Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06131995 - D6 D.6 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _June 13, 1995,_ by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson,. Bishop NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Board considered the report of the Transportation Commit- tee and heard presentations by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa Council on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Board members discussed the Plan and expressed concern regarding the definition of "good faith" efforts toward coopera- tive planning and its conflict with the Implementation Documents submitted; determining "good faith" from the compliance checklist including equal emphasis of growth management requirements in the checklist; the need to address the job and housing balance especially in the job centers of the Interstate 580/680 cross roads area and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa; the resolution of differences between the East County Action Plan and the proposed Tri Valley Action Plan on the expansion of the Vasco Road corridor; and the impact of the general plan amendment review process and the preservation of economic vitality in the County and cities,. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the presentations on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa Council are hereby ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues discussed this day are REFERRED to the Transportation Committee for further comment to the Board on June 27, 1995, and subsequent presentation to the Transportation Authority on June 28, 1995. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN . ATTESTED: June 13, 1995 Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By c/ Deputy cc: Director, CDD Transportation Committee Director, GMEDA TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPOR'T'ATION COMMITTEE Costa DATE: June 5, 1.995 `-"""' "' SUBJECT: REPORT ON PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE CCTA AND THE CONTRA COSTA COUNCIL SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report . FISCAL IMPACT Draft Plan would establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it' s share of the Measure C-1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $1 . 4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Presentations by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa Council on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan are scheduled for the June 13 meeting of the Board of Supervisors . Exhibit A include the May 25 transmittal of the Plan to the Board of Supervisors . This attachment includes the Board' s May 16 letter on the Plan as well as an alternative proposal from the Contra Costa Council . Exhibit B includes some questions prepared at the direction of the Transportation Committee and submitted to the Authority for their response at the June 13th presentation. The Committee requests that the Board consider these questions and how the Authority - responds to them at the June 13 meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: RR YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNT MINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : J ff Smith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF 'AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN,AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: INUTES OF THE BOARD OF S RVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development partment Contact: Steve Goetz, (510- 6-2134) ATTESTED cc: Community Developm t Director Contra Costa Cou it PHIL BATCHE , CLERK OF THE BOARD -OF S RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINI TOR BY , DE TY SG:drb CCTA\bo EXHIBIT A CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS: Julie Pierce MEMORANDUM Chair Don Tatzin Vice Chair Gayle Bishop TO: All Interested Parties Taylor Davis FROM: Robert K. McCleary Millie GreenberD Executive Director Cathie Kosel WD. 'Bill'Landis DATE: May 25, 1995 John E.Marquez SUBJECT: Transmittal of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan - Allen Paylon Second Draft Dated May 17, 1995. Tom Torlakson Hermann, Weir„ At its May 17, 1995 iYieeting, the Authority approved circulation of the second Robes K.McCleary Draft of the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. This version of the Executive Direclor Plan responds.to and incorporates comments received since the first draft was issued in November 1994. The Second Draft consists of this cover letter and attachments, and the separately issued Draft Proposal For Adoption Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan issued April 27, 1995 with the PGA Committee and Authority agenda packets. The Second Draft also includes separately bound draft responses to comments, and excerpts from the Action Plans (Exhibits A through E). With the release of the second Draft Countywide Plan, the Authority has provided draft responses to over 30 comment letters that have been received -since November 1994. We will continue to accept comments through June 28, 1995. Final adoption of the Countywide Plan is scheduled for July 1995. We welcome your input and submittal of additional written comments you may have. During the comment period, the Countywide Plan will be presented to each city council and to the Board of Supervisors. Once the final Plan is adopted, the Authority is required to update it every two years. A Countywide Forum was held on May 17 to discuss key issues. Some of the key issues that were discussed at that Forum were as follows: s�le soot Blvd. Revised Traf is Service Objectives (TSOs) for TRANSPLAN: TRANSPLAN has Walnut creek revised some of its TSOs from hours of congestion to delay index factors. CA 91595 PHONE: 610/938.3970 FAX: $10/938.3993 a r Countywide Plan May 25, 199 Page 2 Lack oir Consensus for the Tri-Valley Action Plan: It was originally intended that the Countywide Plan be the compilation of each regional committee's Action Plan for. Routes of Regional Significance. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri- Valley area. The Tri-Valley Action Plan is being prepared by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, which includes the jurisdictions of Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa County, and the Alameda jurisdictions of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Alameda County. The TVTC Plan has been approved by all jurisdictions except Contra Costa County. The Authority will need to decide what portions, if any, of the Tri-Valley Plan to incorporate into the Countywide Plan. To promote further discussions, attached to this letter are the Draft Traffic Service Objectives and Actions that were considered in the "Proposal for Adoption" Tri-Valley Plan approved for circulation in January, 1995. Count3^►ride Vision "2010": Per the comments received from many parties, the Authority will consider a more positive vision statement for Contra Costa. The Authority noted at the workshop that it wished to continue to highlight, along with the vision, that significant challenges are forecast with regard to traffic growth, congestion, and funding shortfalls. A revised draft vision statement will be discussed at the June PGA and Authority meetings. General Plan Amendment (GPA) Review Procedure: Another issue concerns how the GPA review process specified in Measure C will work. The GPA review process appears to be a core issue. The Contra Costa Council has submitted the attached proposal for GPA review that would mirror the CEQA review process including approval of a GPA with findings of overriding significance. The Authority has expressed an interest to at least conform the GPA review process with CEQA time lines. The main question is: What will a jurisdiction be required to actually do relative to a GPA to receive its Growth Management Program return-to-source funds? Contra Costa County has also submitted a letter commenting on the GPA review procedure and other aspects of the Growth Management Program (also attached). Conflict Resolution Process: Revisions to the draft Conflict Resolution process were approved by the Authority on May 17. The compliance requirements arising from the Conflict Resolution process, and how that process should work will continue to be discussed. The revised draft Conflict Resolution Procedure is attached for review. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations: Finally, Growth Management and Congestion Management Programs have introduced us to a whole new language. "Has PGA met to review the RTPC's proposed TSOsT If you don't know Countywide Plan May 25, 1995 Page 3 If you have not already received a copy of the April 26, 1995 Countywide Ph and attachments to it that were distributed along with the May PGA and Authority agenda packets, and would like to obtain them, please contact Ms. Feliz Hill of our office at (510) 256-4720, or send a fax to (510) 938-3993, attention Ms. Hill. Attachments: 1) Revised Traffic Service Objectives Submitted by TRANSPLAN 2) Proposed Tri-Valley Traffic Service Objectives and Actions Draft Action Plan Objectives and Actions from the January 1995 Proposal for Adoption Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. 3) Proposed Growth Management Principles for Consideration, submitted by the Contra Costa Council 4) Contra Costa County's letter dated May 16, 1995 5) Conflict Resolution Process 6) Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations mre:wpfiles:cctp:tl.595 1• f 1. REVISED TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES Submitted by TRANSPLAN RESOLUTION 95-1 RE: RESCIND TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES ORIGINALLY DEFINED IN THE EAST COUNTY ACTION PLAN PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION (DEC. 1994) AND REPLACE WITH REVISED TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND FORWARD REVISIONS TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa County jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts; WHEREAS. the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority("Authority") in December 1990 further require that each regional transportation planning committee develop and adopt an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the following components: 1) A designated network of routes of regional significance; 2) Adopted Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) using quantifiable measures of effectiveness that include target dates of attainment; 3) Specific actions, programs, and measures to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4) Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5) Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and 6) A schedule for Regional Committee and Authority review of progress to attain adopted TSOs. WHEREAS, TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, submitted an Action Plan for Regional Routes in East County Proposal For Adoption on December 8, 1994, which it believes met the requirements set forth in the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents, based upon input provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, Action Plan consultant, Authority staff, members of the public, and each jurisdiction's elected officials and management staff; WHEREAS, subsequent to submittal of the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption on December 9, 1994 to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Authority staff has interpreted.said Measure C guidelines as mandates for compliance jurisdiction compliance and is now recommending exclusion of the Proposal For Adoption's procedures for General Plan Amendment Review, to be replaced with potentially burdensome analysis requirements and procedures; t S WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Review analysis requirements and procedures, which the Authority staff believes are mandated under Measure C Implementation Guidelines, require that a jurisdiction considering approval of a General Plan Amendment, of a certain size, demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Traffic Service Objectives, or require jurisdiction to propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent amendment from adversely affecting regional transportation network; WHEREAS, approving a General Plan Amendment without demonstrating ability to meet Traffic Service Objectives or amending Action Plan may lead to a finding of non- compliance with Measure C's Growth Management Program and, thus, possibly result in the Authority withholding a jurisdiction's Measure C 18% Return-to-Source Funds; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that TRANSPLAN, acting as the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, does hereby rescind and replace the Traffic Service Objectives contained in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption (Dec. 1994),- RESOLVED, 994);RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Committee and its member jurisdictions acknowledge their willingness to use good faith efforts to implement the actions listed in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption (Dec. 1994) as one of the conditions for its member jurisdictions to receive Measure C-1988 Return-to-Source Funds based on new. revised Traffic Service Objectives, which are attached as Exhibit "A", Table 4, Fiction Plan Traffic Service Objectives (May 11, 1995); RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Committee Chair is authorized to submit the attached Traffic Service Objectives revisions (Exhibit "A") to the Authority for inclusion in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption and Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and its accompanying environmental impact report; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Technical Advisory Committee is directed to make the necessary editorial changes to the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption, so that the document may reflect the revisions to the Traffic Service Objectives approved by this resolution. i� Barbar Guise, Chair attest: �Vt� S�iS�9S The above resolution was entered into by the TRANSPLAN Committee at its regular meeting held in Antioch, CA on May 11, 1995. + r Recorded vote on Resolution 95-1 ayes: T. Davis, J. Garcia, B. Guise, L. Lawrence, A. Payton, E. Sobalvarro, and T. Torlakson noes: none absent: M. Durkin, and C. Gaddis abstain: none Exhibit "A" Table 4 Action flan Traffic Service Objectives Proposed Revisions: Atav 11 1995 Peak Hour' Schedule - Demand Regional Route TrafTK Service Objective to Achieve Threshold SR 4 Freeway(including SR 4 Bypass . Morning Peak Hour Vehicle 2010 n/a Expressway) Occupancy 1.25 or higher Delay Index less than 3.0 SR 4 Non-Freeway . LOS D or better at signalized 2010 varies' SR 160 to Balfour Road intersections . LOS E or better at unsignalized intersections Delay Index less than 3.0 SR 4 lion-Freewa% LOS E or better calculated for 2010 2,100 Balfour Road to San Joaquin rural highways Count% Line . Delav Index less than 2.0 Vasco Road= Pk. Hr. Vehicle Occupancy 1.3 or 2010 nfa higher Delay Index less than 3.0 Byron HiehaaV LOS mid E or better (rural 2010 1,570 highway) Delay Index less than 3.0 Marsh Creek Road (east of Deer Valley Road) LOS mid E or bener 2010 1,200 Camino Diablo Road . Delay Index less than 2.0 1,200 Deer Valley Road (rural portier:l I.300 Kirker Pass Road . LOS mid E or better 2010 2,520 Delay Index less than 2.0 Suburban Arterial Routes' Intersection LOS mid D or better 2010 varies' Delay Index less than 2.0 ' The notation 'varies' indicates that the threshold will depend on specific conditions at particular intersections. I Threshold assumes the Vasco Road relocation project is completed. Includes the following roads: Lone Tree Way, Railroad Avenue, Leland Road, Delta Fair Boulevard, Buchanan Road, Somersville Road, Hillcrest Avenue, Deer Valley Road(northern portion), Walnut Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road(north of Leland), Evora Road, and the Buchanan Road Bypass(future route). 'Volumes are the total of both directions. DKS Associates F:\P\91\91 l 73\DOCS\N E%VTSOTB 2. PROPOSED TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS FROM THE JANUARY 1995 PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION/ACTION PLAN NOTE:, There is no consensus at either SWAT or TVTC on proposed TSOs or actions. v c i�,c aA�c r ri M 94C:: n rA r�+a a'O++ ia.: :C t: :C C: C C. C C: c C: U Z O fl A; T.19 - - �^ ,� K: tl R � +rJ �{, r.: A. i „ n >e0. }sw�s�,�• s�OOe. >•e ae. A C i.1 u 72 a ct L c G v v C > cc rr, r A r V ` ` 'E v. •� w � p tE .%.� •� r. C Z F i ` _ 2 7R _ L gyp• U y L:::G i .. v 21 ` p n Vall , v C C r ^ « u C .moi to 61 c C iV i r r .,C'!>�{ xt >.,.....; jiO _ 1311 � v r V o L G a i*Z' _ Cc ,h .Y IR s: h O G. .� .. „ v „ •� Z ; o vci — > E Q u a cj ul .n h Ecc n .. 16 62 •J c LZ �. 0 — Z 't _3 -j � � � •r. .Z V < E V L � L p R i I c .y E F= T ::,.: NOW!, v. L U a o a_ t3 0 ° a a c . V. -.c ;! C w VV: o F F F i� : F F F U .� >� •r •� - L - c V V v ccc 00 g 3 u L v vii V C ^ p 61 ct id 0 Ln r- O OC ::d,; ..... � •L � V O h I to _ G L •C. C ` R 7 )0 %n Y s h 01 u rf n V O O O L _ r O C L L C I O Z jt/f C V O r. �> P • a 6 �y _ u t 6 O :'�:� F .� W ,o � � L C y Cy •v -_ A Z CC — �.• 'r � . O u n S' n LO, 'v ,� Y 3 3 n h n �# a = c 3 c u 1 t t♦ 1, �y. '9 :f j 'L Y Oyyss • r N .F V•.. G i 3!1 n t o •• t& c OR i N IZ tr Ci " 10 � O G 3. PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES for consideration Submitted by the Contra Costa Council Mav 17. 1995 PROPOSED PRINCIPLES for consideration MEASURE C GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Contra Costa Council, in cooperation with the Building Industry Association (BIA), the Coalition of Labor and Business (COLAB), Central Labor Council,the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and the Association of Realtors is pleased to submit the following set of"principles' that we would encourage the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider in the development of the County-wide Transportation Plan and Measure C Growth Management Program: I. Return-to-source funds must be.an incentive to implement the Measure C Growth Management Program. A unique provision of Measure C is that it seeks to encourage responsible growth management at the local level by providing an incentive to participate through the return-to-source program. This concept is working well in that all 19 jurisdictions have adopted, and are complying with, Growth Management Elements in their respective General Plans. The concept that the return-to-source funds are to be an incentive to comply must be maintained. 2. The Grom.-th Management Program should not be implemented in such a manner that would allow an individual jurisdiction, a Regional Committee or the Authority to "veto" another jurisdiction's general plan amendment or project. Measure C provided funds to improve our transportation system and included an incentive to participate in a Growth Management Program designed to encourage cooperation in the review of projects impacting our regional transportation system while maintaining local control over local land use decisions. Jurisdictions who agree to participate in the program, manage growth through their General Plans and comply with clearly defined disclosure and review requirements should not be denied an allocation of return-to-source funds. Local agencies must retain the ability to approve a project when, after consideration of all factors, including transportation impacts, and participation in a cooperative review of issues, they can show(make findings)that the benefits of the project outweigh impacts. The role of the Authority and the Regional Committees should be to insure full public disclosure of potential impacts, cooperate and assist in identifying and developing appropriate project mitigations (transportation related!) and provide a forum to discuss and, hopefully, resolve issues. 1 �. The Authority should accept the Action Plans as adopted (or amended) by the Regional Committees and, if necessary, utilize a cooperative process with the Regional Committees to eliminate inconsistencies between the various plans. The Growth Management Implementation documents adopted by the Authority in 1990 appropriately focus responsibility for development of the Action Plans on the Regional Committees. The documents indicate that"in cases where consensus has been reached among members of the Regional Committee ..., the Authority will accept the objectives and action policies as proposed." When consensus exists, the Authority is to include the Action Plans into the Countywide Plan. Only when "other committee(s) oppose some portion of the Action Plan..." does the Authority have a role with development of the Action Plans. The Authority's role should be to identify conflicts (if any) between Action Plans and work to eliminate the conflicts through a cooperative process with the affected Regional Committees. If no agreement can be reached, then the Authority should delete the conflicting provisions in such a manner that does not impose new requirements or alter current authority of any jurisdiction. In the case where jurisdictions cannot agree upon TSO's or action policies within their Action Plan, then the Countywide Plan would identifi• no TSO's or action policies for that regional route because there is no consensus. 4. The Authority should require use of the CountyNvide traffic model to evaluate major development projects and proposed general plan amendments. Measure C indicates that a "countywide transportation computer model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s) transportation and land use alternatives. and to assist the cities and the county in determining the impact of major development proposals proposed for General Plan amendments." The intent of the Measure in this regard is clear, the Authority should require local jurisdictions to use its model to test major development projects and proposals and "advise" all concerned as to their findings. Consideration should be given to use of a standardized disclosure process, as suggested by TRANSPLAN. As indicated in the Measure, this procedure"...would provide a quantitative basis for inter-jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts." It seems clear that the Authority is to act as a neutral source of information for all jurisdictions, as well as the public, to use in assessing the impact of new development on our regional transportation system. The Authority's role is to insure that potential project impacts are disclosed and appropriate mitigations identified and considered. �. The role of the Regional Committees should be to review, not approve, project proposals and general plan amendment requests. Sponsoring jurisdictions are required to concurrently notify the Authority of development proposals and. for projects that impact our regional transportation system, submit the project and/or proposed general plan amendment (along with proposed mitigations) to their Regional Committee for review. The adopted Action Plan and the Countywide traffic model should be the basis for the Regional Committee's review. The sponsoring jurisdiction must participate in"good faith"and"cooperate"with the Regional Committee,and other concerned parties. Jurisdictions must cooperate in identifying appropriate mitigations and/or modifications to the adopted Action Plan. If a determination is made that a modification to the adopted Action Plan is required, the jurisdiction proposing the project should be required to either 1) modiA, the project to reduce it's impact or 2) propose a modification to the Action Plan. After all of the above, if consensus cannot be reached at the Regional Committee level %vith respect to project mitigations and/or amendments to the adopted Action Plan, the sponsoring jurisdiction may still approve a project (and not loose their return-to-source funds), provided that they take the following steps: a. Provide a Notice of Intent to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees, ane the Authority: b. The Notice shall include a statement of reasons for intending to approve the project vothout consensus at the regional committee; C. The Notice shall allow for a 20-day \%Titten comment period ending at least 10 days before a noticed public hearing: d. Circulate all %\Titten comments to Council members or Board members; e. Hold a public hearing and accept testimony; f. If approval is still desired, adopt a finding of special circumstance, detailing the reasons for the approval which may include impacts of traffic generated outside the jurisdiction, unique local conditions, health, safety, public welfare,and other reasons; and g. Immediately provide a Notice of Finding of Special Circumstance to the public, all jurisdictions,regional committees, and the Authority. The requirement should be to participate in good faith in negotiations - not to mandate specific results. Approval of this Finding of Special Circumstances would be considered consistent with the Action Plan(which would be amended as necessary to reflect the change at the next update). 6. The Compliance Checklist should be used to determine a jurisdictions eligibility for return-to-source funds. The current Checklist should be updated to reflect the principles discussed herein, including notice requirements, use of the Count-,,wide traffic model to evaluate project impacts, participation in the Regional Committee review process, and compliance with proper procedures before any consideration of Findings of Special Circumstance that might be considered as a result of a lack of consensus at the Regional Committee level. The Compliance Checklist process is currently used by the Authority to determine if a jurisdiction is participating in the Growth Management program. The procedure is a self- certification process and used gauge compliance with the intent of the Measure C Growth Management requirements. The completed Checklists should be widely distributed (published) and used to notify all jurisdictions, the Authority and the public as to all jurisdiction's actions with respect to complying with the Growth Management requirements of Measure C. Return-to-source funds should be withheld when a jurisdiction fails to participate in the development review process or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Checklist needs to be updated to reflect the concepts proposed herein. It must be clear and concise. The Authority should not require additional actions to receive retum- to-source funds unless the Authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a jurisdiction has failed to participate in General Plan review process or otherwise failed to comply with other requirements the Measure C Growth Management Program. 7. The Conflict Resolution Process should be used to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist and available for use, on a voluntary basis, to resolve issues identified through the project and General Plan review process. The process should be a mediation with no arbitrated decisions. NVIth respect to issues identified during the processes discussed in item 6 above, jurisdictions should be able to utilize the Conflict Resolution Process on a voluntary basis to resolve issues. Failure to participate in the Conflict Resolution Process at this level would not be a basis for loss of return-to-source funds. The process would be in the style of a mediation and not an arbitrated decision and designed to encourage participation and ensure no preemption of local decision making authority. The primary use'of the Conflict Resolution Process would be to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist. 4 7 p.d 1+ G $Olt ti. � «o v c G � G o O d O � •p + p � N G ' t 9 O i = o Y 1 v �1 T '1 +�l ,C d� , N o � v a r A O• o `o O � 4 m a a 0 � r v u t U p O 1 zm- ------------------- .......... ...... ... ............ . ... ................... ......... . .. ........ MMERRE "I -—---------- . ........ ............ ............ . . ...... ;,FM, MM F z ..... .... . .... ..... Z s All Z_ �Z_ - - -------- su, N-1- .. ........ . . . ......... ".-�02 F,W, is .......... Ls iiia. law ......... .... E . :susg .........AMN -... --E g -- W sf:M M5_-_ _;Mz 's z" _27m-s 1:0--n-n- ,MWEE.. j- 1- M ....... zME s:zZ,... MEMO ME IIIED -M_f--- . . .............:,-, ............. PUR, g ggg gr C// R- S_ R� R ........................... BE, Z, ... . .......av iisis»ix iii wizv'ME"'. E_-_ Wag M, �5 rall 11a' zz z ........... ST.,-E111:F__Z.__-II. ....... ... W.—z- -M-Z 'r su .. .... .... In iwt -- -------------- .................... NINg %7Cw OF jWT • -EEi.M7_M5 too O. ;............. _M:, M_4r..r. g ..... #si ..... ;gt- RnM:, ............ ........ . . =ZSz—, -zx7- . ........ .. .. .. �M,a. f 1� 'M, " —X&—-—- Q . ......... .......... ..... ............ .. ..M 7' SSS /w ..sf.... . ..... 7 ssrS Mii- - -47-- ti ........... RX I'd 5gjg-_-_ - .. -'EM ME gg g/g,P;//, O-ENg _,"MM , M"I Rin rpg -m gg, �ssr iiiiii0000000000 PA d Cy L`� t C � G � G '=z 00 c � y N ,O ? � Q+ � N 1�6) Zt rz ° C � C) LOS U � � ��.�•++ U C, b rn ct . o o � .°� o � V U F--4cis � a ct c C O O `tip In v p U .� O O ►•—+ O � p eA) � 0 0 o Ln UUWU � U � •ti �, , r � O . N �\ O • V sft �w..o Ist 00 411 .� .r .- _ _ �..� 74 a� • o O '� c3 . •vy � .� O �... vz � G � til r G T T ° w {may' h cu' V1 ct � G ct ct En c •� o a h�0 .•� . O� u ccs O Cd Cd R$ POW w t� v > ,- V . .v w ct �, U *ON co © .� o v � �� � o .... t. 4 Cd O � v O t�• a� v ♦ ♦ r ' O tU ..� 0901 o � o � p C O r► 00 c.. © oPA tiPA o � � M r- J W O � Q� td ct� 0 tA tn tp VOA IL v � o .A r- r Cv o o ap •� o 0 G� s.-41 'CS © cll U ,r tn tn td p O O tn cd Q tn v ¢� Q JN 8 �+ •p 4 et5 cd Cd � O � rn* 8 o � v h r O CC T/9 cz ,© cz c"'.. o , Oman cd o r. M C43Q t� s h '.�../ CLS r d Pmo Q Ct 7:1 , z-- •En03 U o Cz Cl, En crs 0 bA W cn .q A O \ la, N C � O G 'O 1 c dd _9 V 4 O r ` t3QQ Ui N c �a a CC Nu E o c o s E N a 4 1 J, T � 1 . t O V v n v N t9 t0 o. d C 4 a d V, m t 4 O o � m � V O Z Y O 4 M Y A s f O Ga �- tri c a 1 r Q + i i 4, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S LETTER Dated May 16, 1995 The Board of Supervisors Contra Couniyldn inisi atic�. B:J;Jj_- Costa - 651 Pine Street. Rooc-. 133 tLd Martinez.Ca6tomra 9455_'--I263 County Jim Rogers.1st D.strir ; ;; May 16. 199 Jett Smith.2nd Disinci Gayle Bishop.3rd District Mark DeSsulnier.4th Dminci Tom Tortakson.5th District '�err �,��:•;4 Ms. Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair Pierce: The Board of Supervisors requests the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider our concerns with the Draft Counn►+gide Comprehensive Transportation Plan at your May 17th forum. The Authority should not mandate a specific General Plan amendment review process. There is considerable concern with the Authority's apparent insistence to mandate a general plan amendment review process without addressing the concerns of the Regional Committees. The process proposed by the Authority was adopted in 1990, before work on the Action Plans began. Since that tinil:. the TRANSPLAN Committee took particular care in developing their general plan amendment review process to reflect the concerns of the participating jurisdictions, all which have the potential for significant changes to their General Plans in the future. Yet, Resolution 95-03-G overrides the TRANSPLAN Committee by mandating a specific process to be applied countywide, without any variation that acknowledges the concerns of the Regional Committees. The Authority's proposed action does not seem consistent with the cooperative transportation planning process envisioned in Measure C. Rather than mandating a process, the Authority is advised to resolve their differences with the TRANSPLAN Committee and others through negotiation. These concerns include: - incurring additional bureaucratic costs and delays in the review of general plan amendments beyond that already required for local review and CEQA compliance; evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts rather than five-year forecasts as specified in the Measure C text; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts developed by computer models that can, at best, only provide estimates of current traffic within 20 percent of actual counts for no more than half the intersections being measured; and - requiring Authority approval of any Action Plan amendment agreed to by a Regional Committee. Chair Pierce May 16, 1995 Paee Two Demonstration of "Good Faith" should be based on participation in the process, not the outcome. The Board remains concerned that Resolution 95-03-G imposes a new standard for local jurisdictions to meet when demonstrating "good faith" in the conflict resolution process. The Resolution defines "good faith" as "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." This definition goes.beyond requiring full participation in settlement discussions or the consideration of alternative proposals as suggested in the Implementation Guide. The expectation of compromise conflicts with the Implementation Guide's assurance that compliance with the Growth Management Program "cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities or accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town or the county to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the communitv's socioeconomic or environmental character." The Board believes that "good faith" should be determined by participation in the conflict resolution process, not by its outcome. A jurisdiction's full participation in the settlement meetings and its consideration of alternative proposals are indicators of good faith that can be readily determined. Relying on a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the outcome of the process, such as the appropriateness of a land use decision, which is clearly not permitted by the Measure C text. Quality of Life should be determined by general purpose governments, not the Transportation Authority. - The intent of the Authority, as stated in the Measure C text, is to create a growth management process that results in the maintenance of the quality of life in Contra Costa. It is the process that defines maintenance of the quality of life, not the Authority. Quality of life issues are best determined by general purpose local government such as cite councils and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly elected and accountable to their constituents on these issues. Quality of life should not be determined by single issues, such as transportation, or by a single purpose agency such as the Authority. The Board hopes the Authority will ultimately respond to the concerns raised by the Board and by others at the May 17th Forum. Si ely, rBoard Je . S t , hair Contra Cosof Supervisors TC • TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa DATE: May 16, 1995 Courty SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE RECCHKMATIONS OF THE CCTA'S PLANNING AND GOVEPXHENTAI. AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECCHHEO DATION(S) i &&C1CGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ZECOXn'NDATI ONS Authorise the Chair to sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. FISCAL TMPACT The Draft Plan would establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it's share of the Measure 0- 1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $2.4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors has been monitoring the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's preparation of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan for several years. Exhibit A contains the Board's most recent comments on the Plan along with the responses prepared by Authority staff. 1 The Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee forwarded these comments and responses to the Authority for their consideration, but did not recommend any changes to the Draft Plan or the implementing resolution. CONTINUED ON ATTACM2 T: xx TES SIGNATURE RECOM t.'DATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTFJ.TOR_X_RECOH�ZHDATION OF BOARD COd+':-TTEr APPROVE THER SIGNATURE(S) : of mith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON may 16, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ACCEPTED the Report on the recommendations of the CCTA'a Planning and Governmental Affairs Co=ittee on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and AMORIZED the Vice Chair, board of Supervisors, to sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Supervisor Smith agreed to attend the May 17, 1995, Transportation Authority Foru= as the alternate to Supervisor Bishop. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY SHAT THIS IS A wAxnaouS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 2.4.5ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED QN THE ABSEITF: ASST11�71- MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHORN. Orig: Community Development Department Contact: Steve Goetz, (510/646-2134) ATTESTED Mat 16, 1995 cc: Community Development Director CCTA (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF RTPC'S (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UNTY ADMINTOR E .Y SG:drb to.�Ec'.cc:• 5: REVISED CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS Comments and Responses Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments on the Conflict Resolution process have been received from the following individuals and organizations: 1 Gayle Bishop, Chair, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors undated 2 TRANSPLAN Committee April 5, 1995 3 Kevin Roberts, Community Development Director, City of Walnut Creek April 5, 1995 4 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 5, 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association 5 Gwen Regalia, TRANSPAC Chair April 13, 1995 6 Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee April 14, 1995 7 Marilyn Leuck, City Manager City of Hercules April 17, 1995 8 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 17. 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association Copies of these letters are included as a separate attachment, along with other comment letters received on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. C:\013\13-CRCL.0 4/25/95 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 1. COMllJEENT: The description of Category 2 disputes is too broad. There should be a strong basis for bringing such a dispute to the CCTA, and for insuring that h is appropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: The description of Category 2 disputes is intentionally broad. This reflects the facts that use of the conflict.resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary, and that the CCTA will not make final determinations relating to compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program in connection with Category 2 disputes. This type of dispute is included in the program in order to provide a constructive option for jurisdictions or RTPCs that wish to work together to successfully implement CCTA programs, but who have reached an impasse that imperils the success of their efforts. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. 2. COM?NiENT: The conflict resolution process should be initiated either only through an RTPC or the CCTA, or with their approval. A super-majority should be required for process initiation. DISCUSSION: Local jurisdictions will often be the parties most directly involved in a conflict, so approval by their councils or board will be an essential part of making a commitment to the conflict resolution process. Subsequent approval of either the RTPC or the CCTA would provide some oversight and minimize the likelihood of inappropriate or frivolous use of the process. Because this process will always take place in a situation where there is disagreement, the suggestion that a super-majority be required to approve initiation is not incorporated into the proposed revisions. A party at odds with its neighbors should be given a reasonable opportunity to use the process in order to resolve a conflict in a productive fashion. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been revised to indicate that a local jurisdiction must initiate the process through a majority vote of its Council or Board, and then seek the approval of the RTPC by obtaining a majority vote of the RTPC prior to the initiation letter. If an RTPC does not approve a local jurisdiction's proposal to initiate the process, the jurisdiction may appeal that decision directly to the Authority. A:%13-RTC2.0 Page 1 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 3. COMMENT: The party requesting initiation of the process should be required to clearly justify bringing the dispute to the Authority, including, as appropriate, citation of Measure C, and the Growth/Congestion Management Program documents. DISCUSSION: This comment applies to Category 1 disputes which relate to compliance with the Congestion Management and Growth Management Programs. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been modified to reflect the requirement that the initiation letter should identify the relevant regulatory or procedural requirement that has resulted in proposed use of the conflict resolution process. 4. COMMENT: Any party to the dispute should be able to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the process. PROPOSED REVISION: The Proposed Outline has been revised to indicate that any party to a dispute may request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. 5. CO UME>\T: The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for its conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: A requirement for a formal determination is not proposed: However, the Situation Assessment process provides an opportunity to identify disputes that are not suitable for the process, and, as appropriate, to explore other options for resolution. The Authority may take a position that a dispute is not eligible, but it will not make a formal determination. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 6. CONBIE N"T: The process should be open to the public and consistent with all Brown Act requirements. DISCUSSION: Authority legal counsel is reviewing the process Outline in order to clarify how Brown Act requirements would apply to the process. When Brown Act requirements are not applicable, the parties to each process may determine how best to inform the public about the process. PROPOSED REVISIONS: Revisions will be proposed following review of the issue by A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 2 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses CCTA legal counsel. 7. CONEWENT: The outline should state clearly that Category 2 disputes will not result in determinations of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program by the Authority. DISCUSSION: Settlement of Category 2 disputes will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations of compliance in relation to them. PROPOSED REVISIONS: The following language is added to the "Introduction to the Conflict Resolution Process:" "Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program." 8. COMMENT: The description of the Category 2 settlement process should acknowledge that, in come cases, the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. DISCUSSION: The voluntary nature of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes means that parties may withdraw from the process at any time. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 9. CONEN EN-17: The Conflict Resolution process might be "abused by certain parties as a leverage or bargaining chip" on matters only peripherally related to CCTA business. DISCUSSION: In the case of Category 1 disputes, all disputes must be directly related to determinations of compliance with the Growth Management and/or the Congestion Management Program. The voluntary nature of the Category2 process should prevent parties from "abusing" it. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 3 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 10. COMMENT: The proposed process should be reviewed by a subcommittee of Cite Attorneys prior to adoption by the CCTA. DISCUSSION: Review by City Attorneys or others is welcome. There will be time for such a review following the May PGA meeting at which proposed changes to the Introduction and Outline are discussed. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 11. COVE ENT: Section III.C.1. of the Process Outline should be revised to read, "After a few initial sessions, the parties or the CCTA may request that a third parte professional assist at subsequent meetings." PROPOSED REVISION: The suggested revision is incorporated into the Process Outline. 12. CONENIENT: The language in section W.C., CCTA Assessment of Good Faith Participation, should conform to the language in CCTA Resolution 95-03-G. PROPOSED REVISION: The change suggested has been made. The outline now indicates that "The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the parties have demonstrated "good faith" in the process by "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." 13. CO.NIM. EN'T: If one party does not operate in good faith during conflict resolution, is that party at risk for a finding of non-.compliance? If so, this should be made clear in the conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: Non-cooperation in the process may lead to a finding of non-compliance in the case of Category 1 disputes. The voluntary nature of participation in the process in the case of Category 2 disputes means that a finding of non-compliance will not be a result of the process in any circumstance. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 4 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 14. COMMENT: Measure C Return-to-Source funds should-be "frozen" during the Conflict Resolution Process, with Contra Costa County funds withheld according to the proportionate share of the County's funds for the region in which the dispute is occurring. DISCUSSION: A freeze on return-to-source funds during the conflict resolution process would be inconsistent with the spirit of the process. Jurisdictions participating in the conflict resolution will be presumed to be doing so in good faith and should not be disadvantaged in any way for participating. Furthermore, creating a disincentive to participation in conflict resolution would be counter-productive. Regarding the County's proportionate share of funds, the Authority has the flexibility to allocate a portion of a jurisdiction's return-to-source funds based upon the incremental steps a jurisdiction has taken towards compliance. -NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 15. CONBfENT: A preamble should be added to the conflict resolution process which incorporates the six statements of principles contained in Measure C. DISCUSSION: Settlement negotiations and agreements may address any issues that are included in the Growth Management or Congestion Management Program. In fact. settlement of conflicts is often made easier when the areas of possible negotiation are made more broad. With the intent of broadening opportunities for negotiation and compromise, the issues of fees, affordable housing, and land use decisions, along with all other aspects of the Growth Management Program and Congestion Management Program can be included in the Settlement Agreement process. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline (Section III.G.) has been modified to indicate that the Settlement Agreement may address any of the issues identified in either the Measure C Growth Management Program or the CMP. 16. COMMENT: CCTA should adopt the Conflict Resolution Process prior to approval of the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan. DISCUSSION: The CCTP is scheduled to be adopted July 19, 1995. Hopefully, the Conflict Resolution process will be more fully defined and potentially adopted, at least in outline form, by then. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 5 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 17. COMMENT: It has been explained by Authority staff that a City may choose to relinquish its Return to Source money if its General Plan Amendment appears to be more important. Measure C never proffered this quid pro quo relationship. . DISCUSSION: Measure C clearly states that the eight components of the Growth Management Program are required to be fulfilled by each jurisdiction "to receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds." (p. 10 of the Expenditure Plan). Implicit in that requirement has been the option for local jurisdictions to choose not to participate in one or more elements of the program, which would mean giving up the opportunity to receive local 18% street maintenance and improvement funds. However, the Authority's intent since passage of Measure C has been to implement the program cooperatively in a way that would encourage constructive participation by all of the County's jurisdictions. It is clearly not in the public interest to have some jurisdictions not participating or found to be not in compliance. The conflict resolution process is intended to resolve conflicts in a positive way, and is based on "good faith" participation, as noted earlier. We envision that if a jurisdiction is engaged in conflict resolution, and participates in "good faith," it will create a high likelihood of resolving the conflict. Such participation, including with regard to consideration of General Plan Amendments, would lead to determinations of compliance, and should not jeopardize receipt of local funds. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 6 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 1 1. OVERVIEW CCTA's Growth Management Program envisions a high level of cooperation and coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. Similarly, the State's Congestion Management Program requirements, especially the amendments added in 1994, assume successful cooperation among local agencies. Both the CCTA and the State recognize the potential for conflicts to arise in implementation of these programs. These materials outline the CCTA's conflict resolution process. Their intent is be helpful, by creating a useable, flexible process without being overly rigid. The four-step process is summarized on the following page, and described in greater detail in the accompanying outline. 2. TYPES OF DISPUTES The conflict resolution process will be used in two types of disputes, as follows: Category 1: Compliance Disputes: These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of either the CCTA Growth Management Program or the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. The most significant characteristic.of Category 1 disputes is that the CCTA will be the final arbiter, since the Authority has an obligation under the rules of both programs to determine compliance. Category disputes may arise if one jurisdiction calls into guestion another jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program. Categga 1 disputes may also arise if, after a jurisdiction has been found to be out of compliance, it wishes to have further discussions with the Authorily. and possibly involve other jurisdictions or RTPCs. Category 2: Other Program Disputes: Disputes that are not directly related to compliance, but are impediments to effective implementation of GMP or CMP programs, including disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such may be initiated voluntarily by the parties involved, or in response to initiation by the CCTA. Participation in the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the part of all parties. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Programs. Occasionally. Category 2 disputes may eventually lead to a dispute which relates directly to compliance (Category 1). bAwO Revised April 25, 1995 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 2 I TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SERVICES In some cases, conflict resolution professionals will be retained to assist in the conflict resolution process. Several different techniques may be used in.the process. The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation and arbitration. These are defined below. Facilitation and mediation are likely to be the types of services used in the CCTA conflict resolution process. Facilitation Facilitation offers groups assistance in holding productive meetings. A conflict is not usually the focus of the meeting, and facilitation does not ordinarily focus on resolving disputes. However, facilitation can be particularly useful in helping a group stay focused and productive when difficult and controversial issues are being discussed. A facilitator is "an impartial process guide who is responsible for managing the discussion so that parties can focus their attention on substantive issues and achieving their goals." (Carpenter and Kennedy, Managing Public Disputes, p. 107). Mediation Mediation is negotiation in which the parties to a conflict are aided by an impartial third party brought in by mutual agreement. The mediator has no stake in the outcome of the mediation. He or she may work only with parties together, or may also meet with parties individually in caucuses. A mediator assists parties in reaching agreement without imposing a settlement -- the settlement is derived from and agreed to by all parties. "A mediator performs functions and carries out tasks that move people into negotiation, in circumstances that make it difficult for them to do so for themselves. However, third parties introduce another element that is less tangible yet can be a major asset to people needing help in solving their problems. When a third party enters a dispute, people expect things to change. They expect the character of their negotiations to be different after a mediator arrives. Because change and a new-direction are essential to interrupt the spiral of conflict, this expectation can be a powerful aid to moving ahead and seeking new options." (ibid., p. 193) b:inLrO Revised April 25, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Process Initiation • Identify Parties • Recognize Issues • Initiate Situation Assessment Situation Assessment • Establish Facts of Conflict • Make Recomendations for Process • Prepare Situation Assessment Memo Settlement Sessions • Present Concerns • Agree on Facts • Propose Resolutions • Negotiate Solutions • Draft Settlement Agreement or Make Compliance Determination Implementation and Monitoring • Use Settlement Agreement or Compliance Determination 1995 Contra Costa �4 INTRODUCTION TO OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 Arbitration Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to a disinterested person for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator makes the final decision for the parties involved. Arbitration is more formal than facilitation and mediation. While arbitration is well-established and procedures well- developed, experience with arbitration has centered on the areas of labor-management relations and commercial disputes. Inter jurisdictional disputes have unique qualities and there is not an arbitration process established for dealing with them. Accordingly, arbitration isnot envisioned to be used by CCTA as a type of conflict resolution process. 4. PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Implementation Documents include the following three principles which pertain to Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program: a. Resolution of conflicts, and decision-making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged b. Where Regional Committees are unable to resolve disputes, the CCTA will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved. When determining compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the CCTA will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue. C( CTA Resolution 95-03-G states that "good faith" will be demonstrated by jurisdictions' "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." C. The conflict resolution process may be used at any point during implementation of the Growth Management Program. The CCTA will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities to accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town or the county to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. b:intrO Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 5 I. PROCESS E TTIATION A. ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN INITIATE THE PROCESS 1. Local Jurisdictions This can be a City or Town Council or Board of Supervisors. Initiation of the Conflict Resolution Process requires a vote of the majority of the body. Followin the vote of the Council or Board, the local jurisdiction must either (1) obtain aRRroval of process initiation through a majority vote of its RTPC. or (2). if the RTPC does not approve of process initiation. obtain approval through_a majority vote of the CCTA. 2. RTPC A majority vote of the RTPC is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to annrove local initiation of the process. 3. CCTA A majority vote of the Authority is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to approve local initiation of the process, in cases where a jurisdiction has ayvealed to CCTA to reverse an RTPC's decision not to initiate. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATING PARTY DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Send an "initiation letter" to the CCTA (or, if the CCTA is initiating the conflict resolution process, prepare a staff report) with a. description of the dispute b. for Category 1 disputes (relating to compliance with the Growth Management or Congestion Management Program), reference to applicable lan gage in Measure C. the CCTA Implementation Documents. the CCTA Con eQ stion Management Program or state Congestion Management Program Reguirements, that provides a basis for process initiation. c. list of issues needing resolution d. names of parties to the dispute that should be involved in resolution e. names of individual(s) representing the initiating party as contact person and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) f. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals g. confirmation that the initiating party had a majority vote approving initiation of the process 2. Initiating party may request pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process a:oud=? Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 6 C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CCTA DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Distribute copies of initiation letter with relevant background information to all other parties 2. Assign task of situation assessment to CCTA staff or appropriate consultant 3. Follow-up with all parties to insure that responses to the initiation letter are being Prep 4. Schedule discussion of process initiation on PGA agenda D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PARTIES DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Officially respond to initiation letter with a letter to CCTA indicating a. understanding of dispute b. issues needing resolution (if any) c. individuals representing the organization as contact persons and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) d. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals e. confirmation that the response letter has been reviewed and approved by a majority vote of the policy council or 'board 2. Other parties may request a pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or the initiating pam, to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. E INITIATION TION PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE PARTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES 1. Private parties or other public agencies cannot initiate the conflict resolution process directly, but they can request that a local jurisdiction, RTPC or the CCTA initiate the process. 2. (section on public participation in the process to be added following review of the issue by CCTA legal counsel.l II. SITUATION ASSESSMENT A. SITUATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS An individual appointed by the CCTA (may be a staff member or appropriate consultant) will review initiation letter and response(s), then meet separately with the parties involved. After any necessary follow-up to collect additional information, he or she will write a brief Situation Assessment Memo for distribution to all parties and the CCTA. The Situation Assessment Memo will be,.presented to the CCTA at a noticed Public Meeting. woudinO Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 7 B. TIMING Situation Assessment should generally be completed within a month of CCTA receipt of parties' response(s) to the initiation letter C. CONTENTS OF SITUATION ASSESSMENT MEMO 1. List of issues to be resolved 2. Recommendation regarding whether the disQute is appropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process, whether or not to use conflict resolution professionals in initial settlement meetings and, if outside professionals are recommended, indication of whether facilitation or mediation appears most appropriate, taking parties' preferences into account 3. Estimated time frame for completion of each stage of the conflict resolution process, reflecting the facts of the dispute 4. Recommendation regarding who will participate in the settlement sessions, based on parties' preferences III. SETTLEMENT SESSIONS AMD AGREEMENTS A. ALL PARTIES. TO THE CONFLICT PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT SESSIONS B. GENERAL AGENDA FOR SETTLEMENT SESSIONS 1. Present the parties' concerns and constraints 2. Gain agreement about the facts of a dispute 3. Draft Principles of Agreement as basis for proposals 4. Devise proposals for resolving conflicts 5. Test potential proposals for likelihood of success 6. Negotiate commitments to be made by each party in a settlement agreement 7. Public Comment C. SESSIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A THIRD PARTY (FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR) 1. If initial session(s) held without a facilitator or mediator are unsuccessful, the CCTA shall direct that a third parry professional shall assist at subsequent sessions. D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in the Implementation Documents (pp. DM 2 to DM4) may be useful in structuring settlement sessions coudinO Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 8 E. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS 1. Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program The language of Measure C and the Implementation Documents published by the CCTA will be the primary references for defining local obligations. The Implementation Documents define requirements for local participation in the Growth Management Program and they should be used in the conflict resolution process. 2. Category I disputes relating to the Congestion Management Program Reference should be made to the Congestion Management Program document itself, the Guide to Local Compliance with the Growth Management Program, the forthcoming Deficiency Plan Guidelines, and the State Congestion Management Program requirements. 3. Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a determination of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. F. PARTICIPATION 1. All parties to the dispute will participate. Other parties representing private or public organizations may participate if all parties to the dispute agree to their participation. 2. The parties' participants in the settlement sessions shall be limited to consultants, attorneys, staff or officials of parties to the dispute. Participants will be responsible for continual communication with other representatives of their organization who are not directly participating, and for helping to ratify settlement agreements. 3. The CCTA will be a participant in all Category 1 settlement sessions. G. PRODUCT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The parties can determine the form of the settlement agreement, which may be a Memorandum of Understanding, resolution or formal agreement. Whatever the form, all settlement agreements must be signed by all directly involved parties. 2. For Category 1 disputes, the Settlement Agreement will indicate what actions are necessary in order for the locality to be determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management and/or Congestion Management Program. The CCTA's corresponding responsibility will be to make a finding of conformance if the Agreement is implemented. The Settlement ,Agreement will specify an implementation schedule if relevant. 3. For.Category 2 disputes, if the CCTA is not a participant in the Settlement Meetings, the Settlement Agreement will establish responsibility for submittal of a copy of the Settlement Report to OCTA. a. CCTA will recognize receipt of the Settlement Agreement by agendizing it for discussion at a public meeting woudi=3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 9 b. If CCTA has comments regarding the outcome of the conflict resolution process, CCTA may transmit a comment letter as follow up to its review of the Settlement Agreement 4. Settlement Agreements may address any or all of the issues identified in Measure C as part of the Growth Management Program. or. if the dispute relates to the Congestion Management Program. any or all of the issues addressed in the CMP. H. DESIRED TIME FRAME 1. An estimated time frame for settlement sessions will be established during situation assessment. Settlement sessions will desirably occur over a period of not more than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period. 2. Category 1 disputes CCTA will establish deadlines for compliance determinations for each Category 1 dispute. 3. Category 2 disputes A draft Settlement Agreement would be submitted to jurisdictions/RTPCs for approval at the end of the period IV. INIPLEMEN"TATION AIND MONITORING A. USE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS 1. Settlement Agreements will establish implementation requirements and monitoring procedures B. MONITORING BY PARTIES AND CCTA 1. Category 1 disputes Parties shall report regularly as part of their GMP or CMP checklist submittals what actions have been taken to implement the Settlement Agreement 2. Category 2 disputes Parties may choose to establish a monitoring mechanism as part of the Settlement Agreement C. CCTA ASSESSMENT OF GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATION The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the jurisdiction has demonstrated "good faith" in the ,process by exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict. ' and eole a:oud=3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 10 V. SELECTING AND PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. SELECTING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS 1. CCTA responsibilities and participation a. CCTA will issue an RFQ for Conflict Resolution Services and use the responses to create a list of facilitators and mediators qualified to provide assistance to parties in the dispute resolution process. b. CCTA will participate in determining the kind of assistance required and in selecting a third party professional from the list at the conclusion.of Situation Assessment. 2. Parties' responsibilities and participation a. One representative from each party will participate on a panel which includes a CCTA representative in order to determine the kind of assistance required and to select a professional to assist in conflict resolution. If the panel cannot reach a decision, the Authority will decide, taking the panel's comments into account B. PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES 1. Where the CCTA is party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by the CCTA and each of the parties. 2. Where the CCTA is not parry to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by each of the involved parties. 3. Jurisdictions may use 18% funds to pay for conflict resolution services. VI. OTHER TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. Participation in the CCTA conflict resolution.process does not preclude the possibility of seeking judicial remedies or using other conflict resolution techniques rouU=3 Revised April 25, 1995 6. LIST OF ACRONYMS GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APCC - Action Plan Coordinating Committee. Refers to the technical staff person from each RTPC and CCTA staff and consultants. Group meets once a month to go over issues affecting Action Plan development. BAAQMD - Bay Asea Air Quality Mlanagemeat District. BAAQMD refers to the agency charged with implementation of the Clean Air Act including the establishment and implementation of TRO (Trip Reduction Ordinances). Basic Routes. All local roads not designated as Routes of Regional.Significance. Level of Service standards apply to Alli signalized intersections on Basic Routes. CBD. Central business district, as defined in Appendix A. CCTA. Contra Costa Transportation Authority, also "Authority." CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act. CIP. Capital Improvement Program. CNIA - Congestion Management Agency. The agency designated for a given geographic area, usually a county, to develop and manage the Congestion Management Program (see below). DEIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. GhW. Growth Management Element. Gaal. Statement describing in general terms a condition or quality desired by the jurisdiction. Goals may be used as the policy basis for standards and objectives. HOV Lane. ]High occupancy vehicle lane, reserved for business, vanpools and carpools. ISTEA (pronounced ICEIZA) - INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIMCY ACT OF 1991. Also known as "federal reauthorization", a seminal piece of legislation passed by Congress in December 1991 that provides for major restructuring of the highway program. Key components of this Act include greatly increased flexibility in the programming of projects, a level playing field between highway and transit projects with a consistent 80/20 matching ratio, ties to the Federal Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, major earmarks for the Bay Area's New Rail Starts program, with an emphasis on maintenance of the existing system and operation improvements (MTC 1/23192 Handouts from ISTEA Conference). IAS. Traffic Level of Service. Level of Service standards, comparing traffic volumes with intersection capacity, and the primary measure of effectiveness used for Basic Routes. Objective. Statement representing a level or quality of performance that the jurisdiction seeks to attain through its programs and policies. PGA - Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee. A subcommittee of the Authority dealing with growth management and other planning issues. The PGA has established a growth Management Task Force (GMTF) comprised of Advisory Committee members, city managers, city and county planners and technical staff from the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). Planning Area Land area identified within a jurisdiction's General Plan for which the jurisdiction has designated land uses. Route of Regional Significance. Road designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, consistent with procedures described in the Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance. These roads are subject to objectives and programs in adopted Action Plans. Also referred to as "Regional Routes." RTPC. Regional Transportation Planning Committee. The four Regional Transportation Planning Committees in Contra Costa County are: TRANSPAC (Central County), TRANSPLAN (East County), WCCTAC (West County) and SWAT (Southwest County). Also referred to as "Regional Committees." Special District. An agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of government or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. Does not include State, City, County government or school districts. Sphere of Influence. The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency or government as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Standard. Statement representing a commitment by the jurisdiction to attain a specified level or quality of performance through its programs and policies. STIP. State Transportation Improvement Program. 2 TCC. Technical Coordination Committee. The TCC is comprised of members of the City and County Engineers, city and transportation planners, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. TRANSPAC designates members of its TAC (1 city planner, 1 city engineer and 1 transportation planner) to.attend TCC meetings. WAC. Transportation Partnership Advisory Committee. TPAC is a citizens' advisory committee comprise of 25 organizations representing countywide and specialized geographic groups including one citizen representatives from each of the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees. TSO - TrW is Service OWecd ve. A flexible, quantifiable measure of transportation facility performance, such as vehicle occupancy or delay. Used in the action plans to establish objectives for achievement. Traffic Analysis Zone. Geographic area delineated for the purpose of organizing land use or travel data to be used in computer modelling of traffic patterns: Also referred to as "TAZs." Trip assignment.. Predicting of travel routes. Traffic between specified origins and destinations is assigned to a specific travel route. Trip &tribution. Projection of destinations for trips originating in a TAZ. Trip generation. The number of trips associated with a specific type and density of land use, usually estimated based on number of dwelling units, gross square feet of commercial space, or other appropriate independent variable. TSNI/TDM. Transportation Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management. Programs to increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce demand for road capacity during the peak hour and otherwise affect travel behavior to minimize the need for capacity-increasing capital projects. aA=redWI\glo• ry.mre 3 Compliance Checklist Issues The Measure C growth management program requires each local jurisdiction, in order to receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds, to act on all eight elements of the plan. Most of the elements are very explicit requiring the adoption or implementation of certain programs. Only one requires participation in the regional transportation planning process. The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) represents the product of the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning effort; yet it is only one of the eight elements of the Growth Management Program. A. Since the Compliance Checklist is intended to be a self certifying document, will the checklist, especially questions on cooperation in regional transportation planning and general plan amendment review processes, be modified so that each local jurisdiction can easily gage its compliance with the program and staff of the Authority can review and approve the checklist without having to interpret the feeling of the majority of the Authority Board of Commissioners? A case in point is how will the Authority consider compliance when a proposed cross jurisdictional mitigation measure is not accepted by the host jurisdiction? Will one jurisdiction be able to hold another' s return to source funds hostage as a result of a dispute? B. Since the issue at hand is the CCTP, the discussion seems to be centered around regional routes and general plan amendments. Should the Authority reaffirm its position that compliance with the Growth Management Program requires complying equally with all eight elements of Measure C Ordinance and identify the standards that will be used to measure compliance? Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues The CCTP includes a set of Visions, Goals and Objectives and also ties the Plan to the Growth Management Program of Measure C. A. How would this plan promote or address the opportunity for job and housing balance especially in the job centers at the Interstate 580/680 cross roads and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa County? B. How would the plan address the difference between the Transplan Action Plan and the proposed TVTC action plan regarding the Vasco Road corridor? The Transplan Action Plan calls for widening of Vasco Road while the proposed TVTC action plan calls for no improvement except for transit services on this corridor. C. How does the Plan affect the economic vitality of Contra Costa County? Will it restrict new industries? Will it lengthen or retard the effort to streamline the permit application process? Will it be responsive to other goals developed by the County and its cities for sustained economic viability? 4• ill rf I f �� f r - �/f\Iv/Tf ", \, � � � •1'111 •r � � Zvi `. i .$ it 7�I�j'�• ,�� �: � �, - ��' f i/ �- � .oOV00 • r. t . 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 II 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 increased 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, multi jurisdictional 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 count, 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 (the„Counrywi flan- h). This first volume contains the goals, traffic service objectives (TSOs) and actions that the ECS C:\WPTXT'\193\CCTP\CCTP2\VOLI-I.DOC I-1 April 25, 1995 Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption t t'r6t has established for addressing transportation and land use issues in Contra Costa County, both countywide and within the various subareas of the county. The second volume ........................................ describes the land use and traffic forecasts used to develop the GGTP :Ctrtve; lar, the regional transportation system and the Action Plans upon whose direction and policies the C- iCountyide Plan builds. The Cbuntywcde Plan also contatnsxeerpts from thectttri ........ .. .... ... ....... ..... R that have been tne�rp©rated Into the Plan itself' 1.1 Purpose of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan The overall goal of the Growth Management Program established by Measure 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 C-�R Cuntyvde Plan is one part of this growth management program. In addition to the GGT-P i.... yide-066. the � -A thorny 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 improvements in the county tli'roug I;easr < . Under the Growth Management Program, each local government must comply with €rve-six 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 support it; ► Participate in cooperative planning with other jurisdictions in the county; 1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, The Revised Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. Adopted August 3, 1988. Page 9. C:IWPTXT1143kCCTP\CCTP?\VOLI.1.DOC 1-2 April 25, 1995 SOWN( 21 Napa I SACRA ENTO •� ti C� Fairlwd n / , NAPA \ � ti SON A 1 ?+ S- SOLANO derma ............... ..: :a.:a N ;:::.;.....::: PI hlaAinez a ntioch ° Concord PW .. o tmond C O N T R A C O S T A Brentwood 1 . , .. Who Waktut Geek edtatayene l SAN Berkeley Z u o f 7 ° J O A Q U I N San tt Pi01� �.i"�I Francisco .....:...>;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:>:::: Son tornon OT n Castro VVaGe °Dahlin $oulhSan . : >:>»::>< Livermore 4' NaywrdFrancso ... .......; I t� I O �e ::: oCOYWWI / eo � M Fremont l /. anCalos O Redwo ty \, S A N "STANISLAUS M A T E D Palo Wtyp l MLlptos S A N TA" C L A R A WWI*view l °es sew Regional Setting Figure I A BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners April 1995 Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption ► 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 ► Address 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 GGTA 4t ority, 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 subarea of the county and for the designated Regional Routes within those subareas. (The Regional Routes are shown in Figure 1.2.) The Action Plans are were prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees(RTPCs) in the county. The RTPCs are made up of elected and appointed representatives from each jurisdiction within the subarea, both city and county. ff'c als: fi`:..6` transit agenctes also nerve an fhe Ti T'13Cs, ertY►er as,Tnt;ng or ex-offW rnem ers Each RTPC is assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee made up of planning and traffic engineering staff from 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 are shown on Figure 1.2.) Each RTPC wi-N-g overseen one Action Plan except for SWAT, which """i.4ta5 overseen two. The Lamorinda cities together with Contra Costa County h'av:e .; prepared the State Route 24/San Pablo Dam Road Action Plan. These jur�sdcttons Beed to prepare Action Pians for Gatntno Pablo and Pleasant H11 Road: two raadwayf that the utltoraty recently designated as Reb�gnal lZoutes 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, Livermore, and Alameda County as well as the Contra Costa jurisdictions, will prepare the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan. C:\\V"=193XCCrP\CCrP2\voL1-I.DOC 1-4 April 25, 1995 SAM 101.QUIN Cou)vtl, Nh y U crj 60 utopp' .c U ti C>. a sm Wsm : U a J _ tk :?::J<:o::: • A¢0#SNiJc d: � •a� ........... l F ........:...... ............. p F F a w F N :;'t=jf;:' ?:�'tiJh.;:.':.COOOS .kG9ffC!.E1 .,h �� � `•...+� :::::::::....::...... .::.:::•:V::�:%i::iii; '. kw� .......:.... :. ,�•8 :::i>::: :::;,:;.. u u O' AIA .............:: r. �p xa ':::2 S%'•>: $ ���� �� ,,.._.-' ' iii t %CL ii r:ii:i::•:; N 3 r a e § u s C? I Ca B :ii;��at?;' k22�!?iiii Sji% • :�;;:�;;::�>:<;o>:.::::;>:.::a>::';:::�:::::r:ii::;.:;::::o> 6 O op���rQ:::isisi=i'-i�sii:�i$;:;:;i:;:; :iiS:�i::i C ...:.r.::::::;i::>:c:::':n:�::r:^.V 'c: :>� r:;::�i:;•>;'ix;x:C.;. :b:`;'i.`:>:i;;i::;:;;%x•::::;;;:•;:a;i:. ZE"' rzkas?i>'i'i'i:ii [>t>2J?iiii ici ?S Q r CG Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption The Action Plans contain long-range assumptions about future land use within the subarea 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. The GGT-1zC�utuyvde Plan builds on the analysis and recommendations of the Action Plans. The process for developing the Action Plans is summarized in the ��Auihorty's Growth Management Implementation Documents. The GCT-IzCo nty,. de,;Plar is the long-range transportation planning document prepared and adopted by the SAA'-0.r.ty. It is intended to provide the overall direction in Gentfa CostaCount), `e" Arid a coordinated approach te-for achieving and maintaining a balanced and functional transportation system within the county as-ivel}-as-vhil'e strengthened-i g links between land use decisions and transportation. It also iRte»ded-te knits together the Action Plans. The GGT—P un de ltn provides a forum for the �l .::..........