (See Table 2.2.) The forecast increase of 22,500 new households in
Antioch is over twice the size of increase for neighboring Brentwood, the area with the next
largest expected increase in households in the Contra Costa County. These four areas in East
County have four of the five largest increases in households within the county. Altogether,
East County is forecast to increase its number of households by over 90 percent. Over half the
new households in Contra Costa are expected to locate in East County.
4 The areas shown in this and other figures in this chapter are combinations of the traffic analysis zones used in
gu P Y
the LUIS and do not correspond exactly to city limits and spheres of influence. These figures aro intended to
show the pattern of households and jobs and the changes in those patterns within the county.
eAvots-1W.e27 II-15 November 3, 1994
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP ,
Circulation Draft
The Tri-Valley area, however, is forecast to grow even faster, with around '
61,000 new households, most of them in Alameda County. Altogether Pleasanton, Livermore,
Dublin and unincorporated Alameda County will add 44,000 new households while the Contra
Costa County portions (San Ramon, Danville and Alamo-Blackhawk) is forecast to add another
17,000. Just within Contra Costa County, these portions of the Tri-Valley would have the
second largest growth rate for households. While Danville and San Ramon would have
significant increases — about 3,800 and 3,700 respectively — the largest increase would occur
in the Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys. The LUIS forecasts around 6,500 new households
there.
The Central County area is forecast to add the third-largest number of new
households. Although the growth rate for households in Central County would be only 16 ,
percent — half the county rate and one-quarter the Tri-Valley rate — Central County would add
more than 18,000 new households, more than the 16,000 expected in the Tri-Valley portion of
Contra Costa. Most of this growth would occur in the two largest cities in the area, Concord '
and Walnut Creek. The greatest rate of growth would occur in the smaller city of Clayton.
Pleasant Hill is also forecast to grow more quickly than Concord and Walnut Creek. ,
Less than one in ten of the new households in the county (plus Alameda Tri-
Valley) would be formed in West County. Although this growth is small relative to other parts
of the county, it still represents an increase of over 10,000 new households. These new
households represent the addition of as many households as are now in El Cerrito. The
greatest increases are expected in the Richmond, Pinole, El Sobrante — and, to a lesser extent,
Hercules — areas.
Figure 2.4 illustrates these forecast increases in households in Contra Costa
County. (The figure shows changes by sub-area, each sub-area being made up of combinations
of traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The sub-areas do not correspond exactly to city limits
because some TAZs include more than one jurisdiction.) The first map in this figure shows I five areas with increases of between 5,000 and 10,000 households — Pittsburg,-
Dougherty/Tassajara Valley, Oakley, Concord and Walnut Creek — and two areas with
forecast increases of more than 10,00 households — Antioch and Brentwood. These areas are
all located surrounding Mount Diablo, whether in the growing East County area, the Diablo
Valley or the Dougherty/Tassajara Valley. The East County area shows the greatest increases,
however.
Figure 2.4, which maps these growth rates, emphasizes again the amount of
growth forecast in East County. The largest growth rates are expected to the southeast of
Mount Diablo, from the Dougherty/Tassajara Valley to Brentwood. Partly these high growth
e:w0t2-1&2.er, II-16 November 3, 1994
��IIIIIIIIIIIIII !I��III �II'�U �i uu��,����un��
e
p� N
O
� � M �o a O� tt M 00 •• N O
r
3 n' t- O '.0
e N Z N
� e
o O N N h N S Z
O
..
N
O C N 00 4
00
N
W VO
!��! lO�f N N �•�. �•. h O
O E N M N N S Z
� O
eq en %Q
_ i� � � � M O� •ef h h. M 1/•= O 0 �
000 NCD N of M N
.r O
PV L
CDO
N No �Q a v N p� Z O
C4 en C4 ll�cm O
cps
o�
61 In .r f w.. h d
tI' VI) 00 00 M O�
yO C r` O 00`0 �p h M a, „ w
O = O 4T �o .� O � 00 N w r �+
00 ^ h N M v r ttn a O C a N
F 'S
Z U U •C » _ u
wr w� A
,����wIIII�IIII�II�lll,�lll�
u � m�
III°�II� IlpJllllllllmp
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP ,
Circulation Draft
rates result from the current small population base there in 1990. The addition of even a ,
� PP
relatively small number of households could lead to large growth rates. Brentwood and ,
Dougherty/Tassajara Valley, however, have both larger increases and large growth rates.
Significant growth rates are also shown in the Antioch, Oakley, Unincorporated East County,
Knightsen and Bethel Island areas. As with other unincorporated areas with large growth rates,
the LUIS shows the Briones Hills with only small number of households in 1990 so that even
the relatively small increase forecast for 2010 would result in a large growth rate.
2.4 Projected Employment Growth
Jobs represent the destination for most trips starting from homes in the region.
As in other counties, most trips to jobs in Contra Costa start from homes in Contra Costa
although many residents work outside the county and many jobs are filled by residents in other '
counties. (See Section 2.5 for more on the relationship between jobs and housing location.)
Some of these jobs are in the retail sector. The locations for these retail jobs are also the
destination for shopping trips, an important type of trip in off-peak periods. ,
EXISTING EMPLOYMENT ,
As shown in Figure 2.5, Contra Costa County in 1990 contained three
dominant job centers in: Concord and Walnut in Central County, Richmond and San Ramon.
Concord and Walnut Creek each had around 52,500 jobs, or over 75 percent of the jobs in
Central County and 38 percent of all jobs in the county. Central County itself contained almost
half the jobs in Contra Costa County. Like Concord and Walnut Creek, Richmond, with
42,700_jgbs, had around two-thirds of the jobs in West County and San Ramon, with 27,700
jobs, had around 78 percent of the jobs in Tri-Valley portion of Contra Costa. Together, these
four cities contained 63 percent of the jobs in the county. The Tri-Valley portions of Alameda
County, however, contained over 76,000 jobs in 1990. This represented almost one-third of
the jobs in the combined Contra Costa plus Tri-Valley area.
The county also contained other smaller, but still significant,job centers.
Martinez, the county seat and a manufacturing area, and Pleasant Hill each had over 13,000
jobs. Antioch and Pittsburg in East County each contained around the same amount. San ,
Pablo and El Cerrito in West County, Lafayette in Lamorinda, and Danville in Tri-Valley were
in the 6,000- to 9,000 job range.
DAVOU-M2.827 II-20 November 3, 1994
.... .......
..............
..............
..............
.................. .
.............
�.�.•
,�./' ././.. .............
................
............ .
.............
........ ..
I
�I.
�.-
.... ...
...........
............ ......
...............
... ..............
I
1990
1 .
Alameda County portions of
Tri-Valley not shown.
1
�./ •
C
2010
unty portions of
Numbers of jobs Tri•VallAlamedaAlameda�Tri-Valleynot shown.
>25,000
15,000-25,000 '
i
' ®
5,000-15,000
1,000-5,000
< 1,000
Jobs, 1990 and 2010
Source:Contra Costa Transportation Authority,
Land use Information system Figure 2.5
2.5 JOBS 5.23
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two —CCTP ,
Circulation Drat
Central County had the greatest concentration of jobs in 1990, with about
135,000 or almost half the county total. West County, with about 23 percent of county jobs,
had the second-largest number of jobs. The remaining jobs just in Contra Costa County were ,
located in Tri-Valley (Contra Costa), East County and Lamorinda, in that order.
FORECAST EMPLOYMENT IGROWTI3 BY SUB-AREA
Between 1990 and 2010, the LUIS shows a significant increase in the number
of jobs in Contra Costa County. The addition of almost 120,000 new jobs in the county that
the LUIS forecasts would represent an increase of 43 percent, significantly faster than the 32
percent increase in households or the 33 percent increase in the number of employed residents.
(The county, however, would still add more new employed residents 133,900 — than new
jobs. Like most other counties in the Bay Area, Contra Costa has more resident workers than
jobs, requiring very large increases in jobs to bring the number of jobs and employed residents
closer together.)
As shown in Table 2.3, Central County is — and is forecast to remain — the
location of the greatest concentration of jobs in the county. In 1990, it had about 134,800 jobs, ,
over twice the number found in West County, the next largest job concentration. By 2010,
Central County is forecast to have around 179,000 jobs, still twice the number of West County. ,
In those two decades, Central County is expected to add over 44,000 new jobs, more than any
other area of the county.
While Central Count will remain the main job center in the county, other areas
Y Y
will continue to grow — and often at a faster rate. The result is that while Concord, Walnut
Creek and other cities in Central County will remain the main job center, other areas will take
up a larger share of the jobs in the county. The share of employment in Central County is
forecast to drop from 49 percent in 1990 to 45 percent in 2010. At the same time, the Tri-
Valley portion of Contra Costa will rise from 13 to 14 percent and East County will rise from
11 to 15 percent. Table 2.4 illustrates the dispersion of employment in the county especially to
the east and southeast.
When the Tri-Valle portions of Alameda Count are added in these
YP Y
relationships change. In 1990, the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore in Alameda
County had about 76,000 jobs, more than West County and about 56 percent of Central
County. Altogether, Tri-Valley had almost 112,000 jobs in 1990 making it the second-largest
concentration of jobs in the area. By 2010, the LUIS forecasts that the Tri-Valley will grow by
82 percent to become the largest job center in the area. Jobs in the Alameda County portions
of Tri-Valley will themselves almost double. Almost half of the new jobs forecast for Contra
Costa plus Tri-Valley area will be located in the Tri-Valley.
e:w0t2-1&2.s27 II-22 November 3, 1994
r
' o
N
o � 8e8e � 8eEr Ei� 8Qd`� Q
C N M V) N O w w O Z
O
C
_ ae
y � � cc ccONO r N •
h
r
Y w
a w �
��pp � C
N aR, C M ~ � �p M r M
C ' V' N � C Ow k O� N M .. .
fA N O N N C f-
oo N in V1lweq enC
fn N N ^ ^ h O
O M O N M O Z
o
'IT NO V
epot CN M
- M
N `
OCP" C _
�Ai 0. C '� OAC o�0 OHO O N N 8pp° Z w
C M N M O i
1 7 � E Q
O 7 h
0_E6 O O OMO' N+ Q N \NO. O ONO •a
Qen
C �D ern N ern .,
en
V, N
.� N
O
O
1 00
Fu ua S
J
LzIZ � U V C C > > � u u � � u '� JE,
u �° v Q 3 �+
J
1
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two—CCTP
Circulation Draft
Figure 2.5 also shows the concentration of jobs in 1990 and 2010. While
Concord, Walnut Creek, Richmond and San Ramon remain job centers, the LUIS forecasts
significant job growth in other areas, especially in East County. While Concord and San
Ramon would have the largest increases, Antioch in particular would add a substantial amount
of employment. With about 17,000 new jobs forecast for the ten years between 1990 and
2010, it would be the location of one in seven of the new jobs in the county. The map showing
the distribution of jobs in 2010 also shows the increasing dispersion of jobs in the county.
Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Hercules, Pittsburg, Dougherty/Tassajara Valley, Oakley, Orinda —
even Bethel Island and the Los Meganos area southwest of Brentwood — show increases in the
number of jobs.
Figure 2.6 illustrates where growth in jobs would occur, both in the number of ,
jobs and the rate of growth. The three current job centers — plus Antioch — would also add
the greatest number of jobs in the next ten years. In addition, Pittsburg and Hercules would
add between 5,000 and 10,000 new jobs during the same period. Altogether, these seven areas
would be the location of three of every four new jobs in the county.
The map of growth rates shows a different picture of job increases. Of the
areas shown on this map with growth rates of over 100 percent (that is, a doubling in the
number of jobs), only in Antioch and Hercules does this represent an increase of more than '
5,000 new jobs. That is why some areas would increase more 200 percent although the actual
number of jobs added would be small, sometimes less than 500. The Briones Hills area and
Discovery Bay, for example, would add between only 150 and 300 new jobs.
Together, however, these two maps support the observation that job growth is
expanding away from the existing job centers even as those centers continue to grow. The
existing job centers of Richmond, Concord and San Ramon would all have both substantial (that
is, at or above average)job growth and growth rates. In addition, however, other areas
(Pittsburg, Antioch, Hercules, Brentwood, Los Meganos, and Dougherty and Tassajara Valley) '
are forecast to have both substantial rates and absolute increase in jobs. Of these other areas,
Pittsburg, Anitoch and Hercules would have the greatest absolute increase in jobs.
2.5 Jobs-Housing Relationships
Behind recent efforts to strike a balance between jobs and housing within
jurisdictions or localities is the realization that, if more workers live closer to more jobs, it ,
increases the potential for decreasing their commutes. Some areas — San Francisco is the best
B:rv0l.2-1a•+.B27 II-2.4 November 3, 1994
r
i\
1
/
r
C
r
rAbsolute Increase
..
><nJ obs 1990-2010 10
® > 10,000
5,000—10,000
Alameda County portions of
11000—51000 Tri-Valley not shown.
500-1,000
< 500
1
/ ::••
r /
11' .:
h l! II
1
• �-
�.-
r
Percent Increase
In jobs 1990-2010
1 200
100-200 Alameda County portions of
1
25-100 Tri-VallN not sh own
10-25
< 10
Growth in Jobs,
1990 to 2010
Source:Contra Coat&Transportation Authority.
tate use Information system Figure 2.6
.2.6 GMJOBS 5.23
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two — CCTP
Circulation Draft
example in the Bay Area -- have significantly more jobs than employed residents, requiring the '
"importation" of workers to fill jobs located there. Likewise, where there are more employed
residents than jobs, workers must commute from their homes to the jobs that employ them.
The greater the difference between the number of jobs and the number of employed residents in
an area, the greater the potential for longer commutes, either to or from the area.
Balancing w' fir lance '
c g fobs with housing would thus at first g appear to be an
important tool for curing transportation ills. Balancing jobs and housing, however, does not
guarantee short commutes, it only increases opportunities for workers to live closer to their ,
jobs. High (and increasing) rates of auto ownership — coupled with an increasing number of
two-worker households, a transient workforce and relatively good freeway mobility — tends to '
work against jobs-housing efforts as an effective transportation control measure. Jurisdictions
can help increase the effectiveness of balancing jobs with housing when they encourage the
development of jobs that match the skills of residents and encourage housing that reflects the '
needs a;d preferences of workers.
Achieving this match between jobs and housing in any one jurisdiction, ,
however, is difficult. Higher land prices in places with significant job growth can make it hard
to accomplish the construction of housing affordable by workers there. As in many other
regions, there is and has been a great demand for affordable housing in the Bay Area. The ,
majority of the most affordable housing tends to be built at the urban fringes of the region.
Currently the greatest supply of affordable land and the greatest construction of affordable
housing is found at the edges of the urbanized area in places like Solano County, southern
Santa Clara County, eastern Alameda County, San Joaquin County and, in Contra Costa, the
Brentwood-Antioch-Oakley area.
Often,jobs follow housing. That is, followingconsiderable residential '
development, companies begin to move operations out closer to workers. This pattern has
occurred in Central Contra Costa as well as the San Ramon and Tri-Valley area. By the time, '
the jobs arrive, however, the residential areas of the city have frequently been developed,
perhaps with housing matched to the incomes and preferences of workers, perhaps not.
Even with a balance between jobs and housing in one area, though, an
imbalance elsewhere can encourage commuting to or from that city. The attraction of these '
outside areas could effectively put an area that is "in balance" out of balance again. In
addition, reducing the length of commute trips will not result in a corresponding reduction in
air pollution and energy use. The greatest level of emissions (and the lowest fuel efficiency) '
occurs with "cold starts" during the early part.of the commute trip. Recognizing these
difficulties, however, can make strategies for addressing the jobs-housing question more
realistic and effective.
e:wOL2-1&2.er, II-26 November 3, 1994
Volume Two —CCfP LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS
Circulation Draft
As shown in Table 2.4, the ratio of employed residents to jobs in Contra Costa
County remains one of the highest in the Bay Area. According to the LUIS, the county in
1990 had 0.68 jobs for every employed resident in the county, which makes it comparable to
Solano County. Only San Francisco is more out-of-balance (although in the opposite direction)
with 1.49 jobs for every worker living in the city. The ratio of jobs to employed residents is
forecast to improve to 0.73 by 2010, although it will still be one of the most out-of-balance in
the region. This change in Contra Costa reflects continued job growth in the county —
primarily in Concord, Walnut Creek, Richmond and San Ramon with lesser growth in other
East and Central County cities. The county, however, is forecast to add more housing than
jobs — only nine jobs for every ten employed residents — between 1990 and 2010, cancelling
out some of the gains that greater job growth will bring.
Table 2.5 outlines the changes in the jobs-employed resident ratio for the sub-
areas of the county. This table shows improvement in this ratio between 1990 and 2010 (that
is, that the ratios would be closer to 1.0) for most areas. Central County, which in 1990 had
the most balanced ratio (0.87), is in fact forecast to come into balance with almost exactly one
job for every employed resident in 2010. Both the West County and the Lamorinda areas
would move closer to a balance. West County is forecast from 0.64 jobs per employed resident
to a ratio of 0.78. Lamorinda would have a smaller improvement, with a forecast change from
0.43 to 0.51 jobs per employed resident. East County and the Tri-Valley portion of Contra
Costa, however, would stay essentially the same over the 20-year forecast period despite the
significant increases in jobs in the Tri-Valley and housing in East County.
' This improvement in jobs-housing balance suggests that Jobs in Contra Costa
County could increasingly be filled by county residents, thus increasing the number of intra-
county trips and the rate of intra-county trip-making. The changes shown in Table 2.5 also
suggest that Central County will become more of a destination of county commuters. As San
Francisco and Alameda Counties continue to draw workers from Contra Costa County and
Contra Costa County continues to add jobs, new jobs will have to draw more from surrounding
areas with more housing than jobs such as East County.
While the larger sub-areas are getting closer to balance, the smaller areas that
they comprise show considerable variation. Figure 2.7 shows the changes in the ratio of
employed residents to jobs in these smaller areas of Contra Costa County for 1990, 2000 and
r 2010. For example, in Central County in 1990, Walnut Creek had more jobs than resident
workers as did two industrial areas: the industrial area southeast of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge
and Naval Weapons Station. By 2010 in Central County, Concord is forecast to have more
jobs than employed residents and Pleasant Hill, Martinez and Pacheco are all expected to
BAV01.2-i&2.827 II-27 November 3, 1994
LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two-CCTP '
Circulation Draft
TABLE 2.4
RATIO OF EMPLOYED RESIDENTS TO JOBS
By County, San Francisco Bay Area, 1990 and 2010
1990 2010
Employed Emp Res/ Employed Emp Res/
County Residents Jobs Jobs Residents Jobs Jobs
San Francisco 391,293 583,960 0.67 424,200 683,150 0.62
Santa Clara 812,345 861,470 0.94 985,600 1,105,790 0.89
Napa 52,683 48,610, 1.08 69,800 77,250 0.90
Alameda _ 648,461 622,230 1.04 805,300 830,710 0.97 '
San Mateo 353,626 319,150 1.11 389,800 393,610 0.99
Marin 127,579 103,030 1.24 145,400 133,930 1.09
Sonoma 194,387 155,290 1.25 279,500 253,600 1.10
Solan 162,219 119,440 1.36 259,200 211,760 1.22
Contra Costa 409,351 301,260 1.36 548,600 438,280 1.25
TOTAL 3,151,944 3,114,440 1.01 3,907,400 4,128,080 0.95
Source: ABAG, Projections '92.
increase the jobs more than housing. Although some areas have more jobs than employed
residents and other areas have the opposite, together the areas that make up Central County are
forecast to move towards balance.
Similarly, West County in 1990 had a ratio of 0.64 jobs per employed resident.
This ratio, however, represented an average between the job concentration in Richmond (and
Crockett) and the housing concentrations in the rest of West County. These two examples in
West and Central County show that in analyzing the effects of jobs and housing balance, one '
must consider the larger arra as well as particular jurisdictions.
r
9:%VOL2-1&2.a27 II-28 November 3, 1994
' TABLE 2.5
1990.2010 JOBS/EMPLOYED RESIDENTS RATIO
1990 2000 2010
Emp Total Jobs/ Emp- Total Jobs/ Emp Total Jobs/
Res Employ Emp Res Res Employ Emp Res Res Employ Emp Res
West County 100,163 64,023 0.64 108,212 78,427 0.72 111,859 87,534 0.78
Central County 154,595 134,834 0.87 172,569 160,055 0.93 177,192 179,252 1.01
Fast County 73,997 29,171 0.39 113,944 44,046 0.39 144,264 57,569 0.40
Lamorinda 31,376 13,360 0.43 32,638 14,735 0.45 33,454 17,011 0.51
Tri-Valley(CC) 49,399 35,438 0.72 66,221 46,082 0.70 76,660 54,947 0.72
Tri-Valley(AC) 73,548 76,233 1.04 101,703 114,364 1.12 144,862 147,966 1.02
All Tri-Valley 122,947 111,671 0.91 167,924 160,446 0.96 221,522 202,913 0.92
Total 483,078 353,059 0.73 595,287 457,709 0.77 688,291 544,279 0.79
Contra Costa County 409,530 276,826 0.68 493,584 343,345 0.70 543,429 396,313 0.73
' Source: Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio, 1990-2010
1
Tri-Valley
0.9 11
Central
0.8
0.7
West
' 0.6
0.5
i Lamorinda
0.4
East
03
' 1990 2000 2010
t
• • 1
,its 1
iii �nnu -
»
i i �lilli�
r
sst ttt +i t i
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
The transportation system within Contra Costa County includes a variety of
transportation facilities. These facilities include those that support automobile use —
freeways, arterial streets, local access streets, bridges and tunnels — as well as public transit
' facilities (both bus and rail), and bicycle and pedestrian routes. The Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) focuses on the Routes of Regional Significance
and transit facilities.
