Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05091995 - TC.2 r: z TC 2- 9 y Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CJIJJta . ^ FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE VCo(ter, Lnty DATE: May 2 , 1995 SUBJECT: Comments on Supplemental Draft EIS/EIR for Benicia-Martinez Bridge SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Chair of the Board to sign a letter submitting the County' s comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS/EIR for Benicia- Martinez Bridge. FISCAL IMPACT None . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Caltrans, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, has issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge Project . The proposed project consists of a new bridge across the Carquinez Strait on Interstate 680 between Benicia and Martinez . Two alternative locations are identified for the new bridge : immediately to the east of the existing highway and railroad bridges, or immediately to the west of the existing highway bridge . In either case, the project would provide five lanes for northbound traffic, one of which would be a slow vehicle lane, and four lanes for southbound traffic . The westernmost lane would be an exit lane for the Marina Vista interchange . In addition, a dual-directional bicycle-pedestrian lane would be provided on the southbound span, separated from vehicular traffic by a concrete barrier. Toll collection would be in the northbound direction with a new 17-booth toll plaza constructed on the Contra Costa side northeast of the Marina Vista interchange . The northbound on and off ramps of the Marina Vista interchange would be reconstructed and an auxiliary CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER i Aonl SIGNATURE (S) : J ff Smith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON May 9 , 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED May 9 , 1995 Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 646-2355 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: Bob McCleary, CCTA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TRANSPAC AND O ADM ISTRATOR BY DEPUTY � v Comments on Benicia Bridge Supplemental DEIS/DEIR May 2, 1995 Page 2 occupancy vehicles through the toll plaza. The project also includes new two- lane connector ramps between I-780 and I-680 to the north of the bridge . The County has reviewed and commented on several previous documents in the development of this project . Some of the concerns previously expressed by the County have been addressed in this document . For example, the design of the bridge structure has been revised to accommodate rail transit in the future and a bicycle-pedestrian lane is included in the project . Other recommendations by the County have not been incorporated, including southbound toll collection (to meter morning commute traffic entering the County) or the request that the toll plaza remain on the Solano County side . Staff of the Community Development and Public Works Departments have identified a number of concerns with the present document, as follows : 1 . We are concerned that other complimentary improvements along the corridor proceed in a timely manner. The Benicia-Martinez Bridge Traffic Study Final Report (1993) indicated in Figure 7-3 that other improvements along the corridor should precede construction of the bridge in order to prevent the project from shifting congestion to other segments of I-680 . A comparison of Figures 7 . 7-1 and 7 . 7-3 shows the adverse effect of the project on the I-680/SR 4 interchange without construction of HOV lanes south of the bridge . A comparison of Figures 6-21 and 6-22 in the Traffic Study suggests that the impact to the I-680/SR 4 interchange may be mitigated somewhat by striping the I-780/I-680 southbound ramp to one mixed flow and one HOV lane until HOV lanes are constructed on I-680 through the SR 4 interchange . The FSEIS/R should evaluate the appropriateness of such lane striping measures in order to coordinate the additional capacity from the project with available capacity elsewhere in the corridor. 2 . The document states that the northbound lanes of I-680 in Contra Costa County would be realigned and raised in the vicinity of the Marina Vista interchange, but does not indicate whether the southbound lanes would also be raised. We support similar treatment to the southbound lanes to prevent flooding in this area. 3 . The document assumes (page 76) that local street improvements are the responsibility of local jurisdictions . The County' s position is that where local streets and intersections are impacted by the project, mitigation measures must be included in the project to reduce such impacts . It is not clear from the SDEIS/R whether diversion of traffic generated in 2015 under project conditions would create significant adverse impacts to Pacheco Boulevard compared to the no-project condition. The FSEIS/R should clarify whether or not such impacts occur on Pacheco Boulevard and identify mitigation measures, if appropriate. 4 . We support a threshhold level of 2 or more . occupants to be considered as HOV' s . Our experience indicates that it is very difficult to form carpools of three or more participants in this corridor. 5 . We urge Caltrans to expedite its analysis of automated toll collection technologies and, if found feasible, to implement such a system at the Benicia Bridge as part of the project in order to avoid future backups at the toll plaza. 