-.......................... T-r-anspenation Planning Committees RTPCs) to address issues of mutual concern and to achieves their goals and that est.,,.'ahe t'rt ugb a consistent countywide approach. After its completion, the GGTA Autbortty could use the CC-:FP Countywide Plan 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 countywide transportation plans to contain (but does not limit them to): 1) recommendations for major improvements to major arterials, the State highway system and the public transit facilities; 2) consideration of transportation system management alternatives designed to 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 Growth;lvlanagement Program The Countyvq e Plan and:tht: Action Plans it rs based<;on are only one part of the: Growth Management Program esta -is... by:Measure C The Growth Management Program also;:lncludes C:\wwrxnirrs\CC`rP\CCTr_vou•i.00C I-6 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction Proposal for Adoption <: :<: <t :: . ::;;growth Maria emenE Elerrients:within;each loaf General Plan that establish ..:.... level cif-5ery}ce standards for Basic Routes, performance measures for public ...... facilxt€es and:servtces, and:actionsInc ludangI X,a five-year capital improvement program #o achieve those standards; . y Review of projects:and General,Plan amendments io:ensuxe that traffic impacts are addressed in a;comprr'henstve, "proactsve" gray, A eonfli. t resofutton process io Help local �urisdicttons work together to resolve the dtfieuJtand tnpOrtant Issues that arise ttt.lmplemenLng the Growth Management Program; " ::::A Trans or,fat>ow. and Mana gemenf Ordinance, which each uxisctiction .P:.. .:....:; .:...::..g::......:..:.:.:......:::::::.:.:::.::.:.:. : .1.:.:....:::.:::::;. . must adopt, that enct�urages alternatives tQ the single-occupant vel�tcte end .. ....... ........ . .........:. :::>: :: : ;::>;:;:; ::::A:eom uterzed travel demand model to be iced in evaluati3"':ahe ill] acts i)f P:::::.:::.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::.:.:.::::::::::.::.::.::::.:.:.:..:_ :..:::::X..,:::::::::.....X:.:: ::. P..:.:::::::::: .:.. local projects, General Plan Amendments and the Authority s programs and plains; ocat �ur�sd�ehons are respans;be for many of thesec�mponenisf the Growth Management Program They must Include a Growth Management Element in their General Plans, review general plan amendments and large development proaects to.mmimtze their impacts on the re,* inatra *on nsportation a system, ariadopt a TDM ordinandeoribther: ;3iethod of encouraging travel by other means than the Bangle-occupant .9. Ttie AutboriLy monitors:c4nfo.rTmance.with:these requirements through the annual tAmptiance checklists ....... ........ . _. _.... ..:..: ........... .. .. __ _ . prepared by each loeal �unsdictiari The Authority is responsible for:maintaining the travel demand .modeh iipporting the conflict resolution process`and updating;the Countywide Plan The Authtnty's i plemenratt ....n Docw tents :espec rally the,lmpler ienzat on Cuide,outline: e poltctes and .... _..... . ._... . . ....... . ..:..:_: procedures flf file Growth Management Pr©gram 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 +»-ul`en developing the CMP legislation, there is considerable overlap between the two programs. The GGTA t arity also serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa County with the responsibility for preparing and implementing the county's CMP. C:\WPTMI93\CLIP\CCTP2\VOLt-1.DOC 1-7 April 35, 1995 Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Both programs 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 -•��h pr-egFafafor local jurisdictions to receive funds for transportation improvements through these programs. There are differences between the Growth Management Program and the CMP requirements as well. The Growth Management Program allows.greater flexibility in setting standards for Regional Routes but also establishes standards for local roads and requires performance standards for additional public services such as fire, police, water and sanitary sewer. The Growth Management Program requires greater consideration of the balance between jobs and housing within each community. ' The CM. is ltiiked to the Growth lvlanagement Program in se�+eral uva s 'fhe _ ..... .. CMP, for example, serves as a vehtt ie for updating and refintng the Authorttyzs model T. vxdlnanee Stmtlarly, Defic tency Plazis developed to xesponse to violations of CMP level-oi'- serrvtce standards may draw on;the re commendattvns contacted in the Actton PI"' and be used to the Action Plan's perlodtc update M :addltion� the newly retlured perfgrmance measures rn the CMP are be,ng drawn from the trafttc service ob�ecttves In the Accton Plans: Air Quality Planning. Both federal and State legislation set standards for air quality and require 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 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 Clean Air Plan (CAP) to meet new requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Both 9 e-plans include transportation control measures (TCMs). These TCMs are designed to reduce air pollution caused by automobiles and other transportation facilities. They includes€ef a e,— 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 C:\wPr?Cn193\CCrP\CC F"-\VOLI.1.DOC I-8 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction Proposal for Adoption (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 I8). 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 GGT-P silty r e lu t will review and incorporate, as appropriate, those ...:.............. TCMs that are not already part of the Growth Management Program requirements. 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 OSTEA). The RTP provides the overall, long-range direction for the transportation ........................................ system in the Bay Area just as the CC-T- Cauntytide Pldn. 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. C:\V, rx71193%CCrP%CCTP]wOLI-LDOC I-9 April 25, 1995 Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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 GGT-P untywcde Plan 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 €e t es-a analysis 4-Iooks.4f 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 State Route 4 gap closure project in West County, the State Route 242 widening and the State Route 4 widening between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue in East County. 1.3 Contents of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan The CC County+;gide Plan is organized into two volumes of which this volume is the first. The first volume contains the goals and traffic service objectives (ISOs) — and the actions and projects proposed to implement those goals and TSOs. The second volume contains background information and analysis as well as a summary of the policies and proposed actions of the Action Plans upon which the GCTP-:Countj�3vt'de Plan builds. Volume One has €ear-seven sections including this introduction. The second section of the -CfluntvKde Plan. outlines the goals, TSOs and actions that have regional or countywide significance. Fella +t b Section 3 is-a-discussienes of-the various issue areas that the GCT-P t}nazdP Plan w4l-addresses These rssue areas represent mayor iransportataon corrtdors lsuchcommutes:(such as the East Central commute): For .... . . each issue area addressed, the r T-R-co ywlde Plein describes the issues facing that-issae area, provides a "vt$ton =for tt;e year 2010; lists the TSOs `ef those and outlines the _.....:.:..:_.. : ...:: .... ... proposed improvement projects and other proposed actions that would help achieve the TSOs. ........................................ The T -Count >.vtde.Plait addresses eleven 1.1 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. c:\wrrxrugn\ccrv\ccrr--YvoLi-i.DOC 1-10 April 25, 1995 t. Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction Proposal for Adoption Finally, •,,� ��TD �ectt�n�F Qf the Phut addre§ses end arid .... .... m:::a .. ni eMI. issues, tncludJag zesponsi.dides of the.Authortiy, the RTl'Cs, local .............. Junsdzct,QnS and Qther agencies SeCtiOn S outlines future actions that �Auth©rtty, .. RTPCs, local jurisdictions and regional agencies will investigate for inclusion in updates of the Brut wtrie Plan. seeuotE 6 summarizes the nanous Action Plans that were used to ()MUM, the Coantywia'e Plan The final se��tion;ltsts the Routes of regional Significance: —1.4 Progress To DaW dFaft Aetion A-ans- a-ya-ilable as off Seeptembef: 1994. This infematien ineludes beth data on b Volume One E)f the GGTP df:a%,s ffem the b > eentains the b based, t" Ci\WPTX\193\CCrP\CCTP^_\VOL1-1.DOC 1-1 1 April 25, 1995 Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption C:\wrrxn1gs\CCre+CCrrawou-1.DOC 1-12 April 25, 1995 2 COUNTYWIDE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS $excuse ........Cha2 liar been extenstveiy rewritten, its not x�sented >n redltne str►keout format as are most other chapters to tfie Proposal for Adoptton Countywide Plan 2.1 Countywide Goals Building on the goals expressed in the Measure C legislation and responding to the comments received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, the Authority has developed the following overall goals for the Countywide Plan: ► 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 Counrywide Plan and the actions designed to meet those TSOs. These goals outline the overall aims of the Counrywide Plan. To measure how well these goals are being met, countywide objectives will be used to measure how well the goals of the Countywide Plan are being achieved. The objectives will permit the C:\wPrxTn193\CCTP\CCTP:\VOLT-2.DOC 1-13 April 25, 1995 1 Goals Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Authority to measure quantitatively whether the countywide goals have been or are being achieved. The objectives are followed by actions that would help achieve the goals. The objectives and actions are drawn from the Action Plans and existing Authority policies and programs. (The source of the objectives and actions is enclosed in brackets.) 2.2 Countywide Objectives Chapter 3 lists proposed objectives and actions for each issue area within Contra Costa County. These are incorporated into the Countywide Plan to facilitate achievement of the goals. The traffic service objectives (TSOs) for particular roadways rely on measurable targets. These TSOs include hours of congestion along freeway segments and the transit or HOV share of trips as well as more traditional level-of-service measures. The Authority has built on the recommendations of the Action Plans — as well as existing Authority programs — to develop countywide objectives for the Counrywide Plan. Figure 2.1 illustrates some of the TSOs for Regional Routes contained within the various Action Plans. In future updates of the Counrywide Plan, the Authority will need to measure whether the goals of the Counrywide Plan are being met countywide as well as in each corridor. The Authority will use its computerized travel forecasting model for measuring achievement of the goals. The following objectives will be used: ► Reduce the rate of growth of miles travelled and hours travelled by vehicles on the county's roadways to manage congestion, ► Maintain average speeds on the county's roadways (measured by type of roadway) to enhance mobility, ► Increase average vehicle occupancy during peak commute hours to encourage alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, ► Increase the share of trips made during peak commute hours in carpools and using transit to encourage alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and ► Increase overall BART and transit ridership again to encourage alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. C:1WP'rXTU93NCC VPCCrP2woL1-2.DOC I-14 April 25, 1995 r / :� .. ........................ x Cd 0 i. .............. 2 6 \ O= 6, , C C- .J r •> 3 1 L g: s � ,�`� /: 1—-� L X11 J�; ✓`��c r 1„! 4 E v s.�-,c•---•- -� �.\----------- fir - •--;!J C r / oc //..% j P ! 1A , T.4 ��' ,-•.:'mac • V ` , 2 c ..... •u • j H,/'rte - OI kIM LU 9 C x X IAr wo _ _ M K... .' . 70 LU /i C, O ' \ { / �,_ per �\ \ - •°� Y ` Z w f. Qf f a: f.. tx- 14 `'' 10 0 t _ O m fLa Goals Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Objectives for two other goals will be measured qualitatively. For improving safety, the Authority will rely on the Action Plans to identify specific safety concerns and projects that would address those concerns. For coordinating land use and transportation planning, the Authority will participate in Action Plans updates to work with RTPCs to ensure . that land use plans are incorporated into the Action Plans and that local General Plan Amendments and project review considers impacts on the regional transportation system. 2.3 Countywide Actions Chapter 3 outlines specific actions that would be undertaken within each issue area to meet the objectives of both the Countywide Plan and the Action Plans. Some actions, however, will be undertaken throughout the county, whether to implement existing regional requirements (such as the BAAQMD AVR/VER requirements) and Authority programs or to put into effect new actions identified as part of the Countywide Plan. The following countywide actions have been identified as the Authority's on-going responsibilities. EXISTING AUTHORITY 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. P. Continue working with local jurisdictions to implement the Authority's Travel Demand Management Policy requirements and to update and improve the Authority'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. ► Maintain and update periodically the ,Authority's travel demand model to provide local jurisdictions and RTPCs with a tool for assessing the impacts of C:IV,W)MI931CCfP1CC F_'1VOLI•^.DOC 1-16 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Goals Proposal for Adoption proposed new developments and general plan amendments, and incorporates future updates for Action Plans. ► Maintain and update, as necessary, the Authority'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. ► Work with local jurisdictions and RTPCs to ensure that CEQA review of transportation programs and projects and land use or General Plan changes is coordinated with affected jurisdictions within the county. ► Rely on TCC peer review of Measure C projects to ensure that projects incorporate design features that would improve or enhance safety on the county's roadways. ► Continue to participate in the Bay Area Partnership to ensure that actions and transportation improvements within Contra Costa County are coordinated with other counties and the region and that Contra Costa's concerns and programs are incorporated into or reflected in regional programs. 2.4 Programmed and Track 1 Projects One of the Authority's important roles is the provision or disbursement of funds for transportation improvements and programs throughout Contra Costa County. As the county's CMA, the Authority is an integral member of the Bay Area Partnership. Through its work on the Partnership, the Authority will work to see that the interests of Contra Costa's jurisdictions and citizens are carried forward into regional plans and programs. The tables of projects contained in Chapter 3 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 (that is, Candidate Track 2 projects). 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 is exploring opportunities for new revenue sources to fund some of these Candidate C:\wPTXT\193\CCrP\CCrP^\VOLTQ.DOC 1-17 April 25, 1995 Goals Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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. C:NWPTXT'\193\CCTPICCPP2wou^.DOC I-1F April 25, 1995 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Volume One: Goals, Objectives and Actions The preparation of this report has been financed through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the 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 Draft Plan are subject to change following review and comment COMMISSIONERS: by affected jurisdictions, the Regional Transportation Planning Joel Keller Committees, and other agencies, and approval by the Authority. Chair Bobbie Landers Vice Chair Gayle Bishop Taylor Davis Millie Greenberg Cathie Kosel W.D. 'Bill'Landis April 26, 1995 Julie Pierce Tom Torlakson Darrel'Jay"Tucker Hermann Welm Robert K.McCleary Executive Director DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUNEViARY Over the last 50 years, Contra Costa County has been one of the fastest- growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. pepoiation ef !00,000 in 040 te ever- 800,0N residents in 1990, an eight fold iner-ease. evy € < 94Q< >+ ia< vsra ala about 14,000 new residents .;;.:::::::..::::::::.....:::::..::...:::::::........ eveFy year in . In the Bay Area, only Santa Clara County, the home of "Silicon Valley", has grown faster and only Santa Clara and Alameda Counties have added more people. Figure S-1 shows this growth in population in both Contra Costa and the Bay Area since 1940. With these new residents have come new homes and jobs followed by shopping centers, schools and parks, freeways and transit . . . and traffic. In 1940, Contra Costa County had 100,000 residents and no freeways, no Richmond-San Rafael or Benicia Martinez Bridge, only one Carquinez Bridge span, and no BART. Today, it has eight times the population and, despite the new freeways, bridges, transit and four-lane arterials that have replaced the earlier county roads, traffic congestion continues to worsen. And as the county continues to grow, people will drive more at slower speeds. The number of households in the county is expected to grow 32 percent between 1990 and 2010. The total number of miles that vehicles will travel during the peak hour, however, is expected to grow 47 percent while the total hours travelled will grow 81 percent. Average speeds are expected to drop almost 20 percent by 2010. These changes will place even greater demands on our roads and transit systems. Contra Costa County will continue to grow with the rest of California. The Association of Bay Area Governments forecasts that the county will add over 300,000 new residents (a 37 percent increase) and 125,000 new jobs (a 41 percent increase) between 1990 and 2010. These new residents and jobs will add to the already significant levels of congestion on the county's transportation system. The greatest deficiencies are anticipated in the East County and Tri-Valley areas. To serve the growing population in the Bay Area, local, State and federal governments added substantial new transportation capacity in the 25 years immediately following World War 11. Older arterials like San Pablo Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard were replaced by I-80 and I-680, respectively. The ferry from Martinez to Benicia was w:\xeweX.cs. i March 15, 1995 Executive Summary (revised) Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Figure S-I HISTORIC POPULATION GROWTH,Contra Costa County and Bay Area Contra Costs County San Francisco Bay Arca 800,000 • 8,000,000 • 600.000 / 6,000,000 • 400,000 • 4,000,000 / 200,000 2,000.000 • • 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Source:Association of Bay Area Gov=ments,Projections 94 replaced by a new Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Contra Costa County joined with San Francisco and Alameda Counties to begin building the BART system, which now serves Central County and Lamorinda and the southern parts of West County. Local and private efforts led to the construction of thousands of miles of local streets and other transportation facilities. In the last 20 years, however, federal and State funding for transportation has stagnated while demand continues to grow. Although total federal expenditures for transportation remained steady during the 1980's (measured in constant(1981) dollars). By the middle of that decade, some estimates found that the State of California was underfunding highway improvements — both roadway maintenance and capital projects — by at least $800 million per year and underfunding transit an additional $300 million. After 1975, State and federal policy has dictated that virtually all of the major new highway facilities were improvements to the Interstate Highway system. The I-680 HOV lanes sout3 ioi I&e t ${1fSR 24<�iitcbae (approximately $60 million), the I-680/SR 24 interchange ($300 million), the "John T. Knox"/1-580 freeway in West County ($300 million), and the I-80 HOV lanes ($300 million) currently under construction reflect this trend. Anticipated funding for new facilities available between now and approximately 2010 pales in comparison to the demand for new facilities. The recent completion of I-580 in West County and the expansion of BART have meant that Contra Costa County will receive four to five times its "fair share" between 1987 and 1999. A:NEWEXEM. ii March 15, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary (revised) Regional agencies estimate that these.projects have left only $200 million available for new projects over the next 20 years. The cost for new facilities to meet growing demand would total $3 billion, however, even without the East County Corridor project sought by East Contra Costa County. The Measure C Growth Management Program Measure C, approved by Contra Costa's voters in 1988, responded to this growing traffic congestion and dwindling s#`r is lig funding. Measure C put in place a half- .......:.........::... cent sales tax to help fund transportation improvements within Contra Costa County. The passage of the sales tax enabled several additional transportation improvements. The principal investments have included the extension of BART to Bay Point/Pittsburg (approximately $500 million), the expansion of State Route 4 to East County ($60 million), and the construction of the Richmond Parkway $200 million). <> asuareiai _af Because voters recognized the link between new development and increased traffic, Measure C also requires growth management and cooperative planning. Measure C's Growth Management Program 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. The Countywide Plan, when adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, will serve as the Authority's long-range transportation planning document. It outlines goals for the Authority, traffic service and other objectives, programs and projects to achieve those objectives, direction for implementing the Plan, and future actions to address in updates to the Plan. The Coumywide Plan is only one part of the Growth Management Program, however. To achieve the cooperative process and growth management objectives set out in Measure C, the Authority has required local jurisdictions to develop and adopt: I. A Growth Management Element that contains: • The Traffic Level-of-Service Standards for Basic Routes, keyed to surrounding land uses, that were established in Measure C, and • Performance Standards for various public facilities and services, including fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water supply and flood control, that reflect local conditions; P. A rive-year capital improvement program to meet or maintain the traffic service and performance standards of the Growth Management Element; A:%NEWEXE.c3. iii Mamh 15, 1995 Executive Summary (revised) Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan ► A Transportation Systems Management Ordinance (or alternative programs) that promotes carpools, vanpools, and park-and-ride lots; and ► An implementation program that addresses housing options and job opportunities. Measure C also requires local jurisdictions to work together to manage and reduce the impacts of new development. One of the key ways of managing these impacts is through the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Each Action Plan, building on the land uses established in local General Plans and ABAG forecasts, sets Traffic Service Objectives and actions to achieve those objectives for each Regional Route. (The Regional Routes are shown in Figure S-2.) In addition, each Action Plan establishes a process for the review of environmental documents and General Plan amendments. The Action Plans represent jurisdictionally initiated plans for managing traffic impacts through regional cooperation. The Countywide Plan builds on and knits together the Action Plans. Five Action Plans have been prepared by Regional Transportation Planning Committees in western, central, eastern, Lamorinda and Tri-Valley portions of the county. The Authority has spent $1.2 million to develop these Action Plans. Overall Vision of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposed for discussion at May 3, 1995 PGA meeting Traffic forecasts in the Countywide Plan clearly indicate that there will be continued growth in population, traffic, and congestion over the next 20 years. The Plan articulates a fundamental problem with the Contra Costa transportation system — that traffic generated by new development in the Bay Area Region is expected to further overtax the roadway system by the year 2010, and that transit usage is not expected to dramatically increase, despite ever increasing levels of roadway congestion. It is clear that, within the financial constraints of the Plan, it will not be possible to construct the facilities needed even to maintain, much less improve the level of mobility.experienced today. In response to this inability to meet traffic demands created by use of the automobile, the overall vision for Contra Costa is strongly focused on providing alternatives to the Single Occupant Vehicle commute mode, and to encouragement of alternative commute modes such as carpools, vanpools, bus, and transit. This will be accomplished through a program of HOV lane construction, transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, TDM, and improved jobs/housing balance. AANE"WI XEC3. iv March 15, 1995 "M'OAQVIM COUMt2. ~ � � C.> bo ......;. C � .... . Cn cn CA %E o 60cfsa • a„ Q .:;:.:. . ..... ix ...:..... z a ................::. B -$ .. a s t a t cn ........:...... ............... a .:.:..:.::::: ...... ........... ......:.::. ................... ............. .... ...............::.: ... N�Ai �M.-•- y Q U u Cd ON ............. ... ......... . �^a .... .......... • a°d ,3 rr `` _._........... .V a�c�•c•.V .:::::..:::................... 1X ............ 3 ::-;:.;:-;..... :................... ............. E a . .. z we $ ........ z 9 e a a ............. ............ ............. v a 7 cc.................... 8 O m ot ��' '�i:�:�:fi::�i:�ii:;�:K':%:::;:�:;c;:;•>:;�iii:;�i: � �+ :.::::.:..:.::::: :: ...is... >i:: ;:>:»:<>">::: C .J Executive Summary (revised) Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan The overall vision for Contra Costa is embodied in the following three basic tenets which were developed for the Central County Action Plan, and are paraphrased below in the context of the Countywide Plan. The tenets emphasize efficient use of freeways for interregional travel and travel between subareas, effective use of arterial streets for travel within subareas, and a commitment to the provision of transit services: a) A commitment to improve freeway corridors for through traffic. To the extent possible, inter-subarea traffic should use the freeway and transit network, rather than local streets and arterials. Freeways system improvements should include, but are not limited to, the development of HOV lanes, where possible, and other projects to support the operation of an HOV system connecting the subareas of the county. b) A commitment to establish traffic management and signal synchronization plans within Contra Costa to manage intra-subarea traffic flow. This management plan is necessary to ensure that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the storage capacity (reservoir) for that traffic; and c) Support for viable transit services to create an efficient/effective transit network to alleviate demand on the road network. Support for transit includes encouraging the use of transit and carpools through the development of new park-and-ride lots countywide, and the expansion of bus service to BART stations. The vision looks to land use policies that would concentrate new development around transit corridors and encourage other transit-supportive development near BART stations. This vision is reflected in the eight goals of the Plan: 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 traffic service objectives recommended in the Plan and the actions designed to meet those traffic service objectives. AANEwEXE 3. vi March 15, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary (revised) Implementing the Vision of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan To achieve this vision, the Countywide Plan contains a number of actions and projects — and traffic service objectives to measure how effectively these actions and projects are working. Some of these traffic service objectives and actions will be carried out throughout the county. Others will be1ocused on eleven "issue areas." (These issue areas are shown in Figure S-3 on the following page.) The countywide objectives and actions, like the traffic service objectives and actions for the issue areas, are being drawn primarily from'the Action Plans. The objectives will establish measurable targets for ensuring mobility, encouraging alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle, linking land use and transportation planning, and managing congestion. Besides existing Authority programs and specific capital improvements, the Countywide Plan outlines other actions to implement these objectives, including: Sappenilig 319 rxtarri n ore a i g transit eper-ater- in pr-eviding new services rfiira«>'tiu'°"ot> ct<icFasd: ansiitveius • Working with local jurisdictions to develop policies that support transit and high occupancy vehicle use, • Studying potential new programs such as signal synchronization and a "seaeesscirttreerisvE" high occupancy vehicle system, and .::.... .. .:.:.:::....:.:: Working with employers to make TDM programs even more effective. For each of the eleven corridors, the Plan outlines the basic supply, demand and operational issues affecting the corridor, the vision for the corridor, and a summary of projects, traffic service objectives and actions. The projects outlined are divided into four categories: under construction, programmed in the 1994-2001 State Transportation Improvement Program cycle, listed in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's recently- adopted 1994 Regional Transportation Plan as a Track 1 project , or potentially included in MTC's longer-range program of projects and actions. (Such "Track 2" projects are currently without identified funding. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, however, is investigating a program for additional revenues to finance some of these*projects.) The programmed and Track 1 projects in the Plan include a wide variety of transportation improvements: ► Major new roadways such as the completion of the Richmond Parkway, No. New HOV lanes along I-80, I-680, SR 4 and possibly SR 242, IN. Safety improvements on Route 4 West near Hercules, AANfi1WE MC3. vii March 15, 1995 Cc ,G :a s'f~ ._ .... i', ... a E? € ,. 60 — \, Z i a ',L t• `:� - :� •--moi"" -r �: ............. / 1 m fir I not- Oki MYS" , "`''� n �./ t"/� '.�/�`',i. -y Q✓"ice +, .y# 'I�-���i� '' � '.\ l a w vi t r 3 T� s. *J .......... ,\ T.f , ` � :/;"'r gip• / Q� ,''` Qs� �� :`` -OUTS_/ Lu MAY 6 At ,+-.�•.,,• �.... �� .' D� OMA :. Q��j , H 010 All , . F€ ,'^�'_y / / ' ti .! .• � ,...1� •. � +^per-�;,,.�3� s / ' v ; ,J\ / P..1 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary (revised) ► Roadway widenings along arterials and freeways including Alhambra Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, San Ramon Valley Road, and SR 4 in East County, ► BART extensions to Bay Point/West Pittsburg and to Dublin/Pleasanton, D. Various interchange and intersection improvements, ► New bridge spans for the Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges, and V. Other transit improvements such as park-and-ride lots in West County, the Martinez Intermodal C-entee P1 and expanded Capitol Corridor service. XX The Track 2 projects expand the transportation improvements proposed in the Plan considerably. Candidate Track 2 projects include significant new projects such as BART extensions to Antioch and to Hercules or Crockett, upgrading Route 4 West to a four-lane freeway near Hercules, light rail service to Hilltop Mall, the widening of SR 4 East from Railroad to Hillcrest, the construction of the Buchanan Bypass.in Pittsburg and the new two- lane SR 4 Bypass in East County (which will be funded through fees on new development), and ferry service from Martinez to San Francisco. Figure S-4 illustrates some of the traffic service objectives in the Plan that were taken from the Action Plans. Figure S-5 shows Track 1 and programmed projects in the county. In addition to these corridor issues, the Plan addresses three other issues. These issues include truck traffic and freight movement, bicycle and pedestrian movement, and serving the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Looking Into The Future Congestion will continue to worsen on Contra Costa's transportation system, however, despite the new and expanded roads, BART extensions, signal synchronization and other projects in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (the Plan). Figure S-5 shows those freeway segments and roadway intersections that were at capacity in 1990 and those that are forecast to be at capacity in 2010, even with all of the projects and actions called for in the Plan. The number of intersections at capacity (level of service F) will almost triple (from 12 intersections to 34) between 1990 and 2010 if these forecasts are correct. The number of freeway segments at capacity will also increase. In 1990, about 60 percent of the approximately 76 freeway segments in Contra Costa County were at capacity in the P.M. peak hour. By 2010, over three-quarters of the freeway segments are expected to be at capacity. AANEWEXEC+. ix March 15, 1995 a! s., E ♦. f 00 xt` 1 r'� t.. ...t [ v : .� W. A. .. V di E . ? t ....... € N i k_ 17-4 Y a o6. s N Lc i !/ \ �° o \� v • M [ CI Z •� a 4 K ° O / �' W U 0 \ M ,� , 2:XE , Al ti. r; \ -0 0 IM I If , i r £ i , OM ��• I a V o IM 'O . � � . `I 1 ....................... . ..�.. � h .. f.._. ...........f...... IL n-M cc v ................O '♦ , 19 .. os _— j --f=------=-- r ai fir —{ =• . f 4:f `:\.- `` .rte,Y, Q ...__ ♦ti.VA 0 . i , .106 C. r W cm of ab ig : g : ,C �p -t p� : y f' � `44• CL iii '�'Z / V V-L-F Executive Summary (revised) Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Unfortunately, assured funding has been identified only for those actions and projects already programmed. Tentative funding between now and the year 2014 exists for projects that are in Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Track 1 of the Regional Transportation Plan, but that funding could be spread out further into the future. This means that many of the most significant actions and projects in the Plan — actions and projects that could have the greatest effect on reducing congestion - may not be put into place. Without these improvements, congestion will very likely be worse than that shown for 2010 in Figure S-5. This additional congestion will lead to longer commutes for workers, increasing frustration for drivers, and higher costs for businesses. While congestion on roadways will make rail transit and carpooling more attractive, funding to expand these facilities and services is limited. These projections show decreased not increased mobility, which could have negative economic repercussions. The Plan identifies a number of issues that future updates could consider, from design standards for development that supports alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle and how best to improve freight movement in the county to setting priorities for project funding. One of the key actions for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, however, will be to look for and help develop new sources of funding for transportation improvements to meet the goals of the Plan. With a balanced approach to funding and efficient improvements, the Plan can become an essential tool in maintaining mobility in Contra'Costa County and the Bay Area. A:%NEVAEXPC3. xii March 15, 1995 77 00 �•�-` _ _ 1990 Congested Locations -� ® Intersection LOS F LOS F - .. q. 27. .� - - 1 l� 2010 Congested Locations ® Intersection LOS F EM LOS F Figure S-6 Executive Summary (revised) Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan w:\x Xlv March 15, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS I 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-10 1.4 Progress To Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11 2 COUNTYWIDE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS . . . . . . . I-13 2.1 Countywide Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13 2.2 Countywide Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14 2.3 Countywide Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16 2.4 Programmed and Track 1 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17 3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE . . I-21 3.1 Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23 3.2 I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30 3.3 West-Central Commute — �} Statetoue 4 and ........:...........::.:... San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-43 3.4 I-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-52 3.5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-59 3.6 I-680 Corridor from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road . I-67 3.7 I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road to 1-580 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-77 3.8 State Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-85 3.9 East-Central Commute — Highway 4 and Other Routes . . . . . . I-94 ................................................... 3.10 East Getinty CofTri Palleyomriiute .....................::.....:..................:,:. ineludin b 3.1asee Read and ByFen Highway . . . . . . . . I-105 3.11 I-580-Altamont Pass Commute I-113 3.12 Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-122 4 IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-127 4.1 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-127 4.2 Responsibilities of Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-132 5 FUTURE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-135 5.1 Update Process I-135 5.2 Remaining Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-136 6 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-139 6.1 Action Plan Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-139 6.2 Action Plan Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-141 7 REGIONAL ROUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-143 xv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — CARQUINEZ BRIDGE . . . . I-26 TABLE 3.1-2 TSOs AND ACTIONS — CARQUINEZ BRIDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28 TABLE 3.2-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-80 CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . I-35 TABLE 3.2-2 TSOs AND ACTIONS — I-80 CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-38 TABLE 3.3-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — WEST-CENTRAL COMMUTE (Highway 4 and San Pablo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-47 TABLE 3.3-2 PROPOSED-TSOs AND ACTIONS — WEST-CENTRAL COMMUTE I-49 TABLE 3.4-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — 1-580 CORRIDOR (JOHN T. KNOX FREEWAY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-55 TABLE 3.4-2 PROPOSED-TSOs AND ACTIONS — I-580/JOHN T. KNOX FREEWAY CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-57 TABLE 3.5-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — BENICIA-MARTINEZ BRIDGH-63 TABLE 3.5-2 PROPOSED-TSOs AND ACTIONS — BENICIA-MARTINEZ BRIDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-65 TABLE 3.6-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear.Road) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-71 TABLE 3.6-2 PROPOSED TSOs AND ACTIONS — 1-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-74 TABLE 3.7-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Rudgear Road to I-580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-80 TABLE 3.7-2 PROPOSED TSOs AND ACTIONS — I-680 Corridor (from Rudgear Road to I-580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-83 TABLE 3.8-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — ROUTE 24 AND THE CALDECOTT TUNNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-88 xvi LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE 3.8-2 PROPOSED-TSOs AND ACTIONS — STATE ROUTE 24 AND THE CALDECOTT TUNNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-90 TABLE 3.9-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST-CENTRAL COMMUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-98 TABLE 3.10-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST COUNTY GORRiDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-107 TABLE 3.10-2 PROPOSED TSOs AND ACTIONS — EAST COUNTY GORRIDOR . I-109 TABLE 3.11-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-580-Altamont Pass Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-115 TABLE 3.11-2 PROPOSED TSOs AND ACTIONS — 1-580-ALTAMONT PASS CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . I-118 TABLE 6-1 ACTION PLAN REVIEW THRESHOLDS . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . I-142 TABLE 7-1 ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1-143 xvii >j LIST.OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 Figure 1.2 Routes of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 Figure 2.1 Traffic Service Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15 Figure 2.2 Programmed and Track 1 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19 Figure 3.1 Transportation Issue Areas of Regional Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22 Fgure 3.1-1 Projects Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27 Figure 3.1-2 Actions — Carquinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29 Figure 3.2-1 Proposed Projects — I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37 Figure 3.2-2 Proposed Actions — I-80 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42 Figure 3.3-1 Proposed Projects — West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-48 Figure 3.3-2 Proposed Actions — West-Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-51 Figure 3.4-1 Proposed Projects — I-580 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-56 Figure 3.4-2 Proposed Actions — I-580 Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-58 Figure 3.5-1 Proposed Projects — Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-64 Figure 3.5-2 Proposed Actions —Benicia-Martinez Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-66 Figure 3.6-1 Proposed Projects — I-680 from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-73 Figure 3.6-2 Proposed Actions — 1-680 from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-76 Figure 3.7-1 Proposed Projects — I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road to I-580 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-82 xviii LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 3.7-2 Proposed Actions — I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road toI-580 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-84 Figure 3.8-1 Proposed Projects — State Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-89 Figure 3.8-2 Proposed Actions — State Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-92 Figure 3.9-1 Proposed Projects — East Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-100 Figure 3.9-2 Proposed Actions — East Central Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-103 Figure 3.10-1 Proposed Projects — East Tri-Valley Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-108 Figure 3.10-2 Proposed Actions — East Tri-Valley Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-111 Figure 3.11-1 Proposed Projects — 1-580 Altamont Pass Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-117 Figure 3.11-2 Proposed Actions — I-580 Altamont Pass Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-120 xix }OAQUIN COUNry M U �r SPT1 r �r a ������� � i-•1 •O � U cn z Q :i - o ::::::.............:...........:.:. aA ....................... .::::::..................: R . o $;.. O i •• +o{',py. 1 Z WImt Rm6wd • s •SSSS O �--� 3 F-'Nim Arc. .� �...,, :.::....:... 1 CC• .. 1111 C> co :i. U :::.:i:::;•:.:• ova t ct t� mm Cf) x •::.::.:•:::.:�::o:::�s:�;:�>:a:::•;::•;.�:::::. �;" } � wpb C 8 � � Y ri'w S ••♦ `"0 �k•NAAi 0 i CC .� d is%1�.,:•:«o::•:s;: .''.rw>k mm/ K:i''.'ryr: • • R. CIS CIE od p .... ... ... 3vJr �1 H` Q. ............ ............:::::. ................. $GE Q • V J f r•. O o� t � p �) s' • qy 4. :'1 N N ......:....... ��.t as � 'ice, ,� W�•/� \ ,1 ........::::... 4' ........::;::.: s { i ............... : ............. t a : ... ............:. �r yIL U J v r/. Q 'f N S S 3 ................ ............ • �I. Sir.gel' ::! .;1. a•: U .s :U r" z .:::. .:.: .... .:.;: ........::::::: . ..::........ t., Q b" i ..:::..... ..........::::::: .. L 7 ':�':' �•� r \ 10 ' m V ,:y.' fpV („) � •i rt� ^,{A�Sd GSLLkFGr F'Y O d m 6 C!1 V 00 w s £i LL 0 e� ::::.:. . :�::iii ii•::� s , • z . [r�, 0 ............. � w ............ ::.:::.::......::.:..: ►r ;;;:;;:<:;>:i:`•:i:::<:ilii;:::�::?'s:z%:;;E;?>�:<:irziii:>�>i: .•' ,... • :..: (' '. 1. ..................................... �::.;:.::.> ;::.>:,'«n;•::::.�<.:.::o:a::�::�:::•;:•::::•::•;:•::•::•;:�::•::.:<�;;:.:;.;:.;;:.;;;;:.;::;::. ;iii :::'+.:::5::::'::::: �.. .. .....:................. C an : x w �•�:'iiii'iiii:C�>::�i'i iiii:;�ii is ii ifiiii::ii iii:::;;2:i 2;::•?:•:. ;•::::::::•:;:>;:�;:::�;:»:;<•s>;•::;•>::;•;>::;;;•:;;:: •;;•::•::.>:;•:::•::�:;c:�>:.s::::. H .'Y 3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ....................................... This chapter of the C–E� Cauni e'; .lan: 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 will describe the existing and ft# o'reeast future problems iere, the r-eeemmend Traffic Service Objectives (ISOs) for each, and the actions — both specific transportation projects and others ae iefis — 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 — fan Tetteue congestion and acc<mmodate addlhonaI tleve On en t' At present, ho ve�rsr, addtng new facil tries is difficult given the limited funds available to make improvements. Improvements can so:n*:: s! create additional problems. Increased capacity ean eneetifag facalrtates increased trip-making; r-es ilting ift t demand F"- fnefe `deil'­�sorbin new capacity overtime, Wl h ct)ngeStlgn eventually ................... _. g .. ... returning. It can also have secondary environmental impacts — noise, air pollution, habitat loss — that make such improvements controversial. The expansion of both roadways and transit presents .1ar difficulties. Changes in the operation of facilities can also help to resolve transportation issues. The plaeement of tell 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 bas-ie tenetfor transportation investments through the year 2000 ant < eyon, C:\Vi rxT\193\CCrP\CC PI-\VOLI.3.DOC _ 1-21 April 25, 1995 _ a` ........ ................... v iy i t i :` ' � i �` ,•orf .-: � .� � _— :; ...j ... 7 C •�V] s E , �t r 1' 0 .......• ,: is�-.jam:' iy ''', � �i ,�t'�,`r............ iY............E....... ... = O �• , it �::. < •••�,,........... \ Q \` , : A, o ! Z i �J r . LM d 1- `_... X9 y MW / Xi CL •\ r-• T� �. li rf Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan- Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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 vi i'cular:ar� truck g 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 eengested hoav.::Iraveile i in the state. The bridge itself is made up of two structures, beth of whieh eafr-y three lanes of tr-a€#` The western span is the older of the stFuefu and Caltrans is investigating replacing it or supplementing it with a new weste P g ( PP g 3 one) The western span cares ti ree lanes of traffic, while the eastern has beep restrped recently co carry four. As with other bridges in the Bay Area, the Carquinez Bfidge has a toll plaza, wh►ch asV.# 4k-e the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, is::located on the eastbound direction of I-80 past the bridge itself. Although the majority of trips from Solano County and east on the 1-80 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 ethff commute trips between San Josd 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 EI Cerrito del Norte station, frequently operates above capacity (standing room only) during peak periods. ISSUE STATEMENT Demand. i o p periods., 1801s:one t�f`the mt?st important:freeway tanks to the region,connectmg the Sacramento area with the northern part$ of the Bay Area and carryutg some of the heaYJest volumes wtthm the region The average daily traffic on 180 across the bridge is about ..:.......:::::.::: 105,000 vehicles While demand does not presently exceed cpac;ty 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 C:\WPrXT\193\CCrP\CCTr'\VOLIJ.DOC I-23 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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. 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. Restr4ping Adding afl rorthb' d. HOV lane will also be considered as part of the bridge project. Operation. In addition to the significant issues of supply and demand, e13e key issue of operations' e€ori the bridge is being disetts k_key.:issue. As with the Benicia- Martinez Bridge, a ;changeri the placement of the toll plaza and the direction of toll ......:.................... collection were'eonstdeied as ways to tmprovs traffic#lows on freeways in Contra Costa County The preltmtnary draft of the West County Acttot Plan, as welt as of the Cauntyx�rde Plan,jncl'uded acttons suppc;<rtng the reversal of the current toll . . dtrec rpn, from l prtttbo tnd to soutfi, to provtde "ln .ertng» foc peak commutes. 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 fneans ''��Reis "meter-ed" in the peak diFeetion of the e ti�e s aFe filet= Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption YItSION FdT THE CAAR:QUINEZ BRIDGE .........:..:...............................................................::..........:....:.:.............. T11e Car(�uinez Bridge is one ti#tie matri (�atewa s mto Centra Costa Count :::::::::7�:.:.:::::::.:::::::..:..b.:::.:...:.:::::.:.::..:.::::::::,:::::::::..:.:�.p.:::::::::::.:Y.:::.::.::::::::::..:::::::::::::::.:.:...... `qal dally vQliitneS across the badge are forecast to grow by 40 percent over tie next twp eleeades While the plan tnciudes;the addttton of a new span across Carqutnez Stratt, Ytston..... or:.the.n ge encourages HC?Y lanes..:.4nd transit as a real altemattY-e to the growth:t f ........ ......... ................. Foe atone vehicles `ll'he Plan supports the extension of htgh occuganey vehicle lanes the Fridge with a tt�ll exemption for carpools,vanpou.K and buses,to encourage more igt of eupancy velltele r1ps, and constdering atoll Increase to fund BART$xpansdn In the corridor and further high occupancy +tehtcle lanes and express Service fixpress bus service inti Wiest County is also one of the<matn methods for�n'creasing the attractiveness of . ... Ifernat€ves to clrlvtng alone:; 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 ehanges ef the fell the additional of HOV lanes on the bridge and possible use of the oltl bridge sp for rail transit. The detailed list of projects is shown in Table 3.1-1 below. 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; ReveFsifib County, • Expanding transit capacity by increasing the frequency of 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. C:\WPI`Kr1193\c&P\cc-rP'-'\VOLI-3.DOC 1-25 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.1-1 . STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS - CARQUINEZ BRIDGE Note! The feliewiag list does aet r-efieet the prieFities established b)' thO Regifflial T-Fafi8P8Fta68fl Nafiftifig GOFM Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Track 1 I-80 * Atlas to the Carquinez Bridge HOV lanes San Pablo Avenue * Hercules Road reconstruction Candidate Track 2 I-80 Carquinez Bridge Construct new bridge span San Pablo Avenue * Cummings Skyway Construct new intersection * Parker Ave. Intersection improvements Cummings Skyway * SR 4 to San Pablo Ave. Extend to San Pablo Ave./Upgrade interchange with I- 80/Provide truck climbing lanes BART Cockett Emend 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. C:IWM') 'l nCCiMCCTP2\VOLI-3.DOC I-26 April 25, 1995 Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Projects f Carquinez Bridge Freeway \ ............................... Arterial New Freeway z Valielo ...._ ....._-...._.- nnnun■ New Roadway . .'•-.- .--.. Roadway Widening "�. `''S '':O L A N O f.. J=E3C= New HOV Lanes ..--__--- Road Reconstruction 1 ' I 1--1---�--1 Light Rail System �y ® New or Upgraded Interchange/intersection � •: tGrade Separation Co=gnrrx Bridg��pon n9 1—$0 atI-so Or C rLdor 1 ` .. ` j N..:Mi«..'o6on d Slnry ------- �� Crockett t M. at PaAw'O 1 1 l ss • Rodeo s O1-90 HOV Eno Allo,Rd to Corquuaz {/ I Rood necomnuclion 1 I` in Fiwnde C O N T R A ,,..... �' C O S T A s Pinole d.w M see Toole 3.1-1 for a more detailed description of projects. BLAYNEY DYETT urban and Regional Planners C •6r N F o C 0 0 0 0 o N N o o .0 p o a N m co u Uw cch U U 0 4 _ _ ii lEu R7 .L.• ld u N U N N cE ld F U C U o o o U '� m o a a� o o U > U o a -1 -1U .ju -j3 -jm .j -jau � � N 00 Cd O x L t0 N U N 00 cq ° > > F u Q c L (n c I c N > 07 0 3 c o c dpi u m C n u a"i T aui O y E C OL O T C > Q N �• C A p •9 O N C 7 to a o _ o U U 00 � � w E £ °; � u o c 3 gn c C13 O N E u H c o c U E V C G Q' E O C N [O„ U 7J Cl C U U C •U M a L p o u u 2 c C c Z 3 p c C v c L C o u u o o c L o a 7 p : a cn U a u] cn > _ Z U N a U «: C7 ° cr OL � � � •U -Y � C � G it0::. N O C J x:7 ci JSw u: lo z T. L O N00 00 .0 C � O O O C O •O � �!;�$ V CZ Q •> d � Q U O O U �::�: 00 � y •N D\ N O y Z u > L O • V o ed A ,i c Cr N Q ^� Q L U C .y C v o U ?53:: F Z > > C ro CS c . E• a rl 0 a a L U ;:> Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Actions FoM Carquinez Bridge '^/�' WoA wA S°baa`wna f cM`g;onal -2 Y' and kO*ag.nofn b«,aou g gr.al.r .mplo�rn.nry owf obng�iral°g0 condor northWfl of COFAM Cafb C06!y �L* Pork-and-Ride Lots Work with responsible .... agencies to determine an appropriate limited stops • bus service for the Va l l e o... work b sART cf.nd B _. _._.. long-distance commuter aseboeCaurry- S O L A N O ; I l svppo tol g V J - on nding Work pow r-d � H BARTb - � b.0�bp plan for km' k Ccket rt �. Rodeo t Eabblifh F.rry twice from Rid+mond and/or Roc6o 55 C 4 N T R A' 0�35 CrO S T A m Lrpl.m.rd.l.d.ank �—,P6.4 Broil figm on Feo f' Pinole a� �a D. 6PF rk-and-r;&6- BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 3.2 I-80 Corridor The I-80 corridor is one of the most eengested heavily:travelled 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 I-80 itself are regional commute and interstate traffic that travel through West County from the gateway at the Carquinez Bridge to Alameda County and to 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 exceeds capacity has lengthened). Third, this congestion during the peak period has encouraged drivers to divert from I-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 1-80. 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. c:\wtrrxnI93\C-rP\CCrF?\v0L1-3.00c I-30 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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) and:many ...................................... ..: ..... ere_'&;cQD'ac ty. 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. Dettiand on the northern segments afe` s forecast to increase up to 40 percent over 1990 levels while tf at on 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. ' WCCTAC-TAC, Dowling Associates and Barton-Aschman Associates, Future Conditions Background Report. January 1993. C:\\VPTX'r\193\CCrP\CCM\VOLT•3.DOC 1-31 April 25. 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Supply. I-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 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 I-80 south of Atlas Road. Transportation capacity could be increased through increased reliance 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 faeiiity. Ramp C:\WPT)M193\CCTP\CCTr-\VOL1-3.DOC 1-32 April 25, 1995 1 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 0 metering would require the installation of meters at freeway ramps all along the I-80 corridor in West Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. n a aila a.f n . bt nd.fitndi v bl or. 1teGo izizn' tlie..ltzritatao s.on.rt -o .wa .a :>;:<::<:>::::::>::>::.....::: ::::... g.::::............. ..::::::::::::::::.::.:::.P,:::.. .:::::::::.:_::::.:::: » >:::»>:>;:::>::»>::::::;:.;:.: ;;:.;;;g;:.;::< g;.;;;:.:<.;:.>.;>:.;;:.;:;:.;;:.;: ;:.::.::............................:.Y:............................................................. expanding the rapacity of 180, the.Counn�wide Ptah envisions::few improvements for rlr fve.=. alone veltteles ;n this etjrridor Yet,:with lite growth in housing "itpstream" in Contra Costa ...................... ....... ......... ........ .. . ..... aid aolano Counties, and conkuiued�Qb growth "downstream" to West Centra Costa; Alameda, and San Francisco, dally volumtrs on 180 will grow bX as much a 4B percent oil eeftin freeway,segments to the corridor With focus ori alternattves to the single-i�ccupant vehicle, the hours of cgngestiion experienced by solo commuters wilt expand; while:: QSe waliin tt� carpool tri take transit will be able to bypass the worsenu congestion ....... .".I.n the<short'term the car o;o:.:.aristt focus calls for grim lean the hl .b ....>::>:.......::::::::> ...:.:. P: .:.. ...... ..:_::.::::::.::::: ...::........::..:.:::.::.:p. ..:.g._....:...:...g::: occupancy vehicle lanes on 1 80 between the State Route and the day t3ndge and:promoting pi?lic>es and pzonduig incentives that max mtze carpool:incl..ivanpooi use,increasing transit ..... . .... _ .. ...; . ... .... . ...: .. ::...... nelership in the-1 80 corridor including ad ing express bus service from �otana County an settlI.ing express bus service to:BART and other irans�t terminals such as the l'ransbay Termtnal)� and Increasing transportation demand hianagement programs Th'e excenston of the 1461"1" occupancy vehicle;lanes f om State Route 4 north to;:the Garqutne Bridge is also W ithin the 20 year iirne frame and :financial constraints of: unnivtde Plan The vision . includes workFng with ;Sotano:County to determine a strategy for reducing traffic an the Carquinez Bridge and do'w'nstream.(including review and development of efforts such as brttige toll increases, designing a new Carquinez n. span, and metering traffic flow] Til ........:::...... .. ....:... .. .::....... ....... .:....::............: ......:: the longer term,.ihe vision treludes new,rail seru>ee utcluding BART to Hercutes and beyond, l ght rail along San Pablo Avenue and utcreased Capitol Corridor service' SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS A variety of projects are being considered for the 1-80 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, and the construction of intersection improvements along arterial streets. aid-the-Construction of new interchanges on I-80 at SR 4 and Atlas Road/Richmond Parkway is;already underway C:\wPrXT\193\CCTP\CCrP'-'\VOL1.3.DOC 1-33 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS WCCTAC is b has devel:opedahree 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 • 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. C:\WPTXf\193\CCTP\CCrP^\VOLT-3.DOC 1-34 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.2-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-80 CORRIDOR NOW! ThO fOROWifig lik E1888 118t FeflOet th blished by the Regiefial T-ranspeFtatien Planning GeEnfaittee& (RTPGs) thFeogh the Aetien Planning preeess. The list sh egFomfoed in the our-rent STIP, and f:efleets the statias of f6pare pr-ejeets in MT-G's 1994 RTA-. Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction Interstate 80 SR 4 1/C Construct park-and-ride lot Bay Bridge Toll Plaza to SR 4 Widen for HOV lanes * Construct Atlas Rd. I/C, including HOV ramps Richmond Pl.wy.::to Appian Wy. Construct eastbound auxtIWy lane Atlas Rd; Construct 100: talt park snd nde`:li t .Centml.i ye to San Pablo Dam Rd: Construct auxiliary lanes 86eeIf9e-4Cutting Blvd. Add transit off-ramp/I/C modifications Linus Pauling Road John Muir Pkwy to West Sycamore Construct 2-lane minor arterial Ave. extension Richmond Parkway I-580 to 1-80 Construct new roadway Programmed --kaeFa9—A9e 8A #les-Rd- _ a 6att+Re 131vt1 BART El Cerrito Plaza BART station Build a new parking facility and bus circulation improvements State Route 4 $dybOFfy-A Hilltop Drive San Pablo Ave. to Richmond Pkwy. Construct 4-lane major arterial Track I 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 Avenue Potrero Ave. to Cutting Blvd. Widen to 6 lanes Tennent Ave. & Sycamore Ave. Intersection improvements * Hercules Reconstruct San Pablo Ave. and extend bicycle lanes Candidate Track 2 Interstate 80 SR 4/1-80 I/C Construct full freeway-to-freeway I/C BART Richmond to Hercules BART extension C:\WPTxT\193\CCTP\CCrr-\VOIJ-3.DOC 1-35 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.2-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.— 1-80 CORRIDOR Note! The feiiewing list does not refleet th blished by the Regional T-FaRSPOR068H P18fiflifig G81'fifflittee-8 owviia of Fawfe pm�eets in MT-G's 1994 RTP. Roadway/Facility Location Improvement San Pablo Avenue Downtown Oakland to Hilltop Construct light-rail system Appian Wy. intersection improvements Tennent Ave. Install exclusive left turn lanes at the intersection/intersection improvements Sycamore Ave. to SR 4 Stripe a second northbound right turn lane 23rd St. Resiripe the northbound 23rd Street approach SR-4 a" Entire length Clearly identfi, 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 1=80-14P-4 Extend to San Pablo Ave./upgrade I/C with 1-80/provide truck climbing lanes Willow Avenue 1-80 to San Pablo Ave. Widen to 4 lanes 1-80 Install signals at EB on-off ramps a e El Portal Drive Church Lane to 1-80 Widen to 4 lanes 1-80 to San Pablo Dam Rd. Widen to 4 lanes Tennent Avenue Henry Ave. to San Pablo Ave. Widen by 2 lanes Pinole Valley Road 1-80 to Henry Ave. Widen by 1 lane Meeker Avenue Harbour Wy. to Meade St. 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 * 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. C:IwPTXT1193%CCrMCCrF_'VOL 1.3.DOC 1-36 April 25, 1995 Figure 32-1 31 .29 � Proposed Projects \ � �. I-80 Corridor \ ' Vq�lej0 �...— .._ Freeway 2 Ca1fu1rVd no- I Carquinez /arterial Bridgespon \ S O L A N O Eidend Cummings ======= a s anth New Freeway �_� w..int.ne[fion of interchange of i$o "I Cummings Sk-y, .�..������■ New Roadway Eraeod BART �. / b Crodat Roadway Widening a+brs.ctron OC a"' r"A» CX=13= New Hov Lon" Ro eo See in,set ` ------------- Road Reconstruction '.� Road in Hwcul.s recorshudron �S: ��' ``\, •.. • ``\ �` i ! —+—�—c light Rail System Intersection •% rpro»n»nh d:: ., ® ® New or Upgraded tv.»r�Irdro Interchange/Intersection _ ng' widen at Ri6d PM/Albs Rd "® T•nnenl A»/ r Extend:: Pinole Volley Rd ` Grade Separation Hilltop Rd OI•so Hov 6 .s Atlas Rd b Carquinez y .> j. ��e..r••••• 1-80 R=11 Blvd ��♦♦ ♦ t QP names ■■ r >. < ' ♦♦ ..fid., .... : ��I o rante . Corr or El Yew R _..... Portal D _ O ♦ d4y ♦ ; ..' wden Vo ♦ I ne+I s an ,: Wr w;d«Appibn Mby 'Pablo :: Rh 14 " A" Widen Son Pobb i \ „ 3 ■ " `Dom Rd/Appon Inl•rs.dion \\ Richmond 1 improwrrnh '\. f �* C O N T R A ♦♦ W d.n tcy Bld C C) $ T ''A at San o Dsn o i ¥ en n P A» oro A»ro bd 4 lore ...•f•....• (Pah Coning B •s) lmprore $a 1 I Cernto , mterchongs ... Cutting Bf;d H�I tRol to Ma \\ \ t a AIny . rnprcvo TM-, - Berkeley��'`�, interchange al/ b 4 hnas : Sycamore A»/ R 123, Rodeo Construct 2lone arterial linus • ii • s, Full i Nrcho • O I$0 HOV fines Bay Pauling to Sycamore Extonof 1-13C' • ., "g It Bridge to Albs Rd Intersection impro Sycamore A» n Pbo a Ave J 44. ;i I 1 r'•. `. 13 ti Rood recons n Hercule Ino1e A A A �,M D .- QWilic- BoyberryA» 2.Construct On- re of Bayberry ModiFy Sycamore A» rips . . ..... A»/SR 4,WIIaiAie/SR 4 .. from intersection b 3.Grade sepordion at Wilbw A»e interchange /SR 4 f n Boyb•rry Ave,V�lbw A» S A N`: r / 13: F R A N C :`I S C O \ San Francisco Oakland . DYETTEY Urban and Reglowd!Pbwwer3 \ See Table 3.2-1 For a more detailed description of projects. 5 s g g N N N N N N N •` N N N F C C G C C O O O O O O y U y O O C O O O Q C U U U U U U v 0 U G p U U m 'y 'C � 'D •° � � C � � � t0 '� � y •y y F' C > > 7 7 7 •7 cC Q 7 N 7 O es E' G is is is is a cz 'v U y �. A � 0 0 0 0 0 `o A U cz 0 Q 0 0 U o U > N > s 3 0 v -91 ca 00 cQ �" O 7 > LU E"' y Q c O N �. C C m U Gr > m O � pp U r 61 _ 3 C c c Q u Q N = E o �. •� cO y c � m � a _ � .V u N C- OC C y N .V 29 C O > y u —0 O = E O C 2 of 0 x E `o o 0 0 '� ° on `o S H n c c y a ,° o c G o ° E Z N �L.. •V oD `66Y!! i° N d u E C c y JN y y R ° c mG m c 0 ` H c y 3 c o n cpi N E o°�o N ` c c o c U E "� U 0 Q y 5 a x h 'C O O — c,1 O 0 N E G L h .Q m n.113 O O H L' O C C y 7 C O U O N U N U E O 'Q W) U a Lu .5 = Ul v> > Z U v .5 a U G. 0- o: 2 co u °J . . • • • • . • . . • :r e G y > 6� rJ C > OG > L ` = v U c:] a ac 000oo p O C .: 00 dT rI c/1 0 0 c Y R to = Y C > G v F6* U a U � >_ o o " U _ cV Q �o $ p 0 c .O 0. 0 cc Cc Cd co 0 cd m ft CIS C* 0 0 ed o 0 o Q d0 0 o R 0 0 0 0 U U u u u cq 0 N 00 uo0t co m LL Z; C M Ec>1 0 X co C co M v Rcc ej; 0 a r > cz F- r_ w .— ej t •p 61cn ej C E fj .2 0 E 2 1. C:1 - = u `E Q 0 0 < sO Nu E 0 U U I C E E — u a 0 0 i:- 0 10 0 0 0 > ci 4; < I's 'a cc 0 0 0 0 r- . -a 1 :3 U rj cz r— cw ;t >, 5. V 0 C a > ci C�n z; o u Nr LL) V) Vm U u CL 40 w O cz 06 0 C 0 ri '.= >1 o r- cz .0 ri 06 . .2 2 < 0 0 to 'D >1 W. c "V 5 0 tju KLU �; C,4 to C>u -Ne C; U C, E c a Cd m < cc Im 14, C) VA: •v v •v u v � a a � v •v •v @ T�}} •— @ O O O O A i0 ce U U ..�' .. O O O O O • O 'O 00 u y O cl •U C d C y �C ::i3.:ii:;iF;<:'C:ii E —' d @ U J �. O •N > a o or c c E v oo e o o c '- o o L c 04 u o s A o a @ c c o0 to O u C^ IDE . °i @ u tO y 3 0 21 E Q is v ti)u O CL - v = E y l c ` u y > E u 5 = N o c U C c c c o o > X > O U + L 04 .v u c y: E o > c� y co >c L x >, c y o ,[-U_, Lu 'v .c V) Ll] d @ C 6 61 t` O ti' L L L O O = y C� tY O U 0 00 v L N Q N A ` wQ � o Q � F E- e 4; O O vi Q U C d [ j U C C p VC = F U L R v V uu 0 0 0' a t-- a cn cc u c pa Cd c c o :�:;:�: oo •E �::: ml- C .. C. •r, `. G Vit: C 2.0 c z R 10 ° R R L Si Q Y * L L 5 > Z ^,p � 6r amu. •- C :. O C :i":;: a <o> 03 00 � o a' n A ': CID ' e c �-- o OC) E s u a R c � �< N .r O O Q L D T <o in c E � R D O .Y ° �, •U A 3 x> �::: Uo 00 0 0cz ` N Ca a = Q cis o ° c z R � o E.. ` ° y p �' u u :° ° __ � e •� � a: a +.:.: Q O L '� C •R � ce U L E .� � E R .`�:;: x Figure 32-2 Proposed Actions `,� I-80 Corridor WorkvnthwonoCountyanares`onal o f bah ias b encouro rester �a I I Q 0 r, Work to ddend BART `w ogenc ge g 4 mp i a{o,g the l$0 s ... � ,�b 'County camdw .ost of Conlro Cosh County rr •�i x Park-and-Ride Lots Work with responsible S p L.. A N O Lij agencies to determine an +l appropriate limited stops bus service for the CosdwbH increase to long-distance commuter =HO" ¢ _ VKp�f to extend rc o / = Rodeo Dealt' plan for Amtrak ` ~ / mpilal mprownrnA •.. 55 35 implement electronto �—speed limit signs an I`so / 4 .. from Richmond vice and/or Rodeo M A R T N / . s rt stop Rd installation o s ��. / Id D<o ` I ., and Fi era Afp#a AF Purses increasedppook / :w6rcenent on 180 ce and ( b ..sanPablo Aw ...w....... o 'i: rante Imprb+e fader s.gna .• � �.-� �"-'� along San Pablo Aw s...... .. . f .San C"op pork-and-ride bis Pabl Richmond f N b mi TgV C O N T R A ®along I B0 C O S T A r Sapport CalTrons actions to '( discourage through traffic from diverting onto kzoT'streets _. j b %-N \. Improve Richmond and EI Cerrito P6zo /". Al ny IBART stations Berketey� A L A 'M E D t ' Piedmont S A N 'i s 113' F R.,A N C 1 S .0 O _ San Francisco :fl Oakland BLAYNEY DYETT Urbaw and Reglo1Plawwers ,j :x Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 3.3 West-Central Commute — State;Rou'te 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo Two roadways form the main commute routes between West and Central Contra Costa: Highway StateRoute 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo, supplemented by Cummings Skyway. (Alhambra Valley Road also-carries o'ril 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 State Route 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 State Route 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 artless traueI times on:alternative routes wprsen even more. .. .. ....... ....... ...... .. ._. _. 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 StareRoute 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. C:\wP)MI931CCTPICCTP2\VOLT-3.DOC 1-43 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption ISSUE STATEMENT Demand. The commute between West and Central Contra Costa County is not one of the most significant motes 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 $cute Route 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. The 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 EI 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 shift from �y-State:Route 4 and I-80/ wa}� to S acs Route 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 I780 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 capacity increases on this roadway are forecast between 1990 and 2010. Likewise, the potential for capacity increases in El Sobrante is limited. Highway State Route 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 State ,Route 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 r-eeensmdetion wouldEven without its expariston tQ a full freeway, >mprovements to State :::.:...::.:.:::.:..:................a"n. .............:................ .... tte >atealso needed_to' 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. Its location in designated open space, watershed and rural areas limits its potential expansion as a significant commute route. C:\WPTXT\l93\CCTP\CCCP2\VOLT-3.DOC I-44 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption BART and the Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK service will carry a relatively small amount of the West-Central commute. The Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK service 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 whose 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 at'_ssue in the corridor is safety on the two-lane portion of Highway StateRoute 4 between 1-80 and Cummings Skyway. This roadway poses one of the gFeatestmost significant 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 may Stat"e:Route 4 or San Pablo Dam Road to transit. VISION FOR THE.WEST GENTRAG.CO..IVIMUTE ........ __..._ _.. _......... ........................ ................................... ............................. ...................... in its vision;for file West Central;coinmite, the ountywtde Ptan balances �rzcreased safety, it' Wc improved e£fic,iency and operat►ons, dnd expat nded ransSere;and coordination Most traffic growth n the corndor will lie m tt:e reverse commute:direchon: _. Mere are few protects: that fgcus solely on increasing capacity: One;of the primary actions 1n this corridor, for example, is the Li mpletion of State Route 4 '(west) o full freeway standards While the expansion io State Route 4 {west) will increase capacity sign►ficantly, it is as necessary io significantly improve afety Completion of HOS lanes on 180 and'3 680 shout# prpvide a further incentive for �arpovling on Rbute 4 ;Similarly, the:Plan,inc lodes several projects - such as Improve&signal coordination:>:d.n the:wess.tern portion of San Pablo Dain Road and thick-climhing lanes on Cummings Skyway = that will Increase capacity through more efficient roadway operations': Recommended increases tri bus service:along San Pablo t7am Road and`to 1 e�iibe*Vi1VLartinez Intermodal Facility:echo the vision of increasing she . capacity of the regional transportation system through tis more efficient use;: Continued:and 01'a'aced Capitol Corridor service is also seen as an important element of ttie vision for the . .. . West... entra] commute:, C:\WPTxr\I93\CCTP\CCTP2\VOLT-3.DOC I-45 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide.Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS As noted above, the main project proposed is the construction of SR S.t* Lute 4 as a 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 1-80 and SR StateRoute 4. SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS The TSOs proposed for &RSa1eRout.e 4 and San Pablo Dam Road are both ....................... ........................... expressed as traditional level-of-service standards. For &R State Rouf6 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. C:kV;FrXr\193\CCTP\CCTP2YVou-3.DOC I-46 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.3-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — WEST-CENTRAL COMMUTE (Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo) Roadway/Facility Location Improvement uRaeratrr,;s Stag ulc d1?Yi116 Ave Qvercriissrng Camino Pab 1tiltner Rd to Bear Cnl ltd Improve roadway Programmed State Route 4 * Bayberry Ave. Construct on-off ramps * Sycamore Ave. 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 Wy. to Castro Ranch Rd. Widen to 5 lanes/left turn pockets/signal improvements Camino Pablo SR 24 Improve EB off-ramp at Brookwood A46ROF Rd &A PARFC,FIA-k Rd ea�+vey Track 1 State Route 4 * I-80 to Cummings Skywy. 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 * 1-680/SR 4 New I/C Alhambra Avenue Alhambra Hills Dr. to Benham Dr. Widen Cummings Skyway * SR 4 Extend to Old Highway 40/upgrade I/C with 1-80/provide truck climbing lanes Willow Avenue * SR 4 Construct new on-off ramps Appian Way San Pablo Dam Road Construct intersection improvements San Pablo Dam Road Barranca St. to Appian Wy. Widen to six lanes 1-80 Realign and reconstruct roadway Valley View Road San Pablo Dam Rd. to Appian Wy. Widen by 2 lanes Ferry Service Martinez Institute ferry service from Martinez to San Francisco Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle Track I 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. C:\WPTXT\193\CCIP\CCTP'_'\VOLT-3.DOC 1-47 April 25, 1995 IM CD w c o 0 m Ol 10 Q Z Z OC Oc Z c .P'o El s vnw , : r : 0 . 11 E , Z ` \ LE / ES .ZJf CIA CD °Q ♦t n� d s0 CIO 503 }' O }v e a 0 2.2 E.2 ` ui a a sma s8 c� c O - ZH CC Q a� e 0 0 0; o;. o o: :H. (,J; N: :(>f ('.! N N'_ N C>A N U H 4 F . y e g ° < � 3 '5 u U o U FF 3 E- •o M o v: fnU � m m ° C c y y U; < ° LU ` c -�� 'U O U U c �.: o oIt o o > 0 0 a 3 3 < U m U :d>: 3 U w U U w ;M:.:W: U 3 :�: : o U C cn _' y c v 3 u v D c e,:: < H y >, ° ncoci, a c oo u ° —' c •_ � rr cu �: ._ 39:: ..: 2 u v y •J ° fA F' - M 2 C y Y L to d Oas W::.: L C y C C T C .�`n..A.".:: C 7 O U E `c u E 3 cw o ' : E o u u c cM g o c u ::..:h::: E a o v r0. t, '�...�:'�' U O oC! 62 -2 y CS N L M M N R � C- 7 •'J L :::m i C.. m q U x o u E cJo u -� u z E o •D M :>>:; :< E > > v u < LU r� O < < v < < fY < n u1_:' ._ LU Lw C] a 3 'fl •v > y c •o > Z O y F V) a M ) M C e p o € � V3 00 Z O �3 o n L Q 0 2 < V a U a evJs CCIO C v y O N E• " c " L ° E y ami o c I Lu o c C O O .E u -" y U M cc E y h U x Y _ acvo u � ..] :: � � -� H ^ � °• L 3 0 u 5 M o c o C1 y = v T .= E n 00 w- U K: a. U ¢ �, o cU U 43 C, o �. ° C- N a: ° m a.< .4v. d 916 J o:: C zOi, a ` Z 3 sK: y t f l C •p O C: Wu N Wcn R = a G ri F O > j R ° •-> > A v Q O CD :. 08. V In 1 1 ¢ c � 1 E [ o ♦ ° xx E o.n� — ' C° cam° 1 1 e'Q c 1/ aas E' .2' XX Seo CD >: c CD ` c ie LLJ K it at r , •� C ,go` a Z Q. u W Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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 1-580 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway) The recently-completed John T. Knox Freeway in West County replaced 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 1-580 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 I-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 fort.=st 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 1-580 merges with I-80. Modelling suggests that by 2000 traffic will back-up three miles on 1-580 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 C:\wPTX\193\CCrP\CCrP2NVOL1-3.DOC 1-52 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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 I-580 after 1990 and future completion of the Richmond Parkway will divert traffic from alternative routes such as Cutting Boulevard. VISION FOR I ;SS:Q CQ;RRIDOR/JlOHN T KNOX F ...... C.. .. N..... ......... .............................................................................................................................................................- _..__ _... ._ f W n n" f: fin" >�1Vtth the corn` leUon o 1580 est Lantra .Costa out as o e o the aI ....:.:... :...: ncs ui fhe Bay S:Interstate Highway system, the Courtn�x�ute flan focuses tin ...... X:%,­­­--. ............. ....................... ...................................................................................................... entrouragrng alternative modes on the freeway and improving operations elsewhere In. keepin vtth t11 s vision, the Coun**}'.wrdd Plan rncludzs the .Omn etron: f: ovianesA............ I ng I»580, the development of park and ride:4ots to Marin County and the further rnk ng of IARfi statrons an West County to potential riders �n West:Contra Costa and Mar>n:C©unties ...................................... . . . . _ _.._... .........._. ......._. . Traffic volumes on t 5$0 are expzeted to a�rease 90 phi cent between I99U;and 20 10 Even with this significant traffic growth, >o �ongzsttpn Js forecast The v�slon for this corridor also. includes a grade separation on Cutting Boulevar�idcross the Southern;Pacrfie tracks and the completion of Richmorid Parkway as addrtonal ways otrelieving traffic congestion on 1-80 _. and encauragrng economic development to West County: 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 Streeand 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 .will. also affects this corridor. (See previous discussion.) SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS As vo in the West-Central Commute, WCCTAC is-prepeSiRg f as an'eiu. 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 C:%NM) M\CCrP\CCfP?\V0LL3.DOC I-53 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption an..:..:average vWCI:e,oecupapey stir oft 35 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 exparit ed through :<.:,:..........:...::: marketing of bus service and aggressive promotion of TDM programs as well as the development of park-and-ride lots. C:\WPT)MI93\CCTP\CC'rn\VOLT-3.DOC 1-54 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.4-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-580 CORRIDOR (JOHN T. KNOX FREEWAY) swav-,-A of fi-m-1re pr-ajeets in MT-G's 1994 RT-P, Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Programmed BART * El Cerrito Plaza BART station Build a new parking facility and bus circulation improvements San Pablo Avenue * Potrero Ave. to Cutting Blvd. Widen to 6 lanes Track 1 None Candidate Track 2 lv[eeker Avue Harbour wy to Meade 5;; Construe 4 lane ma3or sitenal San Pablo Avenue 23rd St. Restripe the northbound 23rd St. approach 23rd Street 1-580 to Broadway Widen by two lanes Carlson/Cutting Cutting Blvd. and SP tracks Construct grade separation Boulevard Rheem Avenue 13th St. 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. C:\WVr)M193\CC'rP\CCrr-\V0L1.3.DOC I-55 April 25, 1995 CZ = c Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption These standards would be achieved thr6ugh 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 GGTAu""66rify and funded by a PVEA grant, is looking at traffic management within the triangle formed by I-80, I-680 and Highway to Lute 4. The so-called "Triangle Study" will address ways to moderate ...............:.........:: demand, improve operations and encourage alternative travel modes. CAV47T)r I93%CCrMCCfT_VVOL1-3.DOC 1-62 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.5-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — BENICIA-MARTINEZ BRIDGE Note, The following list does fiet r-efleet th blished by the Regieflai T-FORSPertatien Planning Committees- Roadway/Facility Location Improvement . Programmed I-680 Benicia-Martinez Bridge* New bridge and new approaches #lam SIJ a Yrbra>Avent eSR 4 to Mao Widen Ar ............... Track 1 1-680 *State Route 242 to Benicia Bridge Widen for HOV lanes Intermodel Transit Geatef Downtown Martinez Construct intermodel transit eWitff Ncility with Far y parking .............. Candidate Track 2 Alhambra Avenue $FMacAlvey; Widen Di to Benham Dr. Ferry Service Martinez Institute ferry service from Martinez to San Francisco Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-2001 STIP cycle Track I Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track l 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. C:\WPT)MI93\CCTP\CCTP2\VOLI-3.DOC I-63 April 25, 1995 '''•,SOLAN0 i Benicia-Martinez Bridge -, Benicia q. '\ c4 muck 9 � t CONTRA •� Imp .6;,y mo =b a' COSTA-'�_ � -�San Fmnd�ao•�%. .,_ Wid«,b Op�Dict.HOV Ib:bna) Z � Morrimz _ . w F ,.,fd°' + Martinez aciey .. __.. Arterial wd.n aham6-`. ISR 4 b Mo.AJ—y Dry Freeway C3C3C= New HOV Lanes •���������■ New Roadways Roadway Widening See Table 3.5-1 for o more detoiled description of projects Other Improvements ® ® New or Upgraded Figure 3.5-1 interchange/Intersedion Proposed Projects Benicia-Martinez Bridge BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners e c:: a: o:: Cd a N UE W '� N 0 0 o V o °� ov u;; V c U �•+ U N U N U N to U N p U N E..,. U N ;y�;::;:A'" .:�': U N Q c U o Q Q C Q e ::�:;;:c::: Q c N Z y a .° N a .° a .° o. .° . F a .4 a C V) U C h U V) U N VJ u N V U V) u C h V � :V C. VJ g Z Q Q Z U U Z w Z o Z .I ..0 Z o F O F .� F .� �S F a U oZ' F .2, F •� m> F .� ..] 3 c N > - C O •C Ij T L O > E t o 3 Z e to 0 w.: N C O ::C::::.:; ty ty V Z % e0 as 0 N L N a 7 p n• cc p �...��: U ! •O •fl : LU p h amoto cm Cu w u R E to p °° c a E 7oD p ::ja�wC > O N V) a` t; LU v V) =. D c :... til U o zo "'o Qo • � � � FL- � � = C7 � Z � :ro 0 o s 0 E-• �; o M Y y ° � � e o a o a m i O y T Q G CJ C '� V LV1 U L V t V cc _ 0` > .� L,3 N to to `_ se o a ° c at' V) L V C X > O R O Q o 6J >iy Q O� f/1 CA N D Y C 0. Y d M 10 s> ca e+� i 14 v o ° ci r. ,50LAN0 t Benicia-Mortinez Bridge Benicia r� q. CONTRA C O'S TA -� Sy 'wt�Swuction PP O of nwO HHV End on F680 ood HOV or .miaedRur lona on hmad homfr V nd bus 242 ;o°�' mn.