3.1 Routes of Regional Significance
The Growth Management Program established by Measure C divided
roadways into two types: "Basic Routes" and "Routes of Regional Significance." Basic
routes are those that serve primarily local development. To receive Measure C funds, local
jurisdictions must apply level of service standards for these basic routes tied to the land uses
that they serve.
The Growth Management Program acknowledges that some routes, however,
serve regional travel needs. With the added burden of regional travel, it is often difficult to
maintain strict level of service standards on these routes. Often, because they serve regional
travel needs, the local jurisdiction does not control the land uses that are generating many of
the trips using these routes. Recognizing these difficulties, the Growth Management Program
relieves these Regional Routes from strict compliance with the established level of service
standards that basic routes must comply with. Instead, it requires that Action Plans be
developed for the Regional Routes.
The Regional Routes are shown in Figure 3-1. They include all State
highways in the county and selected arterial streets. The Regional Routes include three
federal interstate highways: I-80, I-580 and 1-680. I-80 and I-580 serve the western part of
the county. 1-80 begins in San Francisco and runs to the northeast to Sacramento and
beyond. Commute traffic from Solano County and West Contra Costa County destined for
the Oakland and San Francisco employment centers generally must use I-80. I-580 connects
I-80 with Highway 101 and provides a commute route for Marin County residents. I-680
passes through the central part of the county; connecting from San Jose to Fairfield in Solano
County. I-680 provides a key commute "spine" connecting Solano County, Central Contra
' Costa County, and Alameda County residential and employment centers.
' BAVOL2•35.e27 11-31 November 2, 1994
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Volume Two— CCfP ,
Circulation Draft
Other State highways serve as Regional Routes. Highway 4 runs east-west
through the northern portions of the county, connecting I-80 with I-680 and the eastern urban
areas of Antioch, Pittsburg and Brentwood. Highway 4 also runs east to Stockton in San '
Joaquin County. Highway 4 is an important commute route connecting residents of East
Contra Costa County with employment centers in Central County as well as elsewhere in the
Bay Area. Highway 24 connects I-680 in Contra Costa County with Berkeley, Oakland and
I-580 in Alameda County. Highway 242 connects I-680 with Highway 4 in Concord.
Some State highways that are not freeways are also designated Regional '
Routes. San Pablo Avenue, which is designated as State Highway 123 from the Alameda
County line to I-80, is a designated Regional Route. It connects downtown Oakland in '
Alameda County to EI Cerrito, San Pablo, Richmond, and other cities in Contra Costa
County. Sections of the Richmond Parkway (proposed Highway 93) are currently under
construction; this facility in the western part of the county will provide a connection between '
I-80 and 1-580 in Richmond.
The Regional Transportation Planning Committee in each subarea of the
County have designated key arterial streets as Regional Routes. A summary of the routes
selected thus far in the development of Action Plans is provided in Appendix 6.1.
3.2 Congestion Management Program Network
The Contra Costa Transportation AuthoritY (CCTA) is the designated
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County and is thus responsible for the
implementation of the State-mandated congestion management program. Section 65088 et
seq. of the California Government Code requires that a Congestion Management Program
(CMP) be developed for each urban county in the State. Although similar in intent, the CMP
requirements differ from the requirements of the Contra Costa Growth Management Program.
-a:w0i2-35.sr 19-32 November 2, 1994
Y
:..:....::.:..:..:........... .............�..:.:..::::::v.:: .::.., ...... ......... ...... .. ... :.... :••:::...V':�:iF;v.';2Li+:i:4iyF.::..:5.:::':; �': ..`'' .::.T,:
............................................................... .:.:.::::::.::::::::::::•::•:�::.::::..;..:.:::..�...... ::..::.:s::i:y.:•5:.. tiy::::::.::.::::.::iii:ii:v:;•:.
D
;asr.:prisri:
UO:
Z'j (n :i...:..::::i;<:.::;:`•. '''is}i::ii;nsi::.i..i.:�!l ii;:i:Sii.....:.::::::::ii<is$' :.�::::'.1::::i':•• ;:. 1i<i:'::5;::;:':..'iiY�`::` :.:;'S:�••!1!`::.......:.:...:........
;:.;:.;5;:.5;:.;:.:::.;:.:::::.::::.:::::;':,:::.;::::::::::::::. .:::::.:::::::.::::. :: ;5' .::::;;•555:<.5:.5:.:�:.:;.;:.5:.;::;.::::.S:.SSS:.S:.i::.;:;:.::;.::.
5:.5:.5:.5:.:..<.><:.::.:;5:.55:.::;:.:5:.;:.5:<;•5:�"is5::.5:.5:.>;:.;;:�:.i:.;:5::: .: ::>::.:.:5:.55::::<;•Ssi:.. :::::::::::.:.::::::::::.:::::<.:::.::::::::.::::....... ........................
"' ;:::<.;>:>';5:.;5;'.is:.;::::...:;5'::�: ;:.::.1:.555::.5;:.5•.5;;:::.5.. :::.::::::.::::::::::::::• .:/.•;5:•:55:•5':•isss.
:5::5511>::.;.;:: :.::::::::.• :::::
;:.;5;:51:+..5,11,155'.:s::os: 55:<c;51;2•:05:.>;5:::;5:;.5:.;»55::<:Fs1:.... ..�.................. ,:<.>5:<:5::5:55::,.515r.:.5:;:51;511i:5ss;Siss::;.555:,...........,.......... .....
........... . ....9 ................... 55555::.:::.55:11115;:::•5;:•5155:.i55:.;:<.5:;<.i;5;1:•5::<•;55:.:<.5555."s:;;.i;: <:;.5;
.::...........::........�:.:..:.:::..::�::...:..:.::......:..::!.5:.5::..5::..5:.... :......
♦ �v:::;Y.:'ry5^:iii;:.:.:�:i:�i :: ., ::::. ..
.:.:::.::::
... ................... ::55555:..:......::...::5.
rirr
;::. 5:' :::::..1:.::.5':.:::.55:•.:;:::::;:::..; ..i:1:::::' :.: :
> ,
tlyd Arc '
- :::..::::::.::.:::.1:.5:.1:.55:<.i:.:5:5:::::•5:•5:•
::•5:•:555555n55
.y
• ::;::.�:.............. :::::::.�::::,::•i:::i:r,;:;>5:.:i'S5:.55:.2:.555:.5::•51115;.:;•;.1;.1:
CD
O
:::.:. .:::::. .:•..�::.5555:::.:55:<:•5:<iss :•5•<ss:ss::;orv.:.s:cs:•5
'S>�L1;o155s1:
. ll
z •1:.: :;:is2:.5:.;iss:.:>:y5:.15:;;;•1:;•1:.1:.1:.5:.1:::.i>5•.:�;5i:.55F:.1::.5• i
c
a
i o
:5:::: �`:: :: ;:i>X22:::i::::i::::i::i::::i::_:i::i::i:::<;:r::::i::::...... .. ............ ". � � e: '::i;:i:2::;.:;;52;.2;•5;:;::!;;:;•1;.21;•::::. .::.�.5::...
r
s
s �
ii,.•
.: ;;< ., ..;::1::;11:.5:;;.5:.5:.'.•.;:•155:•5;•5:•
1
0 `
�••;tF
85
z
I:
1
l 'w
9
j
I
w•
'T1
«•5::;;;•;:::•55:•1:;•11:•11:•1:•1:;.1:1:.5::•1
F '
1:;;•;:.5:.;:.1:.;:;•1:;•1:•11::•111:.55:.1::::;1:.
.. �:« .
I m
i
a
z •
n •
::5..
1 t<i::Fir•: ..
•t
nn
0 41
iX
ii�::i'i:::•.'::':i:�ii iii.
is
f •.rf^ , �,�... : �1 G'' '` � � to
a a
n
-�
i
rH.
•tn ^ '[f7n %• �BSC r
7 „o,,^ .7 0 0"�Ass F.: r�pYy so
I b ice : R gy �ti
Cf)co
' f G•• :�:•5555i5i:;:Si35`i:Si:`
7 C'� oz \ / F..• r9y�t, i?.%�c:�'::i: i'i:i'r>1:1;:1`1`�3i'i
r
a�
t
a
Ri
a
R:.
r
el '
l� _ � � \ •:�.�i.S: LvYY�.nni.�:: :•% r S •.•5:/::::::::::�5
;.,
..itit2;ii't:i::'
a t✓ ` \ J � � A 1:i
pr
IS
0
qq
w
r•�
• R
,fr
O :
555515:.
:
5
CPO ...............................
H � '�•�Kf100 pll(1�
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
8
cY
i '
Volume Two—CC77 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Circulation Draft
The Congestion Management Program must designate a system of streets and
highways as the CMP network. This network must include all State highways and principal
arterials. (The definition of principal arterials is left up to each CMA.) The Contra Costa
County CMP network is shown in Figure 3-2. Both the CMP network and the Regional
Routes include the State highways. To be included in the CMP network, an arterial street
must be at least four lanes wide, carry 20,000 vehicles per day or more, and must be a
designated Regional Route. The "connectivity" of the CMP network was also a criterion for
inclusion in the CMP network. Gaps or discontinuities within the network were'avoided by
including roadways that may not have met the other criteria but did connect roadways that
did. An arterial street designated as a Regional Route need not be included on the CMP
network, however. This makes the CMP network a subset of the Routes of Regional
Significance since it does not include all of the arterial streets.designated as Routes of
Regional Significance.
3.3 Eidsting Transit Service
Both bus and rail transit systems serve travellers in Contra Costa County.
Rail service is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and the.
AMTRAK/Capitol Corridor service. The BART system has two lines within Contra County:
the Richmond line runs through El Cerrito and Richmond in West County, and the Concord
line serves the Lamorinda cities, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord in Central
County. (An extension of the Concord line to West Pittsburg is currently under construction.)
Altogether there are eight stations in Contra Costa County. BART express buses connect
potential riders in other areas of the county — and surrounding counties — with these
stations. While the BART system was constructed in the 1970s, the AMTRAK/Capitol
Corridor rail lines run along older rail lines in the county. The service uses lines along the
shoreline in West County and north Central County with stations in Richmond and Martinez.
The Capitol Corridor service runs from San Jose in the south to Sacramento and Auburn in
the north. This longer-haul service runs several times a day as opposed to the several-times-
an-hour service of BART and the bus transit operators.
Richmond and Martinez are also served by two AMTRAK intercontinental
lines, the Coast Starlight (which provides service between Los Angeles and Seattle and the
California Zepyher (which provides services between Oakland and Chicago). Additionally,
the San Joaquin line provides four daily round trips between Oakland and Bakersfield, and
serves Richmond, Martinez and Antioch.
s:wou}s.ar II-35 November 2, 1994
I
ChM�+pUTM C4VM>� /
vey•
Jsd
i
x:
:ii:;'r•iii::r:;:::' :!;: .
its
IL
cc
r .:.. : -.� ./ �•\... .... _ � as �.
i
9
1
6
t
:.:.:.:...:::..
z
...:.:.:.:::.:.. ..
Y
::?•ii iii:ii:'+''r''::•
g
r
\ �?
•
.Q
i
.�
3 di
S
09
Gc
7
»r
a
s t
Y a»
S f
i F F
p
4 u
z
a•�
A �
:.:�::•::ii:iiiiiii:i:4:
::fr
1' Volume Two—CCTP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Circulation Draft
Four transit operators provide most fixed-route and dial-a-ride service in the
county: AC Transit, West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT), Central Contra Costa
Transit Authority (the County Connection) and East Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(Tri-Delta Transit). AC Transit, the major bus operator in the county, serves western Contra
Costa and Alameda Counties with connections to San Francisco. Generally, the AC Transit
routes are operated seven days a week with headways (time between buses) of between 15 and
30 minutes.
The County Connection serves the central parts of the county. Nearly all of
the 27 routes operated by the County Connection connect with a BART station. Service is
available primarily between 5 A.M. and 10 P.M. on weekdays and between 6 A.M. and 7 P.M.
on Saturdays. Headways are within 40 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on Saturdays,
with 10 to 30 minute headways during commute periods.
Two other agencies provide both fixed-route and demand-response (dial-a-
ride) service. The Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, or WestCAT, serves the
lnorthwestern part of the county. The eastern part of the county is served by the Tri-Delta
Transit Authority. Headways are between 30 and 60 minutes on Tri-Delta Transit's fixed
routes.
The southern portion of West Contra Costa County — that is, the part served
by AC Transit — enjoys the highest level of transit service in the County. The combination
of frequent fixed route bus, BART and commute rail service provides viable transit
alternatives for West Contra Costa County commuters. Central Contra Costa County has
more suburban levels of transit service supplemented by the BART system. In contrast, the
more recently developed portions of the county — that is, East County and the Tri-Valley —
have only sparse bus service. Headways are greater and routes are more widely spaced. East
County relies on dial-a-ride service more than traditional fixed route bus service.
This is reflected in ridership figures. AC Transit carries by far the greatest
number of bus riders with over 65 million riders in fiscal year 1991. (This figure includes
Alameda County where most of the district's routes and riders are.) The County Connection,
with the second-greatest bus ridership, had only 4.2 million riders during the same period.
(The other two providers had less than one million riders.)
The large proportion of intercity travel demand creates a need for improved
interjurisdictional ties and agreements between operators. Intercounty travel, as well as
intercity,travel, creates a vacuum in authority for meeting the need.
BAvol.2-15.827 II-37 November 2, 1994
i-
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Volume Two— CCTP
Circulation Draft
3.4 Programmed Transportation Improvements
In California, the State and federal governments provide major funding for
transportation improvements. Most regional transportation projects will require at least some
State or federal funding and thus must.compete against other regional projects in a
complicated process to qualify for these funds. Most projects within Contra Costa County
must first be included in the Contra Costa CMP, then in the Regional Transportation Plan
(and Regional Transportation Improvement Program) prepared by MTC, and finally in the 4
State Transportation Improvement Program to receive State funds. (This is a simplification of
the complex system of funding projects must to through.) Requirements for CMPs, RTPs,
RTIPS and STIPs are included in State law. The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) recently adopted by the federal government added new requirements
for planning and allocating funds for regional and local transportation improvements.
Within Contra Costa County, the;re are three levels of programming: the short
term (seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contained in the CMP), the 20-year list
of projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan
(Track 1), and the Comprehensive Transportation Project List (CTPL) developed by the
CCTA. The first two levels are financially constrained — that is, they were developed with
expected revenues in mind — while the last represents a "wish list" of long range projects.
CMP SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Congestion Management Program's seven-year CIP defines near-term
improvements at the local level. The CMP CIP reflects anticipated State and federal funding
levels for Contra Costa County. The 1993 CIP contains approximately $2.9 Billion in State,
federal and local funding for a variety of projects in the county to about the year 2000. These
proposed funds are split about evenly between freeway and high-occupancy vehicle projects .
(about 52 percent of the total) and arterial, transit and trail projects (about 48 percent).
Freeway projects include widening of State Highway 4 in Pittsburg, the
construction of the first phase of the Delta Expressway, the addition of HOV lanes along I-80
in West County and I-680 near Danville and San Ramon, and the construction of a new
Carquinez Bridge structure to the west of the existing bridges. While there are more projects
proposed for arterials, transit and trails, they are; less costly. Many involve maintenance
activities for existing facilities. Examples of these projects include signal improvements and
coordination, roadway overlays and rehabilitation, BART car rehabilitation, and trail and
bikeway development.
e:woUss.an II-38 November 2, 1994
Volume Two—CCTP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Circulation Draft
MTC'S REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Projects in each County's CMP CIP compete at the regional level against each
h' P g
other for available funding. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes most of the
projects from local seven-year CIP's within the Bay Area that have been submitted to MTC.
Projects that are included within the RTP may then be included in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program and submitted to the California Transportation Commission for
funding.
MTC recently adopted the 1994 RTP. During that process, MTC looked at
two tracks: Track 1, which looked at packages of transportation improvements that could be
funded in the next 20 years with reasonably foreseeable funding, and Track 2, which included
an expanded list of projects without clear sources of funding. The projects included in Track
1 are identified in the project tables in Volume One of the CCTP. The remaining unfunded
projects are referred to as "Candidate Track 2" projects. MTC is now considering potential
programs to raise new revenues for Track 2 projects and the candidate projects listed in the
CCTP could be included in this new funding program.
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
The Comprehensive Transportation Project List (CTPL), contained in
Appendix 6.2, contains all of the potential transportation projects that local, regional and State
agencies have proposed. Unlike the CMP CIP and the RTIP, this list is not "financially
constrained," that is, it does not limit projects on the list to those that can be developed with
reasonably foreseeable funds. This list is an evolving document and will change with the
changing needs and further analysis of conditions in Contra Costa County.
The CTPL includes a much larger list of capacity-improving projects
including the construction of State Highway 4 between 1-80 and Cummings Skyway and the
State Route 4 Bypass to full freeways, the extension of BART from West Pittsburg-Bay Point
to East Antioch along with the Route 4 freeway widening to six mixed-flow lanes and two
HOV lanes,and the extension or widening of many local arterial streets.
A:wou3-5.B27 II-39 November 4, 1994
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Volume Two-- CC77
Circulation Draft
e:woi.2-3-5.s27 II-40 November 2, 1994
4 EXISTING AND FORECAST TRAVEL
= DEMAND
Considerable data have been collected in Contra Costa County as part of the
development of the Action Plans and the 1991 and 1993 Congestion Management Programs.
In addition, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority developed four subarea travel demand
forecasting models for use in the development of the Action Plans. These subarea models are
consistent with the MTC model and have been validated to replicate existing (1991)
' conditions. The MTC and subarea models provide information regarding regional travel
patterns based-on existing land use patterns and the street and highway system.
4.1 Regional Travel Patterns
EXISTING TRAVEL AMONG COUNTIES
Traffic conditions within Contra Costa County are heavily influenced by
regional travel patterns. While most trips that start in Contra Costa County stay within the
county, there is significant travel between the county and surrounding counties in the Bay
Area and the Central Valley. Table 4-1 summarizes-the travel patterns to and from Contra
Costa County in 1990.
Most — about 81 percent — of trips produced in Contra Costa County each
day remain within the county. This is true of all counties in the Bay area, however. It is also
true that shorter trips for shopping and recreation tend to stay in the county more than so-
called "home-based work trips." Only about 58 percent of these home-based work trips —
those trips between home and work which make up the majority of peak hour commutes.—
stay
stay within the county, however. Many Contra Costa residents commute out of the county to
work, with the two largest out-commutes being to Alameda(about 22 percent) or San
Francisco (13 percent) Counties. The commutes to San Mateo, Solano and Santa Clara
Counties each make up between one and two percent of the commutes for Contra Costa
residents.
Overall, more trips were generated within the county than were attracted to it.
While over 2.3 million trips started in Contra Costa County each day in 1990, only about 2.1
million trips ended there. About two-thirds in the difference between trips generated and trips
attracted came from the difference between workers commuting to jobs out of the county and
workers commuting to jobs in the county. While the county has added substantial
employment in the last 20 years, about 121,000 more home-based work trips leave the county
BAVOL2-3.5227 U-41 November 2, 1994
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two—CCTP
Circulation Draft
for jobs elsewhere each day than enter to jobs in the county. (In the evening, the direction of
commute reverses as workers return home. Both the trip to work from home and the trip to
home from work are "home-based work trips.")
Figure 4-1 illustrates county-to-county exchanges of home-based work trips in
1990. This figure illustrates the "directionality" of the work commute to and from the
county. While it shows significant commutes from the county to Alameda and San Francisco
Counties, it shows only smaller in-commutes from Alameda and Solano Counties to jobs in
Contra Costa. Approximately 12.6 percent commute into Contra Costa County from Alameda v
County. Another seven percent commute into Contra Costa County from Solano County.
FORECAST TRAVEL AMONG COUNTIES ,
Changes in peak period commuting will be affected by the location of new
residences and employment, the degree of congestion on the transportation system and the
variety of modes available to the traveler. Table 4-2 summarizes regional commuting (home-
based work trips) for the years 2000 and 2010. These commute trips are important because
they make up by far the greatest share of peak hour trips.
Overall, commuting is expected to increase most rapidly between now and the
year 2000. Year 2000 commuting into and out of Contra Costa County is expected to
increase by about 21 percent. Growth in commuting is expected to increase by between only
eight and ten percent between 2000 and 2010. While the growth in commuting from the
county will increase more in the first ten years, commuting to Contra Costa — reflecting the
more rapid growth in jobs — will grow more quickly between 2000 and 2010. Over the 20
year period, again reflecting the more rapid growth in jobs, home-based work trips ending in
the county will grow more quickly than trips starting in the county. Nonetheless, the ratio of
work trips starting in the county to those ending; in the county would not change significantly,
from 1.27 in 1990 to 1.26 in 2010.
