The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.5 TVTD (Attach A) July 1995 ,.~ ") (, (f\. e So <6'7.... '1" A ~'''''''',~~ "< "I? ;'"r-"~-..'r 'e . I 1,1 ,~ ~ ! ,,' . II ,.,. ,,, W~I I ~" ~~ r~" 'E' ~ " im;! (/' )0" .,OJ> 5..6 'Financial '"Plan:" \ ~ ',' , Alameda County Contra Costa County Private Funding Potential 'Future ,Funding Sources Potential Future Transportation Projects ,Detailed Finance Plan' .. 'I . ' _ . I , " : ., ,. " " . J', " L I '. L .-,' ~. I \ Appendix A: ,Description ofVCCCProgram AppendixB: Comparison ,of Total Growth Through 2010 t.o Net New Growth Appendix G: Joint Powers Agreement Contents (Continued) " !Ii r,' , ~ I Figures E-1 Study Area E-2 Planned Transportation Network 1-1 Tri-Valley Subareas Used in This Report 1-2 Routes of Regional Significance 1-3 Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes 2-1 Existing Lane Configurations 2-2 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 2-3 Existing Congested Locations 2-4 Existing Bikeways 2-5 Proposed Bikeways 2-6 1990 Total Trips by Type-PM Peak Hour 4-1 Baseline Assumed Road Network Changes 4-2 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes-Baseline Forecast (ABAG '90) 4-3 Baseline Forecast Year 2010 Peak-Hour Overcapacity Links 4-4 2010 Total Trips by Type-PM Peak Hour 5-1 Expected Transportation Network 5-2 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak Hour Traffic Demand (No Gateway Constraint) 5-3 Example of Gateway Peak Spreading 5-4 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand (No Gateway Constraint) 5-5 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand (With Gateway Constraint) 5-6 Year 2010 Expected Forecast Peak-Hour Overcapacity Roadways With Gateway Constraint 5-7 Expected Network-Interchange Configuration 6-1 Maximum Highway Network-Changes From Baseline Network 6-2 Congested Roadways With Maximum Highway Alternative 6-3 , Maximum Transit Alternative-Priority Express Bus Network 6-4 Maximum Transit Alternative-Intercity/Commuter Rail 6-5 Congested Roadways With Maximum Transit Alternative 6-6 Congested Roadways With Zero Growth Land Use Alternative 7-1 Planned Transportation Network 7-2 Park-and-Ride Lots Exhibits 1 Projections '92 Forecast for Year 2010 Households and Employment in Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections '90 Forecasts 394.TIP/651193.90100 Page vii xi' 3 5, 9 12 18 23 30 32 37 48 50 52 59 69 , ./~ 1 .J i 1 i 'I 72 74 76 78 81 88 100 103 105 106 108 112 129 138 44' Executive Summary The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to address transportation issues through the year'2010 within the Tri-Valley area including Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County. This document is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and regulations that exist in each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions. The study area and the primary roads are shown in Figure E-l. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Signifi- cance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is the culmination of a four-year work effort to identify existing and future transportation deficiencies and identify a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses the deficiencies. The Tri-Valley work was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), an advisory board of representatives from each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Funding for this effort was shared equally by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Alameda County jurisdictions. The ,consulting firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., through a series of meetings with the TVTC, prepared the study. Existing Transportation Issues The study was initiated in 1991 with parallel efforts to develop the Tri-Valley Travel Forecasting Demand Model and assess study issues and existing conditions. Discussions with representatives from each community and preliminary technical analysis culminated with the following findings: Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 vi Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND Routes of Regional Significance Danville ------ \ , , ",-, , '" - , '" i JOHNS 10N II ~ --- --- -- --- ' -- ~ (Nol 10 Scalc) --- ' cou~\.~ ' coS\.O '\V . \fO r ()\){\ 1 CO!' " 00 J _ /- p.,\ofC'e Figure E-10 STUDY AREA Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (NoC Co Serde) ~ , , ~ ~ couf\~~ ,/- COS\.O / - ' Of\\.{O '----. couf\\'l C ,,/ eOO _ ____ - - t-.\O{'fl LEGEND Routes of Regional Significance ---- ---- ---- --- ,--- -- ,. .. MAl SCHOOL RO ~ ~ ~ ---- ---- o '" Ik \!I~ ~~ ISABEL EXTENSION , '~-- Q '" ') 'J ~ o '" \oj ::I ~ \oj ~ CAST AV figure [-lb 84 NILES CANYON RO STUDY AREA <"-...:..:::..- -"- Executive Summary 1. .Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. 2. Transit use is relatively low-four percent of total trips. 3. Existing average vehicle occupancy is about 1.1 for commute trips. 4. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out-commuting. 5. 1-680 and I-580 are major regional highways. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. 2010 Traffic Conditions Once the study issues and existing transportation system characteristics were identified, staff used the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were fIrst developed in consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and MTC. When the plan was started, ABAG's Projections '90 were the most current forecasts available. Projections '90 did not include forecasts for the year 2010. These forecasts were extrapo- lated from Projections '90 year 2005 fore.casts in consultation with ABAG. Once developed, the TVTC determined that the forecasts did not reflect current land use or network planning. The TVTC refined the land use forecasts and transportation networks to reflect current general plans and Projections '92, which had significantly increased employment projec- tions for some Alameda County jurisdictIons. The "expected" land use forecasts were evaluated along with an "expected" transportation system. The results of this evaluation were as follows: . Highway gateways to the area <I-680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84, I-580 over Dublin Grade and Altamont Pass, Crow Canyon Road at the county line, and Vasco Road) will have more demand than capacity. This would occur even without growth in the Tri-Valley due to regional traffic demands. With some locally funded modifications, the majority of the arterial system within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS D or better. 1-680 and 1-580 within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided ramp metering and HOV lanes are installed. Jobs and ho.using growth for year 2010 is projected. to be 99 percent anQ84peJ.'Cent, resp~ctively. Jobs and housingwo'llld be in balance, that is, one job would exiSt for every employed resident. Provided there is a match between housing prices and salaries, this minimizes but does not eliminate in-commuting and out-commuting. The 1990 ratio of jobs to employed residents was 0.91. In 2010 the ratio is expected to increase to 0.99. . . . Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 Ix Executive Summary · The transit mode share will increase slightly frpIIl exi$ting condi.tions. . Average vehicle occupancy will not change appreciably from existing conditions. \ I , The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were , the basis for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all traffic congestion in Tri- Valley. Levels of service on some arterial segments and on freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E. Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. · Financial constraints. · Physical limitations within corridors. · Development pattern. j Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initia- tives mayor may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I -680 and 1-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve, thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectation,s. The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. "Gate- ways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri- Valley to adjoining areas. This will help to meter traffic in and out of the area. The plan balances the internal transportation network with planned growth through the provision of several roadway and transit improvements. Figure E-2 shows the transportation plan network. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 x Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville ----- - - -- LEGEND 8 = Number of r reewoy lones '" 6-Lane or 8-Lane Arterial IIIIIII = 4-Lone Arterial - olher slreets are 2-Lanes o = Improved Interchange .--- -- .--- .--- , , ",-, , '" .--- - , '" ~ (Not to Senlf) COU{\\~ COS\.O \'1 C ...\.to C Ol){\ 0'. _-- dO j .--- _ - .-' f.,\off'e Figure E - 20 PLANNED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. i couf\\'j - - ---- casto - - ---- CO~~--dO-Gf\\'j _ ____ - ~\o{'f\e ---- LEGEND ---- ---- -- (NoC Co So~) -- ---- , ---- ~ , , ~ , , '\...- - ' ~ el! ~~ > ~ Mol Y SCHOOl RO I -- .SABEL EXTENSION i ~ l:l ~ TeStA RD 8 = Number of Freeway Lones = 6-Lane or 8-Lane Arterial 1111111- 4-Lane Arterial - other streels ore 2-Lanes o = Improved Interchange figure E-2b 84 HItES CANYOH RO PLANNED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK 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 maintai~ing Transportation Service Objectives through their general plans. The transportation ~ervice obj~ctivesadopted by the. TV'rC areras {~llows,:. · Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90 or 0.91) 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. 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 measur- able improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional Significance network and contrib- ute 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. 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: · 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 Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 xiii Executive Summary 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 n~w, unapproved development. The Plan identifies 11 regional transportation improvements that could be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-l). Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about $2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commerciaVoffice/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. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 xiv Table ES-1 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding1 Project Estimated Cost (millions of current dollars at time of construction) Major Funding Sources Measure C Amount of Funding Unfunded Available (millions) Amount (millions) $89,3 $5.6 $63 $137 $10 $27 $510 $27 0 $37 0 $14.4 $20.5 $0 $0 $2 $0 $11.3 $1,7 $8.6 $0 $25 0 $16.2 $694.5 , $311 ,1 1-580/1-680 Interchange Route 84 (includes interchanges at 1-580 and Stanley) 1-680 Auxiliary lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) BART Extension (2 stations; East and West Dublin/Pleasanton Station) 1-580 HOV lanes (T assajara to N, Livermore) 1-680 HOV lanes (Route 84 to Sunol Grade) Ramp Metering 1-580/Foothilllnterchange Alcosta Interchange Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements Vasco Road Realignment Express Bus Service Total $94.9 $200 Measure B Measure B, MTC Livermore, Others $37 Measure C $537 Measure B State, local Caltrans $37 $14.4 $20.5 $2 $11.3 $10.32 Caltrans $25 $16.2 $1,005.6 1 This table is preliminary in nature. The project list is subject to further discussion at the TVTC. 2 Assumes that one-half the cost will be paid by Area 4 (Tri-Valley) and one-half the cost by Area 3. 1 . Introduction The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to assess transportation issues within the Tri-Valley area through the year 2010. The study area includes Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa Countyjurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Manage- ment Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This document is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and regul~tions that exist in each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions. The plan was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which includes elected officials from each of the seven member jurisdictions, under a joint powers agreement. The TVTC was assisted by the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TVTAC), which includes staff transportation planners and engineers from each agency. These groups met monthly throughout the plan process, which began in November 1991. Funding for the Plan came from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the three Alameda Tri-Valley cities. The plan was prepared using the Tri- Valley Transportation Model (TVTM), which was developed by Barton-Aschman and TJKM and approved by the TVTC for transportation planning. The zone structure for the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is compatible with the Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and MTC transportation models. The model has been certified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. This transportation plan is intended to fulfill the requirement for preparation of Action Plans under Measure C in Contra Costa County. Alameda County does not have a similar Action Plan requirement. Nevertheless, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 1 , , I Introduction County portion of Tri-Valley. The TVTC joint powers agreement states that member jurisdictions are to consider the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending the circulation elements of general plans, specific plans. zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs. The consultant team began meeting with Tri Valley representatives in November, 1991. Meetings were held once each month with the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This committee provided guidance to the consultant and reviewed all work products prior to their submittal to the Tri Valley Technical Council (TV'!'C). The TVTC acted as the final approval body for all work completed by the consultant. Meetings between the TVTC, TVTAC, and the consultant also occurred on a monthly basis.. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of planning areas used to summarize data in this report. These boundaries have no planning status except within this report, although attempts have been made to conform to city and sphere of influence boundaries. Routes of Regional Significance have been adopted by each city in Contra Costa County, as well as the County, as part of the Measure C Growth Management Program. Routes of Regional Signific~nce are those roads that serve regional mobility, or act as reliever routes for the regional system, and serve more than one jurisdiction. The designated routes are exempt from the Measure C basic route level of service standards. Other measures, Traffic Service Objectives are to be adopted for these routes. The plan also includes Routes of Regional Significance for Alameda County, although these are not mandated by county policy'(see Figure 1-2). Compliance Requirements on Regional Routes Requirements for compliance with the provisions of the Growth Management Program relating to Routes of Regional Significance are: 1. Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans: Action Plans will be developed through the work of the Regional Committees. 2. Implementation of actions designed to attain traffic service objectives consistent with adopted Action Plan: Action Plans will specify actions to be taken by each jurisdiction. All localities will agree to the actions before the Plans are finalized and adopted. After adoption, cities and the county will have an obligation to implement specified actions consistent with the time frame of the Action Plan. 3. Placing conditions on project approval consistent with Action Plan policies: Some Action Plan policies may require implementation on an ongoing basis through the imposition of conditions on development approv~ls. These might relate to payment of mitigation fees, impl~mentation of TSMfI'DM measures, or phasing of development relative to infrastructure improvements. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 2 ,Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Other CCC Figure 1-10 TRI-V ALLEY SUBAREAS USED IN THIS REPORT ,Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ----- ~ other AC N. Livermore East Dublin Livermore Pleasanton figure 1 -1 b TRI-VALLEY SUBAREAS USED IN THIS REPORT 'T'~ ,,:::----'~ Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND Danville ---'--- , , '--, , '" , '- = Routes of Regional Significance ... u ~ ~ 0 ~G: ---- .-'" .-" ---- ---- ---- ---- ~ (Nol III 5"'01..) COU0\.~ costO , -t ' tfO _ /' Cou0 'I co0./ edO _ " ---- ~~O{f\ .....__ r' Figure 1- 20 ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (Not to Scate) ~ , , ~ i LEGEND Routes of Regional Significance ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- :> '" MAt SCHOOL RD ~ ~ ~ ---- -- ~ !h ....