=,��ok MartinezIft] °vb / and ckwbprww of � _ . on iF.cm.raen nr..rork wk Figure 3.5-2 Proposed Actions Benicia-Martinez Bridge BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas. Proposal for Adoption 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 I-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 highest volumes within the county. Only ........................... Highway State`Route 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 onlay State Roite 24 to Alameda County and San .:..:..:...........::..:::. Francisco and further south on 1-680 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 High ay $tateRoute 4 to 215,000 between Monument and Contra Costa Boulevards. The older roadways that 1-680 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 1-680 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 +g#wayState<Raiaite 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 11, 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 C:\WPTXT 193\CCTP\CCTP2\VOL1.3.DOC I-67 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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 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 1-680 corridor. Supply. Caltrans is significantly upgrading the interchange of 1-680 and HighwayState Rioute 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 State:Routes 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 1-680 between &R State oUt6 242 and the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. (HOV lanes are under. ...............:........... ........................... construction south of the interchange project area on 1-680.) The existing urban development along I-680 itself will limit further widening. Local jurisdictions have discussed the development of the Contra Costa Commuterway — bus and 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, Higghway 5tate:RouEe 4 and lay R* .6, 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 1-680 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 restripiilg lanes and adding a structure to add HOV lanes between the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and to the south of Hi,g#way State'Route 242. (This project is included in Track I 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 C:\WPTXT\193\CCrP\CC F--\VOLI.3.DOC 1-68 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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. (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 additional 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. ... . ,V1SION FbR 1680 CORRIDOR FRODg'BENICIA MARTINEZ BRIDGE .TQ RUD.... ROAD Traffic to and through Centralpunty is forecast to grow between 45 io;55 percent from 19901'201.0 Consequently, more freeway segments are expected io be`at bevel of Service F in 2D10 than ac;present In response to this, the ytston for this eorndor is orient ed towards carpooling and operations management : Within the fiaanctal constraints of the Coudttywtde Plan, and consistent with V'. 2RANSPAC Action Plan tenets, HOV lanes would be constructed nn 1684 north of the State Route 242 split to the Benicia-Martltez Brdge, south to the Sunnyvale ramps at the North Matti Street exit, and possth[y an State Route 242 as well New opporntntties for carpools;yah 001%s and express bus service to bypass congestion and;bring;workers to employment centers tri Centrat County and points south and west will be fully explored and 3rriplemelted tn:coopeiatton with th'e TRAIVSPAC transportation demand management ..... program: The h�gh:occupaniry vehic,#e #tines will complementthe new capacity enhancement _; ... .. t the T 68015 ate Route 24;anterchange To prevent:over saturation of the I-68Q central artery, the;Contra;Costa Transportation Authoi qty, TRANSPAC and locA.:Jurisdictions;wtU need t© exp#ore operations management strategies, including metering of upstream,traffic.. Through negotiations with S'olano County.a strategy would lie developed su'c'h to>meter;tratfic crossing the bridge effeettvely to avoid overtaxing the Capacity of I 680 and the I;-680!$tate Route 24 itcerchange The second span of the Benic'ia Martinez, Bridge is expected to tnclude design elements far the future development of a`transit system:: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS wide r-afig, �' Projects afe proposed for this portion of the 1-680 corridor—. They range from HOV lanes and interchange modifications on the freeways to implementation Q\NMXT\193\CCTP\CCTP2\VOL1-3.DOC 1-69 April 25, 1995 r Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption of the traffic operations system (TOS) on the freeways, intersection improvements, new roadways, and new transit facilities. The HOV lanes are proposed on I-680 and SR S...tate Route 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 I-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. 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. C:lV, TX711931CCPPICCTr-IVOL7-3.DOC I-70 April 25, 1995 TABLE 3.6-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road) Note- Gomm es Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction Interstate 680 Newell Ave. to Ygnacio Valley Rd. Modify local 1/Cs -Ygnacio Valley Rd. to Treat Blvd. Widen freeway/modify I/Cs Treat Blvd. to Boyd Rd. Widen freeway SB and NB/modify 1/Cs Boyd Rd. to Willow Pass Rd. Widen freeway/modify I/Cs BART Concord to Pittsburg/Bay Point Rail extension State 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/modify I-680 ramps I-680 at SR 24 Reconstruct I/C/widen connectors to 3 lanes Benicia-Martinez Bridge* New bridge and approaches State Route 242 1-680 to SR 4 Widen to 6 lanes, possibly to provide HOV lanes Concord Ave. to Solano Wy./Grant I/C modifications and auxiliary lanes St. I/C Civic Drive Ygnacio Valley Rd. Modify right-turn lane Olympic Boulevard Las Trampas Creek to Tice Valley Widen and provide intersection improvements Blvd. Pacheco Boulevard 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 Blvd. Improved connections to Pleasant Hill BART State Route 4 SR 242 to west of Railroad Ave. Restripe for HOV lanes/ 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 I/C Oak Park Blvd. to Pleasant Hill BART Construct southbound fly-over SR 4 Upgrade 1/C Mococo Rd. overcrossing Correct vertical clearance Ygnacio Valley Road *Cowell Rd. to Mynla Df-Clayton Widen to 6 lanes ........:..:.. Rd Kirker Pass Road *A le-DF Clayton:;R ... to Widen to 6 lanes Clearbrook Dr. Pleasant HilI;Road Oak Park;Bly.d. to'Boyd Rd Roadway unpnvements TABLE 3.6-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to Rudgear Road) . Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Geary:BIYd' R'6: ri >Pkaaarit<H Raal '[a"I4ir'>I3Ivd Si aI>intercoiiiect .................................. Tx$gislevarii Gancra Costa BIvQ 5►gnal interconnect .-.. .... ..... .. PflVetTSL12t:�ElYe7l3y. Pleasant I1il1Rd lAllamhra<Rd' Widen Eor"2'ad left=lurnrn tette ..._..._........___ . ....._ __.... ........_ ....... Cantta.Cpsta 2nd eve to $oytl i2d: dap closure widen to 6 lariesladd soundwal X. BOUIGvaiX3 C, kw RoaIway tiiprovemepts Alhambra-.' n . R:4 to MscAlvey Dr. Phase41 improvements ........_.............................. _.. Treat Boulevard Cherry Ln. to Bancroft Rd. Widen Signal coordinattori amd traffic study ........... ............................................. ........... Southern Pacific Treat Blvd. to Monument Blvd. HOV lanes Arterial Diamond Boulevard Diamond Blvd. Extend Concord Ave. to Marsh Dr. Evora Road Willow Pass Rd. to Port Chicago Hwy Extend roadway North Main Street Geary Blvd. to Sunnyvale Rd. Widen Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-3001 STIP cycle Track 1 Projects proposed in MTC's financially constrained Project Alternative in Track I of the 1994 RTP Candidate Track 2 Projects potentially included in MTC's longer-range Track 3 * 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. ............ X I - ` SOLANO :rl enicia — f41on.. Huck - ,. Croc ung 6.) i r C 0 N T R A COSTA wd.n to f ids HOV °s Martinez t aici al ar#i ez ;i Wd.n Pachecp/ i 4 t (Patter St to su>ona st) i widan Alhambra widen to r (SR 4 b MacAlvry Dr) provide HOV t # _' 24 Edend.0iamond BW Comas BlIe vd o � (Conead Am to Monh Dr) y� \ Chilpancingo j 1-680 Corridor Pkwy °`�� -- .' Concord ..__ si nal timin ,, 7....., (Benicia-Martinez ; ra�,,,n� OM/ider,ablane Bridge to Rudgear Road) l�^^� ��.� t o to�z.2 to 2nd�A e) :: M ''. .,i \'. t 'i.+'° : �7ntai!ction imprownegh - # �,::-::'� .f' (Monurne�t B{.d a►Buskiln�.; � ,s%. ConCock Bl d gap clasun '� ,.•• f A.�3 Contra to BW) tra 2nd Ave to Baca Rd Pleasant Hill Rd ` ii NIII ; ! <a # \ ti \ inprovements,(Oak JZ41'Bhd signal Cooramotierr, ` \, Park Blvd k Boyd Rd) l ii �� /and liming a clj • f� I ? w ®Si nal fimin stud and i '� ^rConstruct new ROV-only read on SP ROW .9 9 ,. s. ■ Monument Blvd to Tr.af Blvd signal interconneC, .y 11..................,.... ■ 1 I Taylor Blvd and .'- ■ ✓ Pksosont Hill Rd '• ■ r-' „ ■ Realign Pleasant Hrll Rd "i ® Vfden Treat Blvd of Geary Rd ', � "'� Id+erry to to Boncroh Rd) .. �I i Widen Taylor Bha for ' I, ' 2nd lehturn bneat Creek w Pleosorit'HiR Rd `: Reconstructinterchonge.pt w? "SO and widen 6sZ;,cys..,, -_ -- --- Arterialw . ` Freeway > w _� C3=[= New HOV Lanes t s nnsssss■■ New Roadwaysz al Roadway Widening Alamo' -- ------ Other Improvements �' Moraga ® ® New or Upgraded Interchange/Intersection Figure 3.6-1 See Table 3.6-1 for a more detailed description of projects. Proposed Projects I-680 from Benicia-Martinez BLAYNEY Bridge to Rudgear Corridor DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Ofw 0... 0: cc Um cu m u 0 u U CIS Ci < u u u < r- Q r- as Q C u r- < < CL .2 .2 .2 "E LO) u V) V) V) z z z z U u z ur Z Z Z Z < .0 LL) < .!2 j < LF < Q ro < ce w u .7v3,::. eo rA 4u u o 0 V co to —,:.. CID C U cp z. C6 m 0 E: E E c. U .2 03 E E ca r v V U v O > m U 0 t.) t, Ci < qo 40 40 ct ri r- U = O tQ 0 C'A ej rl 00 r- r— Ci CJ to -0 w .2 lu > as as 40 ri C- 00 em = 0 0 a, o t: -C -a 'o m ri cc ce c 3 r < e c u v e u y a, Q ? Q c g Q Q c Q U c' c 0. 0 Q N l ul F zF z Q • a .° 3 Ems- .°� •3 [�- v 0 L. a C 0CO C N C = O o ° ° N E 3 v cu; N '- c� oo E o c .0 • � C � 'C N ° C .n. L d C O '� O •C °G' E co N o N p E o moa o � ANY O -N o o t E_ m u u ad rn y R ` 7R z - y c c X c � c z = O iu: '40 m Lzl °� _............... ................ SOLANO F enicio �. i Doc 16 rrrryy f CONTRA COSTA t artinei O Support'Construction of ` new HOV lane on 1.680 `.,^,Deeelaopp limed fronsFer ty� Mb Ainaz Amtrolt 'li +. 1► w \ serncs to BART , Suppod SR 242 7 widen"' pass bly f ••.,� 22 For HOV r Pacheco. C no cord f 1-680 Corridor - " �� ...... (Benicia-Martinez i ~� Bridge to Rudgear Road) �- iN Pleasant _ �"' ; ® Inplament traffic \ . HIII / �` s S�PPon cons 601t \ management and signal "� O of ns«.NOVlane bn `\,N Synchronization system -- 1680 south of SR 142 to mange traffic Ib« i yids► Continue to support TQM Programs s' Walnut_.. ; Creek h lafdyette _. Orinda Earpand honsil mtwork includray bus,cort+muter roil and ferry q� service to Increase capacity ana`.,„.,„.., nwbiliy options yti j► t. Alamos Moraga Figure 3.6-2 Proposed Actions I-680 from Benicia-Martinez BLAYNEY Bridge to Rudgear Corridor DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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 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. I-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 head &uI;FVarti 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 I-680 north of Rudgear Road. This wider spacing along I-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 1-680. 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 that 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. C:\WPrXT\l9?\CCTP\CC P'-\VOLT-}.DOC I-77 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Increasing capacity on the Tri-Valley arterials that provide access to I-680 is also a problem. The expansion of Vasco Road 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 1-580/1-680 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 1-580/1-680 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 I-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 I-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-flow 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. VISION FOR THE l 6W0 CORRIDOR iFROM. RUDGEAR _. . :. ROAD;T0_4-580 ........................... ........... As wttli:ather freeways to tte county, 1 680 south of State Route 24;is expected to have substant�ai inirrIeases �n daily volumes between 1990 and 201:0 In thts-h- .......... b= grotivth condor;;volumes are forecast to�ricrtase by as Bruch aS $3 percent from>:1 J6,000 toI2,000 vehicles per day ori the segment north of Sycamore Valley Rflad during that period lr'arallel.artertals, such as Danvtlle Boulevardare pralected to experience astill . greater level of growth from 13,000 xo 28 00U vehicles per day,:a 110 percent utcrease` C:\V, TXT\193\CCrP\CCrMVOLI-3.DOC I-78 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption >': he vision fo: th..........e.......:..1:,680 ct rradoz....OU of Rud ear Road has thiee.as ects : : ttz T 6813 atself,the Plan emphasizes capacity Ior high�c,..............C..1gancy vehicles through the ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ cpmpletton of high ticeupaney vehtee lanes on the freeway It also Includes Increased. apaetty for mixed flew traffic through cor>strueton of auxiliary Lanes on 680 artd lrnrcvement proet is on parallel arterials such as San.Ramon Valley Boulevard Apart from m HbY lanes:fln 1-68D, the;vts>on dor this corridors the Countywide �lu�does not address .......... arx exclusive rail or bus alt ernapve'transit way por artezial streets, the uisxon emphasizes ... ...... . ........ ......... .. .. ......... se v or expanded roadways to serve growlrig employment and reslderitlal areas to the I'r� Valley Finally, the vision jnciudes safety:and operational improvements throughout the cprridor to address exsting and foret problems, including auxiliary,Lanes: cas SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS The main current project in this corridor is the widening of I-680 from Rudgear to 1-580 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. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 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; b For 1 .5:80, the;TSO;is LOS;F or.:no, more than two hours;luringthe peak pecmds, wfiile for l 680'lt is LOS E for-no..:moreafian fve Also,the TVTC; has adopted a i'SO of no:increases in single occupant vehicle capac>ty .. . ....: ...._ ...... ..:.. _ . ... on any 6f the "gateways" leading uto the legion; The TVTC is considering several sets of ........::...........:..................._....._..................._.........._............:.............:.. alternative actions and projects to achieve these standards and are currently testing their .......................................................................................................................................................................................... effectiveness. Thdre..1S no consensus, however,at either SWAT or.VTC on proposed TSOs .. ............. .... .. (3r a.....iS.: ...........:........:.... ......................... C:\WPTXT\l93\CCTP\CCTP'XVOLi.3.DOC 1-79 April ?5, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.7-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Rudgear Road to I-580) Note! The Wiewing list does fiet fefleet th blished by the Regional T-Fanspeftatien Pianning Committees Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction Interstate 680 I-580 to Rudgear Rd. Widen for HOV lanes Fostoria Pkwy. Construct overcrossing Programmed Interstate 680 EI Cerro Blvd. Install signals at ramp intersections Rudgear Rd. to Alcosta Blvd. Widen for HOV lanes 1-580 New SB 1-680 to EB 1-580 flyover Alcosta Blvd. I/C Modify I/C 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 Alcosta Blvd. to Montevideo Dr. Widen Hartz Avenue Diablo Rd. to SRVB/RR/ Road reconstruction Han Wy. Diablo Rd. to Prospect Ave. Frontage improvement Sycamore A•venoe NE quadrant 1-680 Park-and-ride lot ........................ Val]eyRvad Track I Interstate 680 County line to SR 24 Traffic operations system Diablo to Bollinger Canyon Rd. Construct auxiliary lanes ' 1-580 Install hook ramps at IIC Candidate Track 2 Interstate 680 South Dublin Blvd. New 1/C Sycamore Valley Rd. to Crow Canyon Widen to 4 lanes Rd. Pine Valley Rd. to Alcosta Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes --Diable-Read 6faOR NWIO)' Rd- 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 C:\WP X-n193\CCTP\CCTP^-\VOLT•?.DO 1-80 April 35, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.7-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-680 CORRIDOR (from Rudgear Road to I-580) (RT-PGs) through the Aetien The list sh Offaffiffied ift thO SUFFORt STIP, and Fefleets the Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Crow Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Blvd. to rifle Safety improvements Tassajara Raict,p . County line to Bollinger Canyon Rd. Widen/truck climbing lane Dougherty Road Crow Canyon Rd. to county line Widen to 6 lanes Fallon Road Tassajara Rd. to 1-580 Widen to 6 lanes East Branch Road Bollinger Canyon Ext. to Windemere 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. C:%V,7r)n193\CCTP\CCTP?\VOLI-?.DOC 1-81 April 25, 1995 j '�,I Figure 3.7-1 Proposed Projects I-680 {(from Rudgear Rd to I-580) nlnut i t reek,—\,-- _ Arterial 24 Freeway Roadway Widening ;a E •iusnssn New Roadway ' NOV lanes New or Upgraded Alamo 0 Interchange/Intersection CONTRA COSTA W f Moraga 4` �� Intersect on impprovsmenh Add o`iQ'ry lanes Donv lk Bl d/Stone WIl�y Rd (Diablo Rd)a Bollinger Canyon Rd) 6 Son Ramon Volley BI /Ho Aw7. IJan Vei — /�/� • ...✓'.� Vfided Crow Conyan Rd 1-680"°6 y(M +� .`:_ GMF Conyon p ba V `� s%�jam Rcnch Dr) Corridor Sycamore Va(��{ey,Rd. :� s' ro N. Add HOW, Rud ear �\lanes to t•6B0 Eeend Bollinger '�.= - ck Roa :to 1 Widen Son Raman VallIeeyy SI,m �. n Ramon -580 +1` (Sycamore Valley RdioCrowCanyonM)` •\ ��� Wden Dougherty Rd A L. A M E D A 1580 lea es,Rd b �---(Crow Ca "widen Bctinger / cacommanyon Rd(1-680 ,� ,.. .. :...}' .:'` Raman) 1 Widen San Ramo uolky BI.a. ----"'"'�— (Akasto to Mont•hdeo•e Iona) '�- �.� Si... n r ........ { Mmtocasco B.d g.Castro Dublin +_ ;.Valley 'Modc7y!•58U/1.680 Hayward+ _ - , , � \ v qI1, r' 6 , Pleasanton See T661e 3.7-1 for a more detoiled'&e cription of projeds BLAYNEY - DYETT Urban and Regional Planners :N:: C-4 C4 r4 :C-4: r4. na :U:: gi A 00 X 6 C6 CIS co o COO w 00 up 00 01) 0 r- cl m E u I's 00 cc iMiil X C6 wwwl: .4Z c C* SLk 0 —U Irl r- CZ > > X 00 00 N C O u u w.' > 'j, o E E a 2 r- E ow �: C tj a cn:. > r c L E 11 0 0 CL 00 r C� -01 v Lnr- a< cn C/5 V) V) W.. -nad 5. z 00 W) o' 00 r— ro �o 6J00 > O lu kn r ca r C3 > a Cv r ca m U < cl m t 0 ex w cc C� u Qj C-3 r C'4 17 ILI 00 Qr 44. mN U zo V) E 0 U Q i�iZ .2 0 Z Q z Jz -3 a C- I..__............_....t i Figure 3.7-2 � f .......... �' Proposed Actions I-680 t ,..; �'' (from Rudgear Rd to I-580) WalriUf f Creek,_ ?a z .. "lafayette i, Support gas tax For transportation improwrtrnb Alamo - CONTRA COSTA Mora aMaj namit"ntmsnt Danville .� fF 1-680 Corridor ;� -------.__— Advo2a�.Hovanlasoand ; �.��..__�, --(from: \a�\o seamless HOV system Rudeart z Road to San Ramon I-580) -- f' A L.A M E D A :., a caap.rat w Lb ansa growth ... est TSOs program m -'Ach;e a fobs-housing / bolonce in Tri-Volley : D bhn (astr0 ,Valley rF a `4. it Mn �f �l t a .gi nal c irtQott' �. I enren subr o tr.R '. F«and secure de.elaper funding y .. ...................... Hayward r r ^ D � 1 t w Pleasanton BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 3.8 State Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel Highway State Route 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 State' oute 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 ensures 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 StatRovte 24. ...............:...:....... BART, however, provides an alternative to the freeway. The Concord line now running in the median of the freeway is being extended to Bay Point (formerly West Pittsburg) which could serve additional trips that would otherwise takebl wa >Statute 24. There is no I-I i¢ ;:.::...... .e>R , .......................... bus service connecting Alameda and Contra Costa Counties through the Caldecott Tunnel. ISSUE STATEMENT Demand. Although job growth in Central County and the Tri-Valley will not 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 translates into the need for another half lane of freeway capacity. (This modelling assumes some increases in BART capacity.) Demand along the corridor is constrained by the six-lane Caldecott Tunnel. In addition, with the growth of jobs to the east, demand is forecast to grow in the off-peak 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- peak commuters as well. C\NkTTXr\19r3\CCTP\CCTP2\VOL1-3.DOC I-85 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Cosw Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Supply. Any increase in roadway capacity in the Highway S,ta a R6.ute 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 Highwa) Mate Route 24 without adding the fourth bore will not amass remove 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 1-680/SR 24 interchange, a major point of congestion and "upstream" bottleneck will be removed. When 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 metering could cause serious delays at intersections near BART stations and thus discourage the use of mass transit. VISION; FOR;>TNE:STATE ROUTE 2d';AND:CALDECOTT TUNNEL.CORRIDD,R ...... . . ... . . ......................................................... State Route 24 through Lamorinda s today, and will ire at >n 2010; one of the',nost heavily:traveled corridors ii? the county `;The phystcalconstratnts of the Caldecott C:\wP"rKrU93\CCrP\CCTP^-wou-?.DOC 1-86 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption Tunnel at the west end of the carrielor wiil Iimtt the ability to reduce congestion or even maintain current Ieveis of service through increases in capacity Although comp)exon o f u I-5801State Route 24 ulterchane�mprovemeizts wilt remove a major bottleneck its .. ... .... ..... ..... t~ mpJetitirtw;tl also move congestion closer to the tunnel, vorsentng morning congestion ...... .......... .. ................................................ aUon0't}e:irotr dtjr The vision fo State:Route 24 and the Gaidecatt Tunnel thus looJcs to ulternatrve ways iaf addressing growing congestion » tie corror "T'hese steps induce ii}cotiragutg the use of transit and carpools through the development of new park and ride lots counrywlcJe, and expanding bus service to BART::stations:....::: Yie vision for this corridor also includes operational iimprovements to ramps and'loc al streets and the:expansion of<TDM efforts to improve efficiency and aainaRe;demand. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS By far the most significant project in the corridor is the reconstruction of the &I� RtateRoute24/I-680 interchange which includes the widening of the &I� StateRoute 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 t orinda jurisdictions have adopted two TSOs for;thls route: G.te-MA-is _:.::.._.. .... ..... ..__..:.: beingx limiting the peak period of congestion on SR 24 to four hours in the morning Arid eveq ng, an l increasing daily ridership on the Concord Daly City:BART Jing ........ ..._,..: ... .._.: _... ............ ..: . by 20 percent by 2010. Tli-is These TSOs 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 b these::objecfives. 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-and-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. C:\wPTXr\I93\CCrP\CCTP2\VOLT-3.DOC I-87 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.8-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — ROUTE 24 AND THE CALDECOTT TUNNEL (RT-PGs) thr-eugh the Aetien Planning pr-eeess. The list rheA%-s PFE�eetf, PF8grftfflffl6d ift thO ftffefit STIP, &Rd f-efleem 6he Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction State Route 24 1-680 Reconstruct I/C Programmed State Route 24 Brookwood Rd. Widen eastbound off-ramphristall new signal Deer Hill Rd. Modify westbound on/off ramps and the Central Lafayette i/C/install new signal at Deer Hill/interconnect with sinal at Deer Hill and 1st St. I-680 to Caldecott Tunnel Traffic Operations System Pleasant Hill Road Mt. Diablo Blvd. to Acalanes Ave. Channelization/pavement overlay Camino Pablo Miner Rd. to Bear Creek Rd. Road reconstruction Altarinda Road Camino Pablo to Orinda Woods Dr. Rehabilitation and overlay Orinda Orinda Carpool lots and bus centers 'Track 1 None Candidate Track 2 None Under Construction 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 l 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. CAVIFTX711931CCfP1CCTP21V0L1-3.DOC I-88 April 25, 1995 l� _ E N p a V -0 C N m - � � VH s= Q a o C3 V � m s ' c ' LAAsa o m CD / cti O C 7 e� Bm E / b C a T V � Q e C C 'CCC / oe m u a eE y o 0 0 �> 25 m....... © f� O u d CDO •v v c c c v Ot N• �. o V se : Q to � � •': o : i SIN c E i o 0 0 W°;(7 / / � 4 C It O 44 eo < / i CO \ 2H Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 3.9 East-Central Commute — Highway 4 and Other Routes One of the fastest growing commutes in the Bay Area is from East Contra Costa County across the Diablo Range into and through Central County. The primary route in this commute is Highway State;Route 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 tob State Route 4, commuters also use Bailey Road �y (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 Stke.Route 4 from Antioch past Brentwood) and the East County Corridor which would connect the Bypass to 1-580 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 State;Route 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 around ,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. C:\WprXT\193\CCrP\CCTP-\VOLT•?.DOC 1-93 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption Route 4 and on Kicker Pass Road could increase by 70 to 80 percent witliin t1'e time:frame of .. ..... .............:........... ........................ ;'.`l'lte iii wide Plan:focuses on un rovements :f(i the:State.Route.4.face n h Route 242 corridor as the primary means for;accommodating existing congestion and the gr©wth in travel through the corridor WhI a the Ptah recommends the further widening of State Routes and 242 foz HOU andlor mixed flow traffic, it eiriphastzes other measures as ................ . .. ................. . ... . ...... .... .. .. .. ........ .............................................n........'......re Some new nnixed flow, c.apactty is necessary, however The propose . widening of State Route 4 includes HOV lanes and:room;for an extension of$AR7'iv Anti©ch as well as new uuxed-flow capacity The proposed w,dening of State.Ro11W::. may also include HOV:lanes Th11 e Plan ireludesthe tirst phase of the State;Route 4 Bypass and the Buchanan Bypass to serve the commute [etweeri rapidly growing housing>areas iii East County and expanding fob centers outside East County The State Route 4 Bypass will serve . .. ... .... as.,v ceded extension of that road into southeast Antioch and Brentwood The Buchanan B ass will serve traffic:boundfrom East Cvun to 8op to meat centers Central Count Yp.... ...... ..... ....... .. .... : ' Y. , y:. ...................................... .............__.....__ . . ........ . .._........ ...... ............................._... .... .........................._............_ . »;:::.. Tie Plan also,reeommends 'ro ecrts.to increase the efficienc of travel within the corridor 3'hese measures include park and ride lots along Ro .................................::.....: for news}final.synchronization prj cts to the east The Plan recommends studytng a ... .. ......... .. .. ......... couritywlde approach to;ramp metering to ensure that the!<full benefits of metering are, achieved without introducing new congestion on local streets Tlie vision for this ccirido:r aisct includes measures.to affect travel demand, including expanded Job;opporfunities:in East aunty and increased telecommuting as an alternative to daily commuting. 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 State Route 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. C:\\VPTXTU 9?\CCrP\CCrP^\VOL1-?.DOC 1-96 April 35, 1995 r, Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transpoftation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption SUMMARY OF TSOs AND ACTIONS TRANSPLAN is studying a TSO for &R _State;R:ouce 4 that sets a maximum period of congestion (that is, LOS F) of 2-.5 .3 hours. For most other regional routes, more traditional LOS standards wetild be set ineluding, fef the non fteeway p6fliefi ef SR 4, bnalized TRANSPLAN isL have been set,. nclud ng LC)S E for SR 4 SOW 0f Balfour, D;for Signalt ed and E for unstgna n mtersec.ons on the noir freeway portions of SR 4. , and LOS mid E for other:routes 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. C:\wvrx-n 143\CCTP\CCrP\VOLT•3.DOC 1-97 April 25, 1995 TABLE 3.9-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST-CENTRAL COMMUTE OWPdS Of A.ti.-e ..FOjeetS ifi A14T-G'.. 1994 DTD Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction State Route 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) .:.: Treat 13atIkYaTd T *tk Creek rd to Winton Dr. Signal tnicmonneci _.. Ygnacto S�ailey Rc>itd Aiberta Wy tc�Mtchlgan Rd' Signal tnterconttiect Programmed State Route 4 Somersville Rd. Modify I/C East 18th St Modify I/C Bailey Rd. to Railroad Ave. Widen to 6 lanes + 2 HOV with provision for BART in the median State Route 242 1-680 to SR 4 Widen to 6 lanes, possibly for HOV Concord Ave. I/C Modify I/C/add auxiliary lane to Solano Wy./Grant St. I/C State Route 4 Bypass SR 160 to south of Brentwood Construct new 2-lane road SART Railroad atSR4 Gonstruet park and nde lot Track 1 State Route 4 Loveridge Rd. Modify I/C and construct parallel truck facility - . SR 242 to Bailey Rd. Add HOV lane SR 160 to Big Break Rd. Widen to 4 lanes Big Break Rd. to Vintage Pkwy. Widen to 4 lanes _....... ..... As b ' ........................ Candidate Track 2 State Route 4 *Vintage Pkwy. to Sellers Ave. Widen to 4 lanes Railroad Ave. to Hillcrest Ave. Widen to 6 lanes + 2 HOV with provision for BART in the median Buchanan Bypass Somersville Rd. to Kirker Pass Rd. Construct new 2-lane road Clayton Roadenter St.. ;?1dd Blsck Diamond Trail.crossuig ....... ... ..... ........ ........ .. Kirker Pass Road Mfftlta Clayto.n Rd;to Clearbrook Dr. Widen to 6 lanes Clearbrook Dr. to Buchanan Rd. Add truck climbing lanes Ivirytle Dr;to Clgyton Rd Signal'.interconnect Tzeat:Bot>3evard Clayton Rd`IDcnl:tt gcr Rd; Widen for right turn lane Ygnacio Valley Road *Cowell Rd. to Mynle Clayton Rd Widen to 6 lanes _......_. . ......... _ ...... .._.. Walnut Ave: Add rwN-tum Ianc CoHell Rd- 1Vtdest7rcconstruct.lefl tti.m lane 'Civ1c Dr Modify right turn:_lane BART Bailey Rd. to Hillcrest Ave. Extend BART to Hillcrest Ave. C:\WPTXT\193\CCCP\CCrPI\VOLI.3.DOC 1-98 April25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.9-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — EAST-CENTRAL COMMUTE Netei The following list deer, net fefleet th ' . .- . blished by the Regionai TFanspeptatieft Plaiining Committees 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. C:\wPTXni93\CCrP\CCTP'_'\VOLI4.DOC 1-99April 25, 1995 z DS, i... O� U � c s` QO a (\ �• EN c -ODE tea : v • �• c I/ •1• -- ^. v oc 3 os > ; m � � • • c O m c L6 Lu m < ` E • S �„ ! p Js............. t .Q . p 3 o \ e V Fs x \ / s� j/ -DO ' ............:.. O � C a s O •f Z. } V 9;2 z2 4 Do ;W O ®V CLu 0 It Q °'t °f r 4D ° o i ..,_,.i _ ✓" �,l d .2 es J /• 2� •;r=" 3 E iE v C>::: o> o>: jai T i'i 7i o cc m �X U U mO O -d °: _ � Q v ° . '� a3 c F- c c u m c -Ql m e N fl. L yin <af cc p N l0 >> O CO =v cC O O H 3 E F p ej ° 3 `o a > ;:; s w c w w ` F• a° .: � .Q �: U 4 i0; � o o •C � F w y m m u w: c y w E �a w •v � E c .°.o .. c. w e ° c U OUu w p y G c a 4 W o w G w ca E: c• E E o- w M t: w mi E o v o Lil w E 13 zSil UO aG::: c a Q c > z Z w o: h v) c V) O c o Z c •3 CA 3 CA v> > � 3 c o •`= N v w N � � � � � Q y •o p ` � O� Rc c c .3 c c c v w m ie w A •c > .' o C to "tT a, c0 may/ PG ::7: i•• O. tL� Q Q:. ° C C v v. 3 •v Lt7; ti ° � ° v A: a U y Cd to E y E �: U C• U � O .. .$. Z. o ro N V:> Lu v m LLI h t z 2 OCo 'C _ '') 2 •� vi: td 3.t•a M �'>. N u 4 Hmo a v ea tq < x o A d e J > > p as C w . Q , E o ag Y ,t j�. v r • cLU O ............ 40 xr r ■ :d 3 Q �d� tit•. ,i \,.£ \ W"`�. 1 o t!� � /�I�It111= ? •Itttt� i �`,. ���f 110 5 't s f of r O f � I u i _+ 1,2 jii C. LKV ° f u a 12ff N f V L++` ' i`o } f j ! l LU -2%i_ a J ig rS Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 3.10 East County Gorrider4d...." alley Commute - 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 r-emain continue to'-do so with housing growth in Tracy, Mountain 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. ll ;- s 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 enij-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, Oh --growth wet4& a* simply shift to the Central Valley. Transportation facilities that would serve this Central Valley development, such as 1-580, 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 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 C:%WPrXT193%CCrP%CCrP2XVOL1.3.DOC I-10'4 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Wue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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. In addihonahe Tri Valley 4. transportation Counci'11' s taken the ppsiuon that this commute corridor:should serve<as a constrained gateway to the Tri Valley; 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 truck traffic increases on Byron Highway, it will create new conflicts as cars try to pass slower-moving trucks. VISION FOR THE EAST TRI=VALLEY<COMMUTE _........ .. .. ... ... :. .......... ....... . ._.. ..._..._.._. ............ .. ........ East Contra'Costa.Countyj one of the fastest=grow, g parts of the Bay:Area _ . and one i?f the main areas in the region sti l! wlth stgntf'cant I available €or entry level housing Peak Aour travel demand to the south is expected to;grow dramatically, expanding to more than 2'h times by 2010 Congestion on'Altamont Pass is encouraging truck traffic to divert onto Byron H�ghwdy _ Becau'se of lite limited capacity of V Road and By l`Iig_i va muc of chat dzmand will rely }eavily on traveling west along State Route 4, hen south on1 680; where tt wi11 further add to the sagnificant growth to the East Central and _. . ..__...., _ . _... 18Q:commutes. .......:.........:......:................... ............................................ The Countjuide Plaji recognizesthe limited capacity:of State Route 4 inthe _.. corrtdor:= much of At is now a two lane rural highway between State Route 160 and San Joadis, County and includes a new two lane State Route 4 IBypass from south of Brentwood to the freeway portions?of State Route 4 m Antioch To;help fund ihts and other new roadways, the Jurtsdict>gns within East County (Pittsburg;; Antioch, Brentwooi and Centra Costa County)'have established.a development fee on housing:and commercial ... ....si . ... ..... .. . ........:.. development.:: The vision for the::eorndor does;;not rely solely on;new roadways: The Plan also includes a program to zncourage new developments that support:transit, walking and other.alternative modes of ravel The vis on for the corridor;::also includes; economic C:\WP'rX\i93\CCTP\CCrP^-\VOLT-3.DOC 1-105 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption development to pcovtde jobs orlocal:residents and' telec onunutiag ceriter� B©th o these .. =Ons wt[t help reduce the need for loca] residenL9 to iorimute out of the area SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS Table 3.10-1 lists eely fetiF projects proposed for the East Tr,: �a11ey ..... !wvinmUte. The most significant of these p�e}ee+s 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 PROPOSED: TSOs AND ACTIONS ............................... R TRAN PLAN is eensiaef:nI as '' :opted a TS of LOS mid-E for Vasco a :...:............ Road and Byron Highway with an additional objective of an average vehicle ridership of 1.3 on Vasco Road. These TSOs would be achieved through encouraging job growth and metering new development, setting up telecommuting centers and encouraging alternative 'work-day and work-week schedules, and pursuing additional funding sources. Ther.e;_ss.no: consensus, however, at;either SWATbi TVTC on jiroposed TSOs ar actions:. C:\WPTXTU93\CCTP\CCTP3\VOL1.3.DOC 1-106 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.10-1 ..................................................................... STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS - EAST COUNTY 7OM1VtU'1"E ..:.::......:........:............................::......:::.:...... etwefit STIP, and r-efleets ...................................................................... Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Programmed Vasco Road Camino Diablo to Alameda County Relocate 2-lane road Track 1 State Route 4 SR 160 to Big Break Rd. Widen to 4 lanes Big Break Rd. to Vintage Pkwy. Widen to 4 lanes Candidate Track 2 State Route 4 *Vintage Pkwy. to Sellers Ave. Widen to 4 lanes State Route 4 Bypass SR 160 to south of Brentwood Construct 4-lane road Byron Airport Byron Hwy. to relocated Vasco Road Construct 2-lane road C9nnector south of Camino Diablo Programmed Projects currently programmed in the 1994-3001 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 Plan list. C:\w7TX-nI93\CCTP\CCT1'\V0L1.3.DOC 1-107 April 25, 1995 Figure 3.10-1 Be1he11sla4."i Proposed Projects WHOC East-Tri-Valley Commute ' Arterial Wd.SR 4 i ♦• .`...(SR,1,¢O,bYemg.,,PAwyj Freeway tonslruct nw SR 4/ f SR d Byp=inutge i ; tt.B.n...■ Now Roadways - _..■_ _� _ _. ------=-' New Freeway ■ 5 ■ Constrvd SR 4 Byposi�,----•--•p-- �--�-�-----"-\ Roadway Widening it • ••i f Brentwood ® New or Upgraded ® Interchange/intersection a/Intersection i............�...« _........4................. f •o d I ••�.�♦ __.......... Discovery ♦••.—_............ _._w Bay "' � Stttttttttttttttttttttttttttt--�--- ° r: ♦ i �r ��•'`• � S A N • Byron 1, J O A Q U I N CONTRA __w ••. Relocate •• wos<o Rd C' .O -S T A •.• IL_ E®st=Tri-Valley Commute ''••........ / J ■ ■. .� I Ar L A M E D A } y ............... .... i s _ See Table 3.10-1 for a more detailed description of projects. BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners C v. N C C O O y: F- <:as: o a C: C [] tj I 4d M x Z £ —y ` r c mss::: , `° Q< o ` > .� Q F c N H v Z O. i:0. U to g o Q to a Z > CcZ Z o co c Y QLo O F 0. 0- n� Cl. n, E vqi tO � . . �'° F a h o o c Z :% ;: j V ¢ C J •G = '_" C N 72 > d E Q U > •> C V " O O U O U V aF ia>s oc iZyji :Lp:,S Y GG Z t c ID W p C O U 00 > o w E ° O ° > Aj VY R .L n c h c I' c T ¢ C_ a Un Z3 o i Chi a >C z > r Jn- w <8ic: N c� ^O 1,*- 79 i Figure 3.10-2 \ Bethel 1516n Proposed Actions F Anfioc East-'IYi-Valley Commute f r \ Ackley IF ••• ` I�h1ap Perk end-Ridcbh" i Secure dw�lopar funding for ' . "'^�• _i- ._5..��® E ec1 needed b rrrel impacts \ 1 t. _ —• dirakipenwh De.Jop Tonal • E xonoTlc d it �n,—D",aP;A.-Winah- progro ;n East County nog ent dram \ 8 em b rrw TSQ / •., Brentwood 17 ...... _ •• 3 ............... wti 1 • �x. t Support transit service 5 < s ItSS • Establish an Eai County p? � $ Mecomm uting subnsgional fee foc,SR 4 •� Esbblish effective=. a> cenbrs widening,SR 4 Bypou • TQM Programs ; P°I° anon Bypossand �. Discovery , .. �.�...................... � Bay 4c1.4 oneroB '1 Banc.vi! m 16. •i Tri-Volley ... Construct,oIk and •• bikeway impromments I�..t 1 S A N Byron f_,__----------- J O A Q U I N CONTRA `C ,O S TA �7 East Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 3.11 1-580-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, I7580 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 c:1wprxni9J1CCrPkCC-r?'wol.]-?.DOC 1-112 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption link BART in Livermore with San Joaquin County.and Stockton to the east and San Jose to 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. VISION FOR THE 1580 ALTAMOh1T PASS CORRIDOR Like the Car utnezand.Benicia Nlargnex Brid` es Altamont Pass;is a ma or _, ..g 9 _:... :.. -:.. .. ... . .. J gateway for commuters, in this case, commuters from San Joaqutn County'into the Trt V.alJey r'a' and' points beyond, such as Santa Clara County and Oakland Ry X010, volumes across Altamont Pass are expected to utcr. b-i%ase lmost 50 percent, with daily trips reaching 14 . �thts rs a near tnpltng of the volumes experienced durtrtg the early 1980s} Thi ::.;;.. .... effect will be a;lengthened duration:of congestion, not only ai:the Altamont gateway, btttaI Mang I .�80 to the interchange with 1680 «:::: ... The vi ion for the 1-5$0 A1tamQnt Pass Corridor does not call for .1den►ng . XXX a 58D over Altamont Pass The Count .vide Alan recognizes that a .....constrgateway w } moderate tlows Into the Trt Halley and that,w. m4 any case, Iunited funds are available for W1 ening 1580 at Altamont Pass Instead of:looking to expanded'freeway capacity along 1 580 and:across: Altamont Pass to respond to ncreased travel de tand, the Plan focuses on;otber Tavel motiles and other actions to address:demand on I-_580. improvements to the I=580/I 68.0 nterc}anbe and to State Route 84::will.Jimprove:overall traff c flow: Actions to;encouragealternative travel modes include.. vocating HOU Lanes on 'I=580, xtendjng BART to Li vermore, i Nutrtng empioyer based TDM efforts, and aupporttng other mayor nvestri3ents in irans:it To sup or these acrions the Plan also calls for a sub regtpnal fee and possibly an utcreasetl gas tax iv fund these actions and other improvements and a cooperative grawtt �stanagement strategy: . 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 c:\wPrxT\10\ccrv\ccrEnwoi-1-3.1>oc 1-113 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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 PROPOSER TSOs AND ACTIONS ............................... ............................... ............................... peak heuFs not b b times. The,TVTC<has established a m'I of tonvenUonaI and; nnovattve TSOs f, the corridor ;.The former:include LOS:D.for.arterial _..._ . . ...::. _ .....:... .. .. ...._... ._.. . .... . .... . ......:. ..._..... _.......:.. ...... .__... ...._. ... ........ ........ streets andthelr signalized mtersectrons and LOS E for freeways and ramps riot already at F Tire less conventional objectives are maximum durations for peak hour congestion,two hours far I 580 at LOS F, five hours;for I-:680 at E, ten=percen increase in average e x e rcdership, and transit travel times on mayor:routes tbat equal or exceed car.p>nes The finat TSQ allows no lrirreasem capaelty for singte-occ, pani veh,eles on 1580, 16$Q Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road: There is 6tons rlsus,however, at either SWAT or T�7TC oa? ro sed TSQs or actions_ These TSOs and actions to achieve them are described in Table 3.11-2 below. State, regional and local governments have also initiated a study of issues around I-580 and Altamont Pass. C:\WPTXT\193\CCrP\CCTP:\VOLI.3.DOC 1-114 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.11-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-580-Altamont Pass Corridor -P, afid F09881:8 Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Under Construction 1-580 1-580/1-680 1/C Northbound/eastbound ramp Hopyard Rd. I/C Modify I/C Programmed 1-580 1-680 Modify I/C Vasco Rd. Modify I/C New SR 84/Isabel Pkwy. Construct new I/C State Route 84 1-580 to old SR 84 Construct new 4-lane expressway (Isabel Parkway) Greenville Road Patterson Pass Rd. to 1-580 Widen to 4 lanes Candidate Track 2 1-580 Kittyhawk Rd. New I/C EI Charro Rd. Modify I/C North Livermore Ave. Modify I/C 1st St. Modify I/C North Greenville Rd. Modify 1/C Hacienda Dr. New I/C Santa Rita Rd. Modify 1/C Isabel Parkway 1-580 to Vallecitos Rd. Widen to divided freeway Vallecitos Road 1-680 to Node 4164 on Vallecitos Rd. Widen to 4 lanes (Highway 84) Dougherty Road County line to Dublin Blvd. Widen to 6 lanes Dublin Boulevard Donlan Wy. to Hollis Canyon Blvd. Widen and extend to Hollis Canyon Blvd. Tassajara to Doolan Rd. Construct new roadway Tassajara Road County line to 1-580 Widen to 8 lanes 1st Street Portola Ave. to 1-580 Widen to 6 lanes Greenville Road 1-580 to Patterson Pass Rd. Widen to 6 lanes Isabel Avenue 1-580 to Vineyard Ave. Widen to 6 lanes Vasco Road Dalton Ave. to 1-580 Widen to 4 lanes Dalton Ave. to Patterson Pass Rd. Widen North Livermore May School Rd. to 1-580 Widen to 6 lanes Avenue C:\WPrXT\193\CCTP\CCTP\VOL1.3.DOC I-IIS April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 3.11-1 STATUS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS — I-580-Altamont Pass Corridor New-- The feiiewifig list dees fiet FeAeet the pfief4ias established by ihe Regional T-Fanspeftation Pia%fiing Geffiffiiitee� Roadway/Facility Location Improvement Bernal Avenue Foothill Rd. to Valley Ave. Widen to 6.lanes -First Ave. to Stanley Blvd. Widen to 4lanes Hacienda Drive 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 Candidate 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. C:twPTxntg+\ccrP\ccm^wou- .DOC 1-116 April 25, 1995 { c — NJ- O d O f N d S - ---------- `� z •—�•Lw . 3 i\- /" �. f i y CA c Oc Z oc zme ........... ....... \ LU \ f ; 0 Boz ! O C '^ O o €off �t5 ; a \ r O C / E i Q 0 rr �` v a •� as gun L p�� monsoonal ■A L O C ■.� O 2, N O Ln v � > - ■R �W _ Ul [ [ ' v i � •oc oc .. � `'�t C CC— OUW C So'n. o`O r ....� �•s �� o4n�� �\ c o4 �s •»� ZE,� < C �-O =a 8 b H — � � _ . \ '��c �0 3� ,••..:.,.. ._. .,..,yes`", ',"f W f M Q• Fid c F O � U F r •3Z. i �i A' U •� •=i � � •Oi y v U. > E ° r R > Fv o p O cyi O0 0 ° u p u O N L {l � F a. o C = 000 A ,i v oc oo m E c 3 L u toob v > •r. N '�. v. ` E td r.i ...P+. _ y U 'U .OD O t� O O N C O V :C•> u = c V R 3 c c; E 'co a o u c O o c c c o u u .c o o U E E v o N > o @ cp E u c > 0. co 000 3 z a ° "� > c E z isc:: 00 yi y r c a d o •n " � � c R U ?'v�i1z rn u E v' R o 0 0 = Glyl:; CA O C r — > C f l G y O 7 O poo > L L :• = N U L. O 'j i' E — > `Jr. s. u G c -o .c 'v o y .0 c oo > ,e c- 3 i ° v u u O ° O .4 O no o o c .j Z _ < 'N = F Z o U � ■ � \ & . : . � � . . � . k � g > � R § o � . . : rA . . «� . c Iam: 2c 6. z _,• Nj'n o v o r N d s ----- --- -- , : 0.0 PQf w� nc ........... S c c \ ` / i �2W 0°� , Y: r. . ........ ..,...r p.1 o E e . L (yt O w< Q \ o-a vt 00 c � a j rr' lam\ ^�w•.—... d' ZE-4 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 3.12 Other Issues This 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 FREIGHT MOVEMENT- besides the movement of people and eemmutiffg, 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 GGTP Countywide Flan 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 GGT-P Plgn. 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. Its 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 as;qu ckly 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 traffic i5 often accomparim by 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 tel percentage of trucks traffic increases. This worsening is related to the slower acceleration of trucks from a stop as well as their length and consequent difficulty in turning. C:MTTXr\193\CCrP\CC FI-\VOL1-3.DOC 1-121 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption The freeways that serve Contra Costa County generally have greater truck volumes than most arterials J.n;the coon t'. 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, 1-680 and I-580 (in both West County and the Tri-Valley) are probably the main truck routes in the country. Highway 24 has limited truck traffic since the height of the 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 I-680. The Richmond Parkway was designed to remove trucks from I-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 to at least 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 that rely on trucking to supply them, 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 (IVHS;). 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 committing, bicycling and walking can play a supporting role in improving the transportation system. C:�wPrXt�ie3Crrvccrwwoi.i-;.uoc I-122 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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, however, are sensitive to distance, topography, safety and climate. By themselves, bicycling and walking have shorter maximum distances than either 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 by bicyclists 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 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 c:%w7r>.-r\I91\ccrP\ccrr_woi.i-3.00c 1-123 April 25. 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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. :trect and >Indtrect suppori`for btcycling and walking are appropriate uses of transportation funds, and as such are supported Xw:by Measure C Efforts to Improve itte safety and conveprence of Cyclists an pedestrians uc�uld help snake h►cycltng:and walking more .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. iinportattt and attractive altarnattves to driving, wh le serving the needs of Mal aW future bicyclists and pedestrians .....The �A Autlorrty can directly support bicycling and walking by funding new bicycle or pedestrian facilities or incorporating them into new roadway or .............. ....... transit projects. It can provide indirect support byiapprgving of development patterns and designs that encourage people to use bicycles and walking to get around. b and Fidinb, put peeple out inte the Rain and eeld and dafk ean all b people fr-em Using these mades. Of eeuFsez th � GCTA�has little ability to influenee these F.qr example,the Auhonty upports the'�york of the Countywide Bteycle Advtsary Committee, a,:prtvate;group that xs prega-tng jtsown "acttoD:plan°'for btc:ycimg in Contra Costa 'I a commtttee`lntend$ tb esfabllsh ob ectives of ncreasin the':is hare of work tr>p$made by brcycle to S 0 percent in 2000 and : 0 percen[ to 2010 from the 1 93 share .: ......: ,... reported by the Metropolitan Trarisp'artaUon Ctmmiss�on ln'its 1993 `Journey to. ,of is tYie San Francs co Bay Area" The corresponding rate for pedestrians was 1 percent) 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. Many adults in the county, however, and all children cannot take advantage 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. C:N%MXTNI93%CCTP%CCTP2\VOLI.3.DOC I-124 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption 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 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. c:\wPTx-ni93�=P�cCf't"-\vou-3.DOC 1-125 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption C:\wpT)CrVt9m\,CCrP�CCTP COLI-s-DOC 1-126 April 25, 1995 4 IMPLEMENTATION The.Contra Costa Transportation Authority (GGTA) was created te-pFev-ide-a eountywide-€eref.+-to oversee expenditures of sales tax funds and to implement an innovative growth management programwith ri Contraasa. The Countywide Comprehensive .........:;:.:..:::::::::::::::.......:..:...:: Transportation Plan (C-C-T-P) 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 �A-Authority as the lead agency, a cooperative planning process was established to involve local jurisdictions in the development and implementation.of the overall program.. Because the heaf• of the GGTP T ansportation Plan is-comprise&af- 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 C�P-Transportation Plan will be petentially triay comic 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. .The GGT-A Author v will work with local, regional, State and federal agencies to provide guidelines and funding to implement the-C-GT-P-Transportatton Plan 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 o . 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 percent Retail Transactions and Use Tax to help fund transportation projects within the county. C:\WPTXT\193\CCTP\CCIP2\VOLT-4-5.DOC I-127 April 25, 1995 Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption The Measure C sales tax alone, however, cannot even begin to finance all the proposed transportation projects necessary te-simply to 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 CGFP Trarispottation P]an. 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 EC-T-41LTranspprtatton Plan must also .:;...................:.:........:...........:,:.; provide a financially realistic assessment of proposed projects. In other words, the GGT-F Transportattan an 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 ErTanSpotat�onPla ; the descriptions of projects include .:.............:...:...................: both their location and design and their funding status. Those projects without committed funding or ON included within the region's financially-constrained RTP are clearly identified as etS Withftt a aving no identified source of funding. Unfortunately, the Measure C sales tax plus other existing and forecast revenue, bb falls short of supporting all the committed and proposed projects on the Comprehensive P4*Fi-Transportation Protect List. ifideeds affly A,eFe fie! fiteteFed in to the b than expeeted. 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. Beeaus�L—Under current conditions funding will be available for only for a small percentage of projects deemed necessary to adequately maintain and upgrade the county transportation system adequately, To show : htt h are or which are not funded; the e��eet . .. rt-list of projects in the Transportatson Plan 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 I 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 c:NwPrX-rU97\CCrP\CC r-\VOLl.a-S.DOC 1-128 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Implementation Proposal for Adoption (although there could be some reallocation of funding over the 20-year life of the RTP). Candtdate Track 2 projects are listed expected tobe tncludei in MTC's longer-range, financially-unconstrained project list, or are in regional Action Plans and have no committed funding. Iris-MTC=Menti plans to develop a list of unfunded projects for the Bay Area, and agggh , sales taxes ef tells, to be leyied is sponsoring,'legislation to ;authorize a regtonwide vote on a sales tax On fuel. EXISTING AND FUTU 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 $1,299.9-1 29 lion. . (escalated $730 million to 1Q88 dollars) over 20 years. ► MTC Resolution 1876/New Rail Starts Program. Sufficient revenues have been secured through this program to -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. C:\WPT?CT119%\CCrP\CCrW'\VOLI.4-5.DOC 1-129 April 25, 1995 Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption 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 1989 "Transportation Blueprint for California" identified $18.5 billion in funding for State transportation projects and programs. The Blueprint led directly to the passage of Proposition I I1 which 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 consumption), the need for seismic retrofit programs and the general economic downturn. This shortfall is estimated at between $41 and $5 billion. The Governor., in response,ltas estabitshed a rnoratortum on prograrrimtng;new ril ar State;funding for rtaadway profit cts Delays cif three;;#o €our Years Imt:he deltvery;of some prajects can he eacpetted' FUTURE;FUNDING Dee additional source ot;fundirg nov beteg constered;by the Caltforstsa S �B 8'77 would Gull orixe TC td impose a sales tax on Else sate of;xnotflr, O,W,e€uel - Eitel, or diesel<fuel wthtrt.the region Tte tax would Ile Died at a rate esabl,shed lay N1TC €int cbud not exceed,etght percent> Before irnposina the proposed tax, MTC would ado t a reaJonal trans rtatior P �... P9 ..... expendure plan €or:the revenues ciertved from:the tax:, The!regioni3l tra[LSportdtgri expenditure plan must describe spec3ttc proposed transportatttin projects and the eshtnated cast es€each prctJeet Based on the IegisIation each pra ect must meet at:feast one of the,follawzng regional transportatign needs: • Maintain or:rehabilitate local:streets,androads, sidewalks,:or bicycle rt3utes; • Fund capital or'operating expenses'of-public transit.systems, • Fund'rail extension projects in:the MTC's new rail starts plan; * Provide an, ternative to;singl�;:octrupapcy autamobile travel; ' improve safety on specific roadway segmentswhere at:cidertt or,fataltTy Grates significantly exceed the expected rate for Chase segrnerits aver a,multtyear timzframe; * Improve the aperational efficiency of the exisi,ng roadway system wtthbut a physical expansion of capacity; * Imp}ement the requirements of the federal Americans with Dtsabiitttes Act of 199Q on public transit systems and other iransportat'ion related factltttes c:tiwvrxni93\ccrr\ccrv-'\vota-a-s.DOC I-130 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Implementation Proposal for Adoption Fund seismic:rets otitting of nonstate owned transportation facilities; and;. `-`' •...... ........Fund ttitermgdal freight of passenger facilities: . The Authority has requested that the..:: ate Route 4 west gap closure prn�tcc be eigtble for such funds:: REGIONAL?RANSPORTATI0 MITIGA'I-10, PR.0GRAIv1 _........................... .. .. ... _ __ _.. .. .. ...... _ . . .. ...........................__............. As part of the prepaiation of their. Action Plans, RTPCs must include art approach to the; eveiopmeni of a Regional:Transportation Mitigation Program as tt would apply within t. it subarea As of March 1995, some of the RTPCs had established a fee on . new development projects to #und transportation improvements or were in the process of esfiablish��g such a fee ; The West County Action Plan does not discuss the required gation program but WCCTAC, the RTPC for West County,;is discussing the Issue. ►' Jurisd.ictions;m East:County, ,through a OW exercjse;of powers agreement (1PA) established a:fee on new dev6lobment :This fee wilI;be admirustere8 through the East.Contra Costa;Regional:Fee and 1~inancing Authority formed. inAugust 1994 as;Acaon in:the East County Action Plan 'Phe fee will #4 ' generate approximately $1=90 m►1.lon in revenues These revenues;an combination with Measure::C, State and federal:funds; will lie used;to fund three regionally significant transportation protests the BuLhanan.Road _. Bypass, the State Route 4:Bypass and the State Route;4 wdentng, The Centras County:Action Plan in Section T.1.:-..on..on pages S6 58, calls of TRAIlSPAC jurisdictions to "pursue the development of a subregional transportation ro4iganon fee witb;resptinsib"l'* ass>gned to TRANSPAC.and its Jursdietiois To mpleiient Abs program, the TRANSPAC jurisdictions will need to identity rnproyetnent projec'. that all will support; identity the correlation between n"ew developm;ent and the need tar hese proles is, define the activitizs (feasibility; design, operation; etc) for which the fee could be used, developing a fee.struciure, and decide on'candidate protect types:: <The Tri Valley Transportation.Council`has included :a proposal It a Regional Transportation lrriprovemetit Fee in the Trt Va:(ley Action P.l'an The structure of the fee is currently.being discussed by the TVTC They:<hope to initiate An C:\WPTXT\I93\CCfP\CCTP'_'\VOLT-4-5.DOC I-131 April 25, 1995 Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption addtttonal stud .to dune the tee program and rEcoznmend steps to implement X The Lamortnda.Actton Plan ;ncludzs a series of r;egtonwcde attons, ntlurhng support for reg onai or subregional fees on new development and requiring new developments to,:pay its "fair.share' of transpoxtaUon system ....::..............:...:.....................:...............:................::............................................................... :.............. ............................... m 'royt-ments .................................. 4.2 Responsibilities of Other Agencies . .............. The �A-Auth6r:ty; is responsible for the overall preparation and organization of this document. However, the GGTP Co, ttywtde. Plan. is a collaborative effort and various jurisdictions and agencies are also responsible for providing input to, preparing, ................................................................................................................... reviewing and implementing the plan. As part of tJie adoption of the Count}�tiitde Pians the CLIA-Authortt}+; bas incorporated t#e a the RTPC's Proposal for Adoption Action Plans into the GGT-P=trvu y u e .. Flan iSee£xhtb'cts A E for<tl7e p�rt►ons ofthe Actcon PIans incorporated tntp the L'auntyw1ae Plan:) The CC-T-A fft)' FeqUeSt that the RT-PGs modify their- Aetien Pians 4Eti6n-PlilF AbE'Rt1{�S-tE3i}}i}}itte2S and jefisdietiefis, et lei-trhan GSA in%,ek,ed-in The Growrh Managemescribe how tfe Authority;wd1 address conflcc rs among the Acitoa Plans dnd act on proposed objectives anti actions in`those;plans Where::he RTP :S havE� reached consensus and no objections have been raised, the Authority w[llrincorporate ttie actions and objectives into the Countywide Flan as proposed If there is opposion to some poruon of the Action'Plans, the Authority: will•"deter:nine which:0h3ectiv..es and acuon;policies are to be occluded as conditionsW compltance with the GfOwth Management Program (See page IG 27 of the`ImplemPntattgn i7ocumenls) Exhibits A through E.of the Coxentyc tde Plun contain the;objectives, actions; and procedures for updating Action Pians, c rcuJatipg 1✓IRs and reviewing Genera) . an Amendtnents from each: ActionPlan that witl be reduired for local compliance with the ....... ..... .:... ....... ........ .. . Authority's Growth IVldnagement Program .. .. Not all ablecttves and actions proposed tt the Accton Plans have been incorporated into the Gountym e P!a i as a condition of cotnplia ice The Authority has excluded proposed actions, ohjecttves or prof tdures when; c:kw>'rxnigl\c(-rp«crl-�woLI..4-s.1)u(' 1-132 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Implementation Proposal for Adoption Objectives actaoris or procedures �n ane Action .Plan conflict with those in ath'er.At.Uan Playa; 2 Action Plan proireduses conflii t I ::estahlis i potieces of tbe,�luthoritwS Growth Manaaement Pr &ram; or 3- Actions wUuld7d� citmdtfmig an . ce with the Cirowth ]Management Program 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 ' analyzing Genera"IT-1-n'Amend :..:..:.:..:.........:..:...............:....:......:.....:.... AWprojects 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 GGTA-Authority, afe have developiftgel 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 E�T'CLCnuruj.wute:Plan, and have been; an integral.part of thedevelopment of the Plan The Ctiunlytutde 1'lan which ishas been produced and will be implemented byA-th'e Authority in c.00rdiriation:with .1,6 al Jursdict>ons, the RTPCs and other agencies With the exception of Tri valley. the RTPCs haye<forwarded the Proposals for Adoption Qct►oti dans: to the C- -T-A Authontp. T4&-a- JncorQoratton of the obgecnves, act►ons and procedures proposed in the Auio.n Plans into,the Count)>wtle Plan;and th'e Plan's adoption will commit the local jurisdictions to implementing the actions and programs outlined in their' Action Plans. TheRTPCs w4}-alsa-have'revieweet and commented: on the Plan before its publication. _.... METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) The GGT-P uatl)wtde<;Plun also incorporates projects from other plans including the RTP, prepared by MTC. MTC will be invite reviewed and commented. on the GGT-P-Countywide P1an during the public review period. c:\wrrx7\i9.\cc,rp\cc'nr\vot.i-4-5:uoc- 1-133 April 25, 1995 Implementation Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (CTC) For projects to receive regional, State or federal funding, they must be included in the STIP, which incorporates 0..... c' from the RTP, CMP and F-County de ;' The STIP is approved by the CTC. The CTC -will be Was;invited to review ........... and comment on the GG:FRCo. ntyIrutde flan 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 C-£FlzCountVw de Plan:. Caltrans participated in the preparation of the Action Plans and reviewed and commented on the GGTP Countywide Plan 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) vv�l-fie-: been:consulted during the public review period as vv+"ave:Waineda, San Joaquin, Solano and Marin counties. C:\WPTX n 193\CCTP\CCrP^_\VOLT-s-5.DOC 1-134 April 25,. 1995 5 FUTURE ACTIONS 5.1 Update Process The Contra Costa Growth Management Program, established by Measure C, requires that the � �►uthortty update the E-C—T-P-Ub nl. wfide Plan and its travel demand models every two years. This tie--}ear-�en aI update process is comparable to the two-year- ................... Ii:i" iri al 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 GGTP C."O'niy vd Plar, several other actions will occur. ABAG will release new projections of population and job growth in the Bay Area. The GGTA-A.u..th r:ty 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 GGT-A Aittorty 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 GGT-P Jpq nty}w'de Plan will need to review these new or revised plans and programs to see what in the EC�IzCounty=wtde. Plan, 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 C=GT--P update process for:the Cou�uy i e Plan will parallel the process used for updating the CMP. As in the CMP process, the GGT-A--�Eltithorify will - uraw fro the ..... ..:.:.. list of projects to the CotntywulePlan to ' make recommezxlatt4ns foz MTC's regional planning documents. During the preparation of the CMP, the ��4 Authority proposes �f projects that MTC will consider as it prepares its Regional ......:.... Transportation Improv ement'Program (RT(P). 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. TheGGTP-Couttn7widc:Plart update i includes a similar, but longer-term, list of projects for consideration in the Regional C:\WPTXT\19?\CCfP\CCTP2\VOL 1-a-5.DOC I-135 April 25, 1995 Future Actions Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption .. . '�`raxtsportatiap Plan, MTC's longer ange platuu g doeuzrzent. In addition, the P 'aunxywide Plah 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. 5.2 Remaining Issues The GGT—P rtyWW Plan 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 vehicle to land use changes. The tel?-;Coutu}twuie-P. 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. Eemmente-s en earlier- dFaftS e f the GGT-n ha%, faent ened-se�ae-1� �-1n ad:citttan potential actions ffep�ncluded in the dFaft - Action Plans raise others that might be fruitfully addressed at the countywide level. These potential-issues could include: ► Evaluating which cliari:bzs to; development standards and land use ehaeges ............:.......:. pol�c`a that 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 priorities for future funding, and �r^ - ► Md r g a .,a an;cebetween maintenance and expansion of the transportation system-,-aiid: 5 ee ent z�ea�s��e �tl3,a- ��,-R-The Authvnty, fo. .Q.w ig acloPtiori c\wTra-n,93XCCrP\CCr1n,vo1_I- -s.DOC I-136 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Future Actions Proposal for Adoption of tl loc rrFerit will define more clearly which issues w-i44-to be reviewed in later updates of the C -Couru d M . .......................... .... C:1WPTXnl93\CCTP\CCPP^\VOL1-4-5.DOC 1-137 April 25, 1995 Future Actions Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption C:\WPTXTU93\CCTP%CCTP_'\VOLT-a-5.DOC I-138 April 25, 1995 6 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANS' This chapter presents a summary of each Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance prepared for the five subareas in the county: West County, Central County, East County, the Lamorinda communities, and the Tri-Valley Area (prepared in conjunction with several jurisdictions. in Alameda County). Like the Counrywide Plan, the Action Plans establish Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) and actions intended to meet them for each subarea. The first section of this chapter summarizes the general approach of each Action Plan; the second section summarizes the procedures adopted in each for reviewing development projects and general plan amendments, and for updating the plan itself. The detailed TSOs and actions included in the Action Plans are listed by issue area in chapter 3. The text of each Action Plan that has been incorporated into the Counrywide Plan are included in Exhibits A through E. 6.1 Action Plan Approaches WEST COUNTY In its West County Action Plan, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) identifies congestion on I-80 and its spillover effects on local roads to be the primary transportation problem. Recognizing the difficulty of increasing mixed-flow capacity on I-80 itself, WCCTAC focuses on making necessary improvements to other regional routes and employing a variety of creative measures to boost overall performance in the corridor. For instance, TSOs for I-80 emphasize increasing the use of transit, park-and-ride lots and carpools rather than increasing mixed-flow capacity. In addition, WCCTAC has begun a multi jurisdictional effort involving other areas of Contra Costa, Alameda and Solano counties, and interested agencies to resolve transportation problems. To guide this effort, WCCTAC has proposed principles such as discouraging single-occupant vehicles, preventing diversion of freeway-bound traffic onto local streets, emphasizing transit and HOV solutions, and establishing a corridor-wide planning framework to increase job development close to housing for a better jobs/housing balance to lessen the traffic impact of new development. ' Because changes to this chapter have been so extensive, they are not shown in re 3liriz/st-�form, to improve readability. c:\wrra-r\in\cc-rP%c&P-_NvoL1-6.Doc I-139 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption CENTRAL COUNTY The Transportation Partnership and Cooperation committee (TRANSPAC) adopted three tenets in developing its Central County Action Plan. The tenets commit TRANSPAC and its member jurisdictions to improving the flow of through traffic on freeways, chiefly by creating a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) system connecting the East, Central, and West County subareas; establishing a traffic management and signal synchronization plan to manage that flow and create "storage" capacity for it; and lessening the flow by developing an efficient transit network. TSOs, which, following the tenets, are system-wide, include maintaining peak-hour travel speeds and delay indices, and increasing average vehicle occupancy, transit's share of peak-period work trips, and the ratio of vehicles to employees for major employment centers. EAST COUNTY East County's Transportation Planning Committee (TRANSPLAN) has taken advantage of the flexibility of the Growth Management Program to blend traditional and innovative measures and actions in its Action Plan. The Action Plan uses level-of-service standards as its TSOs for most regional routes, but uses the duration of congestion as the TSO for State Route 4 and peak-hour vehicle occupancy for Vasco Road. Actions to attain these TSOs balance road, transit, and operational improvements with economic development and growth management programs. To fund critical road improvements, TRANSPLAN jurisdictions have joined together to impose a sub-regional impact fee, a major accomplishment. LAMORINDA The Lamorinda Project Management Committee (LPMC) in its Action Plan for the Lamorinda area focuses on TSOs and actions for State Route 24 and San Pablo Dam Road. In each case, innovative measures are used for TSOs, namely, maintaining the duration of peak-period congestion. For State Route 24, a TSO of increasing BART ridership is also employed. Actions to meet the TSOs include roadway and operational improvements, and land use changes such as encouraging transit-oriented development near BART. TRI-VALLEY The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which includes members from both Contra Costa and Alameda counties, has prepared a draft Action Plan that covers all jurisdictions. In formulating its plan, the TVTC adopted the approach of recognizing C:1WPT)M1931CCTPICCTP^1VOL)-(,.DOC 1-140 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issue Areas Proposal for Adoption existing capacity restraints at the "gateways" into the area and focusing its efforts on balancing growth with roadway and transit improvements within. To cover funding gaps for local improvements, the TVTC recommends a sub-regional impact fee, which is presently being designed, and a regional gasoline tax to raise funds and encourage alternatives to single- occupant vehicles. TSOs include traditional level-of-service standards for freeways and arterials, congestion duration standards for I-580 and I-680, increases in average vehicle ridership for large employers, and transit travel times along major corridors that equal or exceed automobile times. 6.2 Action Plan Procedures Besides TSOs and actions for regional routes, each Action Plan must detail procedures to be followed for circulating and reviewing environmental documents, reviewing general plan amendments and large development projects, and updating the plan itself. Table 6-1 presents a summary of review thresholds. For detailed procedures for each RTPC, refer to Exhibits A through E. For environmental documents such as Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports, all jurisdictions will rely on Resolution 92-03-G, approved by the Authority on March 18, 1992. This resolution stipulates that the lead agency shall notify all regional transportation planning committee (RTPC) chairs, and that the RTPCs shall notify appropriate jurisdictions, whenever environmental documents are being prepared for projects or General Plan amendments that would generate more than 100 peak-hour trips. Such notification would be required both upon issuance of either a Notice of Intent to issue a Negative Declaration or a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, and upon completion of either. For General Plan amendments (GPAs) and large developments that generate more than a specified number of trips. the GPA or project must be evaluated to determine whether it will generate traffic that could affect any TSOs. If a TSO would be violated, the relevant jurisdiction must evaluate the impacts of the GPA on TSOs and present this information to the RTPC. If it would generate traffic not reflected in the adopted Action Plan and would cause the TSO to be exceeded, the jurisdiction must propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the GPA from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. For the Action Plans themselves, the attainment of TSOs is to be monitored every one to two years. if a TSO is not being met, a focused revision is to be made. Individual corridors may be reviewed every two years, if deemed appropriate by the RTPC, c:�Nvnx-ni9�ccm\ccn^,voi.1.6.uoc I-141 April 25, 1995 Issue Areas Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption and entire plans are to be updated at least every four years. In addition, RTPCs may need to review and revise their Action Plans to incorporate where necessary Deficiency Plans prepared under the requirements of the Contra Costa CMP. Interim reviews of specific issues may be initiated by the RTPCs at any time, and a.jurisdiction may request the review of its Action Plan at any time in conjunction with the review of general plan amendments, as mentioned above. TABLE 6-1 ACTION PLAN REVIEW THRESHOLDS Procedure West Central East Lamorinda Tri-Valley Schedule for Updating Environmental Documents' 100 trips 100 trips 100 trips 100 trips 100 trips RTPC Review of Proposed 100 trips 100 trips 100 trips 0 trips' 500 trips3 General Plan Amendments Notification of Availability 4/2 years 4/2 years 4/2 years 4/2 years 4/2 years of Action Plans" ' All RTPCs will rely on the Resolution 92-03-G. Z All amendments will be reviewed for Action Plan consistency. ' A threshold has not yet been established by the TVTC; that set by Resolution 95-03-G will apply in the interim. ° Action Plans may need to be updated to incorporate Deficiency Plans. cawprxnle:\ccrN\ccrr-woi.1-6.00c 1-142 April 25, 1995 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 ig , future Routes of Regional Significance, which will be or are already under construction. The Authority made fndl decisions on several potential regional routes, namely, Pleasant Hill Road between State Route 24 and Taylor Boulevard, Camuio Pablo from Moraga Way to San Pablo Dam.Road Ballet'Road froim West Leland Road to WiIlov . bass Road, and Marsh geek Ria from Deer YalIey Road to State Route 4, when it adapted esolntlon 9 -Ol G on February I�, 19Q5 These routes were added after lengthy considerap.," and consultation with all urlsdt,t1. rs in order i....0.......complete the regional network The resolut► n lnciudes explicit provisions ...that no t.apltal im ravements will bee fired ui 1�.. ....... ....... ..... . .... .'... ... urrsdichons ;`where such inprouements:are Judged by the�urisdtction io be in fundamental conflict qtr th the et vuonmental or socio_econo iic character;o# bei junsdictJon°' and that of physical improvements are required by new development, the :fiction Plan in uestton will consider ogtt:ons to redirect trat �c, revise the development, construct new facilmes, or _.. . _ _ mplerr ent operatlona: improvements:: 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 1-80 to San Joaquin West, Central, East State Route 24 Alameda to 1-680 Lamorinda, Central State Route 160 SR4 to Sacramento County East CztwPTa-n193NCCrPkCC F'-\VOL1.7.DOC I-143 April 25, 1995 Regional Routes Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption TABLE 7-1 ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Regional Route Portion Action Plans Affected State Route 242 1-680.to SR 4 Central 23rd Street San Pablo Ave. to Cutting Blvd. West Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon Valley Blvd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley Alhambra Avenue Taylor Blvd. to SR 4 Central Appian Way San Pablo Ave. to San Pablo Dam Rd. West Bailey Road W. Leland Rd. to Willow Pass Rd. (Bay East Point) Balfour Road Deer Valley Rd. to Byron Hwy. East Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Blvd. to Canyon Lakes Dr. Tri-Valley Buchanan Road Railroad Ave. to Somersville Rd. East Byron Highway SR 4 to Alameda County East Camino Diablo Marsh Creek Rd. to Walnut Blvd: East Camino Pablo San Pablo Dam Rd. to Moraga Way and Lamorinda Camino Encinas Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Rd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley Carlson Boulevard Cutting Blvd. to San Pablo Ave. West Clayton Road Treat Blvd. to Ygnacio Valley Rd. Central Contra Costa Boulevard SR 4 to 1-680 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 Hillcrest Ave. to Marsh Creek Rd. East Dougherty Road Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Tri-Valley El Portal Drive San Pablo Ave. to San Pablo Dam Rd. West Fairview Avenue Lone Tree Wy. to Balfour Rd. East Garrard/13th/Rumrill Boulevard 1-580 to San Pablo Ave. West Geary Road North Main to Pleasant Hill Rd. Central Hillcrest Avenue SR 4 to Lone Tree Wy. East James Donlon Avenue Lone Tree Wy. to Somersville Rd. East Kirker-Pass Road Clayton Rd. to Buchanan Rd. Central, East Leland Road/Delta Fair Boulevard Somersville Rd. to Bailey Rd. East Lone Tree Way SR 4 to SR 4 (east) East Marsh Creek Road Deer Valley Rd. to SR 4/Byron Hwy. East North Main Street I-680 to Boyd Rd. Central C:t\v;r) iiqitcCre\ccrv^wou-7.DOC 1-144 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Regional Routes Proposal for Adoption TABLE 7-1 ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Regional Route Portion Action Plans Affected Pacheco Boulevard Waterfront Rd. to SR 4 Central Pleasant Hill Road SR 24 to Geary Rd. Central, Lamorinda Railroad Avenue Buchanan Rd. to SR 4 East San Pablo Avenue 1-80 to Alameda County West San Pablo Dam Road 1-80 to Camino Pablo West, Lamorinda San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville Blvd. to Alameda County Tri-Valley Somersville Road James Donlon Blvd. to West 10th St. East Sycamore Valley Road Danville Blvd. to Camino Tassajara Tri-Valley Taylor Boulevard Contra Costa Blvd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Central (south) Treat Boulevard North Main St. 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 SR 4 to Railroad Ave. East Willow Pass Road Contra Costa Blvd. to SR 242 Central Willow Avenue SR 4 to Old Highway 40 West Ygnacio Valley Road 1-680 to Clayton Rd. Central Future State Route 4 (as full freeway) Cummings Skyway to Willow Ave. West State Route 4 Bypass SR 4 to Byron Hwy. East Armstrong Road Vasco Rd (new) to Byron Hwy. East Bollinger Canyon Road Canyon Lakes Rd. to Dougherty Rd. (loop) Tri-Valley Buchanan Bypass Railroad Ave. to Somersville Rd. East Cummings Skyway 1-80 to Old Highway 40 West Leland Road Extension Bailey Rd. to.Willow Pass Rd. East Richmond Parkway 1-580 to 1-80 West Sand Creek/Dallas Ranch Road Brentwood Blvd. to Lone Tree Wy. East Standard Oil Avenue SR 4 to Somersville Rd. East c:twrrx•nign\ccmcc-rr-tvot-1•7.DOC I-145 April 25, 1995 Regional Routes Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Proposal for Adoption C:\\V") I93\CCTR\ccrP^VOL]-7.DOC 1-146 April 25, 1995 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHOR[TY DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Volume Two: Background Information COMMISSIONERS. Joel Keller Chair Bobbie Landers Vice Chair Gayle Bishop Taylor Davis April 26, 1995 Millie Greenberg Cathie Kosel W.D.Bill"Landis Julie Pierce Tom Todakson Darrel Jay"Tucker Hermann Weim Robert K.McCleary Executive Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 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-21 2.5 Jobs-Housing Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25 3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-31 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 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 Figures Figure 2.1 Developing the Land Use Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 Figure 2.2 Urbanized Land and Agricultural Preserves in Contra Costa County . II-11 Figure 2.3 Households, 1990 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18 Figure 2.4 Growth in Households, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . II-20 Figure 2.5 Jobs, 1990 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-22 Figure 2.6 Growth in Jobs, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-26 Figure 2.7 Jobs/Housing Ratios, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31 i Tables Table 2.1 Comparison of Household and Job Forecasts II-5 Table 2.2 1990-2010 Change in Total Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-19 Table 2.3 1990-2010 Change in Total Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24 Table 2.4 Ratio of Employed Residents to Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-29 Table 2.5 1990-2010 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-30 ii 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 (TSOs), 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 these 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. c:\wPrxniv3\ccra\ccrwavoLa-ig2.B27 II-I April 25, 1995 Volume Two — CC rP 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 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. c:%WPTXT\t43\CCTP\cCrP2wot?-[&2.627 II-5 April 25, 1995 Sources of Employment (1985) Households (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 West County CentmIfL.amorindo Forecasts sub-area,checking forecasts against census tract data from ABAG's -M Projections 190. Fist County 7Y1-Valley, Countywide and Sphere Check of Influence Forecasts Reasonableness ABAG's of Forecasts Projections '90. Prepare sub-area land :>.:. use forecasts using: Prepare Sub-Area ;;: + >: Detailed information West County Cent winds Land Use ""'"= from 1,750 zone forecast Data Bases Information aggregated to County 517-zone level Fist County 1}I-Valleys Figure 2.1 Developing the Land Use ITrand Valley database includes Dublin,Livermore,Pleasanton Information System (LUIS) and portions of unincorporated Alameda County. 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. 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. c:\V1PrX'r1193\CCrPkcCrr'wol?