HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07111995 - C106 C�� l C .
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r Contra
.>>�` - '5 Costa
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Community Development Director �u _l
do., FT
srq ..n
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Revised Actions Prepared by the County/Danville Liaison Committee on the Tri Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Appove the attached resolution revising the June 27 action of the Board of Supervisors on
the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, (Action Plan).
FISCAL IMPACT
The Action Plan, when adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, will establish
additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive its share of the Measure
C-1988 return to source funds, which amount to $1.4 million annually.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors reconsidered Resolution 95/156 adopting the
Action Plan and approved further actions on this matter as reflected in Resolution 95/298.
On June 28, 1995, representatives of the Board of Supervisors met with the Tri Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC) and subsequently, with representatives of the Danville Town
Council to review Resolution 95/298. A consensus was reached with Danville representatives
on revisions to the July 27 action by the Board of Supervisors that may provide an Action
Plan that is acceptable to all jurisdictions participating on the TVTC. A summary of these
revisions follows:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON Qe.. 1 p a s APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED / OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE `DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Steven goetz (510/646-2134) ATTESTED_ 11 ' Jgg5
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PH IT�LOR, CLERK OF
TVTC (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CCTA (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
SG:drb
revised.bo
County/Danville Liaison Committee on the Tri Valley Transportation Plan
July 11, 1995
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
1. The Board of Supervisors will clarify that it is adopting Traffic Service Objectives
(TSOs) for the locations where violations are projected to occur;
2. The Board of Supervisors will consider entering into multi jurisdictional cooperative
planning agreements with Alameda County jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area. The
Action Plan will reflect this intent by all Contra Costa jurisdictions; and
3. The Action Plan text changes adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 27 would
be revised as follows:
a. The footnote on page 177 of Exhibit A referring the TSO Management Study
will be added to other Action Plan pages were violations of TSO's are
projected to occur;
b. Reference to the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement in the Recommended
Action on page 177 of Exhibit A will be deleted;
C. The deletion of the Recommended Action on page 191 of Exhibit A will be
rescinded and the qualifying phrase "Consistent with the provisions of the
Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement..." will be added. A similar action will
be added to pages 177 and 182;
d. The insert on page 238 of Exhibit A indicate that the Dougherty Valley
Settlement Agreement fulfills the requirement for a multi jurisdictional
cooperative planning agreement;
e. Deletions concerning Conflict Resolution beginning on page 238 of Exhibit A
will be rescinded; and
f. Minor editorial revisions will be made to page xiii of Exhibit A.
A draft resolution revising the June 27, 1995 action of the Board of Supervisors is attached
to this Board Order. This revised resolution will supersede Resolution 95/298 and become
effective upon its approval by the Board of Supervisors.
�, polo
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,-CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: In the Matter of Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation )
Plan/Action Plan Proposal for Adoption, January 1995 )
RESOLUTION NO. 95/ 310
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
(01) WHEREAS, on June 27, 1995 the Board of Supervisors reconsidered Resolution 95/156
adopting the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Proposal forAdoption(Action Plan) and
approving further actions on this matter as reflected in Resolution 95/298;
(02) WHEREAS, on June 28, the representatives of the Board of Supervisors met with the
Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) and, subsequently, with representatives of the
Danville Town Council to review Resolution 95/298 and reached a consensus on revisions to the
Action Plan that could be agreed to by all jurisdictions participating on the TVTC;
(03) WHEREAS, on July 11, the Board of Supervisors considered the Community
Development Director's report on this matter which recommended superseding Resolution
95/298 with a new resolution incorporating the revisions conceptually agreed to by
representatives from the Board of Supervisors and the Danville Town Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa
County that the County shall:
(01) Rescind Resolution 95/298;
(02) Adopt the Action Plan for those locations on Regional Routes where a consensus exists
for actions to meet the TSOs;
(03) Rescind the revisions to the Action Plan included in Resolution 95/156 and adopt the
other chapters of the Action Plan with the specified the revisions shown in Exhibit A attached
hereto;
(04) Reaffirm the Board's support of the TVTC's TSO Management Study for the purpose of
identifying actions that should be implemented by all jurisdictions to comply with the TSOs
proposed at locations on Regional Routes where TSO violations are projected to occur;
(05) Adopt the Action Plan, including adoption of TSOs, for the locations on Regional Routes
where TSO violations are projected to occur. Following completion of the TSO Management
Study in an expeditious manner, adopt actions required to achieve compliance with these TSOs;
and
(06) Separate from the Action Plan, commit to work with other Contra Costa jurisdictions in
the Tri Valley region to adopt multi jurisdictional cooperative planning agreements, concurrent
with the general plan amendment application and finalized prior to approving a general plan
amendment for certain development projects that are projected to result in an violation of TSOs,
which identify actions and responsibilities required of each jurisdiction to ensure the projected
violation of TSOs will not occur.
(07) Consider entering into similar multi jurisdictional cooperative planning agreements with
Alameda County jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area.
RESOLUTION NO. 95/ 310
PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 11th day of Jules ,
1995:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes
of the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Contact: Steven Goetz (510/646-2134)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the
CCTA (via CDD) Board of Supervisors affixed on this
TVTC (via CDD) 11 thday of July , 1995.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
Deputy-Ca
tp1:\bo\3V1y-Res
RESOLUTION NO. 95/310
E-X H I B I T A
(7-11-95)
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.
Executive Summary
Transportation Service Objectives
A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objectives. These are
objectives that the Tri-Valley cities and counties should use as a guide to making
transportation and land use decisions. In Contra Costa County under Measure C, the
jurisdictions are required to make a good-faith effort to comply with the transportation
service objectives on routes of regional significance or risk the loss of return-to-source
funds. In Alameda County once the plan is adopted, individual jurisdictions are responsi-
ble for maintaining Transportation Service Objectives through their general plans. The
transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows:
yor .91
• Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90) on arterials, and measured at intersections.
• Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways.
• Maintain Level of Service E conditions on I-580 for no more than four hours per day
(except on Altamont Pass) and on I-680 for no more than eight hours per day.
• Do not increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles at gateways.
• Increase average vehicle ridership for commute trips by 10 percent.
• Increase the transit mode share through providing express transit travel times that
are competitive with autos.
The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document, such as a General Plan.
While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpret-
ed as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plea dees establis4t
boyo *.that is '" e-d b Via' cmc^ ` If there are TSO
' vC� �Cttl,TVGT=trZ�'CS:
violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction
can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road widening) to correct the
TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b) implement other measures
intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional
Significance network and contribute to significant improvements in air quality. Failing
this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event
that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, the
jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physical-
ly impacted.
Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the following components:
• Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans.
• Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amend-
ments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans.
The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in
compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. xiii
Executive Summary
• Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate
impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amend-
ments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a
determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the
approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA.
Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financially
constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provided by
existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for
estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding is suggested through
the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new, unapproved development. The
Plan identifies 11 regional transportation improvements that could be funded through the
impact fee (see Table E-1). Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about
$2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space.
This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees
are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the nexus
relationship between new development and its impact on traffic.
Plan Implementation
In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by
each TVTC member jurisdiction . .
2010 Planned Transpertation Network
Finaneing Plait—
• Ssub ..,.r;ana T,-anspar-tati ,., T.,,.,ae Lame , p
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. xiv
3.
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Consistent with the Contra Costa and Alameda countywide transportation plans, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council has adopted the following broad goals to guide this
planning effort.
• Improve safety
• Manage congestion
• Enhance mobility
• Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use
• Provide adequate transportation systems to support land use plans
• Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, community
character and other environmental factors
• Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced
mobility.