Figure 4-1 also.illustrates the county-to-county exchanges of home-based
work trips for the year 2010. It shows a very similar pattern of commuting to that in 1990.
Many exchanges between Contra Costa and other counties are forecast to change very little in
the 20-year period. The most significant changes are an increased out-commute to Alameda
County and an increased in-commute from Solano County. The commute to Alameda County
is forecast to increase about 31 percent by 2010 and the commute from.Solano County by
almost 50 percent. Commuting to San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties will also both
increase by around 3,000 trips.
e:woL2-3s.8V I1-42 November 2, 1994
Volume Two-CCTP EXISTING TRAMC CONDITIONS
Circulation Draft
TABLE 4-1
1990 COUNTY-TO-COUNTY DISTRIBUTION'
Home-Based Home-Based Home-Based Non-Home
�. County Work Shopping Soc/Rec Based TOTAL
Trips from Contra Costa County to:
San Francisco 72,558 12,954 10,796 6,687 102,995
San Mateo 12,164 3,939 1,914 2,256 20,273
Santa Clara 9,434 1,363 2,632 1,668 15,097
Alameda 124,825 50,142 31,087 46,084 252,138
Contra Costa 329,951 657,644 305,741 593,081 1,886,417
Solan 9,450 5,772 8,286 8,146 31,654
Napa 600 260 485 470 1,815
Sonoma 635 167 824 336 1,962
Marin 4,746 1,638 4,660 3,595 14,639
TOTAL 564,363 733,879 366,425 662,323 2,326,990
1 Trips to Contra Costa County from:
San Francisco 8,958 3,328 2,565 6,543 21,394
San Mateo 1,865 1,555 1,855 2,025 7,300
Santa Clara 1,774 1,471 828 1,612 5,685
Alameda 56,102 17,189 19,380 43,562 136,233
Contra Costa 329,951 .657,644 305,741 593,081 1,886,417
Solan 34,179 8,681 11,726 9,266 63,852
Napa 3,362 795 556 761 5,474
Sonoma 2,167 935 380 891 4,373
Marin 5,217 4,253 1,178 4,341 14,989
TOTAL 443,575 695,851 344,209 662,082 2,145,717
Source: MTC, Bay Area Travel Forecasts for Years 1990, 1996& 2010. September 1993.
Information is available only for counties within the nine-county Bay Area.
e:VOL2.1-s.er, II-43 November 2, 1994
1
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two-CCTP
Circulation Draft
TABLE 4-2
HOME-BASED-WORK DAILY TRIPt'DIS"MBUTION COMPARISON
1990, 2000 and 2010
% Increase % Increase % Increase
County 1990 2000 1990-2000 2010 2000-2010 1990-2010
From Contra Costa County to:
San Francisco 72,558 73,500 1.3 76,393 3.9 5.3
San Mateo 12,164 10,937 -10.1 11,655 6.6 -4.2
Santa Clara 9,434 10,761 14.1 12,059 12.1 27.3
Alameda 124,825 153,510 23.0 164,026 6.9 31.4
Contra Costa 329,951 425,061 28.8 464,221 9.2 40.7
Solan 9,450 6,310 -33.2 6,761 7.2 -28.5
Napa 600 1,497 149.5 1,589 6.2 164.8
Sonoma 635 564 -11.2 604 7.1 -4.9
Marin 4,746 5,037 6.1 5,227 3.8 10.1
TOTAL 564,363 687,177 21.8 742,535 8.1 31.6
To Contra Costa County from:
San Francisco 8,958 5,341 -40.4 5,468 2.4 -39.0
San Mateo 1,865 1,798 -3.6 1,829 1.7 -1.9
Santa Clara 1,774 2,268 27.9 2,331 2.8 31.4
Alameda 56,102 50,220 -10.5 55,310 10.1 -1.4
Contra Costa 329,951 425,061 28.8 464,221 9.2 40.7
Solano 34,179 44,160 29.2 50,901 15.3 48.9
Napa 3,362 3,421 1.8 3,927 14.8 16.8
Sonoma 2,167 1,316 -39.3 1,501 14.1 -30.7
Marin 5,217 3,222 -38.2 3,469 7.7 -33.5
TOTAL 443,575 536,807 21.0 588,957 9.7 32.8
' "Home-Based Work Trips" refer to one-way trips to work from home or from work to home.
Source: CMP Databook#1:Regional Summary, 'Metropolitan Transportation Commission, March, r
1991.
e:woi2-3-5.e27 I1-44 November 2, 1994
1 Napa Solan
1
Sonoma
,1000 w$ $
� c
?000
Marin ` 5,000 Contra Costa '
5,000 j 1990
330,000
1
San 73,
\FranciscoM--JN
oNLn o % ;San Joaquin
San Mateo Alameda
Santa Clara
Napa 1
Solano
Sonoma � \��' / Ot
�„�� IOpO
o
—� BOO o -- L 4
V 0
/ 5,000
\ Marin Contra Costa \
3,000 I
464,000 2010
% 76,000
` San
Francisco 5,000 lz� 1 0Ln V
L n o o San Joaquin*�
San Mateo Alameda
—'�/ Santa Clara
Arrows indicate direction from home to work.
Numbers include trips in both directions. Figure 4-1
Source:MTC,CMP Data6 ok#1:Regional Summary. March,1991. Distribution of Home-Based
"Unpublished estimates,MTC Staff communication,November,1993. Work Trips, 1990 and 2010
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two —CCTP
Circulation Draft
Commute trips from San Francisco and, to a lesser extent, Alameda County
will actually decrease over the same period. In fact, most counties will send fewer trips to fill
jobs in Contra Costa County than in 1990. San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Sonoma and
Marin will send fewer workers to the county by 2010. The reduction in trips, however,
would be more than made up by the increase in workers from Solano County commuting to
jobs in Contra Costa County.
Table 4-3 outlines trips, by purpose, for 1990 and 2010 among the four sub- r
areas in Contra Costa County. These intra-county trip purposes include home-based work,
home-based social and recreation, home-based shopping and other and non-home-based trips.
(The "south county" numbers do include only those trips between the Contra Costa County
portions of the Tri-Valley area and other parts of the county and not the Alameda County
portions of the Tri-Valley.) :.
The table shows that most trips within the county that start in a sub-area stay
within that sub=area. Over 90 percent of intra-county trips that start in the West and Central
sub-areas also end in those areas. The percentage is over 80 percent in East County and over
70 percent in South County. (The South County numbers, however, do not include the rest
of the Tri-Valley area. Including those trips would likely raise the share of trips staying
within that sub-area.)
The share of trips that stays within an area varies noticeably by purpose.
People tend to stay closer to home for shopping and non-home-based trips and drive further
for work, recreation and visiting. In Central County, for example, around 96 percent of
home-based shopping and other trips stayed within Central County while only 84 percent of
home-based work trips did. The average for all purposes for intra-county trips was 92
percent.
Home-based work trips are frequently focused on more than other taps
purposes because they occur most often during peak commute periods. Figures 4-1 above
showed county-to-county trip exchanges for home-based work trips. Figure 4-2 shows those
exchanges among sub-areas of the county.
As with other trip purposes, trips made to and from work tend to stay mostly �.
within the sub-area in which they began. At the; high end, 84 percent of work trips in Central
County started from homes there as did 78 percent of home-based work trips in West County.
In East County, with its current concentration of housing, only about half of home-based _
work trips starting there also stayed there.. Generally, where there are more jobs, there is a
greater retention of these commute trips.
B:NVo[2,34.Br II-46 November 2, 1994
a V�o� p� opo e^•, N „� � � t'•' O c� h oo � •- � phpi� v, h
Oh\' O
lA t'- N N t� le M V Q ^ M M N
OOtY N f N t- M M O 10 N ^ ^ O ^ C� C
c0 C% O M ON oo %O N M M co %O O
of V h h N W N h N V) 0 h 00 M h M M
00 co N h H %O v c0 N %n -D M
tV M �O N Wl
Ch Ol M �O c0 .•• h
M r in %O N N C
® u o0o coo h� N N t- IV t- N O CS O en Mdao V � :Z ••
N %6 M r to N N o0 v
wl en
1of ON t0 N h r- N N O M oo O N p
G �D M ON to M 00 t+ 421% ON v M M M !f
VO
' M ^ M lc Vi N M 00 M M 00 O h
r h of N N v h " t- 4 h �.6O M O H etl
m ^ M cN'1 ^ .- N N N ie
O m �O 00 M O to O` h .+ ^ M %O r+ O h O� h
h of h
3
r' Ow (' 'O �O �O •.• M r-
N
kA ^ ^ M h M h O� N N en tA v %0 00 en An .�. n v
O+ 0o N O+ 00 h %0 c0 Nh 00 O N ON
h M N tt N W) h m v h �o 00 %O h h O N M
00 et• M 00 w+ q O- It Q c0 N �+ �p
Er M N •• M N O 8 et N O
Q` �D M OMS
tS.
Ca O� O en VY 000 1n M W's h M O'
in
en
MO b 00 O� M h M h V1 N to
'a' �+ of m h M C1 %Q h h co C
M 'O t' t N SO er1 V O V ^
�O .-i O+ v %n co h h h W p
07 �O h N N M
M
Z
O ON
^ to 00 M M �n %.0h v1 N O %O v'> oo p� co M o0 O h 00 �
O
n ^ of M h h tt'O 00 v 'O 'O O 00 to v h W) N
N
= N N h D h N N N ~ N �O M M M kn N M v
H 0c0 10 O N R01 v "y
^ N
a+ I�
o0 V1 c0 Y1 rO N t- N N W CINW 00 h �--� W C14 %n M M O P. Z
�O N h h h ^ N OD 00 V M 00 N 1/7 00 v ...
3 N VY O �O oo 00 00 %O v_ co v M h M
O N h ^+ U
�+ V1 -" �O �• N M M M h o ?r
M
N
. O
Q 3ur� F 3uhwt 3u � ul
t- O Q
e Q j6 o p m Z
•
�• 3A28
625 ,
_
44X8 S
9� 135,874 351343
1990
5�
1
8090
678 ' r
�r< l
1L �21 1
,• 1t,yl�� 157,665 75.189
• i'�.b."w.e�uw W V
•, bet -1
J
2010
Figure 4-2
Sub-Area-to-Sub-Area
Source:DKS Associates Hoene-based Work Person-Trips, 1990 & 2010
Volume Two -CCTP EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Circulation Draft
Of all the home-based work trip exchanges, by far the largest are the trips
within Central County. With about 136,000 trips in 1990, it is three times larger than the
next largest trip exchange, that between jobs and houses in West County. Trips within
Central County remain the largest trip exchange in 2010, growing to 158,000 trips. It is only
twice as large as the next largest exchange which is within East County. By far the largest
trip exchange between sub-areas is from East County to Central County. With 30,000 trips
from homes in East County to jobs in Central County in 1990, it is almost two-and-a half
times larger than the next largest exchange, that from South County to Central County. The
East-to-Central exchange is forecast to remain the largest sub-area-to-sub-area exchange in
2010.
i
While all areas exchange work trips with each other, some of these sub-area-
to-sub-area exchanges are more "directional" than others. In 1990, the exchanges between
West and Central, West and South, and Central and South were roughly the same in both
directions. There were 9,565 work trips from West County to Central County and 9,172
work trips in the opposite direction, a ratio of 1.0. All of the exchanges to and from East
County, however, emphasized the work trips from homes in East County to jobs elsewhere.
The ratio of work trips from East County to work trips to East County from elsewhere in
Contra Costa County range from 4.4 to 5.5.
By 2010, all sub-area-to-sub-area exchanges will grow in number. The
number of home-based work trips from East to Central County will grow to almost 54,000
trips, making it the fourth-largest intra-county exchange behind exchanges within the Central,
East and West County sub-areas. In addition, most exchanges will become more
"directional" than today. While there were 5.5 work trips from East County for every one to
West County in 1990, that ratio is forecast to grow to 11.9 by 2010. Other exchanges would
have less dramatic increases. Only the ratio of exchanges between East and South County
would diminish. (Only one exchange will change its dominant direction between 1990 and
2010, with more home-based work trips coming from Central County to West County in 2010
while the opposite is currently the case.)
4.2 Mode Choice
The mode choice summary for Contra Costa in 1990 is shown in Table 4-4.
' The table shows information both for home-based work trips and all trip purposes. These
- other trip purposes include home-based shopping, home-based recreation and non-home-based
trips. (Information on carpooling is available only for home-based work trips.) The number
of trips shown in the table are the total number of trips made by persons, not vehicle trips.
eAvoL2-3-5.= I1-49 November 2, 1994
TABLE 4.4
MODE CHOICE COMPARISON
Home-Based Work Trips and All Trip Purposes,1990 and 2010
1990 2010
Home-Based Work Trips Trips 96 Trips %
Within Contra Costa County 330,244 100.0% 491,867 100.0%
Drive Alone 282,758 85.6% 421,013 85.6%
Carpool(2 person) 32,324 9.8% 47,884 14.5%
Carpool(3 or more person) 8,239 2.5% 13,285 4.0%
Transit 6,923 2.1% 9,685 2.0%
To/From Alameda County 126,395 100.0% '155,055 100.0% j
Drive Alone 97,555 77.2% 115,405 74.4%
Carpool(2 person) 15,029 11.9% 18,092 11.7%
Carpool(3.nr more person) 4,401 3.5% 6,283 4.1%
Transit 9,410 7.4% 15,275 9.9%
To/From San Francisco 71,531 100.0% 87,001 100.0%
Drive Alone 24,264 33.9% 19,035 21.9%
Carpool(2 person) 6,340 8.9% 5,176 5.9%
Carpool(3 or more person) 9,758 13.6% 10,752 12.4%
Transit 31,169 43.6% 52,038 59.8%
To/From All Other Counties 36,203 100.0% 42,670 100.0%
Drive Alone 28,441. 78.6% 29,415 68.9%
Carpool(2 person) 6,251 17.3% 8504 19.9%
Carpool(3 or more person) 968 2.7% 1,734 4.1%
Transit 543 1.5% 3,017 7.1%
1990 2010
All Trip Purposes Trips % Trips %
Within Contra Costa County
Auto Person Trips 1,865,937 98.9% 2,722,819 99.0%
Transit Trips 20,773 1.1% 28,212 1.0%
All Modes 1,886,710 100.0% 2,751,031 100.0%
To/From Alameda County
Auto Person Trips 239,261 94.3% 277,295 93.2%
Transit Trips 14,447 5.7% 20,346 6.8%
All Modes 253,708 100.0% 297,641 100.0%
To/From San Francisco
Auto Person Trips 63,660 62.4% 54,256 48.2%
Transit Trips 38,308 37.6% 58,200 51.8%
All Modes 101,968 100.0% 112,456 100.0%
To/From All Other Counties
Auto Person Trips 83,962 99.2% 130,755 97.5%
Transit Trips 652 0.8% 3,312 2.5%
All Modes 84,614 100.0% 134,067 100.0%
Source: MTC,Bay Area Travel Forecasts for Years 1990, 1996&2010
50
1�
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two—CCTP
Circulation Draft
4.3 Traffic Demand
Followingthe estimation of the number tris made and the mode b which
P Y
they were, the next step is to look at the number of trips on specific roadways and transit
facilities in the county.
SCREENLINE AND CORDON-LINE VOLUMES
The capacity of existing highways, streets and intersections is normally
analyzed for the peak commute periods. Traffic demand is normally highest during these
periods and will therefore represent the greatest demands placed on existing and future
transportation facilities. By studying peak demands, transportation facility needs can be
determined. In Contra Costa County, peak hour traffic demand generally represents between
10 and 15 percent of daily traffic.
Peak period travel demand within key transportation corridors can be
represented across imaginary lines called screenlines. Changes in screenline traffic volumes
can be used as a key indicator of changes in traffic demand in the corridors. Figure 4-3
shows the existing peak-hour volumes across the screenlines separating the four sub-area
models and across the points of the county cordon-line (a type of screenline that defines the
outer boundary of the model study area). A summary of the existing and future traffic
demand across the key screenlines between the sub-areas in Contra Costa County is provided
in Tables 4-5 and 4-6.
The degree of "directionality" across the screenlines reflects the location of
residential land use and employment centers. Large employment centers in Central and South
County result in nearly equal flows in each direction across the screenline. In contrast,
heavily directional traffic demand across the screenline between Central and East County
reflects the predominance of residential land uses in East County and employment located in
the Central and South County subareas.
CHANGES IN TRAFFIC DEMAND
Significant increases in traffic are expected on many locations by 2010. These
changes are summarized in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 for the A.M. and P.M. peaks in 1990, 2000
and 2010. For the PM peak, year 2000 increases between two and 93 percent are expected,
depending on the location of the screenline and direction of the traffic. In year 2010, larger
increases from 1990 (between 20 and 75 percent) may be expected. The AM peak shows
similar changes.
1 BAVOL2•3-5227 II-52 November 2, 1994
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO
MARIN WEST
2 200 Z SAN
t JOAQUI N �.
«.; CENTRAL . EAST 1470
2.500
750
Q.
g
�►`
ALAMEDA -�-•�' TR{-VALLEY
'
AM PEAK HOUR o ''
L ALAMEDA
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO 1
ICID C5
F
MARIN i/ 4100 �.
2,470 WEST 7,� Z SAN
t JOAQU N ,
EAST
2,3W cENTRAI. t<
': 480
ALAMEDA TRI-VALLEY i••�''
�.
PM PEAK HOUR
ALAMEDA
Numbers represent vehicles crossing screenlines and ,
cordonline at various points during the peak hour. Figure 43
Source:Patterson Associates Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, 1990
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO
UV
N
MARIN wEst �V 1�
900 Z SAN
�.. JOAQUI N
3' EAST
CD CENTRAL
„ice
ALAMEDA �- \� TRI-VALLEY ✓,i•�
AM PEAK HOUR :` ```` �•�• $
ALAMEDA
SOLANO
SACRAMENTO 1
v N
MARIN (,
WEST SAN
+.000 t JOAQvIN
3100 '<>>.,
EAST r
CENTRAL
;fid::: •� 1,00
::
ALAMEDA .`��•�-\� TRI-VALLEY -i•�
PM PEAK HOUR ;r
ALAMEDA
Numbers represent vehicles crossing screenlines and
cordonline at various points during the peak hour. Figure 4-4
Source:Patterson Associates Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, 2010
Volume Two—CCTP EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Circulation Draft
The 1990 and 2010 volumes shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show how the
pattern of land use within the county and the surrounding region affect the volume and
direction of peak hour commuting. Where some areas have more housing than jobs or
where jobs are not filled by workers who live nearby — traffic volumes will differ
significantly by direction. The 1990 commute shows such a difference at several places
within Contra Costa County. In the A.M. peak hour, for example, volumes in one direction
are more than twice the volume in the opposite direction at the Carquinez and Benicia-
Martinez Bridges, at the East-Central screenline, and at Vasco Road/Highland Road. The
differences at the Caldecott Tunnel and the West-Central screenline are also substantially
higher in one direction than the other.
These differences reflect the concentration of houses in Solan and East
Contra Costa County relative to the number cjf)bs in West and Central Contra Costa,
Alameda and San Francisco Counties. Interestingly, the difference betwren the northbound
and southbound directions across the Central County-Tri-Valley screenline is relatively small,
reflectingly the concentrations of jobs in both areas and the attraction of workers from both
north and south by these job centers. Another interesting observation is that the commute
from and through West County to the east is small relative to other commutes in the county.
Reflecting the growth in both jobs and housing in Contra Costa and the
surrounding region, Figure 4-4 for 2010 peak hour trips shows increasing volumes across
most screenlines and points along the county cordon-line. These increases occur in both
directions. Some of the largest increases in volumes are along the I-680 corridor and across
the East-Central County screenline. Most of those increase by between 40 and 50 percent
over the 20 year period. The most significant increase is across the East-Central County
screenline where, as shown in Tables 4-5 and 4-6, peak hour volumes will increase by 64 to
69 percent. This increase reflects the expected growth in housing in East County for workers
with jobs in Central County and points to the west (Oakland and San Francisco) and south
(Tri-Valley and Alameda County).
Despite the significant growth in jobs and housing, the basic relationship in
commute directions are forecast to change very little over the 20-year period. That is, the
basic morning commute will generally be from north to south and the evening commute.will
be the reverse. The only significant change is across the Central-Tri-Valley screenline.
Whereas in 1990 somewhat more commuters were commuting to jobs in the north, that
pattern is forecast to change by 2010 with more, commuters working at jobs to the south.
Modelling indicates that job growth in the Tri-valley and Alameda County will begin to draw
more trips southward along I-680.