-I&IB27 II-3 April 25, 1995 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 Josh 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 C:\wPTXT\193\CCrP\CCTP2\VOL-182.827 11-4 April 25, 1995 Volume 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 II, 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 development 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 Evolution in the Son Francisco Bay Area. Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley: 1964. C:twrrxn191\CcrP`CCrPztvotI-1&2.[327 11-7 April 25, 1995 LAND 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 EI 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. c:\WPrxr\i93\ccrP\ccrr-woL-1-1az.az7 II-8 April 25, 1995 Volume Two — CCrP 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 EI 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. Growth 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, the county 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 2 U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census, Censuses of Population. As quoted in Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Growth Trends. Martinez: 1985. 3 Growth Trends. C:\NVV=193\CCTP\CCrr-\VOL2-182.B27 II-9 April 25, 1995 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 Iands (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. c:\wPTxn193�CCrP\CCrP2wow-13'_.13'_7 II-10 April 25, 1995 SAN'OAOUIN COUNTY L / .OSA 9 m �• bpd \� ~ \ s + x \ o r r a �� / ��' � 'sew 3 s��,Q.`�i�.^'c3'c $ �. � .•�. X J p• y J� w •�J e p $1 o ■ o(ur Q > C T • �' • �OUNTY ..... U 13 31 ri tib`\: t347 ` °.5 QcFil O O U 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 EI 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 Valley contains two of the largest cities in 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 I-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 C:\w7TX7V93\CCrP\CCTP2\VOLS-1&2.D27 II-12 April 25, 1995 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 I-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. C:\wPTXT\193\CCTP\CCrP'_'\VOL2-1&-3.1327 II-13 April 25, 1995 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 II 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 areas. 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 803,732 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 C:\wP-rx I93\CCTP\CCrPawoL2-Us2.n27 I1-14 April 25, 1995 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.' Figure 2.3 generally shows concentrations of residential development in the greater Richmond area (including El Cerrito, San Pablo and EI 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 the LUIS and do not correspond exactly to city limits and spheres of influence. These figures are intended to show the pattern of households and jobs and the changes in those patterns within the county. C:\WPTXT\193\CCrP\CCrFSV0L2-182.827 II-15 April 25, 1995 r 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 EI Cerrito. The greatest increases are expected in the Richmond, Pinole, EI 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 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 Dough erty/Tassaj ara 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 C:\wPTXT1l93\CCTPXCCTP'_woL M2.B:!7 II-16 April 25, 1995 ............... I VIII W oil off oil off off IIVNIII�IIIVI O ♦ C N en o, O O a+ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F ,..r o sssssssss �- p s G M �O M 00 N O N O ^ ^ O+ in O� .r- M t Ch U .� yc� M \O0% vom C\ � go. pyo = 3 *v c Z .Z M g cc [I M I tom. ' Of i. ♦ O O 00 10 N kn .l .6 Q o � � sssssssZ v� o o. 00 O N N N O to O o s h N h 'O ONO .-. . OOO N 000 per. O O C N 00 O _O = V. Q\ O N V ON M C+ O ,-7 -T to O vn O of O tn O M m N N Zo O N en N N 0 O C F N w "C VMl G O M Vl Ot— O O p ` N O G S N M N O N 0 _ c' Q H Vl 00 00 M \0 Oh N F V Q\ p W CJ C C t t: �O �D o0 \D v'� cn � Q a, 000 ic N OM �v r- h g � n ai c z E■ J C Q O c U U o o s zE- U Q T U eq W V c p C m a� c� yO o = V o U c c cc ie > U U Z CZ c U c U F U U 3 U W Q F U v°) Sa 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 o S $ o o" 0 Cl o o" o' o R N O a0 w 7 N t,II II Cn.;; d_ /..✓Y�.Y.till \\ li .,I ilflllll�)1`1111 III' II 111411 � \��\\\\��� � ,nl�l y •: III III) III \ � � ..:...,,/-a..� /�o::>.S/✓,Jay.: � (IIIIIII 1.11 ��„y: > . .III \� 111111 .. ; IIII \\ II111i1ii111i � - � . • • 1 1 1 Ili I) 1 111 III Iii ;....,<....,...,... ������� 111 1 111 � ` 'IIu1111IIIIIi 111 111 \ Iiil�llllllilllllllll ,, � . �Ilgl IIIIIII 11 111 11 .� IIIIIII II I I NN II 4. IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII f<n.Y sw% IIII IIII \ \\ \ . IIS r H:� �.� .. l�'i'.'. fjl...Y.. ........ ....<h%. NX, 1 �� 4�,� 11111111 I�I \: ✓ oN'Yr''d�'"�YY�M..?�'NSs:�iX_-`: \ • . 1 1 1 II Illi II Illi II mit ��- IIIIIIIillllllllllllll � �����µ�/�. 11 .dIIII Illllll��� .' ” I 1 1 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 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 jobs, 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. c:kwPTXT1i93\CCTP\CCTP]woL]-I&IB27 II-20 April 25, 1995 „ � � iii I hull II b91� �1 a u LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECASTS Volume Two — CCTP Circulation Draft 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 GROWTH 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 County will remain the main job center in the county, other areas 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-Valley portions of Alameda County are added in, these 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. c:1w7TXT193\CCTP\CCTP2w0t?-1S2.B27 II-22 April 25, 1995 0 N o wee b� b� s s o0 00 0 0 O b) Z S O N M V N O � O F" O O p ey o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ c N M M OS N Vhf CN ONO to ` t C1 y N O r ~ y O h CN h O M V N 00 p zM �O to t� N N et ice. eq N � N M r ON O, ON M O z v is is rL 0 CL > _ N N O\ _� r \O M O\ M p h N - O cI c c' N M tE °° r- h h ,, N h ° a z N N O r+ r+cogs° sss � s ss o O r h M O h h 0 Ca Oe4 tn ON kn O qq O O 0 M N O C ^ tn •.• o W -- v M O N � L O O Q. o, o ssssssss ¢ .+ _ C 00 M 00 v O N M O Z �' E„- F. .. ^" L z oC a !+ R IG a It M C O 00 en \.c r �' o < W` b N -- M `r° h � �—+ M N W R m c U ° U z e? w v U o U o e U is eu U c .. OE h M z V b u < 3 w Q _ Q = ° ° e F ° E- UU 3uw .a ¢ U en Ho 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 o c po c c N .� .•r .r 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, Dough erty/Tassaj ara 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 C:\WPTxT143\CCrP\CCTw2woLI--Ia2.B27 II-24 April 25, 1995 off I off In off of of i i � om°� � III VIIII off mmMM �m lit. q' 'uuui� iii o , . 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 jobs with housing would thus at first glance 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 and 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, following considerable 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. C:%wrrxni93\CCrP\CCrr1_woL2-1&-'_'.13'7 I1-26 April 25, 1995 Volume Two— CCTP 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 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 C:W7r)MI93\CCTMccrF-2\V0'-I&IB27 II-27 April 25, 1995 LAND USE CONDITIONS AND FORECAST'S 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 Solano 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 37114,440 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 area as well as particular jurisdictions. c:\wprxni913\CCTMCCrr+woL-1-1&11127 II-28 April 25, 1995 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 I-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. CdWPiXT\193\CCrP\CCrP]\VOL'-3-5.B=) I1-31 - April 25, 1995 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Volume Two— CCTP 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 El 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 1-80 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. c:\WVr=193\CCTP\CCfP?woL2.3-5.e27 II-32 April 25, 1995 TABLE 2S 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 East 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 Central 0.8 0.7 West 0.6 0.5 Lamorinda 0.4 East 0.3 1990 2000 2010 c CA, c O Pl cd co >ipQ: i'O:ErG; v : W N i o> y O � v a >> r i:c: � L p, Y..Mi 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: 1-80, I-580 and 1-680. I-80 and 1-580 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. 1-580 connects 1-80 with Highway 101 and provides a commute route for Marin County residents. 1-680 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. C:NWP?XiH93\CCTP\CCTr\VOl-1-3-5.137) II-31 April 25, 1995 - - ui J' H v ' 77 Al 3 C) L a v j f " Z c f • a o-C _ . .. Q i ne p 3� if g , _ ( } , } tA i J.. < ..... ...... ..�, c t..,,....� ��• ��tfrr�■ , 't�` 'O i '�� , N. �;�,„, .,� c y x �, t ,, ,,,�,,,�,,."° �� � .« � f E•— •r �• „fir,. Ye �� M •..,J✓" \� c ; ,�a ..d.i,rr�•• �1�f«�y. ��.�� V , a *1!�.,,..„..:,.r•..' r _ .tom �f o Eh. „,. cv � OlrOf ✓e� O N/ 6 a w ,moi £�Q pp N N c � 0 N"Q d 1 �-r TSN a �Z j c & rli O r ro f !V•3�0� .°d, w ' O y� '� f `.,y..p� `.,`'..i • • { i�•••�r c�c� fes- IJ f,, c � i # ,'✓/ t >- cOa s s r+ i ^•�, C ;. CN 5 SaRl Q tom, O O f 80, O \ p yr C c r �N f -tj > 4 L^o O l� Gl -O O C ( Zy.: ” , - y c, >4w-- C: rn 3 vs r.2 O' E 0 p ' > c - �. �c 102 c ,<.... ` �ao O a� y• E :• 1 """�' Q cvD a. .EV,1 c � � cr 1- Dc I vv C)72cad 30 � 3 N4 �.. 4 c L� \ > c �J — ; o O h W -D I: m D N.- n r t / O '. S �,. ^.� .J Q m Q) clj 0 1W C9 c ` °tea $ o J C '•C N .' ✓' ' tiN Y 6=f lb Q1... \\ y ",. \` ..Q ,' •�� _ 1 Q...,..r.,.,.. r r O > 1 p' c --v ur C pp I D E 'L7"c„✓ \ . O ted. D= t_L c c 45 ami `O „/ D 0 v ?E 0 tt E OS Efff ^^^ 9tr'cY _ En V cta Q f v p.,... ; � 0 C ft �� cx o O„ y' �. � r` r \ fOQ-Da l' ! c o 2 d ♦ z M La- Q c.4 i —m xc .3c C-9D N 20f ac o zz m W.D coa � c r Zw D c —0.0 . .�. Q / ° > c ; off►. �.,.,:a N T '-.. O) O c Q ' .o ,) k Z D r , , c O / V c : o V 3a°� Z r s Q e `t J: Nl 1 Volume Two — CCTP 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 Existing 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 EI 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 Josh 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. C:XWM-r\I93\cCTP\cCTP'_woL'-.3-s.n'_7 II-35 April 25, 1995 < i IOAQU7N CO UNC. / o. ............ .. 3 ................ ;:.. .... cc � U m O 7�iwMn+1.._,Kv J _ • G:ti_;-.•.'.•. _«...7.... _._'(,' •fit U Jr 79 v : 3 :.. ................ .::.::: , ::. ..... ........... J 5Q -.......... Q :. i .'... .. b jr o :.. •qty$_.� }..� /r � .. N :•C , �e ` Ito 3 � u CL T— >:. ::iii'fiii`.LLi C �• :tiff•:.. ....................... -• O O r i, ............... ^iii::::. ................. :i.4:•i :c...'.... .:..... < 3 uy 7 t `>z> �<>?':[><<�>'•is u K6 M3 F '. O U — F F a GU 2F O mm C r H t:::. ii:.;;;;;:•:•;::.:.::.;:.;:.;:... :nno, eRy K .n 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 northwestern 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. C:\Wyrx-nl93\CCiP\CCTP_'wOI?•3,5.827 11-37 April 25, 1995 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 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, there 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. C:\WVrX'r\193\CCI'P\CCI'P'_\VOL,-3.S.L3Z7 II-38 - April 25, 1995 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 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 I-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. C:%WP XTU93%CCCPCCTP2kVOL?•r5.6,7. 11-39 April 25, 1995 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Volume Two— CCTP Circulation Draft C:\WPOCf\193\CCTP\CCrF?\VOL'-35.827 II-40 ,. April 25, 1995 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 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 C:\WP17Cr\19}\CCiP\CCI'P_WOL:?5.N:7 11-41 April 25, 1995 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 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. C:\WPTX\I93\CCTP\CCTP\V0L2-3-5.n27 11-42 April 25, 1995 Volume Two - CCTP EXISTING TRAFFIC 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 Solano 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 564,363 133,879 366,425 662,323 2,326,990 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 Solano 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 Foreguts for Years 1990, 1996 & 2010. September 1993. Information is available only for counties within the nine-county Bay Area. C:\WPrX-nl93\CCiP\CCrP4\VO '-3-5.B,? II-43 April 25, 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two - CCTP Circulation Draft TABLE 4-2 HOME-BASED-WORK DAILY TRIP' DISTRIBUTION 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 27.8 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 Solano 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 2.9.2 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 Darabook #1: Regional Summary, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, March, 1991. C:\WPTXM193XCCiP\CCTP2\VOL2•3.5.827 11-44 April 25, 1995 'Oe INI / / \ \ Napa / Solano Sonoma \ j o i \�----� ,1000 moo 00o wo 0 — ro Marin \ 5,000 Contra Costa 5,000 j 1990 330,000 00 San 73,0 \Francisco 9 X000 O� Oo c 000 i O civ -1ti 00 i '� o0 00 LO (San Joaquin I San Mateo t Alameda Santa Clara Napa \ Solano � Sonoma \ , 0 0 \ 5,000 \ Marin Contra Costa 3,000 464,000 2010 / 761Ogg San \Francisco 510p0 O �� �►OO p 0 / o San Joaquin*1 o \ / 0 San Mateo Alameda Santa Clara I Arrows indicate direction from home to work. Numbers include trips in both directions. Figure 4-1 Source:MTC,CMP Databook#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- 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 6f 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 trips 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. C:\WP7Xnl93\CCFP�CGTP'-\VOL2-3•5.B27 II-46 April 25, 1995 to 10 ON N - M to M O O t- w to "T t- to t- O\ to ON 00 M to to t- - D\ to \O ^ t- O t- Itf O\ t- 00 In N O ^ M N to %C N ^ M o0 00 - C� O\ C� O to t- N N t-- 4 oo v 4 - M "t r O w to M N O N M N t` M en- t- \p M ^ ^ ^ O ^ t- O C v ct rn O N M to t- 0 F-t ^ Z II 7 V- Nr V n t` N � N r- N tn O r- W m r- m OM C� ^ 00 00 N r- et to O -t O M ID 'It oo N to \O M = 0� N rNi V � N to C\ - \ oo to 7 r- 00 Z — — M — M "" — N ec N r to oo n 7 W - t` u o0 00 IT N M N t- V- t-- N O T O M M 00 IT 7 - C) C� 00 7 et N - M rl M t- 7 to N N 00 et O a t� tn M to ^ C% ^ O N p �i D\ to oo ON N O tD M D\ to tD oo aD �O M O\ to to M o0 r- m ON of M M M 'Tr O ON to O a V M ^ N M \0 h N M oo M M OO O to 00 N N \O O Z t- IT N N7 tr to [� V � to �O O M O to cu V] to \O N O\ ^ N N 'IT p -+ - M M ^ N N cc U O w O 0� \0 00 M O to o, r- N \ - ON O D` - - to l� m N oo oo oo to t, O� N 10 �o - \C - -- M t� N - 7 O %c %O - to m p M ^ -- N en t` en t- - N to 4 en oo M to to N ,S to y - ON N M \O to t- `7 O D\ O N D\ oo ^ to O\ N r- oo N O\ O\ it eT -• n o0 N N to t` O\ tt t` \O o0 \O to to O NM U �D v o0 r- N M r- oo M o0 V cl v 7 oo N _ NO 6� oM - - 7 v0 r O - - O - O v - O a (r M N O ^ ooM N Q1 M M p G M N t- to V — Oo oo O, O\ C-4 — O M N O\ M M ^ N M M r- ^ In in oo C, N 'V — t- t- V p oi O M to oo to M to r` - M Q` O to to O r- v*) oo 11, O- m O O �7 vNi C� O s z N M O C RS oo o0 M O OO O — to tf O 0 0o m M t- M t- to N _ a \0 OO O\ C\ C to O IT — 7 Q• to M M \O o0 M - M V t- N No M ^ 'Tr O V ^ N \O G o0 to It:r N t` to O t- N 7 N M to %D Z M ON y ee to OO M m to V' t- to N O \O to o0 (71 00 M o0 O t- 00 O to M 'tzr M t` - \0 t` oo -'t \0 -.- \.O O OO to 7 t` to N y N ^ - N N r- a r- N N N - N V' M M M - to N M Ln k ttn - oo C4 cl� N NO OM It h � II cz CN �° eo OO to oo toCL V) �a a� N t` t` r- - N 00 oo IT M - 00 N to 00 v p N to O \-O v ^ olo0 o0 \O - V \0 oo v M t` M O+ p . � O` .•- to m to O \O Cl - en ^ � M O N to - U r=. en N M M M r- a C\ G cY 1� 0 0 Q 0 ° a 3 t •U eC eQ ce ec eC Q v y c ? =° 0 2 w F= 3 cv to c i v tn° i i 3 c� ° tip F° c 0 t/1 L •O Q CO c- p o V p E Ft=i� �U c 3 U tno tit v0 = so \•v 3428 ` / ,/ '� —� / Nil 625 %N111. �. 9172 30� l • 948 9,56 , 35,343 135874 ,• FS o • N � 1 \ 21,637 1990 V 8 090 ` ev / 678 Viakk " I 53,621 1 53,770 "Z 1 II,9491� 157,665 75,189 71 1 ;9681 2010 Figure 4-2 Sub-Area-to-Sub-Area Source:DKS Associates Home-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. While all areas exchange work trips with each other, some of these subarea- 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. C:\WVrXT193\CCTP\CCrFT\VOL'•}5.B'-7 II-49 April 25, 1995 TABLE 4.4 MODE CHOICE COMPARISON Home-Based Work Trips and All Trip Purposes,1990 and 2010 1990 2010 Home-Based Work Trips Trips % 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 126,395 100.00/0 155,055 100.0% Drive Alone 97,555 77.2% 115,405 74.4% Carpool(2 person) 15,029 11.9% 18,092 11.7% Carpool(3 or 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/prom 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% 8,504 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 Volume Two — CCTP EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Circulation Draft The table shows that most trips made in 1990 were made in automobiles, 97 percent compared with only three percent for transit. This percentage was even higher for trips within Contra Costa County itself, representing 99 percent of all trips. The transit share was significant only for trips to and from San Francisco where transit had 15 percent of all trips. While transit overall made up a small percentage of all trips in 1990, it generally had a greater share of home-based work trips. Almost 45 percent of work trips to and from San Francisco were made by transit in 1990 and over seven percent of the trips to and from Alameda County. Transit had a greater share of work trips in 1990 both overall and for all locations shown in the table than for other trip purposes. Carpooling represented a greater share of work trips in 1990, however, than did trips by transit. Almost 15 percent of all work trips beginning or ending in Contra Costa County were made by either two- or three plus-person carpools, compared with only nine percent for transit. Carpooling was greater where trips were longer — the Contra Costa-to- Contra Costa share was lowest — or where the commute was most congested (and HOV lanes were available). With 23 percent of the work trips, the San Francisco commute had the greatest share of carpool trips. CHANGES IN MODE CHOICE The single occupant automobile is expected to remain as the dominant form of transportation throughout the next 15 years. Approximately 75 percent of all work trips and 97 percent of all trips are forecast to be made by automobile. Within Contra Costa County those shares are even higher. About 85 percent of the home-based work person-trips and 99 of all trips will be by automobile. Overall, trips by automobile will make up a smaller share of work trips but a larger share of other trips in 2010. While the share of all trips made by automobile will rise slightly (+0.3%), its share for home-based work trips will drop by almost two percent. The number of work trips made by transit will increase by two-thirds to make up one of every ten home-based work trips in 2010. By 2010, about 60 percent of work trips to and from San Francisco will be made using transit. The share of work trips made by transit, however, will decrease in the Contra Costa-to-Contra Costa commute even as the number of those trips increases. While the number of home-based work trips by carpool is forecast to increase, their share overall is forecast to decrease slightly (from 14.8% to 14.4%). This decrease is most pronounced in the San Francisco commute where the share is expected to drop over four percent. C:\wPra7\I93%CCiP%CCIP?\V0L2-3.5.827 11-51 April 25, 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two — CCTP Circulation Draft 4.3 Traffic Demand Following the estimation of the number trips made and the mode by which 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. C:\WPTXT193\CCTP\CCTP'_\VOL'-3-5.tl_7 I1-52 April 25, 1995 SOLANO SACRAMENTO .1 0 �"k„ MARIN WEST 2 200 3]70 Z SAN {.JOAQUIN 2'%0Q,,� - CENTRAL u EAST r470 • 8 •� S 7SO vnl ALAMEDA \, TRI-VALLEY co AM PEAK HOUR ` o ALAMEDA SOLANO SACRAMENTO �1 iC4 oo % MARIN % �4 1� + �• 2,470 +'EST 700 � SAN (JOAQUIN 2,300 y a\ EAST CENTRAL fSS0 tw J c N S 480 • ia . ca. 10 1 ALAMEDA - \, TRI-VALLEY i' V .� PM PEAK HOUR / go ALAMEDA Numbers represent vehicles crossing screenlines.and cordonline at various points during the peak hour. Figure 4-3 Source:Patterson Associates Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, 1990 SOLANO _ SACRAMENTO �% 1 MARIN / ": ��' �• wEsr "tel 1 SAN (JOAQUIN 3400E EAST CENTRAL \ 51,500 8 •� �1690 , . ALAMEDA -�, TRI-VALLEY ✓, AM PEAK HOUR s. o ALAMEDA SOLANO SACRAMENTO vim•, MARIN WEST 51100` 13,E t 3100 ,.;, Zt SAN J Q�1 ,c EAST \` CENTRAL �„ 1 0 r7................... 1,400- ALAMEDA `-1---�, TRI-VALLEY a PM PEAK HOUR a 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 us@ 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 Solano and East Contra Costa County relative to the number of jobs in West and Central Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco Counties. Interestingly, the difference between 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. C:\WVrXT\l93\CCTP\CCTP'-\VOL?•3-S.B'_7 II-55 April 25, 1995 t EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Volume Two - CCTP Circulation Draft 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 15,800 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 40% 19,100 69% c:IWVrxn193\CC MCrvzwoL"-3-s.A,7 I1756 April 25, 1995 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 DAILY 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 countyand 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 I-680 between SR 24 and SR 242. This roadway carries traffic from the north (Solano 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. C:\WPIX 193\CCTP\CCfP'_\VOt L•}S.B:!7 11-57 April 25, 1995 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 anincrease of 68 percent (the fourth-highest in the county). The greatest absolute increases, however, are forecast for I-680. The section of.1-680 between SR 24 and SR 242 will add 113,000 daily trips, a 53 percent growth. Similarly, ADT on the section of I-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 daily traffic 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 2-1f2 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 1-680/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 1-80 as well as (to a lesser extent) the increased capacity of SR 4. C:\WVM\193\CCTP\CCTP^_\VOl.,.3-s.B27 II-58 April 25, 1995 ii N fr-:$>igw:�rr O 4p,00 sK`�>; ��r. '.� :_.-// •off+ S `; y) by}iY?.►�+{%iii%'. V // Y O E .;.�:> Wb ::;<}:»::r. -: : CIS 23 `iiia%:�:4.xaa:";}�:�i>•:. !4'>`Y�!w?;'>.c:Sc!.%%�';;: {:::{$: v4>.:S' t4•ri: O ao o�_Y' v\ F,v,'{��:;�{i:J:.{::i�Rw.r.,�::r.::::.•:::::: /.-'l..Y.->i;y:'.-:;:R>::iiii'<:t`i: A J'I� `N P 4•�r'' .ie.• ,f•;%•<.t`24�iS'4ttr%;� r1 •N N w 'a ;tyi" b •ewi NP1 •�\ �G 8 o �• 8 a '0:•tt V•1 v:f':w !'•j{{' ,v-S!!}.; St:% {-:hee :•>N!`jS'1..i'?4:4. / �O` :iZi"...:..:.w: ,Y.✓'>. %:ia.. <i}';'•,',,,, , >j^ p • NE's` .�ryye� d r �\ N N ;yN...:.YJ... ,.lrSii::'i>.:jC.:'.:!:`:�iii:::•::::ry}:J!{???S::v• � � � 7 '�:y--Y ` 4:'J.?h?i>}!}}}i:fvi•,, S?J�S:itjSt:^jSi jS:<�v v��:<�SSr, p � � ':>i V •:?/.. ilifi!��tii�%:Li%ii�:•i�r��}:��i� t :i•:•:•:'S}:•:tir:n lijSL.;.,.<.<•:Q?} ::! y,Ki;v(::!tiC:!:;yti�:rii::%i�i�iii}. >%OSJ.hY}SY/a:0it!'v'•?Y:%�•jit::: :ii 'r:..v. •4 }:'............. ............ v...�..;:y,.w!.:J.h:{•!A:::!..:::>.:.:..-v-::iii':.:Si:. r :. > .':i o : 5 . Hr.?:4}:.!};!:{ ii:2e:ci%•:y»:{::.:;SS�Y; .;}%.}:-ii••:.:.;* �./-,.,.. .. a'-- ..:.�:.moi.,.. .:r:wn.:::r.:.....,}:..,.;;.}.;.;{.:,,:: ♦ •� !':T-:� J anY YiinV,4n{ i) •.-v:..:...r.is Ae:4' .. ' p `., .:•'f-......... .:y+i!•!}":• ..:/-.;it'�i:?!r}{%i:}A:.::!.::i' / � $� G V v :'����•::?iiiii>i:v '.s.!%;::'::;...:{;<•: i%��> 3i}i!-r.•:>::::::..�:'4;.r..:.:;•}:-: n25 P i :::�i�?'>:•:c:4;eeri:;.ii:-}:->:-}>:-:-}:-ii:-e:4}::-ei>' K! N v... 'v....:.:.........:n.v:•:ti:L;>:i{•'i-i,v'rSS%-S:ij;:;:i.!i:•ri:4e:;;-e::ii::i:!•Y::h:4:' :{;i:j?ij;:;i:;:!^^-v:w:: :+f.?+•J...:., •:rr.?l;.?:?-: N a N P1 N N /•• :..y.....::}:d:v- �}�';:4-'n'•': ..w.r;ii ifi i'••;,,_;r;;;;:,t•i:��'•iiy:: ..t-ii:it '::.f;:::::::tiS:::tiiSt::.}'4r:?- � .Q� 'i;i:'+.;:::y<ji:='::.: ;;if.�: t:>.::;: Z Pl EmA {.i?}':9.:C>.:i�i5k>..:i#%•r.:: i:':%i:ii'i��i�:�iii:.... Y'•_. vy� .� / M(V ?iri% J �ti'r.`;4:-:4:?:{•rie::•}:•ii:•iiti::; . �.r: rr�� •:4:::v:�vv:r: e0 is♦ •(. QQ C ?O�D d %;j;�::v:f%ii�y?!{:i?v::ii:':?•�'ir i�",:v`;';y'i:i ........... ....::..- :.........:..:..:nn:.v:..............::... .w:•n•:r:.::YJ•r::?4. •}xn•:n:: '. �b •�:I•%:•.v.:.-::}:'•?}fx?•>i'ri}:{>.::�<>i�ii:<>.S�iiiS:'r,%ti:iii}:-}'-}}}}}}:O': .....:........... r:::!,;.:.e:-:y:'.r::::1-1 ,,..'.:, ,.;.......;:.......:•::: ......:::::::.r:::rr.rriti:;�:i'-e:•i.•.. •:y::^,.:,,i'?: moi:::::: z a0 f -n. �N A #Sm .. .. ......... ..vn•n:::.•r:•>.i'::-:.v-::.:.:f:..v:;.,.::::.....:•:::::.::::::•.v{.;4:!rrr::•}:??!-}:!:SS::. w/,.v. nH.v. rr.4.r r.fh, ../.. � `.M. e >. •{ir.. n.o'! .i:�. ........n '.;�t >:;ti.{.e:..;::.}.{ittt<ii ytt Y•r; ,.:... {..-* . .?:+ ::./w/.hr.4..J.!:.4::..Y.•i'i'••:Si::i%: Y:{%::::-i},-::i:'l:Y.:�:y'� OYa�Jl %%-:h:;:: ..N.rY;r•::!4.. .>�iri:v::. .S%%+nonri.SS:4e::'{>;,:y'j;;t':it li%Avt•Y,.,. ,.i{.. ..,h..rn::...v. ..f.. rN./J-.//. .-a \ 6)TASJ•Yfi'iiiri%/.M-%!Mi):A: ;'.;::�. .:./rie::.::. i4r:•>>::.:v.......{.r{Aelrr.!i.Yr-++,{:n>i.'%.i ;.,l,. nJ.. "•%<`:.}':?ii:iv::ij::is:%?%}% / � � .:r.H/JJ//.U..>'i>iYh!: :t:9Ti :'!;,::r! .,/.; !ir!...>r..✓.. .}%:'it:{i {::J4; ::.y.</+rr !Y/r':;.J.�.. .�:.:;iSS j:v4Si,+. .:::(-.::..... :SitS<lit:v�?:i!i!v%};:S%i�'1:?:S:•-.v:-:v:v• r:-/.. .r`!'�Cyi- ./..r 1 ri4r-Y A ..... ..o..-...:...�:n::...�:.r::.�::r% .}.w:: .:...:-rrr.,,....,.......r-'Y:-}:.:r::::n•::.t:�yrc:r..!rgJ � �' -:['h Jrid: } l jiYfhf!n rh•rl;,`-Ji,:v: :'•�.••`Z%'I' ; :ti'.!y�y:,t�,��,"�•'v/:*'?��i.�?:-. ;Y'^%{'L:�:>;:t%y�' •M ..,.; ;:o`y`,.;:: :r?»': V Y•Q^n,'CJi.I�:vi+.<i>,:j'�':"ivi':-jfi:Sri>?::: i:EiSi,'iI'.r:' •J•• O ,v�;.v'W:Y/�ra�^Y/!.4.'.J:riv.$-i��>"l <.. -•mow-:4i�' + %U,t riic;.?-fir','<.: :i;6/<,iso'•',^'JH-<%r,.;:!;?Y},.;'%'' v'' ',:C<ir%::::{\:ii: 4oi i4:%i!4'j.' W.!.M�:�ti-: :1,.:�� r,.%.:•r/.!%rit:{r%^::: y?.. i..zru:" r l':dLf i T'f.;;:rY`'�:# %•� ':>YY{}rb::: 0wra wS:no?Tyer/,v:�T.:4.6'. '� _ t5� >!u!:•r.:::pJ%t' :>�.iitrk:+PJn':Y•: ':' �Y•••%YS 4.?n.4irl-f;Rti:: .•—' i�J.,v-:l+i(iii({!.}%:1l<{r;,v,% .''�:j ii N? .•. .y:' ::t,`/.j: }ii!/•.iQSY.•.J �.•R}. n ". '!�}.'tiy A0.. :y�}i%i i. N O ,•, t::•};•rs:: :.Si' :(�` �rj;.... .n't��.sr> Yi>.i:t{.,r,..,C••, O� j.!y+ R'w•.:it: ♦" S:J'Ti%;Syzi%.,ix.a;.. .yrr..!.: aa.'-✓:?:{`+.,..,.y.: ►� �.,� -.:): ;%>{';'''• .v.2:^•n...� 'ryy,.;i•}tr::.r»%ti�:;.;i•►;i. '�-�.•''.:':L:;{::.<Yr:^.�:L:j:%:�t:-;:!:;::{:; •......y!r:: •'w'�vYl'%LC (.-•+',�•Y.44L;:; :::}:4:�;::{.>;Jr: :' rr.}Y,.•{:�L�•%!-/.y:r.!h>}}}}}i:rr. 'v v4< wn~ Av:dY{(-SC;hiT'vG'JLv :+W:jY4r'w?SV: S.,}!{%`r YH':Y-.;yGr:..4n:• r /-•}:v 1,.�•:\9{A: �......./4: ... .. .:... {,}: .. .... 3 •C CI C :%a-L}aR::c;Y-.j ::S�:P.iO:K}4.C.••.r y��22 S�<•-3ir••:.R;,•.;�:%• i`:%i %;%,c:;:i:;} -•;?r:t e:{ 3y,'7ydj'S.: <$f. i�" J,L}'.'%Y:i•< r.:.'hli .?Y• "#yn.. •:.:{x:�.;.....: •';' :: Oy'; s: »; :4.....r...... � w•!4te6>:v'�i :>'•. %4.y-!..b i•r>:%':: 1•:>W±� '• C C �7. ¢ V V ::ty:•�i; :)(,yy r>;.{ii;•i�r.:•�;ly,. v<a�� •:e:::�ib .!-y,'.'-%ryo;::{?:.>.. -?!r.•-! 4i%n:•:.;•r,��i ~r.t:<4S)'i{. r ...Rt:'tf :-i:4•.n{i:, `y,. :;:t%:)J✓ri}%.l!J....,7:{-!./'rv'��.KK .. !". .>t�,•r!. Xr.•'rrrif:+ :Lr„: :%T✓'- •i!. SJiw% r t%+A:::: _:;.S..h}•f.;T:j} -J N•i:}iv ::.: ~�.:._:., 0 41 N J.f.'yi�•{)5::: ::Sc: •.'%S:z:e!' ;i!,e ;?:�.irS::,`. 1 w .y''%'.i-:!:'$'':•;':}�j ^::i,3: ;.y}.+.C: :y!�.�.,k.hA;y.`•;'%v::"::;::;�t:��.�....:� C :V xu?:r„r a;l'!!tii<;::; :•::�.r%a;£:p:: �.:/A,4}f.i:/;J«t is iSi aCi iii r/ ?:i::ii^N..v�.:3:S Y'.�':9;n;v'ti•:j'•-;:: ':yn%:, �:S'?i: :i'8!i:.%Y.4-.:...�.j.i :i;'l,} JS;{r Ai: L �•.`• ! :<:i,FitvY` i%i r� % '•i•.:::t-Si: �`.:iS�<'C::::'.:}z:�`•::s:}':::J' ++ g 8 . •n�!4.:;S✓-. .�.g, lci / ,; J,?ci•;;i::}>:::4Y:Y.:>. d L� f6. ej M:%,'t. Y.;;'t •,.Fa:,•. .rt.tGS:?'fti:,i%:;i'/ ...�,:{:': iS?�;; ':%!%::^+i”{:Ltr /N;ryri:i;S2;:+,{-r:Y%/.".n :.Y:cJy; :••: .'::'t i': .:riy :;t:;:%�:r:t'ti:: O r- ll.,{:-.Riit.:S:,h,',•:4n;?,/.;iiYv h}Y!>^r0);?:.;:' :i+c;'xi.'+ii%.y:i:; r•':%f !;:};;'.i` .;,..!!: :'yy'::.!x:}:,ow.'rii'.: yl ;:1�°j,r,•.;,o;,;;^.y:�iJ-., y!h;.:.;i:tticy ; !Y;;:..o:<�:/Y+'::;.{i:;;!..;{. _ [� r,.,;a..rr;:r)i`:'.c%,0'J:Nr..'jx-o <.Jy ♦ % r y Law 44 J.C- i .{;.,• ,,{ !'. �L � � C-' � � '-%� 'j •!.•:5�;;�t+ynac:!..mn J ♦ rfvFa i c r J�•�•i9r f°^iil'~,{'+y%;;''J,nc,.::•'S"S 1,::Mt�h av r aro{..�r /. SJ.<,.. :.... r.... .{:r{<.}.`•:-}:-;i:_%) :i:J.,..;a{i;i-:�?<::; s:<.;<:::::i;::;:�iri;;:T:ti;J.:....`::#i.+{i::L:'�':%��;}:-}:::.:::::5 Q,. Y%� :•;.:4ii:v?l:-iw%:;i:L.y!?)Y?-..{{wS /}•.,;. .::J,.y,.;*':rS>?i»^>+>}}*>.}i>ii}ii f:` �>`:;:!! .}�ji '%;in r:.:!vi lY;}r<'<'/,.ytf'.4;; ,,.�/.;�{.: ::rr ii:•iY.:•J::::.>:ir:4>i(!»>.+4Yi}i:!>v`}'+.'iter•'.}iti}}ii:: !;.,{r,.•..t{$A:.y::r{.-:.:}::.'%-.,:,':'k.;:f;.r 'y�' r! r::y:.:..} �.Ye::w:n::;:i:::?-r:�YYAY!.c4`r>Ser:.�.::.»r:>:•:;•::: ►,� :.!r•..tt;:.S'+.tet:r!F'•-•!.^> ::5�..,.,:.r{::..;.:::.ii?::::.:.:::-e:-:i:+<+ "i�ll:S"Ji4:?;?i::::'-: :.}:Wri:i v:r::>Y,Y.i' :'!i✓:.:::r f} `::::::f:::s:'•.:::;?.<; j ::.,: !..r 780Y:%'fC`/.•,:'ifi!...Ji:�rf::::::: .... ?•}r->::?;•:}:r!,r.�.., .!:4:ox:G"':`:•X- S;;lf?r ni!r,>ci.0 S.y!!.cr.;•v.: Gsa •s rJrr-.:.!!>?:,!>;;?::::»>::>s:: ",.;"-><••:::-:::>:.::i}>;:::.;,,.. i;;;:.� r "..},�>:>�:'f ............ - n.,,..r...... �}::.gin•-...,./..r^'^'a.,/4;i:'?:i:v.�..������� �. •Y:}:' r'J..!'>xry.•:.H:iwa':ri':v:.`:'�r. .;�) .. N.v,}}}:k1iv. O:Li%:%>G:c.!SS:!:8nv:.�:: x:>::.v::/iL..}>Y�iVi✓/..rJ/.?>:i>�..../..<. .rl.... /1.Sr.hJ..J.�M%Y/Jh: ..S ::vlv;!.'/..r wS:!;!.-.:r..,,.a•. :r.fjr,: ..l•>'J..:...., :::Q.::n;:::. ::.:::::.: �;r-:.:::.�:.,, >yr;':•",":"si:::x>?:. ..:.:. :... -- ...:..: 'moi•.::. , xr 1.... ..Zl`1,<! »< i �%'14W"� !•:•%iY'r::::S:�S:%ii ::i`iii>v::i:-i:::.. 'J.S:S%:i:• R ......:. Pon'M`ni o ..�:``FF.pX%S:i�'<���ii vj:4::j�:Lr +j!a1,(/y� 5..4_ � $:j 'rr•4K'kfiiv Ta ...r.r.... `�/t> v+�4A,!4a•:.err +1.:'. 41: Highway. ! �9iit �:,.•. ;:; .'}:::� a �w�"-�-.. 960 : J.!.."•::;:�,�: 7,400 �: �. 5.200 56.SOOIiow Pus Road 7.200e• 12,0007. 0 680 4 OEM I8,2' N/A 4 !" �,� 61 34,200 !59,000 84,500 1;79.200 j. 900 34 000 39AN 4 d ss 700 229500 97,000 58 70D _ 40.500 x•'14 r:30o ......_.....-- 7,500 .��-• 10400 a. '` ,.,23,000 °ed 0� 9,900 1�200 22, �'a` 24;300 �" XM i4,...,.. 2, 0. \ 33.200, 4'.2S,600 35,800 / 24100 X5.000 • \ _ ` 328,000 v 11,900 .' ;-� � '37,200 �.. 14,400 -'q•3p0__� t` 39.700 41AM ,900 62,100 4 4�1 w "`/', \ 13,100 l�j 40,600E 35.900 g �►Jc��� �, �. 35. 14,200 - - 16,400 \Caldecotto JY 71,100 `- Tunnel ~ : 81,900 144,000 .150,700 93 185,000 =100 24 `• :._ 211,200 22,700-0 24,80 12,600 25,000 ` '.43.700 680 Freeway 50,000 Existing(1990) Figure 5-2 ®76.400 ?A10 Central Countv Arterial Average Daily collector Traffic Count —••-� County Limit 1990 & 2010 BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners C,fiMU-73 .............. , 20900 G / 16.900 c• 22,300 / 17,2,00 • 32,000 15,600 25,600 35,800 18,000 100 =--215000 328,000 — 18;800 14:4000 9, rV Rn2d 19,000 v --- ~> 35900 j E 16, r•'1 •„ v d 40,600 Road 35,000 _.. ��:`` ��..., �/ _ �'� _,132,000"•".. t. 30.900i' Z85 000 93,400 y : X31,300 �`•. ° if;�oo ^ .. .. .- __ �� 680 �'•.` `r._.... ` 24,800 CO •• i 24 Caldecott \1 "A,Tunnh�ga ` 1000 `4 �� ...`.: 150,700 .t r '1 26,500' C 1 28,800 01%1« 13 Freeway 50,000 . Existing(1990) 76.400 2010, Arterial Collector Figure 5-3 Lamorinda —•�— County Limit Average Daily Traffic Count 1990 & 2010 BLAYNEY DYETT U,-b,, and Regional PlaawKs LAM.RA13M A � sl'., ..........O�QU1 LINTY Y C •N •.:x:%•. CN oma►•-. J ...'. • CI C, S' 6 't .::::... .... owed V, z .......... Brrntv+ood BNd Watnut Boul and R pp i .... $' .. � , gym; • �� _� •-is-i:::� ..........:... �...... .._# Z O tee: • 8 go C4 fY:: .�O •��i tv .Zen Cr AV ;+� Q 40ty R `8 8 ?::?#;«<:;;s:;"tit.:::::v.<-i:ii:;>� �J':►'<'::;<i :.... � ate• t .�C rl ,r q......✓;i` :;�. ►.::.. v .3 C s:?ra>: •b^ at co N F An as an • z%;i r; C . f sa 8 Dalt 4! /- },E• CJ Q` 00001000A•(� L • as ICU -1101, VA in r 1 /� � � � .pen • ��«� i • O � • i ♦ rN0 • Q $ dip ••ao� •.�►• � � Q ;Sol � Zi r r 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 C:%WPTX"nI97CCTP%=P_'%VOL`-}3.H:7 April 25, 1995 VOLUME 2— CL-IT 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 9 RTP' % CCTP2 % Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) LOS A-C 688,500 47% 860,000 40% 913,300 43% LOS D 266,100 189 422,100 209 445,700 21 7c LOS E 142,500 109 199,000 9% 246,470 12% LOS F 355,500 25% 652,200 31% 495,500 24 Fc Total 1,452,600 1009 2,133,200 1009 2,101,000 1009 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 9 LOS E 4,400 9% 6,800 8% 7,900 11% LOS F 15,600 34% 41,900 509 27,700 389 Total 46,500 1009 84,000 100% 72,600 1009 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 11.8 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. C:%WVrXT7193%CCrPCCTI.%VOU-3.1.827 11-65 April 25, 1995 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. Generally, the capacity of arterial streets is normally limited 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. c:Iwrrxn193%CCTF+ C"rrhvou.is.u,, II-66 April 25, 1995 VOLUME 2 — CC`I'P FUTURE TRAM 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 Ygnacio 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 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 frzeway 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 2421, northbound I-680 between SR 4 and Clayton Road, SR 242 between 1-680 and Clayton Road.. and SR 24 between 1-680 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. C:%WPrXT\193%CCTP%CCTPIwOL2-3.5.817 11-67 April 25, 1995 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2 — CCTP CIRCULATION DRAFT Many of the new contested 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. C:%WVrA7V97=P%CCrPhv0u•35.e2? II-68 April 25, 1995 ............. af r. v :,MM :. tv dS 11-11 ERE- 411 v+:2::.=:�•yf:}i-sy�r rte`'}. !� , �oo x ... .►}i%iii}�: \ � ^\ O�.' i{Y.yyN:��m.''wiryf4%IXlN}tii�.}.^!r: � • 'C :.'-JsS'r,YS`SYi:::r.:$<s.•.,r4r.ir 4:::n. c j.1 �/ 0 4 ,r;:.?�':ir> .•,:>>:}fir:. ;;•::.}:}:;< :>\ \ ,_�•-..,� � UC i.!:4:i. ...�$%rtti5}��!v:l.•}:S:irvv=!.:...:'.:....,.yvrJr4.:''"J,r:•... J^'•�. � l .A%:^Yi.?<t :':4 •Yr}?::.{::rir$::t-.-".i•>.v'4:i;,�i::i t;;, �.j�/,�'/ L!r. -�.:v: 'f yI}.v. -.Y,.:yr:wi�•::;. �� ,'\„ • ♦M� •1 ,1•w,t, '.::r••}i{' .'1.:�.:ice.i::Yv"y'••:i'J} rn • ♦1.. �.{,.; :<:,::;f%:t�:: .-ri<Si::;?'�:::;:�::;`:si%%'w$y:jiy� �>n`';` U )�� /',"�•{ 3 = • .� J !iv.':r{'ySj JSt<•i!.jN.;Y{r.}{r?;:r ::': � � �t 1i .(/ ^� + }ism+!j-:!.:}�;ii�<=t:j;is%:ir.}:::}�•i:yry:::!ry.n.i}Ytr•iL;}:.:..... � .... , !Y,:.'L:5!}:•}: iy:<}.>::i.r,..}.y;%:)::!h:isii:?;S?xr.};i.`rJi.','N;✓>;ii;ii:�:,{;{i;+':v,;:Y;: '� a�. •."�Vic` :zs%>''' 4 �-i .:c:•r=gin`y .i�'2L.. .._r1'''rf+,ty`•:;<?;i:?i:�,, .:r.:j;;.v ;�4iffi=%:ii?:i!!G -< •.nr^'{}x;;=r';«.aav xi%=':,;;;:t�:;:.;q.�:h:i>r::' <: % r: �t� tv.:.rfi:rr �.,:..}}5••;:;.,..�yr.:c�<;:'�i�:s..:5>r:=:;y: r}:;{•:{;}:;_{;::;..•:_ �n S'N' ,.i".yb:%.3:� :' :o•.:}::: ti fJ rr,.xjr.}x;:M:•:,<:::'t}} sr%.;=,,..i}i TLe i.; >s»:•: �:Y':^ntik;�i'';:.�i•::::i. .«�r;�{!:;{I,.:ti{??!i•./y�'ti.,..:v::::... � ! '� h. :Ti' ".d1C':4T:{iii;:ii asf.}.4:v}!J.i:...>•ti>iJi'G�:Cf}rr:%<4:}Y:%.Y{::'V'.?±?>{;i.}};}lr%;i:{}Ivi;:l::a>f:�:;:j:{;;i G � •'./ / '£ ,5.�.+.'",<":;x;^ciRsa �Y!%:Yi'�•1:a?r.:k.;•i:„;'t�;`::}:%:$;.'%?;;r5}<�!r:�':•:{:.,.....`<:.'{,. ?: <!'... P � / 1, �.r .. v::y:i%'::Sii'=•';8+ii'rilTi}}t•�'r,:;:;}=.-.w;,v.....f,.:.::•:• V' � {:l t .f- i. .r?i •.:i X44}{y?... -•• vv: ..... :..... -i'J,i•:Yi4:•: '•:!V.::?}::::ii:>'F:y r:l vt_ ♦ 11 { ! .;yn.,;i•}:. 4:v::-....... .. :.}: ..:................<::rrr:.viv:v:. Q "::,r:v r }:.,r.•Y,;;i•^�iiiis:is%�:<�}%;:::i-” i /� ... 2.. :::r=:r::::i!�: :+r..::v::r::-}}i:%:.:}}}}:•r iij::S: ...... ::.r :�:}:�:�'�1i'? Y.:•i •�ti iS.`f::jTY:'}3:;ii`Y:::,'=:"'i::::Si�i".J•^•.ii: r:=f?•i:Yrr':-Y-:r::v:•:=-}ir. °.i:3h.•:is x.%}_?!•:i:•Fi' -...`�.. ..1....,.. 'ii!''!.•:}:�j .4;Yr:••:�• :.k i ±<�R!�ir?iii+,.Ay:_;}tt:Y:.i!•, r'':XYr ii :},•:::. '. v:i!:rrr:.•.•:rr:::r/.:!=<:.r:rr::.r:::::::::r.r :s.;rJ:rr.}4::i: i; f :i s: }M}:. is%r.• :' ri::iF}:.. n4:4;?r!.4:•: v:::::!. -v.v:-::::r:•v:::::::.i%;:r:::;?•:}Y..i:.::!r:::::i<:: ' I iW is •nY: :4i:=i i .......... ......:..r.�:.:r..r:::}}}:':..y:.::.............�::::::•:::•:F>::..:. ..:::.;:.,..... n.:': ..1 ..•_--... i � :i' ��f3SS5r r::..:. ::..rr:,.-r:,: v:.«:.y}:•;^sxy:::::::r:::. r.;y:... ..:;r:;-....'•. - v}riY•>}:siil ii+?ii;iii':::ii:'ri+:�if=i+Yi:ii::i+:?+ � [ j `:+}F;.::: :i.T:=.%:inl:4n+J.:w�:!r...;r::•:;:rr'f.'iiri:ri-'.}r=•Y:L:::.Fi:Jv.Jl+l.=i.' 0 A rib s ♦ !" ►.. 5:�1•Y. 8 is h ♦ p {:'iii is t` v•l'v.,•.w}}i:.i ♦ a re!v hwr,:v •.....:. v:::':.v:^.^55:::. •}iii±±?S:`v:,:Y.:':o}:":}}.::,...,...=,,:w:.:::!.:::::n;,•.7.::.....r....... :G:.{=/,,!;:� ';}4.:!Y -5:4i�:.•>:?-:•l4 rii..;4:{{i1{c: ::.?:.. , H F �. '�S -.,. .. ?.;Y+v:r-ri•=1�rr."S:.u:llw:n:r., f1i.•- • . V! •h � V i%Jox.�:!.t.�;Y:::}::,t.}sv..' ..k::xyw�.sk;i:%�"':i5';';<.:�:x�+`�Y�!!,•:i!::;{:5{.;!.:;. Uowqolla O 'v;}jt i. /rYr.{•}!•i' Fi$=:k$•{•ki}i`?tn.:.vyr4,::•e::ryi'�-.�.•, :tn•.yi�!.'f.;{i::}>i}::4 ....1,:<{•;v:' *•.•.'•Fi"' =?'"J.:n<'.-"':ry-r i:'::i:.:7�i'f y-iii->...:'.. %.-.gllrti;%JJ=,;;,-:.:: _ ?fr,.'if .rzr.,.�t`.;J:?%`y:...2' .r'=-:iJ::�,::?::•:�:.!.}: �tL. C :!� '�!�:rti{rs .a v'_✓ •'::".'`;?y;=,rx"-:F?'rion+�4y=:t:o-»�'•�rr`r,'Ss?:r.a*:+�e:.rr.::}}:.s}::i rJ� � o a .rte. J{; ;;> �;ar{}.}:::..::>^t:�•: r:�, ;{:>i:4:::z�.r;;>.<�=:<:;<�{� ..Vl .'xiv+;ti'3:'` x,?F}.^;..,+.: .':;c:nt4 r:.:::e:<Y?: r' 'Dti•:%{:'r"'F,:dw�vl.:.�{.5i/>.<:<;;!!:`: s" mfr:.::,.,. {.: -�• .;� ..... .. �. � D ;.; •.'r:}r.}{:.-r.:';5. y:r',,,j:::iY,<•.':5r::;:;lr j�/rtti.:y^:'Sr.};i%.^"'•;<'y%,it:pi:;S:;;: QL «.� u .••,•s`:-5 W3. to) >r;v:�rf.{. :.il.:};t;:f4ii,:},,.}?>.��±::!.�4`.:::��r :.t.<.%.w✓`r;�c;•}r}.::.,.i: � .�•qn h � V 4f '�!"t:,>.::.:::.::v. .r.Yl::•n:.t{i� :r.::. ':nr<..:.rrii!.,,::yi}�_r::;::::/ e .nG}n• ;:•p: :;r;•{s}i. - r.•'::}'!'•.•-«.,.:r C C u ?3. •,;rfc¢Fy=•%j<r}:: :'4C:.::}:r:}{^:.;-.}.: ..{'Jn,.f.'•;:':-:::::<4:r-: .:{fin;_:f:;n..;:t;4 9;-�: v,.i!-Y.....::v:::•r}i::::•ri}i is c 3 r::;5;:��•,••r.:. 4.r>.?., .�: ::.k.-�::;::>;•i};iii:..;:......: 'A U � i',rkJ.,.*i:':;;>?a::. .a:4rY:?FF:•:vi.;"''�:•i•:;v:::":;:•r•'.'•:>'•': ::•f.:t:.. 00 f..7 00 «•. • :r.! ,.�'.:.rrw...,.r:::,•.: �y 5�"_:L:;k�>:i�':`.±:'%;:.;::: G C � .,hfijfn;{ :.}:x.,vv:•:f�!:fi{:,•.: :?:t:,.:•:: v:.'>}::•::;•:r :vixi^ :x r},-:.yam;�:;;:`r $'.;?•;:"-::�':a.,'fr>r.a,...c:•...,•r.::x. ::. •ifi:i;:.•.:...r .:ri+d'i'Ai`;:;i L � i. r � G L }";::'v=Y.Yi}'!vF!J.{4::K•::%.•: Y!ji� ... ..v $:. ,,f;•';ity.:%..:;...:.::;:.: `„ M Y{.{+„/fa6>;�iik:!hifr:.�.:G''!/. i;.4..•::.{::i:;}::yY;::`•k: S�,:{?f?.•>:+�»r}:;'S: r� a 7 f» y .F•r1::::,.y::•:::'t}:;f�:o^$'�a' r.,,.:r,.t:° aaa.F%4}}+!::<.y..a:::: ?pi?o-:4};., {.:;•.J•i}5:}:' � u ,.Y r n!,.u.. ..rr. !?4r..:•rrxi.:Y;t.:. d tet< .Ert> i : r• » Q UL L'1 O }'l.�� r.{4:_s,• 't"�!�..5;::;^::Si}:4}:::•}}:•>i;•t•:'.i:�is��%#t:4;:�:'s�::?}�•.r;::: V {,:.}:- •}r:,L?:%'� .:.;,�.,+":�"N,•�+Q.,,{gicx}:;;:'=.•.i:ii}}} ZF 0 crs:•ik:..vr:•:•r}:i:r±•r:�4:•i% 3.`- v y^ u iii��>"«;»i>::.}:;•}}:.}: .V � i}:4:•i DIY v 3 w ,rr :fon' Q +'fi8 4r4v. i}:•K"':{!'w v�':'.'iii iii: / d w 00 Q .7 r .z}�Y l..r. rrf.. is?:•ii:i ;vY;?..?-i}ii:�':' •••••••:: ::•;;:i-:�::Ji'::v: '•iiiii: •• • ai:::>:...........�::?•. ??;n:•ii:!-:i:?err:.?r...... --. .... ..,:.:.. 780 .....�..,. ::...:.�::-.�:. :.::::...::..:.::!,:<:-'::?.;;;:?.:;•;:-iii:;;:i:.;:.i:.:•;:;:::.;_:-•.�:,..,,. . ::::::::::: •".» ;>•:?.i.:;.::;:•i::?;.ii:-i;:;;.iii;:.i:.:;i;;;:•::•>::::�::•?•;>.i:>'...... :vk :v:::.y�:!:;: .::v:., ilii}ilii:is T:::{;+,;4i!• -ii''i+: :►. �. <c% ww arr . Pon Chicago BhwaY. i:;;:;::<:::;::>::< \ . ;• tllow Pus Road 17 IA4 680 4 4 \� e �'. .� \•� `` hod IMM St 680 r .` Reglonal'Routes Surface \\\\\\\\\\\\ Existing and Future LOS F Figure S-7 Res 0 Existing ///////// FuttneLOSF Central County ••MINIM• 1311111 Future ® Existing and Furum Congested Locations Intersection LOS F ■NEW NEW MMM Potential Q Future Intersection LOS F • 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 Urban and Regional Planners CENT vend _.,�, '•�` \` ev �Val � o •1• �\ - � OG 0� 9.1 •� CoA. ... ...;::::_� Q`.`,# `••_ i d o 680 24 13 •`. -' Regional Routes Surface Existing and Furure LOS F Roadway sway Future LOS F Existing •••• 1113311 Future ® Existing and Future Intersection LOS F MMM Potential O Future Intersection LOS F Existing Intersection LOS Figure S-8 Source:1993 Contra Costa CMP(August 2,1993).CCC CMP(October 10,1993): Lamori n da Transpac Action Plan Preliminary Travel Forecasts(October 1993) Congested Locations BLAYNEY DYETT Urban and Regional Planners ttuss� fir► ..... •- , pp Lu W. X. ' 0 ON `c i ♦ •• >> Brentwood Blvd. Walnut Boal and 1,0 ON } ? / • Ave SR4.9YP� a •''.<,.aVac W V►2�3:2' -- •.�s ■ _ :'.. L• c 20 CC U ... . ® O • Y ul iK >F:X.,± e Vit, j vas 3f- `8 'fir.: ply - � a G ,n O U r �; v2`c� 4 f • '� Q you c 00 01 XI , All tir =K ......�-f :li � w O ice„` ••�•• /w � � � �� , �' �� tri `�; • A � , pN �• t w H a t t FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VOLUME 2— CCTP CIRCULATION DRAFT Y \ { c:%wPrxni93 c=PCCTP--�Vou-is.e_7 11-74 April 25, 1995 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Draft Exhibits A through E for Incorporation into the Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan EXCERPTS FROM ACTION PLANS FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Local Jurisdictions' Responsibilities for Compliance with the Cooperative, Multi jurisdictional Planning Process to Reduce the Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts of Development Revised April 26, 1995 INTRODUCTION DRAFT Revised April 26, 1995 ACTION PLAN EXHIBITS A THROUGH E TO THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN Local Jurisdiction's Responsibilities for Compliance with the Cooperative, Multi-jurisdictional Planning Process to Reduce the Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts of Development The following Exhibits A through E to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan specify the traffic service objectives, actions, and procedures established by the regional committees through the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. The following regional committees have forwarded their "Proposal for Adoption" Action Plan to the Authority for incorporation into the Countywide Plan: WCCTAC, TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN, and SWAT (Lamorinda portion only). At this point in time, there is no consensus on objectives, actions, or procedures for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. The Growth Management Implementation Documents describe how the Authority will address conflicts among the Action Plans, and state that the Authority will act on proposed objectives and action policies. In cases where consensus has been reached among the members of the Regional Committees, and no objections have been expressed, the Authority will adopt the objectives and actions as proposed. Where there is opposition to some portion of the Action Plans the Authority will "determine which objectives and action policies are to -be 'included as conditions of compliance with the Growth Management Program (see Page IG-27 of the Implementation Documents). Attached are excerpts from the Action Plans that were prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and forwarded by RTPC resolution to the Authority as "Proposals for Adoption." It should be noted that in the case of the Tri-Valley Plan, the Proposal for Adoption has not been formally forwarded to the Authority by SWAT, however the Contra Costa jurisdictions (San Ramon, Danville, and Contra Costa County) have reviewed the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan. The Danville and San Ramon councils have approved the Tri-Valley Plan, but the Contra Costa County Board has directed its staff to revise that Plan. Described below are the excerpts from the action plans included in this document. The existing conditions analysis and traffic forecasts that were developed for each action plan have not been included here since that information will not be used by the Authority to judge a jurisdiction's compliance. Action plan visions and goals have been included to provide a framework for the objectives and actions that follow. To the extent that they do not conflict with the Authority's established growth management policies, the procedures for updating the action plans, circulating EIRs, and reviewing general plan amendments (all required components to the action plans) have been included. The following excerpts from the "Proposal for Adoption" action plans are included: Action Plan Exhibits to CCTP April 26, 1995 Page 2 Exhibit A: West Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance - Proposal for Adoption, December 9, 1994. Chapter 5, Goals Chapters 6, Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion; Chapter 7, Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance; Chapter 8, Process for Monitoring and Review Exhibit B: Central Contra Costa Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance - Proposal for Adoption, December 1, 1994 Action Plan Tenets Chapter 4, Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion Chapter 5, Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance Chapter 6, Process for Monitoring and Review Chapter 7, Future Steps Exhibit C: East County Action Plan Proposal for Adoption, December 8, 1994 Chapter 3, Section 3.6 onward, pages 34 through 43. Chapter 4, Growth Management and Economic Development Options Chapter 5, Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Appendix B, Testing of Alternative Future Scenarios Exhibit D: Lamorinda Action Plan - Proposal for Adoption, January 11, 1994 Chapter 3, Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion Chapter 4, Action Plan for State Route 24 Chapter 5, Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road Chapter 6, Process for Monitoring and Review Appendix C - Actions to be taken to Comply with GMP Exhibit E: Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional. Significance - Proposal for Adoption, January 1995 Due to a lack of consensus at the Tii-Valley Transportation Council and SWAT regarding traffic service objectives and actions for inclusion in the Tri- Valley Transportation/Action Plan, conditions of compliance for the jurisdictions of Danville, San Ramon, and the Tri-Valley portion of Contra Costa County have not been included. For information, comment letters from the RTPCs on the Circulation Draft Action Plans are attached. There are three general reasons for not including a proposed objective, action, or procedure as a condition of compliance with the Growth Management Program. Action Plan Exhibits to CCTP April 26, 1995 Page 3 1) Objectives or Action Policies Conflict: As noted above, where there is opposition to some portion of the Action Plans, the Implementation Documents state that the Authority will "determine which objectives and action policies are to be included as conditions of compliance with the Growth Management Program." This suggests that in the case where there are conflicting objectives or actions, the Authority has the flexibility to decide which actions to select as a condition of compliance (the Authority may also direct the involved parties to enter into the conflict resolution process.) For this effort, however, where there were conflicts between regional committee objectives, or where it appeared that one subareas actions were being imposed on another subarea, without that subarea's consent, then the actions were altogether stricken. 2) Action Plan Procedures Conflict with established Growth Management Program Policies: A second category arises when procedures that are proposed in the action plan conflict with the Authority's policies for the Growth Management Program as set forth in the Implementation Documents. The Action Plans should include procedures for circulation of EIRs, review of General Plan amendments, and action plan updates. In the case where the action plan has "rewritten" the Authority's policies, and those rewrites conflict with established policy, the text has been deleted, and the Authority's established policies govern. 3) Actions that would be difficult to measure as a condition of compliance with the Growth Management Program: A third reason for not including a proposed action policy as a condition of compliance is that the action would be difficult to measure as a condition of compliance. Detailed below are descriptions of each page of the action plans where Authority staff has deleted text: `'Vest County Action Plan: There were not text deletions to the West County Action Plan. Central County Action Plan: Pae 34: Responsibility for Action 8 is assigned to other regional committees. Assigning responsibility of an action to jurisdictions outside of the regional committee boundaries or other regional committees will not be used as a basis of compliance for those jurisdictions. Page 35: Action 12 - ". . . and, as appropriate, TRANSPLAN, SWAT, and WCCTAC." Assigning responsibility of an action to jurisdictions outside of Action Plan Exhibits to CCTP April 26, 1995 Page 4 the regional committee boundaries or other regional committees will not be used as a basis of compliance for those jurisdictions. Page 35, 36: Action 13, "Support a moratorium on widening of arterials accessing Central County which increase capacity, and support improvements which would facilitate traffic flow to freeways, and enhance local circulation within Central County." This Action has been deleted because it would be difficult to measure as a basis for compliance - it is not clear how Central County jurisdictions would support a moratorium. East County Action Plan Section 4.4: Growth Management Strategy: Page 53: General Process and Authority statement that: "TRANSPLAN will determine only that the analysis is reasonable and sufficient; it will not pass judgement on the development." This statement is proposed for exclusion as it is in conflict with the General Plan Amendment review procedures set forth in the Growth Management Implementation Documents, which require review of. a General Plan Amendment by regional committees to assure consistencies with Action Plan policies. Page 54: "All TRANSPLAN would do is check, on an annual basis, whether the agencies are playing by the agreed upon rules." This statement is proposed for exclusion because it is in conflict with Authority policies established in the Growth Management Implementation Documents. General Plan amendments beyond the threshold size (those generating more that 100 peak hour trips for East County) are to be reviewed by the regional committee to determine the impacts on ability to meet action plan objectives and to assure consistency with Action Plan policies. Page 56, 57, 59: "Pure" employment development and high density development around transit stations, while desirable for East County, are not exempt from the need for a traffic impact study according to the Authority's Technical Procedures. Section 5: Actions: Page 67: The action to pursue an aggressive campaign to implement the East County Corridor project between Brentwood and Livermore has been excluded. This project is not included in the Countywide Comprehensive Action Plan Exhibits to CCTP April 26, 1995 Page 5 Transportation Plan because Livermore and Alameda County have not agreed to the improvements, and such agreement is necessary for implementation. The action is also in conflict with the Tri-Valley Action Plan, which views the Vasco Road corridor as a limited capacity "gateway" to the Tri-Valley. Lamorinda Action Plan Pte: The statement that CCTA would be responsible for funding of the monitoring and evaluation of Regional Routes has been stricken. The Implementation Documents specify that monitoring will be performed by the RTPCs, and funded by both CCTA and local jurisdictions. (Page IG-17, Implementation Documents) EXHIBIT A West County WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY CON dITi'EE RESOLUTION 9406 APPROVAL TO FORWARD THE "PROPOSAL FOR ADOrI70N" WEST COUNTY ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION INTO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the 1988 Measure C legislation, as part of the Growth Management Program, requires that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("Authority"), jointly with affected jurisdictions, determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service Standards on routes of regional significance; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Authority in December 1990 further require that each Regional Transportation Planning Committee develop and adopt an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the fallowing components: 1. A designated network of Routes of Regional Significance; 2. Adopted Traffic Service Objectives.(ISOs) using quantifiable measures of effectiveness that include target dates for attainment; 3. Specific actions, programs, and measures to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4. Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5. Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and 6. A schedule for Regional Committee and Authority review of progress to attain adopted TSOs. WHEREAS, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) provides the forum for multi jurisdictional cooperative planning, including preparation of the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance; and WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions of WCCTAC (Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, and El Cerrito) have closely overseen the effort to develop the West County Action Plan by working with the WCCTAC, the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Authority, Contra Costa County„ WestCAT, BART, AC Transit, Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, members of the public, and each jurisdictions's elected officials and technical staff; and WHEREAS, WCCTAC approved release of a Circulation Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance on July 29, 1994 and allowed a forty-five day period for review by interested parties, and considered comments received in preparing the "Proposal for Adoption" Action Plan; and continued... ZO 'd 6SOLSHOIS 'ON XV3 018dd NdS 30 1,1.I0 8Z:b1 03M 96-K-ddV WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions of WCCTAC recognize that compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program will, after January 1995, be judged by the Authority in part based upon each jurisdictions implementation of the Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority, in adopting the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will accept proposed objectives and action policies where consensus has been reached among the members of the WCCTAC as set forth in the West County Action Plan, and will adopt those objectives and actions as conditions of compliance with the Growth Management Program. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the WCCTAC has reviewed the "Proposal for Adoption" West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT upon review and approval by the Authority, the WCCTAC jurisdictions shall implement the West County Action Plan in accordance with the objectives, actions, policies, and procedures set forth therein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Chair of the WCCTAC is hereby authorized to submit the "Proposal for Adoption" West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance to the Authority for incorporation into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This Resolution 94-06 was entered into at a notiecd public meeting of the WCCTAC held on December 9, 1994 in Hercules, California. 40- - VOO/ December 9, 1994 Chair Date £0 'd 6SOLS£ZOIS 'ON Xdi Olevd NVS JO A110 62:61 43M S6-K-8P EXCERPTS FROM West Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance o Proposal for Adoption Action Plan December 9,,*- 1994 WCCTA C Chapter 5 WCCTAC ACTION PLAN GOALS 5.1 WCCTAC Action Plan Vision Statement WCCTAC's "vision" for West Contra Costa County is improved quality of life resulting from a comprehensive transportation planning effort. This effort will be guided by four key considerations: mass transit, economic development, balanced land use, and urban design. Through a series of workshops, WCCTAC developed the following primary and secondary goals to guide development of the West County Action Plan. 5:2 WCCTAC Primary Action Plan Goals • Facilitate and encourage the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation such as ridesharing. • Promote economic development. • Improve environmental quality. 5.3 WCCTAC Secondary Action Plan Goals • Improve local mobility by improving circulation on regional routes. • Minimize through traffic on local roads. • Balance the location of jobs and workers. • Coordinate land use and transportation planning. • Emphasize pedestrian design that includes appropriate scale, access and safety. • Establish a strong regional transportation lead agency. • Foster and maintain inter-agency coordination. • Work with transit authorities to better serve large employer sites in West Contra Costa. • Encourage a partnership between the business community and local jurisdictions in addressing and resolving transportation problems in West Contra Costa. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 66 C. Support inclusion of the West County BART , extension in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Track 2 RTP project list. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) d. Pursue every opportunity to speed the funding 'and constriction of the West Contra Costa County BART extension to Crockett and ultimate extension into Solano County. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, BART, MTC) e. Coordinate planning activities with TRA19SPAC and TRANSPLAN .to ensure consistency between sub-area plans. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) f. Require preparation of traffic impact studies for all projects generating more than 100 peak hour trips in accordance with CCTA Technical Procedures.. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) Other coordination activities which should be pursued within the WCCTAC jurisdictions Action Plan area are: g. Expand efforts urging MTC to determine the best express transit system(s) for the I-80 corridor and to accomplish necessary steps towards achieving federal funding of major transit improvements. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, OCTA, BART, GEBROC) h. Based on the study results of the Metropolitan :Transportation Commission I-80 corridor analysis, encourage timely implementation of planned transit capital and service improvements. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, CCTA) i. Seek to obtain a comprehensive determination of transit needs in West County from on-going studies by MTC, CCTA, AC Transit and BART. Encourage integrated transit planning between districts. Facilitate coordinated actions by the transit agencies. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) j. Promote coordinated planning with neighboring transit districts: Support development of a network of regional transit connections. Identify important missing links in the regional transit network. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) k. Support efforts underway by MTC to improve fare, transfer, and schedule coordina- tion to make it easier for riders to get from one subregion to another. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) 6Z I-80 Improvement Project a. CCTA, in its capacity as the Congestion Management Agency, should advocate the use of increased bridge tolls for the construction of HOV lanes on I-80 from State Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge. (OCTA, WCCTAC jurisdictions) West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 69 q4 'i b. Continue support of the I-80 Improvement Project including construction of the HOV lanes and direct BART station access for express bus systems. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, CCTA, Caltrans) C. Through the WCCTAC TDM Program, actively participate on the I-80 Transportation Management Plan committee to encourage increased express transit services and information services during project construction. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) d. Support any planning and development efforts to promote the accommodation of transit access in the design of the new Carquinez Bridge Project including the preservation of right-of-way for future rail access, such as BART. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, CCTA) e. Request CCTA to develop, in conjunction with Caltrans and Solano County, a Traffic Operation System Management plan for I-80 that will regulate the flow of traffic on I-80 to respect the freeway system's constraints and bottlenecks, and reduce the impact of freeway traffic on local streets. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) f. Promote alternatives that will achieve mainline traffic metering into West Contra Costa County. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) g. Support efforts by Ca'_trans, CCTA, and MTC to tailor capacity of the Carquinez Bridge improvements to downstream capacity. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) h.: ' Actively participate in the environmental review process and design of a potential third span on the Carquinez Bridge. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) i. Support implementation of Caltrans TOS program on the I-80 corridor. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) j. Promote increased CHP funding in West Contra Costa County. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) k. Encourage Caltrans to study and implement improvements designed to discourage through traffic at freeway intersections where ramp-jumping occurs. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) 6.3 Rail Opportunities a. Continue participation in and promote efforts to build the West County BART Extension. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, BART) b. Support plans for parking lot expansion and bus loading improvements at the El West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 70 Cerrito Plaza BART station. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, El Cerrito, BART. C. By 1995, develop a comprehensive capital improvement/maintenance program for the Richmond BART station aimed at making the station more attractive'as an intermodal commute facility. This should include improved bus loading, signage, ramp design, and safety. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, GEBROC, BART, Richmond) d. By 1995, develop and adopt a capital improvement program for Amtrak intercity rail service as the primary commute mode for areas east of Contra Costa County. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, GEBROC, Caltrans) e. Through the WCCTAC TDM Program, develop a shuttle bus program between BART stations and West County major employers. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, BART, transit operators) f. Support efforts by GEBROC and BART to study and promote early phase implementation of commuter rail along the SP right-of-way serving West Contra Costa communities. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, BART and GEBROC) g. Support efforts by AC Transit to study the feasibility of operating light nail service along San Pablo Avenue between downtown Oakland and Richmond. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, AC Transit) h. Continue to encourage improved, direct nail access to intermodal facilities at the Port of Oakland with the intent of reducing truck traffic congestion on I-80. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) i. Support efforts by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and others to maintain and improve freight mobility in the I-80 corridor. (WCCTAC) 6.4 Land Use Type, Density, Demand & Design \ a. As part of each local jurisdiction's General Plan update process analyze existing land use characteristics and zoning standards along regional transit routes. Determine compatibility with goals of "transit friendly" land use planning and jobs/housing balance. Propose changes as appropriate. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) . b. Consider opportunities for encouraging development projects that will facilitate transit usage while not conflicting with goals of neighborhood preservation, economic enhancement, and other fiscal considerations. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) c. Promote mixed use development, high employment commercial, and higher density residential development in transit corridors and near BART stations and other transit West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 71 t� s; transfer stations, where appropriate. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, BART) d. Evaluate the quality of existing transit service to high traffic generators such as large retail centers, large employers, commercial centers, schools, hospitals, recreational sites, etc. Propose services changes as appropriate. (WCCTAC , Transit Operators) e. Facilitate coordinated development project review between jurisdictions and transit operators. Determine transit service needs in conjunction with project design review. (WCCTAC and local jurisdictions, Transit Operators) f. Encourage inclusion of General and Specific Plan policies which promote pedestrian and transit access/orientation in development project design. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) g. Through the Bay Area Partnership and other avenues, work with Solano and Alameda counties to address regional land use issues. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, OCTA, Solano County, Alameda County) h. By 1995, working through ABAG and other appropriate intergovernmental agencies, promote a jobs/housing balance of at least .90 in the General Plans for local jurisdictions located in the I-80 corridor east of Contra Costa County. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, CCTA, Solano County) 6.5 Transit Capital and Service Improvements a Consider additional transit mitigation alternatives, as appropriate, in future Action Plan Deficiency Strategies. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) b. Consider project specific or area specific improvements as conditions for project approval at locations where high intensity development is forecasted. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) C. Determine transit service and capital improvements in conjunction with early review of development project proposals. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators) d. Consider transit needs in the design phase of public roadway improvement projects. Encourage preferential treatment for transit vehicles to improve travel times such as coordinated signal timing, signal preemption, exclusive transit lanes, bus layover/staging areas, and other service considerations. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators) e. Promote the development of transit centers which include transfer points for local to express bus systems; and which .incorporate Park and Ride lots where possible. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Districts, Caltrans) West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 72 f. Encourage coordination between cities, developers, and transit operators in the placement of bus stops at regular intervals so that areas are adequately served. Encourage provision of bus turnouts along major transit routes `.where feasible and determined to be desirable by the transit operators. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators) 5 6.6 Transit Facility Design a. Ensure safety and comfort in station design. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators) b. Ensure adequate bus loading zones and parking supply in convenient proximity to BART loading platforms. Consider future nwds for facility expansion. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Districts) C. Integrate transit facility design with surrounding areas to minimize neighborhood impact. Coordinate facility design and planning with local jurisdictions. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Districts) d. Encourage bicycle travel to BART stations through provision of bicycle access lanes and bicycle lockers. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Districts) e. Promote the development by 1995, of a comprehensive capital improve- ment/maintenance program for the Richmond BART station aimed at making the station more attractive as a major intermodal facility. This should include improved bus loading, signage, ramp design, and safety. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, GEBROC, BART, Richmond) 6.7. Transportation Demand Management a. Support the WCCTAC TDM Program as an integral component.`of the overall West County transportation improvement effort that is underway. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators, West County Employers) b. Work with the I-80 Transportation Marketing Group (TMG) to provide additional alternative transportation options and incentives during project construction. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) C. Promote commute alternatives at the work place. In conjunction with the transit operators and *RIDES', provide ride matching services, facilitate formation of vanpool/shuttle service programs, 'and promote transit usage. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, West County Employers, Transit Operators, RIDES) Wert Contra Costa County Acrion Plan Page 73 J d. Develop a marketing/information program on commute alternatives. (WCCTAC , West County Employers, Transit Operators, RIDES) e. In conjunction with Caltrans, the transit operators, and the jurisdictions, promote the development of a comprehensive plan for Park and Ride Lots in West Contra Costa County with 'a regional review process for Park and Ride Lot placement and design. (WCCTAC , Transit Operators, Caltrans) f. Encourage development of interim and permanent Park and Ride facilities along the I-80, I-580, and State Route 4 corridors in conjunction with improvement projects. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators, Caltrans) g. Develop TDM program policies for reporting, employer participation, compliance, monitoring and appeals. (WCCTAC , CCTA, West County Employers) h. Monitor TDM program compliance and program effectiveness. (WCCTAC , CCTA) i. Support a comprehensive West Contra Costa shuttle bus service connecting major work sites with BART stations. This program should first be pursued as a pilot demonstration project in areas that are not now being fully served by fixed route transit service. (WCCTAC jurisdictions, Transit Operators, West County Employers) j. Obtain and maintain information on employee commute patterns through administration of employee transportation surveys; plan programs in response to needs or deficiencies identified. (WCCTAC ) k. Provide on-going support to West Contra Costa employers. (WCCTAC ) I. Develop and implement county-wide programs in coordination with other regions and the TDM Coordinating Committee. (WCCTAC ) M. Establish a mechanism for incorporating TDM requirements into the city planning permit process. (WCCTAC jurisdictions) West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 74 Chapter 7 ACTION PLANS FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNMCA�NCE This chapter details the various action plan,objectives and actions for each of the routes of regional significance within the WCCTAC sphere of influence. Then each route is defined, described and discussed. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are provided, together with a set of actions directed at achieving these objectives. Each jurisdiction (once this Action Plan is adopted) needs to incorporate all of the actions and planned improvements into the Transportation Elements of their General Plan and initiate activities directed at designing the improvements, securing funding, and incorporadng them into the jurisdiction's Capitol Improvement Program and the Regional Transportation Plan or other planning process as appropriate to ensure implementation. The discussion below establishes Traffic Service Objectives and corresponding actions that will contribute towards achievement of the objectives. The Measure "C" Growth Management Program requires that each jurisdiction make a good faith effort to implement the actions, measures, and programs contained in this plan. However, a jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program will not be judged based upon whether Traffic Service Objectives are achieved. Chapter 8 sets forth procedures for monitoring traffic, determining whether Traffic Service Objectives are being met, and revising the Action Plan in the case where objectives are not being achieved. The 1990 baseline traffic information contained in the Existing Travel Conditions (July 199 1) and Future Conditions Background Report (January 1993) will be used as the starting point for achieving the objectives that are listed below. For example,, achievement of the goal to "Increase vehicle occupancy by 15 percent" would require that actual measurements of vehicle occupancy taken in a future year be 15 percent above.the 1990 measurement. 7.1 Interstate 80 Corridor 7.1.1 General Description Interstate 80 is the primary inter-regional commute corridor in'West Contra Costa which has high regional significance in the East Bay and the Bay Area as a whole. I-80 is a six lane freeway with a speed limit of 55 mph. Auxiliary lanes are provided between heavily travelled interchanges. There are interchanges at Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, Potrero Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Macdonald Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, McBryde Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, El Portal Drive, Hilltop Drive, Appian Way, Pinole Valley Road, State Route 4, Willow Avenue, Cummings Skyway, and Crockett. San Pablo Avenue is the only alternative parallel reliever route for the entire I-80 corridor. In 1990, average daily traffic on I-80 ranged from 97,000 vehicles per day (between Cummings Skyway and State Route 4) to 170,000 vehicles per day (south of San Pablo Dam Road). During the AM peak period the highest traffic count is 10,400 vehicles per hour at Cutting Boulevard. During the PM West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 75 peak period the highest traffic count is 11,500 vehicles per hour, also at Cutting Boulevard. Approximately 52% of the westbound AM peak hour traffic on I-80 (south of the Carquinez Bridge) is through traffic. The remaining traffic has destinations inside West County. Farther west on I-80, approximately 32% of the westbound AM peak hour traffic on I-80 (north of the Alameda County line) is through traffic. The remaining traffic on I-80 at this location originates in West County. During the PM peak period, traffic characteristics are similar but in the reverse direction. BART provides the primary rail service in the I-80 corridor along the Richmond line. In 1992, approximately 27,700 average daily trips took place at the three West Contra Costa BART stations. BART studies indicate that if the Richmond line was extended to Crockett, with existing stations at El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito Del Norte, and Richmond, and new stations at San Pablo, Hilltop/Richmond Parkway, Hercules, and Crockett, approximately 38,600 average daily trips, or about a 40 percent increase, could be expected by the year 2010. (Daily trips estimated from daily boardings or exits.) The Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition (GEBROC) and BART are currently developing an implementation program for commuter rail service in the I-80 corridor between Fairfield and West Oakland. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 4,000 average daily trips could be expected in the short term, particularly during the period of I-80 reconstruction. Currently, Amtrak provides longer distance intercity rail service in West Contra Costa, with a station in Richmond. AC Transit, WestCAT, and BART Express Bus provide bus service in the I-80 Corridor. The Contra Costa Bus Transit Study suggests that given increased bus service 'frequencies on selected routes, about a 17 percent increase in average daily trips could be expected by the year 2000. Vallejo Transit provides express bus service from Fairfield, Vallejo, and Suisun City to the Del Norte BART station. Transfers on some routes are permitted in Crockett and at Hilltop Drive. Currently, about 3,000 to 4,000 average daily trips are serviced. Some service enhancements have been funded by I-80 Improvement Project Mitigation funds. Typically, the Vallejo Transit BART link buses operate above capacity (standing room only) during the peak periods. The construction of HOV lanes on I-80 with direct bus access to the BART station at Cutting Boulevard will result in improved bus travel times and opportunities for enhanced express bus service. The Contra Costa Bus Transit Study recommends increased express bus service from Solano County, but does not specify the amount, cost, or time frame for improvements. Vallejo Transit staff has identified the desirability of increased service frequency and development of an improved bus transfer station in West Contra Costa, either in Hercules or at Hilltop Drive. Caltrans is currently developing a Park and Ride Lot in Hercules which could serve as an inter-county bus transfer center. Rist Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 76 7.1.2 Issue Statement Delay on I-80 is substantial during the peak periods. During the AM peak period, westbound I-80 is typically congested (LOS E/F) from Willow Avenue into Alameda County. Because- toll ecausetoll collection at the Carquinez Bridge occurs in the eastbound directions, there exists no mainline metering of the substantial amount of commute traffic entering West Contra Costa from northern counties. Bottlenecks occur between Pinole Valley Road and Appian Way, San Pablo Dam Road and San Pablo Avenue, Macdonald Avenue and Cutting Boulevard, and Carlson Boulevard southward. Bottlenecks are most prominent at the on-ramp locations. Local concern has been raised about potential back-ups onto local roadways should Caltrans install ramp metering lights as expected. A reverse condition occurs in the evening. Eastbound I-80 is congested during the PM peak period from the Alameda County line to Willow Avenue and often to the Carquinez Bridge. Bridge back-ups often extend south of Pinole Valley Road on Friday evenings. Travel speeds during these periods range from a,complete stop to less than 35 mph at the locations indicated. A significant amount of freeway traffic diverts to alternate routes, principally San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Dam ]Road, when congestion is at its highest. Daily traffic levels on I-80 are projected to increase 20% to 40% over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand is projected to increase similarly. By the year 2000, congestion is forecasted throughout the entire segment of I-80 in West Contra Costa during both the AM and PM peak periods. Upon completion of the I-80 Improvement project and construction of the HOV lanes, conditions are expected to improve to acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better) on the freeway segment between Cummings Skyway and SR 4. By 2010, conditions will remain at LOS E/F near the Cummings Skyway interchange and LOS F on the Carquinez Bridge and south of SR 4 through Alameda County. It is anticipated that the peak hour capacity of the HOV lanes will be about 50-60% utilized (using freeway lane capacity of 1750 vehicles per hour). Demand for portions of the I-80 freeway will be 13% over capacity by the year 2010. This increase in demand will be primarily a result of traffic diverting from the I-680 corridor to take advantage of capacity improvements on State Route 4 anda general increase in regional traffic. Capacity' constraints will prevent traffic volumes from increasing to higher levels during the peals periods. The expected result of the increaseddemand will be more traffic diversion onto San Pablo Avenue, longer duration peak periods, and increased impact on air quality resulting from automobile emissions. Average travel speed will decrease and travel time will increase except for HOV vehicles, which will be able to bypass the congestion using the HOV lanes. San Pablo Avenue is expected to have five intersections operating at-LOS F, principally in the Pinole/Hercules area, as commuters divert around a severe bottleneck expected south of the State Route 4 interchange. "Ramp-jumping" is currently common in which motorists use off-ramps only to get back on the freeway at the next on-ramp, impeding West Contra Costa County Aaion Plan Page 77 local circulation in the process. The anticipated Caltrans project for the Carquinez Bridge will provide an increase in westbound capacity into West County from Solano County. As such, the project will serve to facilitate traffic flow into West Contra Costa County, but not out of the County. Unrestricted vehicle volumes entering West County via the Carquinez Bridge contributes to overwhelming the downstream capacity of I-80. The traffic signals at the San Pablo Dam Road interchange and the El Portal Drive interchange currently operate at level of service "E" or worse during the peak hours. Unless mitigated, this condition will continue to the years 2000 and 2010. Security at Park-and-Ride lots along I-80 is lacking. Some lots are not served by transit operators, while others are poorly served. Information regarding bus schedules and bus stop locations are lacking. These conditions result in under-utilization of existing Park-and-Ride lots, further contributing to excessive single occupancy vehicle traffic on I-80. Sight lines for upcoming congestion or exit signs .are often rather short. The sight line to alternate routes such as Sal Pablo Avenue are also too short resulting in "blind" decisions to exit a congested condition on the freeway only to enter an equally as congested condition on an alternate route. The efforts of the City of Hercules in promoting commuter rail and a train station in the city must be recognized. The transit transfer station currently under construction will help reduce congestion in the I-80 corridor. i 7.1.