According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the
specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are
quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating
transportation system effectiveness.
No one jurisdiction's actions can assure that traffic service objectives on Regional
Routes will be met. Compliance will be determined on the basis of participation and
implementation of Action Plans. The following are requirements for a jurisdiction to be
considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
• Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans.
• Local implementation of actions clesig ed to attain, +,- c- ebb ..+;...,consis-
tent with adopted Action Plans.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 38
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
• Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies
(e.g., requiring payment of fees or participation in the TSM/TDM program).
• Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans.
mitigate impaets asseeiated %ith proposed General Plan amendments. Generaf
ea .,;th th,, ., st o the n,,,.;,,,,,,t r,,..,..,;t�,.,. —sand the nnmA (for n n4
ra—
• Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA (for Contra
Costa County jurisdictions).
Preliminary TSOs were presented to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in
February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved
by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved TSOs. One or
more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs.
Link Levels of Service (LOS). Maintain LOS no worse than E (V/C = 0.99) on freeways
and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy
condition, with speeds about 35 mph on freeways. This standard is sometimes not met
under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP
standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject
to an intersection LOS standard.
Hours of Congestion. Maintain LOS E conditions on I-580 for no more than two hours
in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, except over Altamont Pass, where no
TSO has been adopted. LOS E on I-680 for no more than four hours in the morning
and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints discussed in Chapter 5,
this is the best the plan can achieve.
Intersection Levels of Service. Maintain LOS no worse than'D (V/C = 0.90) for signal-
ized intersections during peak hours where the standard is now being met. Achieve
LOS D by 2010 at locations not currently in compliance. The methodology is the VCCC
program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw
model output turning movements. This is the standard to whieh a4l Tri-VaHey
;u•risdietieas presently adhere Under current conditions, only three of the study
intersections violate this standard.
Tri-Valley Gateways. 1-580, 1-680, and Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San
Ramon) and Vasco Road (north of Livermore). Maintain existing capacity for single-
occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to
be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion
of this issue.)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 39
Recommended Improvement Plan
11,000 dwelling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri-Valley as a whole. Action
Plans in Contra Costa County are mandated by Measure C to address growth manage-
ment issues when TSOs cannot otherwise be met. CCTA guidelines for Action Plans
state that they may include policies to prohibit urban expansion in specified geograph-
ic areas and to change the distribution of planned land uses to reduce impacts on
regional routes. It should be noted that the TVTP is a 2010 plan and land use
recommendations apply to 2010 and not buildout.
Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the following components:
i
• Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans.
• Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan
amendments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted
`S Action Plans.
s
The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered
in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
YSubmission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to
+ mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General
Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans
may lead to a determination of non-compliance =f the A etion Pleffi eannet be
�2
L .. ,.gi,...,a G...,.,.-..,.:L1ee and the GGT
A
.J acva�cu with the approval f tL
Contra Costa County Action Plans may include the following types of actions:
Land Use Policy
1. Modify allowable densities for newly developing areas or areas where redevelop-
ment is anticipated.
2. Change distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts
on Regional Routes.
3. Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas.
4. Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service
objectives.
Capital Projects
• Construction of new roads or transit facilities
• Street or freeway widening
• HOV lane construction
• Adding turn lanes
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 129
Recommended Improvement Plan
Operational Improvements
• Traffic signal coordination
• Ramp metering
• Revisions to transit routes and schedules
• Augmentation of bus service on Regional Routes
Trip Reduction Programs
• More stringent TDM requirements within corridor
• Focused ridesharing campaigns
• Parking limitations and charges
Institutional Intergovernmental Programs
• Coordinated efforts to attract State and Federal funding for projects in the
County.
• Communication and cooperation with jurisdictions in adjacent counties.
General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County
hta +W 1401 i)
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates and analyzing proposed
eneral Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth
Management Element . If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to
meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdic-
tion considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment the Regional
Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives.
The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amend-
ments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will
be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend-
ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. j
If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to
a findings of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. I
Ad '� *Z)
<a+Vt eh fat��d
General Plan Consistency with Conga �osta
-counly Action Plans
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted
General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the
network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the
1.G ro W+Gr Ms.+agc.�. �' (�-r►pl ew,e.��a fi a� x�a�evcEg { Cert A/ t)eC'c vn hPr, t 992 p• T.G-S1.
16 Id-� P . IG -5 2'.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 130
Action Plan
4. Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided study shows metering would
be equitable and effective as agreed to by Caltrans and the TVTC and provided
sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HOV bypass lanes wherever space
permits. The TVTC should take the lead and seek funding for a study of ramp
metering.
5. Support growth that achieves an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley.
6. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds
for needed transportation projects.
7. Support development of a seamless HOV network in the Tri-Valley to encourage the
use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall work cooperatively with Caltrans, MTC,
and affected jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system,
especially on I-580, subject to cost-effectiveness analysis and/or change to legislation
prohibiting them.
8. Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit
district to finance ongoing transit operating costs.
9. Support the preparation by Caltrans of an incident management plan for the
state highways in the Tri-Valley area. The TVTC recognizes that incidents can
have a profound effect on traffic conditions both on the freeways and on the
arterials.
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
This section details the various objectives and actions for each designated route of
regional significance within the Tri-Valley. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are present-
ed, together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties
responsible for implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Plan is adopted,
each jurisdiction will be responsible for making a good-faith effort to implement the 8
agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the 198
Measure C Growth Management Program will be judged based upon its efforts to
implement agreed-upon actions.
The actions, programs, and measures identified in the Action Plan are intended to
mitigate congestion and achieve the Traffic Service Objectives assuming that future traffic
will be constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley
Gateways (see Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints").
Went to implement move strzing�eat aetionst measur-es, or- pr-egr-ams, in addition W ihAsA
a 1 4ation program ee,&!El r-espead to higher futttre traffie level no gateway
e -(stere 6 4).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 166
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways
Key Locations
Facility:Sycamore Valley Road East of 1-680
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,800
Existing V/C 0.50
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 2,360
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 8
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 58
V/C constrained(before Action Plan) 0.65
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 44%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 48%
Livermore 6%
Pleasanton 0%
Dublin 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter-
section.
Recommended Actions 1.
-Read. Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections,left-turn pockets at all intersec-
tions,and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered
that would eliminate such acceler6tion/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 D
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C
Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara 0.37 A
Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow.
2 f;�}1�e.►., aaN,.,S Sh.li be I cl"4' ►`-JO, Joy 1 �� '"Ic)✓t.1+t� S
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 172
Actio Plan
\\X
Tri-Valley Action Plan
ighways—Contra Costa County Version
Key Locations
IF ycamore Valley Road East of 1 680
Existing Con uration 4 lanes
Existing Volum ' 1,800
Existing V/C 0.50
2010 Expected Networ
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration \di- 8
Volume
Transit Service(buses/hour borections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)V/C constrained[before Action )
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 44%
San Ramon ooo
CCC 4
Livermore /o
Pleasanton 0%
Dublin 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C 0.90 at inter-
se on.
Recommended Actions /approved
order to meet the TSO requiremen ,the level of development that may be
by a local jurisdiction shall b consistent with the identified transportation
provements and programs for which fu ing is reasonably assured.Other
isdictions may elect not to implement su improvements and programs within
ir jurisdiction,and the minimum level of se ice may then be exceeded without
lating the TSO.
PM Peak-Hour 2010E ected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Sycamore Valley oad and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 D
Sycamore Valle Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B
Sycamore Val y Road and I-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C
Sycamore V lley Road and Camino Tassajara 0.37 A
Sycamore alley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A
arton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 3
cxnlQlc
Tc-
IN
cIN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SU ECT: In the Matter of the Evaluation !
of the Tri Valley Transportation ►
Plan/Action Plan. 2nd f7rnft !