BAVol2.3l5.8V II-55 November 2, 1994 '
' EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two-CCTP
Circulation Draft
r
TABLE 4-5
AM PEAK HOUR SCREENLINE VOLUMES -- 1990, 2000 and 2010
% Change % Change
Screenline Direction 1990 2000 from 1990 2010 from 1990
1 Between Central To Central County 3,380 3,300 -2% 3,900 15%
and West County To West County 1,810 2,200 22% 3,500 93%
Total 5,190 5,500 6% 7,400 43%
3 Between To Central County 6,120 7,700 26% 9,100 49%
Central County To Tri-Valley 6,390 8,300 30% 8,700 36%
and Tri-Valley
Total 12,510 16,000 28% 17,800 42%
4 Between To East County 3,170 3,800 20% 4,400 39%
Central and East To Central County 8,460 12,000 42% 14,700 74%
County
Total 11,630 15,900 36% 19,100 64%
TABLE 4-6
PM PEAK HOUR SCREENLINE VOLUMES 1990, 2000 and 2010
% Change % Change
Screenline Direction 1990 2000 from 1990 2010 from 1990
1 Between To Central County 2,280 2,800 23% 4,000 75%
Central and West To West County 4,100 4,200 2% 5,100 24%
County
Total 6,380 7,000 10% 9,100 43%
3 Between To Central County 6,450 8,600 33% 9,100 41%
Central County To Tri-Valley 6,920 8,600 24% .10,200 47%
and Tri-Valley
Total 13,370 17,200 29% 19,300 44%
4 Between To East County 7,800 10,800 38% 13,600 74%
Central and East To Central County 3,510 5,000 42% 5;500 57%
County
Total 11;310 15,800 4096 19,100 69%
BAVou-3-512 1I-56 November 3, 1994
a
5 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing condition information was developed as part of each subarea Action
Plan. In addition, a combination of the 1990 baseline data, 1991 field surveys and 1993 CMP
monitoring surveys was used to illustrate existing operating conditions on Routes of Regional
Significance. '
5.1 AVERAGE DAELY TRAFFIC
Existing and forecast daily traffic demand for Routes of Regional Significance
in Contra Costa County is illustrated in Figures 5-1 through 5-5. These figures show
average daily traffic (ADT) for various selected locations along the Regional Routes in the
four sub-areas of the county.
Existing ADT. Existing traffic volumes reflect the pattern of jobs, housing
and shopping within the county and surrounding; region. Generally, the greatest existing
volumes are located along those routes that connect concentrations of jobs with concentrations
of housing. The largest volume for any roadway segment occurs on 1-680 between SR 24
and SR 242. This roadway carries traffic from the north (Solan County), east (East County) '
and south (Tri-Valley) to jobs in Central County and further south and west. .Likewise, SR
24 — one of the main connecting routes between Contra Costa and Oakland, Berkeley and
San Francisco — carries the second-largest volume of traffic. Segments on I-80 — the main
commute route through West County — carry the third- and fourth-largest volumes.
Volumes on arterial streets also reflect the origins and destinations they serve.
Two of the most heavily-travelled arterials — Ygnacio Valley Road and Crow Canyon
Boulevard — serve both job centers along their routes and significant areas of residential
development further away. Arterials at the edge of urban areas (such as Camino Diablo) or
that provide less capacity or a less direct route for travellers (such as Bailey Road) carry less
traffic.
Forecast Changes in ADT. For almost all roadways, ADT is forecast to
increase between 1990 and 2010, in some cases quite substantially. These increases reflect
the forecast growth in jobs and housing. Generally, increases are greatest between areas
where housing or job growth is also greatest.
B:XVOU3-5.BV 11-57 November 2, 1994 ,
' FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2—CCTP
CIRCULATION DRAFT
All of the freeways in the county are forecast to increase their volumes during
those 20 years. One of the most substantial increases forecast is along the eastern section of
State Highway 4 in Antioch. It is forecast to have 80,000 more daily trips, the greatest
percentage increase (144 percent) and the third-greatest absolute increase in the county.
Traffic over Willow Pass on SR 4 will also increase substantially, adding over 63,000 trips or
an increase of 68 percent (the fourth-highest in the county). The greatest absolute increases,
however, are forecast for I-680. The section of I-680 between SR 24 and SR 242 will add
113,000 daily trips, a 53 percent growth. Similarly, ADT on the section of 1-680 north of
Sycamore Valley Road in Danville is forecast to grow by 96,700 trips, the second-largest
absolute growth and the third-largest percentage growth (84 percent). These increases reflect
the growth both in jobs in Central County and the Tri-Valley and in housing in East County
and Solano County.
Like the freeways, forecast increases in dailytraffic on arterials reflect job
�
and housing growth. Some of the largest increases on arterials is forecast for East County,
especially in the southeast Antioch and Brentwood areas. Traffic on Hillcrest Avenue at SR 4
is forecast to grow more than 2-1/s times while traffic on Lone Tree Way north of Brentwood
is forecast to grow almost six times in volume. Volumes in more developed areas (such as
' Central and West County), while remaining high, will grow at a slower rate on most
roadways.
In some cases, forecast ADT on arterials is expected to decrease. In most
cases, this decrease will result from improvements planned for the regional transportation
system. With the increased capacity on one roadway, trips along other roadways will shift to
the roadway with the improvement. Cummings Skyway, for example, has a lower forecast
ADT in 2010 than 1990. This decrease will result from the completion of SR 4 as a full
freeway in the intervening period. Likewise, the decrease along Pleasant Hill Road and
Taylor Boulevard are the result of improvements to the I-680/SR 24 interchange now under
construction. Several roadways in East County will have lower volumes with the completion
of the State Route 4 Bypass assumed in the modelling.
Just as increased capacity on one road affects volumes on another, increased
congestion can also shift from one road to another. For example, increased congestion along
SR 4 at Willow Pass will shift trips to Evora Road. Forecast increases in volumes on San
Pablo Avenue between Hilltop Drive and SR 4 will likewise result from increased congestion
' along I-80 as well as (to a lesser extent) the increased capacity of SR 4.
k:%V0U3.5.B27 II-58 November 4, 1994
All,
ex5:'"/Gf:i�ii'.if�%:?iFi!N�:y.f:;:ji' i`j\ 1• `+V
CY
.G':K•S�0'Yl/^Y' /AY`i$%i�^:4%Yij%i:Y%.,v,%ii � \
+a!+y'iii%::y:y%/.••:/iii:%?'.::5,�: /�_w g +`\...,. .•..-�. �•...
3x!;M f
era .•,
. S
v
e
m
m
r
.t` N e.1 N Mf 8 �- � •
T
K
Si<ii i4 f..•i?ii�::}jlii�'�i�i:�::::. N /:•,•, •
?':�:ii'•ii?�:itii{i�:,wi:�::�;r''f%%%;��ii:%%%iiii:?%i::jii�?:{`ti�;� �I� •� t
•
:: :;iY:�({i�`•,L:ii:::•i''!:%.::•:•:•isL�:L�i:•isi�i:i^:%::'::i:•:•:•iYi:�i'�iii?:'?i %r
,,,C:y:;�:r,,Li;:. i:;%f.;: :>�::::;L,.. //.....,.....:...!.L.:::::..3.%: 1►�p v �p w1 •� � +ter ::'�>,
.�%:••..?:?:;?.:..�:'•.�'•SS':Si;:?.:.!•:•%::;L:•:?:ytk:<;::YY:;=::{-Y:o:Y::::�Y':'.�:f: N Neq � ::.:�
O
8
b�
!:iY:•ik� f:'%�! i a
r
pQ NN
of
S
N
'•�.�': '%:'::;'::::::�i :Vii;:••{?:•YiY:::si::i::iiY:•;.'•Y:
i
..0
•0'
•4
.5 I 0
i
..+�::::.is:i:!?•::'%i:•:Y:�»:•:`::::::•Y:%::i•?•:r:'%`:i:i:•Y: ':: '��:;::i::::�:�i.�:;:`i ;':
t
.<a9:
8 �
8
:'::::iF:%%:;:i•�::;�:•ii:�i::i?;;;:ji:Y%;:.'•:%::�...`:;;:;:: r::':;`;:; :`r:V::':�:2:+>�:::i'::�:�i::;%:;•'•:
en
N N
N
Q
3
t QQ
b
z
r
n
3
z •v
4
p
g e:
.......::..:::•::.;::iii i.::i::::::::::%%%�iY�%'�:k � .'• ::�:::�::
A
...:•3.:ilii:fiii}iiYYiiiiY:L:•?viY.::vL3;iY:Lv:�i:••::::•iiiyi:}Y:Ji;1Y:•Yii%ii:4;:?J:?ti3:• .......•• ... ,'.. ..,•:••:.....•::::.:
P
QQ
3— g
g i
'm
+
\ ...........?::::....
. d
0
en
J
Po
to at
4 .
i
....:... .....:::::.
Y
r.., e
b�Y:o:"ii:ii:•:::Yi: �.
a
a
e
0
sv s
q
O
.li:%�:y::}:%%v%•iiiv:•i>YY%ii::iiiiii Q
� �iiiiii:iY}i:vi:?4;:Wiii:•YiiY?i?i:
s
O
E
a
N
e
0
Ar%
..:.:.......:.::::.:
3 _
2
i
m
a
O
0 0
•_ O Q �'<::�.:i:::::::3:iCYY:3iii:ti3:!•}Y '•}'
C
X01
0
N
w
h
U
V
•
W
e�
�.
zH
v
i
�w.
I
r,•,
00
L
d
c�a
...
..... ..
•yR•'vr . ....'► f:::
•/i•: �.. ..N ../.
•: 7� rrr..++.,r. ..:::::-:-:;:;+ ..?.+r.,y..i.?:•::?t•::::;•,........:•r•:•;:�:is•::�. _ ::
.. r+ s.........rr .:•:�:.!.:.!...,.+..++
�:.�.+.... .....::.:::::::: .-t•.�:r:•r:i:-;:•ri:•+:�i•.;:•r:;?.ii:?!•::;!.:t?+iti:;;:;�:::
+sir:iii5i>iiiii"li>i':ii%65:v�-' ..•
+r:is
:v;...:v.�:•: r�•::.::::i:4i:•i•' �v�r':i:vi.:w:.v.:::�:.::�::.... ":i•.:�?:::�i:S...:::m•:`ii?.ii•S•:?tiu:r•',!n..n.:....�'::::.::::...Q.��!
:•:::........... v::rr+::?:^i:t:.�,� r:r::r..�+.::Y..Cp;••:ni;::'Li:iii....;Y ....,::::::::
......::•.�:::fir. :. :::::;i}:{?:: ..: +:::::::-� •.:::::............r:::::::..........................
ate:•i �:;i:•;:;-:�;•::•....... r+r// ..±!�
;:•.-r.•++.•,.:: ••�:�:�+:i:.>>:-:tom• �.:;F.:t•:c�;:>:zs::»::::�� ::.t•::.:: �';.;:<:
``•'% '•':`:.::>```'r'+ �i 7,400 5 56 1HOW Pus Road
7,200 1 1 000
4•
% N/A
4 r 1.060 % �\ 34,200
,.•' 179,000
79.200
. - � _ +r�
/ \ 34,000
39 4
-N, 87 �, 22,5W
' .97,000 �:\ 40,500
/
7 00
•\x'••28,500 0. �\ •.,,23,000 �,°rd �,� 9.900
170 23,300 34,340 31
2, `\� ~� 33,200,,
�c 100 \
35.8 ',`#
-_••.115 `r�`� \�� \ \._ �.`\\•\
_.....
328, r
18,800 � u+� .� � / ' 37,100 '•
14,A00 39,740 41,800 :4 900 M
— rr 62,100 `13,100
40.600\j �• —
35, 14,200 33;9
16,400 i t
\Gldeeas o 71,100 i
Tunnel 81,900
144,000 / / MAN
- \
24
`> 22,700.,9'
i 24,80001. \
12AM
` 75.000 s`°n y, y4,
Is,600 680 '�' _"'`' •\
t.� Freeway �so,00n Existing(1990) Figure 5-2
Arterial 76.40D 2010 Centra[ County
Average Daily
-"""" collector Traffic Count
—••� comry Limit 1990 & 2010
BLAYNEY
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners C,M3.3m
17
32,000/t V
�\ 25,d00 35,800 p, ,
18,000 i •,,l ,100
t \✓
326,
1OtOw
i
19 ...1`
1
4,M f
r••'1 .-,. `�"� CA 40,600 Rom
135,0001
30 9w
'• :... ;-' \�� \\` 2a,sa�0 -x 680
24
Tunnel1"000
:
C<�'�•
U,500
13
Freeway 50,000 Existing(1990)
76,400 2010
Arterial
_— collects Figure 5-3
Lamorinda
—••— c«mly Limit Average Daily
Traffic Count
1990 & 2010
BLAYNEY
DYETT Orbas and Regional Planners LAALRA L23
.0
� S�AQVIN ....OUHpY
i •
../.•i$+2!ititi'i:Af;>irl...yi"rY:.. �~.:. f
rY iF.:%L:4:�!///nY/i•YiY+YJ:AN G
'•,K',$v'I. :N:< i
:Y
,i.
j6
..-I X. d
>;r,'rJ:k:•:•Y. ,:s,•, a� •---�� .i': t0
di
BmntwoodBlit A��Mw 5Boukvud
t d
U
4ey \
yr%!% _ R w
461
�•OGo
A
i$'..s:::i•:: :::'F-''y'''w,� illi;►';.;: -.
LIS
,..�`;� q:;:;y'!%;iii;:'•:' - _
•t...........�.>:<':''�;s::<::%,;,...
gg
Ire awl
wr
wL
:
�U is p
� 1
oorAo
ol
ac
WN
Cf�" • •• Z5 e t
• t
CA
Q i'' •. k, � U U
Zi-
I ��
a
' FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2-CCTP
CIRCULATION DRAFT
5.2 COUNTYWIDE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Overall operation of the regional transportation system can be described in
terms of average system speeds, travel times and levels of service as well as total vehicle
miles travelled and vehicle hours travelled. These overall, countywide measures are contained
in Table 5-1.
EXISTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
In 1990, almost 45 percent of all miles travelled in the county during the PM
' peak hour were on facilities where demand equaled or exceeded available capacity (LOS E
and F) and significant congestion occurred. More importantly, about 53 percent of total
' vehicles hours of travel were made on roadways at or about capacity. These observations
suggest serious implications for air quality.
' Almost as many miles were travelled at LOS A through C — well under
capacity — as at or above capacity in 1990. A smaller but still significant percentage of
vehicle hours travelled were at LOS A through C.
CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 5-1 includes figures for two year 2010 alternatives: the RTP and
CTPL options. The RTP option assumes that the projects included in MTC's Track la
scenario would be developed. The CTPL option assumes that the much larger list of projects
contained in the CCTA's Comprehensive Transportation Project List — plus the Mid-State
Toll Road which is not on the CTPL — would be developed.
Overall, VMT is forecast to increase 38 to 41 percent and VHT to increase 48
to 58 percent. Once again, these increases reflect the growth in jobs and housing in the
county and surrounding region. VMT and VHT are both expected to increase at all LOS
' levels for both 2010 scenarios. Generally, however, the year 2010 scenarios would have
fewer miles travelled and hours travelled at LOS A through C and LOS F. Instead,they
would have a relatively larger share at LOS D and E. That is, the regional transportation
system would have:
' ► An overall decrease in VMT and VHT at LOS A-C (ideal operating
conditions),
► An overall increase in VMT and VHT at LOS D-E (congested/unstable
conditions), and
e:w01.2-3-5.e27 II-64 November 2, 1994
VOLUME 2—CCTP FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS '
CIRCULATION DRAFT
TABLE 5-1
COUNTYWIDE PERFORMANCE MEASURES. ,
P.M. Peak Hour for 1990 and 2010 (Regional Transportation Plan Track 1 and Countrywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Project List Alternatives)
Year 2010
Performance Measure 1990 % RTP' % CCTP2 %
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
LOS A-C 688,500 47% 860,000 40% 913,300 43%
LOS D 266,100 18% 422,100 20% 445,700 21%
LOS E 142,500 10% 199,000 9% 246,470 12%
LOS F 355,500 25% 652,200 31% 495,500 24% ,
Total 1,452,600 100% 2,133,200 100% 2,101,000 100%
Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) '
LOS A-C 19,500 42% 24,000 29% 25,200 35%
LOS D 7,000 15% 11,400 13% 11,900 16%
LOS E 4,400 9% 6,800 8% 7,900 11%
LOS F 15,600 34% 41,900 50% 27,700 38%
Total 46,500 1100% 84,000 100% 72,600 100%
Average Speeds
Freeway 40.3 35.8 37,5
Expressway 26.6 22.5 30,6
Major Arterial 26.7 20.1 24.8
Minor Arterial 22.1 21.2 23.1
Collector 19.5 12.1 11A
System Wide Average 31.2 25.4 28,9
' MTC's Draft 1 Projects in Regional Transportation Plan
2 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan '
Source: Patterson Associates, Inc. and DKS Associates, Inc.
s:wou-3.5.52 II-65 November 2, 1994
' FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2-CCTP
CIRCULATION DRAFT
► An overall reduction in VMT and VHT at LOS F (flow
breakdowns/unacceptable delays).
The first effect is a direct result of the increase in traffic demand over limited
transportation facilities. Increased traffic will worsen many facilities previously operating at
LOS A-C to LOS D and E. The third effect is the result of the improvements planned in the
RTP. These are specifically aimed at the most congested facilities; therefore, many links are
expected to improve from LOS F to D-E. The second effect is the combination of the first
and third effects. In other words, many LOS A-C links will worsen to LOS D-E and some
' LOS F links will improve to LOS D-E.
Average speeds are forecast to drop for both 2010 scenarios, both overall and
' for all LOS levels. The only exception is that expressway speeds are forecast to increase
significantly for the CTPL scenario. Generally, the CTPL scenario would have higher
average speeds at all levels of service. These higher speeds result from the significantly
greater investment in facilities that the CTPL scenario represents. As noted above, the CTPL
scenario is not "financially constrained" and is unlikely to be funded fully. Interestingly,
even if this significant investment were possible, the growth of jobs and housing would still
overwhelm the regional transportation system that would exist under that scenario.
5.3 Freeway and Arterial Operating Conditions
Operating performance on freeways is evaluated through levels of service
(LOS). The LOS on any roadway refers to the ratio of traffic on the roadway to the capacity
of the roadway. Congestion occurs where levels of service are at or above capacity (LOS F).
Figures 5-6 through 5-10 illustrate congested locations at LOS F, both for 1990 and 2010.
EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS
Freeways. Traffic demand on.the Contra Costa freeway system equals or
exceeds capacity on segments of every freeway in Contra Costa County (except I-580 in
Richmond). Most of I-80 in West County, 1-680 and SR 24 in Central County, and SR 4
east of SR 242 in Central and East County are at LOS F. Freeway congestion normally
occurs at ramp connections where traffic is added to freeways operating near their capacity.
Intersections. Generali the capacity of arterial-streets normally limited
Generally, p ty st Bets is y
by the capacity of its intersections. Congestion first occurs when traffic demand at key
' intersections approaches capacity. Queues at the intersections and slower speeds between
intersections result.
BAVOL2.313.821 II-66 November 2, 1994
VOLUME 2—CCTP FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS '
CIRCULATION DRAFT
a
Figures 5-6 through 5-10 illustrate congested locations at intersections
throughout the more developed parts of the county. No intersections in East County, for
example, are shown at LOS F which is still relatively undeveloped. A number of '
intersections in both West and Central County, however, are at LOS F. These congested
intersections are found especially along Regional Routes that either parallel congested freeway
or that provide alternative routes for commuters that would otherwise use freeways. In West
County, half of the currently congested intersections are on San Pablo Avenue, an alternative
to I-80. (The others are at freeway ramps.) Similarly, in Central County several congested
intersections are located along Contra Costa Boulevard which parallels congested segments of
I--680. Almost half of them, however, are located along Xgnacio Valley Road which carries
a significant amount of traffic diverted by congested along SR 4 in East County. ,
FORECAST CONGESTED LOCATIONS
Figures 5-6 through 5-10 show additional congested locations expected to
g P
operate at LOS F by 2010. No intersection or freeway segment that is at LOS F in 1990 is
forecast to improve to better than LOS F in 2010. Although operating conditions would be ,
much worse without the highway improvements described in the RTP, these will not be
enough even to maintain existing operating conditions.
Freeways. Even more freeway links are expected to operate at LOS F in
2010 than today. All of these new congested freeway segments are located in Central
County. They include westbound SR 4 between Cummings Skyway and SR 242, east bound
SR 4 between I-680 and SR 242, northbound I-680 between SR 4 and Clayton Road, SR 242
between I-680 and Clayton Road, and SR 24 between I-680 and Oak Hill Road. No new
congested segments are forecast in other areas. (No new segments are possible in East
County where all are already at LOS F.)
Intersections. The number of intersections at or above LOS F will also ,
increase substantially by 2010. Increased traffic on arterials in the county will create 16 new
congested intersections in addition to the 25 already identified for 1990. This is an increase
of 64 percent. These new congested intersections are found at a variety of locations. Some
reflect additional diversion from congested freeways. The six new congested intersections
along San Pablo Avenue in West County — over. one-third of the new congested intersections ,
in the county -- in particular illustrate the effects of diversion from freeways on surface
streets.