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2 a. Widen for HOV lanes from Bay Bridge toll plaza to Route 4 b. Construct Atlas Road interchange, including HOV ramps C. Construct eastbound auxiliary lane between Richmond Parkway and Appian Way d. Install ramp metering hardware at all on-ramp locations e. Construct 200 stall Park and Ride lot at Atlas interchange f. Construct auxiliary lanes from Central Avenue to San Pablo Dam Road g. Construct Park and Ride Lot at the SR 4 interchange h. Add uwsit/HOV ramps in median at Cutting Boulevard 2000 - 2010 a. Reconstruct SR 4 interchange b. Widen for HOV lanes from Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza (note that some sections of this project in Pinole and Hercules are currently under construction or planned for implementation in 1995.) West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 78 - 7.1.4 TiA fic Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.1 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for Interstate .80. The table includes the. responsible agency(s) for each action. In some cases agencies other than the WCCTAC jurisdictions are noted. WCCTAC needs to coordinate with these other agencies and encourage them to participate in the implementation of the specific Traffic Service Objective and action. Table 7.1 Interstate 80 - Objectives, and Action Objective Action Responsibility Increase vehicle Support construction of HOV lanes between SR WCCTAC occupancy on I-80 4 and Carquinez Bridge (funded with Bridge jurisdictions in the peak toll increases). direction an average of 15 Seek funding from MTC to analyze ferry WCCTAC percent by service from Richmond and/or Rodeo to 2005.11 downtown San Francisco. Promote policies that maximize utilization of WCCTAC new HOV lanes on I-80. jurisdictions Encourage increased HOV usage by supporting WCCTAC real incentives such as free toll bridge jurisdictions crossings for HOV lanes. Support increases. in Carquinez Bridge tolls for WCCTAC single occupancy vehicles for the purpose of jurisdictions increasing HOV and transit incentives on the I- 80 corridor. 's Current AM and PM occupancy rates are 1.31 and 1.37 respectively. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 79 Table 7.1 Interstate 80 - Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Increase transit Support Implementation of a timed bus/train WCCTAC ridership on the I- transfer service at the El Cerrito-Del Norte, El jurisdictions, 80 corridor during Cerrito Plaza and Richmond BART stations by and appropriate peak hours by 20 AC Transit and other providers. transit agencies percent by the year 2000. Support the continued implementation of a WCCTAC comprehensive shuttle bus service between jurisdictions, major employer sites and BART stations in and appropriate West County by AC Transit, WestCat, transit agencies CCCTA, employers, and other transit services. Participate in the I-80 corridor study. WCCTAC jur. Promote an increase in the frequency of the El WCCTAC Sobrante-Richmond-San Francisco bus service jurisdictions, during peak periods. AC Transit Support expansion of express bus service for WCCTAC jur., the I-80 corridor. AC Transit, BART and Vallejo Transit Encourage the provision of adequate parking WCCTAC jur., and bus circulation in the designs of all West BART and County BART stations. appropriate transit agencies Wilt Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 80 Table 7.1 Interstate 80 - Objective and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Achieve a peak Support the provision of greater security and WCCTAC midday utilization amenities at Park and Ride lou by Caltrans and. jurisdictions rate of 50 percent transit operators. for park and ride lots by the year 2000 (averaged Promote adequate transit service to Park and WCCTAC over all of the Ride lots by Caltrans and transit operators. jurisdictions, facilities in the and appropriate corridor). transit agencies By the year 2000, Support implementation of high level on-going WCCTAC increase the maintenance and capital improvements for all jurisdictions average daily West County BART stations. passengers at the three West County BART station from Support implementation of increased levels of WCCTAC the existing level security at all West County BART stations. jurisdictions of 13,275 by 10 percent. Achieve a 6400 Support commuter rail services from Fairfield WCCTAC per day ridership and Brentwood to West Oakland. Assist in the on commuter rail determination of appropriate station locations (measured as total in West County. daily boardings in the I-80 and Highway 4 Support a rail station in Hercules and other WCCTAC Corridors from communities as appropriate to maximize rail Fairfield and ridership and intercept through travellers on I' Brentwood to West 80. Oakland) by the year 2000. Wilt Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 81 Table 7.1 Interstate 80 - Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility By 1995, Obtain from BART data on 1990 feeder service WCCTAC accomplish a 20 daily ridership. percent increase in average daily trips on the Solano Promote enhancements to BART link service to WCCTAC County BART Solano County. feeder bus service over 1990 levels. 7.2 State Route 4 7.2.1 General. Description State Route 4 is a two lane highway from I-80 through the.Cummings Skyway interchange with a speed limit of 50 mph. There is no median separating oncoming traffic. There are left turn lanes at critical intersections. Fast of Cummings Skyway, State Route 4 is a four lane freeway with a center divide and 55 mph speed limit. Speeds on State Route 4 were measured at 36 mph during the mid-day in the eastbound direction at 48 mph westbound during the AM peak period. Average daily traffic on State Route 4 is 33,300 vehicles. During the AM peak hour the highest count is 2,750 vehicles at Cummings Skyway. The majority of this traffic originates in West Contra Costa. During the PM peak hour the highest count is 3,000 vehicles, again at Cummings Skyway. Currently, WestCAT provides bus transit service between the Richmond BART station and the County offices, courts, and hospitals in Martinez, including the Martinez Amtrak station, via State Route 4. The service operates every two hours between 6:45 AM and 5:15 PM on week days. The Contra Costa Bus Transit Study recommends that this service be extended to the Concord BART station by 1995, and that the service be improved, including a development of a timed transfer station at Martinez Amtrak by the year 2000. No ridership or cost projections have been estimated. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 82 7.2.2 Issue Statement The two lane section of State Route 4 between I-80 and Cummings Skyway is currently operating at LOS FJF during the peak periods. Congestion on State Route 4 causes diversion of traffic onto Cummings Skyway resulting in significant delays at the interchange, which is substandard in its design. Vehicles attempting to turn onto State Route 4 from the unsigna- lined side streets find it difficult to gain access in the heavy traffic moving at high speeds. This condition and the lack of a center divide has resulted in a relatively high number of serious accidents in the area. As a result safety has become a major policy issue on State Route 4. Improvements directed at resolving vehicle conflicts are needed in addition to enhancements in capacity to ensure acceptable levels of service. Daily traffic is projected to grow by over 100% over the next 20 years primarily as a result of traffic diverting from the I-680 corridor to take advantage of capacity improvements resulting from the State Route 4 West project (scheduled to be built sometime after the year 2000, depending on available funding). Peak hour demand is projected to increase similarly. By the. year 2000, congestion will continue to increase on State Route 4 between I-80 and Cummings Skyway. By 2010, the segment will improve to' LOS C/D as a result of the planned freeway improvements. 7.2.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2 a. Construct ramps at Bayberry b. Modify Sycamore from intersection to interchange C. Construct grade separation; on/off ramps for WB State Route 4 at Willow Avenue 2000 - 2010 a. Construct four lane freeway from I-80 to Cummings Skyway b. Improve interchange at Sycamore Avenue C. Improve old alignment of State Route 4 as two lane arterial (parallel to Route 4 Freeway) between I-80 and Cummings Skyway 7.2.4 Traffic Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.2 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for State Route 4. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 83 1 2: Table 7.2 State Route 4 Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Achieve LOS Establish construction of the State Route 4 West WCCTAC "E" or better freeway gap closure project as the highest priority jurisdictions by 2000 on highway project in West County. all segments of this route. Through the forum of Metropolitan Transportation WCCTAC Commission's RTP, actively pursue new funding jurisdictions sources for the State Route 4 freeway gap closure project. Advocate the use of federal and state funds for the WCCTAC State Route 4 gap closure project as the highest jurisdictions regional priority in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission RTP, with the I-80 HOV lane extension as second priority. Monitor level of service on State Route 4. Caltrans Encourage WestCAT to maintain existing service WCCTAC frequency of the 30 Z Line (Martinez link) and jurisdictions, extend service between the Richmond BART station WestCAT and Martinez to the Concord BART station. Encourage WestCAT to improve service frequency on the 30 Z Line to one hour headways during peak periods and develop a timed transfer station at the Martinez Amtrack station. By 2000, Obtain 1993 and subsequent annual accident rate data WCCTAC reduce for Highway 4 from Caltrans annual accident rate Actively pursue federal, state, local funds for the WCCTAC on State State Route 4 freeway gap closure project. jurisdictions Route 4 by (Cummings Skyway to I-80) 10 percent below 1993 Promote construction of the State Route 4 West WCCTAC levels. Project. jurisdictions, Caltrans West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 84 7,3 Interstate 580 Freeway 7.3.1 General Description Interstate 580 is an eight-mile long freeway with a speed limit of 55 mph. I-580 has two lanes eastbound until the Canal/Garrard exit where a third lane is added. There is an HOV lane in each direction between Harbour Way and Bayview. Throughout the route, auxiliary lanes are added between on-ramps and downstream off-ramps. There are interchanges at Central Avenue, Bayview, Regatta, Marina Bay Park-way/South 23rd Street, Harbour/Cutting, Canal/Garrard, and Marine St. Average daily traffic on I-580 is approximately 64,000 vehicles per day. The AM and PM, peak periods both carry approximately 2,200 vehicles per hour. During an AM peak period, 100% of the traffic on I-5'80 at the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge is travelling from the Marin/Sonoma area. Of this Marin/Sonoma traffic, 81% is traveling through West Contra Costa to Alameda County. Within Richmond, there are fifteen major employers with 100 or more employees within close proximity of 1-580. Daily traffic is projected to grow by 90% over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand is pro- jected to increase similarly. 7.3.2 Issue Statement Currently, there is relatively little congestion on I-580 during the peak periods. Some congestion occurs in the southbound direction where the freeway connects with 1-80 and near the bridge toll booths in the westbound direction. 'travel speeds generally are at the speed limit throughout the day. Peak hour level of service will decrease to "D" in the peak direction on some sections even with the HOV lanes in place. It is anticipated that the peak hour capacity of the HOV lanes will be under 10% utilized. Backups will continue at the Richmond Bridge toll plaza and on the approaches to 1-80. Level of services on the remaining portions of I-580 is projected to be better than "D". As demand increases on I-580, traffic conditions will worsen on some connecting arterials. By the year 2000, Castro Street is anticipated to operate at LOS EIF north of the freeway, Garrard Boulevard at LOS D/E south of the freeway, and 23rd Street at LOS D/E/F south of the freeway. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 85 7.3.3 Planned Capita! Projects 1990 - 2 a. Add HOV lanes from Bayview to San Rafael Bridge 2000 - 2010 None 7.3.4 Trgff c Service Objectives Table 7.3 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for the I-580 freeway. Responsible agency(s) are noted. Table 7.3 I-580 Freeway Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Attempt to Encourage development of a new Park WCCTAC achieve an and Ride lot on the Marin County side of average vehicle the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. occupancy of . .: 1;35 on the I- Encourage Golden Gate Transit to WCCTAC 580 freeway. maintain and improve bus service from Marin County to the West County BART stations. Expand service, market service, and provide incentives to increase use as appropriate. Coordinate with Marin County and Caltrans to ensure consistency between Richmond local area and sub-area plans. 7.4 San Pablo Avenue 7.4.1 General Description San Pablo Avenue extends throughout West Contra Costa parallel to.I-80 and serves as the primary alternate parallel reliever route to I-80 during periods of severe freeway congestion. For purposes of this study, San Pablo Avenue includes the Old Highway 40 and Parker West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 86 Avenue in Rodeo. San Pablo Avenue characteristics range from a mixed commercial/resi- dential route into a more rural route north of Rodeo. In El Cerrito, between Carlson Boulevard and Macdonald Avenue, San Pablo has fmr lanes: There are left turn pockets at most intersections with left turn signal phasing. The speed liarit is 35 miles per hour. There is a median from Central Avenue through Cutting Boulevard. In Richmond, the speed limit is reduced to 30 mph between Macdonald Avenue and Glenn Avenue. On portions of San Pablo Avenue in this area there are no raised medians or left turn lanes at the intersections. South of Macdonald Avenue, San Pablo Avenue is a designat- ed State Route. In San Pablo, the speed limit increases to 35 mph between Glenn Avenue and Rivers Street. A bike lane begins at Vale Road and ends at Road 20. North of Rumrill Boulevard, San Pablo Avenue operates more as an expressway with four lanes and a speed limit of 45 mph. At most intersections there are raised medians and left turn pockets. In Pinole, the speed limit is reduced to 25 mph, only to increase again to 35 mph and 45 mph in Hercules. Between San Pablo and Pinole in the North Richmond/Richmond Parkway area, there are fourteen major employers with 100 or more employees, within close proximity to San Pablo Avenue. Further north in Hercules and Rodeo, there are six additional major employers located close to San Pablo Avenue. Average daily traffic on San Pablo Avenue varies considerably. The lowest average daily traffic is 5,600 vehicles north of SR 4 increasing toward the area of Cutting Boulevard where the highest average daily traffic is 23,800 vehicles. During the AM peak hour, the highest volume of traffic is 2,000 vehicles in the vicinity of Potrero Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the highest volume is 2,700 vehicles in the vicinity of Barrett Avenue. Most of the trips on San Pablo Avenue are internal trips, with both an origin and destination in West Contra Costa. The highest percentage of through trips is about 10% near Cutting Boulevard. This percentage increases substantially during periods of severe I-80 congestion. 7.4.2 Issue Statement San Pablo Avenue is the only alternate route which extends the entire length of 1-80 in West Contra Costa. As such, a substantial amount of regional commute traffic routinely diverts from I-80 to San Pablo Avenue during periods of severe freeway congestion. Several San Pablo Avenue intersections either currently or in the future will operate at level of service "F" primarily as a result of incremental demand resulting from regional traffic diversion from I-80. Capacity does not exist to serve peak period demand of through traffic diverting from I-80. Additional capacity is infeasible in most cases. Once diverted, motorists often face slower travel times on San Pablo Avenue for relatively long distances, particularly between San Pablo Dam Road and SR 4. West Contra Costa County Anion Plan Page 87 North of 23rd Street, the average speed on San Pablo Avenue varies slightly throughout the day. The lowest speed is 24 mph during the southbound AM commute, and the highest speed is 34 mph during the northbound mid-day commute. Delays occur at the intersections of Broadway, Sycamore, Hilltop, Tara Hills, Belmont, Shamrock, Tennent, Atlas, Appian, and Sunnyview. South of 23rd Street, the average speed is also fairly consistent throughout the day. Delays occur at the intersections of Barrett, Clinton, Macdonald, San Pablo Dam Road, Vale, Cutting, Church Lane, 23rd Street, Moeser, Carlson, McBryde, Central, Potrero, Stockton, Fairmont, and Solano Ave. Currently, segments of San Pablo Avenue operate at LOS "D' between Moeser Lane and Central Avenue, and between Cutting Boulevard and Potrero Avenue; LOS 'E" south of Central Avenue; and LOS F between Rumrill Boulevard and Robert H. Miller Drive. On an average day, congested speeds on I-80 are still higher than those on San Pablo Avenue. (Peak period speeds on San Pablo Avenue are in the high 20's while I-80 averages over 30 mph.) However, accidents or heavy congestion on I-80 can cause a significant amount of freeway traffic to divert to San Pablo Avenue. Daily traffic is projected to grow by 4% to 135% on various segments of San Pablo Avenue over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand is projected to increase similarly. San Pablo Avenue is predicted to be operating at LOS E/F between Sycamore Avenue and Atlas Road, between Robert H. Miller Drive and Rumrill Boulevard, and south of Central Avenue. Traffic volumes would increase even more in some sections except for the rapacity constraints in the corridor. Due to increased travel demand on San Pablo Avenue in the _future, it is anticipated that overall peak period duration will increase, average travel speed will decrease, and travel time will increase. By the year 2010, intersection level of service will drop to EIF at five intersections even after completion of the I-80 Improvement project and potential construction of a light rail line from downtown Oakland to Hilltop in Richmond. The six San Pablo Avenue intersections include: Sycamore, First Street, Tennent Avenue, Appian Way, 23rd Street, and El Portal Drive. The resultant overflow of regional traffic onto local roadways, particularly near major connectors, is expected to seriously impact the quality of life for West Contra Costa communities. Truck traffic is particularly heavy on Parker Avenue in Rodeo where Wickland and Unocal generate an average of 250 truck trips per, day. The trucks typically travel from Parker Avenue to Willow Avenue and State Route 4. Truck traffic is also heavy on San Pablo Avenue in Crockett at the Carquinez Bridge. Crockett suffers from the effects of peak hour I-80 bypass traffic seeking the Carquinez Bridge from San Pablo (Pomona) Avenue. With the restriping of the eastbound bridge, residents fear this problem is likely to increase. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 88 7.4.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2 a. Road reconstruction in the City of Hercules 2000 - 2010 a. Construct a light-rail system from downtown Oakland to Hilltop in Richmond b.. Widen to six lanes from Potrero to Cutting 7.4.4 Tigok Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.4 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for San Pablo Avenue. As noted before, the responsible agency(s) are also included. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 89 Table 7.4 San Pablo Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS "E" On an ongoing basis, monitor level of service WCCTAC or better at all on San Pablo Avenue. jurisdictions signalized intersections along Encourage completion and use of the Richmond WCCTAC San Pablo Avenue Parkway. jurisdictions through the year 2000. Seek MTC/CCTA/Caltrans funding of study of WCCTAC traffic improvement and traffic management jurisdictions options (eg. diversion of through traffic) for maintaining LOS "E" while addressing . environmental and socio-economic impacts. Support Caltrans actions to Discourage through WCCTAC traffic on I-80 freeway from diverting to local jurisdictions streets. Support Caltrans actions to Encourage I-80 . freeway traffic to stay on the freeway segments WCCTAC as long as possible and minimize "early exits" jurisdictions ' to bypass freeway congestion. Discourage pedestrian crossing at 23rd Street at City of San locations other than crosswalks through Pablo increased police enforcement. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 990 J Table 7.4 San Pablo Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS 'E" Consider construction of exclusive left turn City of Pinole or better at all lanes at the intersection of Tennent Avenue and signalized San Pablo Avenue (Note: a time frame should intersections along be established.) San Pablo Avenue through the year Restripe the northbound 23rd Street approach to City of San 2000., better serve the heavy left turn demand. One Pablo of the current left turn lanes on this approach is too short to adequately store the demand during peak periods and the result is that left turning traffic can only stack in one of the two available left turning lanes. Consider closing the westbound Road 20 City of San approach to through traffic at the San Pablo Pablo Avenue/23rd Street intersection. Traffic would only be able to make a right: turn onto San Pablo Avenue, thus eliminating a signal phase substantially increasing the capacity of the - intersection. Explore the feasibility of constructing a second City of northbound right turn lane on San Pablo Hercules Avenue between Sycamore and SR 4 to allow right turns on westbound Sycamore Avenue while preserving the public investment in the City of Hercules transit transfer station. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 91 Table 7.4 San Pablo Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS "E" Promote new driveway restrictions and other WCCTAC or better at all uniform design standards aimed at improving jurisdictions signalized circulation. intersections along San Pablo Avenue Encourage development of higher density WCCTAC through the year residential./commercial mixed-use development. jurisdictions 2000. Discourage speeding on San Pablo Avenue WCCTAC through increased police presence and jurisdictions unmanned speed monitors. Adopt design standards for new development to WCCTAC minimize turning movements on and off of San jurisdictions Pablo Avenue. Synchronize signal timing on San Pablo Cities of El Avenue where warranted by close signal Cerrito, spacing and high traffic volumes. Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules Encourage Caltrans actions to discourage diversion of through traffic onto San Pablo WCCTAC Avenue by promoting I-80 as a more jurisdictions attractive choice in terms of travel time. Encourage the emphasis of HOV usage and viable transit service alternatives. On an ongoing basis, encourage diverted traffic WCCTAC to return to I-80 on the next downstream feeder jurisdictions road through improved signage. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 92 Table 7.4 San Pablo Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS "E" Encourage use of Appian Way as the major City of Pinole, or better at all connecting arterial to I-80 rather than Tennent Contra Costa signalized Avenue and Pinole Valley Road through County intersections along improved signage. San Pablo Avenue through the year Clearly identify feeder.roads to motorists which WCCTAC 2000. will take them back to 1-80 particularly at jurisdictions Appian, Hilltop Drive, El Portal Drive and San Pablo Dam Road. Support WestCAT's efforts to assess the need WCCTAC for improved bus facilities and operations along jurisdictions San Pablo Avenue. Where feasible, support the extension of bicycle WCCTAC lanes to encourage more usage. jurisdictions Reduce truck Conduct a Truck Classification Count to Contra Costa traffic on San determine current truck volumes. County Pablo Avenue in Rodeo by 90 Initiate preliminary design and project Contra Costa percent over development for improvements to Cummings County current volumes Skyway that will provide for the extension to by 2010. Old Highway 40. Actively pursue funding to construct a Contra Costa Cummings Skyway extension from I-80 to Old County Highway 40 (San Pablo Avenue),in the vicinity of Tormey, which would provide more immediate truck access to 1-80 and would divert commute traffic from passing through Crockett and Rodeo. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 93 Table 7.4 San Pablo Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain the level Encourage Caltrans to study options, such as WCCTAC of service "E" for the Cummings Skyway Extension or changes in intersections at ramp locations, for reducing the amount of foot of I-80 ramps traffic using these ramps to bypass freeway on San Pablo congestion, especially on Friday afternoons. Avenue (Pomona Avenue) in (Also see above actions for Rodeo Streets) Crockett 7.5 Cummings Skyway 7.5.1 General Description Cummings Skyway has two lanes and a 50 mph speed limit. Average daily traffic ranges between 7,200 and 9,300 vehicles near Crockett Boulevard. The highest AM peak period count is 1,000 vehicles.per hour at I-80. During this period, 72% of the traffic is through traffic. 85% of the these trips are traveling from Napa/Solano to Central Contra Costa County, and 15% of these nips are traveling from Marin/Sonoma to the Central Contra Costa County area. The,highest PM peak period count is 1,200 vehicles per hour,-again at Crockett Boulevard. 7.5.2 Issue Statement Daily traffic is projected to drop by about 10% over the next 20 years. This is partly due to the improvement of State Route 4. Peak hour demand is projected to decrease similarly. All segments of Cummings Skyway will continue to operate at an acceptable level of services (LOS "Cu or better). The problem on Cummings Skyway is its steep grade in certain segments and its substandard interchange with I-80. 7.5.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2 None 2000 - 2010 a. Extend Cummings Skyway to Old Highway 40 and upgrade interchange with I-80. Provide truck climbing lanes. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 94 7.5.4 Trgffic Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.5 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for the Cummings Skyway. Table 7.5 Cummings Skyway Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS Monitor the level of service on Contra Costa County "D" or better on Cummings Skyway. all segments of Cummings Pursue funding to upgrade the Cummings WCCTAC jurisdictions Skyway Skyway interchange with I-80. Pursue funding for construction of truck Contra Costa County climbing lanes. 7.6 Willow Avenue 7.6.1 General Description West of I-80, Willow Avenue has two lanes and a 35 mph speed limit. East of I-80, Willow Avenue has four lanes. Avenge daily traffic is 9,500 vehicles at San Pablo Avenue. The highest AM peak period count is 700 vehicles per hour at San Pablo Avenue:. 59% of these trips stay within West ContraCosta. 38% of the trips have destinations elsewhere. The highest PM peak period count is 1,000 vehicles per hour, also at San Pablo Avenue. No significant delays have been recorded along this route. 7.6.2 Issue Statement Relatively little congestion currently occurs on Willow Avenue. Drivers experience delays waiting to turn onto State Route 4 which is currently an unsignalized intersection. Willow Avenue traffic must stop for State Route 4. Avenge daily traffic is expected to stay at current levels over the next 20 years. Peak hour level of service will improve to LOS A/B at the State Route 4 interchange. All.segments of Willow Avenue are expected to continue operation at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 95 7.6.3 Planned Capital Projects j 990 - 2000 a. Widen to four lanes from I-80 to San Pablo Avenue b. Construct new on/off ramps at State Route 4 C. Provide grade separation connection to Bayberry d. Install signals at the eastbound I-80 on/off ramps 2000 - 2010 None 7.6.4 Trgo c Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.6 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for Willow Avenue. Responsible agency(s) are noted. Table 7.6 Willow Avenue Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility On an ongoing Monitor level of service on Willow Avenue. Hercules basis, maintain LOS "D" or Encourage Caltrans to extend Willow Avenue via Hercules better along all a State Route 4 over-crossing to connect to segments of Bayberry Avenue as part of the State Route 4 Willow Avenue. West project. Widen Willow Avenue by two lanes between I-.,, Hercules, 80 and San Pablo Avenue. 7.7 El Portal Drive 7.7.1 General Description El Portal Drive is a four lane roadway between Rumril. Road and San Pablo Dam Road, then turns to two lanes near I-80. Average Daily Traffic on El Portal Drive ranges between 15,500 and 24,900 vehicles. During both the AM and PM peak there are 1,700 vehicles per hour at 1-80. During the AM peak period, 65% of the trips are heading into West Contra Costa and 19% are trips leaving West Contra Costa. Average daily traffic is projected to West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 96 grow by about 23% over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand is projected to increase simi- larly. 7.7.2 Issue Statement Currently, all segments of El Portal Drive operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). The intersection at the I-80 westbound off ramp operates at LOS E. This condition is expected to continue through 2010, and the intersection of El Portal/San Pablo Avenue is expected to deteriorate to a high LOS D. All other intersections and roadway segments will operate at LOS "D" (V/C of 0.85 or better). The greatest delays and the lowest speeds occur on eastbound El Portal during the PM peak period. Delays occur at Church Street, San Pablo Dam Road, Road 20, Fordham, and the I-80 interchange. Contra. Costa College is a major trip generator on El Portal.Drive. 7.7.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2000 a. Widen to four lanes I-80 and San Pablo Dam Road 2000 - 2010 a. Widen to four lanes from Church Lane to I-80 7.7.4 Trq fic Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.7 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for El Portal Drive. Table 7.7 El Portal Drive Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility On an ongoing On an ongoing basis, monitor level of City of San Pablo basis, maintain service on El Portal Drive. LOS "D" or better on all Promote increased ridesharing at Contra City of San Pablo, signalized Costa College. WCCTAC intersections along El Portal Drive. Wert Contra Costa County Aaion Plan Page 97 7.8 San Pablo Dam Road 7.8.1 General Description San Pablo Dam Road is a primary commute corridor in West Contra Costa connecting I-80 to State Route 24. As such, San Pablo Dam Road serves as a primary alternate route when I-80 is severely congested. This occurs primarily during the AM peak period in the southeast direction when westbound traffic is typically backed-up on I-80. Once through Orinda, traffic then enters State Route 24 and heads in a southwest direction with destinations in Alameda and San Francisco counties. Traffic diversion has increased on San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo with the elimination of the Cypress Freeway and the resultant congestion at the I-80/I- 580 maze near the Bay Bridge toll plaza. San Pablo Dam Road is a four lane arterial between San Pablo Avenue and Castro Ranch Road. South of Castro Ranch Road, San Pablo Dam Road changes to two lanes and becomes Camino Pablo in Orinda, at the intersection of Bear Creek Road. Camino Pablo remains two lanes through Orinda, except for about a one mile stretch of roadway closest to State Route 24 and the Orinda BART Station where it.is four lanes. The two lane stretch in Orinda is largely residential in character. There is a Park and Ride lot at Castro Ranch Road.` In the area between El Portal and Appian Way, San Pablo Dam Road is a business street with many driveways, a striped left turn lane, and no parking allowed. The speed limit is 25 mph. North of-Appian Way, there is a bike/parking lane, the speed limit increases to 35 mph at Del .:V411e Circle, and becomes residential with no median. At Castro Ranch Road, the speed limit increases to 50 mph, there is one lane in each direction and no median. Average daily traffic on San Pablo Dam Road ranges from 31,300 vehicles at Appian Way to 11,500 vehicles at Castro Ranch Road. The highest count during the AM peak period is 2,800 vehicles per hour at Appian Way. Approximately 79% of the westbound trips during this period are heading into West Contra Costa from other regions. Some of these trips are going to El Cerrito or Richmond BART stations to commute a further distance on transit. Besides the BART trips, only 4% of the trips are traveling through West County. (Origin and destination information is currently being compiled for the opposite direction, through Orinda, during the AM peak period) The highest count during the PM peak period is 3,100 vehicles per hour, again at Appian.way. _ County Connection provides bus service during the peak periods between the Orinda BART station and El Sobrante. In El Sobrante, service is connected with AC Transit. 7.8.2 Issue Statement Travellers on San Pablo Dam Road experience delays at the intersections of I-80 on/off ramps West Contra Costa County Action Plan -- Page 98 t and San Pablo Avenue. Delays are also possible at Valley View Road and Appian Way, and from Bear Creek Road to Highway 24. Safety issues and residential street access issues along the residential portion of Camino Pablo in Orinda have been identified. Traffic congestion is significant at the I-80 interchange. The interchange has a complex series of signalized intersections that are forced to operate; as a single intersection due to the short distances between them. The interchange is furter complicated by the intersection of Amador Street which is right next to the 1-80 off-ramp. Currently, the on/off ramps operate at LOS E/F. Traffic congestion is also significant at the intersection with Bear Creek Road. Eastbound traffic often backs-up through this intersection during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period, northbound traffic often backs up all the way to Highway 24. There is a significant reduction in capacity where San Pablo Dam Road changes to Camino Pablo in Orinda. The speed limit is reduced to 25 mph, there are several signals, and Camino Pablo passes through a residential area before widening out to 4 lanes in Orinda's commercial district. Average daily traffic is projected to increase about 23% over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand is projected to increase similarly. Traffic volumes would be increasing even more during the peak periods except for the capacity constraints in the corridor. By the year 2000, the segment of San Pablo Dam Road between Appian Way and El Portal Drive is expected to operate at LOS E/F. By 2010, this condition will improve to acceptable levels of service as.a result of roadway widening in the area. Peak hour level of service will improve to AlB except at critical intersections such as the I-80 interchange, Appian Way, and Bear Creek Road. These intersections will continue to operate at LOS E/F. 7.8.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2 a. Add a fifth lane and left turn pockets between Appian Way and Castro Ranch Road b. Improve signals from Appian Way and Castro Ranch Road C. Realign and reconstruct roadway at I-80 d. Improve the eastbound off ramp at State Route 24 and Camino Pablo e. Improve Camino Pablo between Miner Road and Bear Creek Road 2000 - 201 a. Widen to six lanes between Barranca and Appian Way West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 99 7.8.4 Traffic Service Objectives and Actions -Table 7.8 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for San Pablo Dam Road. Responsible agency(s) are noted. West Contra Costa County Anion Plan Page 100 Table 7.8 San Pablo Dam Road Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS Perform intersection and bicyclelpedestrian Richmond, "D" or better at improvements where feasible. Contra Costa all signalized County intersections along San Pablo Discourage new driveways on San Pablo Dam Richmond, Dam Road with Road. Contra Costa the exception of County the I-80 on/off cps Pursue federal, state and local funding for San Pablo, Interim and Ultimate improvements for the San Caltrans, Pablo Dam Road and I-80 interchange. WCCTAC Seek the cooperation of Caltrans in pursuing San Pablo, MTC RTSOP funding for traffic signal Caltrans, interconnect on San Pablo Dam Road between WCCTAC Morrow Drive and Ventura Avenue, through the I-80 interchange. Increase average Support the installation of bus stops between El San Pablo, daily bus Portal Drive and San Pablo Avenue on San Pablo Richmond ridership for bus Dam Road. lines running on San Pablo Dam Road by 25 Support the implementation of bus transit WCCTAC percent over improvements between West Contra Costa and 1992 levels. the Orinda BART station aimed at improving bus transit connectivity between districts, improving local access to major regional routes. Encourage expansion of AC Transit service to Richmond, the boundaries of the sphere of influence of the Contra Costa City of Richmond. County West Contra Costa Counry action Plan Page 101 Table 7.8 San Pablo Dam Road Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain Peak Seek funding for study of traffic improvement Contra Costa Hour Level of and demand management options for maintaining County Service 'E" at level of service at this intersection. Review Intersection with fiscal and environmental feasibility of current Appian Way. improvement plans. 7.9 23rd Street 7.9.1 General Description 23rd Street has four lanes between Cutting Boulevard and the intersection of 23rd/Carlson/B- roadway. North of the 23rd/Carlson/Broadway intersection, the corridor splits into a one- way street couplet on 22nd and 23rd Streets with coordinated signals and commercial frontage. There are three lanes in each direction of the couplet. North of Grant Street, 23rd returns to two lanes in each direction. On-street parking is allowed along the full length of the street. There are no left turn lanes. The speed limit is 25 mph. The average daily traffic on 23rd street is 13,300 vehicles per day. The highest count during the AM peak period is 1,600 vehicles per hour at Rheem Avenue. 70% of these trips stay wiihin West Contra Costa. 11% are trips exiting the West Contra Costa area. The highest count during the AM peak period is 1,500 vehicles at Barrett Avenue. 7.9.2 Issue Statement Congestion occurs during the mid-day and PM peak periods at San Pablo Avenue (LOS "E') Average speed on 23rd Street varies throughout the day. The mid-day northbound peak period is when there is greatest delay and slowest speeds. In the southbound direction, speeds are slowest during the PM peak period. The greatest delays occur at Cutting Boulevard, Road 20, Church Lane, and Ohio Ave. Despite these recorded delays, all segments of 23rd Street currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "C" or better). Daily traffic is projected to grow by more than 100% over the next 20 years. Despite this anticipated increase in traffic, level of service on most segments are predicted to remain in the acceptable range. The segment of 23rd Street south of I-580 will worsen to mid LOS "D". The intersection at San Pablo Avenue would temporarily improve in the Year 2000 due to the completion of-the Richmond Parkway and then deteriorate again to level of service "EIF" by the year 2010. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 102 7.9.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2000 a. Widen by two lanes between 1-580 and Broadway Avenue. 2000 - 2010 None 7.9.4 Traffic Service Objectives Table 7.9 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for 23rd Street.' Responsible agency(s) are noted. Table 7.9 23rd Street Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain level Advocate and support improvements to City of Richmond, City of service "'D" at , signal timing. of San Pablo all signalized intersections. Support enhanced transit service. 7.10 Cutting Boulevard 7.103 General Description Cutting Boulevard is a primary gateway in Richmond providing direct access to the Del Norte BART station. West of Carlson, Cutting Boulevard has two lanes in each direction with a left turn lane separating east and westbound lanes. Most intersections do not have left turn arrows and the speed limit is 35 mph. East of Carlson, there are still two directional lanes with concrete medians and left turn pockets at most intersections. Cutting Boulevard carries 18,000 to 26,000 vehicles a day. There are approximately 1,600 vehicles per hour during the peak periods, about 21 % of which is through traffic. Speed on Cutting Boulevard does not substantially change throughout the day. AVR is relatively high, recorded at 1.31 during the morning and 1.47 during the evening. Several large employers are located on or near Cutting. The vicinity around Cutting is anticipated to be a nodal area of higher intensity development. Currently, all intersections and link segments operate at LOS "D" (V/C 0.80) or better. 1 West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 103 7.10.2 Issue Statement Cutting Boulevard has a fairly significant amount of through traffic. Of the traffic on Cutting Boulevard during an AM peak period, 21% is traveling through the West County area. 100% of this traffic is traveling from the Marin/Sonoma area to the Central Contra Costa area or the Napa/Solano area. Cutting Boulevard carries approximately 11 % trucks, the highest percentage of all West County regional routes. Although AVR is relatively high, it does not meet Air District requirements for the year 2000. Throughout the day, delays occur most often at the intersection of Cutting and Carlson. Safety improvements through grade separation of the railroad tracks at this intersection would also be desirable. Currently, all segments of Cutting Boulevard operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). All intersections operate at LOS "D" (V/C .85) or better. Similar conditions are predicted over the next 20 years. 7.10.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2010 a. None (except at I-80 interchange) 7.10.4 Traffic Service Objectives :Tattle 7.10 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for Cutting Boulevard. Responsible agency(s) are noted. Table 7.10 Cutting Boulevard Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain LOS Improve the intersections of Cutting City of Richmond "D" or better at Boulevard and Carlson Boulevard, and the all signalized SP tracks (At grade or grade separation.) intersection. Evaluate the feasibility of imposing truck City of Richmond restrictions and creating alternative truck routes. Promote timely completion of the City of Richmond Richmond Parkway as a primary truck route. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 104 7.11 Appian Way 7.11.1 General Description Appian Way is a two-lane road with a two way left turn lane. There is a bike lane on both sides with'a "parking pocket" in front of businesses. The speed;limit is 25 mph south of the Pinole border and 35 mph northward. Average Daily Traffic on Appian Way is about 11,00 vehicles throughout its length. The highest AM peak hour count is 2,200 vehicles per hour at I-80. During this period 72% of the trips have both origin and destination within West Contra Costa. 23% of the trips are entering West Contra Costa from outside the area. The highest PM peak period count is 3,100 vehicles per hour, again at I-80. Truck volumes are very low. 7.11.2 Issue Statement Daily traffic is projected to increase by about one-third over the next 20 years. Peak hour demand.is projected to increase similarly. Currently, level of service is acceptable on all segments of Appian Way (LOS D, V/C 0.85 or better), except for the intersection of Appian Way - First Street at San Pablo Avenue. Primarily due to diverted regional traffic.from I-80, the San Pablo Avenue intersection will deteriorate to LOS F by the year 2000, and remain at LOS F through 2010. Also by 2010, ,the,intersection of Appian Way at San Pablo Dam Road is forecasted to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E, V/C 0.94). All other intersections are expected to remain at an acceptable level of service (LOS D, V/C 0.85) or better over the next 20 years. Average speeds on Appian Way are approximately 25 mph throughout the day. Some delays occur at San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo Avenue, 1:-80, Tara Hills Drive, and Sarah Drive. 7.11.3. Planned Capital Projects 124 - 2000 a. Widen with center lane from San Pablo Dam Road to Sobrante Avenue. b. Widen to four lanes from Michael Drive south to Pinole city limit C. Construct miscellaneous intersection improvements 2000 - 201 None West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 105 7.11.4 Traffic Service Objectives and Actions Table 7.11 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for the Appian Way. (See the objectives and actions tables for San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Dam Road for the objectives and actions related to the intersections of Appian Way with these two other regional routes.) Table 7.11 Appian Way Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility With the exception of the Monitor level of.service on Contra Costa County, intersections at San Pablo Appian Way. City of Pinole Avenue and San Pablo Dam Road, maintain LOS "D" or Support the installation of bus better on all segments and stops between Argyle Road signalized intersections along and Fitzgerald Drive on Appian Way. Appian Way. 7.12 Carlson Boulevard 7.12.1 General Description Carlson Boulevard has two lanes from San Pablo Avenue to 23rd Street. The speed limit is 35 mph. There are left turn lanes and left turn arrows at all major intersections. East of I-80 there are four lanes with many driveways and side-streets. Average daily traffic is 17,000 vehicles at 23rd Street. The highest AM peak period count is 1,600 vehicles per hour at I-80. During this period, 83% of the trips are within West Contra Costa. 164 of the trips have destinations outside of the area. The highest PM peak period count is 1,400 vehicles per hour, again at 1-80. 7.12.2 Issue Statement Currently, all intersections and segments of Carlson Boulevard operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or bitter). Some delays occur at Cutting Boulevard, Central Avenue, Bayview, and 23rd Street. Daily traffic is projected to drop by about 20% on Carlson Boulevard over the next 20 years. This is partly due to the construction of the Richmond Parkway. Peak hour demand is projected to decrease similarly. Peak hour level of service Wilt Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 106 will remain acceptable throughout all intersections and segments of Carlson Boulevard over the next 20 years. 7.12.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2000 a. None 2000 - 2010 None 7.12.4 Trq frc Service Objectives Table 7.12 details the Traffic Service. Objectives and Actions for Carlson Boulevard. Responsible agency(s) are noted. Table 7.12 Carlson Boulevard Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain level Monitor levels of service along Carlson City of Richmond, �of service "D" at Boulevard City of El Cerrito all signalized intersections Pursue truck restrictions and joint funding along Carlson with Caltrans for maintenance on the City of Richmond Boulevard. cross connector portion of Carlson Boulevard between I-80 and 1-580. Encourage the development of City of Richmond improvements to the intersection of Carlson Boulevard and the SP tracks (At grade or grade separation.) West Contra Costa County.lesion Plan Page 107 7.13 Rumrill/13th/Pennsylvaaia/Garrard 7.13.1 General Description Rumrill/13th/Pennsylvania/Garrard has four lanes except between Barrett Avenue and Macdonald Boulevard where there are two lanes. There is a 35 mph speed limit from San Pablo to the overpass on 13th street. South of this intersection, there is a 30 mph speed limit until the west side of the Refinery where the speed limit increases to 40 mph. There is a bike lane between San Pablo Avenue and Brookside Drive. Average daily traffic on Rumrill/13th/Pennsylvania/Garrard Boulevard ranges between 10,500 vehicles at Garrard Boulevard to 24,300 at Brookside Drive. The highest AM peak period count is 1,800 vehicles per hour at Brookside Drive. During the time, 66% of the trips are within West Contra Costa. 16% of the trips have destinations outside of the area. The highest PM peak period count is 1,900 vehicles per hour, again at Brookside Drive. 7.13.2 Issue Statement Average daily traffic is projected to decrease about one-third over the next 20 years due to the construction of the Richmond Parkway. With the exception of Garrard Boulevard south of I-580, all roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C" or better). Garrard Boulevard, in this area, is forecasted to operate at LOS D/E by 2000, improving to LOS "D" by 2010. All intersections will operate at LOS "D" or better. Some delays currently occur at San Pablo Avenue, Brookside Drive, Broadway Avenue, Harbor Way, and Chesley. Truck volumes are relatively high. 7.13.3 Planned Capital Projects 1990 - 2000 a. Roadway reconstruction from Brookside Avenue to Costa Avenue 2000 - 201 None 7.13.4 Traffic Service Objectives Table 7-13 details the Traffic Service Objectives and Actions for Rumrill, 13th, Pennsylvania and Garrard. Responsible agency(s) are noted. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 108 Table 7.13 RumrilU13th/Pennsylvania/Garrard Objectives and Actions Objective Action Responsibility Maintain level Monitor level of service City of Richmond of service "D" or better at all signalized Promote timely completion of the City of Richmond, intersections. Richmond Parkway as a primary truck WCCTAC and alternative commute route. Promote an improved level of bus service City of Richmond, within the communities of North Contra Costa County Richmond. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 109 Chapter 8 PROCESS FOR MONITORING AND REVIEW Action Plans are required to include a set of procedures for the following: • The review of environmental documents, • The review and possible incorporation of general plan amendments into the Action Plan, • The monitoring of progress in attaining the traffic service objectives, and • A proposed schedule for periodic update and review of the Action Plan. These procedures are described below. 8.1 Circulation of Environmental Documents 8.1.1 Background The Action Plan is required to have a set of procedures for the circulation of environmental documents. Certain procedures are required by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("the Authority"). For example, jurisdictions must circulate Notices of Preparation (NOPs) Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR) available to the Authority. The Authority then has responsibility to circulate it to its own committees. The Action Plan may set the threshold level at which EIRs are to be circulated to neighboring jurisdictions that might be affected by a project. The Implementation Guide indicates that traffic reports need only be circulated to other jurisdictions when they are incorporated into environmental documents subject to consultation requirements established by State law or Action Plan policies. It provides the following examples of projects requiring consultation on EIRs and negative declarations:16 • General Plan elements or amendments for which an EIR was prepared • Residential developments larger than 500 units 6 Shopping centers employing more than 1,000 persons or larger than 500,000 square feet 16 These ars based on requirements in Section 21092.4 of the Public Resources Code,and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. West Contra_Costa County Aeaion Plan Page 110 s Office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or larger than 500,000 square feet • Industrial parks employing more than 1,000 persons or occupying more than 40 acres The Implementation Guide indicates that the threshold size should be at least as stringent as those enacted by AB 4017. Actually, AB 40 does not really regulate project size, but indicates that EIRs need to look at impacts within 5 miles on local arterials and within 10 miles on freeways and highways. The CCTA Implementation Guide also suggests that each jurisdiction should coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions in dealing with mitigation measures for projects that may have impacts beyond the jurisdiction's boundaries. There are no specific guidelines or suggestions as to how this should be done. 8.1.2 Procedures for Circulation and Review of Environmental Documentotion The following procedures are to be followed by the jurisdictions making up WCCTAC regarding circulation of environmental documentation: 1. For any proposed project or general plan amendment that generates more than 100 trips dur'.ng the peak hour for which an environmental document (Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report or Statement) is being prepared, the Lead Agency shall issue a notice of intent to issue a Negative Declaration or a Notice of Preparation for an EIR to: all Regional Transportation Planning Committee chairs or designated staff person and each member jurisdiction of WCCTAC. 2. WCCTAC shall in turn notify its member jurisdictions of receipt of such notices from jurisdictions in other areas. 3. WCCTAC shall review development projects for compliance with the program for evaluating new development proposals outlined in this action plan. 17 This added Sections 21081.7 and 21092.4 to the Public:Resources Code. West Contra Costa County Amon Plan Page 111 8.2 Review of General Plan Amendments 8.2.1 Background The Action Plan was developed using forecasts of future land development allowed within the framework of existing general plans. General plan amendments enacted after adoption of the Action Plan could threaten the effectiveness of Action Plan policies. The Action Plan is therefore required to contain a process for notification and review of the impact of proposed general plan amendments. This process includes specifying a threshold for general plan amendments that will be subject to WCCTAC review. WCCTAC may also set up a procedure to review the cumulative impacts of a series of small plan amendments. The responsibilities of WCCTAC are as follows: • 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 of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. 8.2.2 Procedures for Review of General Plan Amendments The development review process identified in this plan pertains to the review of General Plan Amendments and the affect of those amendments on the adopted Action Plan. The following procedures are proposed for general plan amendments that generate more than 100 trips during a peak hour: • Through its participation in WCCTAC, the jurisdiction considering the amendment must either: - 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 of these can be done, a jurisdiction's approval of the general plan West Contra Costa Coanly Aesion Plan Page 112 amendments may constitute a violation of procedures established in the Action Plan and could lead to a finding of non-compliance with the, Measure "C" Growth Management Program. 8.3 Schedule for Action Plan Review The Action Plans are to be periodically reviewed for effectiveness, i.e. whether it is successful in meeting the traffic service objectives. If not, an update of the Action Plan may be required. The following schedule for review of the Action Plan is to be followed: •_ Traffic conditions on regional routes, the status of transportation improvement projects contained in the Action Plan, and the land use forecasts upon which the Action Plan is based are to be monitored on a biennial basis and submitted to WCCTAC in a report on traffic service objective compliance, project funding status, and changes in the forecasted growth rate. • If any of the traffic service objectives have not been met, or if the status of transportation improvement projects or the growth assumptions have significantly changed, WCCTAC will prepare a focused revision to the Action Plan. A complete review of the Action Plan should be made on a four-year cycle. • Individual corridors may be reviewed every two years, if deemed appropriate by WCCTAC. WCCTAC shall discuss potential funding for future Action Plan updates and monitoring as part of the Circulation Drab. 8.4 The First Update of the Action Plan The preparation of the First Update of the Action Plan should begin two years after adoption of this Action Plan. The First Update should consider these issues which could not be resolved within the time flame of the current Action Plan: 1. Update Land Use Forecasts The Action Plan is based upon population and employment forecasts that were developed during 1991 in close consultation with local jurisdictions. The cities of Richmond and Hercules have made significant revisions to their General Plans since the land use forecasts were developed for the Action Plan. Several other cities are in the process of updating their General PIans. West Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 113 The First Update of the Action Plan needs to address the impacts of these General Plan changes on the growth forecasts for West County 2. Demonstrate that the Adopted Actions will Achieve the Stated TSO's. The first Action Plan was based upon a several year long technical analysis process that was quite lengthy because of the need to set up the land use data base and transportation model for West County. The effort required to establish this process did not allow sufficient time to fully evaluate the effects of all of the actions proposed to achieve each TSO. The First Update of the Action Plan should address this issue in its updating of the TSO's and actions. 3. The Funding of Needed Transportation Improvements There was a statewide transportation funding crisis at the time of the completion of this First Action Plan which has caused a great deal of uncertainty as to the ability to fund many transportation improvement projects contained in the Action Plan. In addition, the ability of local agencies to fund their local share of the transportation projects needs to be evaluated. The First Update of the Action Plan should investigate both the local and statewide funding picture and suggest actions for securing local, state, and federal funding. WCCTAC must determine at the next update the best uses of the Action Plan; as a strategic plan for securing funding for high priority actions and projects in West County, or as an "implementation plan" providing a blueprint for local agency actions, or both. If both, then the "strategic" portions of the update will need to be distinguished from.the "implementation" _portions of the update. 4. Contingency Actions In Case of Funding Shortfalls This First Action Plan presumes completion of all transportation improvement projects and actions. Since many of the longer term projects or actions are currently unfunded and their environmental status is unknown it is impossible to guarantee that all actions and projects will be completed. The First Update of the Action Plan should address this issue and provide contingency actions or TSO's in case some of the longer term major projects or actions prove to be environmentally or fiscally infeasible. Of particular concern at this time is the potential impacts of the current funding shortage on the implementation schedule of the State Highway 4 Freeway Gap Closure Project. Delays may require the development of interim TSO's and actions. Contingency actions might include: phasing of development approvals tied to increases in capacity/safety in the State Highway 4 corridor; interim safety and operational improvements on the existing roadway; etc.. West Contra Costa County.lesion Plan Page 114 S. Continue Coordination on Inter-Regional Issues Through discussions with the adjacent regional committees, WCCTAC will continue to work on the following issues: • . Consistency of Traffic Service Objectives for State Route 4 and San Pablo Dam Road; • Coordination of actions, programs, and measures with adjacent regions; and • Discussions on the designation of Camino Pablo as a Route of Regional Significance connecting San Pab!o Dam Road to State Route 24 (SWAT has not designated Camino Pablo as a Route of Regional Significance). There will also be intercounty issues that will need to be addressed. This Action Plan includes actions and programs that require coordination with the Solano County CMA on issues involving the I-80 corridor and the Carquinez Bridge. Coordination issues on I-80 extend into Alameda County as well. Through continued participation in MTC's I-80 Policy Advisory Committee, WCCTAC will work.on developing an overall strategy for public investment in this vital corridor. 6. Mitigate Through Traffic Congestion on San Pablo Avenue Chapter 4 of this plan identifies several intersections that will continue to operate at poor levels of service even with full implementation of the West County Action Plan. Further study of possible mitigations at these intersections will need to be made in the future. While local capital improvement projects could help to improve level of service at these intersections, funding for those improvements is not available. Apart from the funding shortfall, questions regarding the environmental and socio-economic impacts of constructing localized intersection improvements will need to be thoroughly addressed. During the development of the Rest County Action Plan, some Traffic Service Objectives and actions were considered and discussed, however„ due to limited resources and a lack of available data, they could not be fully developed for inclusion in this version of the Plan. These include: • Intersection mitigation measures suggested in the Revised Traffic Engineering Improvement - Alternatives Report (February 1994); • The control and reduction of traffic diversion from I-80 onto San Pablo Avenue by improving traffic flow on I-80 and providing viable transit alternatives for longer distance commutes. Rest Contra Costa County Aaion Plan Page 115 • For each segment of the I-80 corridor, and the corresponding segment of San Pablo Avenue, establish a target 'ratio of through traffic and transit service through that segment. Depending upon available resources, future updates to the West County Action Plan will consider development of these objectives for incorporation into the Plan. However, a significant amount of additional traffic data and analysis would be required in order to quantify these objectives and measure the impact of proposed actions on:their achievement. 8.5 Monitoring of Action Plan Implementation by Local Agencies Chapters 6 and 7 identified the actions that WCCTAC and its member jurisdictions should take to achieve the adopted Traffic Service Objectives. For those actions where "WCCTAC jurisdictions" are listed as the responsible agency it is intended that all WCCTAC member jurisdictions are responsible for assisting in the implementation of the action either individually or through actions by the WCCTAC board. Several actions list responsible agencies like Caltrans, and MTC, that are not voting members :)f WCCTAC. In these cases, the responsibilities of WCCTAC and its member jurisdictions ire to encourage and support the non-member agencies in implementing the action. Of ;curse, WCCTAC and its member jurisdictions can't be held responsible for the action or naction of these non-member agencies. t is intended that each responsible jurisdiction makes a "good faith effort' towards mplementing each action. Good faith effort and the "conflict resolution process" are iescribed in CCTA's Growth Management Implementation Guide. The procedures and lefinitions incorporated in that guide are incorporated here by reference. t Contra Costa County Action Plan Page 116 EXHIBIT B Central County 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 RESOLUTION 94-02 INCORPORATION OF THE PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION - CENTRAL COUNTY ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE INTO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, Measure C - 1998 legislation requires, as part of the Growth Management Program, that the Contra Costa. Transportation Authority ("Authority") jointly with affected local jurisdictions, determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service Standards on Routes of Regional Significance; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Authority in December 1990, further require that each Regional Transportation Planning Committee(RTPC) develop and adopt an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the following components: 1) A designated network of Routes of Regional Significance; 2) Adopted Traffic Service Objectives (ISOs) using quantifiable measures of effectiveness that include target dates for attainment; 3) Specific actions to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4) Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5) Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and 6) A schedule for RTPC and Authority review of progress to attain adopted TSOs. WHEREAS, TRANSPAC, Central Contra Costa Transportation/Land Use Partnership, the Central County Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) provides the forum for multi jurisdictionall cooperative transportation planning, including preparation of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance; and WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions of TRANSPAC, which include the cities of Clayton. Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County have managed the development of the Central County Action Plan by working through the multi jurisdictional planning process established by TRANSPAC which is composed of each jurisdiction's elected officials, planning commission representatives and technical staff, in cooperation with the Authority, County Connection. CALTRANS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and members of the public, and WHEREAS, TRANSPAC approved release of a Circulation Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance on July 26, 1994 and accepted comments through December 1, 1994 from interested parties, and considered those comments in preparing the "Proposal for Adoption" Action Plan; and Page 2 Resolution 94-02 December 15, 1994 WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions of TRANSPAC recognize that compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program will, after January 1995, be judged, in part, by the Authority on each jurisdiction's implementation of the Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority, in adopting the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will accept proposed objectives and action policies where consensus has been reached among members of the Regional Committee as set forth in TRANSPAC's Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, and will adopt those objectives and actions as conditions of compliance with the Growth Management Program, and; WHEREAS, TRANSPAC approved the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for transmittal to the Authority on December 1, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that TRANSPAC and the participating jurisdictions of Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County have reviewed and approved the Proposal for Adoption, Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Exhibit A) which is incorporated herein and made'a part hereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon review and approval by the Authority, TRANSPAC participating jurisdictions shall implement the Central County Action Plan in accordance with the objectives; actions, policies, and procedures set forth therein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that TRANSPAC requests that the Authority incorporate the "Proposal for Adoption - Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This resolution was entered into at a noticed public meeting of TRANSPAC held December 15, 1994 in Pleasant Hill. �anbona � Wood�� Barbara J. Woodburn CHAIR Attest; Ayes: DeSaulnier; McManigal; Landis Pierce; Regalia; Woodburn Noes: none Barbara A. Neustadter TRANSPAC Manager c:actpin.mo EXCERPTS FROM Central Contra Costa Action Plan for Routes of g Regional Si nificance Proposal for Adoption M MARTINEZ .� t �T l CONTRA M COSTA A COUNTY .r r PLEASAKT 4T MILL CONCORD CLAYTON f � �w M 34 {� .. 4 WALNUT t CREEK i r Prepared by Prepared for 1 Korve TRANSPAC i Engineering Approved by TRANSPAC on December 1, 1994 REVISIONS RECEIVED APRIL 26,1995 1 . ACTION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPAC has been charged with the development of an "Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" in Central Contra Costa County. as required by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). This Action Plan has been a cooperative effort, and has included participation by the cities of Clayton, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County. This Action Plan, as well as the Action Plans developed by other sub-regions within Contra Costa County, will be incorporated into the "Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan" developed by the CCTA. 1 .1 Background i Action Plan Tenets The TRANSPAC Regional Transportation Planning Committee considered the goals, objectives and issues identified by the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and its local jurisdictions, and adopted the following tenets as the basis!or developing the Action Plan. These tenets serve as the basis for developing Action Packages for testing, and developing actions for inclusion in the Action Plan. That TRANSPAC make a commitment to improve freeway corridors for through traffic. To the extent possible, traffic from outside Central County should use the freeway and transit network, rather than local streets and arterials. Freeway system improvements should include, but are not limited to, the development of HOV lanes, where possible, and other projects to support the operation of an HOV system connecting the East, Central and Southwest areas of the county. That TRANSPACmake a commitment to establish a traffic management and signal synchronization plan within Central County to manage traffic flow. This management plan is necessary to ensure that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the storage capacity (reservoir) for that traffic. Reservoirs create holding areas for vehicles entering Central County. It is hoped that the congestion created by these holding areas will cause modification to behavior, and shift these vehicles to the freeway system. That TRANSPAC support viable transit services to create an efficientleffective transit network to alleviate demand on the road network. TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 1 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 4. REGIONAL ACTIONS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION As indicated in the previous chapter, peak period congestion is projected to increase in the future. Localized improvements will contribute to providing additional capacity to alleviate congestion, however, a number of regional actions will need to be implemented to result in appreciable improvements in traffic congestion. This section presents the actions that have been identified for study and coordination on a regional level. Appendix B presents the Action Packages developed by TRANSPAC and tested using the Central/CMP model. For each package, the elements evaluated and a summary of the analysis results is presented. Appendix C contains a list of planned roadway,transit and non-motorized projects within the TRANSPAC region which will contribute to improving circulation and alternate modes of transportation. 4.1 Comprehensive Freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System The objective in implementing HOV lanes is to provide an attractive freeway facility for high occupancy vehicle users. HOV users would benefit from reduced travel time and reduced congestion on the HOV lanes. These benefits would encourage and promote carpooling and transit usage. The results of the analysis using the Central/CMP model indicated that the provision of additional HOV lanes would increase capacity on the freeways and relieve congestion. In addition, there would be a shift of traffic volumes from the arterial roadways (primarily those that currently serve as alternate or bypass routes) to the freeways. As a result, congestion would decrease on arterials. In performing the analysis for additional freeway and HOV capacity within the TRANSPAC area, it became apparent that there is a need to consider the benefits of providing an integrated transportation system in Central Contra Costa County that could serve the growth areas of East County, Solano County and the Tri-Valley planning area. While additional study is underway by Caltrans to investigate the potential for HOV lanes on selected segments of the system, no unified system study has been accomplished to review the benefits and implications of a comprehensive HOV system. This system could potentially include HOV lanes on SR 4, SR 242 and 1-680 from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Sunnyvale ramps. Note that on 1-680 HOV lanes are currently proposed only from the bridge to 1,000 feet north of the 1-680/SR 242 merge. Given the questions which have been left unanswered concerning the provision of an HOV system connecting East, Central and the Southwest areas of the County, it is clear that additional analysis needs to be conducted to answer these questions. TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 29 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 An evaluation of ramp metering on Central County freeways is included in the current HOV/Express Bus/Ramp Metering study. This;study will partially address the implications of ramp metering. However, a more detailed study on a countywide basis should be conducted before full implementation of ramp metering. Caltrans would need to take responsibility for this study. Action 1: Support the study of a comprehensive HOV system, including SR 4, SR 242 and 1-680 from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Sunnyvale ramps. If the HOV system is determined to be successful, consider all funding sources, including subregional mitigation fees and other funding sources. Responsibility: TRANSPAC, Caltrans and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions. As required, the adjacent Regional Transportation Planning Committees should be involved. 4.2 Increased Transit Availability Improvements to transit services through extensions/new routes and increases in frequency provide commuters with an alternative to the private automobile, and could potentially shift additional vehicle users to transit. In addition, as traffic congestion increases on the regional freeways and arterials, transit becomes more attractive. Existing transit services in Central County are primarily provided by the County Connection (Central Contra Costa Transit Authority) bus services and BART. Although . the County Connection operates 22 fixed routes within the study area, it is not designed to provide services that would support high transit usage, particularly between the less developed areas and the key employment centers. The provision of rail service between Brentwood and West Oakland was investigated in the GEBROC study. This study evaluated roadway network improvements, as well as various assumptions on the extent of transit network improvements as well as service scenarios. The purpose of the study was to identify and evaluate the commuter markets in the heavily congested 1-80 corridor. The results indicate that a rail connection between Brentwood and West Oakland would attract commuters,and would contribute to reducing traffic congestion. However, with the completion of the HOV lanes on 1-80, patronage would drop and traffic volumes would increase on the regional roadways. As a result, the commuter service would not result in significant changes in the future levels of traffic congestion. In addition, it should be noted that due to anticipated limitations of funding sources for the operating budget, rail-service in this corridor would be limited. While the results of the GEBROC study confirm the initial expectations of limited rail service patronage, the provision of transit service would allow for an alternate mode to vehicle travel and would result in some shift from auto to transit. Therefore,the provision TR4NSPACAction Plan Page 30 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 of transit within Central County, and between residential areas in East County should continue to be explored and pursued, and additional transit connections and service in Contra Costa County should be investigated. A number of actions should be explored as a means to improve transit availability, increase the peak hour mode share on transit, as well as reduce the traffic volumes on the freeways. These actions include: • New express bus service via the development of a Contra Costa Express Bus System. This would involve the integration of existing high-occupancy lanes from existing and planned developments in Central and East County to centers of employment. This express bus service could take advantage of a comprehensive HOV system to increase the person-flow capacity of Routes of Regional Significance and optimize total person time. • Extension of BART to Bay Point via North Concord/Martinez is currently underway. The provision of express bus service in East County to the new BART station would increase transit usage and reduce vehicle use during peak commute periods. In addition, a number of local transit projects have been identified which will contribute to improving and increasing transit availability. These improvement would contribute to encouraging transit usage. These improvements are listed in Appendix C, and include the following: Vehicles ■ Bus Replacement Program - 112 Buses ■ Paratransit Van Replacement Program - 71 Vans Non-Revenue Service Vehicle Replacement Program 18 Vehicles • Expansion Bus Program - 20 Buses ■ Paratransit Van Expansion Program - 10 Vans Programs/Service Management Information System Replacement Program • Alternative Fueling System ■ Paratransit Automated Dispatching System ■ Fixed Route System Patron / Fleet Security System ■ Peak Period Express Shuttle: Clayton to Concord BART ■ Peak period shuttles from BART stations to residential Park 'n Ride locations (Pilot program with 2 locations) TRANSPAG Action Plan Pape 31 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Facilities • Access Improvements, Concord BART Station • Bus Shelters at main County Connection stops • Administrative/Management Facility Rehabilitation Paratransit Facility Martinez Intermodal Facility Route 680/80 • Transit Facilities and Services - Information Kiosks (transit info.) at 25 locations (BART stations, Park 'n Ride lots, malls, etc.) Preferential Parking Facilities-Designate one recognizable color for all preferential parking facilities throughout Bay Area (similar to handicapped) • Martinez / San.Francisco Commuter Ferry Boat Service • Add more preferential parking at BART stations Preferential parking facilities at public: locations Action 2: Promote the expansion and development of an effective transit network within and through Contra Costa County. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, Transit operators, BART. Action 3: Encourage the provision of effective feeder service to the BART system and future BART station extensions. Investigate potential for coordination and cooperation with other RTPCs and transit agencies. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, adjacent RTPCs, County Connection, ECCTA, BART. 4.3 Transportation Demand Management The purpose of TDM programs is to identify and promote measures that would serve to reduce travel demand, alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality.. This could be achieved by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and decreasing the use of single occupant vehicles. As a requirement for compliance with both the Growth Management Program and the Congestion Management Program, each jurisdiction in the County is required to implement a TDM program by local ordinance, and all jurisdictions within Contra Costa County have adopted TDM ordinances. To coordinate the administration of the TDM programs, each Regional Transportation Planning Committee has designated a TDM coordinator. This person is responsible for monitoring the compliance and effectiveness of the program, and developing innovative approaches for meeting the goals of the TDM program. Countywide coordination among the regional programs should be continued for program compliance and program effectiveness. This coordination benefits each region, since many employees do not live TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 32 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 !r. and work within the same region. Coordination among the regional programs facilitates exchange of information and solutions to implementation issues. In addition to the employer TDM programs, residential TDM and outreach programs also serve to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles. The residential program efforts should be encouraged, and cooperation among the RTPC programs should include residential, as well as employer, TDM programs. Action 4: Support and promote subregional and employer TDM programs Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, and adjacent RTPCs. Action 5: Develop and implement residential programs promoting commute alternatives, including ridesharing, telecommuting, and flex hours. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, and adjacent RTPCs. Action 6: Develop and implement rideshare/trip reduction programs for target locations/populations, for example colleges and high schools. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, colleges and school districts. Action 7: Coordinate transit opportunities through TDM programs. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and Transit operators. 