6 . We urge Caltrans to work with regional ridesharing and trip reduction programs in both counties to identify and fund appropriate traffic mitigation measures . The roving tow trucks provided in the I-680/24 interchange reconstruction project have proven to be especially effective, and we recommend a similar construction mitigation for the Benicia Bridge project . 7 . We urge Caltrans to work with local jurisdictions to ensure that connections are provided to the bicycle and pedestrian path on the bridge, linking it with local and regional trails . . 8 . The document should list the State Route 4 Bypass project between Oakley and Brentwood in Section 4 . 2 , Related Projects . 9 . We urge Caltrans to commit whatever resources are necessary to expedite the repair of the existing span and to lift restrictions on use of the outside lanes, even if this causes delay in the construction of the new bridge . v J s Comments on Benicia Bridge Supplemental DEIS/DEIR May 2 , 1995 Page 3 The Transportation Committee has endorsed these comments and we recommend that the Board authorize the Chair to sign a letter, submitting these comments to Caltrans prior to the May 12 due date . �J Phil Batchelor 'The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1st District .eat May 9, 1995 Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District �•;�_ 5j�-coer Mr. Stephen H. Yokoi, Branch Chief Office of Environmental Planning-North Caltrans District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. Yokoi: Conta Costa County has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Benicia-Martinez Bridne Proiect. The County has commented on this project on several previous occasions. We are pleased that a number of our recommendations have been incorporated into the project, including the design of the bridge structure to accommodate rail transit in the future and the provision of a bicycle-pedestrian lane. We have the following comments on the SDEIS/R: 1. We are concerned that other complimentary improvements along the corridor proceed in a timely manner. The Benicia-Martinez Bridge Traffic Study Final Report (1993) indicated in Figure 7-3 that other improvements along the corridor should precede construction of the bridge in order to prevent the project from shifting congestion to other segments of 1-680, A comparison of Figures 7.7-1 and 7.7-3 shows the adverse effect of the project on the 1-680/SR 4 interchange without construction of HOV lanes south of the bridge. A comparison of Figures 6-21 and 6-22 in the Traffic Study suggests that the impact to the 1-680/SR 4 interchange may be mitigated somewhat by striping the 1-780/1-680 southbound ramp to one mixed flow and one HOV lane until HOV lanes are constructed on 1-680 through the SR 4 interchange. The FSEIS/R should evaluate the appropriateness of such lane striping measures in order to coordinate the additional capacity from the project with available capacity elsewhere in the corridor. 2. The document states that the northbound lanes of 1-680 in Contra Costa County would be realigned and raised in the vicinity of the Marina Vista interchange, but does not indicate whether the-southbound lanes would also be raised. We support similar treatment to the southbound lanes to prevent flooding in this area. 3. The document assumes (page 76) that local street improvements are the responsibility of local jurisdictions. The County's position is that where local streets and intersections are impacted by the project, mitigation measures must be included in the project to reduce such impacts. It is not clear from the SDEIS/R whether diversion of traffic generated in 2015 under project conditions would create significant adverse impacts to Pacheco Boulevard compared to the no- project condition. The FSEIS/R should clarify whether or not such impacts occur on Pacheco Boulevard and identify mitigation measures, if appropriate. 4. We support a threshhold level of 2 or more occupants to be considered as HOV's. Our experience indicates that it is very difficult to form carpools of three or more participants in this corridor. Stephen H. Yokoi May 9, 1995 Page 2 5. We urge Caltrans to expedite its analysis of automated toll collection technologies and, if found feasible, to implement such a system at the Benicia Bridge as part of the project in order to avoid future backups at the toll plaza. 6. We urge Caltrans to work with regional ridesharing and trip reduction programs in both counties to identify and fund appropriate traffic mitigation measures. The roving tow trucks provided in the 1-680/24 interchange reconstruction project have proven to be especially effective, and we recommend a similar construction mitigation for the Benicia Bridge project. 7. We urge Caltrans to work with local jurisdictions to ensure that connections are provided to the bicycle and pedestrian path on the bridge, linking it with local and regional trails. 8. The document should list the State Route 4 Bypass project between Oakley and Brentwood in Section 4.2, Related Projects. 9. We urge Caltrans to commit whatever resources are necessary to expedite the repair of the existing span and to lift restrictions on use of the outside lanes, even if this causes delay in the construction of the new bridge. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely yours, i Gayle Bishop, Chair cc: Julie Pierce, CCTA Gwen Regalia, TRANSPAC