~ ~~ '99EL EXTENSION , '",-- ~' Co0f\:~ - - /~ Of\VO ~~::~;~0\i C /-- eOO _ ____ - - ~\O ('f\ ~ .:l ~ 'r ,:> 'J ~ l:l CAST AV ~ Figure 1- 2b 84 HIlES CANYON RO ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Introduction Two other regional systems have been designated in the Tri-Valley. These are described briefly below. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the state-mandated CMP. In the Tri-Valley, ,they include only I-68D, 1-580, and Route 84. The respective county CMP's are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and National Highway System (NHS) Routes The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defined a system, called the Metropolitan Transportation System, in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan, and the system has been updated for the 1994 RTP. The purpose of the MTS is to define those facilities and services that are crucial to freight and passenger mobility in the Bay Area. The MTS includes streets and highways, transit systems, seaports, airports, truck terminals, rail yards, and transfer points. In addition to streets and highways, the MTS in the Tri-Valley includes transit corridors along 1-680, I-580, and Route 84; the Altamont Pass railroad tracks, which continue to Fremont; and the Livermore airport. The criteria for defining streets and highways in the MTS are as follows: · Serves a major Bay Area activity center · Provides important intercountyand/~r interregional connections · Serves as a reliever for a freeway · Provides important connections in the MTS system · Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion · Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities. Significance of MTS Designation. Roads that are part of the MTS may benefit from funding available to regional facilities. Any road not in the MTS is considered as serving primarily local travel. Tbe National Highway System (NHS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) calls for the U.S. Congress to designate a National Highway System by December 1995. For the Bay Area, MTC has developed a recommended NHS, which is a subset of the MTS. The purpose of the NHS is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transporta- tion facilities and other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and interregional travel. The NHS was proposed to focus federal funds to improve a limited number of high priority routes. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 7 Introduction Figure 1-3 shows the MTS and NHS routes in the Tri-Valley area. Relationship to County Plans The Tri-Valley Action Plan will be combined with action plans from the other four subareas in Contra Costa County to create the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In Alameda County, a countywide transportation plan was recently. completed. The Tri- Valley Transportation Plan is compatible with the Alameda County Transportation Plan, although it is more detailed and focused in the Tri-Valley Area. If adopted, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan would be incorporated into future updates of the Alameda County Plan. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 8 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND I IIIII I = MTS & CMP Route = MTS Route Danville ---- - - --- - , , ",-, , '" --- '! JOHNS'o!:! 0.: --- --- ~ (Nol 10 Scald Cou(\:~ ' COS\.O - "\. \,f0 - COU(\ '/ CO~ ,- 00 /_ /- t>-\Off\e --- Figure 1 - 30 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT A liON SYSTEM (MTS) AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM teMP) ROUTES -', '" , ~ ,--- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ couf\'-'l_ ----- cos'-O __ . ' ' .--\(O ,/ - 'coufl'-'l co' :./ -' 00 _ _ ___ - - p..,\o(fle ---- ---- (Not to Scal,) ---- ---- ---- ---- '" ---- .. MAl SCHOOL RD ~ ~ ~ , ---- ~ , ~ ~ II: ISAIlEL EXTENSION ~~ ...>- , c sg , "'-- - ' Q g . . " . C, Q ," l.J 't ... iZ <:> ~ '.> ii? ~ .... ~ II! ~ (AST AV '" STANLEY ilL '" '" IrSLA RD = MTS Route LEGEND figure 1-3b 1111111- MTS & CMP Route METROPOLIT AN TRANSPORT A liON SYSTEM (MTS) AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ROUTES 2. Existing Transportation Conditions Chapter Summary · Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. Some occasional congestion occurs on the freeways, especially near the I-5801I-680 interchange. · Transit usage is relatively low-four percent of total trips. · Existing average vehicle ridership is about 1.1 for commute trips. · There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out-commuting. · 1-680 and I-580 are major regional highways serving substantial regional demand. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. ,This chapter describes the existing transportation systems within the Tri-Valley area, including the routes of regional significance, the intersection levels of service at major intersection locations, traffic volumes, transit systems, and bicycle routes serving the area. Figure 2-1 shows the number of lanes on the Routes of Regional Significance. Each is described below. State Highways Interstate 580 (1-580) is an eight-lane east/west freeway designated as a route of regional significance through the Tri-Valley area. Auxiliary lanes exist between Foothill Road and Santa Rita Road. I-580 is a critical freight route as designated by the Alameda County CMA. A truck-climbing lane exists in the westbound direction from Foothill Road to the top of the Dublin grade. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 11 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND 8 = Number of Lanes on Routes of Regional Significance Danville ------ ~ JOHNS 10" ~ \ \ \ .--- .--- , , ,-, , .--- '" .--- - , '" .--- ~ (Not to S(;ulr) co\lf\\.~ COS\.O ,- \. f\\JO - co\lf\ '/ ~ - - - rl'\eCO .--- _ - ~\O'" Figure 2-10 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (No 1 10 Scule) ~ , , ~ LEGEND COU0~! -- cos\.o ___ - - - 0\.('0 /~ - t,Ou0\'l Co __~,- - 00 , ~ ,/ - - t>-\O('fle i ..-- ....-- ....-- ,....-- ....-- ....-- ....-- ....-- ,.. ....-- .. Mol Y SCHOOl RO ~ ....-- ~ Q: ~ ~ e; - ~ ~~ ~ Cl Q: fi! 2 ~ ~ 8 CAST AV 8 = Number of Lones on Routes of Regional Significance 84 NIlES CANYON RO ~ ~ ! \oj ~ .~ figure 2-1 b EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS Existing Transportation Conditions 1-680 is a six-lane north/south freeway through the Tri-Valley area. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction between SR 24 in Walnut Creek and the county line at Alcosta Boulevard. 1-680 from 1-580 to Santa Clara County was widened a few years ago and includes sufficient right-of- way for additional lanes. I-680 is a designated major freight route by the Alameda County CMA, and there are truck climbing lanes over the Sunol grade. State Route 84 (SR 84) is an arterial.street including First Street and Holmes Street through Livermore and Vallecitos Road south of Pleasanton. SR 84 diagonally connects 1-680 to 1-580. First Street has a varied lane configuration and varied land uses along the length of its corridor. From I-580 to Portola Avenue, First Street is a six-lane road. From Portola Avenue to Holmes Street, First Street is a four-lane road with sidewalks, bike lanes, and a raised median. (In some locations the median becomes a two-way, left-turn lane or disappears entirely.) Parking is permitted along some sections of First Street. Holmes Street also has a varied lane configuration that changes from four lanes with sidewalks and median, to two lanes with a wide painted median and sidewalk, to two lanes with no median. The land use varies from light commercial to residential to rural. Bike lanes are present where the street narrows to two lanes. Vallecitos Road is a two- lane winding, rur~l road that passes through mostly undeveloped farm land and hills. Routes of Regional Significance in Livermore Area Vasco Road is a north/south arterial that is defined as a route of regional significance through Contra Costa County and Alameda County to its termination at Tesla Road in the City of Livermore. Vasco Road is a two-lane road along most of its length, except in developed areas near Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories where it widens to four lanes with concrete curbs, bike lanes, and a raised landscaped median. Stanley Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional significance from its intersection with First Street and Holmes Street in Livermore to its intersection with First Street in Pleasanton. Stanley Boulevard is four lanes along its entire length. Bike lanes are continuous along Stanley Boulevard except in the region near Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area where the bike lanes convert into a two-way bike path on the south side of the road. First Street and Holmes Street are part of Route 84 (see above). Routes of Regional Significance in Pleasanton Area First Street is a two-lane, north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from Stanley Boulevard in the north, to Bernal Avenue in the south. North of downtown, First Street has bike lanes on both sides. Through downtown Pleasanton, First Street has a center turn lane, one lane each way. parking on both sides, and sidewalks. Sunol Boulevard is a north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from Bernal Avenue to its interchange with I-680. South of Bernal Avenue, Sunol Boulevard is four lanes with raised median, sidewalk, and bike lanes, with adjacent commercial and Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 14 Existing Transportation Conditions residential land uses. South of Junipero Street. Sunol Boulevard narrows to two lanes with no median. ' Santa Rita Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance from its intersection with 1-580 in the north, to its intersection with Stanley Boulevard and Main Street near downtown Pleasanton. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane road with sidewalks and raised medians south of 1-580. At Valley Avenue, Santa Rita Road narrows to four lanes. A residential frontage road on the east side of Santa Rita Road exists in the segment between Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. Main Street is the continuation of Santa Rita Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to Bernal Avenue. Main Street is a two-lane road with left-turn lanes at Ray Street/St. John Street, St. Mary, and Ray Street/Neal Street. Main Street has sidewalks and parking along both sides in the downtown area. Hopyard Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance from its intersection with 1-580 to its intersection with Del Valle Parkway and Division Street. South of I-580 to Valley Avenue, Hopyard Road is a six-lane road with wide lanes, sidewalks, and a raised median. A right-turn lane exists between intersections at Owens Drive and Las Positas Boulevard on the east side (northbound direction) of the road. Between Valley Avenue and Division Street, Hopyard Road transitions from six lanes with median sidewalks and bike lanes, to a three-lane and then a two-lane road with an asphalt concrete path on the west side. Division Street is a continuation of Hopyard Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with St. Mary Street. Division Street is a two-lane road with a sidewalk on the west side only. St. Mary Street is a continuation of Division Street and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with Main Street in downtown Pleasanton. St. Mary Street is a two-lane road with sidewalks and parking on both sides. St. Mary Street has a center turn lane between Peters Avenue and Main Street. Stoneridge Drive is an east/west route designated as a route of regional significance from Foothill Road to east of Santa Rita Road. Stoneridge Drive is planned to connect to Jack London Boulevard at EI Charro Road. Stoneridge Drive varies between four and six lanes with raised median, sidewalks, and bike lanes from Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road. East of Santa Rita Road, Stoneridge Drive narrows to a two-lane road with sidewalks and bike lanes on the south side of the street. Stoneridge Drive is planned for six lanes for its entire length. Routes of Regional Significance in Dublin Area San Ramon Road is the continuation of San Ramon Valley Boulevard into the City of ' Dublin. San Ramon ROad is designated as a route of regional significance from the northern city limit to the southern city limit. From Alcosta Boulevard to Amador Valley Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 15 Existing Transportation Conditions Boulevard, San Ramon Road has four lanes with a raised median, bike lanes and sidewalks. South of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road widens to six lanes. Tassajara Road is a north/south route that is defIDed as a route of regional significance from Camino Tassajara to I-580. Tassajara Road is a two-lane road from Camino Tassaja- ra to the I-580 on- and off-ramps where it becomes four lanes; Land use along Tassajara Road' is mainly rural. Dougherty Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance from Crow Canyon Road to 1-580. From Crow Canyon Road to the Dublin City Limit, Dougherty Road is a winding two-lane road. From the city limit, Do'ugherty Road has four travel lanes. Some sidewalks exist adjacent to completed housing developments. A bike path (two-way bike lanes) exists on the east side of the street: South of Sierra Lane, Dougherty Road becomes a five-lane road with the addition of a center left-turn lane. The center left turn-lane is replaced by a northbound lane just north of I-580 (three north- bound lanes, two southbound lanes). Dublin Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional significance from San Ramon.Road to Tassajara Road. Dublin Boulevard is a four-lane road with sidewalks on both sides and a raised median from San Ramon Road to Dougherty Road and a two-lane road from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. West of I-680, parking is permitted along both sides of the road. Land use along Dublin Boulevard is mostly commercial/retail. Routes of Regional Significance in San Ramon Area I .i San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a northlsouth route that is designated as a route of regional significance from Danville to the Dublin City Limit. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two-lane road at the Danville Town Limits, and widens to a four-lane road with raised median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Where land use is more rural, between Montevideo and Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two-lane road with bike lanes on both sides. Between Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a six-lane road with heavy commercial use. The remaining segments of San Ramon Valley Boulevard consist of four lanes. Alcosta Boulevard is a four-lane, east/west route with a raised median and sidewalks, defined as a route of regional significance for only a short segment from 1-680 to Village Parkway. Alcosta Boulevard extends from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, and includes a full interchange with 1-680. Bollinger Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard. Bollinger Canyon is a four-lane road with a raised median and sidewalks from Crow Canyon Road to I-680 and widens to six lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard. In conjunction with development of the Dougherty Valley, Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended east to intersect Dougherty Road. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' 16 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.' Danville ---- ---- , , ,",-, , '" , ... --........., '" 7 300 JOHNS1o!:l -- -- ~ (Not to Scolp) cou~'-~ -- COS\.O , . /- - ",\.to _ - -- 'couf\\.'/ COl' _ --- dO ___ _ _ -- ~\off\e Figure 2-20 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES d c en Q) .... a~ U o In U'J < c as E ..c u In < I C o ... "- as ED \ ,:) 1<0 C 'J~~C ,\0 '\~. , ~, CS \ :;- O,c. o''? ,0 o \ <..J -' , \f),O 0\-0 <..J Q) ,~ 0, 0 ~\'4. 0, 0' \ , Q 0:; ~ ~ ~ ^>' J/lOmlJN1 N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .... .. -; !:::a..t: --... ~ .s Q ~ 0/1 NOJ.N'r') . /iJl710~ " / ( 0/1 O~SY^ Q '" '<; ~ ~ ~ 15 I <) .... '" ; ! '" O/i 7300 0/1 ~...-..ss->,.l S ;!; ill 8 , ) I .0 N I N Q) ~ :;:J en L:: en w :E ::J -J o > o - u. u. < a: I- >- -J - < C C!J z - t- W - >< W ~ ~o ~~ ",N i- '<t !Xl Existing Transportation Conditions freeway interchanges such as 1~680/Crow Canyon Road and 1-5801 Dougherty Road! Hopyard Drive. Table 2-1 compares the volumes to typical capacity ranges. The roads that are nearing capacity based on ADT are Vasco Road, Vallecitos Road (Highway 84), First Street in Pleasanton, the two-lane section of San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon, Crow Canyon Road near 1-680, Hopyard Road north of Owens, San Ramon Road near 1~580, Dougherty Road near 1~580, and Dublin Boulevard west of 1-680. First Street in Pleasanton, however, is a downtown street, and congestion in this location is expected du,e to the dense development. 