4.4 Land Use Growth Management Between 1990 and 2010, development in Contra Costa County is projected to increase by 32 percent in the number of households, and by 43 percent in the number of jobs (See Table 1 and Figure 4). Without significant improvements in the roadway capacity, this development would result in severely congested conditions in the future. Land use growth management techniques could be used to limit increases in travel demand as well as traffic congestion. There are two approaches that could be used in controlling growth that need to be investigated: reduced land use intensity and growth caps. Reducing land use densities on undeveloped land would reduce the traffic generated by the land use, and would result in reduced congestion. Since most of the land within TRANSPAC region is already developed, the opportunity to affect a reduction in land use intensities is limited. However, this approach could be applied to jurisdictions outside of Central County, where more substantial growth is projected. East County, for example, is projected to accommodate 46 percent of the total growth in new households in Contra Costa County, and 24 percent of total growth in new jobs. Growth caps are another approach to reduce travel demand and congestion. Setting yearly maximums for TRANSPAC Action Pian Pape 33 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 allowable development of commercial office,retail and residential land uses could be used effectively as a management tool to reduce travel impacts of new development. The analyses conducted to test various action packages for TRANSPAC included a package which restricted the number of households and employment in Central County to existing levels,and another package that limited household growth in East County and reduced growth in employment throughout the County. Appendix B presents a summary of the Action Packages developed and tested. Some issues relative to the results of the analyses include: No new growth in Central County indicated that there would not be a significant improvement in regional congestion.. While there would be a reduction in the travel demand and traffic volumes, these decreases would not ease congested conditions during the peak hours. Limiting household growth in East County and 'reducing.growth in employment throughout the County indicated that there would be a reduction in travel demand and congestion levels. This analysis substantiated that Central County is influenced by development outside of Central County. The results of the analyses of these two approaches indicate that there is a need to approach and pursue growth management/growth restrictions via a unified countywide approach to develop a comprehensive land use plan for the County, which should also be coordinated with a countywide transportation plan. While the analysis of growth caps in Central County did not indicate that there would be significant improvements in regional congestion,Central County jurisdictions have initiated growth management programs. The City of Walnut Creek has established growth management principals, the City of Clayton has scaled back development in its Marsh Creek Specific Plan, and the City of Concord has reduced allowable development in its updated General Plan. These programs will contribute to reducing local congestion, and could be used as a model for others to follow. Action 8: Evaluate potential for further growth in Central and East County keyed to phased implementation of improvements throughout the region, including improvements to 1-680, SR 4, SR 242, the 1-680/SR 24 interchange, as well as the BART extension. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions Action 9: Continue to encourage East County and surrounding counties to.incorporate TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 34 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 growth management principals, including a housing and employment balance, in the development of Action and Transportation Plans. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions, Action 10: Encourage local jurisdictions within Central County to promote transit utilization, HOV priority at employment centers, and promote continued support of TDM programs. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 4.5 Localized Capacity Improvements In addition to localized improvements in the form of geometric changes, traffic operations could be improved through the use of traffic signal metering and synchronization systems. These systems serve not only to process vehicles efficiently through the designated system, but could also be utilized to discourage the use of local arterials as bypass routes. Often such bypass routes fall into two or more jurisdictions, and improvement programs need to be coordinate to accommodate concerns of all involved jurisdictions. - Individual jurisdictions, Caltrans and the County have been effective in optimizing signal _ timing at their signals. In addition, there are signal synchronization projects already underway, such as on Treat Boulevard by Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, which attempt to jointly study and implement coordinated signal timings. However, a more comprehensive study, which speaks to overall traffic in Central County and investigates the establishments of reservoirs. Action 11: Implement signal metering and synchronization system to discourage use of arterial routes as bypass routes for regional freeway system, and pursue the study of a comprehensive signal synchronization study in Central County. Responsibility: Caltrans, Contra Costa County, and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions. Action 12: Encourage actions to minimize impacts to arterial routes and keep vehicles on regional freeways. As appropriate, coordinate with other jurisdictions and encourage participation of other RTPCs. Responsibility: All TRANSPAC jurisdictions, M*I6*M Action 13: TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 35 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Responsibility: Action 14: Support localized improvements which increase capacity and improve traffic flow on Routes of Regional Significance. Responsibility: All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 4.6 Non-Motorized Modes (Bicycles, Pedestrians) The following non-motorized improvement projects, primarily bicycle facilities and pedestrian trails, will contribute to enhancing alternate modes of transportation.. Note that many of the bicycle trails serve to connect more than one sub-region of Contra Costa County. Appendix C contains an description of the project sponsor and location of these projects. • Iron Horse Trail: Construct Class I facility from Benicia to the Alameda, County line. • Iron Horse Trail: Ygnacio Valley Road overcrossing ■ Separate pedestrian/bicycle lanes over freeways and other large arterials (Ygnacio Valley Rd, Willow Pass, Treat Blvd) ■ Alhambra/Berrellessa Bike Lane Project from Buckley to K St ■ Reliez Valley Road Bike Path (Class I) from Sage Drive to Briones Park ■ Pacheco Boulevard Rd Widening and Bicycle Lanes from City limits at Potter St. to Susana Street ■ Walnut Creek Restoration Trail Project ■ Extend Reliez Valley Road Bike Path (Class 1) from Briones Park to Alhambra Avenue (via Alhambra Valley Road) ■ Extend Canal Trail Bike Path (Class.1) from Highway 4 to Martinez Reservoir • Bicycle Facilities-Improve lighting/security/'information for bicycle lockers at BART stations (Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill) ■ Bicycle Facilities - Allow bikes on BART during commute hours • Bicycle Facilities - Make it easier/more accessible to get a BART bike pass Bicycle Facilities- Bicycle lockers at Park'n Ride lots, public parking lots and major shopping malls Action 15: Consider the needs of non-motorized modes in the construction and maintenance of roadways, and promote transit, walking and bicycling in review of residential and commercial developments. Responsibility: All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 36 Proposal for Adopdon:December 1, 1994 4.7 Local Roadway Improvements In addition to the improvements proposed for the Routes of Regional Significance, there are a number of improvements throughout Central County that would improve traffic operating conditions and connectivity within and through Central County. Appendix C contains a full list of these planned improvements. TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 37 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5. ACTION PLANS FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 5.1 Traffic Service Objectives The following sections present a discussion of the proposed traffic service objectives (TSO), and the TSO-selected by TRANSPAC for the regional freeway and arterial routes. Table 3 presents a summary of these TSOs. 5.1.1 Average Travel Speed This objective serves to maintain a minimum average vehicle speed on key freeway and arterial corridors. Speed provides a good indication of congestion levels and ease of movement through the system. The objective for TRANSPAC Routes of Regional Significance have been identified as a minimum average speed of 30 mph on freeways and 15 mph on principal arterials during peak hours, to be maintained under existing conditions. Travel speeds could be measured through the installation of speed monitoring equipment 3 to achieve a daily measure of conditions at different times during the peak period, or through the use of radar guns or travel time afield surveys during peak periods. 5.1.2 Delay Index (DI) This objective serves to maintain a maximum delay index and prevent further increase in delay. The delay index is similar to speed, in that a single value can be used to express conditions over a long segment. It is an expression of the amount of time required to travel between two points during the peak hour as compared to during non-congested, off-peak hours.' The measure is defined as the observed travel time divided by the free- flow travel time: Delay Index (DI) = (Observed Travel Time)AFren Flow Travel Time) Assuming that vehicles will not travel at :speeds greater than free-flow speed, the minimum value for the delay index (indicating minimum delay) is 1.0. A DI of 1.0 indicates that the traffic moves at free-flow speeds, unconstrained by congestion. As congestion increases and average speed decreases, the delay index rises. For example, a delay index of 2.0 indicates that the trip takes twice as long during peak hours as during off-peak, due to congestion and slow speed. TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 38 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Table 3 Traffic Service Objectives Traffic Service Ob'ecLves J. Traffic Peak Hour Travel Speeds Maintain minimum average speed of 30 mph on freeways and 15 mph on principal arterials. Delay Index (DI) For segments with DI of less than 2.0, maintain current levels. Improve segments with DI greater than 2.0, to 2.0 or better by 2010. Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) Increase peak period work-trip AVO on Routes of Regional Significance to 1.2 by 2010. Transit Transit Mode Share Attain an increase in the proportion of peak period work trips made on transit of 25 percent by year 2000, and 50 percent by year 2010. Transportation Demand Management Vehicle Employee Ratio The VER goals for major employment generators, as specified by the BAAQMD, are 0.83 for 1995, 0.80 for 1996, 0.77 for 1997, and, 0.74 for 1998 and 1999. TRANSPACAction Plan Pape 39 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 A DI of 2.0 has been identified for all Routes of Regional Significance. For segments with DI of less than 2.0, current levels should be .maintained. Segments with DI greater than 2.0 should be improved to 2.0 by 2010. Note that the calculation of the DI should consider the traffic speed objective identified in Section 5.1.1. Freeway and arterials with an existing DI greater than 2.0 include SR 4, 1-680, Ygnacio Valley Road,Treat Boulevard, Contra Costa Boulevard,Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. The Delay Index could be calculated using the travel speeds measured (Section 5.1.1) during the peak period. 5.1.3 Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) for Peak Hour Work Trips This objective aims to increase the average number of occupants in vehicles making work- related trips during peak hours. The objective is to increase peak period work-trip AVO. on Routes of Regional Significance to 1.2 by 2010. _ The Average Vehicle Occupancy could be measured through annual traffic counts, where ' vehicle occupancy is noted. 5.1.4 Transit Mode Share ..This objective aims to increase the proportion of total peak period work-related trips made on public transportation and alternative modes. -For TRANSPAC, the objective aims at an increase in the proportion of peak period work trips made on transit of 25 percent by year 2000, and 50 percent by year 2010. Transit mode share information could be obtained from.'journey to work data for Central County jurisdictions as identified in the U.S. Census. This information is provided every ten years..In addition, it may be possible to obtained information from household surveys conducted by regional agencies such as MTC. 5.1.5 Vehicle Employee Ratio (VER) This objective is similar to the AVO objective, in that it aims to increase the occupancy of private vehicles, and reduce the total number of vehicles on the roadways. Both the California Clean Air Act of 1988 and Proposition 111 require employer-based trip reduction programs. Regulation 13, developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 40 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 District (BAAQMD), formalizes regional requirements of the California Clean Air Act, and specifies Vehicle Employee Ratio goals. The intent of the VER is to reduce the number of employees using vehicles for work-related trips. The VER goals for major employment generators, as specified by the BAAQMD, are 0.83 for 1995, 0.80 for 1996, 0.77 for 1997, and, 0.74 for 1998 and 1999. Vehicle Employee Ratios would be obtained from the various employers, as required by the California Clean Air Act. 5.2 Actions and Responsibilities Chapter 4 presented a number of actions developed to alleviate peak period congestion in the future. These actions addressed the need to identify solutions to traffic congestions on a regional level, as localized capacity improvements would not be sufficient to appreciably alleviate traffic congestion. These regional actions would serve to reduce travel demand on the Routes of Regional Significance,increase transit utilization and encourage alternate modes of transportation. Regional actions that have been identified and need to be pursued by TRANSPAC and the local jurisdictions within TRANSPAC include the implementation of a comprehensive HOV system through Central County,land use growth management and transportation demand management strategies, as well as improvements to the transit and non-motorized services and facilities. In addition, each jurisdiction within TRANSPAC would be responsible for localized capacity improvements in the form of geometric changes, traffic signal metering and synchronization systems. These localized improvements would serve not only to process vehicles efficiently through the designated system, but also be used to discourage the use of local arterials as bypass routes. Since these actions span jurisdictional boundaries and improvements to Routes of Regional Significance often involve more than one jurisdiction, there needs to be a coordinated and joint effort of all involved jurisdictions. However, individual actions for the specific Routes of Regional Significance have been identified, and responsible agencies noted. The following sections present a description of each Route of Regional Significance within TRANSPAC, including existing and future issues, planned improvements, Traffic Service Objectives, and actions and responsibilities for each route. Note that on planned improvements and actions identified for 1-680, SR 242 and SR 4, TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions will work with CCTA and Caltrans. TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 41 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.3 1-680' 5.3.1 General Description 1-680 is a six- to eight-lane divided freeway that generally runs north-south. Near the southern boundary of the TRANSPAC study area, 1-680 intersects SR 24 and continues through the southwest ("SWAT") regional study area. 1-680 also extends north of the TRANSPAC area across the Benicia-Martine: Bridge into Solano County. It is a major north-south commuter route for Central County residents, and carries many commuters from Eastern Contra Costa, Solano, and other counties as well. 5.3.2 issue Statement Between years 1990 and 2010 traffic volumes on 1-680 are projected to increase during both the AM and PM peak hours by approximately 30 percent. This would result in an increase in levels of congestion on 1-680 within Central County. Improvements to 1-680 are currently being implemented, and additional improvements are being planned. The impact of the improvements on future traffic: operating,conditions will depend on how successful these improvements will be incorporated into the freeway system for traffic flow within and through Central County. A systems approach needs to be incorporated into the planning process in order to maximize the benefits of the improvements., The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is the main gateway into Contra Costa County from north along 1-680. A new bridge parallel to the existing bridge is currently being planned by Caltrans, and it is anticipated that the direction of toll collection will remain in the northbound direction on the south side of the Bridge. Both West and Central Counties support the reversal of the direction of toll collection as a,means to meter/reduce the flow of traffic into Contra Costa. 5.3.3 Planned Improvements Realign and modify 1-680 ramps at Rudgear Road Traffic operations systems- Route 680 from Route 24 to Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Pleasant Hill BART access project from the west side of the freeway. Widen to provide additional HOV lanes on 1-680 from Sunnyvale ramps to Benicia- Martinez Bridge. Purchase Right-of-Way, Route 680/Route 4 interchange Upgrade 1-680/Route 4 freeway interchange Vertical Alignment Correction - 0.5 miles south of Mococo to Mococo OH. Reconstruct Marina Vista interchange Construct New Benicia-Martinez Bridge and Approaches Transit Option on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge Relocation of Proposed Toll Plaza in the Benicia-Martinez Bridge Project TRANSPACAction Plan Page 42 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.3.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 30 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.3.5 Actions and Responsibilities Continue to support construction .of on-going_ 1-680 -improvement projects. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) Continue to support study of HOV lanes on 1-680 from Sunnyvale ramps to Benicia-Martinez Bridge. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) Support planned improvements to the 1-680/SR 4 interchange. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) Work with the Solano County CMA to meter/reduce the flow of traffic into Contra Costa although TRANSPAC supports the reversal of the direction of toll collection. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) 5.4 SR 242 5.4.1 General Description State Route 242 is an approximately four-mile segment that connects 1-680, just south of Willow Pass Road to SR 4, west of Port Chicago Highway. It is a four- to six-lane facility that is oriented generally north-south. 5.4.2 Issue Statement As a connector roadway between 1-680 and SR 4, SR 242 serves as a critical link for East County traffic. This roadway is anticipated to.experience significant increases in traffic volumes during the peak hours. The planned widening of SR 242 to six lanes would accommodate the projected increases in traffic volumes of 40 percent during the AM peak hour, and 75 percent during the PM peak hour. Traffic operating conditions on,SR 242 would improve slightly over 1990 conditions. 5.4.3 Planned Improvements Widen SR 242 to six lanes (HOV or mixed-flow) from 1-680 to SR 4 • Construct/modify southbound ramps, Clayton Road Interchange Construct northbound on-ramp Clayton Road Interchange Interchange modifications and auxiliary lanes between Concord Avenue and Solano/Grant interchanges 5.4.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 30 mph. • Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 43 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.4.5 Actions and Responsibilities • Continue to support study of widening of SR 242 mainline, as well as the 1-680 and SR 4 freeway to freeway connections. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) • Support study and design of Clayton Road interchange improvements. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) • Support on-going improvements to the Concord Avenue and Solano/Grant interchanges. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) 5.5 SR 4 5.5.1 General Description State Route 4 is a four-lane divided freeway within the TRANSPAC area. Further west toward 1-80, the route narrows to a two-lane segment. Plans are underway to widen this segment to four lanes. SR 4 connects to 1-80 to the west, and to eastern Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and eventually Alpine County. SR 4 makes a full cloverleaf interchange at its junction with 1-680. The design of this interchange is substandard, and this results in operational problems between the on-ramps and off-ramps. 5.5.2 Issue Statement Traffic volumes are projected to increase during both the AM and PM peak hours by approximately 60 percent. Even with the proposed widening to add HOV lanes on SR 4, congestion could be anticipated in the future. East County improvements focus, on providing additional capacity on SR 4 to accommodate the increase in travel demand associated with the high levels of residential -development. It is anticipated that these improvements will be phased in as development occurs. Central County should monitor the staging of the improvements and the traffic patterns to ensure that bottlenecks do not occur within ,Central County. 5.5.3 Planned Improvements .Widen to add HOV lanes from Willow Pass.Road into East County • Upgrade 1-680/Route 4 freeway interchange 5.5.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 30 mph. • Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.5.5 Actions and Responsibilities TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 44 Proposal for AdopVon:December 1, 1994 • Support on-going construction on SR 4, including provision of HOV lanes. (TRANSPAC, Contra Costa County and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) • Support improvements to the 1-680/SR 4 interchange. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) 5.6 Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road 5.6.1 General Description Ygnacio Valley Road is a four- to six-lane divided arterial. It extends through the project area from 1-680 to Clayton Road. There are a number of traffic signals along the route where it intersects with other arterials. The predominant flow of traffic is toward 1-680 in the morning, and away from 1-680 in'the evening, reflecting commuter patterns from and to residential area. North of Clayton Road, Ygnacio Valley Road becomes Kirker Pass Road. Kirker Pass Road is a four-lane roadway that runs southwest-northeast from Clayton Road into east Contra Costa County. Northeast of the Concord Pavilion, there is little development along the route, and high speeds are common. 5.6.2 Issue Statement Traffic volumes and traffic congestion ,on Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road have increased significantly over the last decade,and are conditions are anticipated to continue to worsen. Between years 1990 and 2010, peak hour traffic volumes on Ygnacio Valley Road are anticipated to increase by 10 to 15 percent, and levels of congestion are anticipated to increase over 1990 conditions. Without improvements to the regional system or controls on traffic accessing Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road, traffic ivolumes could increase significantly and result in further congestion.' Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road serves as an alternate east/west route into and out of East County. An origin/destination surveys conducted on Ygnacio Valley Road in 1990 determined that over 30 percent of traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road has neither a Walnut Creek origin. or destination, and substantiates the,use of this roadway as a regional through route. Capacity improvements on Ygnacio Valley Road are limited by past development patterns. Metering of traffic onto Ygnacio Valley Road from East County and optimization of signals on Ygnacio Valley Road could provide for a more efficient roadway system. However, a number of major connector/distributor streets,such as Oak Grove Road, must also be considered. Between years 1990 and 2010, peak hour traffic volumes on Kirker Pass Road are anticipated to increase by approximately 50 percent during the AM peak hour, and 55 TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 45 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1394 percent during the PM peak hour. This additional traffic is primarily East County traffic utilizing Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road as an alternate route to avoid freeway congestion. Upon the completion of.the Buchanan Bypass in East County, there is the potential that this bypass would result in additional traffic routing to Kirker Pass Road. 5.6.3 Planned Improvements Widen Ygnacio Valley Road from Cowell Road to Clayton Road to six lanes Widen Kirker Pass Road to 6 lanes between Clayton Road.and Clearbrook Drive Widen and Reconstruct left-turn lane on Ygnacio Valley Road at Cowell Road Ygnacio Valley Road Traffic signal interconnect between Alberta Way and Michigan Road Kirker Pass Road Traffic signal interconnect between Clayton Road and Myrtle Drive Construct Right-Turn lanes on Ygnacio Valley Road at Walnut Avenue Modify Right-Turn Lane on Civic Drive at Ygnacio Valley Road.. Provide truck climbing lanes on Kirker Pass Road 5.6.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.6.5 Actions and Responsibilities Pursue planning and seek funding for widening of Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road from Cowell Road to Clearbrook Drive. This widening is consistent with objective to allow traffic within Central County to travel as efficiently as possible. (TRANSPAC, Concord) . Pursue construction of right-turn lanes,at Walnut Avenue and Civic Drive. (Walnut Creek) Pursue planning and seek funding for traffic signal interconnect between Clayton Road and Myrtle Drive. (Concord) Support and pursue study of an areawide comprehensive signal synchronization system including Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road. This study would be applicable for all Routes of Regional Significance in Central County. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions.) Support and pursue study of metering traffic from East County into Central County via Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road. (TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions) 5.7 Treat Boulevard TRANSPAC Action Plan Pape 46 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.7.1 General Description Treat Boulevard runs parallel to Ygnacio Valley Road, and has similar characteristics. It is a divided four-lane aerial that serves as a.main commuter route. 5.7.2 Issue Statement As indicated above, Treat Boulevard is a parallel route to Ygnacio Valley Road, however, with somewhat lower capacity. Treat Boulevard.also serves as a regional through route, and, based on a 1990 origin/destination survey, over 40 percent of the traffic on Treat Boulevard had neither Walnut Creek origins or destination. Peak hour traffic volumes are anticipated to continue to increase between 1990 and 2010 (between 15 and 25 percent). This would result in additional congestion on Treat Boulevard. 5.7.3 Planned Improvements Widen to construct a Right-Turn Lane at the Treat Boulevard/Clayton Road/Denkinger Road Intersection Traffic signal interconnect between Turtle Creek and Winton Drive Treat Boulevard traffic study and upgrades for coordination of 27 signals Widening from Cherry Lane to Bancroft 5.7.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.7.5 Actions and Responsibilities Pursue planning and seek funding for right-turn lanes at the Clayton Road/Denkinger Road intersection, and traffic signal interconnect projects. (Concord) • Support study of signal interconnect and widening from Cherry Lane to Bancroft. (Walnut Creek) 5.8 Taylor Boulevard 5.8.1 General Description Tay/or Boulevard is a four-lane facility, and is divided by a median in some locations. It runs mainly north-south, and connects Pleasant Hili Road to Contra Costa Boulevard. 5.8.2 Issue Statement Taylor Boulevard (and Pleasant Hill Road) serves as a local street providing local access and access to residential developments. It also currently serves as a bypass route for drivers avoiding 1-680. The I-680/SR 24 interchange is currently being reconstructed to TRANSPACAction Plan Pepe 47 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 provide for additional capacity on the freeway system. The Central/CMP model indicates that between 1990 and 2010, there would be a decrease in peak hour traffic on Taylor Boulevard. However, the actual shift from Pleasant Hill Road/Taylor Boulevard to 1-680 would depend on the success of the 1-680/1.3R 24 interchange project. 5.8.3 Planned Improvements Signal timing study and plan for 14 traffic signals along Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard from Highway 24 in Lafayette, to Contra Costa Boulevard in Pleasant Hill (approximately 5.6 miles) Taylor/Contra Costa Boulevard signal interconnect Taylor Boulevard overlay project Widen for second left-turn lane at Pleasant Hill Road 5.8.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.8.5 Actions and Responsibilities • Support signal timing study for Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. (Pleasant Hill) Pursue provision of second left-turn lane at Pleasant Hill, Road. (Pleasant Hill) 5.9 Geary Road 5.9.1 General Description Geary Road extends from Pleasant Hill Road to 1-680. Over most of its length, Geary Road is a two-lane roadway, and it runs east-west.'` On the east'side of 1-680, the roadway becomes Treat Boulevard. 5.9.2. Issue Statement Geary Road serves as a link between the Pleasant Hill/Taylor Boulevard bypass and Treat Boulevard. In year 2010, as traffic volumes increase on Treat Boulevard, traffic volumes are anticipated to also increase on Geary Road. 5.9.3 Planned Improvements Widen to four lanes from North Main Street to Pleasant Hill Road, and realign Pleasant Hill Road at Geary intersection. TRA NSPA C A c tion Plan Page 48 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.9.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.9.5 Actions and Responsibilities • Seek funding for widening of Geary Road. (Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill) 5.10 Alhambra Avenue 5.10.1 General Description Alhambra Avenue extends from downtown Martinez south to Pleasant Hill, crossing SR 4 in the process. It is a four-lane segment, and its name changes to Pleasant Hill Road before it crosses Taylor Boulevard. Only the portion south of SR 4 is designated a Route of Regional Significance. 5.10.2 Issue Statement Alhambra Avenue is a parallel route to 1-680. Between 1990 and 2010, peak hour traffic volumes are projected to increase only slightly, approximately 5 percent during the AM peak hour, and 10 percent during the PM peak hour. This minimal increase in traffic volumes is keyed to the improvements on the 1-680 corridor and at the 1-680/SR 24 _. interchange. 5.10.3 Planned Improvements Phase 11 Improvements from SR 4 to MacAlvey Drive 5.10.4 Traffic Service Objectives • Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. • Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.10.5 Actions and Responsibilities Pursue planning and funding for enhancement of capacity of existing 2 lane road through channelization modifications for safety and minor capacity improvements, including signalization/coordination, turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes.(Martinez) 5.1 1 Contra Costa Boulevard 5.11.1 General Description Contra Costa Boulevard is a four-lane roadway that varies from four to six lanes and runs TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 49 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 parallel to the west side of 1-680. It extends from Center Avenue south to its interchange with 1-680, just south of Boyd Road. 5.11.2 Issue Statement In year 2010, traffic volumes on Contra Costa Boulevard are anticipated to increase by approximately 15 percent during the AM peak hour, and by 10 percent during the PM peak hour. Improvements on 1-680 and localized improvements on Contra Costa Boulevard would serve to create an efficient system for local traffic on Contra Costa Boulevard. However, measures should be considered to ensure that the proposed improvements do not result in a shift traffic from 1-680.to Contra Costa Boulevard. 5.11.3 Planned Improvements Taylor/Contra Costa Boulevard signal interconnect • Contra Costa Boulevard Gap Closure from 2nd Avenue to Boyd,to widen roadway along localized segments, to restripe roadway to six lanes and to install sound walls. Contra Costa Boulevard at Chilpancingo Improvements 5.11.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.11.5 Actions and Responsibilities Pursue planning and seek funding for the Contra Costa Boulevard Gap Closure project. (Pleasant Hill) Pursue planning and seek funding for improvements at Chilpancingo. '(Pleasant Hill) 5.12 Pacheco Boulevard 5.12.1 General Description Pacheco Boulevard is a four-lane roadway, extending from a residential area south of downtown Martinez, southeast under SR 4, along 1-680 to Center Avenue, where it becomes Contra Costa Boulevard. 5.12.2 Issue Statement Although traffic volumes on Pacheco Boulevard are anticipated to increase during the AM and PM peak hours by 10 and 15 percent, respectively,traffic operating conditions would continue to be generally acceptable. Monitoring of traffic volumes should be conducted to identify when improvements may be required for this roadway. TRA NSPAC Action Plan Page 50 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 5.12.3 Planned Improvements None 5.12.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.12.5 Actions and Responsibilities None identified at this time. 5.13 Clayton Road 5.13.1 General Description Clayton Road is a four-lane roadway that runs from SR 242,crosses Ygnacio Valley/Kirker Pass Road, and becomes Marsh Creek Road east of Clayton. 5.13.2 Issue Statement Between years 1990 and 2010, peak hour traffic volumes on Clayton Road are anticipated to increase by approximately 35 percent during the AM peak hour, and 15 percent during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the percentage of traffic with East County origins on Clayton Road is anticipated to increase by 6 percent to 19 percent, and during the PM peak hour the percentage of traffic with East County destinations is anticipated to increase by 8 percent to 16 percent. This increase is traffic destined to or from East County and utilizing Clayton Road to access Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road. 5.13.3 Planned Improvements Black Diamond Trail crossing Clayton Road at Center Street 5.13.4 Traffic Service Objectives • Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. • Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.13.5 Actions and Responsibilities • Seek funding for Black Diamond Trail Crossing. (Clayton) 5.14 Pleasant Hill Road 5.14.1 General Description TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 51 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Pleasant Hill Road is designated as a Route of Regional Significance only from Geary Road west to Taylor Boulevard. It is a two-to four-lane facility. 5.14.2 Issue Statement Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard currently serve as a bypass route for drivers avoiding 1-680. The 1-680/SR 24 interchange is currently being reconstructed to provide for additional capacity on the freeway system. The Central/CMP model indicates that between 1990 and 2010,there would be a decrease in peak hour traffic on Pleasant Hill Road. However, the actual shift from Pleasant Hill Road/Taylor Boulevard to 1-680 would depend on the success of the 1-6801SR 24 interchange project.. 5.14.3 Planned Improvements • Signal timing study and plan for 14 traffic signals along Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard from Highway 24 in Lafayette to Contra Costa Boulevard in Pleasant Hill Construct roadway improvements on Pleasant Hill Road from Oak Park Boulevard to Boyd Road Realignment of Pleasant Hill Road at Geary Road 5.14.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.14.5 Actions and Responsibilities Support signal timing study for Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. (Pleasant Hill) Pursue planning and seek funding for roadway improvements between Oak Park Boulevard and Boyd Road. (Pleasant Hill) _ t 5.15 North Main Street 5.15.1 General Description North Main Street is designated as a Route of Regional Significance only from Boyd Road to 1-680. It is a two-to four-lane facility, serving local commercial uses. 5.15.2 Issue Statement North Main Street is a parallel route to I-680, and currently used as a bypass route to avoid 1-680. This creates congestion and increases conflicts for traffic destined to the commercial establishments on North Main Street, and for traffic utilizing North Main TR4NSPAC Action Plan Page 52 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Street as a local access road. Between 1990 and 2010, peak hour traffic volumes are projected to increase only slightly, by approximately 5 to 10 percent; and this would result in increases in traffic congestion. 5.15.3 Planned Improvements • North Main Widening from Geary Road to Sunnyvale Road 5.15.4 Traffic Service Objectives Delay index of 2.0, with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 15 mph. Peak hour average vehicle occupancy of. 1.2 persons per vehicle 5.15.5 Actions and Responsibilities • Support widening and realignment of North Main Street, including connection to Contra Costa Boulevard. (TRANSPAC, Pleasant Hill) TR4NSPACAc6on Plan Page 53 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 6. PROCESS FOR MONITORING AND REVIEW To fulfill the. requirements of the Growth Management Program, each Regional Transportation Planning Committee is required to describe the procedures that will be used to circulate and review environmental documents and coordinate the review of General Plan Amendments. It is anticipated that these procedures will be consistent between the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees and will be based on the procedures outlined by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The following sections present the review procedures for TRANSPAC. 6.1 Review of General Plan Amendments The Action Plan was developed using forecasts of future land use development allowed within the framework of existing general plans. General plan amendments enacted after adoption of the Action Plan could threaten the effectiveness of Action Plan policies. The Action Plan is therefore required to contain a process for notification and review of the impact of proposed general plan amendments. This process includes specifying a threshold for general plan amendments that will be subject to TRANSPAC review. _ TRANSPAC may also set up a procedure to review the cumulative impacts of a series of small plan amendments. • Clayton's General Plan completed in '1987, with subsequent amendments. Concord's General Plan revised in 19'94. Pleasant Hill's General Plan completed in 1990. Martinez's General Plan completed in 1987 and is currently being updated. • Walnut Creek's General Plan completed in 1989, and the Housing and Growth Management Section updated in 1994. Contra Costa County's General Plan was completed in 1991,. with subsequent amendments. Since adoption of the General Plans, a number of cities have made adjustments to the general plans which would result in lower future growth. For example, the City of Concord in its recent revision of the general plan has reduced the allowable development. The City of Clayton has scaled back development in its Marsh Creek Specific Plan, and the City of Walnut Creek has established growth management principles. TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 54 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 To ensure that there is a review of the impact of an amendment to the general plan the following procedures are in place for general plan amendments that would generate more than 100 trips during the peak hour: The jurisdiction considering the amendment must either demonstrate that the amendment will not violate the Action Plan policies or the ability to meet the traffic service objectives. Modifications to the Action Plan could be proposed to ensure that the general plan amendment does not adversely affect the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the general plan amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Action Plan. TRANSPAC has also established a policy to provide for General Plan Amendments which relate to public health and safety such as the regional trauma center for the county. Such projects will not be exempt from Action Plan violation assessment or from undertaking actions such as a demonstrable institutional and management commitment to participation in and implementation of TDM program requirements, project site and arterial signal metering programs and other reasonable mitigation. While such projects may be allowed to proceed even if traffic generated exceeds current projections, every effort will be made to mitigate impacts. Should the need to use this provision occur, TRANSPAC will document the basis on which such a "finding of special circumstances" is made. 6.2 Circulation of Environmental Documents The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has prepared an Implementation Guide which provides guidelines by which environmental documents need to be circulated to other jurisdictions. The Guide provides input on the threshold size by use of the proposed development that would require coordination, and suggests coordination between jurisdictions in developing improvement measures for projects that may have impacts beyond the jurisdiction's boundaries. The need for coordination between jurisdictions in reviewing developments and improvement measures is required to be incorporated into the Action Plan. The following procedures are to be followed by the jurisdictions within TRANSPAC regarding circulation of environmental documents. For any proposed project or general plan amendment that generates more than 100 trips during the peak hour for which an environmental assessment document TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 55 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Statement or Report) is being prepared, the Lead Agency shall issue a notice of intent to issue a Negative Declaration or Notice of Preparation for an EIS or. EIR to the Regional Transportation Planning Committee chairs or designated staff person, and to each member jurisdiction of TRANSPAC. TRANSPAC shall in turn notify its mernber jurisdictions of receipt of such notices from jurisdictions in other areas. TRANSPAC may review development projects for compliance with the program for evaluating new development proposals. To more stringently review the impacts of proposed developments, it is recommended that TRANSPAC should revise the existing policy that requires notification of intent. In addition to requiring notification for proposed projects or general plan amendments which generate more than 100 vehicle trips during the peak hour, it is"recommended that the applicant assess if the proposed project violates any Action Plan objectives. Further, any attempts at mediation should be reported. Also, for proposed projects or general plan amendments that generate more than 500 vehicle trips during the peak hour, a _ presentation to TRANSPAC should be requested. Action 16: Amendment to policy on notification of intent to issue a negative declaration/notice to prepare an environmental assessment. This amendment would require that for projects generating over 1010 vehicle trips during the peak hour; the applicant would assess if the project violates any Action Plan traffic service objectives or actions, and would report attempts at mediation. In addition,' for proposed projects generating more than 500 peak hour vehicle trips, a presentation to TRANSPAC would be requested. Encourage similar amendment. to Countywide Plan. Responsibility: TRANSPAC 6.3 Schedule for Action Plan Review The Action Plans are to be periodically reviewed for effectiveness, i.e. whether it is successful in meeting the traffic service objectives. If not, an update of the Action Plan may be required. The following schedule for review of the Action Plan is to be followed: • Traffic conditions on regional routes are to be monitored every two years, in coordination with the CMP analysis, and submitted to TRANSPAC in a report on TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 56 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 traffic service objective compliance. If any of the traffic service objectives have not been met,.TRANSPAC is to prepare a focused revision to the Action Plan, as necessary. 7. FUTURE STEPS This section presents the additional steps that will need to be taken to further the goals and objectives of the Action Plan. The analyses conducted in preparing the Action Plan have revealed that traffic conditions within Central County are influenced by many factors beyond the control of TRANSPAC, and that regional actions/solutions must be pursued. However, TRANSPAC should continue to consider the potential for establishing a subregional impact of mitigation fee for new developments within Central County, as a means to offset the costs of implementing transportation improvements. 7.1 Subregional Mitigation Fees Development of a subregional mitigation or impact fees could compensate the community for additional costs for public facilities needed by new development. In 1992, TRANSPAC declared its intent to adopt a sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program. In 1994, TRANSPAC adopted a position on the imposition of such programs which states such fees should not be imposed outside the boundaries of any RTPC area without the consent of affected jurisdictions. The following sections present a preliminary review of the potential projects, fee structure and issues that would need to be discussed and explored in development of a mitigation fee program. 7.1.1 Issues The fee revenues generated by the mitigation fee could be utilized for transportation system improvements and/or operating costs. Issues that would need to be addressed in developing a fee program include: Identification of improvement projects that could be supported by all jurisdictions • Development of a correlation between new development and improvement projects • Identification of use of funding generated by fee: i.e. feasibility study, design of project, construction, operating expenses TRANSPAC Action Plan Page 57 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 Development of fee structure In determining a sub-regional impact fee for Central County, existing local traffic impact mitigation fees should be considered. All jurisdictions within TRANSPAC have established traffic impact fees, which are applied to new developments. 7.1.2 Candidate Projects The following projects are an example of the improvements that may be considered Addition of mixed-flow or HOV lanes Enhancement/subsidies of existing transit services Provision of new transit services Signal synchronization for routes through community boundaries While the fees generated with any proposed fee program would not generate sufficient funds to fully support the above program, these monies could be used to leverage regional/state/federal funding programs, as needed. 7.1.3 Potential Fee Structure The application of impact fees offers the ability to leverage improvements in Central County to supplement sources of federal,state or local funding. Review of the projected growth in Central County between 1990 and 2010 indicates that approximately 18,200 new dwelling units will be constructed and office/commercial facilities for approximately 43,000 new jobs will be established. Based on these projections, potential revenues have been calculated under an array of potential fees. The following table presents the revenues that could be collected under different fee structures. Fees for dwelling units could vary between single and multi-family, and similarly,,fees could vary between office, retail and industrial commercial uses. TRA NSPACA ction Plan Pape 58 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 . e New Construction . . deRevenue . Residential Dwelling Units 18,200 dwelling units $1,500 per unit $27,300,000 18,200 dwelling units $3,000 per unit $54,600,000 18,200 dwelling units $4,000 per unit $72,800,000 Commercial Uses 10.75 million square feet $0.50 per square foot $5,375,000 t10.75 million square feet $1.00 per square foot $10,750,000 10.75 million square feet $2.00 per square foot $21,500,000 Action 16: Pursue the development of a subregional transportation mitigation fee. Responsibility: TRANSPAC and all TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 7.2 Tool for use in Future Planning The TRANSPAC Action Plan has identified the issues facing Central County and provides a series of actions that need to be pursued to relieve existing congestion and prevent further deterioration of services. The Action Plan, and subsequent revisions, will allow for a continuing review and assessment of changing traffic and transit operating conditions. These conditions will be compared to the TSOs established by TRANSPAC to determine the progress in achieving the objectives. 7.3 Conclusions/Next Steps Collaborative and Cooperative Countywide Transportation Plan: The TRANSPAC region is only one component of Contra Costa County influencing travel demand and traffic operating conditions within Central County. The TRANSPAC Action Plan will be incorporated in the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority's CCTP, however, TRANSPAC's experiences stress the need for a collaborative and cooperative effort. This effort is essential not only in affecting Contra Costa travel demand through growth management and TDM efforts, but also in ensuring that improvements to the transit and TRANSPAC Action Plan Pepe 59 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1994 roadway networks in the four sub-regions are coordinated. This ensures that bottlenecks are not created as a result of improvements in one sub-region. Monitoring: The actions included in the TRANSPAC Action Plan need to be reviewed on a regular basis. This includes review of the actions to determine if they have been completed/satisfied, and identification of additional actions to respond to changes in traffic conditions. This review should be conducted simultaneously with the review and revision of the CCTP. Resolve Key Issues: A critical component of the Action Plan is the provision of a comprehensive HOV system on the regional freeways to increase the capacity and freeways and relieve congestion. A comprehensive HOV system would also serve to encourage the use of transit by providing a facility for an express bus system. The issues of providing an HOV system connecting East, Central and the southwest areas of the County need to be resolved though additional studies. TRANSPAC has initiated a travel demand and operation analysis of an HOV/Express Bus study. This study aims at identifying and analyzing the HOV and transit strategies through Central County that could potentially be implemented. In addition, the potential for ramp metering with HOV bypass will also be analyzed. TRANSPAC Action Plan Pepe 60 Proposal for Adoption:December 1, 1334 EXHIBIT C East County TRANSPLAN COMMITTEE Antioch - Brentwood -Pittsburg and Contra Costa County A MEMBER`OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RESOLUTION 94-1 RE: APPROVAL TO FORWARD THE PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION OF AN ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IN EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION INTO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS,the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa County jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts; WHEREAS, the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority("Authority")ih December 1990 further require that each regional --transportation planning committee develop and adopt an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the following components: 1) A designated network of routes of regional significance; 2) Adopted Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) using quantifiable measures of effectiveness that include target dates of attainment; 3) Specific actions, programs, and measures to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4) Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5) Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and 6) A schedule for Regional Committee and Authority review of progress to attain adopted TSOs. WHEREAS, TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, has endeavored to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in East County, which meets the requirements set forth in the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents, with input provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, Action Plan consultant, Authority staff, members of the public, and each jurisdiction's elected officials and management staff; Page Two Resolution 94-1 WHEREAS, TRANSPLAN issued a Circulation Draft East County Action Plan for a 60- day comment period, starting on June 24, 1994 and terminating on August 24, 1994, and has given due consideration for all comments received, including comments received after the close of comment period; WHEREAS, the member jurisdictions of TRANSPLAN recognize that compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program will,after January 1995,be judged by the Authority in part based upon each jurisdiction's implementation of the Action Plan, and; WHEREAS, the Authority, in adopting the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan,will accept proposed objectives and action policies where consensus has been reached among members of regional transportation planning committees as set forth in their Action Plan, and will adopt those objectives and actions as conditions of compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that TRANSPLAN, acting as the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, does hereby adopt the attached East County Action Plan and acknowledges it's willingness to use good faith efforts to implement the following actions listed in the Fast County Action Plan as one of the conditions for it's member jurisdictions to receive Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: Action # 1. Implement needed regional transportation improvements. Pursue an aggressive campaign in conjunction with others to construct, extend, or widen the following facilities: a) upgrade State Route 4 to a full freeway with High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and a median for BART; b) construct SR-4 Bypass and Buchanan Road Bypass roadways; c) widen SR-4 through Oakley,Brentwood,Byron,and Discovery Bay and enhance traffic carrying capacity of Byron Highway; d) promote constmictio of the E29I Count), Corridor hawasp -&-onPwoed and Livermore, - e) promote construction of BART Pittburg-Antioch extension to Hillcrest Avenue. Page Three Resolution 94-1 Action # 2. Participate in Growth Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Institute a program of development review and monitoring in which member jurisdictions report to the TRANSPLAN Committee on the mitigation measures adopted for any major land use approval that impacts a Regional Route; .o Action # 3. Promote Regional Economic Development Program. Develop a cooperative economic development program specifically for East County; Action # 4. Implement East County Regional Transportation Impact Fee. Adopt a regional transportation impact fee for Fast County to fund the State Route 4 freeway upgrades, the State Route 4 Bypass, and the Buchanan Bypass; Action #5. Implement Traffic Engineering Improvements at Hot Spots. Construct specified intersection improvements to Regional Routes; Action # 6. Freeway Operations Improvements. In conjunction with Caltrans and others, pursue implementation of traffic management strategies to improve r traffic flow on SR-4 and key arterials; . Action # 7. Explore Commuter Rail Options. In conjunction with others, continue _ exploring options to provide East County with commuter rail service; Action # 8. Expand Park-and-Ride Program. Pursue construction of park-and-ride facilities at strategic locations to maximize 'opportunities for transit and ridesharing; Action # 9. Participate in Regional Transportation Demand Management Program. Continue active participation in East County's transportation demand management program currently administered by Tri-Delta Transit Authority; Action # 10. Promote Regional Program for Telecommuting. Participate in program to promote telecommuting as a viable transportation alternative; Action # 11. Develop Intermodal Transit Centers. Develop Fast County BART Stations (Bay Point Station) as intermodal transit centers, improving the interface between BART and bus transit; Action # 12. Advocate Gas or Other Tax Increase Dedicated for Transportation Improvements. Participate in lobbying effort to secure state or regional gas tax or other revenue enhancement which will be dedicated to financing transportation improvements; Page Four Resolution 94-1 Action # 13. Encourage Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation. Pursue projects or programs that will encourage and promote walking and bicycling as a viable transportation alternative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the TRANSPLAN Committee Chair is authorized to submit the attached Proposal For Adoption for an East County Action Plan to the Authority for inclusion in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and its accompanying environmental impact report. . COPY A/ Barbara Guise, Chair attest: The above resolution was entered into by the TRANSPLAN Committee at its regular meeting held in Antioch,CA on December 8, 1994. FRAM EX CERp�S i i Action Flan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County III III 1111111 1it1111111111t1 1j IIIlillll)1111111 Illilllll Iligllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III III II III IU �� I p IIUIII I Iill III East County Action Plan Proposal for Adoption Prepared for TRANSPLAN by DKS Associa tes in association with Recht Hausrath & Associates Naphtafi H. Knox & Associates Adopted December 8, 1994 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Executive Summary jurisdictions have approved 23,000 new dwelling units that have not yet been built, an almost 40 percent increase over current conditions. State Route 4 is the main access route to and from East County. It is currently a congested four-lane freeway through Pittsburg and Antioch, and new growth will further increase congestion. Vasco Road is a two-lane rural highway that provides access to and from the south to Livermore. Although it is to be relocated and improved, new growth will increase congestion and delays. Easing cumulative traffic impacts in East County calls for a mixture of highway capacity, transit, and transportation demand management solutions. By far, the most costly solution is the widening of State Route 4 from Bailey Road to Hillcrest Avenue to four lanes each way (including one lane for carpools, vanpools and transit) plus BART in the median. The freeway portion of this project exceeds $250 million. Another transportation solution, the State Route 4 Bypass, will cost $190 million to construct. Clearly, the capital cost to provide needed improvements is significant, and garnering funds for these improvements remains a challenging endeavor. Progressive solutions are needed. Recognizing these pressing transportation needs, the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg and Contra Costa County recently adopted a sub- regional traffic mitigation fee that would partially fund widening of SR 4 through Pittsburg and Antioch, the SR 4 Bypass, and the Buchanan Road Bypass. The remainder of the funds will most likely have to come from state and/or federal sources, as they may become available over the years. Guiding Vision of the Action Plan The guiding vision of the East County Action Plan may be summarized as follows: Construct the transportation facilities needed to improve mobility, sustain economic vitality, and maintain a favorable quality of life in eastern Contra Costa County. This vision statement is embodied in the planning strategies set forth below. Proposal for Adoption; Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 1i P91173/docs/propadpL4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives Table 3 Approved Growth with Funded Network Scenario Growth Assumption' Transportation Improvement Assumption' Approved Growth: No improvements beyond those already committed. 23,000 households 11,500 jobs ' Growth numbers are over 1990 levels. n Network improvement assumptions are in addition to committed improvements(year 2000 network). Under these conditions, the proposed traffic service objectives would be violated on the SR 4 freeway, the non-freeway portion of SR 4, Vasco Road, and Deer Valley Road. 3.6 REFINED TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES The traffic service objectives were refined based on the results of the analysis described in the sections above. The text below provides a description of the traffic service objectives to be adopted in the East County Action Plan (see also Table 4 for a summary). SR 4: Freeway (Including the Proposed SR 4 Bypass) Discussion. Current traffic on this freeway already exceed the common standards of peak hour level-of-service (such as "D" or "E"). Anticipated growth that has already been approved is likely to be faster than the ability of local jurisdictions and Caltrans to provide capacity relief. It is unreasonable to expect that uncongested conditions can ever be achieved in a single hour. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 34 P911731docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counry DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives Table 4 Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives Peak Hour Schedule Demand Regional Route Traffic Service Objective to Achieve Threshold SR 4 Freeway (including SR 4 Bypass Congestion to last no more than 3 Immediately 4,250 Expressway) hours in each commute period (P.M. Peak) (A.M. and P.M.). Congestion defined as average speed less than 40 mph. SR 4 Non-Freeway LOS D at signalized intersections. End of 1996 varies' SR 160 to Balfour Road LOS E at unsignalized intersections. SR 4 Non-Freeway LOS E calculated for rural Immediately 2,100 Balfour Road to San Joaquin highways. County Line Vasco Road' Pk. Hr. Vehicle Occupancy = 1.3 1997 1,600 Pk. Hr. LOS mid-E(rural 2005 highway) Byron Highway LOS mid E (rural highway) Immediately 1,570 Marsh Creek Road LOS mid E Immediately 1,200 Camino Diablo Road 1,200 Deer Valley Road (rural portion) 1,300 Bailey Road (rural portion) 1,200 Kirker Pass Road LOS mid E Immediately 2,520 Suburban Arterial Routes3 Intersection LOS mid D Immediately varies' ' The notation "varies' indicates that the threshold will depend on specific conditions at particular intersections. 2 Threshold assumes the Vasco Road relocation project is completed. 'Includes the following roads: Lone Tree Way, Railroad Avenue, Leland Road, Delta Fair Boulevard, Buchanan Road, Somersville Road, Hillcrest Avenue, Deer Valley Road (northern portion), Walnut Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road (northern portion), Evora Road, and the Buchanan Road Bypass (future route). Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 35 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives Travellers in urban and suburban areas have come to accept peak hour congestion, especially on the trunk freeway routes. It is reasonable, however, to expect that this congestion be limited in duration to peak commute periods of the day. Right now, the time of congestion on the SR 4 freeway in the vicinity of the Willow Pass Grade is about 1.75 hours in the morning." It is a reasonable goal to expect that this condition not exceed three hours in either the morning orevening commute periods. This traffic service objective is readily understood by the traveling public, and can be reasonably monitored. .Traffic Service Objective. Duration of peak period should be no longer than three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening. Schedule to Achieve Objective. Immediately. Definition/measurement. Peak period conditions are defined as typical travel speeds dropping below 40 miles per hour over a roadway section exceeding 1/2 mile. Typical travel speed shall be defined as speed achieved more than 67 percent of non-holiday weekdays. Travel speeds to be measured through installation of speed monitoring equipment on several commuters' vehicles (potentially vanpool vehicles or vehicles of agency staff), to achieve a daily measure of conditions at different times during the peak period. The concept of peak period spreading and a technique to forecast such spreading is included in Appendix H. SR 4: Non-Freeway: SR 160 to Balfour Road Discussion. Once the SR 4 Bypass is completed, this portion of Highway 4 will. no longer serve as much inter-regional travel as it does today. The traffic service objectives suggested are appropriate for an arterial street facility transitioning from a rural to suburban environment. 1S This is based on data obtained in the study of the Willow Pass Grade lowering project by Thompson Traffic Engineers in 1990. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 36 P911731docs/pro0adpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives Traffic Service Objective. Both of these traffic service objectives are proposed: • At signalized intersections, peak hour V/C ratio not to be worse than 0.85 (mid level-of-service D) and • For unsignalized intersections, level-of-service for any movement not to be worse than level-of-service E.16 Schedule to Achieve Objective. By the end of 1996. Current conditions at many of the unsignalized intersections on SR 4 are worse than the proposed standard. There are currently plans to improve this road through widening. This widening would include additional traffic signals at key locations, or other appropriate traffic engineering improvements. Definition/Measurement. Traffic counts to be taken annually at several key locations. Calculation methods as follows: • Signalized intersection level-of-service to be calculated using CCTA method of capacity analysis. • Unsignalized intersection level-of-service to be based on 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Counts should be done on a Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursday of a non- holiday week, excluding late June, July and August, and mid-late December. Counts on two days for each time period would be desirable. SR 4 Non-Freeway: Balfour Road to San Joaquin County Line Discussion. Future peak hour travel demand in this corridor is expected to significantly exceed peak hour capacity if the road remains as a two-lane facility. However, current conditions on this rural portion of SR 4 are far 16 City of Brentwood staff have suggested this be modified to apply only to intersections with more than 100 vehicles per hour on the stopped approach. This change is still under discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 37 P91173/docs/pmpadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives lower than capacity. The traffic service objective for this link is set to encourage efforts to provide additional highway capacity in this corridor. Traffic Service Objective. Peak hour level-of-service "E," as calculated for rural highway links. Schedule to Attain Objective. Immediately. Definition/Measurement. Annual traffic counts. Vasco Road Discussion. Future peak hour travel demand in this corridor is expected to significantly exceed peak hour capacity. It is clear that additional highway capacity is needed in this corridor to accommodate anticipated growth both in eastern Contra Costa as well as Alameda County. It will be difficult to provide an increase in capacity beyond the modest increase planned as part of the Vasco Road relocation for at .least 5 to 10 years for a variety of reasons, including high cost and concerns about environmental impacts. Considering that the long range plans for Alarneda County and Livermore do not include additional capacity in the Vasco Road corridor, such concerns might ultimately prevent any improvements from being made. Current traffic flow on Vasco Road is approaching the mid-range of level-of- service E as calculated for rural. highways. This means that it is nearly impossible to find gaps in oncoming traffic to pass slower vehicles. The relocated Vasco Road will feature a third climbing lane to allow for passing over about 35 percent of its length, as well as paved shoulders. These features should reduce the temptation for drivers to cross the double-yellow stripe to pass when unsafe. The traffic service objectives for Vasco Road are set to.encourage resolution of capacity and connectivity issues in this corridor. The current vehicle occupancy rate on Vasco Road has been observed to be 1.15 in the morning peak hour. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 38 P9J773/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives Traffic Service Objectives. Two traffic service objectives are proposed: • Morning peak hour vehicle occupancy of 1.3 in the peak direction • Peak hour level-of-service of mid-E, as calculated for rural two-lane highways. Schedule to Attain Objective. Vehicle occupancy measure by 1997. Level- of-service measure by 2005. Definition/Measurement. Traffic counts noting vehicle occupancy taken on an annual basis. Bailey Road, Marsh Creek Road, Camino Diablo Road and Deer Valley Road Discussion. The issue on these roads is less congestion than traffic safety. The mid-point of level-of-service E provides a minimum standard for these rural roads. If any of these roads is improved or widened, a new traffic service objective should be considered. Traffic Service Objective. Peak hour level-of-service shall not exceed the mid point of level-of-service E. Schedule to Attain Objective. Immediately. Definition/Measurement. Traffic counts to be taken annually. Automatic traffic counters could be used for a one-week period each year to get good results. Level-of-service would be calculated based on rural two-lane highway methodology of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Byron Highway Discussion. Future growth on Byron Highway is expected to be significant. The issue on this road is less congestion than traffic safety. Level-of-service mid-E provides a minimum standard for this. rural road that runs generally in Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 39 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives a straight line. If this road is improved or widened, or if a parallel facility is built, the traffic service objective should be revised. Traffic Service Objective. Peak hour level-of-service shall not exceed the mid point of level-of-service E. Schedule to Attain Objective. Immediately. Definition/Measurement. Traffic counts to be taken annually. Automatic traffic counters could be used for a one-week period each year to get good results. Level-of-service would be calculated based on two-lane highway methodology of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Suburban Arterial Regional Routes Discussion. Mid level-of-service D is into the level where drivers start complaining about congestion. They wait through more than one signal cycle. Whereas congested conditions are expected to some degree on the freeways during peak hours, they are.less apt to be tolerated on arterial streets. The unsignalized level-of-service objective serves two purposes. It provides coverage for the Hillcrest Avenue interchange, which is one of the worst in East County, but which is not signalized. It also covers other unsignalized locations that could cause congestion and safety problems if not adequately addressed. This category covers the following regional routes: o Lone Tree Way o Railroad Avenue U Leland Road o Delta Fair Boulevard o James Donlon Boulevard o Buchanan Road u Buchanan Road Bypass (future road) Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 40 P91173/docs/pmpadpL4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County. DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives • Somersville Road • A Street • E. 18th Street • Hillcrest Avenue • Deer Valley Road (improved portion) • Walnut Boulevard (within Brentwood) • Willow Pass Road • Bailey Road (improved portion) • Evora Road Traffic Service Objective. These two traffic service objectives are proposed: • Peak hour V/C ratio at signalized intersections should not be worse than 0.85 (mid level-of-service D) based on the Authority's method of capacity analysis, and • Peak hour level-of-service at unsignalized intersections (one- and two- way stop controlled) should not exceed level-of-service E on any approach." The following intersection is exempt from this standard: • State Route 4 at Neroly Road Schedule to Achieve Objective. As some locations are currently deficient, improvements should be accomplished by 1997. . Dermition/Measurement. Traffic counts to be taken annually (see SR 4 non- freeway for,discussion). " City of Brentwood staff have suggested this be modified to apply only to intersections with more than 100 vehicles per hour on the stopped approach. This change is still under discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 41 P91173/docs/propadpL4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 3: Traffic Service Objectives 3.7 FORECAST TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE ASSUMING ALL APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS As will be described in Section 4, the growth management strategy of the Action Plan will depend on evaluating the impact of new development within the framework of development that has already been approved, together with transportation improvements that are fully funded. Table 5 provides a summary of traffic service objectives, and whether or not they can be met under such a future scenario. In general, the traffic service objectives can be met, except on the SR 4 freeway, where the peak period duration is expected to be five hours in the evening, and Vasco Road, where the level of service would be worse than LOS E. This means that as soon as the Action Plan is put in place, development proposals will have to consider the growth management and, mitigation strategies described in Sections 4 and 5. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 42 P91173/docs/pcopadpc4 y� A V 0 u y�YYr p $ re _ N Sa p,pFr+ v+ N 0 r s N C m r R o os L .� N ,g 2 � a w ° y Q+ A G G �+ d CD o V+•N�G LL O• CIO i O Gp G •,,, o ,r � A p °; C srU,' Oi � :►� �.t v. A G J L� T Z � „3r Li d ✓ L A 'a'.. .0 • � a. G N :.. u W � ✓� o m i v �G � C ,< w � + d � h ✓ W ? � c � c ti �20 V H , d Qul OO i g� gm s Cn A 7•p � pl,�y.Q�° � to iA O A d p p D M V V i or $ L C a Vi 17 sn Action Plan for.Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options Growth Management Option 1: Moratorium Rationale: There is no guarantee that major transportation projects will go forward. Funding is uncertain, as is environmental clearance. Until more firm commitments are in hand for transportation improvement projects, a moratorium will make sure that more projects are not approved without commitments or agreements on infrastructure. Implementatton: Implementation would involve a cessation of new approvals until one of the following conditions were met (to be decided by TRANSPLAN and the affected jurisdictions): • funding sources are secured for major transportation projects, such as SR 4 widening, SR 4 Bypass, Buchanan Bypass, East County Corridor, or • Such facilities are already in place, or e A regional impact fee is adopted. If approvals expire, these could either be eliminated, or transferred to a waiting list of development proposals. Issues: Some issues related to a growth moratorium are: • It could reduce the overall amount of development that could pay an impact fee if the moratorium lasted several years. • It.could hinder development of projects that are beneficial in other ways. • It could cause uncertainty in the local economy. • It would assure that additional traffic generation in East County would be deferred until transportation capacity issues are resolved. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 46 P91173/dDWpropadpt.4 Action Plan for.Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options Growth Management Option 2: Only Approve Projects that Result in Attaining Traffic Service Objectives or Meet Other Criteria Rationale: There is a significant amount of development already approved in East County and it is uncertain how quickly funding for major improvement projects can be realized. Recognizing this, it is reasonable to review new development applications from the perspective .of impact on regional routes. This can be done by estimating compliance with traffic service objectives for a future condition that includes both development that is already approved, plus the proposed development project. If one or more traffic service objectives are violated, then the project sponsor would need to provide a mitigation measure to bring the traffic service objective into compliance. If this is not feasible as in the case of a freeway widening or new expressway facility), then the project sponsor may propose other measures or amenities to improve their project in lieu of direct mitigation. The amenities would be evaluated based on a scoring system, with only projects meeting a certain score allowed to proceed. - . This approach recognizes the need to achieve traffic service objectives, but also recognizes that there may be projects that have minimal impact or overriding public benefit,regardless of regional transportation impacts. This option would encourage proposals for projects that meet one or more planning objectives. Implementation: Implementation would involve these steps: a) As part of the CEQA process, evaluate whether the development project, plus approved development would cause traffic service objectives to not be met. Propose mitigation measures to achieve traffic service objectives. b) If adequate mitigation is not proposed, evaluate whether the project achieves a minimum score on a check-list of measures to be done in- lieu of traffic service objective compliance. This check list might include criteria such as: • Employment generating Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 47 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Owpter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options • Easily connected to existing services and utilities • Not growth inducing • Close to Highway 4 corridor (less impact on local arterials) • Housing types that generate fewer auto trips • Ability to be served by transit • Pedestrian and bike friendly c) TRANSPLAN would review the development proposal, mitigation measures and in-lieu measures, and advise the lead agency as to whether it was consistent with the Action Plan. Issues: Some issues include: • Analysis done for the Action Plan shows that traffic service objectives will not be met if all approved development is built and improvements are not made to the regional route system. This means that new projects will immediately need to devise "in-lieu" methods of achieving conformity with the Action Plan. _ • These policies maybe contrary to the "natural" market forces in East County, and, if so, will this resulf in a de facto approval moratorium? • Agreement is needed among jurisdictions on criteria. • Would slow the rate of new approvals, but would not close the door. Would allow projects meeting "superior" standards to compete in the marketplace with other projects already approved. • May or may not be acceptable to outside agencies, as evidence of responsible growth management. Growth Management Option 3: Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan for East County Rationale: Instead of working incrementally toward a solution, map out a land use plan for East County that results in a transportation system that "works." This is what has been requested by several agencies as mitigation of the SR 4 Bypass. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 48 P91173/d=JpropadpG4 - Action Plan for.Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4:. Growth Management and Economic Development Options Implementation: • Map out current general plan designations and approvals. Code status of approvals, primarily as to whether infrastructure financing is fully secured. • Identify type and location of additional growth considered desirable (how to define?) • Generate policies on phasing the new growth. • Test implications on traffic conditions and need for improvements. • Prepare a plan that might include modifications to current general plans and/or more improvement projects. Issues: • This option presumes the ability of several jurisdictions to agree on some restrictions to "home-rule," and consider the overall benefits to coordinating land use and transportation decisions. • Can BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG force the issue such that such a plan is unavoidable? • It should really be coordinated with eastern Alameda County as well as Central Contra Costa County. Growth Management Option 4: No Action Rationale: The growth management strategies may be working at the margins of the problem, and run counter to the "desires" of the marketplace. Congestion is not necessarily bad--it is a sign of a healthy economy, and people would generally rather endure delays on a congested roadway than be subject to government regulation—that is, until the situation becomes more bleak. If congestion is bad, people will find ways to cope, such as: staggered work hours, 9/80 plans, part time employment, books-on-tape, car- phones, telecommuting. So called "intolerable" levels of automobile Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 49 P91173/docs/pmpadpt.4 Action Plan for.Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options congestion can also result in more people using carpools and transit. If time and or money can be saved by carpooling, or riding the bus or train, commuters will select those modes over the automobile as congestion worsens. It makes sense for communities to make informed decisions about new growth, taking into account factors other than regional transportation. Each city has a general plan that is supposed to focus development in ways acceptable to the community. Therefore, some would argue that TRANSPLAN should not interfere in this decision process, but should focus on finding ways to build additional transportation infrastructure to accommodate the growth. Implementation: Focus on implementation of capital projects and programs. Issues: • Does this adequately address the mandate of Measure C, especially with regard to downstream impacts (e.g. Central County?) • Will this approach be sufficient to convince regional agencies that there is a planning process in place to manage congestion and growth. 