RESOLUTION N . 94/387
The Board of S ervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
WHEREAS, he Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program (Measure C-1 88) compliance
requirements for Reg nal Routes requires each jurisdiction to implement specified local ctions designed to
attain Traffic Service jectives (ISO's) in a timely manner, consistent with adopts Action Plans;
WHEREAS, the Or It Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd D It (Draft Action Plan),
proposes local actions that i elude growth controls and prohibits certain transpo ation'improvements that,
coupled with the Level of Se ice TSO's, would preempt local land use de ' ions on proposals that are
currently under review by the and of Supervisors;
WHEREAS Measure C-198 compliance requirements cannot pr empt local land use decisions or
require local jurisdictions to accept wanted construction projects;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan r cludes a TSO for Bollinger anyon Road that is not consistent with
the minimum Level of Service standard r uired for developmen in the Dougherty Valley;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan incl es statements-nterpreting the Dougherty Valley Settlement
Agreement that are inconsistent with the inte retation of a Board of Supervisors;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not ubs ntiate at this time that the actions it recommends
or potential actions, will reasonably ensure compli a with the TSO's in 2010;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does no pro i a an adequate nexus'between the recommended
regional fees to be.paid by new development Contr Costa with the benefit these fees provide such
development;
WHEREAS various other actions i the Draft Action Ian do not reflect the Board's concerns in
managing regional traffic impacts from ture growth in the Tr Valley area;
WHEREAS all affected jurist' tions must agree to the actio s before the Action Pians are finalized
and adopted; and
WHEREAS this resolu 'on does not conflict with the conditi included in the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority's J ly 20, 1994 approval on the County's Mas re C-1988 Annual Compliance
Checklist regarding the ap cation of certain traffic level of service standard for intersection in Denville and
San Ramon.
NOW,THERE RE.BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contr Costa County to support
the following modi cations to the Draft Action Plan:
Recom ended actions for growth limits outside the Dougherty Valley Speci i Plan area shall be
delet from the Action Plan;
R ommended prohibitions to road improvements in Danville shall be deleted from he Action Plan
nd replaced with a process for meeting TSO's that will not impose an unwanted const ction project
in Danville or preempt (;.cal land use decisions on proposals that are curranily under r raw by the
Board of Supervisors. This process for meeting TSO's should be defined as follows:
in order to meet the TSO requirements, the level of development that may be
approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified
transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably
assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements
and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of Service may
then be exceeded without violating the TSD.
RESOLUTION NO. 94/387
Exhibit 2
Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft
Continued • Page Two
The TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road shall be consistent with the minimum Level of Servic required
r the Board of Supervisors for future development in the Dougherty Valley.
Statements in the Action Plan that interpret consistency of potential actions with he Dougherty
Valle Settlement Agreement shall be deleted.
T Action Plan shall specify that the recommended projects and programs in t Action Plan are not
exclusive a tions intended to limit the scope or nature of other projects or programs t t do not conflict with
the Action P n.
Id The Acti Plan shall specify where appropriate that the ability of pot ntial actions described for
Regional Routes to easonably meet the ISO's has not been specifically subst tiated through the Tri Valley
Transportation Mod
The Action Plan all provide an adequate nexus between any re ' nal or sub-regional transportation
1W impact fee paid by new development in Contra Costa and the b nefits these fees provide to such
development.
The Action Plan shall rev a the recommended action No. or Vasco Road as shown in the following
italicized text:
Oppose increases to mixed-fl capacity or. Vasco oad in Alameda County.
Id The Action Plan shall specify that he actions to used for compliance with Measure C•1988 shall
be only those actions implemented in Cont Costa juri dictions for the purpose to satisfying Traffic Service
Objectives for Regional Routes in Contra C to juris fictions.
The Action Plan shall extend the Route f Regional Significance designation to include Bollinger
Id Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard and it ure extension east of its present terminus.
The Action Plan shall extend the Ro es of R ional Significance designation to include the entire
segment of Dougherty Road north of the lameda Cou ty line.
The Action Plan shall address po entiai conflicts who an action to satisfy a Traffic Service Objective
cause violations in other Traffic Serv' a Objectives.
PASSED by the following vote of he Board of Supervisors on t 26th day of July, 1994:
AYES: Supervisors th, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and P ers
NOES: Supervisor ishop
ABSENT: None
M1ABSTAIN: None
I hereby certify at the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on t minutes of the Board
of Supervisor on the date aforesaid.
Contact: teven L. Goetz (510/646-2134)
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council tvia coot Doard of Supervisors affixed on this
26th day of July 1994.
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
IDeputy C
RESOLUTION NO. 94/387
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Danville Version Locations
East of Sycamore East of
Facility:Camino Tassalara Valley Road Crow Canyon
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,300 760
Existing V/C 0.36 0.21
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes
Volume 1,840 2,320
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 10
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 128
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.51 0.64
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 429/6 CCC 53%
CCC 49% San Ramon 20%
San Ramon 2% Danville 18%
Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1%
Dublin 0% Dublin 2%
Livermore 2% Livermore 6%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at intersec-i
sections tions
Recommended Actions 2 None Required. 1.An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be con-
structed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agree-
ment. Up to 11,000 units ma be considered pending the com
a S pleUono additional traffic studie .This aelien*9 based on the
„r
Kai Ad
rJetflew►eYt}' (`PRyb►ev�
t.
2 . eoyls,s4eo+ tmi44A -1-kv-- ro P`1 5 i MS �►
2.;Pie plan shei-ld he haged QA IaAd usearSUFAP961FIr IAF
aA
to
Ie1 cad sG� dds ,
This action was agreed to.by Danville,San Reoen,and GenVa
1, v/G : .90 a♦ +4.e- Crow GYhin�ersec-�lan ,
2. Fu rthe.+' a c f-i 0195 s hall b '1 deWi44 Ti� by '+' Ie '150 M"Um,e4 sf'u�
C m�n
Barton-AscchAssociates, Inc. 177
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Danville Version (Continued)
Key Locations
East of Sycamore East of
Facility:Camino Tassalara Valley Road Crow Canyon
f`*c't'
,,[[ rr 2
Sec0k"mee,&1e6A' Cm5 3.
—Gemone Tessejerfa. Camino Tassajara within the Town of
Danville has a'2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left-tum
pockets at all intersections, and Caltrans standard Class II
bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate
such acceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.This-eetfen
i
The northbound approach at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk
Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured to
consist of a 4-foot median island,two 12-foot left-turn lanes, one
12-foot through lane,one 12-foot through plus right-turn lane,
and one 12-foot right-turn lane. This requires reducing the exist-
ing median island from 12 feet to 4 feet,and reducing the exist-
ing 16-foot right-turn lane to a 12-foot right-turn lane. This can be
accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width.Any expansion
or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the ap-
proval of the Town of Danville. The Town c!Ehinville assale
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
WC LOS Unconstrained V/C
Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F 1.35
Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A
Camino Tassajara and Diablo 0.39 A
'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. ,{
2 Fv•-ther ac-H"5 Intl be. idty,�-i�ieol by -ft�►2. �a I�Is,nQ�►c�t�'I�'11 S t
a�- � �5 c ow►�le.'�i�
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 178
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Danvitt^ Vefs ^" (Continued)
Key Locations
East of Sycamore East of
Facility:Camino Tassalara Valley Road Crow Canyon
Potential Actions
Highway Solution 'Widen Camino
Tassajara to 6 lanes
Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour
service to Dougherty
Valley and Tassajara
Valley;must be full to
achieve TSO.