'Freeway Levels of Service Level of service descriptions for both 1-580 and 1-680 were obtained from the 1-680 Corridor Study Existing Conditions report prepared by TJKM: for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and from freeway travel times studies prepared by Abrams Associates for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. These values are shown on Figure 2~3. The freeway lane capacity is assumed to be 2,200 vehicles per hour. 1-580 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout the Tri-Valley area during peak hours with the exception of a short segment between the 1-5801l-680 interchange and the Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road interchange in Pleasanton. This section occasionally becomes congested during peak. hours. 1-680 operates at LOS C or better in both direc- tions throughout most of the Tri-Valley area. However, a section of northbound 1-680 between Stoneridge and the I-B801l-580 inter- change occasionally becomes congested during peak hours as does the southbound segment between Alcosta and the 1~680f[~580 interchange. All these problems on 1-580 and 1-680 near the 1-6801l-580 interchange are caused by the interchange design with loop , ramps and weaving sections. The other segments of 1-680 that occasionally become congested are from Crow Canyon, Road north to the 1-680/24 interchange. Intersection Levels of Service The operating conditions at intersections of routes of regional significance and at certain freeway off-lon-ramps were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free.flow conditions with little or no delay time at the intersection, to LOS F, or highly congested conditions with long delays at the intersection (see Table 2-2). Final Tr; -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 20 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT ,( in thousands) Livermore Vasco Road 2 13,500 17-20 Stanley Boulevard 4 24,300 27-36 Pleasanton First Street (north of Neal) 2 18,500 15-20 Sunol Boulevard (south of Bernal) 4 17,700 27-36 Santa Rita Road (north of Las 6 27,900 40-56 Positas) Main Street (north of Rose) 2 9,800 12-17 Hopyard Road (north of Owens) 6 43,000 40-56 Division Street 2 6,900 12-17 Stoneridge Drive west of 1-680 6 29,000 40-56 east of Santa Rita Road 4 17,000 27-36 Dublin San Ramon Road north of Amador Valley 4 23,600 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 48,600 40-56 Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard 4 21 ,400 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 44,200 40-56 Dublin Boulevard east of 1-680 4 24,000 27-36 west of 1-680 4 32,100 27-36 San Ramon San Ramon Valley Boulevard north of Alcosta Boulevard 2 12,100 12-17 north of Crow Canyon Road 4 21 ,300 27-36 Alcosta Boulevard 4 24,600 27-36 Bollinger Canyon Road 6 36,400 40-56 Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 21 Existing Transpoftation Conditions Table 2-1 (Continued) Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT (in thousands) Crow Canyon Road west of San Ramon 2 20,000 17-20 west of 1-680 6 44,300 40-56 east of 1-680 6 48,200 40-56 west of Dougherty Road 4 13,000 27-36 Oanville Camino T assajara 4 18,000 27-36 Sycamore Valley Road 4 18,900 27-36 Hartz A venue 2 10,400 12-17 Danville Boulevard 4 18,700 27-36 'San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2 12-17 Crow Canyon Road 6 18,000 40-56 State Route 84 First Street north of Portola Avenue 6 27,200 40-56 north of Holmes Street 4 12,700 27-36 Holmes Street 4 23,000 27-36 Vallecitos Road 2 11 ,000 12-17 Niles Canyon Road 2 12,500 12-17 , Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 22 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville --...---- , , "-- , , '" , ..................... LEGEND = Overcapacity Link o = LOS E of F Intersection ... u z ... '" it Q ~ Q: --- JOHN5101:! --- ~ (lVol to Sc,,'e) cou~\.t costO, . ..--' ' tfO _' "--'couf\t'J COf\ _ --- 00 .- _ _ --' ~\O{{'e Figure 2-30 EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (NoI 10 SemI.) ~ ~ , , ~ i cout'\.i --- COS\.O __ " cot'~- - dO- t,out'\i _ _ __ - -p..\o('(\e LEGEND -- -- Overcapacity Link -- LOS E 01 F Inlcrseclion o -' -- -- -- " .. /.lAy SCHOOL RO ~ '" ~ -- -- -- ",fi? ~~ ~~ << , , "----'" - - fi? " ;1 Q: rJ ~ ... ~ ~ (ASr AV figure 2-3b 84 HILES CANYON RO EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-2 level of Service Definitions Level of Service V IC Ratio Interpretation A B C o E F Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle. Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approach- es. Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersec- tion functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No longstanding queues formed. Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning move- ments. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections(s) upstream of critical approach(es). Total breakdown, stop-and"go operation. Less Than 0.60 0.60-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-0.99 1.00 and Greater A signalized intersection's level of servic~ can be calculated with a number of methods. For this study, a method based on critical movement analysis, called the VCCC method was used. VCCC stands for Volume-to-Capacity Contra Costa County. See Appendix A for a full description of the VCCC program. This method is identical to the Circular 212 method except that the saturation flow is increased from 1,500 to 1,800 vehicles per hour. This adjustment was based on saturation-flow rate studies conducted by CCTA in Contra Costa County. The volumes of cars on a critical movement are summed and divided by the capacity of the movement. This V/C ratio of each critical movement at an intersection is used to produce an overall intersection V/C ratio also taking into account signal phasing. The overall V/C ratio is then correlated to a level of service (see Table 2-2). AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour levels of service are shown by city in Table 2-3. Most intersections of routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valleyarea operate at LOS D or better. LOS D is generally considered to be an acceptable operating condition for major intersections. All but one intersection meet this criteria in the AM peak hour. The exception is VascolI-580 EB Off-Ramp (LOS F). During the PM peak hour three intersections operate at Level of Service E or F: VascolI-580 WB Off, VascolI-580 EB Off, and DanvillelStone Valley. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 25 'Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 I Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis AM Peak PM Peak ! City NIS Street E/W Street VlC LOS V/C LOS I Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.50 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.49 A 0.87 D ) San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.38 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.51 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.68 B Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.84 D Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.24 A 0.72 C Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.46 A 0.39 A Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.22 A 0.50 A Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.26 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.25 A 0.36 A Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.53 A 0.15 B North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.35 A 0.50 A North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.44 A 0.21 A Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.80 C 0.78 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.89 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Jack London 0;37 A 0.39 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.74 C 0.81 D East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.75 C 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.42 A 0.97 E North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 1.09 F 0.93 E Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.23 A 0.25 A Vasco Road East Avenue 0.81 D 0.53 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.54 A 0.50 A North Mines East Street 0.47 A 0.58 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.77 C 0.64 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.56 A Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.53 A 0.27 A Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.56 A 0.69 B Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.36 A 0.45 A Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.75 C 0.56 A Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.53 A Hopyard'Road 1~580 EB Off 0.67 B 0.66 B Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.43 A 0.51 A Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 26 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City N/S Street EIW Street VIC LOS VIC LOS Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.41 A 0.49 A Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.55 A .0.65 B Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.24 A 0.40 A First/Sunol Bernal Avenue 0.51 A 0.50 A 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.36 A 0.40 A 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.53 A 0.28 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.44 A 0.48 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off ' 0.60 A 0.70 B First Street RayNineyard 0.65 B 0.70 B Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.23 A 0.34 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.34 A 0.36 A 1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.33 A 0.31 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.31 A 0.70 B Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.56 A 0.58 A Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.26 A 0.31 A San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollin~er Canyon 0.46 A 0.50 A Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.18 A 0.31 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.52 A 0.40 A San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.51 A 0.87 D Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.46 A 0.61 B Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.53 A 0.55 A Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.64 B 0.71 C San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.72 C 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.65 B 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.42 A 0.76 C 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon o.n C 0.56 A Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.20 A 0.24 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.67 B 0.87 D Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 27 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Leyel of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City , N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Danville San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.37 A 0.77 C 1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.66 B Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.35 A Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.36 A 0.45 A 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.53 A 0.45 A Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.64 B 0.83 D Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.46 A 0.44 A 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.53 A 0.47 A 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.54 A 0.59 A 1-680 SB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.47 A 0.55 A 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.73 C 0.50 A San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.38 A 0.46 A Blackhawk Road Camino T assajara 0.36 A 0.37 A Unincorporated Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 0.77 C 1.08 F CCC 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.49 A 0.59 A 1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.53 A 0.46 A 1-680 NB Off Livoma Road 0.41 A 0.31 A 1-680 SB Off Livoma Road 0.34 A 0.34 A - Tri- Valley Bicycle Network The bicycle network in Tri-Valley consists of three different types of bicycle facilities: bicycle paths (Class n, bicycle lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III). A bicycle path is an off-street bicycle facility for the exclusive use of bicycles. These facilities are physically separate from,streets or sidewalks. A bicycle lane is a one-way path on the side of a roadway that is specifically signed and striped for bicycle travel. A bicycle route is a shared, either with pedestrians on the sidewalk or with vehicles on the street, bicycle facility on the roadway with no striped designation for bicycle travel. The majority of bicycle facilities in the Tri-Valley area are Class II and Class ill bike- ways. A few Class I bicycle facilities are available, including the Iron Horse Trail. The Iron Horse Trail is a mixed-use path for pedestrians, bicycles and horses. This trail runs along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between Walnut Creek and Dublin. Figure 2-4 shows the existing bicycle network for the Tri-Valley Area and Figure 2-5 shows the future bicycle network. These networks were defIDed on the Tri-Valley Bike Plan ap- proved by the TVTC in February 1992. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 28 Existing Transportation Conditions Trcnsit There are several transit options available in the Tri-Valley area. Areawide bus service is provided by local carriers. Dial-a-ride service is also provided for those transit patrons that are unable to utilize regular bus service. Transit services provided by larger Tri- Valley employers augment areawide bus service by either providing special shuttles, as in the case of Bishop Ranch, or by distributing free transit passes as in the case of Hacienda Business Park. Connections to other locations in the Bay Area outside of Tri-Valley are available through the BART Express bus service, which carries patrons to BART stations in Hayward and Walnut Creek. Connections from Stockton to the Tri-Valley area are also available through a bus service provided by the San Joaquin Regional Transit Authority. Areawide Bus Service Bus service in the Tri-Valley area is provided by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA), which operates County Connection; Livermore!Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA), which operates WHEELS; and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which operates the BART Express Buses. County Connection operates scheduled, fIXed-route, and dial-a- ride bus service in the suburban portions of Contra Costa County. Three routes serve. the Tri-Valley cities of Danville and San Ramon. BART express buses are operated by BART and provide feeder service between park-n-ride lots, business parks, and BART stations. BART operates six routes in the Tri-Valley, serving the Bayfair and Walnut Creek BART stations. WHEELS bus routes, operated by the Livermore! Amador Valley Transit Authority, provide scheduled, fIXed-route, and dial-a-ridebus services to the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Pleasanton also provides its own dial-a-ride service. Table 2-4 briefly describes the bus routes serving the Tri-Valley. Trip Reduction Progrcms The Tri-Valley area includes two major business parks: Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Both of these parks have implemented innovative trip reduction programs intended to reduce the number of single-occupant automobiles on commute routes to these major employment centers. The City of San Ramon oversees the program in Bishop Ranch. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 29 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND -1-1- = Closs I -11-11- = Closs II -11I--11- = Closs III ~{> , ~~~ ...., /. Danville '-, ------- \ \ \ , , ",,-, , " \ '" --- -~ --- -\fj"-- --- - \ ... --"""""', I JOHNS 10!:! ~) I --- --- --- i (Nol III "'n,le) coufl,t1/ costa /...\ \f0 -' coufl '/ co~ ..... dO /' _ _ ---' ~\o('fle figure 2-40 EXISTING BIKEWAYS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ LEGEND coU~~~ ' cos\.o / .' \" \'fO ,/' c' ouf\ 1 cof\ ___- 'dO . _____ - -J:>..\o('f\e ....-- -1- 1- Closs I ----- ----- " -11-11- Closs II ----- ,\, ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ (No 1 10 SeD Ie) -11I....11I- Closs III , , ~ , , "--- - ' ~ MAY SCHOOL RD ~ i ~ :e ~ ~ .;) ..., ~ (AST AV II II T SLA RD " :\~ "'\"" ~. ''''\.1' " '\ figure 2-4b 84 NILCS CNtYON RD EXIST'ING BIKEWAYS Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. ~{> ,'" ~, Danville ?''-e --...--- LEGEND -E-E- = Existing _1-1- :0 Closs I -11-11- = Closs II _111__11_ = Clo~~ III --- ' --- --- , . '-. ! (lVol ,,, Sf'lIl..) (,oU{\\~ ' (,os\.o " ,/ ' - {'\.CO _' ---- r ou{\\.'l CO "./ 00 v . ___ t:.