BAVOI Zis.a27 II-67 November 2, 1994 ,
' FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2— CC77
CIRCULATION DRAFT
Many of the new congested intersections are located at freeway ramps
' including some of those on San Pablo Avenue. Three of the five new congested intersections
in Central County, for example, are at freeway ramps along I-680. Altogether, 15 of the 25
congested intersections in 2010 are forecast for freeway ramp intersections. Even with the
construction of the first phases of the Delta Expressway, intersections in East County along
the existing SR 4 will reach LOS F. These new congested locations reflect the growth in
housing projected in the Oakley and Brentwood areas as well as the growth in traffic from
San Joaquin County along the Byron Highway.
' e:woL2-3-5.R27 II-68 November 2, 1994
1
/-:.?+•n�,r.-.,l.i:% i'!-.ly,Y2J:}%:;:i�%y}T%i I f { J
hd,• cli
..)3`>:< ' F;'.Y`' rte,
cs
tit
or
qc
Al
C�
i
ir
n
a
�3
i
r4' .Hf.%H�''{�::!i+::•tiijyk'{i:ji:?•i}::v•y-
4.:+ly-t;'..►::ii<:!, ::Y•:";':y:::ii:.+•,.:i�ixvyYi::?:";:y{'y:;ii%;y::i;:'r?:` � �.1 V
'H�i�. ':��^iiF4}i:^i iiji:ii:'v'S{:i'i; /'' •
♦1� ::»#>#`i>>•'>`.v><�����:::'�:;;��=>< : �' ASA � ?�"
I:.
iji,•:,�. ?:%4ii(��%:}fir%:i:�ii%<ti:}:r:'is%:�ii::!:ii' ice'.'` I•V
�3
r'
D
P
f
f
is
l
i
i
-::::;�>::•::}.;::•::::•:max ::;. :..:}::..........::.
::..:...........:..:.....:.........:.:...:....
i
f
tai
:Q
A
J
7 C"
M.
. 4
>.
� g
d'-
u
b ,
4 .
....... ...............
\ v
i
m
N
i7
t
.........:.
N
O
0
.9
..1 r
cry a. a
:
N
O
Q
d
fi �
LL
O
U.4.6
a
�o
r
a
C �
� 3
8 v
m 7
m
e
g
C
C
J N
J 7
C
GLl LL r LL
C cry s�I:
:::..:..:::.....::.:.:.:
................
O
yy
�o
\ •:::ice;:}::.;}}}}�•:::.}•;;}::;•
U �.
■
w
d /
I .
.r
/ I
ao H
v
/
3
■
z
C
cn
■
d
w
3U
a
NOG
��Q
rr1a..+F9.•.. 80 :fY,j.!,�j.r•;.+••.+'<r+•<r:t.;•irt%rr'j.rr,.r!r:.r.:.:.•..•;..:::k.:.:?.•.::.+.'.�:r::i.r..rr:r.r':%r�:-ir-.:r..:.•..":.}.:.'.�.•...}
::r:t!•r..•.}:}•:i•••'}s•ir::;•:;+y:•�::•.}.;x:.•;'..i:.;•.:}►.i.ii.i►.::mo!:.i..•}:.+:.•tw #:.
r :..}.:}:'rfrr:r.
'7 ! ::. wfri_.:.j�.:j..:.2_.:.::•.:i:.s:.:r......t...l...4..'r.}..?.:.•d:...:i..%.o:ii•:}..
.?.1r:.1:..:.........y.....*..;.:>.%...`.
.-`.•?..�r•:'%�i::��:�+S:irj
:......`.r..•'..:...;.,.u..w..sSirti::,'+..rn::%:i.;i:.•�a,..�'r.":iri::.i•:;.5�::r�i}'+r}:•r::•vr::
.�"j.".1.ju..:/..`../.j...:j?..j..rr
'.:�:.%r:r•::n>:i..r.
r:++r rl.•, nv.!:a:};i:•}:?}:.}:-}:: ::f:,::::..: ":u.•.�.:::.::r.!-::}}}:.}::.rrrr rt..:}..�......?.........:....
., ,..::)+r .... r::.�:::"":.�:� .:}::�:::.;..;:i{.•:;:1r.?t;::f.:j..�;;;•j...?:.c:::• ." .....::.:::""::•::.....::•.:t.r.. ::?.r..ir••.•��c�.}}�► �/;�+ ii•:
•!::// /••;}:j:::rv:/.rv: �:�:•:r:{A••<•:�:+.tri n:::!;{i:..�:ij/b: of..:..........P:
:�}l•::.::::.11.•r. ...t!.....::t:r:........fart...rn.::r
/ �%•rr'v:•}::}rrrr't�}:?•fb;•}}}}}}':::•rrrr}i}'.i:.i-:::.v::::::•f N 4fv.?::rf:.:r:::{:.....:nom.::.......ly.:.i•.vu:.if.... .....: ...rrrr::.
..r :.rrrr:: .:v. .. .::::::::-:::•r• .........',y�
•:l rrr.:..rrrr/. ........:::::.v"" a.a.v:" ....:::..raa..:nv.rf.;
r..:n:.r. ........f}f'iif..i.
.i................ :!rrrr:•::.�:: ..r rt rrtJr' .r.;c...;;:.
.rrrr•::-- •'ii:%c: ....
-. :.. ... .;...:.....rrrr
•i:-}}::.::.:!.... ..',�'�,Y ":isj::::::•`.;:%:k}i:: 't%;::j:::}:•}>:j5::::•'}}:..A �::�;r
:::. ":•....:..?>:;•:?:;•.j•i::?::rrrr:.. ............... :,..;;:.;-.;rrrr:::........ ••:�: ..�
..�"i: i:•jj"' �r '.f>.t ii::it ;t.:j'ij;!•n;:'/`:k:}'.v;{:!:;::;�:j:r ...►':
- /... ?!err:..!::r:!!�:4;:•,'.t+ �^+! :>:f. �/� ..... ..
N+'r}.. wi:?-'I.:::/.^,r: .v.�:�iiii%�::ij i i.`•ji:rj Y.'l� �/'%•':rf' 2:il::}::;::.�r,r
;C%.l+ro.}fX�"":U.i:(:;.}i/nil:jiij :•i}%;iriiYi}4.y:::
l-i»::::i•:ij»rii::«<:>•}iii>: �:< °" t4 Port ......
Y�/rri�•v'rr'4'•�'.%jiYli'rj'iiil•.;i}'l;�}:i.'••:4ji (� y •�.%%:i:i2:'!y:
Yl�way
..•l}:;fj:$%l,ij%/,..(i',jjY'..•i?ifJ:jig'
ow Pass;I .. _
beo\ `, 4•
\
24
680' :�. - _•.`.
Reg
conal Routes
Existing and Future LOS F
Sarface Figure 5-7
Roadway Freeway Existing Future LOS F Central County
l..... 1111311 FutureExisting and Future Congested Locations
' Intersection LOS F
a g o ■M M Potential Q Future Intersection LOS F
0 Existing Intersection LOS F
Source:1993 Contra Costa CMP(August 2,1993);CCC CMP(October 10,1993);
Transpac Action Plan Preliminary Travel Forecasts(October 1993)
BLAYNEY
DYETT Uraan and Regional Planners CENtaassss
1
02
680
,
C
0&
Its
• 24
13
r
Regional Routes
Surface Existing and Future LOS F ,
Roadway Freeway��s• ® Existing %�////�// Future LOS F
�....■ ggggOg/
Future Existing and Future
Intersection LOS F
•MEN NEW MMM Potential 0 Future Intersection LOS F
Existing Intersection LOS F
Figaro S-8
Source:1993 Contra Costa CMP(August 2,1993);CCC CMP(October 10,1993); Lamorinda ,
Transpac Action Plan Prelimbuwy Travel Forecasts(October 1993) Congested Locations
BLAYNEY r
DYETT Urban and Regional Planners IAMJUMSr -
r
d 'OAQu1N COUNTY a v�
tw
:
'�•'rii ii v::•::::.:::i. ..:
.............
Y.;i.
U
i M
Breatwod Blvd Wab,ut !Boukvard e
00
woo "Coo
P¢ Road 1
J• '
�,r :.
jj 6%l"':h......... .. i4iii OD
�" ?iii f.`.i:'•`:��ii:::: r; jfa;:r
•psi: �' ti..�>?:: %%
�"?^� 'y„�yppG,.. ,•`;ice>:: � % ..� Cp �;
M 0-
f^
cc
328 z
00 H e
''moi.• ? �.. id
:'�����` :�s:::;<:;::?;:;;: moi► ' KK� a 96
�;iK'i:::::;:::i5 ♦ it .
99
eco �W
Nr
; 40 Q
� Q Cc r r `. ��
ri
a
to
lb
U
•
•
w
> o
• w
•
.-ug
•. 4O •
..........- 4aaaf ••1' '
• `` "Q
a s
UQ
O
I 99 U
N ,>.
1 C '
j Lu
40d
' FUTURE TRAMC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2—CCTP
CIRCULATION DRAFT'
r
R:wou•}s.en II-74 November 2, 1994
This Wage Left
Intentionally Blank
l'
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
1�
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON
THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE
COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Approved for Circulation October .19, 1994
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
Comments and Responses on the Preliminary
Draft of the Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
1
The following section contains copies of comment letters received on the
preliminary draft CCTP and responses to them. Each comment letter is numbered in
chronological order according to the date of the letter. The numbers in the margin of each
comment letter identify the individual comments and are used to number the responses that
follow. Where possible, the corrections suggested in.those letters have been incorporated into
the circulation draft of the CCT?.
The following comments on the CCTP have been received:
1 Mike Scott, Private Citizen August 16, 1994
2 Cathy Nowicki, Associate Planner August 29, 1994
3 David McCoard, Chair of West County Group, September 1, 1994
Sierra Club
4 Kay Van Sickel, Assistant Mngr. September 7, 1994
AC Transit
5 John Dillon, Transp. Svcs. Dir. September 8, 1994
City of San Ramon
6 Michael Warren, City Manager September 8, 1994
City of Benicia
7 Barbara Guise, TRANSPLAN Chair September 8, 1994
TRANSPLAN
8 Harvey Bragdon, Community Devel. Dir. September 9, 1994
Contra Costa County
c:XWPoocs\143\CCrP\CCrPCRxl.UDC III-1 November 3, 1994
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
9 Richard A. White, General Manager September 12, 1994
BART
10 Craig Goldblatt for Chris Brittle, Planning Mngr. September 12, 1994
MTC
11 Theresa Tingle September 13, 1994
City of Richmond Planning Department
12 Gary Adams, Chief of Office of Transp. Planning September 16, 1994
Caltrans
13 Otto Bertolero, Assist. City Engineer September 16, 1994
City of Vallejo Dept. of Public Works
14 Barbara Neustadter October 24, 1994
TRANSPAC
r
c:%VAV XI93%CCMCCPPMR1.DW III-2 November 3, 1994
L
:Tuesday., August 16th, 1994 i t4 r 171994
' sunny, hazy (smoggy), hot
- Mr. Robert K. McCleary - --�
Executive .Director
Contra 1 Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard; Suite 150 Comment Letter 1
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
�{ Dear Mr. McCleary;
You asked for, comments on your "Preliminary Draft of the 1994 Contra Costa
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan."
It's a. bad joke It's not Nor does it involve transportation.
1
Rather, it's only another of a torrent of forest-wasting, public relations fluff
paper perpetuating your management-heavy office. Other than riding coattail to
occasional BART extension lip service, you serve no one but paving contractors.
Where were you 14 years ago when mile after mile of Southern. Pacific track 2
running through Walnut Creek and neighboring congested communities was ripped up
for a "jogging trail?" That long-established, well-located right-of-way would,
connecting to the old "Iron Horse Trail,"serve as a perfect trolley/light rail
' line at least as far as the exploding Bishop Park business complex in San Ramon.
One of your callow paper shufflers once tried to tell us, with a straight face,
that some residents along the right-of-way might object to the "noise" of a light
rail system near-their neighborhoods. This same rump-preserving/party-line-mouthing
bureaucrat conveniently ignored the freeways and interchanges skirting these same
properties.
No decently designed and built light (or even heavy) electric rail system comes
close to the noise levels of a freeway, nor ruins local air quality. You can move
200 times the weight with the same horsepower over steel rails/steel wheels than
over paved road/pneumatic tires.
Your organization is truly Orwellian named; you having nothing to do with transpor-
tation beyond pandering to paving contractors. And you are certainly no "authority."
Perhaps you should serve the public good, if that is your alleged good, by dis-
mantling your chief-heavy boondoggle and working to promote family planning for
everyone. Maybe you and your staffers might find work at one of the County's recycling
centers. Your salaries will be lower, but the money'll be cleaner.
Sincerely,
cc: Sierra Club
San Francisco Examiner
Contra Costa Times Mike Scott
Congressman George Miller 1162 Lincoln Avenue
Senator Barbara Boxer
KCBS Apt. 329
Don Hewitt/60 Minutes Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4719
(510) 932-4599
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 1 .
1 The preliminary draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan `
addresses both highways and transit and both system maintenance and serving
the transportation disadvantaged. Since the vast majority of trips are made by
the private automobile, a great deal of emphasis must be given the roadway
system. The CCTP, however, also emphasizes other modes of travel
including light rail (such as the proposed light rail line along San Pablo
Avenue) and BART extensions. '
2 Noise is a concern for any transportation facility, whether it is a freeway or
rail line. New heavy rail lines generally have similar noise impacts as new
freeways. Light rail, while generally quieter than heavy rail, can clearly have
impacts as well, especially when the rail line will run immediatle adjacent to
and on the same level as adjoining homes. (Freeways in the area tend to be
higher than and set back further from adjoining homes which reduces noise
impacts although it does not eliminate them.) Residents adjoining the
Southern Pacific right-of-way have frequently raised the concern about
potential noise impacts of new light rail service.
3 Comment noted.
c:\WPnocs\193\ccrP\ccrPC&Rr.noc III-4 October 12, 1994
IOF Mr►/�),
City of Martinez Comment Letter 2
�. 525 Henrietta Street. Martinez,.CA 94553-2394
876
August 29, 1994
tMartin Engleman, Deputy Director Planning
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Blvd.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Martin:
We have the following comments on the preliminary Draft. Contra
Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
1. Please include Martinez'on Figure 3.9-2 East-Central Commute.
Martinez has the 4th largest number of jobs in Central County
(1990 Census) .
'2. Figure 3.5-2 should read "implemgnt" or "pursue funding" for
the ferry service from Martinez; the study was performed by
MTC on its 1991 Regional Ferry Plan. This note should be
revised throughout the document on all maps where the ferry is
identified.
3. Figure 3.5-1, Table 3.5-1, Proposed Projects Benicia-Martinez.
Bridge, should read Benham (this change needs to be made
throughout document on base maps, including Figure 3.6-1
1
etc
4. Figure 3.5-1, 3.6-1 are both inaccurate in representing the
Alhambra Avenue projects. We have funding for Alhambra Avenue
Phase I from Alhambra Hills Drive to Benham which is screened
on the map but in the wrong location. Alhambra Avenue Phase
II, from Highway 4 to Alhambra Hills Drive is a Track 2
project but is not mentioned in either Table 3.5-1 or on
figrare 3,5-1 or 3.5-2. -
5.
.5-2. -5. Table 3.6-1 and Figure 3.6-1 should include the Pacheco
Boulevard road widening and bicycle lane project from the City
limits at Potter Street to Susana Street.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft
plan. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely ,
�
Cathy N2icki
Associate Planner
cc: Barbara Neustadter, TRANSPAC
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment.Letter 2
1 Although Martinez does have the 4th largest number of jobs in Central Contra ,
Costa County and is an important commute destination from East County, it
has not been included on Figure 3.9-2 East-Central Commute. The East-.
Central Commute boundary has been delineated to focus more on the ` !
transportation system, namely State Route 4, Byron Highway and.Vasco
Road, than on the commute patterns between the East and Central Counties.
Martinez has been included, however, on Figure 3.3-2 (Proposed Action:
West-Central Commute) and Figure 3.6-2 (Proposed Actions: I-680 from
Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Corridor). While Figure 3.9-2 does not
include all of Martinez (it includes some parts), the Authority's travel demand
models do include trips from all parts of the county to jobs in Martinez.
2-5 Comments 2-5 have all been incorporated into the Draft CCTP.
i�
CAVAV=\193%CCrP\ccrPC&Ri.n0c III-6 October 12, 1994
Uomment Letter 3
SIERRA CLUB San Francisco Bay Chapter
` Alameda County . Contra Cost Marin San Francisco
it
r� Conservation Offices 5237 College Avenue,Oakland,CA 94618 (510) 653-6127
S1c1i.a
.,�. Bookstore 6014 College Avenue,Oakland,CA 94618 (510)658-7470
•a C c
September 1, 1994 Q
- b
Mr.Robert K.McCleary,Executive Director ,SF
Contra Costa Transportation Authority f' p 6
1340 Treat Boulevard,Suite 150
Walnut Geek, California 945%
Dear Mr. McCleary:
Subject: Comments on Preliminary Draft of the 1994 Contra Costa
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Sierra Club urges the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to include in
1� its Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan a provision requiring that any new
development be at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those
,. who drive.
The language of enabling legislation and Measure C�which established sales tax
funding for transportation projects and the Authority's Growth Management Program,
may not specifically mandate concern about those who don't drive(other than the
elderly and disabled)but that does not necessarily relieve elected officials of their
responsibility to support the equal protection guarantees of our Constitution. This
matter was addressed most recently by Hank Dittmar,Executive Director of the Surface
Transportation Policy in Washington(see attached copy of Page 1 of STPP's June-July
�! 1994 issue of PROGRESS)and U.S.District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,who
recently ordered a halt to construction of a new county hospital in Martinez,stating that
"Construction of the new county hospital in Central County,without any improvement
in public transportation or the availability of health care services to the West and East
County minority poor,will,in effect,entrench and perpetuate the county's alleged
systemic discrimination against the county's indigent minorities."
Everyone has a natural right to travel Government provision of facilities that
give motorists speedier access,with no corresponding maintenance or upgrading of
alternatives needed to assure equally functional access for others,is a denial of the
Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. In the absence of adequate funding for
public transit,it seems only equitable that we restrict new development to sites that
are already adequately served by public transit.
Sincerely,
David McCoard, Chair
West County Group
Attachments: Reprint of West County Times news item,Tuesday, August 2, 1994
Reprint from STPP PROGRESS,June-July 1994
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan 1,
Responses to Comment Letter 3
1 To implement a provision equal accessibility for motorists and non-motorists,
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority would need land use authority
which it does not have and is not pursuing. The Circulation Draft CCTP ,
does, however, contain policies calling for a study of development regulations
that will identify changes that will make developments more supportive of
transit. (This policy is recommended in the West County Action Plan.)
Note: Attached materials provided with the comment letter from David McCoard,
Sierra Club, have not been included in this document.
v
I�
cawPn0c'S1193\CCMCCrPC&Rl.n0c III-13 October 7, 1994
Alomment Letter 4
ACTransk 16M Franklin Street,Oakland,Ca fomia 94612 0 (510)8914777
Alameds�ontra Costa Transit tXstrkt RR M
September 7, 1994 O l5 U
SEP ' 71994 t i
Robert McCleary
Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority --- ccTA s
1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
R.E. A.C. Transit's Comments on the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Pian ( Preliminary Draft ) and Subsequent Response.
Dear Mr. McCleary:
Response to our May 25, 1994 comments referred to as Letter 10 in the Preliminary Draft of
the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan states that TSO's and
1 Action tables are based on Action Plans and were not included in the preliminary drafts of the
West County Action Plan for the I-80 and I-580 John T. Knox Corridors.
The said response concluded on a promise to incorporate these actions in the ensuing drafts
when they are made part of the West County Action Plan. Please be informed that a
Circulation Draft of West Contra Costa Action Plan For Routes Of Regional Significance was
made available on July 29, 1994, and includes the following provisions:
Table 7.1: Interstate 80: Objectives and Actions ( Page 7-6 )
' Obiective Increase transit ridership on the I-80 corridor during peak hours by
20 percent by the year 2000.
Actions: 1) Implement a timed bus/train transfer service at the El Cerrito-Del Norte
El Cerrito Plaza and Richmond BART stations. The responsible
agencies are WCCTAC, .A.0 Transit, and other relevant transit agencies.
2) Promote an increase in the frequency of the El Sobrante-Richmond-
San Francisco bus service during peak periods. The responsible agencies
are WCCTAC, A.C. Transit, and other relevant transit agencies.
The District feels that the above cited objectives and actions are directly consistent with the
ones suggested in our related comments of May 25, 1994. Therefore, it is our wish that they
be included in the Final Draft of Contra-Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation
Plan:Thank you for considering these comments and if-you have any question.regarding this '
matter, please feel free-to contact Maurice McCarthy of my 'staff at 891-4792
Sincerely,
Kay VanSickel
Assistant General Manager
Service Development & Marketing
cc: Dave Weikel
Maurice McCarthy
WOMEN
4'
t
Contra Costa Countywide.Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
Responses to Comment Letter 4
1 The actions referred to on the I-80 corridor that were taken from the West
County Action Plan For Routes of Regional Significance have been
incorporated into the Circulation Draft Action Plan.
i1.
c:kwMK)CSNigs\CCTP%CCTPC&Ri.noc III-11 October 7, 1994
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
Comment Letter 5
San Ramon
o.
t�
CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 P.O.