TDM Solution Restrict DV and
TVPOA peak-hour and
peak-period trip gener-
ation to DV- 77%of
normal, and TVPOA-
8%of normal.
Land Use Solution Restrict DV to 8,500
units by 2010, TVPOA
to 119 units.
Policy Solution 'Accept LOS F at
Camino Tassajara/
Blackhawk intersection
idel"eieney plaA-re
TSO Met
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 179
Action Plan
T Valley Action Plan
Hi ways—Contra Costa County Version
Key Locations
East of Sycamore East of
Facility:\C,,flnossajara Valley Road Crow Canyon
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,300 760
Existing V/C 0.36 0.21
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to four nes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa Cou ty Line.
2010 Configuration 4 1 es 4 lanes
Volume 1,840 2,320
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 10
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 128
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.51 ( ) 0.64( )
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 42% C 53%
CCC 49% an Ramon 20%
San Ramon 2% D viile 18%
Pleasanton 6% Plea nton 1%
Dublin 0% Dublin 2%
Livermore /° Livermor 6%
TSO to be achieved V/C<0. at inter- V/C <0.90 at in rsec-
section tions
Recommended Actions ne Required. In order to meet the T\asred.
ments,the level of development
that may be approved jurisdiction shall be consistent
with the identified tranimprovements and programs for
which funding is reasored. Other jurisdictions may
elect not to implement ements and programs within
their jurisdiction,and tm vel of service may then be
exceeded without violaSO.
PM Peak-Hour 2010E ected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS \nconstrained V/C
Camino Tassajar and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F \1.35
Camino Tassa' ra and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A
Camino Tas jara and Diablo 0.39 A
BaI-Aschman Associates, Inc. 180
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Danville dere:,.
Key Locations
East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara
Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville)
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,200 1,900 1,800 1,800
Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Operational improvements on two-lane section;widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road.
2010 Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,400 2,560 3,690 3,810
Transit Service(buses/hour both 4 56 12 12
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5 204 170 170
V/C constrained[before Action 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71
Plan](unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 270/. San Ramon 27%
San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25%
CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC 35% CCC 35%
Dublin 3% Dublin 1% Dublin 5% Dublin 5%
Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5%
Livermore 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
Through 19% Through 0% Through 0% Through 0%
,91 .9
TSO to be achieved Maximum operating V/C =4A.90 at V/C =4.Q-9&at inter- V/C =<0.90 at intersec-
speeds within 2- . intersections. sections. tions.
lane cross-section.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 181
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Danville Version (Continued)
Key Locations S
East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara S i
Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville)
S
Recommended Actions �' 1. Secure funding None.. 1. Secure funding for 1.An initial level of devel-
for operational widening to 6 lanes. opment of 8,500 units may
improvements. be constructed in the .a.
Dougherty Valley based on h 4r
2.An initial level of de- the Settlement Agreement. N
velopment of 8,500 Up to 11,000 units may be
units may be construct- considered pending the
ed in the Dougherty completion of additional/
Valley based on the traffic studie�-aetieFi
Settlement Agreement. based am the AgFeemaRt to
Up to 11,000 units may
be considered pending
the completion of addi -
tional traffic studies
aetian was agreed to by
25 Sed -�cx-F� i W
+1-4'30-*1e1`ltkf_ OaFwille, San Remen,and
Aryreewkt`t.
ir 2. 4e plan should 6e
Wood en land use eastimp
L . CoK5'15-leVH- Wi+4 l A-he. py ot/i S'f SOS
�w►�+� t 1VOIGP@d by the TOWA G!
���l 9 w4-► _+o
(eves o ' County may suppoFt di#9F
14.11P Fl.
Ote-Beughemy Yal ley 4.I->
tat IMP=Raporl,Ais
PaAY;1Ie, Gen Remen,and
3. Improve Camino
Tassajara intersection (see
Camino Tassajara)
1 . Fur+ties ar-4-iorts s4-ell r� 't.del;fRed by -fke, TSOI�Aati►w�e,�y�ta,t{'
1 coN7�E'f 1 Ch
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 182
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways— (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS Unconstrained V/C
Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 B
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48 A
Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F 1.35
Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty 0.98 E
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68 B
Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.89 D
Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.79 C
Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta 0.82 D
Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63 B
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 183
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways— (Continued)
Key Locations
East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara
Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville)
Potential Actions
Highway Solution 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino
Crow Canyon. Tassajara.'
Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour
service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA;
TVPOA; buses must be buses must be full.
full.
TDM Solution Restrict DV to 77%of Restrict DV to 770%of nor-
normal trip-making, mal trip-making, TVPOA to
TVPOA to 8%of nor- 8%of normal trip-making.
mal trip-making.
Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500
8,500 units, TVPOA to units,TVPOA to 119 units
119 units in 2010. in 2010.
Policy Solution Accept LOS E at 'Accept LOS F at Crow
Crow Canyon/ CanyorbCamino Tassajara
Dougherty. (requires deficiency plan).
TSO met. TSO met.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 184
Action PI
`Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Contra Costa County Version
�\ Key Locations
East of Dougherty Sou of Camino Tassajara
Facility:Crow anyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (D ville)
Existing Configurati 2 lanes 8 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,200 1,900 1,800 1,800
Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Operationa\impvements on two-lane section;widening to 6 lanes- Icosta to Tassajara Ranch Road.
2010 Configuration 2 lane\56
s 6 Ian 6 lanes
Volume 1,400 3,6 3,810
Transit Service(buses/hour 4 1 12
both directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5 170 170
V/C constrained[before Action 0.93 0.68 0.71
Plan](unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 36% San Ra n 59% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27%
San Ramon 31% Danv" a 21% Danville 25% Danville 25%
CCC 9% CC 18% CCC 35% CCC 35%
Dublin 3% blin % Dublin 5% Dublin 5%
Pleasanton 1% leasanton 0 Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5%
Livermore 1 ° Livermore 1% "vermore 3% Livermore 3%
Through % Through 0% Th ugh 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved Maximum perating V/C =<0.90 at V/C =< . 0 at intersec- V/C =<0.90 at intersec-
speeds ithin 2- intersections. tions. tions.
lane c ss-section.
Ba on-Aschman Associates, Inc. 185
Action PI
Tri-Valley Action Plan '
\ ighways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
Key Locations
East of DoughertySo of Camino Tassajara
Facility:Cro Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) ( nville)
Recommended A ions 1. Secure funding None. 1.Secure funding for1.An initial level of devei-
for operational widening to 6 lanes. opment of 8,500 units may
improvements. be constructed in the
2.An initial level de- Dougherty Valley based on
velopment of 8, 0 units the Settlement Agreement.
may be const cted in Up to 11,000 units may be
the Doughe y Valley considered pending the
based on a Settlement completion of additional
Agreem nt. Up to 11,000 traffic studies.
units ay be considered
pen ing the completion in order to meet the TSO
of dditional traffic requirements,the level of
tudies. development that may be
approved by a local jurisdic-
In order to meet the TSO tion shall be consistent with
requirements, the level the identified transportation
of development that may improvements and
be approved by a local programs for which funding
jurisdiction shall be con- is reasonably assured.
sistent with the identified Other jurisdictions may
transportation improve- elect not to implement such
ments and programs for improvements and
which funding is reason- programs within their juris-
ably assured.Other diction,and the minimum
jurisdictions may elect level of service may then be
not to implement such exceeded without violating
improvements and pro- the TSO,
ams within their juris-
di 'on,and the minimum
leve f service may then
be ex eded without
violating e TSO.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 186
Action Pan
\�• Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
Action
Oq,ak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Crow Cany\andAlcos
and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 B
Crow Canyand 1680 SB Ramps 0.48 A
Crow Canyand Camino Tassajara 1.15 F
Crow Canynd Dougherty 0.98 E
Crow Canya I-680 NB Ramps 0.68 B
Crow Canyand amino Ramon 0.89 D
Crow Canyand Sa Ramon Valley Boule- 0.79
vard
Crow Canyand Alcos 0.82 DCrow Canyand Bollinger anyon 0.63 B
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak our,peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 187
ActionPlan
\Tri-Valley Action an
Highways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
\ Key Locations
East of Dougherty S/nilole)
fCamino Tassajara
Facility:Crow IN Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (
Potential Actions
Highway Solution 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino
Crow Canyon. Tassajara.