~o{fle ___ . t" figure 2 - 50 PROPOSED BIKEW A YS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. '. .If,~ " :.., 4~ . ,---- 11 r", i LEGEND -E-E- Existing ,-- -1-1- Closs I. ---- -11....11... Closs III ---- (Nol 10 SeDle) ---- -11-11- Closs II ---- ---- ---- , , '\...-- ~ ~ ~ 'It: !l~ ~~ \ :> .. M<\ I SCHOOL RD ~ I ~ )\- - - ---- ---- :::: , , ~ ';\\~\ /~ I ~, 1.::2: OLA AV ~:!"<- C) ~ -II::~. 8 ~ \s;,.,:"'Llvermore VI !oJ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.....1I.._E_~s' AV [ E ~1l ~' J' 7~ IC~IA IIIl I_"~~ ."l~' I \ 11-11- <'\-;, ,~ ('l,j' \16 '('l \ ~ Figure 2 - 5b 84 HILES CNlYOH RO PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Table 2-4 Bus Service in the Tri-Valley Area Approximat~ Headways Operatorl Route # From To Monday-Friday J Saturday Sunday CCT A-County Connection 121 Walnut Creek BART Stoneridge Mall 30 minutes 122 Lafayette BART Bishop Ranch 30 minutes NLNK LA VT A-Wheels 1 Hacienda Business Park Stone ridge Mall 60 minutes 60 minutes 2 Pleasanton Dublin 30-minute peak 60-minute off-peak 3 Vintage Hills, Dublin Amador Lake, Pleasanton 30-minute peak 60 minutes 60-minute off-peak 4 Pleasanton Stone ridge Mall 30-minute peak 60 minutes 60-minute off-peak 5 Hacienda Business Park Stone ridge Mall 30 minutes 6 10 Lawrence Livermore National Labs Stoneridge Mall 20-minute peak 30 minutes 60 minutes 30-minute off-peak 60-minute evening 11 Springtown Valley Memorial Hospital 30 minutes 60 minutes 12 Las Positas College Granada High School 30 minutes 60 minutes 14 Pine Street Arroyo Road/Superior Drive 60 minutes 60 minutes 16 BART-BART Express U Hacienda Park-n-Ride UX Hacienda Park-n-Ride UL Lawrence Livermore National Labs UP Hacienda Business Park o Stoneridge Mall OX Hacienda Business Park Hayward BART Bayfair BART Bayfair BART Bayfair BART Walnut Creek BART Walnut Creek BART 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 20 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 50-60 minutes 50-60 minutes 30-minute peak 60-minute off-peak Existing Transportation Conditions Bishop Ranch The Bishop Ranch Business Park operates a shuttle that provides two types of service-a commuter service and a convenience/shopping service. The commuter service runs from the Walnut Creek BART Station to Bishop Ranch. This service is provided exclusively for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation. (This service is not available to Chevron, Pacific Bell, or AT&T employees.) This service operates with 20-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:10 PM. Average weekday ridership is 250 patrons per day. The convenience/shopping service runs from Bishop Ranch to Crow Canyon' Commons, Diablo Plaza, and Marketplace Plaza (commercial/retail centers in the area). This service is provided for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation and employees of Pacific Bell. This service operates with 10-minute headways from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. Average weekday ridership is 40 patrons per day. Both shuttle services are provided free of charge. In addition to the shuttle service, Bishop Ranch provides other transportation services. The transportation center is' linked with the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network and two full-time employees are available to assist potential carpoollvanpool riders get matched. Other services provided by Bishop Ranch include the sale of local transit tickets, promotional events, a preferential parking program, and bicycle facilities. Bishop Ranch has been offering transportation services for over eight years. The Bishop Ranch shuttle has operated near or at capacity since it began., Other types of commute modes are monitored by Bishop Ranch, and percentages of drive-alone trips have decreased in the past year, while percentages of carpool, vanpool, and other non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips have increased. Hacienda Business Park Hacienda Business Park maintains two transit contracts-one with BART and one with WHEELS-that allow employees of Hacienda Business Park to ride free. Participation in the BART program generates approximately 150 patrons per day. Participation in the WHEELS program runs approximately 160 patrons per day and has increased by more than 100 percent since 1990, according to John Deaver at the Hacienda Business Park Owners' Association. Hacienda Business Park also provides to its employees preferential parking for carpools and vanpools and connections on-site, through FAX and phone, to the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network. Trip ReductionlTravel Demand Management Ordinances All Tri-Valley cities and counties have trip reduction ordinances in compliance with CMP requirements and Regulation 13 of the Bay Area Air' Quality Management District. These are targeted at major employers with the intention of reducing peak- hour trip-making. Many employers have employee commute coordinators, who monitor Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' 35 Existing Transportation Conditions trip-making and encourage alternatives to driving alone during peak hours. Typical incentives include ridesharing-matching services, preferential parking for carpools, and flexible or staggered work hours. Exis~ing Mode Split The mode split for commute trips in the Tri-Valley area in 1990 was estimated using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. The existing estimated mode split is 79 percent drive-alone trips, 17 percent carpools, and 4 percent transit trips. Tl;1is calculates to an average vehicle ridership of 1.15 persons per car for peak-hour commute trips. Driveway counts done by the City of Pleasanton in the Hacienda Business Park indicate an average vehicle occupancy of 1.12, which supports the calculations of the model. Existing Travel Patterns The Tri-Valley presently has about 11,000 more employed residents than local jobs (see Table 2-5). Hence, it is an area of net out-commuting. However, even areas with a perfect job-housing balance experience out-commuting by some residents and in- commuting by others. Figure 2-6 shows that 58 percent of total PM peak-hour trips in Tri- Valley involve internal trips, 20 percent are external to internal (out-commuters returning home), 20 percent are internal to external (in-commuters leaving their jobs), and 2 percent are through trips. "Internal" trips are defined as those with both trip .ends in the Tri- Valley. For persons working in Tri-Valley but living elsewhere the major residence locations are other Contra Costa County cities and other Alameda County cities. Also, 17 percent live in the Central Valley. For Tri- Valley residents that work elsewhere, the major destinations are again other Alameda County cities and other Contra Costa, County cities. Table 2-5 Jobs-Housing Balance Employed Residents Jobs 122.882 111.651 Source: ABAG Projections '90. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 36 . Co) c:: - .. U) Q) ... cv .0 o U) U) -< c:: cv E c:: () U) < I c:: o ... ... tU :c Source: Figure 2-6 1990 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR f\TrRNAt. TO INTrRNAL rXTfRNAl- ~C rXTfRNAL (2.2%) (20.2%) INTfRNAL TRIPS (57.8%) TRIPS FROM TRI-V ALLEY TO. CrNTRAL VAl-LrY (17.2%) OTHrR BAY, AR(,I. (4.6% SANTA CLARA (3.5%) TRIPS TO TRI-V ALLEY FROM- OTHeR BAY AR(,I. SANTA CLARA CO, (11.1%) Tri-Valley Tra!lsportation Model 3. Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Consistent with the Contra Costa an.d Alameda countywide transportation plans, the Tri- VaUey 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 consistent with adopted Action Plans. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 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 TSMlTDM program). · Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans. · 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 todays traffic conditions. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP sta~dards. 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 1-580 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. 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.) Average Vehicle Ridership (A VB). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for commute trips by 2010. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average Vehicle Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Manage- ment District. Their recommended goal is A VR = 1.35 for large employers in the Tri- Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. The transportation service objective is to increase the overall A VR for all employers, large and small, by 10 percent. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 39 Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Transit Travel Times. Express transit options should be provided that equal or better auto travel times in the major corridors (1-680 and I-580) by 2010. Transit travel times must be reasonably competitive with auto travel times in order to attract riders. Transit travel time should be reduced through the provision of more frequent service, more express service versus local service, with high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and with ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 40 4. Baseline Forecasts Chapter Summary · Baseline forecasts representing ABAG Projections '90 land use data are required for Action Plans. '. The baseline forecasts do not reflect current land use or network planning by the TVTC. · The planned, baseline transport~tion system would be inadequate to support the 2010 baseline growth levels. The baseline traffic forecasts are for the years 2000 and 2010. They are based on land use projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '90. Land use adjustments between individual zones were made to reflect discussions with local staff. The overall total dwelling units and jobs projections for the Tri-Valley were not altered. The assumed road network was based on input from the member jurisdic- tions of the TVTC as of 1992. This chapter describes the model inputs and the traffic forecasts and their impact on the road system. Baseline forecasts presented in this chapter are mandated by CCTA and the Alameda County CMA as part of their planning processes to insure consistency with ABAG projections throughout the counties. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) believes that the "expected land use" scenario provides a better basis for the development of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan recommendations. The TVTC defined their expectations for land use and network projections, which are presented in Chapter 5. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 41 Baseline Forecasts Land Use Forecasts The land use forecasts used in the baseline traffic estimates are based on ABAG Projections '90 (see Table 4-1). Minor modifications were made to the ABAG data to shift some future houses and jobs between jurisdictions, but the Tri-Valley land use totals are within one percent of the ABAG forecasts. Note that ABAG forecasts are not constrained by infrastructure availability or political viability. For comparison purposes, Exhibit 1 shows a comparison to ABAG Projections '92. The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as specified by each jurisdiction1s general plan. Rather, the forecasts represent likely absorption rates for new houses and businesses between now and 2010. Network Assumptions Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions as of 1992 (see Figure 4-1). The major criterion that was considered when including a particular improv-ement in the future road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2000 or 2010. Not all of the future road network is currently funded. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. The improvements to state highways included in the future road networks were shown in the MTC 1991 Regional Transportation Plan and are either fully or partially funded. These include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-680, auxiliary lanes on I-680, a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp at the I-5801I-680 interchange, and widening of Route 84. Also in the category of regional improvements, the 2010 network included the extension of BART service to East Dublin/Pleasanton. The local road widenings and extensions included in the future networks are all included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010. Many are anticipated to be funded with impact fees on new development or wiU be built by developers to serve their development projects. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 42 Table 4-1 Baseline Growth Forecasts Dwelling Units Employment Area 1990 2000 2010 Buildout 1990 2000 2010 Buildout Alamo/Blackhawk 5,998 7,696 7,696 7,696 1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613 Danville 10,999 14,748 14,748 14,748 6,005 8,012 8,012 8,012 San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,884 15,884 27,679 36,314 44,179 45,309 Dougherty Valley 101 1,561 6,095 9;601 0 0 1,000 1,500 Tassajara Valley 119 745 2,688 4,869 31 31 31 31 Other Contra Costa County 474 474 474 474 90 90 90 90 Central Dublin 6,129 6,358 6,358 6,358 12,451 12,759 12,759 12,759 East Dublin 50 3,647 10,18z.. 19,328 455 5,227 11 ,406 40,841 West Dublin 849 1,849 2,849 4,182 291 446 446 446 Pleasanton 19,724 24,392 28,333 28,542 28,363 47,264 ,58,186 64,568 Pleasanton Ridge 17 716 2,524 2,524 0 50 50 50 Central Livermore 20,635 24,387 26,130 26,130 30,503 43,561 58,015 101,545 North Livermore 129 1,630 12,952 20,105 335 654 2,319 14,278 South Livermore 112 326 1,883 1,889 2,689 3,252 3,636 ' 4,826 Other Alameda County 52 .M 858 Jl5a -1.JM -1.JM ..1.JM ..1.JM Total 78,554 104,464 139,659 163,188 111,649 160,417 202,886 297,012 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, based on ABAG Projections '90. Table 1 Projections 92 Forecast 'or Year 2010 Households and Employment In Trl-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCT A LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts Exhibit 1 ABAG City or Subregional Areal Planning Are. 1990 Base EsUmates From the CCTA LUIS Hou.eholds Employee. 1990 Base EsUmatas From ProJection a 92 Household. Employ". Year 2010 ProJection From ProJection a 90 11) Houllhold. Employ", CCTA Final 2010 Forecast (proJectlo",a 90 Constraint) Household. Employee. Vear 2010 ProJection' From ProJections 9212) Houllhold. Employ... Danvllle San Ramon 'Cenlral San Ramon . Dougherty Valley Sublotal AlamolBlackhawk Unlnc. TrI-Valley (CCC) TasssJara Valley Other Unincorporated Subtolal Dublin Central Dublin East Dublin Wesl Dublin Subtolal Pleasanlon Central Pleasanton Pleasanton Ridge Subtotal Uvennore Central Uvermore South Livermore Nor1h Uvermore Subtotal Unlnc, Trl.Valley (AC) Urbanized TrI-Valley 10,999 6,005 l',4n 7,810 16,635 13,061 14,748 8,012 17 ,010 9,130 13,176 21,679 Not separatety Not separately 15,884 "",119 Not separatety 101 0 reporftJd repotttJd 6,095 1,000 repor1sd 13,2n 21,619 12,592 29,410 21,566 42,862 21,919 45,179 17,500 52,950 5,988 1,613 6,559 2,790 8,295 6,318 1,696 1,613 9,340 3,510 Not shoml Not separately No' separa'ely No'shoml No' s~para'ely here reporfsd reporltJd h." repor1sd , 6,129 12,451 Not separately No' .epara'ely 6,358 12,159 No' separa'ely 50 455 reporftJd repotttJd 10,181 11,408 repot1ed 849 291 2,849 446 -- ---- 1,028 13,197 6,904 13,380 15,265 22.655 19,394 24.611 24,060 "",990 19,724 28,363 Not separately No' separa'ely 28,333 58,186 No' separa'ely 17 0 reporlsd reported 2,524 50 repor16d 19,741 28,363 19,111 31,930 34,670 56,886 30,857 58,238 30,090 58,350 20,635 30,503 No' separa'ely No' separa'ely 26,130 58,015 Not separa'ely 112 2,689 repol1ed repol1ed 1,883 3,636 reported 129 335 12,952 2,319 20,876 33,527 20,915 23,nO 41,105 59,810 40,965 63,910 35,670 48,220 , No' shoml he" No' separa'ely Reported No' .epa",ely Repol1tJd No' shown he" No' separately Repor1tJd n,909 110,384 n,818 109,150 137,538 201,592 135,839 201,621 133,730 217,150 111 Da.. shown represents ABAG'. r.vlsed WlOlfk:laI Protecllons 90 data 'or 2010. Data lor unincorporated area. which are por1lons 0' .Remalnder- data ar. not shown here. 121 Data shown rep,..ents ABAG's July 1892 ,e1eas. 01 Projections 82lorecal" lor 2010. ABAG has mad. I ,ecesslon update 01 Projections 92, currentfy In pt.u. Source: ProJection. 92, Projections 80, ABAGj TrI.VaI.y Jurisdictions; Economic & PlannIng Systems, Inc. Et:anomlc a '1IImtIQ sysl8ms.'tIC. ,,,...,, H:\I tfmlVAIOA TAIFOAECAlClCOMP'ONUJClS - - Table 3 Projections 92 Forecast for Vear 2000 Households and Employment In Trl-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts ABAG City or 1990 Ba.. Estlmatea 1990 Base Estimates Vear 2000 Projection CCT A Final 2000 Forecaat Vear 2000 ProJecllon Subregional Ar.1I From the CCTA LUIS From Prolectlon. 82 From proJection. 90 (1) (ProJection. 90 Con.tralnt) From Projections 92 [2) Plsnnlng Area Householda Employ... Hous.hold. Employ... Hou.ehold. Employee. Hou..hold. Employ... Household. EmploYH' Danvllle 10.999 6.005 11,4n 7.810 15,073 11,053 14,748 8,012 16.270 8,950 San Ramon Central San Ramon 13,176 27,679 Not separattHy Not separately 15.884 36.314 Not separalely Dougherty Valley 101 0 reported reported 1.561 0 reported -- -.... .