. eOX 5s14lay
SAN RAMON.CALIFORNIA 94583
I� (St01 275.2200
FAX:(510186&1436
September 9, 1994
Martin Engelmann, Deputy Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340.Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Martin:
The City of.San Ramon appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on
the Preliminary Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, dated
July 26, 1994. The City applauds the efforts of the Transportation Authority to produce the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP),and regards the plan as a major
step forward to development of a coherent regional approach to transportation issues. The
City's comments are arranged in a page and paragraph citation format.
�r -
1 Page I4, paragraph 3
Reference to Tri-Valley Transportation Committee should be changed to read Tri-Valley
Transportation Council.
l� 2 Figure 1.2 _
Has the Transportation Authority acted to officially establish boundaries between the
' regional transportation planning areas? This question is pertinent with regards to the
boundaries between the TRANSPAC and SWAT regions, and SWAT and TZZANSPLAN
f RTPC areas. As has been discussed in previous Authority meetings, perhaps a formal legal
definition of the boundary lines should be acted upon by CCTA.
3 Page I-12, paragraph 4
The term "delay index" should be defined within this section of the document.
f�— 1
CRY COUNCIL-775:))0 ADWNLSTRATM SER%I=*IM2727 POLICE:2Ti22m DMGINEER/N'G:S7S22So
CITY MANA(X*'275-7))0 PUBLIC SERYICM 275.7260 PARKS a CCM MUMT'SERVICLR 27S-7M0 r A"M4Q 775mo
CITY CLERK:275.2350 TRANSPORTATION:2712230 COM AUkIn COMER.2712300 OUR.004C NSPECTIDM.2752220
SENIOR amm.2mn, REDEVELOPMENT:275.2280
[� Page I-15, Paragraph 1
The sixth"bullet"item under Existing CCTA Programs,should,be revised to read, "maintain
and update periodically the CCTA's Travel Demand Model to provide local jurisdictions and
RTPC's .........
5 Page I-23, paragraph 1
The City is supportive of the TSO's noted for the Carquinez Bridge corridor, particularly
those involving reversing the direction of toll collection to meter trips into West County, and
working with Solan County to affect land use and development
6 Page I-53, paragraph 3
Discussions with Caltrans regarding the "new" Benicia/Martinez Bridge .have included
provision of a light rail transit or BART line on the new structure. This does not appear
to have been included in the TSOs or actions for the the.
Bridge. Should the
Action Plan include an objective of accommodating future rail transit on the new bridge
structure? ,
7 Page I-64 Table 3.6-1
Should the.proposed action items for the I-680 Corridor from the Benicia/Martinez Bridge
to Rudgear Road include high occupancy vehicle lanes through the I-680/SR-24
interchange? This action would provide a "seamless" HOV network connecting Central
County to the Tri-Valley Area in the I-680 corridor.
Page I-67, paragraph 2
Reference to "San Ramon Boulevard" in paragraph two on this page should be changed to
read, "San Ramon Vallev Boulevard". In the same paragraph it is stated that interchanges
along this section of I-680 are"relatively widely spaced". In fact,there are nine interchanges
in the approximate 10 mile segment between Rudgear Road and I-580. This is close to the
minimum guidelines of FHWA that interchanges not be spaced closer than one mile apart.
9 Page I-68, paragraph 1
This paragraph notes the freeway reliever function served by Crow Canyon Road between
I-580 in Castro Valley and I-680 in San Ramon. The City of.San Ramon is concerned over
the use of this roadway as a bypass to the I-580/1-680 interchange, and does not support
additional capacity being added to this roadway to further encourage bypass traffic and
consequent traffic congestion on Crow Canyon Road within the City of San Ramon. The
2 �
City is supportive of efforts to enhance motorist safety on the two-lane portion of Crow
Canyon Road within Alameda and Contra Costa counties,but not of widenings which would
result in capacity increases on this roadway. .
�
10 Pa I-68, paragraph 3
Reference to widening of Old Ranch Road is incorrect Old Ranch Road has recently been
widened to a typical four-lane cross-section, and no additional widening of this roadway is
anticipated or planned within the City of San Ramon.
&11
Pa I-69 Table 3.7-1�
Should Table 3.7-1 include planned revisions to the Alcosta Boulevard/I-680 interchange?
Also,this table should be amended with regard to the San Ramon Valley Boulevard citation
to read, "widen to four lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to Montevideo Drive". Further, in
Table 3.7-1, the reference to Crow Canyon Road improvements should be changed to read,
"widen to six lanes, Alcosta Boulevard to Dougherty Road".
12 Page i-95, paragraph'2
The fourth sentence in this paragraph should be revised to read, "Currently, I-580 across
�i Altamont Pass has four lanes in both directions to meet the demands...".
13 Page I-102, paragraph 4
With regard to truck traffic, while the statement in this paragraph that trucks have little
effect on. the capacity of roads may be true, trucks have a disproportionate impact on
pavement wear and consequent need for pavement rehabilitation and roadway rebuilding.
14 Page I-103, paragraph 5
Third sentence in this paragraph should be revised to read, "Bikes can be an excellent
alternative for trips to and from transit stations ...".
15 Page I-104, paragraph 2
Last sentence in this paragraph should be revised to read, "Generally, pedestrian volumes
would be heavier on quiet streets...".
� 3
16 Page 1.105, paragraph 6
This sentence should be revised to read, "Measure C-g coli i lists both transit and
paratransit service ..".
17 Page I-108, Paragraph 2
Should the CC''IP include discussion of the current"seismic retrofit"funding crisis which has
impacted the ability to deliver regional transportation projects?
� I-122,
1g Pa Table 7-1 '
The lists of Routes of Regional Significance should be amended to add Village Parkway
from Alcosta Boulevard to the Alameda County line.
19 Page II-16, paragraph 1
Under forecast household growth, the draft plan indicates a forecast of approximately 6,500
new dwelling units to be constructed in the Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys. Is this amount
of development anticipated by the year 2010?
20 Table 2.2
The forecast household growth in the Contra Costa and Alameda County portions of Tri-
Valley is 54% and 93% respectively, as compared to currently existing development For ,
the Tri-Valley region as a whole, the projected change in housing units amounts to 78%
increase over existing levels. These seem to be very aggressive assumptions of potential .
growth in the Tri-Valley area. This comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal 2 of
the CCTP.
Page II-24� paragraph 21 P h 4 '
�P
In paragraph 2 on page 26, the statement is made that the Dougherty and Tassajara areas
would corporate"substantial job growth". The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan included only
minor "local serving" job.development-associated with retail shopping center and some
professional services. This should not be confused with major employment growth areas
such as Hacienda Business Park,East Dublin Specific,Plan, or Bishop Ranch business park.
This comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal 2 of the CCI?.
4 ,�
22 Section 2.5, Job, Housing Relationships, pages II-24 through II-30
The discussion of job/ housing relationships should expand discussion of the affordability
of housing, and/or balance with the types of jobs and wages provided in the region. Also
the evidence presented in the text of the report suggest that the Tri-Valley Sub-region is
headed in the direction of a "better" jobs/housing balance. Does this contradict other
statements made in the plan, and has the effect been reflected in forecast travel demand in
and around the Tri-Valle area? This comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal
Y P Y
2 of the CCT?.
23 Page 111-39, paragraph 3
Inclusion of a partial listing of projects from the Comprehensive Transportation Project List
seems to imply a special priority for consideration of these projects,to the possible exclusion
of other projects. Perhaps the entire list could be reproduced within this section in a
-summary form, to indicate the full range of projects which are under consideration. This
comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal 2 of the CCT?.
24 Figure 44
Projected Year 2010 peak period traffic demand volumes on I-680 indicate that a minimum
of 5 traffic lanes in both northbound and southbound directions would be necessary to
accommodate forecast travel demand on I-680 between Central County and Southwest
County, and between the Tri-Valley and destinations to the south in Alameda and Santa
Clara counties. As of this time, there are no plans for expansion for I-680 to a 10 lane
facility through the San Ramon and Sunol Valleys. Please explain how the excess travel
demand will be accommodated. This comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal 2
of the CCTP.
25 Page II-5, paragraphs 2 and 4
Discussion of commute patterns in the I-680 corridor into and out of the Tri-Valley area
does not seem to account for the improved jobs/ housing balance discussed in an earlier
comment. If housing growth occurs at the rate projected in the CCT?, and the. ratio of
employed residents to jobs is improving in the Tri-Valley area, it seems likely that the net
effect would be to reduce much of the in-and out-commuting postulated in the discussion
on page U-55. This comment was previously noted on Draft Submittal 2 of the CCT?.
26 Figure 5-10
Figure 5-10 indicates existing and future intersection LOS F conditions at the intersection
of Bollinger Canyon Road and Alcosta Boulevard in the City of San Ramon. The City's
5
�I
forecasts do not indicate level-of-service F operation at this location now or in the future,
assuming projected land use development.Similarly,the intersection of Norris Canyon Road ,
and San Ramon Valley Boulevard is shown as a projected level-of-service F location.-Again,
nothing in the City's existing or forecast traffic condition indicates that this intersection ,
would operate at level-of-service F now or in the future. This comment was previously
noted on Draft Submittal 2 of the CCI?.
This concludes my comments on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Once
again, the City appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the Plan, and we
hope that they prove useful to you in subsequent revisions. If I may answer any questions
you may have or provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at
275-2228.
Sincerely yours,
"ohn Dillon
Transportation Services Director
v
6
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 5
1 Comment incorporated.
2 Authority staff is working with County staff to prepare a map showing the
boundaries of the regional transportation planning areas. These boundaries
could be formally adopted by the Authority in January 1995 as part of the
adoption of the CCTP. County staff has prepared a draft boundary map using
parcel boundaries as a starting point.
3 Comment incorporated.
4 Comment incorporated.
5 Comment noted. Please see Comment Letters 6, 12 and 13 from Benicia,
Caltrans, and Vallejo, respectively, for an alternate position.
6 This comment should be forwarded to TRANSPAC for their consideration.
7 Caltrans has determined that HOV lanes through the interchange are not
feasible. The Central County Action Plan and the CCTP both reflect this.
8 The wording was changed in the Preliminary Draft in response to the City of
San Ramon's comments on the earlier drafts and from Pleasanton.
9 Section 3.7 notes the issue regarding the use of Crow Canyon Road as a
reliever, but it does not imply that such use is supported by the CCTP.
Neither the Preliminary Draft nor the Circulation contain projects to increase
the capacity of Crow Canyon Road and thus encourage its use as a reliever
route. (Both versions of the CCTP have included safety improvements.)
10 Comment incorporated.
11 Comments incorporated. Table 3.7-1 will include the planned revision to the
Alcosta Boulevard/I-680 interchange in the Draft CCTP.
12 Comment incorporated.
c:XWPDOCSU93%CCPP\CCI'PM-R1.DOC III-18 October 12, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
13 Comment incorporated. The effect of truck traffic on pavement wear and
roadway maintenance has been added to the discussion of truck traffic in the
Circulation Draft CCTP.
14 Comment incorporated.
15 Comment incorporated.
16 Comment incorporated. !�
17 Comment incorporated.
18 Comment incorporated.
19 The LUIS contains a forecast that'approximately 6,500 new dwelling units
will be constructed in the Dougherty and.Tassajara Valleys by the year 2010.
20' Comment noted. As we responded previously, LUIS forecasts for the Tri-
Valley area are based on local General Plans and are consistent with ABAG
Projections '90. In addition, the LUIS forecasts lower rates of household
growth in Contra Costa County and the Alameda County portion of Tri-Valley
than Projections '92 and Projections '94. (See Table 2.1)
21 See previous response in the Preliminary Draft CCTP.
22 The statement that the Tri-Valley Sub-region is headed in the direction of a
"better" J'obs/housin balance does not contradict other statements made in the
g
plan. As stated in the text, while the LUIS projects increased jobs in the Tri-
Valley area, the jobs/housing balance is projected to stay about the same
(between 0.70 and 0.72) from 1990 to 2010. This ratio means that there are
and will be more employed residents in the Tri:Valley area than jobs and is
consistent with other statements in the plan. Section 2.5 of Volume Two
includes a discussion of the difficulties of housing affordability and linking job
growth to the skills of the workers. Additionally, LUIS projections (including
1 �.
Comments 20 through 25 were responded to previously in the Preliminary
Draft CCTP. Please see the July 20, 1994 version, pages III-58, III-59, and
II1-64-66.
CAWPD0CS\193\CCfP\cCPPMRI.D0C I11-19 October 12, 1994
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
sub-area jobs/housing ratios) provide the basis for all transportation modelling
for the plan.
23 Inclusion of a partial listing of projects from the Comprehensive
Transportation Project List is not intended to imply a special priority. The
discussion of the CTPL is intended to present the reader with a brief
description of the range of projects that can be found in the CTPL. In
addition, this section is not intended to be a thorough discussion of relevant
programs and plans, and listing the entire CTPL within the text would be
inappropriate. The entire list will be contained in Appendix 6.2.
24 The Circulation Draft CCTP, like the Preliminary Draft before it, is built on
the recommendations of the various Action Plans. The Action Plans are
charged with developing TSOs and a feasible program of projects and actions
to achieve those TSus. The Tri-Valley Action Plan contains a TSO of"V/C
= 0.99" for I-680 at Bollinger Canyon Road. The projects and actions to
achieve this TSO include the following:
`'° • Support major transit investment (with Central County).
• Support commute alternatives (Bay Areawide).
• Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity.
• Pursue funding for auxiliary lanes.
• Pursue funding for Alcosta interchange improvements.
The Draft CCTP includes these actions and projects recommended by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council as ways to address congestion on I-680.
25 Please see above response to Comment 22.
26 Please see the response to the previous comment on Draft Submittal 2
P
contained in'the Preliminary Draft CCTP (July 20, 1994).
c:NWPCHDM\Is3\CCMCCrPc3R1.DOC III-20 October 12, 1994
® - - Comment Letter 6
HALL 250 EAST L STREET ttNlCIA.CA-194510 ,..-; (707) 746-4209
- :^- J
• MICHAEL WI R E14
City Manager , .
THE .CITY .OF SL- ' 1
E N I C 1 ec,:,rei= DDYOT
CALAFOPJQA
September 8, 1994
SEP /
Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director '� 9Q
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
';40 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
%,Valnut Creek, CA 94596
t
Subject: Preliminary Draft of the 1994 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan .
Dear Mr. McCleary:
The City of Benicia has reviewed pertinent sections of the Preliminary Draft of the 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan:and-we were surprised and .
disturbed to see.that the plan proposes reversing the direction of toll collection at both the
Benicia and Carquinez Bridges as a ineans.of"metering" traffic into Contra Costa County.
The Benicia City Council is on record opposing reversal of the direction-of toll collection on
the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and Caltrans-has-concluded that reversing the toll.direction is
not a workable alternative. Key..issues associated with•reversing toll direction on .the
Benicia-Martinez Bridge include the potential to back up traffic onto local streets-at six local
interchanges in Benicia,and unavoidable,significant adverse impacts on the Arsenal Historic
District,.an important historic resource which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Over the past several ears, the Solano Coun 'and.Contra'Costa County Transportation
P Y tY
Authorities nave been working. c;osely iogether with Caltrans to redefine the Benicia-
Martinez Bridge Project. The City of Benicia supports this bi-county coalition and is an
active participant in this forum. The coalition has been successful in reaching a general
consensus on key issues, allowing Caltrans to redefine the project in a way which resolves
earlier concerns and move forward with the Supplemental EIS/EIR. In consultation with
the bi-county coalition, MTC developed and adopted a set of principles which are intended
to guide the development of the Benicia=Martinez Bridge project. The Bridge project, as
presently defined with.northbound toll collection;.is compatible with MTC's principles and
with the bi-county consensus. Proposals to reverse the toll direction at this time could
destabilize that consensus and cause further delays for the project.
ERNEST F.CIARROCCHI,Mayor MICHAEL WARREN,City Manager
Members of the City C.ouncd VIRGINIA SOUZA,City Treasurer
JOHN F.SILVA Vice Mayor • DIRK FULTON JERRY HAYES • PEPE ARTEACA FRANCES GRECO,City Cleyk —.�
Robert K. McCleary
September 8, 1994
Page, 2
The City of Benicia urges the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to drop the-proposal...
for reversal of toll collection from its Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan..
Very truly.yours,
1 Michael W rren -
City Manager
cc: City Council
John Gray,Solano Transportation Authority
City of Vallejo,.Public Works Director
Bill Hein,.MTC.
Ace Forsen, Caltrans.District 4 "
:Jerry Irwin, Caltrans District 10
�... William R. Gray
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
Responses to Comment Letter 6
1 Comment is noted and will be considered in the preparation of the CCTP EIR i
and upon approval of the Plan itself. The CCTP EIR will evaluate the
potential impacts on the surrounding cities associated with reversing the toll
direction on the Benicia-Martinez and Carquinez Bridges.
1
c:\wPDws\f93NccrP\ccrPc&RI.D0C III-23 October 7, 1994
SEP 1 41994
TRANSPLAN CO EE
Antioch -Brentwood -Pittsburg CCTA
and Contra Costa County
A MEMBER OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94.553-0095
September 8, 1994
Comment Letter 7
Mr. Joel Keller, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Chairman Keller:
The TRANSPLAN Committee has reviewed the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation
Plan - Preliminary Draft, and offers the following comments for the Contra Costa
�. Transportation Authority's consideration.
- 41
1 The TRANSPLAN Committee supports the proposal for establishing countywide objectives to
measure how well the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan is achieving its goals.
The TRANSPLAN Committee would like the Authority to add highway safety and truck
traffic as subject areas to be addressed by the countywide objectives.
2 The TRANSPLAN Committee supports the proposal to develop countywide actions to
coordinate and support the Action Plans and improve the likelihood of meeting the countywide
objectives. These actions should include:
I - Leading a countywide effort to evaluate the implementation of freeway ramp metering
and arterial signal coordination and other traffic management technologies to maximize
the capacity and minimize vehicle delay;
- Identifying strategies to integrate bus service countywide with the provision of high-
occupancy vehicle lanes;
- Designating a truck route system to support the movement of freight between Contra
Costa and the rest of the Bay Area and Central Valley. _
Designating a Countywide bikeway system to support the movement of bicycles
between cities.
- Prioritizing projects countywide for funding by regional, state and federal
transportation agencies (non-Measure C funds).
Mr. Keller
September 8, 1994
Page Two
3 If these actions are not implemented with adoption of this; Plan, the Plan should identify a
process to implement them for adoption or amendment to the Plan in the near future.
4 °The
TRANSPLAN Committee is very concerned with the lack of transportation revenues to
meet our transportation needs. The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan should
help the Authority evaluate our needs in a countywide manner and ensure that the limited
amount of transportation revenues are allocated in the most effective manner. Establishment
of the countywide objectives and implementation of the countywide actions should guide the
Authority in its evaluation of our transportation needs and ensure that its project proposals to
regional, state, and federal agencies compete effectively for transportation funds.
Additionally, this Plan will provide a basis for recommendations to these transportation
agencies and, perhaps to the voters, for creating additional transportation revenues.
Please note that editorial revisions prepared by the TRM TSPLAN Committee's staff are
attached for your consideration. We are pleased with the progress being made and the
Authority can rely on the TRANSPLAN Committee's support as the Plan is completed.
Sincerely,
c
Barbara Guise,
TRANSPLAN Committee Chair
attachments
cc: Antioch City Council
Brentwood City Council
Pittsburg City Council
County Board of Supervisors
1
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 7
1 The important issues of highway safety and truck traffic have not been
consistently addressed by the Action Plans. The West County has addressed
safety as part of the State Route 4 project, reflecting the high accident rates on
that roadway, and has addressed truck traffic as part of the I-80 corridor.
The Draft CCTP has, until now, relied primarily on the Action Plans for
generating objectives, actions and projects. Where the Action Plans have
identified potential countywide objectives and actions, they have been included
in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Draft and Draft CCTP.
i
The CCTA will review potential countywide objectives and.actions in the
context of its review of Chapter 2 of the Draft CCTP. This review will
require the consideration of both those potential countywide objectives and
actions identified in the Action Plans and other important issues such as safety
and truck traffic.
2 The Preliminary Draft already listed some of the potential actions listed by
TRANSPLAN in Chapter 5 - Future Actions. Page I-122 of the Draft CCTP
already identifies the evaluation of traffic operational techniques as a future
action. We have added linkages between bus service and HOV lanes to this
`. potential action. The second potential issue listed on page I-122 calls for
studying the needs of truck and freight movement in the county. We have
added the study of actions for encouraging bicycling and walking — including
the designation of a countywide bikeway system — as a potential future issue.
The prioritization of projects countywide will be done in the context of the
development of MTC's Track 2 through the CCTA's participation in the Bay
Area Partnership.
3 If the countywide actions to coordinate and support the Action Plans and
improve the likelihood of meeting the countywide objectives are not
implemented when the CCTP is adopted, they will be considered in later
updates of the Plan. Measure C requires updates of the CCTP every two ..
years.