Transit Solution Add 40 bu s per hour Add 40 buses per hour
service t V and service to DV and TVPOA;
TVPO buses must be buses must be full.
full.
TDM Solution estrict DV to 77%of Restrict DV to 77%of nor-
normal trip-making. mal trip-making..
Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500
8,500 units. units.
Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Crow Accept LOS F at Crow
Canyon/Dougherty. Canyon/Camino Tassajara
TSO met. TSO met.
rton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 188
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:San Ramon Valley North of Sycamore
Boulevard At Bollinger Valley Road
Existing Configuration 5 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 900 1,025
Existing V/C 0.25 0.57
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes through Danville:Widening to,4 lanes through San Ramon.
2010 Configuration 5 lanes 4 lanes
Volume 1,000 1,540
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 10
rections)
Transit Ridership(peak hour) 84 437
V/C constrained Ibefore Action Plan) 0.28 0.43
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 11% Danville 55%
San Ramon 69% San Ramon 43%
CCC 3% CCC 1%
Dublin 11% Dublin 0%
Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0%
Livermore 1% Livermore 0%
Through 0% Through 0%
.9
TSO to be achieved V/C a-9.99 at inter- V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions None.
1. Complete widening
project.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 189
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta
Existing Configuration 8 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 2,700 400
Existing V/C 0.38 0.11
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension east to Dougherty Road(4 lanes-6 lanes).
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,200 2,820
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 54 24
rections)
Transit Ridership(peak hour) 539 550
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.44 0.52
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 6% Danville 4%
San Ramon 44% CCC 49%
CCC 429/6 San Ramon 420/6
Dublin 6% Dublin 4%
Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1%
Livermore 1% Livermore 0%
Through 0% Through 0%
-.9] %1 .191
TSO V/C 48,98 at inter- V/C e-61J0 at inter-
sections. sections.
� CogSi sFen-{— .y�►i'FI�"Elie, p,��t 5!OviS
Recommended Actions 1. Improve intersec- 1. Control growthf Vail tion of Bollinger and to meet intersec- /
' ��C _- Vi- L
Sunset. tion level of service SQ' Q/ yti+- �
standards.
2. Improve Bolling-
er Canyon
Road/Alcosta Bou-
levard Intersection.
3.Complete exten-
sion project in
conjunction with
Dougherty Valley
(+ development.
1, Fue4lwr Ac_4' omi -sin>-f'1 ASI?, (ut�l'f'{;ied 1 4,e- TSO H-1(J2!'NFQ. v+ JlllaY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 191
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Alcosta Boulevard East of 1-680
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 600
Exisfing V/C 0.17
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Reconfiguration of Alcosta/1-680 interchange to improve intersection operation.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,600
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 10
recfions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 65
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.44
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 3%
San Ramon 38%
Dublin 28%
CCC 28%
Pleasanton 2%
Livermore 0%
�.9
TSO to be achieved V/C *-9,80.at intersections.
Recommended Actions �' 1. Secure funding for interchange
improvements.
2. Complete improvements at Bollinger Canyon/Alcosta.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.84 D
Alcosta Boulevard and Montevideo Road 0.34 A
Alcosta Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.34 A
Alcosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon 0.82 D
Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon 0.63 B
Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F
Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.60 A
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. L
2 F-Ir^i;Ine r a.-_fi atn,i shi0l 6e-
&4-
ez4- '1+5 cowl pht4i oY►
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 194
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
North of North of
Facility: Dougherty Road North of 1-580 Dublin Boulevard Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger
Existing Configuration 6 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 2,700 1,300 300 300
Existing V/C 0.50 0.36 0.17 0.17
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 4,200 2,300 3,310 2,990
Transit Service(buses/hour both 28 28
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 677 423 679 258
WC constrained[before Action Plan) 0.58 0.43 0.61 0.55
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 11% Danville 11% Danville 8% Danville 229/6
Pleasanton 27% Pleasanton 27% San Ramon 6% San Ramon 18%
CCC 27% CCC 27% Other CCC 46% CCC 39%
Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8%
Livermore 6% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton 9%
Through 0% Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9%
9 x.91
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C <-A-99at inter- V/C c&99 at inter-
sections. sections. sections. sections.
Recommended Actions 1 1. Secure developer 1.Secure developer 1. Secure developer 1.Secure developer
funding for planned funding for planned funding for planned funding for planned
widening. widening. widening. widening.
2. Put in place 2. Put in place growth
growth controls to controls to insure
insure achievement achievement of
of TSOs. TSOs.
acfi ans stew be, '(dteii-44eek 6Y ttle.. ISO M41"IN7-LOV4 -
S+vd�{ 4- t'�-s comp le+; ovt
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 195
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Tassajara Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 200 200 200
Existing V/C 0.11 0.11 0.11
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard,6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard to County Line,4 lanes
north of County Line.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,700 3,750 2,600
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 18 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 1,066 84 120
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.51 0.69 0.48
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 0% Danville 0% Danville 1%
San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6%
Dublin 35% Dublint 35% Dublin 17%
CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14%
Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58%
Livermore 10% Livermore2 10% Livermore 4%
Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at intersections. V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at intersections.
sections.
Recommended Actions 2 1. Secure developer funding for 1. Secure developer fund- None.
widening. ing for widening.
2. Put in place mutually agreed
and equitable multijurisdictional
growth management 4c-4asure
_aGkie��:
3. Consider widening or ex-
panding the highway network,
improving transit service,or
improving transportation de-
mand management.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan WC LOS
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road 0.76 C
Tassajara Road and Highland Road 0.65 B
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue 0.70 B
Tassajara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.84 D
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak- our, pea -direction o low.
z FU rKer acfi,3,15 shalt be, '1 dCAj f�f'e A by 15 o d'lt ca�
z+ '1�s Ccwtp?e"f-ienj
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 197
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes N/A N/A
Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N/A N/A
Existing V/C 0.31 0.29 N/A N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tassajara;extension as 6 lanes to N. Canyon Parkway.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 2,000 2,035 2,765 2,520
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 14 16
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1% Danville. 1%
San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5%
Dublin 58% CCC 2% CCC 5% Livermore 36%
CCC 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 570% Dublin 24%
Pleasanton 13% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 4% Pleasanton 13%
Livermore 11% Livermore 21% Livermore 25% CCC 5%
Through 0% Through 6%
TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at V/C<0.90 at inter-
sections. sections. intersections. sections.
Recommended Actions 1. Secure developer 1. Secure funding 1. Secure funding 1.Secure funding
funding for widening. for widening/ for widening/ for widening/
extension. extension. extension.
2. Pursue HOV 2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580. lanes on 1-580.
1 . 1--Vr 4* r ac-Ficv,.3 -Y))QJ be id etnl ffjej Uy -tl,, -M 0 Ma,.txfew,,j-
s4-vccY Q� 1 1 cc-ompic!Hervi
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 199
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:San Ramon Road North of Dublin
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,200
Existing V/C 0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,000
Transit Service(buses/hour both directions) 4
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 7
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.28
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 5%
Dublin 55%
San Ramon 23%
Pleasanton 2%
Livermore 10%
CCC 5%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at
intersections
Recommended Actions None.