--- _.._.- *-.. Sublotal 13,2n 27,679 12.592 29,470 19,235 35,468 17,445 36.314 15.190 40,040 AlamolBlackhawk 5.988 1.613 6.559 2.790 7,671 5.432 7,696 1,613 8,290 3,070 Unlne. frl.Valley (CCC) Tassala.. Valley Not shown NoI separately Not separately Not shown Not separately Olher Unlncorporaled here reported reported here reported Sublolal Dublin Central Dublin 6,129 12.451 NoI .eparately Not separately 8,358 12.7$9 NoI separa/ely East Dublin SO 455 reported reported 3.647 5.227 reportfJd Wesl Dublin 849 291 1,849 446 Sublolal 7,028 13,197 6,904 13,380 10,935 17.875 11.854 18,432 12.230 26.520 Pleasanlon Cenl..1 Pleasanlon 19,724 28,363 Not separately reported Not separately 24.392 47,264 Not separately Pleasanlon Ridge 17 0 reported 718 50 reported Subtotal 19,741 28,363 19,111 31,930 25,213 45,551 25,108 47,314 23,780 45,120 Livermore Cenlral Livermore 20,635 30,503 Not separately Not separately 24.387 43.561 Not separately Soulh Livermore 112 2.689 reported reported 326 3,252 reported North Livermore 129 335 1.630 , 654 -- Sublolal 20.876 33,527 20.975 23,nO 25,650 44.890 26,343 47.467 , 26,410 35,200 Unlne. TriNalley (AC) Not shown here Not separately Reported Not separately Reported Not shown here Not separafely Reported Urbanized TriNalley n,909 110,384 n,618 109,150 103,m 160.269 103,194 159,162 101,170 158,900 (1) Oalashown ripr..ents ABAG'a revised unolllclal ProJeclIons 80 dala lor 2000. Data for unlncorpo..ted areas which... portions of eRemalnde" data are not shown here. (2) Dati shown represents ABAG'. July t 892 releas~ 01 ProJections 82 lorecasts for 2000. MAG has made I recession update of Projecllons 82, cun1ndy In press. .- - - -mt: ,. "'--"'0 $'-'--- he. ''''.'"11 h:\ '(l7AJDIIDArA IIn?fCALC\FNAlt COMRXlJUXLS , - . . . . . . . . . Table 2 Differences between Projections 92 Year 2010 Forecast for Trl-Valley Jurisdictions, and CCT A LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts ABAO City or Subregional Areal Planning Are. 1990 Base Data Prol. 82 - CCT A LUIS Household. EmploYH' ProJections 92 Difference From CClA LUIS for 1990 Households EmploYH' Projections 92 Difference From CClA LUIS for 2010 Households Employees Year 2010 Projection ProJ. 92 - proJ. 90 Households Employees Year 2010 Projection proJ. 92 - CCl A LUIS Household. EmploYHs DanYln. San Ramon Central San Ramon Dougherty V.lley Sublolal Alamo/Blackhawk Unlnc, Trt-Valley (CCCt TUlljar. Valley Olher Unlncorporaled Subtolal DubUn Central Dublin East Dublin Wesl Dublin Sublotal Pleasanlon Central PI...anlon Pleasanton Ridge Subtolal Uvermore Central Uvermore South Uvermore North Uvennore Subtotal Unlnc. Trl.Vaney CAC) Urbanized TII-Valley 478 1.805 4% 30% 435 -3,931 2,322 1,118 16% 14% No' separately Not separately Not separately Not separately No' separa'ely reporled reported reported reported reported -- -- .--- ------ .685 1,791 -5% 6% ... .066 10,088 -4.479 7.nl "20% 17% 571 1.1n 10% 73% 1.045 -2,808 1,644 1,897 21% 118% Not shown Not shown Not shown Not shown Not shown here here here here he'B' ----.-. ..- Not separately reported Not separa/ely reported Not separately reported No/ sspara/aly reported NoI separately reported -20/. 1% 4.666 20,379 24% 83% 8,795 22,335 -124 183 Not separately reported .630 3.567 Not separa/ely r.ported .3% 13% Not separately reported .767 114 -2% 0"10 Not separately reported ....580 1,464 Not separa/ely reported Not separately reported NoI separately reported Not separately reported Not separa/ely reported NoI separately reported .. -25% 99 0% -29% -11,590 .5.295 -15,750 ".130/. -5,435 -9,757 Not shown here NoI shown here NoI shown hers No/ shown here No' shown here -211 -1,234 0% -1% -1% 8% -3,806 15,558 .1.909 15,529 1/ I." .m1\'41n4 T 4,r(\nrr., r'rr"I"l""r VI <; Source: Projections 82, Projections 80, ABAG; ltW..ey jurlsdlcllons: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic. PIInnhg Sysr.".s. 'nc. ,2I&W Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. X(X) .., of Lones 2000(' of Lones 2010) ~ (Not 10 S,'ole) 'r.\.~ __-''" COU" ']-" COS\.O _ ~ \.(0 .......---;" - coufl :j cofl _ - eOO _ ____ p--\O ff\ --- --- ~ 2(6) (4).,. ,. ,,. .,. .-.-.*"'" 4 4 .-'-.-. 6 .....00....- 4 LEGEND -0 = Interchange Improvement _H. .. BART Extension 4 2. . = New Interchange 111111111 = Rood Widening 2000 Pleasanton Figure 4-1 - - - .. Rood Widening 2010 = Rood Extension 2000 BASELINE ASSUMED ROAD NETWORK CHANGES -, -. - = Rood Extension 2010 .. .. II .. "" ,. . . Table 4 Differences between Projections 92 Year 2000 Forecast for Trl-Valley Jurisdictions, and CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts ABAG Cflly or subreglodll Arell Planning Area 1990 BlSe 0.1. ProJ. 12 . ProJ. 80 HOUllholdl Employe.. ProJections 92 olUerence From proJection. 90 Houllhold. EmploYH' Vear 2000 Projection ProJ. 92 - proJ. 90 Hou.ehold. Employe.. Vear 2000 Pro)ectlon Pro). 92 - CCTA LUIS Hou.ehold. EmploYH' Pro)ectlons 92 DlHorence From ceT A LUIS for 2000 Household. Emplov'" D.nvIHe 12% San Ramon Cenlral San Ramon Doughe/ty Vallev Sublolal AlamolBlackhawk Unlnc. TIt-Vallav (CCC) TUII)ar. Vallev Olher Unlncorporaled Sublotal Dublin Cenlral OutiIIn Easl Dublin Wesl Dublin Sublolal PI..sanlon Central Pleuanton PI.asanlon Ridge Subtotal Uvennore Central Uvermore Soulh Uvermore Norlh Uvermore Sublolal 478 1,805 4% 30% -2,103 197 No' separately llpot1ed --- .685 1,781 No' separately ,epot1Bd No'separatety repot1ed ---- .....045 4,572 -5% 6% 571 1,1n 10% 730/. 619 -2,362 Nof shown here Not shown here Nof shown here No' separately No' separately Not separately repot1ed repo"Bd repot1Bd .124 183 -2% 1% 1,295 8,645 No' separately Not separately Not separately reportBd repot1Bd repo"Bd .630 3,567 .3% 13% .',433 ....31 Not separately Not separately Not separately repottBd . reportBd repot1Bd 88 -8,757 0% -29% 760 -9,690 Not shown here Not shown here Not shown here .291 .1,234 00/. -1% .2,607 .1,369 Unlnc. TrI.Vdev (AC) U,barUed TJt.Vaney Source: Projections 12. ProJecIIonIlO. ABAG; TrS-Valey lurtsdlctlons; Economic & Plamlng Syatems.lnc. EcanomIc . PII",m" S\IIrems. Inc. ''''''2 522 938 No' separately r.portBd .2,255 3,726 594 1.457 Not shown here No' separa'ely repot1Bd 376 8,088 Not separately repot18d .1.328 .2.194 Not separately repo"Bd 67 .12,267 Not shown here -2,024 , -252 4% No' separs/ely ,eportod -13% 10% B% 90"10 Not shown here No' sepa,s/e/y repot1ed 3% 44% Not separately . repot18d -5% .5% Not separately repot18d " 0% -26% Not shown here .2'. 0% H 19'4m,vAIOHAIFOAfr.AI i.1r.mlf'(l(JPT "I S Baseline Forecasts Traffic Forecasts The 2010 baseline forecasts show substantial growth in traffic volumes on Tri-Valley roads. Figure 4-2 shows traffic forecasts for several critical roadways. Plots showing traffic forecasts for all Tri-Valley roads are included in the Technical Appendix of the Tri- Valley Transportation Model report (Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1993). If these traffic increases occur as predicted, without road widenings and additions beyond the baseline network, severe congestion will result (see Figure 4-3). Congested , locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 4-3 shows that by 2010 almost all regional routes would be congested. ' In many cases the predicted V/C ratio is greater than 1.0. In reality, the volume can never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would ,last longer than an hour. The effects of peak spreading are addressed more rigorously in the expected forecasts (Chapter 5). Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service (LOS) were calculated using traffic model-generated turning movements and the VCCC program (see Table 4-2). Future year lane configurations were baSed on input from individual jurisdictions. The intersection analysis included 85 locations. Only two or three intersections are congested under existing conditions. Congestion is defined as LOS E or F. During the PM peak hour, the number of congested intersections would rise to 14 by the year 2000 and 36 by the year 2010, according to the baseline forecasts. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 49 Barton-Aschman 'Associates, Inc. Danville ---- - --- \ \ , \ , , ",-, , " - , " -~ .. ~-- ..~~ i JOHNS w~ ~ .. ---- .----- ..-~ .----- .----- ~ (Nol 10 Scale) COU0\~".. (,05\0 -\:" \(0 ,," r Ou0 :j CO" __ dO \J _/ _ _ .---- ~\of0e Figure 4-20 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BASELINE FORECAST (ABAG '90) ~_-=.:- -~,- .,::::- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. "- , , ~ ___ " MAY SCHOOL RD ~ ~ ~ (No' '0 SOAle) --- --- --- Dublin 203,000 18,600 N. CANYONS PKWY JACK LONDON 14,400 Pleasanton --- co'!5:-'-J--- CoS\.~' - - Of\UO_ --- - - COu0\.'j C _ ___ - ...neOO - t>-\O\l' ~- ---- C 'It It \!!a: ::II? 8~ ;z ISABEl EXTENSION 12.600 o o o co "ot o o co i~ Livermore ~ ,. C:l It ' ... ::l s a: l:J It l.> EAST AV :> '" ! CONCANNON ~ rES~ RD J, L', pO (,010S D ~~I; ~(j ~"J' 84 NUS CANYON RO figure 4-2b 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BASELINE FORECAST (ABAG '90) 8arton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND o = LOS E or F Intersection = Overcapacity link ! (No I 10 Scale) Danville -------- ... u ~ . c 3a: ~ JOHNS 1 .. cou(\\.'i- Cos\O - --= ~ ~ Co(\\(O ~ ~ --- Cou(\\'1 ~--- dO ___ ~ ~ ___ ~\O{(\e --- -- \ , ,-, ',,- \ ~- ~-- ,-- ~~ -- Figure 4-30 BASELINE FORECAST YEAR 2010 PEAK HOUR OVERCAPACITY LINKS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. i LEGEND o = LOS E or F Intersection - Overcapacity Link Co\l~ - - -- COS\O -- Co{'~--~-G{'\'/ _ ____ - -~\O('(\e ---- ---- -- (No' '0 Seal.) --- -- --- ~ -- ~ ~~ ~>- <.>~ ,. .. AlA Y SCHOOL RD ~ I oJ , , ~ , , '\...- - - -- ISABEL EKTENSION N. CANYONS PKWY ~ ~ j c ;) ~ \,J ~ EAST AV ~ rES'" RO figure 4-3b 84 HItES CANYON RD BASELINE FORECAST YEAR 2010 PEAK HOUR OVERCAPACITY LINKS Table 4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour Existing 2000 2010 City NIS Street E/W Street vIe LOS vIe LOS vie LOS Dublin San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 1.06 F 0.98 E San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A 0.66 B 0.69 B Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 e 0.80 e 0.95 E Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B 0.74 e 0.51 A Dougherty Road Dublin BoulevarD 0.84 D 0.99 E 1.63 F Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.72 e 0.91 E 1.28 F Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0,39 A 0,60 A 0.95 E Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.72 e 0.97 E Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.97 E 0.56 A , Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0,36 A 0,39 A 0,36 A Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B 0.71 e 0.47 A North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A 0,62 B 0.65 B North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A 0.74 e 1,35 F Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 e 0.79 e 0.97 E Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0,87 D 1.01 F 1,09 F Murrietta Blvd Las Positas 0.39 A 0.54 A 0,55 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D 0.50 A 0.64 B Vasco Road ,1-580 WB Off 0.97 E 1.30 F 1,29 F North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0,74 e 1.33 F Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E 1.25 F 2.32 F Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A 0,78 e 0.85 0 Vasco Road Est Avenue 0,53 A 0.66 B 0.56 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.50 A 0,68 B 0.84 D North Mines East Street 0.58 A 0.53 A 0.46 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B 0.93 E 1.07 F Table 4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2000 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street VIC LOS VIC LOS vie LOS Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.82 D 0.84 D Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.86 D 0.74 e Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0,69 B 0.81 D 0.98 E Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.86 D 0.97 E Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.73 C 0.95 E Hopyard Road Stone ridge Drive 0.53 A 0.74 C 0,67 B Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0,66 B 0.75 C 0.87 D Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.71 C 1.09 F Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.63 B 0.76 C Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.81 D 0.91 E Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0,40 A 0.44 A 0.45 A FirsVSunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.62 B 1.03 F . 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0,40 A 0.36 A 0,34 A 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.70 B 0,74 C 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.46 A 0.44 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.48 A 0;69 B 1.41 F Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.88 D 1.09 F First Street RayNineyard 0.70 B 0.80 C 0.85 D Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.38 A 0.43 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57 A 0.83 D 1.04 F 1-680 SB Off Stone ridge Drive 0,36 A 0.51 A 0.59 A 1-680 NB Off Stone ridge Drive 0.31 A 0.54 A 0.52 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.70 B 0.90 ,0 0.98 E East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0,86 0 1.07 F 1.12 F Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.81 0 1.05 F Stonerldge Drive West Las Positas 0.31 A 0.60 A 1.08 F Table 4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2000 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street VlC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.43 A 0,58 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.48 A 0.57 A Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0,61 B 0.78 C 0.81 D Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 0.87 D 1.49 F Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0,56 A 0.77 C San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.88 D 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.65 B 0.85 D 0,56 A 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0,57 A 0.65 B 0.6~ B 1-680 SB Off Bollinger C",nyon 0.76 C 0.39 A 0.52 A 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0,56 A 0.63 B 0.73 C Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.67 B 0.91 E San Ramon Valley 1-680 SB Off 0.65 B Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.30 A 0.25 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0,87 D 0.93 E 0,78 C Danville San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.77 C 1.04 F 1,15 . F 1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.66 B 0.54 A 0.72 ,C Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.35 A 0.69 B 0,73 C Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.45 A 0.50 A 0.56 A 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.45 A 0.58 A Camino T assajara Diablo Road 0,83 D 1.13 F 1.15 F Blackhawk Road Camino T assajara 0.37 A 0.84 D 1.00 E Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.44 A 0,62 B 0.61 B 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.47 A 0.63 B 0.64 B 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.59 A 0.74 C 0.78 C Table 4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2000 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS 1-680 SB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A 0.80 C 1.18 F 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.50 A 0.72 C 0.66 B 1.680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A 0.52 A 0.48 A 1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A 0.51 A 0.88 0 San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A 0.85 0 1.10 F Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.37 A 0.85 0 1.00 E Uninc. CCC Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 1.08 F 1.15 F 1.24 F 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.59 A 0.59 A 1.08 F 1.680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.46 A 0.55 A 0.56 A 1-680 NB Off Livorna Road 0,31 A 0.52 A 0.48 A 1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0,34 A 0.51 A 0.88 A Baseline Forecasts Travel Pattern The results of the traffic model show that the Tri-Valley will continue to experience out- commuting and in-commuting. Overall, the baseline forecasts show 18,000 more employed residents than jobs, which would reinforce the Tri-Valley's existing pattern of net out- comm.uting. Table 4-3 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts) Year Jobs Workers 1990 2000 2010 111,651 160,420 202.887 122,882 167,826 221,431 Figure 4-4 shows that the traffic model predicts 63 percent of the trips will be internal in 2010, compared to 50 percent today. The other 37 percent of trips will be primarily in- commuting (16 percent) and out-commuting (18 percent). Only four percent of trips during commute hours will be through trips (traffic from other areas passing through the Tri- Valley). However, this four percent looms large on some parts of the freeway system. Using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, 2010 peak-hour through trips were estimated to range from 15 percent on 1-680, to 20 percent on 1~580 through Tri-Valley, to 40 percent over the Altamont Pass. For persons working in the Tri-Valley but living elsewhere, the major residence locations will be other Contra Costa County cities, other Alameda County cities, and the Central Valley. For persons living in the Tri-Valley but working elsewhere, the major job locations will be in other Alameda County cities. To a lesser extent, some will work in other Contra Costa County cities or in Santa Clara County. Mode Split The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and that is not expected to change in the baseline 2010 forecasts. Ta- ble 4-4 shows the mode split estimated by the traffic model. The model predicts the drive- alone percentage to increase slightly. This conclusion is based on MTC-derived assump- tions about the costs of driving, which are assumed to keep pace with inflation. Transit and carpool usage are highly dependent on driving costs and travel times. Relative travel costs and time between drive-alone and other modes are not expected to change through 2010. BART will attract substantial ridership but will not cause a significant mode shift. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 58 Figure 4-4 2010 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR Drr€RNAJ.. TO tX7E:RNAL 'NTE:RNAL TRIPS (62.87.) TRIPS FROM TRI-V ALLEY TO. OTH€R CONTRA COSTA CO, (35.3% SANTA CLARA CO (4.5%) , d c:: - .. en CD .... .~ CJ o en en < c '" e .c CJ en < I C o .... ... '" OJ TRIPS TO TRI-V ALLEY FROM. OTH€R CONTRA COSTA CO, (24.77.) Source: Tri-Valley Transportation Model Baseline Forecasts Table 4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips (Baseline Forecasts) Percent Usage Mode 1990 2000 2010 I Drive-Alone 76% 80% 80% 2-Person Carpool 15% 12% 12% 3+ Person Carpool 5% 4% 4% Transit 4% 4% 4% 100% 100% 100% Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 60 5. Expected Forecasts, Chapter Summary · Job and housing growth to the year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent, respectively, which exceeds historical growth trends. Jobs and housing would be in balance within the Tri-Valley. This would minimize, but not elimi- nate, in-commuting and out-commuting. · Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north and south, 1-580 over Altamont Pass and Dublin Grade, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road) would have more demand than capacity. · Unacceptable levels of service would also occur on I-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue and at 11 signalized intersections. · Transit mode share would not change appreciably from existing conditions, despite the BART extension. · Average vehicle ridership would not change appreciably from existing conditions. · Through traffic on the freeways would remain at 15 to 20 percent. The baseline forecasts were prepared to satisfy CCTA guidelines, and they are compatible with ABAG Projections '90. However, there were several jurisdictions dissatisfied with the land use forecasts, which did not reflect general plan amend- ments approved after 1992. Also, the 2010 transportation network assumed in the baseline forecasts did not reflect current planning. This led to the development of the "expected" scenario, which reflects each jurisdiction's most accurate prediction of 2010 land use totals and network expectations. This chapter describes the results of expected traffic forecasts using the Tri- Valley Traffic Model. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 61 - - - -' .- --.. ~ ... ~ - - - __&_a-_~ Table 5-1 Tri-Valley Growth Forecasts Dwelling Units Employed Residents Employment 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Area 1990 Baseline I Expected2 Buildoue 1990 Expected2 Buildoue 1990 Baseline I ExpectedZ Buildo Alamo/Blackhawk 5,988 7,696 6,123 6,123 9,605 9,831 9,831 1.613 1,613 1,693 t,69 Danville 10,999 14,748 14,684 14,684 17,069 23,069 23,069 6,007 8,012 8,315 8,31 San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,885 15,885 21,494 25,369 25,369 27,681 44,179 44,183 45,31 Dougherty Valley 101 6,095 10,356 10,356 171 1 7,939 17,939 0 1,000 5,365 5,36 Tassajara Valley 119 2,688 6,224 6,224 217 9,972 9,972 31 31 1,331 1,33 Other Contra Costa County 474 474 858 858 778 1,405 1,405 90 90 90 91 Dublin 6,978 9,207 7,579 7,579 10,719 10,802 10,802 12,752 13,205 14,307 14,30 East Dublin 49 10,187 13,245 17,547 92 21,326 28,253 445 11,406 23,046 25,71. . Pleasanton 19,762 30,857 30,276 30,276 31,651 44,675 44,675 28,363 58,236 58,360 72,96! Livermore 20,819 28,013 27,005 27,005 30,954 41,650 41,650 33,503 61,651 58,843 107.79! North Livermore 38 12,952 11 ,253 22,013 55 17,429 34,094 75 2,319 13,072 13,07: Other Alameda County ~ ~ Jl5D BSfl II -1~ 1.262 .J..Q2J iJ44 .IAlI 1.11; . Total 78,554 139,659 144,294 159,408 122,882 224,733 248,325 '111,656 202,886 222,024 297,3ll ABAG Projections '92 Totals (for comparison) 133,730 217, 150 I Based on ABAG Projections '90, 2 Source: Tri-Valley Jurisdictions Table 5-1 Trl-Valley Growth Forecasts Dwelling Units Employed Residents, Employment 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Area, 1990 Baseline 1 Expected2 Buildoue 1990 Expected2 Buildout2 1990 Baseline 1 Expected2 Buildout2 Alamo/Blackhawk 5,988 7,696 6,123 6,123 9,605 9,831 9,831 1,613 1,613 1,693 1,693 Danville 10,999 14,748 14,684 14,684 17,069 23,069 23,069 6,007 8,012 8,315 8,315 San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,885 15,885 21,494 25,369 25,369 27,681 44,179 44,183 45,310 Dougherty Valley 101 6,095 10,356 10,356 171 17,939 17,939 0 1,000 5,365 5,365 TassaJara Valley 119 2,688 6,224 6,224 217 9,972 9,972 31 31 1,331 1,331 Other Contra Costa County 474 474 858 858 778 1,405 1 ,405 90 90 90 90 Dublin 6,978 9,207 7,579 7,579 10,719 10,802 10,802 12,752 13,205 14,307 14,307 East Dublin 49 10,187 13,245 17,547 92 21,326 28,253 445 11,406 23,046 25,714 , Pleasanton 19,762 30,857 30,276 30,276 31,651 44,675 44,675 28,363 58,236 58,360 72,969 Livermore 20,819 28,013 27,005 27,005 30.954 41,650 41.650 33,503 61,651 58,843 107,795 North Livermore 38 12,952 11,253 22,013 55 17 ,429 34.094 75 2,319 13,072 13,072 Other Alameda County 50 858 ~ ~ .I1 ~ 1,266 1,093 i..H~ JAlZ l.1lZ Total 78,554 139,659 144,294 159,408 122,882 224,733 248,325 111,656 202,886 222,024 297,378 ABAG Projections '92Totals (for comparison) 133,730 217,150 1 Based on ABAG Projections '90. 2 Source: TrI-Valley Jurisdictions Table 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System Cross-Section (Number 01 Lanes) From Ta 1990 2000 2010 Caltrans 1-680 Rudgear Road Alcosta Boulevard 6 6+2HOV 1-680 Diablo Road Bollinger Canyon Road 6 6+2HOV 6+2HOV+2 Au~ 1-680 at 5/0 Dublin Boulevard-New Ie (hook ramps) Completed 1-580 atl-68o-New SB 1-680 to EB 1-580 f1yover IC Completed Vallecitos Road (Highway 84) 1-680 Isabel Avenue 2 UA 4 DA Dublin Dougherty Road N. City LimiVCounty Line Dublin Boulevard 4UA 6DA Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 1-580 6DA 8DA Transit Spine Dublin Boulevard E. of Hacienda Tassajara Road 2 4DA , Transit Spine Tassajara Road Gleason Road 4DA Dublin Boulevard Donlon Way San Ramon Road 2DA 4DA Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Village Parkway 4DA 6DA Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway Dougherty Road 4DA 6DA Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road East City Limit 2UA BDA Dublin Boulevard Eden Canyon Road End of Existing Dublin Boulevard 2DA 1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange Complelc Schaefer Ranch Road 1-580 Dublin Boulevard/Hollis Canyon Road 4DA Hacienda Drive 1-580 Dublin Boulevard 4DA 6DA Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive 4DA 4DA Gleason Drive Hacienda Drive Tassajara Road 4DA 4DA Gleason Drive Tassajara Road Fallon 2UA 4DA Gleason Drive Fallon Dublin Boulevard 4DA San Ramon Road Vomac Road Silvergate Drive 2DA 4DA Tassajara Road County Line Gleason Drive 2UA 2UA 6DA Tassajara Road Gleason Dublin Boulevard 2UA 4DA 6DA Tassajara Road Dublin Road 1-580 2UA 4DA BDA Scarlett Drive Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 4DA Table 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System (Continued) Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Livermore Collier CalJyon Road/Airway Boulevard link Collier Canyon Road 1-580 4DA Concannon Boulevard Extension Arroyo Road Liverniore Avenue 2UA Concannon Boulevard Extension Murdell Lane Isabel Avenue 4DA Dalton Avenue Extension Vasco Road Laughlin Road 4DA Dalton Avenue Extension Laughlin Road 1-580 4DA First Street Portola Avenue 1-580 2UA 6DA Greenville Road 1-580 Patterson Pass Road 2UA 60A 1-580 at First Street-Change interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Isabel Avenue-New interchange Completed 1-580 at Greenville Road-New interchange IC Partial Completed 1-580 at North Livermore Avenue-Change interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Vasco Road-New Interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Portola Avenue-Remove interchange IC Removed Industrial Way Preston Avenue Vasco Road 2COL Isabel Avenue 1-580 Airway ,./2UA 2UA 8DA Isabel Avenue Airway Vineyard 2UA 6DA Isabel Avenue Vallecitos Vineyard Avenue 2DA 4DA Jack London Parkway EI Charro Road Kitty Hawk Road -/2UA 4DA Las Positas Road North Livermore Avenue First Street 2UA 4DA Las Posilas Road Extension Las Positas Road Vasco Road 4DA Laughlin Road Dalton Avenue Northfront Road 2COL North Canyon Parkway Doolan Road Collier Canyon Road -/4 DA 6DA North Canyon Parkway Collier Canyon Isabel/Cayetano 4DA 6DA North Mines Road First Street North Mines Road 4DA North Mines Road Extension Las Positas Road First Street 2COL Portola Avenue Murrieta Boulevard First Street 214UA 4DA . Portola Avenue 1-580 North Canyon 4DA Scenic Avenue Extension Laughlin Dalton ,2UA 4DA Table 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System (Continued) Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Scenic 1-580 2UAl20A 40A 60A 1-580 Patterson Pass Road 40A 60A Scenic Dalton 2UA 40A Pallerson Pass Road East Avenue 2I4UA 40A 1,5 miles N. of 1-580 1-580 2UA 40A 60A 1.5 miles N. of 1-580 IsabeVCayetana 2UA 40A 1-580 North Canyons Parkway 40A BOA North Canyons Parkway 2 miles north of 1-580 2UA 60A 2 miles north of 1-580 5 miles north of 1-580 2UA 40A 5 miles north of 1-580 2UA Vasco Road Vasco Road Vasco Road Vasco Road North Livermore Avenue North Livermore Avenue Isabel/Cayetano Isabel/Cayetano Isabel/Cayetano Isabel/Cayetano Pleasanton Bernal Avenue Bernal Avenue EIB Bernal Avenue EIB Bernal Avenue E1B Busch Road Del Valle Parkway Dublin Canyon Road WIB EI Charro Road EI Charro Road Foothill Road NIB Foothill Road Hacienda Drive Hopyard Aoad '-580 at Foothill Aoad-Change interchange '-580 at Hacienda Drive-New Interchange '-580 at Santa Aita Aoad-Change interchange '-680 at W.las Positas Boulevard-New interchange Table 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System (Continued) Cross-Section (Number 01 Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Rosewood Drive Old Santa Rita Road Santa Rita Road 4DA 60A Santa Rita Avenue 1-580 Old Santa Rita Road 4DA 6DA Stone ridge Drive Hopyard Road Santa Rita Road 4DA 6DA Stone ridge Drive Santa Rita Road EI Charro Road -/2 DAl4 DA 4DA 6DA Sunol Boulevard First Street 1-680 4UA 60A Sunol Boulevard 1-680 Castlewood Drive 2UA 4DA Valley Avenue Bernal Avenue Sunol Boulevard 4DA West Las Positas Boulevard Foothill Road Payne Road 2UA 40A West Las Positas Boulevard Hopyard Road Stone ridge Drive 4DA 6DA Danvllle Diablo Road Diablo Rmld Green Valley Road 2UA 4UA San Ramon Valley Boulevard Sycamore Valley Road Crow Canyon Road 2UA 4UA 1-680 at Sycamore Valley Boulevard-Change interchange IC Completed San Ramon Crow Canyon Road SI. George Tassajara Ranch Drive 4DA 6DA Deerwood Place Fostoria Way Overcrossing Crow Canyon Road 4UA Fostoria Way Overcrossing Camino Ramon Deerwood Place 40A 1-680 at Alcosta Boulevard-Remove SB off-ramp Ramp Removed 1-680 at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Alcosta Boulevard)-New hook ramp Completed San Ramon Valley Boulevard Montevideo Drive Alcosta Boulevard 2DA 4DA West Side Collector San Ramon Valley Boulevard San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2COL Old Ranch Road Dougherty Road Alcosta Boulevard 2UA 4DA Bollinger Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard City Limits 4DA 6DA Alameda County Dublin Boulevard East extension Tassajara Road Doolan Road 2DA 6DA Fallon Road Tassajara Road 1-580 -/2UA 4DA BOA 1-580 at Fallon Road-Change interchange IC . Completed Table 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System (Continued) Cross-Section (Number 01 Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Contra Costa County Bollinger Canyon Road Extension San Ramon City Limits Dougherty Road 6DA Bollinger Canyon Road Extension Dougherty Road North Dougherty Road South 4DA 60A East Branch Road Bollinger Canyon Extension Windemere Parkway 4DA Camino Tassajara Danville Town Limit County Line 2UA 20A 40A Dougherty Road Crow Canyon Road County Line 214UA 40A 60A Windemere Parkway Bollinger Canyon Extension Camino Tassajara 4DA · No change from previous network DA Divided Arterial , COL Collector E/B Eastbound Nonexistent UA Undivided Arterial IC Interchange W/B Westbound - Changes from previous list Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND 8 Number of freeway Lones 6-Lone or 8-Lone Arterial IIIIIII = 4-Lone Arterial - other streets ore 2-Lanes o Improved Interchange Danville ------ .., u z ll' it CJ :5 Q: .. JOHNS ,0" " ~ '" \ \ \ \ ----- ----- ..-. ---- \ , ----- '"'-, , '" - ----- - '" ! (Not to Sc"le) COU0:'i- COS\?_ " ,---- ' \('0 " - -- Cou0\.'/ COf' / dO _____ _ _ ----- ~\ 0 {'f\ e Figure 5-1 a EXPECTED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ coU~~~ costO./ -' rMO -- - tou'(\\~ co __ - - CO _ _ __ - -p...\o('(\e -- 8+Aux. -- -- -- (Not to Scale) -- -- -- -- -- IE ~~ ...'" 8~ :> .. I.IA Y SCHOOL RD ~ ~ '" ~ 2' lS.efL EXTENSION -- ~ -- ~ , ''\.......--- -- ) 1 c '" ~ ~ ", '" ~ LEGEND 8 Number of Freeway Lanes 6-Lane or a-Lane Arterial I IIIIII = 4-Lane Arterial - other streets ore 2-Lones o Improved Interchange Figure 5-1 b 84 HILES CANYON RD PLANNED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK Expected Forecasts The key transit improvement in the Tri- Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- linIPleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and, County Connection routes are also rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas in the expected network: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Tassajara Valley. ' The expected network also includes nine new express bus routes to connect the Tri- Valley with portions of Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara County that are not served by BART. More details regarding the expected transit network are included in the Appendix. Traffic Forecasts The 2010 expected forecasts show substantial growth in traffic demand on Tri-Valley roads. If these traffic increases were to occur, severe congestion would result almost everywhere on the freeway system. Congested locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 5-2 identifies the unconstrained 2010 link demand on the regional routes. In many cases the demand-based V/C ratio would be greater than 1.0. This is particu- larly true at the gateways to the area, including I-680 north of Alamo, 1-680 through Sunol, the Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road. In reality, the volume can never exceed capacity. However" the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would last longer than an hour. Based on model projections, many roads in Tri-Valley would be congested for over three hours during the peak period (See Table 5-3). Peak-spreading diagrams are included in the Appendix. Figure 5-3 shows an example. Table 5-3 Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading Gateway Hours of Congestion 1-680 north of Alamo 1-680 south of Route 84 1-580 west of Dublin 1-580 Altamont Pass Vasco Road north of Livermore Crow Canyon Road at the County Line 7 7 1 4 2 2 Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 71 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ (Not to SCHle) Danville \ \ 1 300 3,300", u z ~ ;t Q ~ Cl: 600 1,100 , , ~ JOHNS 101'\ ~ ~ cou(\'l~ coS\.O ,- ,- rMo cou(\ '/ Co ,-- 00 ___ _ _ ~/ p..\o{'(\e ---...----- --- ---- , , ",-, , '\.. ---- - Figure 5-20 YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT) e"'-""':.~ d .s en Q) ... as "0 o CJ) CJ) < c as E .c Co) CJ) < I C o ... ... as m \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , ?;' ~\?; Ole:. 0' ? '0 0\0 ~" 0 0' -0 O\1U O,CC '0 ~\a o. o. .c N I II") I-Cj:: UJZ~ <<< O::ea: WW..... a:C~ ~Q8 eLL>- wLL< ....<C3: oC::W w....~ ~c::~ ><::::>0 WO~ OJ: ..... O~ C\I<C a:w <0... W::E >0... 