4 Please see the response to comment 2 in comment letter 8 from Harvey
Brag don.
c:JV.P \193kccrMccrPC&k1.n0c III-26 October 12, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
Note: Attached materials provided with the comment letter from Barbara Guise,
TRANSPLAN, have not been included in this document.
r
CAWPD=\193\ccrP\ccrPM,RI.n0c III-27 October 12, 1994
omrnunity Contra Harvey E. ommu n
UaDirector of Community Development
evelopment Costa Comment Letter 8
Department Coin
V5tth
unty Administration Building1 Pine Street
Floor, North Wing ` �Y
''lartine2, California 945530095
hone: _ September 9; 1994
:a
Mr. Robert K. McCleary
Contra Costa Transportation Authority SEP 15
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. McCleary: CCTA
i
The Community Development Department has reviewed the Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan —.Preliminary Draft, and offers
the following comments for the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority's consideration.
Relationship with Other Plans
t 1 The Plan should underscore its potential relationship to MTC's
Regional Transportation Plan and the ability to advance new
transportation projects of importance to Contra Costa for state
and federal funding. On page I-6, the Plan states that once
adopted, a countywide transportation plan. could be the primary
basis for MTC's Regional Transportation 'Plan and would be
considered in the preparation of the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program. Based on'Section 66531(e) of the Government
a Code, the Plan should state:
County transportation plans shall be the primary basis for MTC's
i Regional Transportation Plan and shall be considered in the
preparation of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Where the counties' transportation plans conflict, MTC may
resolve the difference as part of the Regional Transportation
Plan and shall add proposals and policies of regional
significance to the Regional Transportation Plan.
State law in-effect endorses the Measure C-1988 bottoms-up
process for the Regional Transportation Plan, and requires that
�d it include the projects as determined by the Authority. MTC can -
only change those projects that connect Contra Costa to other
counties, or add projects, not delete them. This could be
significant in the allocation of state and federal funds for the
State Route 4 freeway gap closure in West County where MTC chose
9 to allocate funds to the I-80 HOV lane extension in lieu of the
State Route 4 freeway project. The Authority's policy would have
greater influence in MTC's planning decisions if this Plan is
submitted to MTC as a countywide transportation plan pursuant to
state law.
Mr. McCleary
September 9, 1994
Page Three
Prioritizing. projects countywide for funding by regional,
state and federal transportation agencies (non-Measure C
funds) , consistent with countywide goals and objectives.
2 Funding
The Board of Supervisors is very concerned with the lack of
transportation revenues to meet our transportation needs. The
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan should help the
Authority evaluate our needs in a countywide manner and ensure
that the limited amount of transportation revenues are allocated
in the most effective manner. Establishment of- the countywide.
objectives and implementation of the countywide actions should
guide the Authority in its evaluation of our transportation needs
and ensure that its project proposals to regional, state, and
federal agencies compete effectively for transportation funds.
Additionally, this Plan will provide a basis for recommendations
to these transportation agencies and, perhaps to the voters, for
creating additional transportation revenues.
3 Summary of Action Plans
The Plan should clarify Authority policy on Action Plan
compliance when reviewing development proposals for consistency
with Action Plans.. Some development projects may generate
impacts on regional routes in two or more RTPC areas, are those
projects obligated to meet the TSO' and policies for the RTPC
area in which they are located? If not, how is compliance
measured if a TSO or policy of two adjoining RTPC areas conflict?
Put another way, are development projects outside an RTPC area
subject to that RTPC's Action Plan?
The Plan needs to address an internal inconsistency that appears
in all Action Plans in circulation. No Action Plan can
demonstrate that its TSO's can be met with assumed growth. . Yet,
all Action Plans require general plan amendments (and in some
cases any project generating 100 or more peak hour trips) to
.demonstrate compliance with the TSO's or to amend the Action
Plan. In most cases, the public has no idea if the TSO's can be
met by development allowed in current general plans, or are ,
reasonable for any level of development to meet. This _
information must be provided so that local jurisdictions can ,
fully understand its implications on land use policy and the
ability to continue receiving Measure (:-1988 revenues.
The Plan should suggest editorial revisions to the Action_ Plans
to help determine consistency between each Action Plan. The ,
intent of the actions among Action Plans may be similar, but it
may not be easily apparent because the actions are worded
Mr. McCleary
September 9, 1994
Page Four
differently. Consistent -wording should be used where applicable
to clarify the intent of the local jurisdictions, to minimize
misunderstandings, and to otherwise foster consensus building
among the RTPCs.
We are pleased with the progress being made and :look forward to
your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
tHaeyl Bragdon,
Community Development Director
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
j a
1
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
Responses to Comment Letter 8
1 Comment incorporated. We note, however, that the CCTA has elected not to
use the CCTP to fulfill the requirements of AB 3705. The CCTA believes
that meeting the requirements of AB 3705 could involve significantly
increased efforts without corresponding increases in influence on the RTP and
RTIP processes.
2 Currently, the CMP process is being used to set priorities for transportation
investments, at least for the short-term. The CCTP includes setting priorities
for funding as a future action that will be addressed in the required updates to
the CCTP. The overall goals in the CCTP and the actions and projects
contained in it will prepare the CCTA well for its participation in MTC's
Track 2 process. V
3 To encourage communication among the RTPCs, the Authority began
preparing the CCTP prior to the completion of the Action Plans themselves.
As information from the Action Plans became available, it was added to the
CCTP. As of September 1994, Circulation Drafts of all Action Plans have
been completed. Their completion means that the RTPCs will need to work
with the Authority to identify and resolve inconsistencies among the Action
Plans, The Authority has scheduled a workshop on the Action Plans and the
Circulation Draft CCTP for November 18, 1994. The purpose of this
workshop will be to review the Action Plans and begin the discussion on
resolving conflicts and improving the usefulness and clarity of these
documents. In addition, Authority staff will work with local staff and the
Action Plan Coordinating Committee to address these issues.
Each Action Plan must, among other things, contain assumptions about future
land use. Each should also make a preliminary assessment of the ability of
the actions and projects in the Action Plan to meet the proposed Traffic
Service Objectives. Because the Action Plans have incorporated actions that
are difficult to model, however, the RTPCs and local jurisdictions will need to
monitor the effectiveness of these actions and the Action Plans generally. The
Action Plans are meant to be evolving instruments for addressing
transportation issues. If monitoring shows that the actions are not as effective
as assumed, changes in the Action Plans may be necessary. The specific
C:\WPDOCS\193\CCTP\CCTPC&R1.DOC III-31 October 12, 1994
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
�l requirements for local compliance and Action Plans may need clarification as
the CCTP is developed.
c:\wvaocs\193\ccMccrPMRI.noc III-32 October 12, 1994
. SENT_ BY: Olivetti FX 2100 ; 9-12-94 ; 19:46 -C C TRANS AUTHORITY ;# 2
i A R T BAY AREA+w'+a TRANSM D►SMCT
Comment Letter 9
800 Madtaon 8hist-We Mori%8tadon
P.O.Banc 12888
Oaidand,CA 84O04-2688
Tawpharw(610)464.8000
-September 12, 1994
MARGARET K PRYOR Mr. Robert K. McCleary
rpoMDw Contra Costa mon Authority
MICHAELBENI
RCK 1340 Treat Blvd.
MHA
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
RICHARD A.WHITE
owswft VAMM
Re: Comments on Preliminary Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive
Plan
DIREOTORs 'Dear Mr. McCleary:
GAN RICHARD
N* Thank you for providing BART with an opportunity to review and
NMO DWICO comment on the Preliminary-Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive
so wSrAlur Plan.
MY NAMEGAWA
We are pleased that the text and policies of the Action Plan are very
ET K PRYOR supportive of mass transit and transit oriented development. Although roadway
improvements are important in the County, we urge you to consider greater
emphasis.on various modes of public transit including busses, BART, commuter
JOHN rail, and the potential role of transit-based development as a means,to increase
GLENN ridership and redace-private vehicle mikes traveled over the life of the plan. We
also recommend that the plan discuss the various modes of access to BART and
"W T ussERY provide recommendations regarding the implementation of any improvements
JAME8 FANG identified.
m�o�ucr
N Frac 1 BART Extensions
The plan should acknowledge BART's role and presence in the planning
area and lay the necessary groundwork to facilitate various BART-sponsored
projects which will improve mobility in the area. Projects which involve BART
should identify BART as the responsible agency in addition to the local
jurisdictions already ideaffied in the Draft Plan.
The BART extension from Concord to the Wort Pittsburg/Bay Point
Station is currently under construction and BART has previously approved the
extension alignment all the way to IIillcrest Avenue. We are presently exploring
with CCTA and Caltrans the feasibility of an extension to the vicinity of Railroad
Avenue in central Pittsburg in the next few years. While BART has an approved
Page 2
Mr. Robert K. McCleary
September 12, 1994
alignment along the Highway 4 corridor to Hillcrest Avenue, implementation of the next phase
(to Railroad Avenue) is contingent on modifications to the approved project (currently under
environmental review) and formulation of a funding strategy for earlier implementation. The
plan should acknowledge and support the earliest possible implementation of the BART extension
to Railroad Avenue.
The Dublin/Pleasanton Extension is also under construction. While located in Alameda
County, this extension will provide new commute opportunities for residents of the Southwest
Area Transportation Planning Region.
2 Commuter Rail
BART, GEBROC, Altamont Pass Advisory Coalition, San Joaquin County, and the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission have been advocating commuter rat service, which would
1 utilize existing right of way. Once funding has been identified, commuter rail could be
implemented in a relatively short period of time (2 years). Service could be provided from
Brentwood in Eastern Contra Costa County, from Fairflold/Suisun in Solano County, and from
Stockton in San Joaquin County to the BART regional rail system at a number of points and to
San Jose. Studies to date indicate that by the year 2000, this service could generate an annual
ridership of: 230,000 for the Brentwood Line (serving Bast-Contra Costa Stations); 1,300,000
for-the Fairfield-West Oakland Line; and, 750,000-for the Stockton-San Jose line. Given the
potential for commuter rail to provide commute alternatives in these.corridors, this service
should be featured in your planning efforts. Additionally, potential commuter rail routes and
station sites should be shown on all relevant plan maps.
1The discussion of the Capitol corridor service is helpful,however the distinction between
inter-city rail and commuter rail should be clarified. Inter-city rail service does meet the needs
of commuters given its frequency and time when service is scheduled. Thcrefore commuter rail
has the potential to provide transit commute options to congested freeway corridors in a
relatively short period of time, utilizing existing rail facilities, and at a relatively low cast.
L3 Transit Based DevftMent
The potential for "transit friendly" development is mentioned in the'Draft Plan. The
discussion of transit-based development should be greatly.expanded and mechanisms to promote
such development explored. A number of communities including Portland, Oregon, and San
Diego, California are encouraging transit-based davelopment to increase transit usage and
decrease the need for trips being made in private automobiles. Obviously, proximity to fixed
rail transit is a key element of the success. Residential development in the vicinity of the
Pleasani Hill and the E1 Cerrito BART Stations have generated significant new BART ridership.
In addition to proximity, diversity of land uses can facilitate the creation of "transit villages"
where a wide range of goods and services are made available to the commuter and can thus
SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2100 : 9-12-94 19:48 -►C C TRANS AUTHORITY
Page 3
Mr. Robert K. McCleary
September 12, 1994
reduce the need for separate automobile trips. Pursuant to BART Board of Directors resolution
No.4466, the BART Board of Dir dors supports the exemption of any development projects
which are within a one-half mile radius of an casting or planned rail transit station and which
promote the use of rail transportation, from development fear adopted as part of any Regional
Transportation Mitigation Program. BART staff have sigaificant expertise in this area and are
available to work with the County and any cities with FART Stations to develop projects.
4 BART,_Sxt=s Bus Service
BART operates Express Bus services to Park and Ride facilities along the I-80 corridor,
Highway 4 Corridor,, and the I-680/580 Corridor. BART is preparing a service plan for the
operation of express busses from the new BART stations under construction to existing park and
ride lots.
We look forward to working with you to increase transit options in Contra Costa County !
and to facilitate alternatives to the private automobile. Please advise us as to how we can assist
you in the future.
• sir► y,
Riefttar$ A. White
General Manager
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 9
1 The Plan has identified BART as a responsible agency for many proposed
projects, TSOs and actions. The circulation draft of the Plan has referenced
BART more frequently than in previous drafts and also clarifies its
responsibilities.
2 The Draft Plan has an expanded discussion of the potential for commuter rail
service as an alternative to the automobile in the West-Central Commute.
Potential commuter rail routes and station sites will be added to all relevant
maps as the commuter rail plans are better defined in the future. Table 3.9-2
(Proposed TSOs and Actions: East-Central Commute) includes the extension
of commuter rail along State Route 4 further into East County. Commuter
rail is featured in the I-80, West-Central and East-Central corridors.
3 The CCTP contains actions to study and recommend changes to development
�.. standards. For example, see Table 3.2-2 TSOs and Actions — I-80 Corridor
under Land Use Development and also Table 3.8-2 Proposed TSOs and
Actions — Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel under Land Use Policy. The
Authority, however, cannot exercise land use controls. The jurisdictions that
make up TRANSPLAN, the East County RTPC, are considering a growth
management and development review process as.part of the East County
Action Plan that could affect the timing and design of new projects there.
The Authority may consider the exemption of any development projects which
are within a one-half mile radius of an existing or planned rail transit station
and which promote the use of rail transportation, from development fees
adopted as part of any Regional Transportation Mitigation Program. It will
review the exemption during its preparation of the Regional Traffic Mitigation
Program for Contra Costa County.
4 The CCTP is built upon the recommendations in the Actions Plans for Routes
of Regional Significance prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs). Therefore, where the Action Plans have recommended
development or expansion of express bus_services, then they can be included
in the CCTP. While the CCTP does not contain any specific references to
express bus service from new BART stations to existing park and ride lots, it
�r
Q%WPD0CS11931CCfP1CCiPC&R1.D0C III-36 October 12, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
• does support the development of the Bay Point/Pittsburg BART station as an
intermodal transit center.
c:%VAV0CS11931CCMCCPPC&R1.D0C III-37 October 12, 1994
:�' s�•ti: i�1: 'bl^+^:3':. ,f�'!-1 �. ••.'r=3;: ;-
METR0P0LIT.AN - ...
TRANSPORTATION —
cOMMISSiON WA
Comment Letter 10
September 12, 1994
A'""`°'`°""" Robert K. McCleary
EDWARD R.CAmnm
E.WILLIAM WfYHRow Executive Director
Contra Cog County Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Tom Pow-as 1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 150
SHARON 1.BROWN Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Marin County
DOUG WILSON
RE: Comments on the Preliminary Draft Contra Costa Countywide
Napa
Fara County Cmprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) dated 7/20/94
San Francisco-
City and County Dear Bob,
Tom HSIEH
Rum GucxmAN
We appreciate receiving your preliminary draft of the Contra Costa
San Mateo County
MARY GRIFFIN Countywide Comprehensive Transpottation Plan. This letter contains our
JANE BAKER preliminary comments and suggestions.
Chairwoman
Santa Cara County 1 CCTP Relationship to the MTC Regional Transportation Plan
Roc DIRIDON
JAMES T.BEAi4 JR.
SolamCounty AB 1619, which will go into effect next year, authorizes each Congestion
JAMS SMING Management Agency (CMA) in the MTC region to develop or update a
Sonoma Courcy transportation plan for the county every two years. 1V=is required to
PEYOR C FoFVRANO develop guidelines to be used in the preparation of county transportation
Association of plans. The Commission is expected to adopt these guidelines next
1 Say Ata Goyemments
DtANNE McX.ENNA December. Consequently, we might have additional comments on your
v1 �
e 'ain plan once we initiate the development of the guidelines. In the interim,
S.F.Bay Conservation MTC Resolution 2120,contains countywide transportation plan guidelines
and Development
Commission as specified in the previous AB 3705. These are attached for your
ANGELo J.SIRACUSA
information.
State Business.
Transportation and
Forcing Agency Additionally, AB 1619 requires that county transportation plans must be
JOE BROWNE
responsive to the planning factors in ISTEA legislation. These 15 factors
U.S.Department
of Transportation include: system preservation/efficiency,energy conservation, congestion
'ILLIAm P.DumAsEA relief, land use, enhancements, consider all projects, intermodal access,
U.S.Department connectivity,management systems,right-of-way preservation, freight
of Housing
nd Urn Development movement, life-cycle costs, economic/environmental effects, and transit
..ORDON H.McXAY
improvement.
We support the manner in which the CCTP distinguishes between RTP
E1ecuSiK°ffeCi" Track 1 (funding constrained) and Track 2 (funding unconstrained) project
LMwRE.wcE D.DArMS 0 O
lists. This approach reflects realistic financial assumptions and projects
" ILLLAme F.HEI r that can be delivered within these assumptions.
WILLUM F.HEtN
JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER - 101 EIGHTH STREET - OAKLAND, CA 94607-4700
510/464-7700 - TDD/TTY 510/464-7769 - FAX 510/464-7848
'•',5',i: .'.'r - '.Jy��.y 1. R :� ;:n�-:..�.:.�ji)...''.._v.t'.-...,.:i•'. .r7>..ayr":yl:r :Y
..T`� -�^S�i, _ _ .K rr'''�`...:J •.v. �. ��* � `r.
rr�e�f�"�;r3"tR=Y '� •-.{' •r i°—oyi.'' ,,,,_ ,�,Y v' ,1...i `.'�.�.r '.Y 1.:7"'•.c.. '.
. 9� -� ` :fir....-. .. 'b%f i...ti'•,,,H^..'A;;�"^` ' I, j.�
Mr. Robert K'McCleary
September 1?, 199a_. A
Page 2
2
Policv Issues
The CCTP could better articulate the role of transit to meet mobility needs in Contra
Costa over the time horizon of the plan and address where transit could be cost
effectively improved if money were available. While some action plans are proposing
transit service increases, the RTP indicates that no new money will be available for
increases in transit service given our fund estimates. Nonetheless, to provide the basis
for future advocacy efforts for additional state,federal and other funding,more
information on potential transit markets and operating cost implications over the time
frame of the CCTP (including ADA) would be useful.
Strategies and projects in the CCTP are structured along the individual action plans. '
While these plans might be effective at looking at planning issues within each of their
perspective subregions;there still needs to be an overarching view that takes into
account county transportation issues that transcend,subregions. Has the CCTA
staff/board considered any potential effective interregional or countywide
projects/actions that have not been considered by the regional transportation planning
�> committees? An example of the need for countywide planning is that of State Route
where there are three different objectives for the TRANSPLAN, TRANSPAC, and
WCCTAC sub-regions.Additionally a number of important countywide planning
concerns such as freight movement,HOV system development,TSM/TDM strategies,
establishing priorities between transportation needs,etc. are deferred until the next
CCTP.
Finally, some policies in the CCTP appear to prevent diversion of freeway trips onto
arterials by limiting arterial speeds and beefing up enforcement. This approach should
also consider the need for effective parallel arterial operations to serve local short-haul
trips off the freeway, thus enabling freeways to serve long distance trips in corridors.
3 Financial Issues
The establishment of a regional mitigation fee has been discussed over the past few
o a
years. What is the status of this fee? How does this fee relate to the CCTP policies and
projects? How much money would the fee program.willgenerate? Is there an
investment strategy behind this fee program.
4 Clarifications
Benicia Bridge— Section 3.5 should mention our Commission's adoption of"Benicia-
Martinez Bridge — General Principles". These principles envision four mixed-flow lanes
in each direction (plus a northbound truck climbing lane) in.conjunction with an HOV
bypass lane at the toll plaza and the HOV expansion of 1-580 south of the bridge.
4-4
•.•MrertZC.`11994
�fcC1e _. _� r
°•• _ •..r"Y�
Page 3 .:
Additionally, the principles are based on an operations plan which assumes that toll
booths are located in Contra Costa County collecting tolls from northbound traffic.
Figures 3.51 and 3.61 in the CCTP suagest that 4 lanes will be added,when only two
more mixed flow lanes and one truck lane will be added over current bridge
geometrics. Additional lanes above those cited in the principles would not be consistent
with NITC's gateway concept which applies to the Benicia Bridge.
Similarly,page I-22 mentions that the new bridge span would increase roadway
capacity across the Carquinez." This statement needs some clarification: the I-80 HOV
Lane Project Assurances, which implement the gateway policy, do not provide for
additional single occupancy vehicle capacity over the Carquinez Bridge.
(Table 3.2-1) SR4 to Carquinez Bridge HOV lanes are a Track 1 project. Please remove
the tentative language.
Other comments .
The CCTP approach of defining and analyzing transportation demand and strategies on
a corridor basis is commendable. This helps in understanding the nature of
transportation in Contra Costa County and iden 'toying the challenges ahead.
Table 2.1 in Volume H shows that employment assumptions in the CCTP model are
5.6% lower that those included in ABAG Projections '94. The update of your model
should utilize demographic assumptions that are closer to the most current ABAG
Projections on a countywide aggregate basis.
17 Discussion of the Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Transportation
System should be updated to reflect the adoption of a final plan on June 292, 1994 (page
I-8 regarding the RTP).