PM Peak-Hour-2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.90 D C
San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0.45 A C
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. c 1
?of-M.-r- ac+an s 5 a I I 6e� 1 Gi'l RICA'CA by �!1��u , ISO J D
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 203
��f
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Hopyard Road at Stoneridge
Existing Configuration 6 lanes
Existing Volume' 2,400
Existing V/C 0.44
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 2,400
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 78
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.44
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 64%
Dublin 23%
Danville 1%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 6%
Livermore 4%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions 1. Enforce existing
growth controls in
Pleasanton to insure
achievement of TSOs.
2. Build adequate
Route 84 to reduce
cut-through traffic from
West Las Positas
Boulevard.
3. Install traffic signal
phase overlap at
Hopyard/W. Las
Positas.
1. �vr} r x!-ivYts shQll he idet44-%,�i ell by ti-¢. ISO Ha4,ej)oiq�
Q` Y i-h c ory(:We H iz" ,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 204
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp
Existing Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes
Existing Volume' 1,300
Existing V/C 0.24
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road($1.6 million), developer funding.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes
Volume 2,700 1,231
Transit Service(buses/hour both direc- 6
tions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 63 100
V/C constrained[before Action Plan[ (un- 0.50 0.38
constrained)
Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 59%
Dublin 25%
Livermore 10%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 4%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter-
section. section.
Recommended Actions None. 1. Obtain agree-
ments with Dublin
and Contra Costa
County to widen EB
off-ramp to provide
double left turn.
ens S�z<< be ���;fi �� �-s '�- 1"M-
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 206
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 800
Existing V/C 0.22
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project).
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,200
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 41
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.33
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Livermore 50%
Pleasanton 25%
Through 25%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 0%
CCC 0%
Dublin 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions 1.At Valley/Stanley
intersection,widen for
EB double left-turn
lanes.
2. Reduce cut-through
traffic with adequate
Highway 84.
• •Fury err QC""a,nS 9Q(l &., 'tc�c-vrEi�i e� �� 'TSO
S"I 2+ 1'45 C>=W% '?1tfRkSrJ!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 208
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Stonerldge Drive at Hopyard at EI Charro
Existing Configuration 6 lanes N/A
Existing Volume' 1,200 N/A
Existing V/C 0.22 N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension as 6 lanes to EI Charro to link with Jack London.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,200 700
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 26 None
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 99 0
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.22 0.13
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 1% Danville 0%
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 53% Livermore 51%
Livermore 19% Pleasanton 44%
Dublin 15% CCC 0%
CCC 1% Dublin 1%
Through 2% Through 2%
TSO to be achieved WC <0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions 2' None. None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
WC LOS
Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas 0.81 D
Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.49 A
Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.52 A
Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road 0.58 A
Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road 0.85 D
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
a h' s 6e M,75 d OLL- a
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 210
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Sunol Boulevard East of 1-680
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 800
Existing V/C 0.22
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 1,320
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership(peak hour) 23
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.24
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 0%
San Ramon 1%
Pleasanton 46%
Livermore 33%
Dublin 1%
CCC 0%
Through 14%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Sunol Boulevard and Bernal Avenue 0.80 C
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680-SB Ramps 0.58 A
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.54 A
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction
t• tN-F`hP.r c ave 5 l of flow.
loe 'l6 Cw,krrp-& toy T. o TSV 1�4 L-A � �
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 211
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Isabel at West of 1-680
Facility: Route 84 on Vallecitos Jack London (Niles Canyon)
Existing Configuration 2 lanes N/A
Existing Volume' 900 N/A
Existing V/C 0.50 N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting and widening Isabel to 6-lane
arterial,new interchange at IsabeV1-580, grade separation at Isabel/Stanley.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes 6 lanes 2 lanes
Volume 3,400 3,900
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 12 16
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 0 18
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.94 0.72
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern CCC 0% Danville 0%
Livermore 80% San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 3% Livermore 49%
Dublin 0% Pleasanton 10%
Through 17% Dublin 9%
Danville 0% CCC 2%
San Ramon 0% Through 28%
TSO to be achieved Link V/C <0.99(no Intersection None
intersections) WC <0.90
Recommended Actions �' 1. Secure funding for 1. Secure funding 1. Maintain existing historic highway
widening project. for widening project. designation and function.
2. Adopt recommen- 2.Accept LOS E at
dations of Tri-Valley Jack London or
Subcommittee on widen Route 84 to 8
Route 84. lanes at Jack Lon-
don or provide a
grade separation.
3. Seek cooperative 3.Adopt recommen-
funding programs with dations of Tri-Valley
Central Valley and Subcommittee on
Fremont-South Bay Route 84.
jurisdictions to mitigate
the impact of additional
commute traffic through
the Tri-Valley.
1, T!x-+9,eer ac*iars sem(( hz A1&,,Afi1e4 �o� i4e, TSO
Barton A�chm�an)As o�c atesslnc c""APk��' ` 212
Action PI
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility\Ston Valley Road' East of I-680
Existing Configurati 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 940
Existing V/C 0.52
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None.
2010 Configuration anes
Volume 1,4 0
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 8
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.78
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville oo
San Ramon 19°
CCC 24-%/-
Dublin
4%
Dublin 4%
Pleasan n 5%
Liver re 4%
Al eda Co.
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions None.
PM Peak-Hour 201 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Stone Valley oad and Danville Boulevard 0.82 D
Stone Val y Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.56 A
Stone V [ley Road and 1680 NB Ramps 0.40 A
' olumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional significance.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 218
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Fallon Road' N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 10 10
Existing V/C 0.01 0.01
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening and extension at 6 lanes from 1-580 to Tassajara Road; reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro
and 1-580 interchange.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 2,900 2,450
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 0.54 0
V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.45
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 10% Danville 11%
San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9%
CCC 0% CCC 1%
Dublin 63% Dublin 55%
Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 12%
Livermore 7% Livermore 13%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions 1 1. Secure funding for 1. Secure funding
widening/extension. for widening/
extension.
2. Pursue HOV lanes 2. Pursue HOV
on 1-580. lanes on 1-580.
3. Secure funding for
1-580/Fallon
interchange improve-
ments.
Fur 4 b,*y t v�;cY6 b h;W (G,- i c.e .+ ��cj ', The► 1 S O Nz-vti.?Se,"•
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 219
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:North Canyons Parkway W.of Isabel
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' ?
Existing V/C ?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening and extension as 6 lanes from Doolan to Isabel Extension.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 3,090
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 229
V/C constrained]before Action Plan] 0.57
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Livermore 58%
Dublin 21%
Pleasanton 10%
CCC 3%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 3%
Through 5%
TSO V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions L 1. Secure developer
funding for
widening/extension.