4.3 SELECTION OF A GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONCEPT The Circulation Draft Action Plan (June 24, 1994) concluded that the most flexible approach among those listed above is Growth Management Option 2: Only Approve Projects that Result in Attainment of Traffic Service Objectives or Meet Other Criteria. New approvals would be metered and monitored based on rational criteria. This approach would demonstrate that growth management is on the agenda of TRANSPLAN; and would fit in with a strategy to provide more transportation infrastructure for the area. Option 2 could also incorporate aspects of the other approaches: • If very tight standards are set, it can act as a virtual moratorium Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 50 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options • It can serve as a useful "stop gap" measure until an "acceptable" comprehensive land use and transportation strategy is devised, if one is wanted or needed. Such a plan might take several years to develop. • If lax standards are adopted, Option 2 begins to resemble the "No Action" Option 4. There were numerous concerns expressed about the specifics of the growth management strategy proposed in the Circulation Draft. These concerns were expressed by TRANSPLAN members, several of the member jurisdictions of TRANSPLAN and staff. As a result, the growth management strategy has been modified in this Proposal for Adoption. Revised Approach Rather than the "development review process" contained in the Circulation Draft Action Plan, the revised proposal features a set of development review standards and a monitoring process. It is based on the foundation that each agency desires to implement the_ growth management program, and is responsible to carry it out in its own way. The revised approach will: 1. Provide each participating agency with a decision making tool when considering development applications, 2. Provide each jurisdiction with a toolbox with which it might partially mitigate the effects of new development that would occur before major regional improvements are in place, and 3. Provide a basis with which to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are participating in the multi jurisdictional planning process as required by Measure C. This approach is consistent with the overall philosophy of Measure C, in that it lets local agencies decide how to best implement the growth management strategy. It also fits in well with the existing CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process, in that it provides information to local Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 51 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options decision makers that they consider in certifying environmental documents and requiring mitigation, and approving projects. 4.4 THE EAST COUNTY ACTION PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Objective The objective of the growth management strategy is to develop a system to reduce the traffic impacts of future development proposals in East Contra Costa County. The focus of this process is not on limiting the number of dwelling units constructed, but on modifying the character and make-up of the developments. Applying appropriate criteria to the selection of projects can result in development that minimizes impacts on regional routes and provides amenities that facilitate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation. Assumptions 1. There are currently 23,000 housing units, plus commercial/industrial projects that could accommodate about 16,000 jobs approved for development in East County. The Project Selection Process will not affect those development proposals; the criteria will only apply to future development that is not yet approved. 2. Some of the 23,000 approved units may not be built due to changing market conditions. Therefore, some of the units that are approved under the proposed Project Selection Process will take the place of those already approved units that are not built. 3. The 23,000 approved dwelling units will be built over a period of time during which the housing market will change as a result of increasing traffic congestion, changes in lifestyle, economics, and technology. For example, if 2,000 units are built per year, it will take 11.5 years to construct the currently approved units. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 52 P911731doc0propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options 4. All future development(residential, commercial, industrial, and public) will have an impact on traffic and traffic congestion. 5. We cannot control individual behavior, but we can provide alternatives that will increase the probability that some of the people, some of the time, will get to their destination without driving. 6. If we provide no alternatives to driving, and no incentives to use those alternatives, people will drive. 7. In using alternatives to the automobile, people will not tolerate significant inconvenience or time delays. 8. Greater reductions in regional traffic can be achieved by substituting non-auto travel for the most frequent trips, such as daily commute or school, rather than for infrequent trips (e.g., for recreation). 9. It would be desirable that the criteria for selecting future projects fit within the General Plan policies of the affected cities. General Process and Authority Review of individual development projects would occur at the local level. The process of review would generally be as follows: • Lead agency will perform analysis and makes appropriate findings according to adopted procedure (see discussion in Section 4.6 below). • Lead agency will forward the analysis to TRANSPLAN for information only. • d • TRANSPLAN staff will compile a quarterly report for TRANSPLAN based on analysis submitted by member jurisdictions. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 53 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance `Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options TRANSPLAN will prepare a report once a year on whether the agency is abiding by the Action Plan growth management strategy. This report will be forwarded to CCTA for use in evaluating compliance checklists prepared by each jurisdiction. As a result, each agency would be responsible for carrying out the growth management strategy. , Mitigation Toolbox The growth management strategy features a mitigation toolbox that lead agencies could choose from if a project could not mitigate the traffic service objectives directly. Agencies could choose from any or all of these measures, depending on the particular conditions and the feasibility of implementation. The list includes: 1. Delay. Delay the project until the violated traffic service objective projects have been approved and funding is in place. This measure would be appropriate for any size project, but would be especially appropriate to larger projects with higher levels of impact. 2. Phase. Phase the project so that the employment portion of the project happens first, or only a limited amount of housing is built until either employment is built or key portions of the impacted Regional Route network are in place.. 3. Build. Build a piece of the impacted Regional Route improvement system that would be open by the time the development project was generating new traffic. The amount to be built would be based on the size of the development project. Realistically, the only improvement projects that would fit this criteria are the new SR 4 Bypass and Buchanan Road Bypass. This measure would be appropriate primarily for large development projects. 4. Operate a Transit Connection. Buy a bus or van, and operate a shuttle service to the closest BART station and/or a major employer. This would be appropriate for a larger housing project. Adequate Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 54 P91173/docs/pmpadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options funds would need to be put in a special account so that the service could be operated. Smaller projects could contribute an in-lieu fee to a larger transit connection program. 5. Transit Friendly Development. Modify the development plan to allow easier access for local and regional bus transit services in accord with guidelines to be developed by Tri-Delta Transit. The Tri-Delta Transit development guidelines would be similar to those shown in Attachment A. This would apply to both small as well as large projects. 6. Telecommute Center. Build and operate a telecommute center in a new development project. Guidelines for an appropriate telecommute center are in Appendix C. This would be appropriate for large projects. Smaller projects could contribute an in-lieu fee to a larger telecommute center program. 7. Day Care Center. Provide space for a day care center within a residential development. 8. Economic Development Measures. The jurisdiction could require housing developers to participate in an economic development program that might be composed of some of these features: • Participate in a program to write down land costs for business development • Pool developer resources to provide below market rate lease and/or acquisition financing for prospective business park tenants • Fund a local economic development corporation for securing new major employers • Construct child care facilities, fitness centers and other major amenities in existing business parks to attract new major employers Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page SS P91173/docs/pmpadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counry DKS Associates Chapter 4. Growth Management and Economic Development Options • Offset permitting and/or infrastructure costs for new major employers. 9. Other. Other potential mitigation may be considered by local agencies. These other measures should be adequately justified before being accepted. An agency could also choose to approve a project without additional mitigation. However, TRANSPLAN may consider this to be non-compliant in its annual review of agency approvals. Relationship of Mitigation Measures to Regional Fee Program The mitigation measures presented above would be in addition to payment of subregional mitigation fees that fund a portion of three regional projects: SR 4 improvements, the SR 4 Bypass and the Buchanan Road Bypass. It is reasonable to require additional mitigation because the regional mitigation fee only pays a portion of three particular projects. The remainder of the funding for these three improvement projects is not identified. This means that there _ will be a lag between the time fees are collected and the time the improvements are in place. This lag could be five, ten or more years, leaving significant impacts without mitigation. There are numerous other deficiencies in the regional transportation system not addressed by the subregional mitigation fee. The additional mitigation proposed in the growth management strategy addresses both this shortfall in mitigation, and the interim period. The mitigation requirements would therefore meet both the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" requirement for exactions. —Exemptiong-- Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 56 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates . Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options Consistency with Current General Plans Projects allowed under existing general plans create as much burden on the regional transportation network as general plan amendment projects. There would be no basis to exempt projects that are consistent with general plans. Grandfathering Projects would be exempt from this review process if both of the following has occurred prior to adoption of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (expected to occur in January 1995): 1. A development application has been received by the lead agency, or a Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan, or similar action has been initiated by the lead agency, AND 2. The environmental process has begun. However, since the Action Plan is intended to be in the interests of the participating agencies, it would be appropriate for agencies to draw from the list of mitigations in evaluating projects. It is important to note that the grandfathering exemption applies to the Action Plan Growth Management Strategy review process only, and in no way affects the implementation of the subregional mitigation fee program. Red-Tape Index This process is intended to create virtually no new red tape, and ties in well to the existing CEQA process. The only additional administrative burdens are: 1. Lead agency will have to send a copy of the Regional Route analysis from the environmental document to TRA.NSPLAN. A standard report format will be developed by the TRANSPLAN TAC. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 57 P911731docs/pmpadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counry DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options 2. TRANSPLAN staff will have to maintain a file of the Regional Route analyses. Thein, once a year a report summarizing the compliance of the four lead agencies will be submitted by TRANSPLAN to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 3. Local jurisdiction staff will have to forward to TRANSPLAN staff notification when projects are approved, so that such projects can be added to the database to be considered as the baseline for the transportation studies. TRANSPLAN staff will have to keep track of this information, anal periodically (say, semi-annually) update the. database. This new procedure simply defines standards for analysis of Regional Routes. Regional Routes already have to be analyzed under California law (AB 40 required this four or five years ago). 4.5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES Preparatory Responsibilities of TRANSPLAN Staff TRANSPLAN staff would be responsible for the following activities to allow the individual jurisdictions the ability to carry out the growth management strategy on their own. Baseline Conditions. Prepare a baseline condition of "existing plus approved" development and roadway improvement projects. Determine whether this condition would cause a violation of traffic service objectives. Prepare a brief report documenting the results of this study for use by local agencies in carrying out the growth management portion of the action plan. The report would include a one or two page form of traffic service objective compliance under the baseline condition, with a blank column to insert the results of project specific analysis by local agencies. Generally, this update would be done on an annual basis. A mid-term update would be appropriate should there be any significant change in status of planned transportation improvement projects. For example, if approval and Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 58 P911731docslpmpadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options funding for the SR 4 widening is obtained, this would have a significant effect on the traffic service objectives findings. Approval of major development (e.g. projects of 2,000 dwelling units or 500,00 square feet of non-residential or more). File Maintenance. Maintain a file of approvals of new development and transportation improvement projects for use in updating base conditions described above. Project Evaluation Responsibilities of Local Jurisdictions For projects that generate 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips, local jurisdictions would carry out the growth management strategy on a project-by project basis in the following way: t? The project is exempt from Regional Rou 1 it is strictly an employ nen if it provi ensity development around a proposed transit station. o kQLQLthe project on basic routes is still re ueasure C, and is recommended td e e loc requirements are met. Project Evaluation. Technically evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on regional routes according to the following method: a. Small Project (500 dwelling units or less). Superimpose project traffic on the baseline conditions by applying traditional trip generation, distribution and assignment methods. Report on traffic volumes at monitoring locations provided on the blank form provided by TRANSPLAN. Identify any changes to traffic service objectives on summaryform (sample attached). b. Large project (501 dwelling units or more). Use the East County Model to evaluate regional impacts. Fill out traffic service objective summary form as in (a) above. Large mixed-use projects should include a separate evaluation of the impacts of the housing component alone, presuming that housing would normally Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 59 P91173/docs/pmpadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4. Growth Management and Economic Development Options precede any employment. This requirement could be waived if the project sponsor provides adequate guarantees that less than 100 units of residential development would be built prior to occupation of employment uses. Direct Mitigation. Identify whether there are any direct mitigation measures that will result in meeting the traffic service objectives. Note that for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that there will be any feasible mitigation that a project sponsor or jurisdiction could undertake on its own to achieve direct mitigation of traffic service objectives. Indirect Mitigation. Choose appropriate mitigation measures from the mitigation toolbox (see section Mitigation Toolbox in Section 4.4. Report. Provide information on the above items in environmental documentation, and submit separately to TRANSPLAN. Decision. The local agency's legislative body will need to consider whether the indirect and partial mitigation proposed provides adequate justification to proceed with the project. Evaluation Responsibilities of TRANSPLAN TRANSPLAN would be responsible for the following evaluation functions: Quarterly Report. TRANSPLAN staff will prepare a quarterly report for TRANSPLAN on project approvals and mitigations required from the mitigation toolbox. This report will be forwarded to each local agency. TRANSPLAN members would be encouraged to share this report with others on their planning commission or legislative body. Annual Evaluation. TRANSPLAN staff will prepare an annual report that provides information on: U Approvals by each local agency and mitigation measures chosen. O The net effect of these approval on traffic service objectives. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 60 P91173/docs/propadpG4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options This annual report could also provide information for one of the semi-annual updates of the baseline conditions described above. TRANSPLAN will evaluate the annual report and forward to the CCTA. If the CCTA finds a local agency to be out of compliance, CCTA would have the option of withholding Measure C return-to-source funds. 4.6 THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM By attempting to increase job opportunities in East County, economic development activities would directly address one part of the work-trip equation. Having more job opportunities nearby would mean that more people could both live and work in East County. Nevertheless, because of the complex set of factors influencing the decisions households make in choosing where to live in relationship to where they work a substantial number of workers would continue to commute to the large job centers outside the East _ County sub-region, and there would continue to be substantial commuting among East County communities. Journey-to-work data from .the 1990 Census indicate that 20 percent of East County employed residents commute to jobs within East County; another 54 percent commute to jobs elsewhere in Contra Costa County. Business Location Factors and East County Job Growth Prospects Labor availability and cost, -land and/or space availability and cost, transportation costs and access, and, for some businesses, proximity to markets, are the key factors in business location decisions. With regard to those factors, East County locations compete with other Contra Costa County, other East Bay, North Bay, and some Sacramento and San Joaquin County locations to attract office, industrial, distribution, and institutional business activities. Compared to other locations in the Bay Area East Contra Costa is likely to become increasingly attractive in terms of labor force and land, assuming the transportation system is there to .provide access for commuters and enable goods movement. In fact, the employment growth scenario incorporated in the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) projections for Contra Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 61 P911731dxs/propadpL4 1 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development options Costa County shows Brentwood, Rural East Contra Costa, Antioch, and Pittsburg among the top six locations in terms of percentage change in jobs from 1990 through 2010. Within Contra Costa County, Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg, and Rural East Contra Costa rank just after San Ramon, Concord, and Richmond in terms of the number of jobs projected by ABAG between 1990 and 2010. Existing Economic Development Efforts Generally, standard menus of economic development goals, objectives, and tools are incorporated in the general plans of East County jurisdictions. With respect to encouraging job growth, the programs focus on reserving land in appropriate locations, marketing and outreach, and providing adequate public services and infrastructure. Redevelopment tools are mentioned for blighted or economically depressed areas. East County jurisdictions have fc>cused on working independently rather than cooperatively. The four East County jurisdictions usually compete with each other for the same industry and businesses. Recently however, East County jurisdictions cooperated to work for the location of the Morrison Knudsen rail car manufacturing plant in Pittsburg. In redevelopment areas, incentives such as land assembly, design assistance, land-cost write downs, site preparation, low interest loans, and provision of public improvements may be offered to attract new businesses. The significant job growth in East Contra Costa County is not likely to occur in redevelopment areas, however. Therefore, for example, while the cost of. land is. an important factor, private market mechanisms will determine that cost-and it may be one of East County's competitive advantages. Economic Development Tools Included in the Action Plan Considering the above, the following economic development tools are included in the Action Plan. Transportation Improvements as an Economic Development Tool. Considering the important factors affecting business location decisions and the ability of East County locations to compete;for a significant share of potential job growth in the region, perhaps one of the most important economic development efforts would be implementing those very transportation Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 62 P91173/docs/propadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options improvements that are identified in the Action Plan. The address the accessibility of large tracts of land that might be attractive to major employers. Thus, the most important economic development action becomes securing funding for the major East County transportation projects. Indeed, assuming those transportation and other infrastructure constraints are overcome, East County is poised to capture significant economic growth in the future. Cooperative Marketing. Cooperative marketing efforts are included as an economic development tool. Each jurisdiction pursues this independently now. This strategy is compatible with a more comprehensive growth management strategy and plan for providing transportation infrastructure. In fact, the general plans of Brentwood and Contra Costa County contain economic development policy language supporting coordination among communities and between the public and private sector. Financial Incentives. Exemptions from a regional traffic mitigation fee (or other development impact fees) can be a useful business attraction incentive. By law, however, such exemptions would have to be paired with some other source of funding for what would otherwise be the commercial or industrial land uses' contribution. Another way to manipulate development impact fees to provide economic development incentives would be to defer development fees for development proposals that promise certain economic development benefits. The city or district would have to finance the infrastructure not covered by current fee revenue and would be made whole as deferred fees are paid over time with interest. Participation of Housing Developers in Economic Development Strategies. One of the options in the mitigation toolbox is to require housing developers to participate in a jurisdictions economic development efforts. Costs and Benefits of a Regional Economic Development Effort A regional approach to economic development will require a concerted effort on the part of the East County jurisdictions. For example, each jurisdiction would need to devote staff time to devise and implement the cooperative marketing strategy. The strategy would also need funding to develop public relations and marketing information. It will be helpful to get the chambers of commerce of each community involved as well. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8. 1994 Page 63 P91173/docs/pmpadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 4: Growth Management and Economic Development Options Although the East County communities are generally more competitive than cooperative when it comes to economic development activity, there are several examples where such cooperation has been achieved: • California Delta highway. 712e East County jurisdictions cooperated to enacta development fee to help fund improvements to State Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade. • State Route 4 Bypass Authority. This joint powers authority between Brentwood, Antioch and Contra Costa County is actively working to get the State Route 4 Bypass right of way preserved and the environmental documentation completed. • East County Subregional Impact Fee. The East County jurisdictions worked together to enact a subregional impact fee to help pay for major transportation improvements. • Antioch/Brentwood Open Space Buffer. The cities of Antioch and Brentwood agreed a few years ago to preserve an open space buffer to distinguish the two communities. • Morrison Knudsen Rail Car Manufacturing Facility. East County jurisdictions teamed up to attract Morrison Knudsen to Pittsburg. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 64 P91173/docs/propadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter S: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Chapter 5 Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation 5.1 BACKGROUND, VISION AND STRATEGY Background Eastern Contra Costa County is one of the fastest growing regions in the Bay Area. Continued vibrant housing growth and changes in the Bay Area _ economy have transformed East County from a home for heavy industry and agriculture, to a well-populated suburban community. Most workers commute to employment sites in other portions of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Although the growth rate has slowed lately, East County jurisdictions have approved 23,000 new dwelling units that have not yet been built, an almost 40 percent increase over current conditions. State Route 4 is the main access route to and from East County. It is currently a congested four-lane freeway through Pittsburg and Antioch, and new growth will further increase congestion. . Vasco Road is a two-lane rural highway that provides access to and from the south to Livermore. Although Vasco Road is to be relocated and improved, new growth will increase congestion and delays. Easing cumulative traffic impacts in East County calls for a mixture of highway capacity, transit, and transportation demand management solutions. By far, the most costly solution is the widening of State Route 4 from Bailey Road to Hillcrest Avenue to four lanes each way (including one lane for carpools, vanpools and transit) plus BART in the median. The freeway portion of this project exceeds $250 million. Another transportation solution, the State Route 4 Bypass, will cost $190 million to construct. Clearly, the capital cost to pfovide needed improvements is significant, and garnering funds for these improvements remains a challenging endeavor. Progressive solutions are needed. One innovative approach recently adopted in East Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 65 P91173/docVpropadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counry DKS Associates Chapter 5: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation trends in transportation finance. It would also involve assuring that all requirements are met, such as air quality regulations. Responsibility: TRANSPLAN and the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: Eastern Contra Costa County is in a position where its jurisdictions have approved a considerable amount of new development in anticipation of new transportation improvements. These improvements are, for the most part, included in the general plans of the jurisdictions, and are currently in the planning process. The single most important part of this action plan is to move the improvement projects listed above from concept and planning phases to implementation. Action 2: Growth Mitigation and Monitoring Program Action: Implement a growth management strategy that reduces the traffic impacts of future development proposals in eastern Contra Costa County. The focus of this process is not on limiting the number of dwelling units constructed,but on modifying the character and make-up of the developments. Applying appropriate mitigation to development projects can result in development that minimizes impacts on regional routes and provides amenities that facilitate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation. Details of the growth management strategy are provided in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Responsibility: TRANSPLAN, and the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: Legal and financial constraints make it impossible to regulate much of the growth that is likely to happen over the next ten years. The only growth open to management is that which has not yet been approved. The growth management strategy in this Action Plan is designed to encourage design of projects that has reduced impact on regional transportation. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 68 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 5: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Action 3: Regional Economic Development Program For East County Action: Develop a regional economic development program for the four jurisdictions in eastern Contra Costa County. This program will include the following elements: • Cooperative'marketing among East County jurisdictions • Financial incentives, including reduction in regional traffic mitigation fee amounts • Participation by housing developers in the economic development strategy, as outlined in the mitigation toolbox in Section 4.5. Responsibility: Cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: Eastern Contra Costa County has become a bedroom community with many employed residents commuting to other regions. Local employment opportunities will enable some East County residents to commute shorter distances to their jobs, thereby lessening the pressure on regional gateways such as SR 4 and Vasco Road. It will also result in some commuters into East County from other regions. The net result of more local employment can be expected to be mildly positive from the perspective of peak direction transportation conditions on regional facilities. Section 4.6 provides a complete discussion of the economic development strategy. Action 4: East County Subregional Impact Fee Action: Adopt a subregional transportation mitigation fee to pay a portion of the cost of three regional improvements: • SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to SR 4 Bypass • SR 4 Bypass • Buchanan Road Bypass. Review and refine the mitigation fee after two years. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 69 P91173/docs/ptopadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counpy DKS Associates Chapter S: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Responsibility: The cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: The East County jurisdictions have recently adopted a subregional mitigation fee. The subregional mitigation fee funds one-half of the cost of three projects if about 50,000 dwelling units are built. There are also other regional projects that could be reasonably funded by a subregional fee: East County Corridor, SR 4 East, Byron Highway. Action 5: Spot Traffic Engineering Improvements Action: Monitor conditions on the regional route system and construct improvements as necessary to alleviate conditions that exceed traffic service objectives. Special attention should be paid to the following facilities: • SR 4 through Oakley and Brentwood. This is a key state highway linkage, and will remain so until.the SR 4 Bypass is built. The most pressing immediate problems are the many unsignalized intersections. • Hillcrest Avenue Interchange with SR 4. Most of the west-oriented traffic from southeast Antioch and much of Brentwood flows through this interchange on weekday mornings. This interchange is in need of reconstruction to accommodate existing, as well as future traffic. Responsibility: The particular jurisdiction within which a facility lies. Discussion: The pressing transportation improvement needs in eastern Contra Costa County relate to the SR 4 freeway and its reliever routes and other gateways into and out of the area., such as Byron Highway and Vasco Road. For the most part, the cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburg, and the unincorporated areas have reasonable plans to accommodate growth on the main arterial routes. Ultimately, the traffic conditions on the non-freeway portion of the regional route system will depend heavily on whether the strategies to improve the freeway and extend the BART system are successful. This action plan has focused on improvements to the SR 4 lifeline. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 70 P91173/doc4/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter 5: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Action 6: Freeway and Arterial Traffic Operations Improvements Action: Aggressively pursue traffic operation improvement projects on freeways with Caltrans. Such projects might include: Ramp metering at all on-ramps with HOV bypasses Freeway service patrol Vehicle detectors and closed-circuit TV for real-time traffic monitoring Changeable message signs Highway advisory radio. Work with Caltrans to determine the appropriate mix of techniques that are appropriate for the freeways in eastern Contra Costa County. Aggressively pursue identification of and funding for arterial traffic operation improvement projects. Responsibility: TR.ANSPLAN, CCTA, and each of the four East County jurisdictions. Discussion: The freeway improvements will ultimately be done by Caltrans as part of its Bay Area Traffic Operations System (TOS). So far, about one- half of the system has been committed for funding, none of which are in eastern Contra Costa County. The analysis of traffic service objectives and duration of congestion have assumed that the freeway operates at capacity, about 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. However, in the real world, high demand causes breakdown of- traffic ftraffic flow, where only 1,500 or 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane can get through. Incidents also affect real capacity. Therefore, it is imperative for freeway operations improvements to be made to allow the maximum traffic flow through the system. Similarly, traffic signal coordination and centralized control can provide traffic operations benefits on arterial routes of regional significance. East county jurisdictions should identify and pursue funding for such projects. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 71 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter S: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Action 7: Explore Commuter Rail Transit Options Action: Fxplore commuter rail options on existing rail trackage together with other agencies, such as BART, the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition, AMTRAK or others. Responsibility: TRANSPLAN, CCTA, each of the cities and the County. Discussion: Using the existing rail track for commuter service. could potentially provide a quick way to bring rail transit service to East County. The communities of East County should remain open to this possibility. Action 8: Park-and-Ride Lots Action: Construct park-and-ride lots at strategic locations to provide maximum opportunity for transit use and ridesharing. Park-and-ride lots should be considered in the vicinity of the following locations: • Somersville Road/SR 4 interchange. • Main Street/SR 4 interchange. • SR 4 Bypass/Lone Tree Way interchange (future) • SR 4 Bypass/Balfour Road interchange (future) • SR 4 Bypass/Walnut Boulevard interchange or Camino Diablo near Vasco Road The process to develop these locations should include these steps: • Do analysis to evaluate and select sites • Identify costs and funding mechanisms, especially federal or state grant programs. • Get required agreements or easements • Coordinate with Tri-Delta Transit, BART or other transit operator regarding changes in transit routes or schedules. • Coordinate-with local police regarding patrol requirements. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8. 1994 Page 72 P911731d0CS1Pr0padpt.4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa Counry DKS Associates Chapter S: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation • Coordinate with Caltrans regarding design standards, easements, encroachment permits and publicity. • Design and construct. • Publicize. Responsibility: The particular jurisdiction in which a park-and-ride lot is to be located should take the lead in implementation of each lot. However, a regional approach to funding should be pursued, whereby neighboring jurisdictions'or new development might contribute to the cost for the lots. Discussion: Safe, convenient, and well publicized park-and-ride lots can make it easier for drivers to carpool, vanpool or take transit. Considering that East County will have significant congestion problems for the foreseeable future, park-and-ride lots are a sensible investment, especially if combined with high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. Action 9: Transportation Demand Management Programs Action: Continue to participate in the subregional efforts toward transportation demand management. This should include efforts to introduce alternative work week or work days for East County employers as well as those in other areas of the County. Responsibility: The cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Contra Costa County and Tri-Delta Transit. Discussion: Transportation demand management programs provide the publicity and the tools for employers to encourage alternatives to single- occupant automobile travel. Action 10: Telecommute Promotion Program Action: 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. Coordinate this effort with other regions. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 73 P91173/docs/propadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter.5: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation • Provide information and technical assistance to developers and homeowners associations 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. • Encourage telecommute centers in new developments that have not yet been approved if above a certain size. If below a certain size, encourage in-lieu payment or organize with other smaller projects to develop one center. (See Action 2 on growth management strategies). • Require new development to incorporate design features that make telecommuting a viable option for residents. Design guidelines should be based on Contra Costa County's 21st Century Communities Development Guidelines. Responsibility: Tri-Delta Transit to run the program. The cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood and Contra Costa County would be required to enforce ordinances requiring telecommute centers for new development and provide financial support. Discussion: Telecommuting has the potential to reduce the amount and frequency of commute travel. It can be done either by individuals, through working at home using computer equipment and modems. It can also be done ata telecommute center, set up with business equipment such as computers, copiers, fax machines, telephones, and support staff. Many new development proposals in East County are large master planned projects. These projects should be required, or encouraged through incentives to provide telecommute centers to provide some relief to the regional transportation network. Such telecommute centers might be incorporated into clubhouses, swim clubs, community centers or other amenities typically provided at such large master planned communities. In addition, new houses should be required to be wired to take advantage of upcoming advances in telecommunications technology. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 74 P91173/doWpropadpt4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa County DKS Associates Chapter S: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Action 11: Intermodal Transit Centers. Action: Develop East County BART Stations as intermodal transit centers for East County. This will involve these two aspects: • Improve coordination and interface between BART and bus transit. This includes planning development and implementation of facilities and services to improve the interface between BART and local bus services. These efforts will include the following: - provision of new connecting bus feeder service from East County communities and neighborhoods to BART, and - implementation of a time-transfer bus schedule. • Station area specific plan. Prepare a specific plan to encourage appropriate housing and commercial development in the immediate station area which supports and complements the station's function as an intermodal transit center. _ Responsibility: Tri-Delta Transit, BART, City of.Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. As BART is extended, the cities of Antioch and potentially Brentwood should participate as well. Discussion: The opening of the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station in 1997 presents a significant.opportunity to develop an intermodal transit center for East County. This action provides the direction for the East County jurisdictions and transit agencies to cooperate so that the new station provides maximum value as a transportation hub, as well as an impetus for appropriate, complementary development. As BART is extended further to the east, new stations should also be planned to maximize the potential for intermodal transit opportunities. Action 12: Gas or Other Tax Increase Action: Lobby for an increase in the gasoline tax or other taxes at the state or regional level Proposal for Adoption': Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 75 P91173/docs/propadpc4 Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Eastern Contra Costa,County DKS Associates Chapter 5: Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation Responsibility: Cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: Eastern Contra Costa County has significant needs for new and improved transportation facilities, however, traditional sources of funds for such projects are severely limited. Many of the needed projects are of regional or interregional scope. For example, State Route 4 and Byron Highway both provide a link between San Joaquin County and all portions of Contra Costa County. Vasco Road links Alameda County with Contra Costa County. The state of California has recognized these key connections by designating new state highways as "route concepts": State Route 239 would provide additional service in the Byron Highway corridor, and State Route 84 would provide a connection in the Vasco Road, or East County corridor. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect state, or regional level funding commitments for transportation projects in East County. Since revenue is limited, an increase in the gas tax or other taxes at the state or regional level would provide additional revenue: such that such increases-non-local funding can be achieved. Action 13: Encourage Walking and Bicycling Transportation Action: Provide improvements that encourage transportation via walking and bicycling, such as: * Provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes or other facilities in conjunction with street improvement projects or new streets. • Identification and elimination of physical barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Responsibility: Cities of Antioch, Pittsburg and Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. Discussion: Walking and bicycling provide a viable option for transportation on short trips. Provision of adequate connections for these types of trips may help provide an alternative to driving on regional routes for some short trips. Proposal for Adoption: Adopted December 8, 1994 Page 76 P91173/docs/propadpt.4 APPENDIX B Testing of Alternative Future Scenarios )KS Associates 1956 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612-2939 (510)763-2061 n �T Fax: (510)268-1739 MEMORANDUM TO: TRANSPLAN FROM: Jeff Buxbaum DATE: January 6, 1994 RE: East County Action Plan P91173 Initial Analysis of Potential Growth Management Strategies and Action Plan Framework This memorandum presents the results of our technical analysis of several growth and transportation improvement scenarios, and a proposed framework for the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance in Eastern Contra Costa County. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS We have used the East County model to analyze the implications of different combinations of growth and transportation improvements on proposed Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs)t. The analysis relates to Concepts A, B and C as defined in our report of October 6, 1993, Potential Action Packages. Based on comments received at the October 14 TRANSPLAN meeting, we developed a work plan to focus the analysis on: • Concept A—Low Public Investment. This focused on identifying more specifically the level of growth that could be accommodated with very little public investment beyond that which is already approved. • Concepts B/C— Moderate to High Public Investment. This focused on identifying a level of growth and public investment that would result in meeting the TSOs. We identified three scenarios to illustrate the effect of various combinations of growth and transportation infrastructure. t TSOs are measures of transportation performance on routes of regional significance. The key TSOs proposed to date for the East County Action Plan are: • SR 4 freeway: congested conditions for no longer than 2 1/4 hours in each commute period. • Rural highway gateways: mid level of service E in peak hours • Suburban arterial intersections at mid level of service D MEMORANDUM January 4, 1994 Page 2 We have also evaluated the effect of full growth forecast to year 2010 and transportation improvements associated with city and -county general plans. This is the same as the base year 2010 scenario presented to you last year. The implications of five potential future scenarios on proposed East County TSOs are discussed on the summary sheets attached at the back of this memo: Concept A: Minimal Growth - Funded Network Concept B/C-1: Year 2000 Growth - Regional Fee Projects Concept B/C-2: Year 2000 Growth - Limited Improvements + East County Corridorz Concept B/C-3: Year 2000 Growth - Regional Fee Projects + East County Corridor Long Range: . Year 2010 Growth - General Plan Networks. The TSO compliance checklist for each of the scenarios only provides an indication of TSO compliance on key routes at key locations. It does not represent every location where TSO tests might be performed. Summary of Technical Findings .Our findings may be summarized as follows: Even a limited amount of growth in East County (10,000 homes plus 5,000 jobs)3 coupled with the currently funded level of transportation improvements will result in a situtation where proposed traffic service objectives on the freeway and Vasco Road will not be met. This is important because it is likely that it will take a long time (at least 10-20 years) to find adequate funding f'or further improvements. This means, that East County will have to live with a limited transportation network for quite a while. It will take complete implementation of all improvements being discussed for inclusion in the East County Traffic Impact Fee (freeway widening, Delta Expressway and Buchanan Bypass), plus four lanes in the East County Corridor to get close to accommodating the traffic resulting from the buildout of an additional 27,000 homes in East County while maintaining TSOs. 2 The East County Corridor refers to a four-lane facility from south of Brentwood to 1-580 in Livermore. 3 The following figures will help put this amount of growth in perspective. ABAG's Projections '90 forecast a growth of about 27,000 dwelling units in East County between 1990 and 2000. However, the rate of absorption in the highgrowth years of the late '80'swas about 2,000 units per year. MEMORANDUM January 4, 1994 Page 3 IMPLICATIONS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DKS has worked together with the TRANSPLAN TAC,key planners in each jurisdiction, and our subconsultants Naphtali H.Knox and Associates (planners) and Recht Hausrath Associates (urban economists) to explore potential growth management mechanisms that"would be viable for East .County jurisdictions. The results of our discussions and proposed work plan is provided below. Short Term Implications Growth of less than 10,000new homes together with transportation improvements already funded (such as the BART extension to Bailey Road) would result in proposed TSOs that are not met. This means that if proposed TSOs are to be met, a short term strategy to monitor growth would be needed. Alternatively, the TSOs need to be relaxed to allow this amount of growth. Long Term Implications There is a potential inconsistency between the proposed East County traffic impact fee and the long range ability to,meet traffic service objectives. Here is the problem: The proposed fee is designed to provide one-half the funds for three projects: SR 4 - freeway widening, SR 4 Bypass,.and Buchanan Road Byass. The source of the remainder of the funds are not specifically committed or identified. We have shown that growth of 27,000 homes (plus related employment) in East County over 1990 levels could be accommodated (meaning TSOs are met) if the three fee projects are built, and the East County Corridor is built as a four-lane roadway. • The fee level was calculated assuming close to 50,000 homes are built in East County over 1990 levels. Our "Long Range" scenario shows that TSOs cannot be met under these conditions. This means that to collect all the money from the fee program would depend on building 50,000 dwelling units (plus related employment). If the three fee projects and the 50,000homes are built, some of the TSOs would still not be met (at least on Vasco Road, Byron Highway and the eastern portion of SR 4). Existing Commitments It is important to remember that there are approximately 23,000 dwelling units that have been approved and not yet built by East County jurisdictions. Approval denotes varying levels of ability to control building,depending on the jurisdictions. Though situations may vary from development to development, the following generalities apply in each of the jurisdictions: MEMORANDUM January 4, 1994 Page 4 • Antioch's approvals are mostly in the southeast area, where approvals are tied into Mello Roos financing districts. The development agreements are mostly valid for 15 years,and the City has no power to place additiorial conditions prior to issuing building permits. The development agreements do,however, require participation in prevailing mitigation fee programs. • Brentwood's approvals require developers to join a Capital Improvements Financing Program (C1FP) to pay for infrastructure. These are put together in increments of 3,000 dwelling units, and not all of Brentwood's approved dwelling units are part of a financing program yet. If such financing programs are not created, those units would not be built. The CIFPs cover not only roadways, but also water and sewer service. • In Pittsburg, the approved development is mostly in the recently amended redevelopment 'district. The district's financing through bonds relies on development of these units. • Contra Costa County's approvals also need to show proof of water and sewer hookups. . These hookups are controlled by numerous special districts. Staff believe that these hookups will not present an impediment to development. It appears that, except in Brentwood, it would be very difficult to control the pace of development of projects already approved. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK OF THE ACTION PLAN East County faces a situation where growth can easily outstrip the ability of public agencies to provide adequate regional transportation facilities. There are several major improvement projects under consideration in East County, however, neither the financing plan nor the technical or environmental feasibility of these improvements has been fully demonstrated. It is natural to consider some form of growth metering system in East County, to allow the infrastructure a chance to catch up. As noted in the discussion above, a growth metering system would have to apply to development that has already been approved. to be effective in East County. However, denying or delaying building permits for many of the approved development projects would probably result in defaults on,bonds and legal challenges. This is especially true in Antioch and Pittsburg, where Mello Roos and Redevelopment districts depend on the development of the approved units. Although such a growth metering system might fulfill the intent of the Measure C growth management program, it would be likely to cause significant financial hardship on Antioch and Pittsburg. Based on discussion with the TAC and the planning staffs of the jurisdictions, we are not planning to further investigate ways to meter existing development. Rather we propose to study ways to address growth issues that relate to development that has not yet been approved. This would mean that the TSOs on SR 4 freeway, Vasco Road, and other locations would have to be revised to allow for worse traffic conditions. MEMORANDUM January 4, 1994 Page 5 Therefore, the consultant team, the TAC and the key planners suggest the following framework for the East County Action Plan: 1. Adopt Relaxed TSOs. The proposed TSOs would be modified to match approved development with the committed and funded transportation network. 2. Rely on the Market to Manage Growth of Development that Has Already Been Approved. This would entail no restrictions or controls on existing approvals. We would: • identify what market absorption under such conditions is likely to be identify reaction of the new housing market to congested traffic conditions. 3. Economic Development. This would look at efforts to encourage economic development - in East County, and assess to what extent it would change future transportation patterns. Questions to be addressed will be: • Is this a strategy that would actually change travel patterns to get closer to meet TSOs? What would it take to achieve such economic development? 4. Regulatory Based Growth Management Strategies. What new regulatory mechanisms above and beyond existing growth management policies in each jurisdiction should be adopted to meet TSOs and applied to projects not yet approved? 5. East County Subregional Fee. Adopt the proposed fee to assist in financing three projects of regional.significance, as already proposed. 6. Additional Funding. Pursue and aggressive campaign to obtain funding for East County transportation projects, such as: unfunded portion of fee projects East County Corridor SR 4 through Oakley, Brentwood, Byron and Discovery Bay Byron Highway improvements. Potential sources of funds are state or federal subventions and revenue sharing tied to jobs and housing interaction. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY There is yet another possibility that was considered, but not suggested for further study. That would involve revising the basis of the regional mitigation fee program so that it reflects the currently proposed TSOs. This might involve basing the calculation of the-fee amount on: MEMORANDUM January 4, 1994 Page 6 the level of development that can be accommodated by the proposed fee projects (on the order of 23,000 to 27,000 houses), • a cost burden on development of considerably higher than the currently assumed 50 percent level, and • including the East County Corridor (4 lanes), SR 4 widening through Oakley, Brentwood, Byron and Discovery Bay, and Byron Highway improvements. EUPLICATIONS OF THE ABAG FORECASTS As noted earlier, ABAG, has projected growth in East County to be about 27,000 dwelling units between 1990 and 2000, and another 24,000 dwelling units between 2000 and 2010. This represents a rate of growth higher than that achieved even during the high growth years of the late 1980's (about 2,000 units per year). This means that the level of growth identified in this memo for year 2000 and 2010 is probably higher than would actually be achieved, and the levels of congestion indicated would happen later than indicated. This potential over-estimation does not change the basic problem of providing transportation infrastructure in East County. We have shown that even a modest growth of 10,000 dwelling units would tax the ability of a funded transportation network to meet the original TSOs. ACTION REQUESTED The consultants and TAC desire your comments and direction on this proposed framework of the East County Action Plan. jnblecactionitrnl-6.mem CONCEPT A NE NIMAL GROWTH FUNDED NETWORK )wth Assumption: 10,000 households plus 5,000 jobs over 1990 levels work Assumption: Currently funded improvements only s scenario identifies a limited amount of growth to go along with minimal improvements. No significant )rovements to regional routes are anticipated beyond those that are already funded. The growth assumptions were acted to try to match the TSO on SR 4 freeway, and represents 37 percent growth assumed for year 2000 in the e forecast for the East County Model. _n at this reduced level of growth, we would expect the TSO for SR 4 freeway to be exceeded. Similarly,the Ds for the non-freeway portion of SR 4,Vasco Road, and Byron Highway would be exceeded. .s implies that even the modest amount of growth would exceed the proposed TSOs if no improvements are made the regional network. Therefore, a lower level of growth would be needed to accommodate an improvement nario that does not recognize unfunded improvements. O Compliance Checklist Peak Hour yolim�e TSO or 1<,O$Projection :. . Peak Hour:.. ....:. ......... . OTwo-T Demand ;way Road... description <: . .. Threshold A.M. :P M Volume.: atei? . ...... _._ ..... . __.... . ;R 4 Freeway Congested < 2.25 4,600 A.M. 4,250 4,540 one no: hours at 40 mph 4,400 P.M. 311 4 e/o Byron LOS D 1,036 1,592 , 1,655 two -iighway 311 4 at Neroly Road LOS mid-D n/a 0.79 C 1.02 F n/a o 3R 4 at Big Break LOS mid-D n/a 0.63 B 0.67 B n/a yes load 311 4 between Oakley Unsignalized 1,600 1,706 2,032 two 1ao. ind Brentwood LOS E Vasco Road LOS mid E 1,565 1,724 1,978 two rio Byron Highway s/o LOS mid E 1,560 1,668 1,611 two nv SR 4 Marsh Creek Road LOS mid E 1,150 523 521 two yes w/o Deer Valley Road Deer Valley Road n/o LOS mid E 1,560 941 1,212 two yes Balfour Kirker Pass.Road LOS trod E 2,520 2,081. 1,888 one yes Bailey Road LOS mid E 1,330 515 573 two yes ivary 6.1994 Page CONCEPT B/C- 1 YEAR 2000 GROWTH REGIONAL FEE.PROJECTS wth Assumption: 27,000 households and 13,500 jobs over 1990 levels vork Assumption: Projects proposed for funding by the regional fee: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to Delta Expressway to 6 mixed flow lanes plus 2 HOV lanes. Delta Expressway — 4-lane freeway from SR 4/160 to Lone Tree Way, as a 4-lane at-grade expressway to Balfour Road, and a 2-lane expressway to Vasco Road. Buchanan Road Bypass —4 lanes. scenario illustrates the effect of the regional fee project proposal together with year 2000 levels of growth. Unde these litions, the TSO on the SR 4 freeway would be met. TSOs on the non-freeway portion of SR 4 would not be met, however I of the problems could be handled by spot traffic mitigation measures. 'fic demands on Vasco Road would significantly exceed the proposed TSO. 3 Compliance Checklist eak Hour'Volum TSO.: .. . .. : LOS.... &: Projection : .;:; One;or Peak Hcwr Two- Demand way TSO Road:: Descnpfion :ThrssLold A 1Vi P M Volume mets R 4 Freeway Congested <2.25 7,200 A.M. 6,115' 6,2711 one yes hours at 40 mph 6,600 P.M. R 4 e/o Byron LOS D 1,036 1,664 1,702 two xtt :ighway . R 4 at Neroly Road LOS mid-D n/a 0.48 A 0.83 D n/a yes R 4 at Big Break LOS mid-D n/a 0.56 A 0.62 B n/a yes _oad R 4 between Oakley Unsignalized 1,600 1,445 1,929 two ttJ' nd Brentwood LOS E lasco Road LOS mid E 1,565 2,058 2,210 two rio Syron Highway s/o LOS mid E 1,560 1,434 1,395 two yes .R 4 darsh Creek Road LOS mid E 1,150 373 385 two yes v/o Deer Valley Road deer Valley Road n/o LOS mid E 1,560 504 720 two yes 3alfour Cirker Pass Road LOS mid E 2,520 2,428 2,231 one yes 3ailey Road LOS mid E 1,330 817 700 two yes 3elta Expressway Congested < 2.25 4,600 A.M. 3,892 3,715 one yes i/o Laurel hours at 40 mph 4,400 P.M. Includes mixed flow volume only. uary 6.1994 Page CONCEPT B/C-2 YEAR 2000 GROWrfl LBUMD IMPROVEMENTS PLUS EAST COUNTY CORRIDOR wth Assumption: 27,000 households and 13,500 jobs over 1990 levels work Assumption: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue to 6 mined flow plus 2 HOV. lanes SR 4 widening to 4 lanes through Oakley and Brentwood Delta Expressway — 2 lanes Buchanan Road Bypass —2 lanes East County Corridor —4 total lanes. s represents the effects of moderate levels of growth together with moderate levels of improvements. TSOs would not be on the SR 4 freeway. In the East County corridor, the TSO of mid-LOS E would not be met. However, if the project z a four-lane facility,other TSOs might be appropriate, such as a duration of congestion not to exceed 2.25 hours as on freeway. This can be discussed further with TRANSPLAN. never proposed a TSO for the Delta Expressway. As a two-lane facility with at-grade intersections. We anticipate the peak r LOS to be E at the northernmost at-grade intersection of the Expressway under this scenario. O Compliance Checklist Peak$our Volume TSO flr LOS Projection ..< One-:or Peak Hour Two- Demand way TSO Road: Descnpbob Threshold A PM Volume R 4 Freeway. Congested < 2.25 4,600 A.M. 4,782 4,746 one tin' hours at 40 mph 4,400.P.M. :R 4 e%o Byron LOS D 1,036 1,662 1,700 two uo: lighway ;R 4 at Neroly Road LOS mid-D n/a 0.76 C 1.04 F n/a do >R 4 at Big Break LOS mid-D n/a 0.62 B 0.68 B n/a yes Zoad >R 4 between Oakley Unsignalized 1,600 I,067 1,626 two n ind Brentwood LOS E Fast County Corridor LOS mid E 2,520 2,658 2,591 one do 3yron Highway s/o LOS mid E 1,560 1,339 1,211 two yes 3R 4 Marsh Creek Road LOS mid E 1,150 551 590 two yes X/o Deer Valley Road Deer Valley Road n/o LOS mid E 1,560 931 1,I65 two yes Balfour Kirker Pass Road LOS mid E 2,520 2,203 2,074 one yes Bailey Road LOS mid E 1,330 690 689 two yes Delta Expressway Intersection LOS E n/a 0.89 D 0.93 E n/a yes at Laurel Road wary 6.1994 Page CONCEPT B/C-3 YEAR 2000 GROWTH REGIONAL FEE PROJECTS PLUS EAST COUNTY CORRIDOR DAPROVEMENTS wth Assumption: 27,000 households and 13,500 jobs over 19SO levels vork Assumption: Projects proposed for funding by the, regional fee, plus East County Corridor improvements: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to Delta Expressway to 6 mixed flow lanes plus 2 HOV lanes. Delta Expressway --4-lane freeway from SR 4/160 to Lone Tree Way,as a 4-lane at-grade expressway to Balfour Road, and a 2-lane expressway to Vasco Road. Buchanan Road Bypass —4 lanes. East County Corridor --4 total lanes. is the same scenario as Concept B/C-2, except for additional improvement in the Vasco Road corridor. Again, the SR reway TSOs are met. For Vasco Road, the standard for peak hour level of service of mid-E is not met; however, relaxing standard. to duration of peak, as on the freeway might be appropriate. 3 Compliance Checklist _ Hour:Volume TSO Project or LOS ion On Peak Houryiv :.Demand i.waY - hon Threshold ` : . A]VI P.M Volume metO' .;:Road_:: R'4 Freeway Congested <2.25 7,200 A.M. 6,118 6,326 one yes hours at 40 mph 6,600 P.M. R 4 e%o Byron LOS D 1,036 1,661 1,701 two rio iighway R 4 at Neroly Road LOS mid-D n/a 0.47 A 0.82 D n/a yes :R 4 at Big Break LOS mid-D n/a 0.55 A 0.62 B n/a yes load ;R 4 between Oakley Unsignalized 1,600 1,395 1,894 two t v .nd Brentwood' LOS.E past County Corridor LOS mid E 2,520 2,685 2,626 oneo 3yron Highway s/o LOS mid E 1,560 1,319 1,194 two yes iR 4 Aarsh Creek Road LOS mid E 1,150 427 442 two yes Wo Deer Valley Road deer Valley Road n/o LOS mid E 1,560 519 -749 two yes 3alfour Kirker Pass Road LOS mid E 2,520 2,319 2,103 one yes Bailey Road LOS mid E 1,330 756 687 two yes Delta Expressway Congested < 2.25 4,600 A.M. 3,792 3,661 one yes n/o Laurel hours at 40 mph 41400 P.M: PaBc wary 6.1994. LONG RANGE YEAR 2010 GROWTH YEAR 2010 NETWORK :)wth Assumption: 51,000 households and 28,400 jobs over 1990 levels .work Assumption: Projects in City and County plans, including: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to Delta Expressway to 6 mixed flow lanes (no HOV lanes) SR 4 non-freeway widening from SR 160 to San Joaquin County line to 4 lanes. Delta Expressway —4-lane freeway from SR 4/160 to Lone Tree Way,as a 4-lane at-grade expressway to Balfour Road, and a 2-lane expressway to Vasco Road. Buchanan Road Bypass —4 lanes. Kirker Pass Road truck climbing lanes. is scenario illustrates the effect of the base Year 2010 East County Model scenario presented last year. The SR 4 freeway O would not be met, nor would the proposed TSO on the Delta Expressway,Vasco Road or Byron Highway. The TSO on 4 near the San Joaquin County line would be met, as this is the only scenario that contemplated widening of SR 4 that far t. 'O Compliance Checklist Peak Hour Volume TSO or iAS ProJectton One- ar PeakHour.. .. o- Demand way TSO Road Descnpfion ThresfiAd A 1vI P.M Volume met? 3R 4 Freeway Congested < 2.25 7,200 A.M. 6,782 7,289 one ao hours at 40 mph 6,600 P.M. 3R 4 e/o Byron LOS D 2,520 1,664 1,702 one yes 3ighway 3R 4 at Neroly Road LOS mid-D n/a 0.61 B 0.99 E n/a yes 3R 4 at Big Break LOS mid-D n/a 0.65'B 0.67 B n/a yes Road SR 4 between Oakley Unsignalized 2,520 1,616 1,793 one yes and Brentwood LOS E Vasco Road LOS mid E 1,565 2,247 2,376 two ao Byron Highway s/o LOS mid E 1,560 2,090 2,091 two aa: SR 4 Marsh Creek Road LOS mid E 1,150 650 516 two yes w/o Deer Valley Road Deer Valley Road n/o LOS mid E 1,560 831 1,097 two yes Balfour Kirker Pass Road . LOS mid E 3,780 3,590 3,095 one yes Bailey Road LOS mid E 1,330 885 725 _ two yes Delta Expressway Congested < 2.25 4,600 A.M. 4,63I 4,676 one no n/o Laurel hours at 40 mph 4,400 P.M. ivary 6.1994 Page EXHIBIT D Lamorinda RESOLUTION 95-1 RE: APPROVAL TO FORWARD THE "PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION"IrtMORINDA ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION INTO THE COUA77WDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS the Measure C - 1988 legislation rewires as part of the Growth Management Program that the Authority,jointly with affected local jurisdictions, determine and periodically , review the application of Traffic Service Standards on routes of regional significance; and WHEREAS the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("Authority")in December 1990 further require that each regional transportation planning committee develop and adopt an Action plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the following components: 1) A designated network of routes of regional significance; 2) Adopted Traffic Service Objectives(TSOs)using quantifiable measures of effectivenbss that include target dates for attai mmu; 3) Specific actions, programs and measures to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4) Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5) Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and b) A schedule for Regional Committee and Authority review of progress to attain adopted ISOs. J WHEREAS the Southwest Area Transportation Planning Committee(SWAT) provides the forum for multijurisdictional cooperative planning, including preparation of an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance;and WHEREAS the participating jurisdictions of SWAT,which include the Cities of Orinda, Lafayette and San Ramon, the Towns of Moraga and Danville, and the County of Contra Costa have closely overseen the effort to develop the Lamorinda Action Plan by working cooperatively through the multijurisdiction planning process with SWAT,the SWAT Technical Advisory Committee, the Authority, County Connection, BART, Caltrans,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, memb ers of the public, and each jurisdiction's elected officials and technical staff, and WHEREAS the Lamorinda Traffic Study Project Management Committee(LPMC) approved release of a Circulation Draft Lamornda Action Pkm for Routes of Regional Significance ort September 1, 1994 and allowed a 45-day period for review by interested parties, and considered comments received in preparing the 'Proposal for Adoption"Action Plan; and Resolution No. 95-1 page 2 WHWREAS the participating jurisdictions of SWAT recognize that compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program will, after January 1995,be judged by the Authority in part based upon each jurisdictions implementation of the Action Pim;and WHEREAS the Authority, in adopting the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will accept proposed objectives and action policies where consensus has been reached among members of the Regional Committee as set forth in the Regional Committee's Action Plan, and will adopt those objectives and actions as conditions of compliance with the Growth Management Program; NOW,THEREFORE (1) BE IT RESOLVED,THAT SWAT and the participating jurisdictions of Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga, San Ramon, Danville, and the Contra Costa County have reviewed and approved the attached 'Proposal for Adoption"L unorinda Action Pim for Routes of Regional Signtflcance (Exhibit A)which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and (2)BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT upon review and approval by the Authority, the SWAT participating jurisdictions shall implement the Lamorinda Action Plan in accordance with the objectives, actions, policies, and procedures set forth therein;and -(3)BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Chair of SWAT is hereby authorized to submit the "Proposal for Adoption"Luvnorinda Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance to the Authority for incorporation into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This resolution was entered into at a noticed public meeting of SWAT held January 9, 1995 in Lafayette. c� itiJ Millie Greenberg, Chair Att st EXCERPTS FROM Proposal for Adoption LAMORINDA ACTION PLAN Prepared for Lamorinda Project Management Committee Prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. January 11, 1994 l...dtrto�►�da, 3. Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion HIS CHAPTER IDENTIFIES potential actions for reduc- ing congestion on several roads in Lamorinda includ- ing roads not defined as Regional Routes. Many of these-actions can be applied to other jurisdictions to reduce region-wide single-occupant vehicle trips. 3.1 Overall Approach As was shown in Chapter 2 (page 6), traffic congestion is projected to increase due to housing and employment growth in Contra Costa County. Improvements identified in Chap- ter 4 and 5 (Page 34 and 44) provide opportunities to reduce traffic congestion within specific corridors. Additional actions are available that when applied on a regional level can also reduce traffic congestion. Specific to Lamorinda, over the last 3 years, the community has worked with a consultant team to identify traffic and transportation improvements to alleviate traffic congestion within Lamorinda. As part of that work, several policies and strategies were identified that when applied on a regional level could help to reduce congestion. These policies and strategies are included in this Action Plan and are currently being implemented by the Lamorinda communities. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 31 Lamorinda Action Plan Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion January 11, 1995 3.2 Actions to Improve Systemwide Performance The Lamorinda Transportation Improuement Program sum- marizes several policies and programs that, when imple- mented, could reduce single-occupant vehicle use during the peak period and increase transit/carpool use. Many of these programs could be considered and implemented by other communities in Contra Costa County which would result in region-wide benefit. Other potential actions to improve system-wide performance are summarized below. a. Coordinate efforts to attract state/federal funding for projects in the County. CCTA would act as the central agency to identify and coordinate funding opportunities among the local communities. b. Encourage expanded Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation and increase overall vehicle occupancy. The Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) has hired a TDM Coordinator. This person is responsible for developing and coordinating both employer based and residential based TDM programs. These efforts should be coordinated with the other three regions because employ- ees do not necessarily live and work in the same region. c. Encourage increased transit networking between the Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent communities including Pleasant Hill Road. This could be accomplished by the expansion of CCCTA service. d. Support BART strategies that enhance transit ridership and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage casual carpools foione way BART ridership:Work with BART, CCCTA and other transit agencies to monitor and strive to eliminate any direct or indirect subsidies whose net effect is to influence commuter behavior in a manner that would encourage the use of single-occupant vehicles. e. Seek to expand pedestrian and bicycle corridors to facili- tate alternative modes of transportation between devel- opments, schools'and communities: f. Explore land use policies that could minimize single- occupant vehicle trips. Concentrate new development around transit corridors within walking distance of transit stations. Approve and support projects that pro- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 32 Lamorinda Action Plan Regional Actions for Reducing Congestion January 11, 1995 mote "shared" trips and pedestrian/bicycle transportation in acco ance kn gener :P ans g. Support regional and/or sub-regional transportation fees on new development to fund improvements identified in the Action Plan. Require new developments to pay their "fair-share"toward transportation system improvements. h. Review General Plan Amendments to ensure that the proposed project does not violate the Action Plan. i. Communicate and cooperate with jurisdictions in adja- cent cities and counties. Each community would be indi- vidually responsible for giving notice of significant land use and infrastructure issues to neighboring communi- ties. j. Support the efforts for development of regional transpor- tation improvements such as along I-80 and SR-4 in Contra Costa County. 3.3 Responsibility for Implementation by*Jurisdiction The City of Lafayette,Town of Moraga, and City of Orinda would be responsible for implementing those policies and strategies identified in the Lamorinda Transportation Im- prvuernent Program. Funding sources, if required, could include Measure C Gateway/Lamorinda funds. Reducing single occupant vehicle use and increasing tran- sit/carpool use only within one area will do little to solve region-wide traffic congestion on SR 24 or any other route of regional significance in Contra Costa County. It requires a joint effort among all communities in Contra Costa County. Therefore, the potential actions summarized in Section 3.2 should be considered for the entire region. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 33 4. Action Plan for State. Route 24 HIS CHAPTER IDENTIFIES the Action Plan for the State Route 24 corridor between the Caldecott Tun- nel and I-680. This route has been identified as a Route_of Regional Significance within Lamorinda. Chapter discussion includes facility description, TSOs, actions, and implementation responsibilities. 4.1 State Route-24 Corridor 4.1.1 General Description State Route 24 corridor contains two regional transportation alternatives, the freeway and BART. There is also local bus service to/from the BART stations within the corridor. The freeway is generally an eight-lane freeway providing connections to Interstate 680 (1-680)in Walnut Creek to the east and I-580/1-980 in Oakland to the west. Some sections of SR 24 carry five lanes in one direction to preserve capaci- ty on upgrades. The Caldecott Tunnel through the East Bay hills is a three-bore, six-lane facility with two reversible lanes in the middle. The tunnel limits the maximum freeway volumes traveling to and from the west in both the peak- and reverse-peak-flow directions. Fish Ranch Road serves as an alternate route for traffic to and from Berkeley. The SR 24 Corridor has two BART stations currently provid- ing transit services to area residents. The Orinda and Lafay- ette stations, located on the Concord/Daly City BART Line, link the Lamorinda area to the entire metropolitan Bay Ballon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 34 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 Area. These stations are linked to the Lamorinda area by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) bus ser- vice. 4.1.2 Traffic Service Objectives TS03 are quantifiable measures used in the action plan to determine the effectiveness of a particular action or strategy. The TSOa must include a target date for attaining the objec- tive. TSOs can be based on any combination of intersection level of service, travel time, auto occupancy, or transit usage. TSOs must be chosen carefully because the type of TSO chosen could favor one type of improvement over another. For example, a TSO to reduce drive-alones would probably be best achieved by constructing HOV lanes while a TSO to increase transit usage would probably be best achieved by providing higher frequency BART service or congestion pricing schemes. There appears to be two relevant TSOs for the SR 24 corri- dor. One TSO reflects traffic conditions in the corridor and the other reflects transit conditions. The TSOs were devel- oped after a review of the Corridor Evaluation, State Route 24 and Sari Pablo Dam Road. A brief discussion of the study results and`addit?oral:"uifoi inationdeveloped'`siibsegnent£o the:report follows:in Section'41`4: engineering treatmente sueHOW loner, and romp metering watkid result in deterieratin b the eerrider and (:b) there ie net a eentintteuB b e read eppertunity for u » flew queue by entering the qtieoe near to er at the tunnel This s weuld be n. 1$neS: Proposed TSO Maintain peak period hours of congestion at a maximum of four hours between the Caldecott Tunnel and the I-680/ SR 24 interchange in the morning and evening. This TSO is Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 35 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plant for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 currently met. Fasting congestion is most critical during the morning when peak pEriod'congestion egfeada up to 1'hour ani'30.<m nutes Measurement. Peak period conditions are defined as typical travel speeds dropping below an overall average of 35 mph. Travel speeds can be monitored through data collection equipment installed along SR 24 through Caltrans Traffic Operations System (TOS) program. As an alternative to utilizing Caltrans equipment, travel speeds can be monitored through in-vehicle equipment which can identify travel time and distance. Measurements should be made so as to avoid holiday/vacation periods. Proposed TSO Increase daily ridership on the Concord/Daly City BART line by 20 percent. The goal is to meet this TSO by the year 2010. Measurement. BART currently monitors ridership. The information collected by BART can be used to monitor eem plienee the status of'the above TSO. 4.1.3 Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation There are a number of actions, measures and programs that the Lamorinda community can use in an effort to achieve and/or maintain the proposed TSOs. These are discussed below for consideration to be incorporated into the final Action Plan. The capital improvement related actions are intended to improve freeway safety and reduce merging/weaving con- flicts which result in traffic flow restrictions. These improve- ments also consider the regional transportation system and the importance of managing upstream traffic to ensure smooth downstream traffic flows. Major capital projects such as a fourth bore at the Caldecott Tunnel were not considered because of cost and consideration for downstream traffic flows. Operational improvements are proposed which will enhance transit ridership. This should result in reduced automobile use, improved air quality and reduced congestion on local roads. Other`region-wide" actions are oriented toward policy issues which are intended to promote an atmosphere of community spirit between adjacent communities. Land use and trans- portation planning in one community can have ramifications on the infrastructure in neighboring communities. A close Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 36 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 working relationship between communities will help to insure that all land use and transportation planning issues are identified and mutually acceptable solutions are reached. The potential `region-wide"actions are discussed in Chap- ter 3 (Page 31). Capital Projects a. Support the completion of the I-680ISR 24 interchange project. Caltrans is currently implementing this project. b. Seek funding to construct an exit only lane on eastbound SR 24 approaching the Camino Pablo/Brookwood inter- change. The City of Orinda is working with Caltrans to develop a Project Study Report (PSR) for this work. One option to implement this action is: (a) relocate the existing bike lane from SR 24 between the Gateway and Camino Pablo/Brookwood interchanges to Brookwood Drive, (b) narrow each lane on SR 24 between the two interchanges by approximately 1 foot and then (c) con- vert the eastbound right shoulder to an exit only lane. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) would be responsible for funding this project. The City of Orinda would be responsible for constructing the bike path to Brookwood Drive. Caltrans would be responsible for converting the shoulder to an exit only lane. c.' Seek funding to construct park-n-ride lots along primary arterial roads approaching SR 24. These lots can be developed through new construction or leasing of exist- ing under-utilized parking areas. Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda have all identified potential park-n-ride sites. These sites were identified in the Lamorinda Transpor- tation Improvement Plan and are at various levels of development. Funds for these lots would be provided primarily from the ISTEA program and through CCTA. Each communi- ty would be responsible for implementation and promo- tion of their park-n-ride lots. d. Evaluate the feasibility and opportunities to improve and/or build walkway/bikeway facilities between the Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent land uses and communities. The LPMC would be responsible for the conduct of any necessary studies. Funding has not been identified but could come from Lamorinda Measure C monies. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 37 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 Operational a. Support headway reductions on the Concord/Daly City Improvements BART line. BART is currently working to improve the computer system that monitors train flows. New technol- ogy is being considered which could reduce headway on the Concord/Daly City line from 7.5 to 4.5 minutes. BART would be responsible for funding and implementa- tion of this project. b. Augmentation of bus service in Lamorinda including school buses. The Lamorinda community has defined a comprehensive school bus program for kindergarten through 8th grade students. The program will be imple- mented in the Fall of 1994. This traffic congestion relief program is anticipated to improve peak period traffic conditions on arterials ap- proaching the freeway by approximately 10 percent. Refer to the School Bus Program dated April 12, 1994 for details of the program and its congestion relief benefits. This program will be funded by parent subscriptions, a BAAQMD grant and CCTA money. PG&E will also pro- vide financial incentives to reduce CCTA financial expo- sure. The three communities (Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda) would be responsible for implementation and oversight of the bus program. Program monitoring will be conducted by CCTA. c. Implement an incident management program on SR 24. Caltrans is developing and implementing a Traffic Oper- ations System (TOS) for the Bay Area freeways including SR 24. The system envisioned for SR 24 includes Changeable Message Signs, Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), and Traffic Monitoring Stations. Caltrans is responsible for funding and implementation of this program. d. Monitor and evaluate Regional Routes on a bi-annual basis. CCTA would be responsible for funding of this work. The three communities would be responsible for implementation. Other Actions a. Woik antih'Caltrans and'*the"'Highvoay Patiol to study tha feasibility of implementing a.peak period,Hov priority .Mtezn for westbound`Highway 24 traffic at the Gateway . . ..... . . :...:... Bou evard interchange: If the proposal is:de tierrnined.to be feasible; th' 'HOV: priority system shall,be monitored and evaluated'during s'six month test period to determine it.s effectiveness and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 38 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 . impact on'tra.... operations at the.Caldecote Tunnel The ::.. . IPM.O:sad Caltrans will:reviei�v_'. tke evaluation results, and'=offer:;recommendsEionar 4 1 4 Acfiions Considered buf not Adopted During the deve opment o p ": 'two actions were con- aidered and subaequeatly dzecarded by the LPMG The: discarded act3oaa iacludee..HflV lanes and freewayramp ...:..... . ..:... metering Thea act ions"generated.*:'num er of comments us the diaft'veraiorl of thin documetiti 7W*,i"I'ntent'of tF is ew section is to summarize the results which led to"the'el'imina ..... ... .. tion of HOV lanes and freewayramp:metering as:posaible. actions for State Route 24. HOV Lones The LPMC completed a full`evaluatioa`of' lie:HOV--.-j concept in the Corridor Evali ;i.'Stdte Route:24"arid:San :..::..::.......::...::...::.:.::...::.....::::.............. . Pablo.Dam Road. The operational'eyaluatio �of;the:Highway 24"corridor resulted in the determination tfiat:HOV>lanie' ..... .........::...:.::::::.:::::....... ::::: Are inappropriate for this particular corridor`:;O....etermi nation has nothing to do with.the:l .HOV pefsoinlveliide thres hold but with the physical merging zequirements ate the tunnel aiidthe resulting delak.-W Lked floiv.:.usera Fivli:q currently use the system: The HOV user threshold'does;fiowever'ellect"the:HOv:de. .... . . ..... ....... . . ..:.....:...:. . .....:. man -:and subsequent'merge:operatzog.rnn tions O. er factors such as inerge`design lane W-dths, traflic:distribu= .... tionldemand over the'entire-peak period, etc .wi .also iin- :....::.....: ... :. . .......... ... . .. pact:the`actual operating conditions: e rr�, or.Stu y ev ua way operations scenarios;The�.first`i3cenano assumed that'the freeway.sys= tem would be zasintained aa'it ie today(no HOV:lane would be'prov�dec�} second and:t}iiid.scenarios assumed that a median HOV'lane would be provided and designated for 2+: .... . .. person carpools:The df'erence.between the second and:third HOV scenarios involved the;HOV merge des:ga approaching the Caldecott TunneL;One assumed that she HOV lane . would,coatinue:'intoA el:hinnel as..a:iiedicated H.OV.lare .: The other assumed:that the HOV lane:::would ruerge with naked flow lanes prior to the,tunnel:. Several'assuagtons;::were:"made to:undertake the analysis: Thiess assumptions are clearly outlined in:the Corridor : ...: Study::Generally;these assumptions:include capacity red uc- tions:'due to::.the'assumed sub=standard lane widths on SR 24 .. ....... .....::..;..... WHOV;lanes,nomode=sp it shifts;:and demand exceeding capacity for fwo:consecutive hours. As noted by Albeit Yee, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 39 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 Caltrans;modifying these assumptions could alter the;study reeulta The resulte showed the degree to which mixed-flow users, would be delayed if a median HOV lane(2+'persoa)"w'ere implemented on Highway 24 to the Caldecote Tunnel.espe= dally if:iC' re a dedicated HOV lane ii. the...ti "... These isulta led'to the LPMC decision not tb support an HOV project'on Highway 24. T'ize`decisioa not to include HOV lanes`as`an':Actionin the .: ::......: .. :....:. . CiriculaU6n Draft Lamorinda Action Plan resulted.ia co-ncern from other jurisdictions, which requested additional studies to evaluate the impact of various HOV priority systems One jurisdictionlperson requested that HOV lanes for 3+:persons be evaluated. The LPMC, therefore, directed its.00insultant to refine the evaluation to address a 3+.person.HOVTsne: merge prior.to the Caldecott Tunnel The 3+person HOV evaluation showed:an.­nprovemei t':in freeway operations over the original 2+ person'HOV evalua = . . tion but still substantially more delay thar no HOV:;iWa The results of the evaluation and a cornpa,im"r:bi... n different scenarios are summarized in Tab1e::13 (page;41)- There would be additional delay for mixed=flow::ueers vvheth-. ........... ..: ...... : er.the HOV lane is designed for 2+persons or 3+ persons: Reducing theHOV deinand by increasingoccupancy require= ments doesminimize mixed-flowdelay Theme would be less u merging copfl�dt'wit a 3+person ,.. arts;. use:HO_ demand'vvouid be less::.The reducedconfIict would:increase _ . ... ..:. capacity,reducing delay'. Mixed flow:users wouId expenence 23 minutes of.delay;while the 3+ person users would have a negligible delay. 1Under'the.2+'person HOV.scenarno,'all users would experience 25`minutes of delay: Under the futue scenano.with.na HOV priority system, the.delayao alI .. ......... users:.would be l:i`nunutes: ........... .. )<iistoncally, the public has reacted unfavorably to HOV lar►es'which cause additional'delay:to existing mined flow. .........: users "resulting in the:elimination of Ehe:HOV lane.-t. ... example of this includes the.HOV lane project oti the Santa 1Vionica Freeway'.If this were to occur and the system were sTiutdowN:the money.. or planning. design and construction would be yvasted We believe that there. are other transporta- tion` ro ects-rziore'worth (e. p � y '(e.g..'increased BART.service, I= 680;SR4:I-80) in Contra Costa County: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 40 j Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 T ble:13 AM Peak Period'Veh�cle Delay-- Wes6ound State.Route 24 Mawmum Vehid Delay Singie Ocxipari# 2 person 3+::person . Evalua�on_Scenario VeNde Carpooiers Carpoolers Existing`(7991%92)conditions. 10 minutes 10 minutes 10;minutes Year 201II AIlfreeway lanes are mixed-flow. 15 minutes 15.minutes 15 minutes Year20tQ`-_2+:person HOV Lane merges 25'. 5 minutes 25 minutes 25 minutes With mixed=fl6W:j 6s prior to the Caldecott Tunnel:. Year207.. 3+;person HOV Lane merges 23 minutes 23 minutes negligible with'mNW-flow lanes prior to the Caldecott ........................ ... Tunnel ......:......... ........ ..:............... ... Year 20t0�- 2+:person HOV Lane continues 45 minutes negligible. negligible .. into;:th6e"Caldecott;:Tunnel as a dedicated HOV .. ... .. . ....:..............:........ .... lane: Some jurisdictions f4661"the need for more study to further evaluate the impacts of HOV lanes'on Highway 24 At.'.3 time-' the.LPMC`&6e'not'believe'that additional analysis is warranted .The'LPMC will consider a re-evaluation if;'!iii:the. future; duew-W changing`;conditions_or additioaaTinformation; . ... . .. further studies are deemed warranted.The Federal Highway .... (FHWA)`recently:reIeased`FRESIIyI:a;:free= .......... .. waysimuhaJ model;which considered ".state-of th' it". whicl `couId:be usedC :the future).to simulate:free�ivay operations with and without HOV Ianea:at this location if .. . . ... . .. dei iii pproptiate The Caldecott:ZrineI is`ahe critical capacity constraint:along the Highway:24:corridor'Congestion at the tuhhel often . ezteuds:back 3ieyond:the'Orinda:Crossroads-.interch`aiige:ao .. the St.;:SEepheis interchange`The'dedicated HOV priority .. .:by Caltrans'and others would:have the nefeffect;of:alloyviin'11 HOV traffic to by-pass.tlie mixed- flow congestio'n along the corridor; merging back into the mixed-'flow traffic stream just before the tunnel entrance.. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 41 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 The mixed=flow lanes`approaching the Caldecott Tunne!are .. operatii4-at-capacity todery and vviII continue:tc do so to the future.This'condition would`oxur.even if"''1113 Dersoll carpools were removed from the'tri affic-atreaaa. B 66au' 5`6F,the tunnel approach is operating at ca HO traffic tliat :.: merges into the mixed-flow lanes at:the tunnel approac would'displace nnixed-flow vehicles;'caus'ing delag Pray�aiona for a:dedicated HOV lane alongthe outside should .. der of Highway 24 result in additional operational problems ai:the Camino'Pablo interchange. The Cainuio Pablo west bound'on=ramp system operates at capacity;:and "will contn ue to do so through the year 2010, serving'as many as 1j300 vehicles during the morning peals hour..This Ievel of demand . will cause'penodic oongestion on the locail".. sy;s... n downtown Orinda: Planned imptovementis will`allow±:.for: additional ramp queuing which will minimize Local"street impacts: The 2;300 vehicles utilize the auxiliary._liine:aietii a th Camino Pablo and Gateway interchanges to access the;main-: line freeway system, providing approximately Q5,mile§fqr. weaving/merging`maneuvers. With art HOV lane:system along,the right:*5houlder,`the 2,300`vehicles would beae- quired to weave through the HOV traffic to access the inau►= line, reducing on-ramp capacity to a maximum of 1,800 :.::..:. ...:.. ..... . vehicles per hour. This reduced'on-ramp capacaty WilII cause local street congestion in downtown`Orihda and periodically block assess to the Orinda.BART statioiL The study did, h6wevei,deterazune that the CaIdecott Tun nel was an::important..%raffic management" component in e regional transpiirtation system West of the tunnel,the 5`R 24/I-980/1=580.interchange;(the Maze) and'the 1580/180; interchange operate at or near capaaty Eeast of thtunnel; the SR'24/I�.680 interchange:operates at of near'capacity: The Caldecote Tunnel limns.. ... 1 :`destined for:these-'.inter= ch.angea and thus helps to-minimize gridlock on the regional system:. Freeway.Ramp Metenng Freeway ramp metenng'can:be an effective 'traffic manage . Ment" tooL Rarnp uietenng::coiitirols the amoun:O .traffic : entering.the freeway wh�ch,helps avoid tiaffic platooning and 66ttleneck effects at on=ramps Ifheavy on=ramp vol= umes`are present at the metered ramp;-.-6o me of:the on ramp' traffic may try ar alternative route usually on surface streets.-This traffic:diversion may have negative impacts on local'streets that are already:congested::If';no reason6l* x. e, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 42 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for State Route 24 January 11, 1995 alternative route is available; long queues niay develop;at the metered ramp: The;State.Route 24 evaluation found tliat:this''ti:afficnani agement :treatment;ramp metering, was inappropriate for ,.. the:corridor.:Caltrans;-15.0 'nente of ramp mefenug,oaa. curred`with the finduigs_State Route 24 is alrea heam v congested in the peak:duectone'and mainline .......... ezoeed capacity whether or not ramps are meteredTraffic demand entering the cgrrmdbr'is' pm�ected to exceed freeway capacity and extensive queues will reault'at the Tunnel Art important component ria anp`metering(a'con tinuous front= age road ayatem) does not.exist in this corridor:I i1kt there is no alternative>route for traTic accessing.tl;e:freeway via the Camino Pabl&`iaterchange is Orinda::This'inter:= change operates at or,hear to.capacitylevels.and`anydelay to on-ramp traffic would severely impact.locaI'atreet opera- tions. Refer to the Corridor Euahia#ionState Roi te;24 acid San Pablo Dam Road formore detailed::infoimation'regard ung ramp metering impacts'at`�pecific::locations'`alorigtbe corridor. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 4.3 5. Action Plan for San Pablo [dam Road HIS CHAPTER IDENTIFIES the Action Plan for the San Pablo Dam Road Corridor between Castro Ranch Road and Bear Creek Road. This corridor has been identified as a Routes of Regional Significance within Lamorinda. Chapter discussion includes facility description, TSOs, actions, and implementation responsibilities. 5.1 San Pablo Dam Road Corridor This Action Plan addresses a specific portion of the San Pablo Dam Road corridor, extending from Castro Ranch Road to Bear Creek Road. San Pablo Dam Road west of Cas- tro Ranch Road is discussed in the WCCTAC Action Plan. 5.1.1 General Description San Pablo Dam Road is generally a two-lane road connecting the Lamorinda area with West Contra Costa County. San Pablo Dam Road approaching Castro Ranch Road does widen to provide four lanes, two in each direction. Access to San Pablo Dam Road within the study area is limited. Turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes are provided at all intersections. The speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph)/50 mph and there are generally adequate shoulders for disabled vehicles and bicycles. Parking is prohibited along San Pablo Dam Road. There are two horse/pedestrian crossing paths, both of which are signed and striped. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of these crossings given the steadily increasing traffic demands and high rates of travel speed along San Pablo Dam Road. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 44 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road January 11, 1995 The San Pablo Dam Road/Bear Creek Road intersection is controlled by a fully actuated traffic signal. Protected left- turns are provided on the northbound and southbound (Camino Pablo and San Pablo Dam Road) approaches. Split- phase operation is provided for the eastbound and west- bound (Wildcat Canyon Road and Bear Creek Road) approaches. Pedestrian crosswalks and buttons are provided for all approaches to the intersection. These buttons have been designed to accommodate horse riders but trails do not yet extend to the intersection. The posted speed limit ap- proaching the intersection is 45 mph along Camino Pablo and San Pablo Dam Road, 35 mph along Bear Creek Road, and 25 mph along Wildcat Canyon Road. 5.1.2 Traffic Service Objectives TSOs are quantifiable measures used in the action plan to determine the effectiveness of a particular action or strategy. The TSOs must include a target date for attaining the objec- tive. TS03 can be based on any combination of intersection level of service, travel time, auto occupancy, or transit usage. TSOs must be chosen carefully because the type of TSO chosen could favor one type of improvement over another. There appears to be one appropriate TSO for the San Pablo Dam Road corridor. The TSO was developed after a review of the Corridor Evaluation, State Route 24 and San Pablo Dam Road. A brief discussion of the study results follows. S The Bear Creek Roa ntersection along the San Pablo Dam Road corridor`handl "traffic flows onto Camino Pablo. Camino Pablo is a two-lane road with residential driveway access between Bear Creek Road and Miner Road. Improving the Bear Creek Road intersection would release the excess demand onto Camino Pablo, resulting in significant side- .street/driveway access related impacts. The signal serves an important function in the management of traffic. Proposed TSO Limit the duration of peak period congestion to less than two hours between the Castro Ranch Road intersection and the Bear Creek Road intersection during the peak period in the morning and the peak period in the evening. This TSO is currently met. Tbe`most'critic al period now bccurs-in':the morrung'when congestion lasts up to'45`minutes: Measurement. Peak period conditions are defined as typical travel speeds dropping below an overall segment average speed of 25 mph. The monitored speed shall take into consid- eration both the vehicle queues formed as a result of the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 45 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road January 11, 1995 traffic signal at Bear Creek Road and the free-flow speed closer to Castro Ranch Road. In this particular case, travel speeds are best monitored through in-vehicle equipment which can.identify travel time and distance. Measurements should be made for the entire segment between Castro Ranch Road and Bear Creek Road. Avoid weekend and holi- day/vacation periods when collecting data. 5.1.3 Actions and Responsibilities for Implementation There are a number of actions, measures and programs that the Lamorinda community can use in an effort to achieve the.proposed TSOs. These are discussed below for consider- ation to be incorporated into the final Action Plan. Operational a. Evaluate the opportunities to expand/'improve bus ser- improvements vice between West County and the Orinda BART station. Projects to consider include (a) expanded route coverage, (b) reduced headway, (c) bus bi-pass lane at the Bear Creek Road, intersection and (d) improved coordination between Park/Ride lots and bus service. This requires joint jurisdictional support. The Lamorinda communities and the County are committed to working with the WCCTAC, SWAT and CCCTA. b. Evaluate opportunities to relocate and/or redesign the horselpedestrian crossing facilities on San Pablo Dam i Road. There is an existing signal at the Bear Creek Road intersection which was designed to accommodate horse riders. The plan was to re-route the existing trail system to the signalized intersection, diverting it away from the current uncontrolled crossings. The land is controlled by EBMUD and requires their support. The Lamorinda communities and the County are both committed to working with EBMUD. c. Explore the feasibility of establishing a bikeway through the jurisdictions along the San Pablo Dam Road corridor. The Lamorinda communities and the County are both committed to working with EBMUD. d. Monitor and evaluate Regional Routes on a bi-annual basis. "wm4r- The three communities would be responsible for implementation. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 46 Lamorinda Action Plan Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road January 11, 1995 Other Actions a. Work with WCCTAC to identify and quantify the trans- portation impacts of future development projects along San Pablo Dam Road. The Lamorinda communities and the County are committed to working with WCCTAC. b. Deter speeding on San Pablo Dam Road through increased police presence,-and unmanned speed moni- tors ;arid'other trafF-iroontroi measures The Lamorinda communities and the-Geonty-are committed to working with WCCTAC and the Highway Patrol. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 47 6. Process for Monitoring and Review ROWTH IN CALIFORNIA has historically occurred in a vacuum with many communities moving ahead with developments without considering the ramifi- cations of the development on neighboring communities. It is hoped that one of the outcomes of the Growth Management Program will be cooperation between communities with respect to future planning. One of the requirements of the Action Plan is to identify guidelines by which environmental documents, general plan amendments and action plans will be monitored and shared between communities. This chapter addresses these issues. 6.1 Review of General Plan Amendments Existing general plans(July1992) were used as the basis for the modelled land use assumptions developed for the Ac- tion Plan. Refer to Table page 7� for a breakdown of the .: . .:... ... . land .pmtions.General plan amendments other than those assumed in the land use assumptions could reduce the effectiveness of the Action Plan. A process must be defined to address general plan amendments and their impact on the Action Plan. All general plan amendments within the Lamorinda commu- nities shall be subject to review by the LPMC. It must be demonstrated to the LPMC that the amendment will not violate the Action Plan policies or ability to meet TSOs. If policies and/or TSOs are impacted, modifications to the Action Plan shall be identified so as not to impact the re- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 48 Lamorinda Action Plan Process for Monitoring and Review January 11, 1995 gional transportation network. Failure to meet the policies and/or TSOs may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Action Plan. Furthermore, the Lamorinda community shall follow the general plan amendment circulation criteria stipulated in CCTA Resolution 92-03-G. The Regional Committees are listed below. The boundaries for each committee are identi- fied in the 1993 Congestion Management Program. West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC); Transportation Partnership and Cooperations (TRANSPAC); Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT); and Transportation Planning Committee (TRANSPLAN). 6.2 Circulation of Environmental Documents As part of the Growth Management Program, local cities and towns will be required to distribute environmental docu- ments to neighboring communities for review and comment. The Lamorinda community proposes to follow the guidelines defined in the CCTA Resolution 92-03-G which was passed in March, 1992. The specific criteria for distribution of envi- ronmental documents shall be: (1) The Lead Agency for any proposed project or General Plan amendment that generates more than 50 trips during the peak hour for which an environmental docu- ment is being prepared shall notify all Regional Transportation Planning Committee Chairs or designat- ed Staff Person; and (2) the Regional Committee shall in turn notify jurisdic- tions within its subarea as appropriate so that affected jurisdictions may comment on proposed projects and sub- Sequent environmental documentation; and (3) The Lead Agency shall notify neighboring communi- ties and the RTPCs upon issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue a Negative Declaration or a Notice of Prepara- tion for an EIRlEIS; and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 49 Lamorinda Action Plan Process for Monitoring and Review January 11, 1995 (4)The Lead Agency shall notify neighboring communi- ties and the RTPCs upon completion of a Negative Decla- ration or Draft EIRIEIS (Notice of Completion). In each case, the neighboring communities are to be provid- ed an opportunity to review and comment on the environ- mental documents. The Lamorinda subarea has made the policy more stringent than the CCTA resolution by setting the threshold for circulation at 50 peak hour vehicle trips rather than 100. 6.3 Action Plan Review The Action Plans are to be monitored to determine whether or not the TSOs are being met. If TSOs are not being met, the Action Plans may require modification and/or an update. The LPMC shall: (a) Monitor, bi-annually, all Regional Routes of Signif- icance to determine TSO compliance; and (b) If a regional route is not in compliance, a focused Action Plan shall be prepared; and (c)A complete review of the Action Plan plus focused Action Plans shall be conducted on a four-year cycle. Barton-Aschmen Associates, Inc. 50 Appendix:C Actions to be Takeh fio Comply wtah GMP U � r a a J X X X X X C w O '7 C X:. X X X: X 0 ,cC O. m J: O N: C; c gD: c o .a t': ,o ::0: a: FF E CL J CL. n - m O a.�: o.D X14. i4ol '0 -. 3c-o Q. o c v c `4 :3 .Q.:� _ .c o:o CD. o c a c: > m o � ¢ �. � :o c F. C;m m m .d G o f m n.o. t x off_ W vm > o : o : z _ CD ='Oo _ : m 3, cc c c .:. ..: r' V.0 a :40u E u C. LO g E t 0i L a d, ?. N :MS U' � in. Q a � � O O. A:���:.0 41;3.' w v `v. `: o. j .c r{ o a h m o : "�::W U:.a: ':m c c ':o o a o o r o r c o E 'o ' !�.'E s v Y a.2 :� E Q. E .d c E n s ti':c : `E E'. F v CL o. a o T' Q. > 0 > a c e d.:.c::o:o . o v .o 0 0 o n b > c o.� o n o �` E o.,m` .hr- .5, > >.a Q cn cn Iq a to e J aZ a� a o 3 .a o'. n o :m.:-:;o, u o u c �` :E U' E.p o E .0 E .o: o 'c z O :` `N p m .Y :O C. .4 W 4 O r0 .W' O d a ¢ a o c a o _:�' :c .x- c .� .� y im 'M E. m:y r-" o o a,: -='.o 0 c E c Q = z. o c:o-m. eta. W oc ..ae -0 a0 :ac :L m .o0; L.L .: _-h ai;n.�m,: 'd.v o n U U E w U u O.S. O = 0. O W O 'm a N:.a U.oa. wo c O:. O:: T 0 U O, Q _ c n D CL _. 3 0 `o O. t9; 3' G1 t9 3 toa:`q o, n 0. o,c c- 3. 3 o. -0 3 0'3 c E. O sw , =L mQ � � Tx g� C-cr.: 3.: p::A.. :C.,VV A: CD m - o cu. ,o X O rn � c� EXHIBIT E Tri-Valley FRAM �XG ERp�S TRI -VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION Prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council Prepared by Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. January 1995 Note: Policy directions or Actions recommended in this draft report are subject to change pending review, comment, and approval by TVTC and its member jurisdictions. NOTE: DUE TO A LACK OF CONSENSUS AT THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL AND SWAT REGARDING TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION/ACTION PLAN, CONDITIONS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE JURISDICTIONS OF DANVILLE, SAN RAMON, AND THE TRI-VALLEY PORTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAVE NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED. RTPC COMMENT Letters COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE RTPC ACTION PLANS )M TO Action Plan Date of Date Letter Referenced Letter Received bara J. Woodburn Karen Stein Lamorinda 9-27-94 10-27-94 .ir/TRANSPAC City of Lafayette bara J. Woodburn Lisa Hogeboom West County 10-07-94 10-07-94 .ir/TRANSPAC WCCTAC bara Neustadter Bill van Gelder, TVTC Tri-Valley 10-25-94 10-31-94 lager/TRANSPAC City of Pleasanton bara J. Woodburn Barbara Guise, Chair Central Cty. 10-26-94 10-31-94 .ir/TRANSPAC TRANSPLAN (response to TRANSPLAN comments) hie Kosel Barbara Woodburn, Chair TRANSPAC 10-31-94 11-2-94 sir/WCCTAC TRANSPAC hie Kosel Don Tatzin, Chair SWAT Lamorinda 10-31-94 11-2-94 dr/WCCTAC City of Lafayette .bara Guise Barbara Woodburn, Chair Central Cty. 9-8-94 11-14-94 dr/TRANSPLAN TRANSPAC -bara Guise Bill van Gelder, TVTC Tri-Valley 11-4-94 11-14-94 iir/TRANSPLAN City of Pleasanton ZANSPAC 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 Is. Karen Stein �l1 _ j� ! September 27, 1994 �' l ity of Lafayette 'L il; i i 27 1994 .O. Box 1968 E afayette, California 94549 !r CCIA )ear Ms. Stein: TtANSPAC appreciates the opportunity to review the Lamorinda Action Plan and the Plan presentation wade at the September 15, 1994 TRANSPAC meeting. The presentation was quite helpful and, we relieve, fruitful in focusing issues for discussion. TRANSPAC would like to offer the following :omments on the Lamorinda Action Plan. Che lack of designation of Pleasant Hill Road as a Route of Regional Significance creates a gap in the ietwork. As you are aware, TRANSPAC has designated Pleasant Hill Road from Taylor Boulevard to 3eary as a Route of Regional Significance and suggests that the Action.Plan do the same for the segment from Taylor to SR 24. Please note that TRANSPAC and its Subcommittee will continue to work with City of Lafayette representatives on the various joint activities and actions identified for the Pleasant Hill Road corridor. TRANSPAC is using a delay index as the TSO for the I-680, Corridor and the Lamorinda Cities are using hours of congestion for the SR 24 Freeway TSO. Resolution of this conflict can perhaps be resolved through the development of the CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In addition, TRANSPAC is dismayed that the Freeway TSO for SR 24,includes maintenance of a four hour period of congestion at the Caldecott Tunnel in both the a.m. and p.m. peaks. While the exit lane on eastbound 24 and an additional off-ramp at Brookwood should have a beneficial impact on freeway queuing at that ramp and the other identified capital projects should also improve congestion to a degree, TRANSPAC is concerned that these actions don't clearly demonstrate how the TSO will be maintained over time. As we discussed at the TRANSPAC meeting, we suggest the inclusion of an SR 24 HOV facility in the Action Plan. Please note that the "Alternative Action Packages Evaluation Report" prepared as part of the TRANSPAC Action, an HOV facility was included from I-680 to the Caldelott Tunnel for analysis. We believe that such a facility would improve the flow of regional traffic in Contra Costa and urge a full analysis of the concept. The use of the Gateway on/off ramp should be examined as an HOV bypass Iane in the a.m. peak. We suggest use of the HOV 2 and 3+ lanes. In our view HOV 2 may demonstrate the best scenario_ and 3+ coordinates with Bay Bridge carpool requirements. A comparison would provide the opportunity for a fuller understanding of the impact. e suggest that design alternatives be evaluated to capitalize on the positive merging characteristics of Gateway ramps including the separation of mixed flow and HOV lanes at the Gateway and Camino No interchanges. RANSPAC understands that single occupant automobile drivers may experience an increase in delay at e Tunnel as a result of the development of an HOV facility. However, as also discussed at the RANSPAC meeting, we believe that one of the goals of the Action Plan process is to identify ways in hich transit and HOV facility use can be maximized. We suggest that an analysis of increased Bart equencies, unconstrained BART parking, and an SR 24 HOV facility be examined as a group to -termine the impact of a transit package on SR 24 congestion. TRANSPAC is concerned that the amorinda Action Plan is overly sensitive to the needs of single occupant automobiles and does not rovide sufficient emphasis on transit alternatives. Given the availability of the BART system and the pportunity to use the Gateway ramps, we believe that additional congestion mitigation scenarios can be xamined which would complement the Central County Action Plan. 'ou may also wish to consider looking at strategies on the westside of the Tunnel and consulting with ie Alameda County Congestion Management Agency to determine if there are joint efforts which vould benefit both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. :or clarity, we would appreciate more discussion of the 2,100 vph limit as discussed on page 24 -elative to the off peak direction at the Caldecott Tunnel. We also suggest consideration of the ollowing actions to ease congestion at the Tunnel in the westbound direction in the p.m. peak including exploring the feasibility of lengthening the merge lanes to the tunnel; closing the on/off at Gateway to Ammute traffic; and installation of Alternate Merge signs. We suggest that the reference to unstable flows at the Pleasant Hill Road Interchange on paragraph 2 on p. 23 be expanded for clarity. On pages viii and p. 31 -32 - TRANSPAC generally supports identified region-wide actions identified.in the Plan and suggests that those actions be forwarded to the CCTA for possible inclusion in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. On page 32 - Does support of regional/sub-regional transportation mitigatioh fees on new development mean that the Lamorinda cities are going to develop such a program? On page vii - creation of park-n-ride Iots on arterials leading to SR 24. The TRANSPAC/Lafayette Subcommittee has identified this as an action item as well. P. viii - TRANSPAC is prepared to assist in working on the provision of additional bus service by CCCTA in the Pleasant Hill Road corridor and is consulting with CCCTA staff on strategies to identify funding for additional service in that corridor. It is possible that Reliez Valley Road may be a better alternative than the-Taylor/Pleasant Hill corridor which is constrained by the lack of appropriate bus stop locations. ,pendix A - regarding the designation of Pleasant Hill Road as a Route of Regional Significance; ase note that Pleasant Hill Road between Taylor Road and Geary Boulevard has been designated by tANSPAC as a Route of Regional Significance. In the same chart, please explain 4th criteria and sponse. In addition, please note that on the last page of the Action Plan in the chart on "Possible .teria to be Used to Define Routes of Regional Significance", there appears to be a conflict with the scription of Pleasant Hill Road in the City of Pleasant Hill General Plan. The portion of Pleasant Hill )ad referred to in this chart is not defined in the Pleasant Hill Plan as an arterial. The only sections Pleasant Hill Road so designated is south of Oak Part; Boulevard to Geary and north of Gregory. ease also note that this section of road connects to Taylor Boulevard which is defined as an pressway in the Pleasant Hill General Plan. Please do not hesitate to consult with City of Pleasant W Planning staff to review this issue and perhaps revise the Plan text. 43 - suggest that TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN be identified with their respective formal names hich will identify these RTPCs by geographic area. hank you for the opportunity to comment on the Lamorinda Action Plan. TRANSPAC looks forward continuing to work cooperatively with the Lamorinda cities. Please do not hesitate to call our staff, arbara Neustadter at 268-8980, if you have questions or issues regarding our comments. incerely, v c :arbara J. Woodburn :hair x: TRANSPAC Representatives Dennis Fay, Executive Director, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency TRANSPAC TAC Martin Engelmann, CCTA ZArISPAC 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 :s. Lisa Hogeboom October 7, 1994 ICCTAC Staff -ne Alvarado Square an Pablo, California 94806 ►ear Ms. Hogeboom: RANSPAC appreciates the opportunity to review the West Contra Costa County Action Plan for routes of Regional Significance and offers the following comments. -rom a policy perspective, it appears that the WCCTAC and TRANSPAC Action Plans support the !evelopment of HOV systems, mainline traffic metering systems, transit alternatives and TDM )rograms. TRANSPAC anticipates a continued productive working relationship with West County as he Action Plans are blended together to create a countywide transportation plan. rRANSPAC acknowledges WCCTAC support for toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge in the -vestbound direction. Central County jurisdictions support toll collection in the southbound direction on he Benicia/Martinez Bridge. As we have discussed in the past, TRANSPAC remains committed to .vorldng with West County jurisdictions on a revision to CALTRANS° plan to maintain toll collection in the eastbound direction (northbound on the Carquinez). Please do not hesitate to advise us if you are interested in a joint effort to address this important issue. The CCTA provides a forum to discuss funding priority for major freeway and road improvement projects. However, conflicts among RTPCs may arise in seeking funding for transit projects at the — State level. For example, both the West County and Central County Action Plans support the institution of ferry service. The Central County proposal is for Martinez to San Francisco Ferry Service which targeted for further development in the adopted MTC Regional Ferry Plan. Given that resources for the development of such services are scarce, it may be advisable for West'and Central County to determine how to cooperate rather than compete for those resources. A similar issue arises in the I-80 Corridor Objectives/Actions regarding support for the establishment of rail services from Fairfield and Brentwood to Oakland, although it is unclear how such service will be funded. At this time, based on an analysis of commuter rail from Brentwood to Oakland which assumed the completion of the I-80 HOV lanes, we have determined that commuter service would not result in significant changes in future levels of traffic congestion. In addition,-GEBROC study results a to us to result in limited railpatronage. We do not see WCCTAC support appear of commuter reit in these corridors as a conflict with the Central County Action Plan. Please note that TRANSPAC is not prepared to consider support for increased levels of service until the next update to the Regional Transportation Plant and a source of operating funds is identified. We have publicly supported the CALTRANS' request for a waiver on the required farebox ratio for Capitol corridor service, the proposed trackway improvements between Oakland and Sacramento and are monitoring the progress of CALTRANS, the California Transportation Commission and the Southern Pacific in coming to an agreement on service and capital improvements in the corridor. Iso in the Capitol corridor, TRANSPAC supports the development of an Intermodal Facility at the .isting AMTRAK Station in the City of Martinez. This project is not yet fully funded, although both ate (93/94) and Federal (94/95) funds have been programmed for the project. It may be advisable for •est and Central County to seek to develop a formal (or informal) set of priorities to ensure that intra Costa projects are not in competition with one another (to the possible detriment of both) for nds. the SR 4 corridor, WCCTAC proposes the establishment of a timed transfer station at the Martinez NITRAK Station by the year 2000 to enhance West/Central bus service (p.7-8 and 7-10). The ivironmental Impact Report for the Martinez Intermodal Facility is currently in the public review iaso. If there are any station layout or other physical facilities contemplated for the timed transfer :rater, West County's (including WestCat's) review and comment on the environmental assessment ould be most appreciated. he WCCTAC TSO for the SR 4 Corridor is the achievement of LOS E or better by the 2000. RANSPAC has established a delay TSO for that route. TRANSPAC and WCCTAC will need to 1dress this possible conflict and attempt to establish ISO's which are consistent across the corridor. RANSPAC anticipates that the CCTA will also raise this issue in its Countywide Comprehensive ransportation Plan process. lease note that TRANSPAC has assisted in the advocacy of funding for the SR 4 West gap closure .oject and hopes that WCCTAC will support TRANSPAC in seeking funding for ROV lanes on I-680. RANSPAC acknowledges WCCTAC support of the implementation of the CALTRANS TOS program the I-80 corridor. The proposed implementation of this project within the Central County area has. dsed a number of issues including the impact of ramp metering on local arterials and roads. As a :suit, TRANSPAC at this time, does not support the implementation of the TOS project in Central 'ounty. .s a side note, it is our understanding that the left lane on westbound I-580 is the designated HOV lane ad that the designated HOV toll booth at the Richmond-San Rafel Bridge is on the far right. Assuming o technical obstacles, we believe that the efficiency of the HOV facility may be improved if the lane rad toll facility were aligned, hank you for the opportunity to revicw.the West County Action Plan. We look forward to working -rith you to address our respective issues. incerely, W n larbara J. Woodburn :hair c: 77ANSPAC Representatives TRANSPAC TAC - Martin Engelmann, CCTA RANSPAC Transportation. Partnership and Cooperation Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant IIill, California 94523 (510) 671-5250 Mr. W.G. van Gelder, TVTC ! + l; = October 25, 1994 City of Pleasanton r _ P.O. Boz 520 !`- _ `: .J � ( ;' Pleasanton, California 94566-0802 l t CCTA Dear Mr. van Gelder: TRANSPAC has reviewed the Circulation Draft of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Roues of Regional Significance and offers the following comments for your consideration. We understand that the Plan assumes no capacity increases at gateways for single occupant automobiles. Although CALTRANS is committed to the constriction of a second span of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, as a result of the passage of Regional Measure 1 in 1990, the Tri- Valley approach is very similar to Central County's Action Plan tenet of increasing freeway capacity for HOVs rather than single occupant automobiles. Our goal is to provide increased HOV capacity for interregional trips and maintain local arterial access for local trips within the Central County area. We also hope to expand the HOV network on'the north side of the I-680/SR 24 Interchange. We have noted that the Tri-Valley and Central County TSOs on I-680 are different, although it does not appear to be a major conflict. We are intrigued by the inclusion of express bus service in your subregional mitigation program proposal. TRANSPAC looks forward to an opportunity to discuss the proposal with you in more depth as TRANSPAC develops its mitigation program proposal. We note that the Tri-Valley Plan uses AVR instead of VER currently used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (p.39). Please note that the Central County Plan uses VER. We note with interest the Action Plan goal that transit travel times be reasonably competitive with auto travel times (p.40). Central County supports the development of effective and efficient transit services and suggests to you that such a goal requires, at a minimum, a stable operating base for transit operations. TRANSPAC has identified transit subsidies as an issue of countywide significance to be addressed in the Contra Costa Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan. Hopefully, TVTC will support this position. The Plan includes a policy of cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions to develop facilities management agreements in terms of ramp metering and freeway surveillance and control to avoid LOS F (p.77). TRANSPAC is always willing to work with adjacent jurisdictions on issues of mutual interest. However, Central County jurisdictions have serious concerns about the impact of ramp metering on freeway corridors and are advocating that CALTRANS undertake a full analysis of the impact of ramp metering on freeway and arterial operations. Should CALTRANS undertake such a study, TRANSPAC hopes that the Tri-Valley will elect to participate in it. TRANSPAC is concerned about the land use assumptions in the Tri-Valley.Plan. We believe that the assumptions are not based on ABAG projections for housing and employment in 2010. We are concerned about the "comparability" of other subregional plans with that of Tri-Valley and hope that at some point this issue can be resolved. TRANSPAC is also concerned about the amount of traffic travelling from the Tri-Valley area into Central County. What steps will the local jurisdictions take to mitigate the impact of that traffic on the Central County area? Will the subregional traffic mitigation program take consider funding improvements to mitigate this impact? We note that there are two Plan versions for Sycamore Valley Road, Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road. Given the two approaches, Central County is not in a position to comment on the proposals. We hope that these versions can be reconciled. - TRANSPAC understands that the transit system in the Action Plan relies solely on buses and that a rail option was not considered at this time. Given the need for increased density to support the development of a rail system, possibly within the I-680 envelope, we suggest that the Plan consider different urban configurations for proposed residential and commercial development. Higher'densities with increased open space would support the viability of transit, both bus and rail, which could over time, assist in the alleviation of congestion on* freeway and arterial systems. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 268-8980 should you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, Barbara Neustadter TRANSPAC Manager cc: TRANSPAC Representatives TRANSPAC TAC Martin Engelmann, CCTA Paul Menaker, KORVE Engineering Brian Welch, Town of Danville ruiVAUC.com { ZANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Uooperauon Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California 94523 (510) 671-5250 Mrs. Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Chau TR.ANSPLAN 651 Pine Street, 4th Flr. North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Dear Chair Guise: TRANSPAC has received and reviewed TRA.NSPLAN's comments on the Central County Action Plan. A number of your comments will be incorporated in the "Proposal for _ Adoption" version of the Plan which should be in circulation in November. We also wished to specifically respond to some of the comments in your letter. Our response is keyed to the order of comments in your September 8, 1994 letter to TRANSPAC. 1. Ygnacio Valley Road/Treat Boulevard Significant growth in residential development in East County (of approximately 50,000 dwelling units), as well as growth in Central County will result in increased vehicle traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road. Additional information will be presented in the Action Plan indicating the proportion of Central County versus Fast County traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road for the year 2010. Clayton Road does serve both local and through traffic. It provides access to BART and east/west roads such as Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. The Action Plan will be revised to clarify this issue, and will indicate the proportion of Central County versus east County traffic on Clayton Road. Appendix'B, in the Central County Action Plan, evaluated packages which would reduce traffic demand, including restrictions on future growth in the region. Land use actions were evaluated to determine how different levels of growth and location of growth would affect traffic congestion. Package 6: No New Growth in Central County which restricted growth in housing and employment to 1990 levels, is unrealistic and not feasible in Central County, given that infill development will occur. Package 9: East County Growth Cap assumed growth.in East County, however, it was restricted to 15,000 residential units (less than the units approved under development agreements). In addition, this package assumed there would be less growth in employment in Contra Costa County, including East County and Central County. While TRANSPAC does not believe that "no growth" in Central County is a reasonable assumption, the TRANSPAC Action Plan supports growth limits in Central County (see Action No. 7). However, as indicated in the results of the analysis of the packages, uncontrolled growth in Fast County significantly affects Central County roadways, and is one-- of the main causes of future increases in traffic congestion. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 2 While useful for sensitivity testing, TRANSPAC does not expect growth limitations of such magnitude. We did not test zero growth in East County and do not believe that such an approach is any more realistic than the same assumption for Central County. TRANSPAC believes that its jurisdictions have established growth management strategies within Central County which others may wish to use as a model. Action 7 in the Plan establishes the link between growth management and phased transportation improvements for Central County jurisdictions. We concur that growth management programs in Central County are useful and beneficial. From our perspective, Central County jurisdictions have initiated growth management programs which can certainly be a model for others. Indeed, since the analyses were completed for Central County, recent efforts have reduced projected growth. To cite a few examples, the City of Walnut Creek has established growth management principles, the City of Clayton has scaled back development in its Marsh Creek Specific Plan and the City of Concord has reduced allowable development in its updated General Plan. Please also note that most of the employment centers in Central County are on transit lines or near BART stations and that Central County employment opportunities have decreased the number of vehicle miles travelled with the region. TR.ANSPLAN may wish to follow the Central County example on Iocation of employment sites relative to transit and pursue a jobs/housing balance as development plans are implemented. TRANSPAC understands that East County needs significant transportation improvements in order attract commercial development. To that end,.TR.ANSPAC supports East County in its deliberations with Alameda County on improvements to Vasco Road and efforts to complete the current BART extension and current SR 4 improvements including the SR 4 Bypass (Delta Expressway). 2. TRA.NSPLAN requested further elaboration of the second tenet of the Central County Action Plan proposing that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the storage capacity for traffic generated as a result of the development. -TRANSPAC believes that it is incumbent on Central County to provide a reservoir for traffic from Central County to other parts of Contra Costa and looks forward to other RTPCs doing the same. TRANSPLAN inquired if it is TR.ANSPAC's intent to seek inclusion of this tenet as an implementing action in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Since the Countywide Plan is based on the regional Action Plans, this tenet is perforce, included in the Countywide Plan as part of the Central County Action Plan. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 3 3. Evaluation of future conditions in Central County and the testing of alternative action packages indicate that the nature of future traffic congestion in Central County will not be site specific, but regional, and to,a large extent, generated by others. Therefore the actions included in the Plan are regional in nature. Jurisdictions are required to undertake the actions in the Plan, and are included as members of regional agencies. 4. TRANSPAC will include additional information and a chart on Regional Route designation in the Plan. In addition, information on the amount of inter-regional traffic on the roads in question will be included in the Plan. For examplE, using Central/East information in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the closest screenline indicates that approximately 4.6% of the total traffic on Marsh Creek Road is inter-regional traffic which drops to 3.4% of the total traffic in the 2010. TRANSPAC believes that this amount of inter-regional traffic is insufficient to designate Marsh Creek Road as a Route of Regional Significance. 5. CCTA is already the lead on such efforts, for example the I-680 HOV Project Study Report (PSR) was requested by TRANSPAC. The CCTA took the lead on coordination with CALTRANS and contracted for the consultant to develop the PSR. TRANSPAC is the lead on the 242 HOV/Express Bus Ramp/Metering Analysis which is intended to assist the MIS work sponsored by CCTA, CALTRANS and MTC and the CCTA 242 design contract. 6. The TRANSPAC TAC is working on the policy parameters of a mitigation program for future TRANSPAC consideration. However, with the press of Central County Action Plan development and modification as well as the review of all of the other subregional Action Plans, is not possible to establish a time frame at this time. We do not expect a full discussion of this program to be before TRANSPAC until 1995. 7. TRANSPAC questioned the imposition of a fee program, without consent, by one RTPC area on another. We believe that both RTPC areas must agree to-the elements of a program that crosses RTPC boundaries. We do, and have, objected to the imposition of a fee in an area outside the boundaries of an RTPC when there has been no consultation and the projects to be funded with the fee will adversely impact the RTPC on which the fee was imposed. 8. TRANSPAC is in the process of defining more locally based actions for its arterial system. It is expected that these actions will be included in the next version of the Central County Action Plan. TRANSPAC has a number of subcommittees which are charged with liaison functions with other agencies. We have found that working in smaller groups is productive and logistically easier. Subcommittees report back at regular TRANSPAC meetings. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 4 TRANSPAC has established a subcommittee of Members Julie Pierce, Vice Mayor, City of Clayton and Bill McManigal, City of Concord City Council, to work with TRANSPLAN on issues of mutual concern. We would appreciate it if TRANSPLAN could establish a similar group for the purposes of addressing the issues identified by TRANSPLAN in its comment letter and issues raised by Central County in this response. Please contact Barbara Neustadter, TRANSPAC Manager,at 268-8980 if you have questions or concerns regarding our response to your comments and request to meet in a subcommittee format. Thank you for your comments on the Central County Plan and TRA14SPAC hopes that our response has been useful to you. Sincerely, Barbara J. Woodburn Chair cc: TRANSPAC Representatives Martin Engelmann, CCTA TRANSPAC TAC C:umcrup.hr X_A_N6YAU t ranspurtaLlUll .L Ql lll\.l JAl&r, I- Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, C@5ARjft _23 (510) 671-5250 94 NOV 14 PH 3. 16 Barbara Guise DEV C014MU14ITY Chair October 26, 1994 ELOPMEW DEPT TRANSPLAN 651 Pine Street, 4th Mr. North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Dear Chair Guise: TRANSPAC has received and reviewed TRANSPEAN's comments on the Central County Action Plan. A number of your comments will be incorporated in the "Proposal for Adoption" version of the Plan which should be in circulation in November. We also wished to specifically respond to some of the comments in your letter. Our response is keyed to the order of comments in your September 8, 1994 letter to TRANSPAC. 1. Ygnacio Valley Road/Treat Boulevard Significant growth in residential development in East County (of approximately 50,000 dwelling units), as well as growth in Central County will result in increased vehicle traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road. Additional information will be presented in the Action Plan indicating the proportion of Central County versus Fast County traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road-for the year 2010. Clayton Road does serve both local and through traffic. It provides access to BART and cast/west roads such as Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. The Action Plan will be revised to clarify this issue, and will indicate the proportion of Central County versus east County traffic on Clayton Road. Appendix B, in the Central County Action Plan, evaluated packages which would reduce traffic demand, including restrictions on future growth in the region. Land use actions were evaluated to determine how different levels of growth and location of growth would affect traffic w„gestion. Package 6: No New Is in Canna: County which restricted g.—.wth i1 housing and employment to 1990 levels, is unrealistic and not feasible in Central County, given that infill development will occur.. Package 9: East County Growth Cap assumed growth in East County, however, it was restricted to 15,000 residential units (less than the units approved under development agreements). In addition, this package assumed there would be less growth in employment in Contra Costa County, including East County and Central County. While TRANSPAC does not believe that 'no growth” in Central County is a reasonable assumption, the TRANSPAC Action Plan supports growth limits in Central County (see Action No. 7). However, as indicated in the results of the analysis of the packages, uncontrolled growth in East County significantly affects Central County roadways, and is one of the main causes of future increases in traffic congestion. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 2 , While useful for sensitivity testing, TRANSPAC does not expect growth limitations of such magnitude. We did not test zero•growth in Fast County and do not believe that such an approach is any more realistic than the same assumption for Central County. TRANSPAC believes that its jurisdictions have established growth management strategies within Central County which others may wish to use as a model. Action 7 in the Plan establishes the link between growth management and phased transportation improvements for Central County jurisdictions. - We concur that growth management programs in Central County are useful and beneficial. From our perspective, Central County jurisdictions have initiated growth management programs which can certainly be a model for others. Indeed, since the analyses were completed for Central County, recent efforts have reduced projected growth. To cite a few examples, the City of Walnut Creek has established growth management principles, the City of Clayton has scaled back development in its Marsh Creek Specific Plan and the City of Concord has reduced allowable development in its updated General Plan. Please also note that most of the employment centers in Central County are on transit lines or near BART stations and that Central County employment opportunities have decreased the number of vehicle miles travelled with the region. TRANSPLAN may wish to follow the Central County example on location of employment sites relative to transit and pursue a jobs/housing balance as development plans are implemented. TRANSPAC understands that East County needs significant transportation improvements in order attract commercial development. To that end, TRANSPAC supports East County in its deliberations with Alameda County on improvements to Vasco Road and efforts to complete the current BART extension and current SR 4 improvements including the SR.4 Bypass (Delta.Expressway). 2. TRANSPLAN requested further elaboration of the second tenet of the Central County Action Plan proposing that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the storage capacity for traffic generated as a result of the development. TRANSPAC believes that it is incumbent on Central County to provid-e a reservoir for traffic from Central County to other parts of Contra Costa and looks forward to other RTPCs doing the same. TRANSPLAN inquired if it is TRANSPAC's intent to seek inclusion of this tenet as an .implementing action in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Since the Countywide Plan is based on the regional Action Plans, this tenet is perforce, included in the Countywide Plan as part of the Central County Action Plan. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 3 3. Evaluation of future conditions in Central County and the testing of alternative action packages indicate that the nature of future traffic congestion in Central County will not be site specific, but regional, and to a large extent, generated by others.. Therefore the actions included in the Plan are regional in nature. Jurisdictions are required_to undertake the actions in the Plan,_and are included as members of regional agencies. 4. TRANSPAC will include additional information and a chart on Regional Route designation in the Plan. In addition, information on the amount of inter-regional traffic on the roads in question will be included in the Plan. For example, using Central/East information in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the closest screenline indicates that approximately 4.6% of the total traffic on Marsh Creek Road is inter-regional traffic which drops to 3.4% of the total traffic in the 2010. TRANSPAC believes that this amount of inter-regional traffic is insufficient to designate Marsh Creek Road as a Route of Regional Significance. 5. CCTA is already the lead on such efforts, for example the I-680 HOV Project Study Report (PSR) was requested by TRANSPAC. The CCTA took the lead on coordination with CALTRANS and contracted for the consultant to develop the PSR. TRANSPAC is the lead on the 242 HOV/Express Bus Ramp/Metering Analysis which is intended to assist the MIS work sponsored by CCTA, CALTRANS and MTC and the CCTA 242 design contract. 6. The TRANSPAC TAC is working on the policy parameters of a mitigation program for future TRANSPAC consideration. However, with the press of Central County Action Plan development and modification as well as the review of all of the other subregional Action Plans, is not possible to establish a time frame at this time. We do not expect a full discussion of this program to be before TRANSPAC until 1995. 7. TRANSPAC questioned the imposition of a fee program, without consent, by one RTPC area on another. We believe that both RTPC areas must agree to.the elements of a program that crosses RTPC boundaries. We do, and have, objected to the imposition of a fee in an area rutside the boundaries of an RTPC whim'there has bw:i no consultation and the pr ects to be funded with the fee will adversely impact the RTPC on which the fee was imposed. 8. TRANSPAC is in the process of defining more locally based actions for its arterial system. It is expected that these actions will be included in the next version of the Central County Action Plan. TRANSPAC has a number of subcommittees which are charged with liaison functions with other agencies. We have found that working in smaller groups is productive and logistically easier. Subcommittees report back at regular TRANSPAC meetings. Letter to Barbara Guise October 26, 1994 Page 4 TRANSPAC has established a subcommittee of Members Julie Pierce, Vice Mayor, City of Clayton and Bill McManigal, City of Concord City Council, to work with TRANSPLAN on issues of mutual concern. We would appreciate it if TR.ANSPLAN could establish a similar group for the purposes of addressing the issues identified by TR.ANSPLAN in its comment letter and issues raised by Central County in this response. Please contact Barbara Neustadt.er, TRANSPAC Manager,at 268-8980 if you have questions or concerns regarding our response to your comments and request to meet in a subcommittee format. Thank you for your comments on the Central County Plan and TRANSPAC hopes that our response has been useful to you. Sincerely, U) occl b Barbara J. Woodburn Chair cc: TRANSPAC Representatives Martin Engelmann, CCTA TRANSPAC TAC t:U=rC*P.kr i�1I AIL Jam► .: WCC I one,At vrodo Squore Son Poblo • ColiYomio 94806 October 31, 1994 j. ,{o :�Osg Ms. Barbara J. Woodburn, Chair ay TRANSPAC " 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 nsit Dear Ms. Woodburn: The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) appreciates the opportunity to review TRANSPAC's Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Our comments and suggestions are as follows: 1. WCCTAC strongly supports TRANSPAC's efforts to develop a comprehensive HOV lane system, promote transit, and encourage actions that keep freeway traffic on the freeways and off of local streets. 2. WCCTAC greatly appreciates TRANSPAC's support for our number one priority project, the State Route 4 Freeway Gap CIosure Project. 3. WCCTAC agrees with TRANSPAC on the mutual benefit of coordinating our actions to secure funding for rail and ferry service in western and central county, and WCCTAC will work with TRANSPAC to this end. 4. WCCTAC asks TRANSPAC to consider a special set of TSO's and actions for the portion of Highway 4 west of I-680. TRANSPAC's TSO's for this section of Highway 4 should recognize the excellent level of service currently present on this section of Highway 4 and should not allow it to deteriorate to a delay index of 2.0 (30 mph average speed). Your consideration of a higher standard for this section of Highway 4 will assist the WCCTAC in obtaining funding for the Freeway Gap Closure Project. hone: i10)215_3009 AX- 510) x510)235-7059 Ms. Barbara Woodburn Page 2 October 31, 1994 Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the Action Plan. We look forward to working with you to address the specific issues cited above. Sincerely, CAP, Cathie•Kosel, Chair cc: WCCTAC Board and TAC Martin Engelmann, CCTA TRANSPLAN COAMITTEE Antioch - Brwtwood - Pittsburg and Contra Costa County A JyIENfBER OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009S September 8, 1994 Ms. Barbara Woodburn, Chair TRANSPAC 100 Gregory Lane _ Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Ms. Woodburn: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Circulation Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance in Central Costa County. TRANSPLAN has reviewed the draft document and offers the following comments and observations: I. A recurring theme in the document is that traffic congestion in Central County is mainly the result of factors outside the control of the member jurisdictions of TRANSPAC, and, furthermore, that one of these outside factors, development in East County, will be responsible for future congested conditions in Central County. While outside development factors certainly contribute to traffic congestion in Central County,we believe that the draft plan tends to overplay this theme and does not fully recognize that past and present development policies by Central County jurisdictions contribute equally to the problem. This tends to re- direct responsibility for solving the congestion problem away from Central County to others, and points only to controlling development in East County and Solano County as the focus of TRANSPAC's energies. We are disappointed with this emphasis because it does not foster the spirit of inter-regional cooperation necessary for solving a problem which affects all of as, regardless of where we live. More importantly, the technical analysis does not support the emphasis on outside factors. Here are some specific examples: Ygnacio Valley RoadfTreat Boulevard:Text on page 36-37 cites a 1990 origin- destination survey which determined that over 30 percent of traffic on Ygnacio Valley Road and over 40 percent of traffic on Treat Boulevard has neither a Walnut Creek origin or destination, and is used to substantiate the claim that congestion on these two arterials will result from East County development. What is not acknowledged is that this same survey found that only 16% of the vehicle trips on Ygnacio Valley Road originated from East County, and that out total through trips using Ygnacio Valley Road vehicles originating from East County account for only 7% through trip. This indicates that the vast percentage of _ vehicle trips on Ygnacio Valley Road are both generated and originated .from within Central County, not East County. Page Two 9/8/94 Ltr. to B. Woodburn Clayton Road: Text on page 41 states that traffic volumes on this arterial are anticipated to increase 35% in the a.m, and 15% in the p.m. between 1990 and 2010,and then attributes this increase as "primarily traffic destined to or from East County and utilizing Clayton Road to access Kirker Pass Road and Ygnacio Valley Road." No documentation is provided to substantiate that this increase in traffic is "primarily" from East County. Appendix B, Travel Analysis and Testing of Action Packages: The draft plan does not clearly acknowledge that in a side by side comparison between Action Plan evaluation packages, Package 6: No New Growth in Central County and Package 9: East County Growth Cap, the results indicate nearly equal impacts against the same evaluation criteria. Yet, the results under Package 9: East County Growth Cap are used to substantiate that"Central County congestion is influenced by development outside of Central County .......This indicates that there is a need to approach and pursue growth management/growth restrictions via a unified countywide approach." We believe that TRANSPAC should acknowledge that land use controls among its-own member jurisdictions would be just as effective in reducing Central County congestion as would a growth cap in East County. The evaluation of action package alternatives singles out Fast County development, and disregards the through traffic impact resulting from new residential development in Solano County and elsewhere. A more balanced approach would have attempted to quantify and evaluate the impact of land use growth in Solaro County and Tri-Valley, as well as East County,on Central County's transportation network. We suggest that the plan first defne land use growth management measures within Central County that would reduce traffic congestion and provide a model for others to follow. 2. Three adopted tenets have served as the basis for guiding the Central County Action Plan. It is not- clear how these tenets are to be translated as recommendations for inclusion in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan? TRANSPLAN requests further elaboration on the second tenet which states that the traffic management plan is "..., necessary to ensure that jurisdictions . which approve development also provide the storage capacity (reservoir) for that traffic." Is it TRANSPAC's intent to seek inclusion of this tenet as an implementing action in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan? 3. Certain actions to alleviate peak period congestion are described in the draft plan but the plan seems incomplete because there are no specific actions by jurisdiction for each Regional Routes. How will TRANSPAC determine if a jurisdiction is implementing the Central County Action Plan if specific actions are not assigned th a Regional Route? Page"Three 919/94 Ltr. to B. Woodburn 4. The draft plan does not recommend Bailey Road, Marsh Creek Road, or Willow Pass Road for designation as Routes of Regional Significance and instead describes them as special study routes. However, the document does not explain why they do not meet the criteria established under the CCTA's Growth Management Implementation Guidelines for designating Regional Routes. TRANSPLAN evaluated the portions of Bailey Road and Marsh Creek Road using the four criteria determined that these two arterials certainly meet the test as Regional Routes. Note that we have included the East County portions of these two routes in our Circulation Draft Action Plan and, as practical matter, Willow Pass Road is an arterial which functions as Regional Route. Could you provide your reasoning for not designating these arterials as Regional Routes? 5. The draft plan recommends two regional actions for reducing congestion, a eomprehcnsive HOV system and increased transit availability to provide commuters with an alternative to the single occupant vehicle(Chapter 4, pages 24- 26). TRANSPLAN supports this proposal and recommends that the CCTA assume lead countywide responsibility for planning and implementing these actions. 6. It is encouraging to see that the Central County Action Plan recommends pursuing a subregional transportation mitigation fee as means to finance transportation improvements for Central County. The potential fee revenue of approximately $100 million for Central County will go far in bridging the gap between scarce Measure C, state, and federal transportation funds. TRANSPLAN suggests that the plan identify a timeframe for implementing the subregional transportation mitigation fee program in Central County. 7. In section 7.1, Subregional Mitigation Fees, page 46, there is reference to a position adopted by TRANSPAC which states that subregional mitigation fees should not be imposed outside the boundaries of any RTPC area without consent of affected jurisdiction. We agree that until such time that a agreement is reached on a countywide transportation fee mitigation program, all fee collected in a sub- region should only be expended on projects within that sub-region. However, we note that RTPC boundaries currently are used only to define a sphere of planning area and do not define legal boundaries for use in assessing impact fees. TRANSPLAN questions the advisability of legally defining RTPC boundaries. In summary,our review of the draft plan indicates that there are elements in the Circulation Draft Central County Action Plan that TRANSPLAN can support and fully embrace, but frankly we are disappointed that the Central County Action Plan does not propose more locally based actions to alleviate congestion in Central County. Instead, the draft plan leans toward reliance on actions by agencies or jurisdictions.outside of TRANSPAC to deal with the problem. The plan should do more in identifying specific actions which the Central County jurisdictions can individually and collectively implement that would reduce congestion. Page Four 9/8/94 Ltr. to B. Woodburn We share a mutual interest with TRANSPAC in developing a transportation system that improves mobility and access for all County residents. The plan's recommendation to develop a Comprehensive Freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System and to increase transit availability are two elements which TRANSPLAN is ready to immediately begin work on with TRANSPAC and we are open to the concept of phasing transportation improvements to the pace of development. We suggest the following common agenda: 1. Extend and upgrade freeways with HOV lanes to accommodate growth in regional trips and reduce diversion to local arterial streets. 2. Extend BART further into East County and operate more Express Bus service from East County to Central and South County work sites as an effective transportation alternative. 3. Evaluate freeway ram; metering and arterial signal synchronization to maximize capacity, minimize delay, and improve overall traffic flow. 4. Work with Central County employers,East County developers,and transportation agencies to implement a model TDM program for commuters. 5. Encourage job development in East County and improve affordable housing opportunities in Central County and South County with the aim toward reducing the need for long distance commuting. TRANSPLAN is committed to working with TRANSPAC and the other RTPCs in melding our respective action plans into a long range, countywide transportation plan which promotes a cooperative, responsible, and balanced growth management process for Contra Costa County. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in preparing a countywide plan that truly reflects a cooperative and collaborative effort. Thank you.in advance for your attention to concerns raised in this comment letter. Sincerely yours, Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee cc_B. Ncusadicr,TRANSPAC WCC One AAvrado Square.• Sar:Pablo • CaMomio 9.4&)6 )ers: ` iso les October 31, 1994 and ablo Mr. Don Tatzin, Chair a Costa SWAT ,nty City of Lafayette Post Office Box 1968 Lafayette, CA 94549 ansit Dear Mr. Tatzin: The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) appreciates the opportunity to review the Lamorinda Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Our comments and suggestions are as follows: 1. WCCTAC supports Lamorinda's proposed action to evaluate opportunities for improved bus service between West County and the Orinda BART station. WCCTAC would like to participate in the study. 2. WCCTAC will be pleased to work with SWAT to quantify the traffic impacts of future development along San Pablo Dam Road. 3. WCCTAC understands Orinda's desire to meter the amount of traffic moving through Orinda on Camino Pablo, however; the proposed TSO for San Pablo Dam Road that allows two hours of congestion and a two-mile long queue on San Pablo Dam Road is problematic in nature and causes WCCTAC a great deal of concern. WCCTAC would like to work with SWAT and the City of Orinda on a joint study to identify the causes of the current congestion and to study options for managing and reducing congestion on San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. We would like to request that you add this joint study as an action for San Pablo Dam Road. 4. WCCTAC believes that the City of Orinda will have additional options for dealing with congestion on Camino Pablo if it is designated a regional route and WCCTAC supports such a designation. )ne: 0)215-3008 3)235-7059 -' 'Mr. Don Tatzin Page 2 October 31, 1994 Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the Action Plan. We look forward to working with you to address the specific issues cited above. Sincerely, Cathie Kosel, Chair cc: WCCTAC Board and TAC Martin Engelmann, CCTA TRANSPLAN C ONZMITTEE y i-- -------► Antioch -Brentwood -Pittsburg and Contra Costa County A MEMBER OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-0095 November 4, 1994 W.G. van Gelder, TVTC City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Dear Mr. van Gelder: TRANSPLAN appreciates the opportunity to review the Tri-Valley Transportation Council's Transportation Plan / Action Plan For Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation Draft) . Our comments on the Circulation Draft Plan are centered on the treatment of Vasco Road as a constrained "gateway" into Tri-Valley and the policy recommendation to oppose any increase in mixed-flow lane* capacity in the travel corridor linking Eastern Contra Costa to Tri-Valley. The rationale for this recommendation is that limited financial resources, land use development patterns and physical limitations (terrain) hinder the ability to provide significant capacity improvements in the Vasco Road corridor, and, furthermore, widening this gateway would cause Tri-Valley to be negatively impacted by interregional traffic., Vasco Road serves-as a critical travel corridor linking communities in eastern Contra Costa Cou_-ity to the Tri-Valley. 7!ravet forecasts conducted for the East County Action Plan indicate that additional lane capacity on Vasco Road to accommodate demand generated by land use development in both regions over the next twenty years. This analysis concluded that Vasco Road will continue to function as the primary commuter route from eastern Contra Costa into the Tri- Valley. Modeling conducted for the Tri-valley Action Plan indicates that over 70% of the a.m. peak hour. southbound trips on Vasco Road are destined for locations in the Tri-Valley. These are mainly commute trips originating in Antioch, Oakley, Discovery Bay, and Brentwood with -work-site destinations in the Livermore/Pleasanton area (62% of Vasco Road a.m. southbound trips are destined for the Livermore/Pleasanton area) . Page Two TVTC Ltr. 11/4/94 TRANSPLAN acknowledges that - limited funding and physical limitations (terrain) may make it difficult to provide additional lane capacity in the Vasco Road corridor. However, this does not mean that communities in both Contra Costa and Alameda counties should cease planning for safety and capacity improvements in this corridor. TRANSPLAN believes that the policy statement in the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan / Action Plan (Circulation Draft) opposing any additional mixed-flow lane capacity in the Vasco Road corridor is not only misguided but overlooks the requirement for regional consensus building on sucli a key transportation issue. A decision on how, when, and where to provide capacity improvements for. Vasco Road, whether developed as mixed-f low lanes or high occupancy vehicle lanes or a combination of both, should be determined after an evaluation of -alternatives (preferably through an environmental impact study) which leads to a regional consensus. Similarly, we would expect that a "gateway" policy for Vasco road should also be determined after thorough environmental ,study and consultation with jurisdictions on both sides of the gateway. A final decision on treating this interregional travel corridor as a "gateway", in which additional capacity might be prohibited, must 'be based on a regional consensus among communities in both Contra Costa and Alameda counties: Unfortunately, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan / Action Plan (Circulation Draft) has skipped over these necessary steps and jumps immediately to' an advocacy position which is not acceptable to residents in eastern Contra Costa County who must now and in the future rely on Vasco Road in order to commute .to work in the Tri Valley. TRANSPLAN urges TVTC to reconsider the gateway concept and accept the reality that Vasco Road provides a vital link between eastern Contra Costa and the Tri-Valley. Regional 'economic growth and development patterns will further the interdependence between the two regions. It is, ,therefore, imperative that .both regions work together to solve problems related to safety and inadequate capacity on Vasco Road. Sincerely yours �> Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee cc: H. Engelmann, CCTA