000'1 00'1' cu .... :J OJ r:: J!:I Jll111N33!:1~ o 00 ,",,0 '" '" '" .. Vi ~ 006'1 00'1' 00' 'z O/i O:)S'o'II 006 OOZ'I 006 " .... " ~ C> '" ~ '" " ~ >< ... .... \i '!I 0 00 0.... ..,,,: o s ~ >- ~ II" J!:IOI'fIi:Jl\ll .N O!:l NOAMI:) _ /iJnlO:J o 0: ~ l:J ~ '<t CO -. i ) --...2:; ~ .s c; I ~ / cJ c: - CJ Z - C < W a: a.. en ~ <( w a.. 7>- 10< ~ ~ en t::W I- < C!J u. o W ...J a.. ::iE <( >< w .. UJ Q) ..... as 0- (J o UJ U) < c: CO E ..r::::. (J UJ <( I c: o ..... ... CO m ~ < w a. ~ < I < Z a: o > ::::i ..... < o CO CO , In UJ a a a 0> ./i .............i...... ... I I I. I I I." ..( ...., . , I I I j: I : i I ; I i I I .,' I , . j ; I o a to to \I >- ...- "0 I m Q. ctl U >- ctl :: Q) Q) ..... lJ.. I a a o ex) I o o o t-.. I o o o U') I o a o C') a o a to a a a ~ o a o C\l o o .0 ~ pUEwaa O!gEJ.L I~ ~~ C\I ~ ~ ...... :E < C\I ...- ~ -=: ...- ...- ::E -=: o ...- :E -=: en ::E g' <(-0 CD C w :E to- -=: ::J o r-..:c ~ -=: CO :E -=: l() :E <( "II:T ::E <t: C') ':E < C\I ::E -=: ....... o :t:- 'u .0 Q, o u ) ~I \1 J ~j ~) ~ ~ +j I I I 8 I E, c!i ~ I NI I I I I 'I I ~\ ~ I CDI Q I ml ~ I ~I I : I I I I I I I I o II E ~ "0 > II C 3 ~ :I: '11 'tl :J i:i .5 1) c WI II C C i.i 1) z i I I Expected Forecasts Gateway Constraints The TVTC recognizes that the gateways act as constraint points regulating flow into and out of the area. Thus, the demand volumes will never actually be reached. Based on their inability to get through the gateways, motorists will adjust their schedules to travel outside the peak hour or to carpool or use transit. This adjustment in travel schedules, which could be reinforced with ramp metering, will be most obvious on the freeways and at interchanges. At intersections farther from the freeway, we can be less certain about adjustments to travel behavior. Motorists may adjust their sched- ules, or they may continue to travel during the peak hour but to a different destina- tion, or other peak-hour trips may occur to replace the trips displaced by freeway congestion. Nevertheless, the plan is based on a Tri-Valley Model run in which the overcapacity gateway trips have been removed from the assigned traffic volumes. This is a major assumption. TVTC has agreed to treat the Altamont Pass, Vasco Road, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, Dublin Grade, Sunol Grade, and I-680 north as physical gateways. It is unrealistic t9 plan local transportation facilities to accommodate all peak-hour traffic projected to flow through state highway gateways if this traffic in actuality cannot get through the gateways. Constrained as well as unconstrained traffic volumes have been developed for the Tri-Valley network. The constrained traffic volumes back down the assigned traffic volumes in proportion to the origins and destinations of the total gateway traffic. PM peak-hour, directional traffic volumes are shown in Fig- ure 5-2 for "unconstrained" traffic volumes, Figure 5-4 for the subtracted traffic, and on Figure 5-5 for the "gateway constrained" traffic volumes. The constrained volumes are considered the baseline volumes. In order to develop rational action plans for local arterials, both unconstrained and constrained traffic volumes aXe shown in the plan. As actual capacities are more nearly reached monitoring of conditions may indicate the need to reassess and amend the current action plan. Level of service (LOS) at gateways for the constrained system is viewed to be no more than 1.0. Volume in excess of 1.0 which is projected is assumed to be spread over multiple hours of the peak period. The Plan espouses a policy of cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions to develop facilities management agreements in terms of ramp metering and freeway surveillance and control, which would fairly apportion available capacity in such a way that LOS F will be avoided except for unavoidable traffic incidents which create intermittent blockages of capacity. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 75 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ (Nol 10 Scale) Danville 600 1,100 ------ \ \ \ \ I JOHNS 10" '" cou0.t~/ COS\.O -- \i p\.fO , couP CO _ / dO ____ ' ' .---- r:--\o('f\e ,.--- ---- \ , ,-, , '" ---- - Figure 5-40 , " YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND (NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT) co .j>. a I ~ -C-( ~m -c> m:D )>1\) ,,0 ..... :to zOrn OCX G)JJ"1J >-Irn -IJJo ~>-I >."m .-( .,,0 00" o 0 zo:::c cnmrn ~~O >>> ZZCIJ ::!C-I / , , J -.. ~ tj ( S' ~"""'--- ~ c.., 0" " Il - \ 10 ""'" , '- =' COLU[R . CANYON RD N LrvtR"OR[ AV . Q> -..10 00 0<;' ~ ~ ~ ,. <:: ,., " ~ '" z ~ ~ '" '" 900 VASCO RD 2.100 900 400 1.200 1,900 ..., cO" l:: .., ell C..((NVILL[ RD 400 1.000 VI I . tT ,0 '0 '? ~\ c;: 0'0 3' (\l\o 0- 0 O'(I'l , ,... 0\0 o " 0 c.' ?'O ~\~ ,~ , \ \ , E "" '" ~ ~ ~ m D) ... ... o =' I > en (") =- 3 ED =' > en en o (') 0;. ... CD P' S" P Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville 532 1.100 ------ \ \ , , , , ,-, , '" , ~- , '" I JOHNS ,011 ~ ~-- --- --- --- --- ~ (Not 10 Scate) cou(\,':L.- coS\.O ,---' (\\.('0 _ ~ --- (,ou(\\.'1 Co --~edO . --- f\\0\' . Figure 5-50 YEAR 201.0 EXPECTED FORECAST PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND (WITH GA TEWA Y CONSTRAINT) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ co'!.~\~- ---- cos\.~- -- ('\\(0 ____ - - C00('\\.'j C? ____ - ;"'eOO - p...\0'" ---- ---- ---- (Not to Scule) ---- " ---- ____ ~ MAY SCHOOL RD li! ~ II: ~ o , II: II: ~~ lJ~ lI'lO N~ ot'l..: , , ~ - ---- '" 550lSABEL EXTENSION ,.394 00 00 0Il"t ... . , , "'-...--- - - N, CANYONS PKWY 0- 01') 'ot0l 00 g~ ... lE o lJ ~ Q <t . j ;: :.: ... ... ~. fA~T AV TEStA liD figure 5-5b 84 NILCS CJNYON RD YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND (WITH GATEWAY CONSTRAINT) Expected Forecasts Adjusted Forecasts To plan for the true expected traffic flow, excess gateway trips, beyond design capaci- ties, were removed from the system. Residual congestion would still occur in some locations, as listed below (see Figure 5-6 ): 1-680 north of Danville (gateway) 1-680 south of Pleasanton (gateway) 1-580 over Altamont Pass (gateway) 1-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue Danville Boulevard (gateway) Vasco Road north of Livermore (gateway) Camino Tassajara east of Crow Canyon Road Crow Canyon Road between Castro Valley and San Ramon (gateway) Crow Canyon Road east of Dougherty Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Tassajara Road near 1-580 Fallon Road near I-580 Dublin Boulevard extension between Tassajara and Fallon Route 84 between 1-580 and Jack London \ I Travel Patterns With the expected forecasts, Tri-Valley would continue to experience in'-commuting and out-commuting. This would occur even with a jobslhousing balance: 224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Trips within Tri-Valley would make up 63 percent of the total trips, compared to 50 percent under existing conditions. Out- commuting and in-commuting would make up 18 percent and 16 percent of the total trips, respectively. The remaining 4 percent of the trips would be through trips, traffic passing through Tri-Valley. This percentage is low overall but would be significant on the freeway system. 1-680 would comprise 15 percent through traffic, and through traffic on I-580 would vary from 16 percent at Foothill Road to 40 percent over Altamont Pass. , Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 80 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. o = LOS E or F Intersection = Congested Rood i LEGEND (Not to Scalc) Danville \ \ \ \ i JOHNS 101:! a ~ ------ cou0:1. Costa, ,,---' \.(0 _ -" ou0\.'1 co0 -/"00 C ____ _ _ _-- ~\o((\e ..--' -,..- \ , ""-, , ---- ---- Figure 5-60 "" ---- - YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST PEAK HOUR OVERCAPACITY ROADWAYS WITH GATEWAY CONSTRAINT Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (No 1 10 Scale) ~ , , ~ ~ CO\l~:!- ' --- costO ./ ' ' (\\JO /' . COU(\\'1 CO /- . . dO " /_' 'p..\o('{'e ~, LEGEND o LOS E or F Intersection --- --- Overcapacity Link --- --- --- --- :> "" MAY SCHOO! RD ll! ~ ~ '" ISABEL EXfENSION --- --- --- CJ 0: 0: ~~ ...,. CJ;z <>~ , , "--- - - CJ 0: <:> <> ~ ~ ... ... ~ ::: ~ EAST AV TEStA RD Figure 5-6b 84 NILES CANYON RD YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST PEAK HOUR OVERCAPACITY ROADWAYS WITH GA TEW A Y CONSTRAINT Expected Forecasts Intersection levels of Service One hundred and thirty-five intersections were evaluated for the PM peak hour (see Table 5-4). Lane configurations were based on the 2010 expected network and are shown in the Technical Appendix. Figure 5-6 summarizes the intersections shown to operate at LOS E or Fin 2010. They are: Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon and Do~gherty Alcosta and Bollinger Canyon Dougherty and Bollinger Canyon Dougherty and Dublin Tassajara and Dublin Fallon and Dublin Santa Rita and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Isabel and North Canyons Parkway Isabel and Airway Isabel and Jack London Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 83 Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour Existing 2010 City NIS Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C Los Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.50 A 0.47 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.90 D San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A 0.45 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 C 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B 0.77 C Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.84 D 0.93 E Village Parkway , Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C 0.82 D Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A 0.78 C Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.85 D Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.56 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A 0.33 A Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B 0.59 A North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A 0.66 B North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A 0.74 C Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C 0.74 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Las Posltas 0.39 A 0.45 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D 0.59 A Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.97 E 0.69 B North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.58 A Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E 0.70 B Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A 0.55 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.50 A 0.71 C North Mines East Street 0.58 A 0.41 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B 0.61 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.66 B Airway Boulevard 1~580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.73 C Isabel (Route 84) Jack London 0.95 E Isabel North Canyons Pkwy 0.92 E Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B 0.85 0 Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A 0.87 0 Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.75 C Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.84 0 Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A 0.58 A Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.66 B 0.79 C Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 84 Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2010 City NIS Street E/W Street vIe LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.91 E Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.66 B Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.75 C Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40 A 0.58 A FirstlSunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.80 C 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40 A 0.83 D 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.56 A 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.58 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.48 A 0.54 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.94 E First Street RayNineyard 0.70 B 0.71 C Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.37 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57 A 0.85 D 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.36 A 0.49 A 1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31 A 0.52 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.70 B 0.75 C East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86 D 0.87 D Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.93 E Stone ridge Drive West Las Positas 0.31 A 0.81 D San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.46 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.68 B San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.87 D 0.76 C Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.61 B 0.82 D Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 1.06 F Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0.63 B San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A ,0.60 A 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.57 A 0.48 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.76 C 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.56 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.98 E San Ramon Valley 1-680 SB Off 0.41 A Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.87 0 0.84 0 Dougherty Road Bollinger Canyon Rd 1.11 F Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 85 Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 86 Expected Forecasts Interchange Analysis The 2010 expected network includes changes to several freeway interchanges. Figure 5-7 shows the interchange configurations for existing and 2010 conditions. The following three new interchanges will be added to the network: · I-580/Shaeffer Ranch Road · I-580lIsabel (Route 84) · I-6801West Las Positas The following 10 interchanges will be reconfigured or expanded: · I-580lFoothilL Conversion from full cloverleaf to partial cloverleaf design. · I-5801I-680. Addition of a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp, addition of hook ramps to Dublin. · I-580IFallon. Widening of overpass to six lanes. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. · I-580/Portola. Removal of the ramps, will become just an overcrossing. · I-580/North Livermore. Conversion from diamond to partial cloverleaf design, widening of overcrossing. · I-580lFirst Street. Widening of overcrossing. · I-580N asco. Widening of overcrossing, reconstruction of ramps to a partial cloverleaf design. · I-580/Greenville. Conversion from hook ramps to partial cloverleaf design. · I~680/Sycamore Valley. Elimination of the northbound-~o-westbound off-loop. · ,I-680/Alcosta. Addition of hook ramps to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, removal of southbound off-ramp. · I-680lBernaL Conversion to standard partial cloverleaf design. Tables 5-5 through 5-8 show the 2010 expected volume on the overcrossing and ramps at each interchange for the PM peak hour. The tables also show the number of lanes required to accommodate the expected volume. In all cases, the existing or planned interchange configuration will be adequate. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 87 en Tassajara Road/ ~ Santa Rita Road .~ () @ 1-580 o U) U) < Fallon Road/EI Charro c) .s c CU E .c () U) < I C o ... .... CU aJ INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 I LOCATION Palomares Road ,~ .../,_510 I @ 1-580 T SAME ( U ft -- "'NCU) Schafer Ranch Road @ 1-580 I I Foothill Road @ 1-580 1-680 @ 1-580 ...... .-- - Dougherty Road/ Hopyard Road ...... SAME @ 1-580 Hacienda Dr - SAME @ 1-580 JU ftt'-- III ~ ...... ...... @ 1-580 lt mttt Figure 5-7 EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS . I \ INTERCHANGE LOCA TION EXISTING 2010 @ 1-580 1->80 SAME Airway Blvd Isabel Pkwy ...... @ 1-580 I$AIIU ...... Portola Ave @ 1-580 ~e_ ~ ........- ~'- ~ ,......... """"""'.... ~- 1-- 1-080 N. Livermore Ave l i @ 1-580 1-080 -...:;: First Street ...- 1-- @ 1-580 " () J: Vasco Road en Q) @ 1-580 ... as "0 o (/) en < Greenville Road ~ @ 1-580 E .c () en -< I C o ... "- as CD ...!Ill ...... ...- u _uL 00 Figure 5-7 EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS en Q) c; Stoneridge Dr .u o @ 1-680 en CJ) -< C CO E .c () CJ) < I C o ... "- tV r::D cj J: INTERCHANGE LOCATION I I I I r 1 I i EXISTING 2010 SR 84 -..; ......... WAY . ...uo .... .-- @ 1-680 -.;;; ......,... ".y Sunol Blvd @ 1-680 Bernal Ave @ 1-680 W. Las Positas Blvd @ 1-680 - - -- -- := -- -- ,-- - - - -- -- -- SAME ...- Figure 5-7 EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cj c .. en Q) ..... .~ () o U) en -< c:: CO E .c () en < I C o ..... "- as m INTERCHANGE LOCATION 2010 EXISTING Alcosta Blvd @ 1-680 . ...