2. Improve the inter-
section of N. Canyons
Parkway and Collier
Canyon.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon 1.02 F
North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension 0.92 E
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
2 Fl>•-q PU4 -.91icfi OVIS 3�,l be, i d CLA-NJ 6),, jl�)e.- 1-50
S�v J eA- i+s ciii=�mv j ,
Barton-Aschm n Associates, Inc. 221
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
N. of North
Facility:Isabel Extension' Canyons Parkway
Existing Configuration N/A
Existing Volume' N/A
Existing V/C N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension from 1-580 as a 6-lane/4-lane arterial to Vasco Road.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 3,330
Transit Service(busesthour both di- 12
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 98
V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.62
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Livermore 61%
Dublin 14%
Pleasanton 13%
CCC 3%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 3%
Through 7%
TSO to be achieved. V/C <0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions 3 1. Secure developer
funding for extension.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Isabel Extension and Vasco Road 0.60 A
Isabel Extension and North Livermore Avenue 0.68 B
Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway 0.92 E
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
'Not a route of regional significance LL . J'
3 Fa(((:gr-t Pic kc o,&n nh �. 'iC��.t.�'fi'�''� �'Y T 710 M41m2A" t o f
S,1-%,v(Y n,- 'rl-S c"k_, mi,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 223
Action Plan
Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in
Chapter 5, the followingATSOviolations are forecast to occur:
ar'd o-4'l►er
Intersection V/C LOS
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.93 E
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F
Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E
Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E
Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp 0.94 E
Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F
Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road 0.98 E
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.11 F
Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F
Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Manage-
ment strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study
should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of
growth management/control that would be required for each applicable Tri-Valley
jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be
proportional to the traffic distribution percentages for each jurisdiction. Also, the impact
of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed. All jurisdictions
will then review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development
or growth management/control is needed to meet the TSOs.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 232
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary
beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted
General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the
network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the
General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the
Traffic Service Objectives. The Regional Committee will be responsible for establishing
the type and size of amendment that will require review by the Regional Committee
and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment
found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction
ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA.
Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amend-
ment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or
Council or Board denial of the amendment.
Growth Management Tools. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control
document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not
be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does
establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth
rates.
If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction,
then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road
widening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b)
implement other measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on
the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant
improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the
TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to
the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard,
but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
A5 s+fid ih the cc-'rA Grnw-H, Maoalew,tV't )meeme_vn�%-^Dc-_o►nem4s, Pa9e, SG'SZ')
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates in Contra Costa County
and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments 'll be the same as those used in
preparing the Growth Management Element . If the specific prglec or po icy c anges
are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action
Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to
the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action
Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate
proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and
consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment
to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 237
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend-
ment 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.
I NSr=r_r 'A' N ERG
Amending the Plan
Amendments can be triggered by: periodic review of the plan (every two to four years);
identification of TSO violations; a jurisdiction's proposal to adopt a major general plan
amendment that was not considered in the existing plan; and/or a change in the major
assumptions underlying the Plan. A change in the assumptions for Gateway Con-
straints would constitute the latter.
This plan is based upon the assumption that major gateways into Tri-Valley will not
be expanded beyond the capacities assumed in the Expected Network as set forth in
Chapter 5. Any change in these assumptions, such as the addition of HOV lanes on
I-580 over the Altamont Pass, would require that this plan be amended to incorporate
revised assumptions for the Tri-Valley gateway constraints. Increased capacity at the
gateways could significantly increase projected congestion on downstream freeway
sections and arterial streets.
As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement governing the TVTC, amendments to the
plan will require a unanimous vote of all members of the TVTC.
Conflict Resolution
Because of the importance of support for the Plan by all members of the TVTC, the
Council should act on a consensus basis. However, some cases may arise in which
consensus cannot be reached. In cases where conflict exists between jurisdictions
within one county, resolution should be negotiated through the forum of the Conges-
tion Management Agency for the respective county. In cases where conflict exists
between jurisdictions in different counties, resolution should be negotiated through the
TVTC with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement applying. These provisions
state the following:
1. Unanimous vote of all members required for plan adoption and amendment.
2. Unanimous vote of all members required for adoption of annual work program and
budget.
3. _.Five votes required for grant applications, expenditure of funds, execution of
contracts, adoption of rules of procedure.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 238
NA ►►
Development Review Procedures for General Plan Amendments in
Contra Costa County. Any Tri Valley area general plan amendment
in Contra Costa County that generates 500 or more peak hour trips
than is currently allowed by the applicable General Plan, shall
be deemed consistent with this Action Plan if preceded or
accompanied by a multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning
agreement that identifies the responsibilities of the
participating parties to ensure that the subsequent approvals
will not result in a violation of Traffic Service Objectives .
Demonstration of compliance with TSOs shall include, but not be
limited to, computer model runs that incorporate each
jurisdiction' s Five Year Capital Improvement Program of
transportation projects and the projects of federal, state and
regional agencies such as Caltrans, transit operators, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, etc . In addition, the
computer model database will include each local jurisdiction' s
anticipated land use development projects realistically expected
to be constructed within the next five years .
The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement fulfills this
requirement for a multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning
agreement for development in the Dougherty Valley area. The
Contra Costa jurisdictions will consider entering into multi-
jurisdictional cooperative planning agreements with Alameda
County jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area.
C. 106a
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _July 11, 1995 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/
Action Plan Proposal
In considering the resolution to adopt the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan proposal, Steve Goetz of the
Community Development Department presented additional material
that became available at the July 10, 1995, meeting of the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council Technical Advisory Committee. He
advised that the information reflects the City of Dublin's
comments that were not previously incorporated into the Action
Plan text changes included in the resolution under consideration.
At the conclusion of the discussion the Board ADOPTED
Resolution No. 95/310 adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan proposal as presented by staff.
Further, the Board DIRECTED the Community Development
Director to advise the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)
that the Board has reviewed the supplemental changes considered
by the TVTC Technical Advisory Committee and is contingently
adopting the others if there is consensus on TVTC.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of SupekVISOfs on the date shown.
cc: Director, CDD ATTESTED: it 19c,";"
_
PHIL TCH COR,C rk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
Wt 0 ,Deputy
July 11, 1995 C. 106 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
Smith: I would suggest that the packet that we have in our
Agenda which has the corrections that we all discussed previously
and then discussed in the liaison Committee should be what we
adopt, and that the supplemental information that we have that
came from the TAC - maybe the best way for us to deal with that
would be to send it back to TVTC for further consideration
acknowledging that we have seen that, reviewed that, maybe do not
see any substantial objections from the County's part but that if
the TVTC, the rest of the jurisdictions other than just Dublin,
have objections, you know, it is fine for us to leave that out.
Bishop: I think that is a good approach. I think taking what we
agreed to at the Liaison and saying we adopt that and that we
contingently adopt the others if there is consensus at TVTC; that
way that avoids us having to go back. Sounds like a good way to
approach it.
Smith: Okay
Unanimously approved
. " RECEIVE® .
1 1 1995
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME
DATE: July 11, 1995
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director
by, Steven L. Goetz, Transportation Planning Division
D I
SUBJECT: Item C. 106 Revised Actions on the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council Transportation Plan/Action Plan
Attached for your information is additional material related to the
subject item on the July 11 Board of Supervisors Agenda. This
material was not available for distribution with the agenda packet .
An Updated version of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)
Transportation Plan/Action Plan recently became available during
the July 10, 1995 TVTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) . The
enclosed highlighted materials reflect the City of Dublin' s
comments, primarily editorial in nature, that were not previously
incorporated into the Action Plan text changes included in the
Board of Supervisors' agenda packet .
Including these attached pages in the Transportation Plan/ Action
Plan text changes, therefore, would be consistent with the same
materials that both the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon
would consider for approval .
Pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance (95-6) , the Board of
Supervisors may waive the 96-hour time limit on the availability of
agenda materials when, in its judgement, it is essential to do so,
providing that the County Administrator, appropriate Department
Head or staff members furnishes to the Board a written explanation
as to why the material could not be provided to the Board and the
general public within the 96 hour time limit . This memo serves as
the written explanation.
attachment
• Plan Alternatives
The reduced growth scenario was shown, however, to have a profound effect on traffic
levels on the arterial system. The TAC concluded that congestion on the arterial
system could be controlled through growth management, even though congestion on
the freeway system could not.