8 For readers,who do not have a working knowledge of the Action Plan process, it would
be helpful if the CCTP explained this process in depth and documented the basis of
projects/actions selection.
19 The CCTP should discuss the MIS (Major Investment Study) requirements and how the _
results of these corridor studies will play a role in future CCTP updates.
�Q Section 3.4 on "Programmed Transportation Improvements"needs some clarification:
For funding eligibility,a project must be in the CMP when it is applyina,for State
FCR funding only. Projects in the CMP also get higher consideration for State
TSM funding. For federal funding programs there are no requirements that a
project be included in the CMP.
? uuu�N...,' ���
lair Robeit IC.McCle3ry'"�`�t t //�/ .�,,r` -c� a a�1 ° .,�. � � ��t� ��`a• �,h h .� n..
_. .nw �}._ -Sc.' ,q.�. y .4 �. ,. .+,, +_ l + '�1. 'A�) '�+ + a 4t d• Sf� •Ctff �
7S12
September ,199a
. 1 aQ 1.~f' _• � .' . _. - .. .. is 'ri 1'T.. t���a.�it [�. ,i1p S �? �
The RTIP and associated CTC approval is for State highway account funding
only. In'contrast,NITC allocates federal STI'/CviAQ and certain transit funds.
Additionally the'GNIP and RTP are not programming documents,because they_
do not make funding commitments to any projects.
Lastly please update language on the 1994 RTP, as the document has been
finalized. _
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your first countywide transportation
plan and look forward to working with you on subsequent updates. If you have any
questions regarding this letter, contact the Contra Costa County Coordinator, Craig
Goldblatt at (510) 464--7837.
Sincerely,
�CZAIJ�
Chris Brittle _
Planning Manager
CB;CG.jlr
cerF Comments
Attachments
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 10
' 1 Comments noted.
2 Chapter 2 in the Draft CCTP discusses both overall goals for the CCTP and
potential countywide objectives and actions. The overall goals provide the
primary direction for the CCTP. As part of the review of the Circulation
Draft Action Plans and the Draft CCTP, the Authority — in consultation with
the RTPCs, other counties, regional agencies such as MTC, and the general
' public — will work to identify countywide objectives and actions to include in
the Proposal for Adoption CCTP.
While different Action Plans have.different TSOs for the same roadway, they
are not necessarily in conflict.
3 Measure C calls for the development of a regional traffic mitigation program
.x, which may or may not include a fee on development to fund transportation
improvements. Currently, several parts of the county have developed or are
developing mitigation fees. The Authority determined, through a series of
workshops held in 1992, that there was a lack of consensus regarding a
countywide fee program. The program may be limited to East County, and
potentially Tri-valley and Central County. West County has favored use.of
bridge tolls and gas taxes over a fee program to generate additional revenue.
4 Comment incorporated. Section 3.5 now mentions MTC's adopted "Benicia-
Martinez Bridge — General Principles" and identifies its proposed
configuration for the bridge span.
The discussion in Section 3.1 does not say that the new bridge span "would
increase roadway capacity across the Carquinez".
Comment on Table 3.2-1 incorporated.
5 Comment noted.
6 The Land Use Information System is based on highly detailed local land use
projections controlled to Projections '90 forecasts. Employment assumptions
c:AWPD0CS\193\CCMCCTPMR1.D0C III-42 October 12, 1994
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
from ABAG Projection '94 will be used when the LUIS is updated. Although
the forecasts are different, the growth in employment is quite similar.
7 Comment incorporated.
8 The Action Plan process is described in detail in the CCTA's Growth
Management Implementation Documents. A reference to this document has
been added to page I-4.
9 Comment incorporated. A short description of the MIS process has been ,
added to page I-8. In Contra Costa County, there are MISs currently
underway for the widening of the SR 4 corridor between Bailey Road and '
Railroad Avenue in East County, the widening of SR 242, and the SR-West
gap closure project.
10 Comment incorporated.
Note: Attached materials provided with the comment letter from Chris Brittle, MTC
have not been included in this document.
G�
c:\WPDOCS\193\cCiP\CCIPCSRI.DOC III-43 October 12, 1994
09/13/94 09:00 9002/004
Comment Letter it
CITY OF RICHMOND
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(510) 620-6706
TO: Martin .Engelmann, uty Director of -Planning, CCTA
FROM: Theresa Tingl
SUBJECT: Comments on Preliminary Draft - Contra Costa Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
On behalf of the ectaff of City of Richmond, I would like to express
our appreciation for this opportunity to comment on the above ,
referenced draft. We offer the following comments :
COI0:NTS:
1. On Table 3 .4-2 there is no mention of the Richmond BART
station. As you know, Richmond is doing all it can to insure
that the station's full intermodal transit facility is known.
We request that the table be modified as noted to reflect
Richmond's continued planning for the BART station.
2 . Under Section 3 .12 "Truck Traffic and Freight Movement' you
may wish to nnention the impact of rail service as described in
Richmond's South Shoreline Rail Study. It is suggested that
the following be added.
"In addition to improving Santa Fe's Competitiveness, direct
rail service to the Port of Oakland would remove several
hundred trucks per week from the busy I-580/1-80 route between
Richmond and 'Oakland" (see attachment) .
3 . Under Section 7 - Table 7-1 "Routes of Regional Significance"
in an effort: to be consist with West Contra Costa County
Action Plan Circulation Draft, the table should be modified as
noted:
Regional Routes Portion
Cutting Boulevard Garrard Blvd. to San Pablo Ave.
Garrard/13th!Rumrill I-80 to San Pablo Ave
E1 Portal San Pablo Ave to San• Pablo Dam Road
All the above routes should '-be included under route of
regional significance. Delete Garrard Boulevard from
potential routes of regional significance.
09/13/94 . 09:01 $° 0003/004
-2-
4. As a reminder 23rd is a •street, not a "avenue" .
Should you have any questions and/or need additional information,
please call myself or Jim Farah at (510) 620-6706.
b
r
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
r
Responses to Comment Letter 11
1 Table 3.2-2 includes the following action which applies directly to the
Richmond BART station: "Support on-going maintenance and capital
improvements for all West County BART stations."
2 Comment incorporated.
r
3 Comment incorporated.
' Note: Attached materials provided with the comment letter from Theresa Tingle,
City of Richmond Planning Department, have not been included in this
document.
1�.
1
i
r
1
1
c:\WPDOCS%193\CCTP%CCrPC&R1.Doc III-46 October 12, 1994
i.
r'_
_08/19/94 14:08 V510 288 5513 CAL77ANS FLNG 04 ®002
grATE OF MUMPOFfATICH AND N0U3WQ AGENCY _ PM Wass reamo ►
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,
)foot 2>�0
*A0A*.CA -NAWsWo
RT%
Somber 1s, Comment Letter 12
Mr.Robert X McCleary
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 250
Walnut Creek,CA 94996
Subjem Pe��azY Draft Conta Costa Cmmtywide ComPreheasive
Transportation Plan
Dear Mr.McCleary_ ,
We have reviewed the document referred to above*and have the
following conurients:
1 .
z� We support the County in its effort to "establish—both a method for
funding transportation improvements and a process for growth
managaztent and transportation planning." We recognize that tine
County's transportation System, Including roads,publiC tMASportatioa
services and non-motorized faa7ities,must keep pave with growth to
help sustain Contra Costa as an economically viable and physically
attractive place to live and work We also recognize that this can only be
accomplished through a coiactyvAde comprehestsive planning effort-
As
ffortAs the agency concerned with Statewidetransportation issues,ore are
concerned about regional and interregional transportation problems- ,
We eon mend the Plan's discussions of County transportation links to
mnTounding areas,specifically the I-80,I-580 (Altamont) usd 1-680
Corridors We also note the Plan's comments on the Byron Highway to '
I--580 and its role as a diversion route to the Altamont connection. In
light of potential fob growth in the East County discussed in the Plan, we
suggast that the Byron Highway corridor also be addressed as a potential
interregional connection to the Tracy area and.as a County link to the r-.5
Corridor.
2 • ISM and Actions Tables-We are concerned about the Plan's
rec.lmended actions for the State highway system such n3 reverse
toIItng on I-W listed in Table 3.2-2 and revem''ble,Lanes on State Route
242 referred to on page I.M. We s%4;Mt that the Plan dearly indicates
f,
JGr-r-u- '$4 1 Ut 11:.10 IV:k- L I KHNt) HU I MUK I Is t H^ 44bUe- I-LJ,4, )
• 00/10/04 11:50 0310 288 5513 CALZRANS PLNG 94 Z002
1K><:R K McCleary
September 16,1994
Page 2
that actions recommended in the Plan for State highway fadlities will
require coordination with Caltrans.
We also believe that it would be effective to list; as appropriate,highway
and transit projects is combination such as HOV lanes and express bus
services Such combinations,contained in text and/or tables,may lend
additional support to project Implementation-
3 • We would encourage inclusion in the Plan of the project to correct the
vertical alignment on I-MO south of the Moeoao Overhead.
4 • Table 32-1 -the following I-$0 projects should be indicated as
propp auimed vice Track 1/Track Z
Construct easthound anxiliary lane(Richmond Parkway to
Appian Way)
Park-and ride lot(Atlas Road)
Construct auxiliary lanes (Central Avenue to San Pablo Dant Road.)
Add tranar off-'amp/Interchange modifications (Cutting Boulevard)
The park-and-ride lot proposed for Route 4 at I-W is currently under
construction_
All hard wiring for ramp metering for M-in Cotutm Costa County is
included in the I-SO HOV Lane project currenly under construction.
5 • Tattle 32-2-The locations of the proposed park-and-ride lots listed under
Rncmase Bus Use" should be clarified.
6 • Table 3.3-2-Expansion of capacity at&e intersection of Saar Pablo Dam
Road and Appian Way should not involve Caltrans as indicated.
Se&on 3.7-We est that the Plan address the for transit in
'] suggest potential
the Southern PadfiC railroad right-of-hny which was pulsed by the
County with State Transit Capital Int rovement funds for transit use.
i
. =r'a:U— 7V 1UC 11.._.0 1L.1. L 1m"I") ►tU1F'V f • . . . 11.,
09/19/94 11:51 $510 286 6613 CA TWIS ?LNG N4 IZ003 _
Mr.R K McCw
16.IM
Page 3
$ • Page II 35,3rd paragraph Please be advised that the Coast Starlight
operates betweert Seattle and Los Antes vice Sat Diego(please note the
spelling of the nate-Zephyr").
n
We appreciate the opportlutlty to work with you o ttus project and
want to =L inue con espondencae.on its development. If you have questions
an this comment,please contact Malcolm Gilmour of my staff at (510)_ -
286-5503.
Sincerely, '
JOE 13ROWNE
District Director
W
GARY AD , Chief
Ciffice f 1Yaruportation Plaming,
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 12
1 Comment noted. The Byron Highway corridor is designated as a Regional
Route in part because it serves as an interregional connection to the Tracy
area and as a County link to the I-5 Corridor.
' 2 Comment incorporated regarding reverse tolling on I-80 in Table 3.2-2. We
will consider reorganization of the action and project tables as part of the
preparation of the Proposal for Adoption CCTP.
3 Project incorporated.
1 4 Comments incorporated.
5 The Proposal for Adoption CCTP will clarify projects where additional
information is available.
6 Comment will be incorporated in the Circulation Draft of the CCTP.
7 Comment incorporated.
8 Correction made.
c:\wPDocst199\CCMCcrP--&RIX C III-50 October 12, 1994
D
CITY OF VALLEJO SFp
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ?0
ENGINEERING DIVISION It. ,
c�rN
Comment Letter 13
September '16, '1994
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE 1994 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN(CCCCTP)
Robert K McCleary, Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority ,
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. McCleary:
1 The City of Vallejo has reviewed the preliminary draft CCCCTP. Our primary
concern is the CCCCTP proposal to reverse the direction of the toll collection at both ,
the Benicia and Carquinez Bridges. We understand the desire of Contra Costa county
to reduce congestion by reversing the direction of toll collection, however, the City of
Vallejo is on record as firmly opposing this change. The Caltrans-preferred alternative
recommends that the direction of toll direction remain unchanged. The high capital
costs of constructing a completely new toll plaza and major impacts on the 1-80 corridor
through Vallejo are not justified. The following are our relevant comments to other items
in the CCCCTP:
Page 1-23 Summary of TSOs and Actions
Table 3.12 TSOs and Actions - Carquinez Bridge
2 We are in agreement with other actions proposed by the CCCCTP which include
expanding and encouraging HOV use by adding (HOV?) lanes and free crossing for
carpools, and expanding transit capacity by increasing the frequency of existing
service: We agree in principle that iinproving rail service and a BART extension is
desirable; however,we believe that a policy decision to implement commuter rail
service into Solano County. or approval of a BART extension across the bridge into
Vallejo can be deferred until already programmed alternatives such as expanded ferry
service and improved Bartlink bus service have been implemented and been given a
fair trial to maximize potential ridership and benefits.
The City of Vallejo concurs with Contra Costa's goal to improve cooperation with
Solano County to encourage job growth north of the Carquinez Strait. This is
particularly true with the pending closure of Mare Island and the critical need to
generate new jobs within Vallejo.
SSS SANTA CLARA STREET • P-O- BOX X068 • VALLEJO • CALIFORNIA • p4S80 • (707)64&4315 FAX(70'71 X401
r-GYJ- 7W4 1 Ut 11:.� 1L:(- l.. I KMlV'� rlu I MUM 1.1. r hip. (-+U::Jl�l`j.:rb.:i77.� iibOr- rU t.U
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE 1994 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CCCCTP)
TO: Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
PAGE 2. September 16,1 994
3 :Papp 1yy Table 3-2-2 ISQs and Ar_tinns, I-An Cnrridnr
We concur with the proposed improvements outlined in this table. Regarding
expansion of BART service to Solano County, please refer to above.
4 Pan--x-54, 31able 3 5-9 Propnspd T.(Zq and AWi nay Reanicia-Martine-y Rridae
We are in conceptual agreement with the objectives outlined in this table. We
support increasing HOV ridership particularly for trips bound south of the
' Carquinez Straits, where the measures outlined would have the most impact.
Vallejo has no formal position regarding potential "regional transit impact fees".
Within the City of Vallejo, new development projects are-reviewed for ease of
providing transit service. We also are on record supporting increased transit
service frequency and improving ferry service through adopted expansion plans.
Vallejo has also established an extensive array of coordination and transfer
agreements with AC Transit, BART, and WestCat. Vallejo will work with Bay Area
and Contra Costa County transit operators on a regional basis regarding such
issues as tax incentives for transit users and retail discounts.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to
receiving the draft CCCCTP for review.
Sincerely,
' OTTO BERTOLERO
Assistant City Engineer
cc: John H. Duane, Public Works Director
Gary A. Leach, City Engineer
Pamela Belchamber, Transportation Program Manager
06lmil
C:VAarsh&WcClesry.hr
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
Responses to Comment Letter, 13
1 Comment noted. The Authoritywill hold aworksh
op on the Draft CCTP to
address such inter-county issues on November 18. Elected officials and staff
from the City of Vallejo are invited. Please also seethe response to Comment
Letter 6.
2 Comment noted. West County jurisdictions are working with the jurisdictions
in Solano County to clarify issues on the timing and priority of transit
projects.
Comment noted regarding Vallejo's support of Contra Costa's goal to improve
cooperation with Solono County to encourage job growth north of the
Carquinez Strait.
3 Comment noted.
4 Comment noted.
c:%wen0c5%193% "MCCrPr&RI-DW III-53 October 12, 1994
COMMENT LETTER 14
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County
100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California 94523 (510) 671-5250
Mr. Martin Engelmann October 24, 1994
1 Deputy Director, Planning
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Dear Martin:
Enclosed is a marked-up version (see clipped pages) of the Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CCTP). For the most part, our comments are limited to those sections
' of the Plan which affect Central County. Please note, however, that TRANSPAC identified
maintenance and expansion of transit operating subsidies as an issue of not only regional, but
also countywide significance. We are requesting that issue be included in the CCT?, along
with truck traffic and freight movement, bicycle and pedestrian movement and serving the
needs of the transportation disadvantaged (page iii, Section 3.12 p. I-104 et seq.).
You may also wish to use 'comprehensive' rather than 'seamless' in the description of the
proposed HOV system (page iii, v, etc.).
' Page I-17 Central County bullet 2 appears to establish a relationship between the
TRANSPAC HOV study and leveraging subregional transportation mitigation fees for
improvements within corridors. Please note that such a relationship does not exist.
Subregional mitigation fees may be used for improvements within corridors regardless of the
status of the HOV study. TRANSPAC would also seek State and federal funds for an HOV
' project and other Central County improvements.
The Alhambra Project described in the West-Central Commute section, is Alhambra Hills to
Benham (one word)(page I-41); same for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge corrdior, pages I-54
Figure 3.5.1., and in the I-680 section, add to Table 3.6-1 and correct Figure 3.6-1.
Please update the discussion of toll plaza location, second paragraph, page I-51. Needs to
incorporate some of the discussion on page I-52.
i
Also need to update discussion of 1-680 HOVs now that the PSR is complete and need to
identify TRANSPAC's 'south of 242' issue in both the Benicia-Martinez Bridge Section and
the I-680 (p I-52) and the I-680 Corridor from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road
(p. 1-58).
i
Table 3.5-2 needs to be updated with the TSOs and actions from the Circulation Draft of the
Central County Action Plan.
Reference to Diamond Boulevard on p. I-60, Table 3.6-1 and Figure 3.6-1 should remain.
The Central County Action Plan will note that Board of Supervisors' action is required to
submit the project for funding.
Please also note the County's comment (sent separately) on the SP arterial description (p.1-
61).
Please add the Martinez Ferry Service project to Figure 3.6-1
Table 3.6-2 needs to be updated with the TSOs and actions from the Circulation Draft of the
Central County Action Plan.
Figures 3.8-1 and 3.8.2 need to be corrected to more accurately reflect the corridor under
discussion and to match the I-680 maps.
h 2 on . I-82 indicates traffic from East County makes u 16% of the tris on
�g�P P tY P P
Ygnacio Valley Road and 8 percent on Treat Boulevard (west of Bancroft). These numbers
should be dated (1990) and 2010 projections should be added as well. . I
P. I-83, "Operation% 1st paragraph, staring with 5th lune - needs to updated re:
TRANSPAC's HOV/Express Bus/Ramp Metering Study and the 2423 widening work. It
should also be made clear that the I-680 HOV PSR allows design exception's (thanks to
CALTRANS) which eliminates the need for major right-of-way takes.
The following paragraph (same page) is awkward and not clear. Clarification on Central
County tenets is required and ramp metering concerns in Central County should be noted.
Page 1-83 update re: current status of East County fee.
P. I-85, Table 3.9-1, truck climbing lanes on Kirker Pass, Marsh Creek to SR 4. Is this
supposed to be widening Kirker Pass to 6 lanes between Myrtle Drive and Clearbrook? If
not, please add more project definition.
Table 3.9-2 and Figure 3.9-2, please note that Central County has reservations about ramp
metering. The map should not show ramp metering pointing to Central County. ,
P. I-109 - may need to update funding picture. (see comment on "Remaining Issues" below)
P. 111 - BART has not participated in the development of the Central County Action Plan,
although the agency was invited to do so in March, 1993. Review copies of the Plan were
sent but no comments received. The same holds for bus operators outside of Central
County. Perhaps sentence should be re-written for clarity.
Section 5.2, p. I-114 suggest adding transit operations subsidies and lack of capital funding
as "Remaining Issues% This section could provide the; basis for financial advocacy. (Same
for Section 4.1)
P. 1-117 please update Section 6.2 on Central oun tywith adopted TS
Os and actions from
the Circulation Draft of the Central County Action Plan
P. I-122 please revise Central County Routes of Regional Significance as follows:
Treat Blvd. - 1-680 to Clayton Road
Geary Road - Pleasant Hill Road to 1-680
Pacheco Blvd. - Waterfront Road to SR 4
Taylor Blvd.- Pleasant Hill Road to SR 242
Clayton Road - Treat Boulevard and Ygnacio Valley Road
Potential Regional Routes: P-122-123
Bailey - East??
' Clayton road - revise to Marsh Creek Road
Pleasant Hill Road the portion of Pleasatn Hill Road in Central County is designated
as a Route of Regional Significance. Suggest that Action Plans Affected Column be
revised to "Lamorinda"
Volume 2
Household numbers on Table 2.2 do not match for Central County from Action Plan.
' Employment numbers on Table 2.3 do not match Central County from Action Plan. I
understand that based on my request, KORVE Engineering has contacted you regarding this
issue and a resolution is in the works.
Map on P. II-33 needs to match Regional Route definitions from above.
' Thank you for the opportunity to review the Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have questions regarding these comments or require additional information.
Sincerely,
f
Barbara A. Neustadter
TRANSPAC Manager
cc: TRANSPAC Representatives
TRANSPAC TAC
Paul Menaker, KORVE Engineering
rhote em
1
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Responses to Comment Letter 14
Various revisions to the text and figures have been made to the CCTP in
response to this letter.
■
c:kWPD=kI43TC'MCCPPC&R1.DW III-Sl3 November 3, 1994