Plan Evolution
The TVTAC outlined four alternatives for consideration by the TVTC (see Table 6-4).
These were combinations of various elements discussed and tested throughout the
plan evolution.
These four alternatives were presented to the individual councils of each city and the
boards of the two counties. These elected representatives provided input as to which
plan elements should be pursued further. Table 6-5 shows the composite of positions
taken by each body. The TVTAC interpretation of the policy direction was as follows:
1. Road Improvements. Pursue the maximum amount of improvement within the
limits of physical feasibility, but keep the regional impact fee within the $1,000-
$2,000 per dwelling unit range. This was thought to be the highest politically
feasible subregional traffic impact fee.
2. Transit Improvements. Provide transit options in the well-travelled corridors, but
recognize that transit cannot carry a significant mode share given the suburban
land use pattern of the area.
3. Higher Densities. The benefit of higher densities from a transportation perspective
is that transit can be a more effective alternative to driving. There was some
interest in changing development patterns to increase overall densities, especially
in transit corridors. Recently approved specific plans for East Dublin and North
Livermore create some higher-density areas. Densities necessary to support
significant transit usage need to be at least 15 dwelling units per acre.
4. Growth Management. The TVTC agreed to proceed with a specific growth man-
agement study to resolve projected TSO deficiencies at 11 intersections and to
define equitable sharing of the burden.
5. Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered e4y for the freeway system in
locations where through traffic made achievement of TSOs impossible for the
TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodated, ramp
metering would allow achievement of CMP-mandated levels of service on the
freeways. Reduced LOS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the
strategy for resolving TSO violations, as discussed on page 237 of the Plan, r
6. TDM Measures. The need for realistically achievable ridesharing goals was
recognized. However, the TVTC is not in favor of simply assuming away problems..
They also are not in favor of aggressive programs such as paid parking.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 119
t
a �
Cu Cu �
m t E o c E E c c E '
in Q Z (n U) Z Z U
� � d
fn I co O (o
tm
j �.-.
O Cu v �.. RS >` C. t
I co
c E �. E c E c c c E
m :° o ` m c o .4' o o 0 0 0 0 > i
ct cn cn o cn I w Z cn Z Z Z N m
Cl) Cu
M a
c m � N
� CC E
QD
m o o � M o o E E o o E
mC7 Z c m Q Q U) U) Q Q N
C
O
a m
�' m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
a cn Co Co cn cn cn cn
cc
O
N N
C c
�Q CDE
a.. m Ca
>'FL
C ° o S o 0 0 0 0 0 c
�- E cn a & to to to to cn o
O N
O N
t �
•i
Q. m
H m
Lm d
O E a�
-02 `ac
> E E E E E E E N`°
Q E U) con � U) con con con to o L
O
i o
v
N U m <°
Co m m eEa Ucc � $
m 2 2 — c cocc
c
O = y 0 E c m m dcc
-
-� a Q U o o a cn a Q
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 121
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility:Tassajara Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume' 200 200 P00
Existing V/C 0.11 0.11 0.11
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard,6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard to County Line,4 lanes
north of County Line.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,700 3,750 2,600
Transit Service(buses/hour both di- 18 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 1,066 84 120
V/C constrained[before Action Plan[ 0.51 0.69 0.48
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern Danville 0% Danville 0% Danville 1%
San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6%
Dublin 35% Dublini 35% Dublin 17%
CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14°%
Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58%
Livermore 101/0 Livermore2 10°/a Livermore 4°%
Through 0% Through 0°%.
TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at intersections. V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C <0.90 at intersections.
sections.
Recommended Actionsz 1.Secure developer funding for Vone.
widening.
C 2.PtA Consider putting in place
Ij mutually agreed and equitable l
multijurisdictional growth man-
agement-
FROM 61 T-906
3.Consider widening or ex-
panding the highway network,
improving transit service,or
improving transportation de-
mand management.
PM Peak-liour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Pla /C LOS
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road 0.76 C
Tassajara Road and Highland Road 0.65 B
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue 0.70 B
Tassaiara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.84 D
Volumes and capacity refer to PM pea our, pe rection of flow.
a Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 197
Action Plan
Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in
Chapter 5, the following and other TSO violations are forecast to occur:
Intersection V/C LOS
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.93 E
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F
Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E
Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E
Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp 0.94 E
Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F
Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road 0.98 E
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.11 F
Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F
Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Manage-
ment strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study
should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of
growth management/control that would be required for each applicable Tri-Valley
jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be
proportional to the traffic distribution per-eentages for each jurisdiction. Any development
reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of
the participating iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop and if
adopted, shall insure that iurisdictions with relatively greater development potential do j
not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this develop-
ment reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed; other alternatives such as toll
road may also be analyzed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know
exactly how much reduction in development or growth management/control is needed to
meet the TSOs. The growth management study and any impact fees would each have to
be approved unanimously. Violations or proiected violations of TSO standards remaining
after a growth management strategy is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on page 237
of the Plan.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 232
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives
The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While
certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the
specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP
does not eaiatr-el gr-e%4h direetly but indir-eetly thf eugh the T-SQ6.
Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of
service are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road improve-
ments so that the TSOs continue to be met. Achievement of the TSOs depends upon
successful implementation of the actions, measures, and programs set forth in
Chapter 9, "Action Plan."
In Contra Costa County, if, following good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a
TSO is not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of
TVTC and SWAT. Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of TSOs, a
strengthening of actions, or a combination of these approaches. In Alameda County,
the jurisdiction with the TSO violation can elect to modify growth rates, improve the
facility, or seek a lower TSO standard through the amendmeat process set forth on
page 237 of the Plan. in this ehapte-r
The TSOs related to mode split and average vehicle ridership are goals for achieve-
ment by 2010. They need to be monitored and adjustments to the plan made if
progress is not being made. Progress should be defined as increasing transit ridership
and increasing average vehicle ridership.
The TSOs should be monitored every two years. The following describes how each
should be measured. Each jurisdiction should report the results of their monitoring
activities to the TV TAC for review. Any TSO violations should be forwarded to the
TVTC with recommended actions.
Freeway Levels of Service. The TSOs are expressed both in terms of volume-to-capacity
ratio (V/C) and hours of congestion. Volume-to-capacity ratio and hours of congestion
can be measured with traffic counts or speed runs and should apply to mixed-flow
lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles
capacity for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of
congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA_
Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using
the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts.
Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersec-
tion hes. The intent of the TVTP is to maintain the intersection TSO at all signalized
intersections. However, to avoid extensive data collection, each jurisdiction should
establish a list of critical intersections for monitoring.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 235
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary
beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted
General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the
network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the
General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the
Traffic Service Objectives. The Regional Committee will be responsible for establishing
the type and size of amendment that will require review by the Regional Committee
and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment
found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction
ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA.
Consistency with the Action,Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amend-
ment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or
Council or Board denial of the amendment.
Growth Management Tools. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control
document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not
be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Never-theless, the plan
establisla Tf"sper-tatiea SeF-Aee Qlajeetives, whieh may inEhi-eetly iniquenee gr-
rates. Growth beyead what is assumed h- i . eeu.- provided the T-90s are met.
If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction,
then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road
widening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b)
implement other measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on
the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant
improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the
TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to
the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard,
but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates in Contra Costa County
and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in
preparing the Growth Management Elements as stated in the CCTA Growth Manage-
ment Implementation Documents,-Pajze IG-52 If the specific project or policy changes
are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action
Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to
the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action
Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPs to evaluate
proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and
consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment
to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 237