- SoW .....,.,. ...uv RD Bollinger Canyon Rood @ 1-680 SAME Crow Canyon Road @ 1-680 SAME Sycamore Valley Road @ 1-680 - - - - - ,/WOUY - - - - - - - -- Figure 5-7 EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS Expected Forecasts Table 5-5 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Inte'rchange Overpasses-I-580 (PM Peak Hour) SB NB Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Shaeffer Ranch 401 1 194 1 Palomares 92 1 63 1 San Ramon/Foothill 367 1 570 1 1-680/1-580 2,457 2 4.210 2 Dougherty/Hopyard 2.572 3 3,541 3 Hacienda 2,75l 3 3,390 3 TassajaralSanta Rita 2,504 3 3,033 3 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,258 2 1,483 2 Airway 593 1 451 1 Isabel (Route 84) 2,264 2 3,302 3 North Livermore 1,044 1 3,301 3 First Street 587 1 1,386 2 Vasco 401 1 2,955 3 Greenville 416 1 707 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1 ,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity . Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 93 Expected Forecasts Table 5-6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses- 1-680 (PM Peak Hour) Westbound Eastbound Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Livorna 46 1 534 1 Stone Valley 962 1 1,26 1 EI Pintado 26 1 376 1 EI Cerro 138 1 625 1 Diablo 582 1 837 1 Sycamore Valley 757 1 1,588 2 Crow Canyon 1,219 1 2,141 2 Bollinger Canyon ' 2,307 2 1,617 2 Alcosta 740 1 531 1 1-68011-580 5,407 3 8,067 4 Stoneridge 1,593 2 1,318 1 Las Positas 775 1 426 1 Bernal 480 1 1,593 2 Sunol 852 1 285 1 Route 84 1,537 2 490 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity . Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 94 Expected Forecasts Table 5-7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I-580 (PM Peak Hour) WB WB WB WB N N N N Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Shaeffer Ranch 387 534 533 270 Palomares 92 130 1296 468 San Ramon/Foothill 388 627 875 769 340 875 1,441 336 Dougherty/Hopyard 1,601 727 1.243 1574 775 1,156 Hacienda 1,451 841 1,093 1768 1,287 671 T assajara/Santa Rita 1,583 1,472 533 1231 1,439 515 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,558 1,507 1231 969 Airway 475 371 742 529 Isabel (Route 84) 1,244 924 1,353 24381 2,000' 578 North Livermore 793 805 1,186 25801 150 192 First Street 667 167 610 1258 958 37 Vasco 40 93 1,295 1,622' 1046 1549 518 Greenville 576 27 514 93 663 59 1 Requires two-lane ramp. Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp; 1,600 vph for loop ramp. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 95 Expected Forecasts Table 5-8 2D1 D Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I-6SD (PM Peak Hour) SB SB $B SB NB NB NB NB Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Uvoma 625 14 46 386 Stone Valley 239 431 629 417 685 691 EI Pintado 66 324 EI Cerro 578 72 303 477 Diablo 458 652 737 303 Sycamore Valley 458 1,357 729 494 489 917 Crow Canyon 2,196, 521 316 1,345 1,591 1,256 Bollinger Canyon 1,396 309 1,212 1,270 1,749 248 Alcosta 432 146 233 1,761 377 Dublin Hook 359 613 138 733 1-680/1-580 266 2,624 2 1,184 1,114 461 1,244 2,179 ' 919 Stoneridge 585 650 557 625 791 271 Las Positas 476 644 706 617 Bernal 1,763 225 292 1,315 Sunol 510 703 994 185 Route 84 14 429 246 1,201 2,956 ' 0 21 0 1 Requires two-lane ramp. 2 Two-lane flyover. Note: Assumes capacity of 1 ,800 vph for diagonal ramp, 1,600 vph for loop ramp. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 96 Expected Forecasts Transit Ridership The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and this is expected to increase to 5 percent for the expected 2010 forecasts. Nevertheless, the drive-alone percentage is predicted to increase slightly from, 76 percent to 80 percent. The traffic model estimates transit and carpool usage by taking into account travel time, travel cost, and transit availability. The model does not include policy direction that might lead to more carpooling or transit ridership-for example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District goals to increase average vehicle ridership. Table 5-9 summarizes the transit ridership forecast for the expected transit network. Transit ridership is predicted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to almost triple by 2010, compared to a doubling of population and employment. The drive-alone percentage is expected to remain high, however. This is a function of time and cost factors, which will continue to favor driving alone. A complete breakdown of transit information for the "expected" 2010 forecast is included in the Appendix. Table 5-9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 1990 2010 Carrier Daily Ridership 1 Daily Ridership2 County Connection 3,097 13,404 WHEELS 16,698 41 ,433 BART 19,482 52,058 3 Express Buses 6,041 Total 39,277 112,935 1 For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model validation run. 2 For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model expected run. 2 Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 97 6. Plan Alternatives Chapter Summary · The Transportation Service Objective of Level of Service E for the freeways cannot be met at the gateways based on demand, without spending over $2 billion on transportation improvements-far in excess of the funding that could reasonably be available. · Even if there were no further development in the Tri-Valley, the freeway system would still become increasingly congested by long-distance commuters that neither live nor work in the Tri-Valley. (This assumes that neighboring communities will continue to grow as planned.) · The plan should restrict increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles, insure that the internal transportation system operates at acceptable levels of service through selective network improvements and freeway ramp metering, and achieve a jobs-housing balance. Ridesharing and transit usage should be particu- larly emphasized at the gateways. This chapter describes the alternatives tested to develop the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Potential actions and strategies to address the projected transportation deficien- cies were developed by the consultant, the TAC and the TVTC. These actions and strategies can generally be divided into three groups: increase transportation supply through highway investment, increase transportation system efficiency through more reliance on transit, and decrease transportation demand through land use adjust- ments. Note that the evaluation of transportation alternatives was conducted with the baseline forecasts and did not include the gateway constraint concept. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 98 Plan Alternatives Maximum Highway In~estment The purpose of testing an alternative that maximized highway investment was to see if, regardless of cost, it would be possible for the Tri-Valley to build its way out of the problem of traffic congestion. All physically and potentially politically acceptable road improvements were included. The assumed maximum highway network changes are shown on Figure 6-1. Expenditures for these improvements are summarized, by improvement, in Table 6-1. Funding levels for the maximum highway investment would require an additional $598 million beyond that required for the assumed baseline improvements. Approximately $547 million of this amount would be unfunded. These changes included substantial capital expenditures on new roads and road widening projects throughout the Tri Valley area. The additional road capacity would alleviate, to some degree, congestion on arterial corridors in Tri Valley. The gateways to Tri Valley (1-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road) would continue to be congested during peak conditions. Figure 6-2 shows the congested routes with the maximum highway alternative. Maximum Transit Investment This alternative was to test the ability of transit systems to relieve highway conges- tion. Transit systems offering travel times superior to automobiles were included in the major corridors. Potential transit improvements are shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-4. Cost estimates for the maximum transit investment is summarized in Table 6-2. The maximum transit investment would require an additional $1.136 billion in capital and operating costs through 2010 beyond the baseline improvements. None of this amount . is funded. Potential projects include BART service extended to Eastern Livermore, Altamont Pass Rail service from Stockton to San Jose, and north/south corridor priority express bus transit. Extensive bus service feeding the proposed rail stations was also assumed. The additional system capacity would not eliminate congestion on either arterial corridors or the gateways to Tri-Valley (1-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road). Figure 6-5 shows the congested routes with the maximum transit alternative. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 99 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND 8 '" Rood Widening and Number of Lones 8 IIIIIII = New Rood and Number of Lones Danville ------ l JOHNS ,0" ~ \ \ \ --- --- , , ,"-, , '" , . . ... - ~ ... .--- ~.. ---- . . . . --- - , '" i (Not 10 Scalc) couf';-'1-- casto ,..--:- ....\.{o _' /- couf't'l COI' _/ dO ___ _ _ ___ ~\O('{'e Figure 6-1 a MAXIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK - CHANGES FROM BASELINE NETWORK Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ COU~~, '--- COS\.O _-- - ' , CO(\~ - - 60- cou(\\'1 ,--- - -p..\o('{'e --- .---. --- (Nol 10 Scale) --- --- --- ~ ......- - . . . . 4: . CJ 0: ~ 0: ~~ 8~ :> "" MAY SCHOOL RO ll! ~ ~ ,:< /SABEl (XfENS/OII 6 , , "--- - - --- ~ .---' , , N. CANYONS PKWY 10 CJ 0: 8 ~ C 0: ... :J ! ~ EAST AV ~- LEGEND 8 .. Road Widening and Number of Lones 8 IIIIIII = New Rood and Number of Lanes Figure 6-1 b 84 NILES CANYON RO MAXIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK - CHANGES FROM BASELINE NETWORK Plan Alternatives Table 6-1 Cost Estimate for Maxi'mum Highway Network Cost Potential Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded HOV lanes on 1-680 to Santa $80 $80 Clara County HOV lanes on 1-580 Foothill to $112 $112 Greenville Route 84, upgrade to six-lane $50 $50 freeway 1-680 to 1-580 1-580/1-680 Interchange $120 $120 NB to WB ramp 1-680/Bernal interchange im- $15 $15 provement Bollinger Canyon Rd. widened $8 $8 Developer to six lanes Dougherty Rd. widened to six $15 $15 Developer lanes Hacienda Dr. extended $12 $12 Developer New road: East Branch to High- $6 $6 Developer land Tassajara Rd. widened to 6 $10 $10 Developer Two new overpasses in Dublin $10 $10 N. Livermore/Highland Drive $40 $40 widened to four lanes Vasco widened to six-lane ex- $120 $120 pressway, 1-580 to Delta Ex- pressway Total $598 $51 $547 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, 1nc. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 102 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND = Congested Roadway Danville ------ ~ J(lHNS1O~ ... \ \ , , --- --- .--- ---' , , --- ,,-, , '" - ~ (Not to Scale) co u (\:'1--- COS\.O_ ,..--:' f'VO " /'co\l(\\.'1 CO ---- dO ___ ' ,--- ~\o('{'e Figure 6-20 CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH MAXIMUM HIGHWAY AL TERNA TIVE Note: Does not include gotewoy constraints. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ LEGEND Congested Roadway --- (Not 10 Scale) -- -- --- --- :> .. MAY SCHOOL RD lu Q; ~ 0: ~ -- ~ --- li' 0: ~~ ~~ IA , , ~ , , '\...:....- - - N. CANYONS PKWY cou(\:~ / cos\o ,/ - .. ,- C00~- -~' (,ou(\\'1 '--- - -p..\o('{'e --- li' C) 'J ~ EAST AV figure 6-2b 84 NILES CANYON RO CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH MAXIMUM HIGHWAY AL TERNA TIV.E Note: Does not include gateway constraints, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ To ~~ Pleosont'b Hill BART LEGEND ~ ~ (Not to Scale) COU(\\~ COS\.O .-:-;:-:. (\\('0 - COU(\\'1 CO ::':::---::-00 ______ - - p..\O {1"\ e ------ ------ ~ . = Proposed Station Location TeStA RD Figure 6-3 = Station With Roil Interface MAXIMUM TRANSIT AL TERN A TIVE - PRIORITY EXPRESS BUS NETWORK Barton~Aschman Associates, Inc. Q,-ftt <.., ~'t> LEGEND II ~ To Bayfair Station = Proposed Station Location = Potential Intermodal Interface Location To Son Jose ~ (Not to Scale) cou(\;'J - ,/' costO ~ (\~ -- -- cou(\\'J C,9 rl'\eOO ______ -- p..\0 I" ------ ------ ------ ------ To Sacromento UlWfCNCf iNtRIIOR/ ,.."""" .... rCStA RD Figure 6-4 MAXIMUM TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE - INTERCITY /COMMUTER RAIL Plan Alternatives Table 6-2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network Element Cost Potential (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded Priority transit lines 1 in 1-680 $56 $56 and 1-580 corridors BART extension to $900 $900 Livermore with 2 stations Altamont Pass Rail $136 $136 (Alameda County portion) Express Bus Service $26 $26 11 lines Enhanced local bus service ill ill Subtotal $1 ,136 $1,136 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1 These are super express bus lines that have signal-preemption capability. I . I Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 107 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville ----,., --- \ \ \ \ , , ,,-, , '" - , '" Note: Does not include goteway constraints. LEGEND ~ = Congested Roadway (Not to Scale) ... u z '" 0: it CJ ~ Q: ~ JOHNS 101\ ... cou0:\~ s\o _" ,,$0 ~~ --c' ~u(\\,/ COl' _/' 00 ___ ' ' --- ~\O('{'e _/ _/ --- Figure 6-50 CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH MAXIMUM TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (No I 10 Scale) ~ " ~ ~ cou~~~" ----- costO . ' ' cof\t{O CO$f\'t'l ,. eOO , _/' 'p..\O('{' LEGEND Congested Roadway --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ;; O\fAY SCHOOL RO .. It o :s It ~ --- --- Ii' ~~ ...,. c>;z <>~ ~~ , , "--- - - > < ~ ~ C. 0: ... ;J ~ '" ... 0: <:> EAST AV TEStA ~'O figure 6-5b 84 NILES CANYON RO CONGESTED ROADW A VS WITH MAXIMUM TRANSIT AL TERNA TIVE Note: Does not include gateway constraints. ~ ~ Plan Alternatives land Use Opportunities Given the high cost, limited availability of funds, and lack of overall system improve- ment for either a maximum highway or maximum transit network, the consultant was instructed by the TVTC to test modifications to proposed land uses. A real estate economics firm, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), was contracted to prepare a study of how a reduced land use plan might be structured. Their complete land use study is included in the Appendix. They prepared the following list of criteria for structuring the reduced growth plan. Criteria for Developing Managed Growth Land Use Scenario 1. Determine Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are the significant contributions to traffic congestion tproducing trips in excess of network link capacity). 2. Identify TAZs where residential and employment density could be increased where access to transit is high (transit-oriented development). 3. Identify TAZs where infrastructure capacity (e.g., arterial roadways) exists that can support higher density residential and employment mixed-use development. 4. Reduce proposed residential density in TAZs with limited or nonexistent network and poor transit service potential. 5. Reduce employment land use designations and/or proposed capacity in areas with limited road network and transit access, undeveloped or underdeveloped backbone infrastructure, or weak market demand. 6. Construct a "Managed Growth Scenario" by redistributing and reducing 2010 Expected Growth to achieve a level of service policy on Baseline Network. EPS used these criteria to develop specific reduced-growth recommendations (see Table 6-3). These recommendations were considered but not adopted by the TVTC. Several land use reduction treatments were tested with the traffic model. None produced satisfactory results with respect to eliminating overcapacity demand on the freeway system. As a worst-case test, the consultant tested an alternative with zero growth through 2010 in the Tri-Valley while allowing growth to occur as predicted in neighboring communities. Through this evaluation, it was determined that congestion at the gateways (1-680, Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) would not be influenced by Tri Valley growth but rather growth in neighboring communities. In other words, there is no way to control the freeway system demand by only. adjusting growth within Tri Valley. Figure 6-6 shows the congested links with the zero growth alternative. The lack of local control over freeway volumes at the gateways, as evidenced by the zero growth alternatives, lead to the policy of gateway constraints. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 110 Table 6-3 Growth Management Options Planning Area Alamo-Blackhawk Danville Dougherty Valley Dublin East Dublin Livermore North Livermore Pleasanton Pleasanton Ridge San Ramon South Livermore TV-CCC Remainder Tassajara Valley West Dublin Area Description Estate communities east of San Ramon Valley Semi-rural and suburba~ residential community on 1-580 corridor Uninhabited area with large-scale development proposal Suburban community intersection of 1- 580 and 1-680 Rural/developable area with large- scale development proposal City with remaining residential and commercial/industrial capacity Rural area, near proposed BART ex, tension, with large-scale development proposal City with remaining residential and commerciaVindustrial capacity Uninhabited area formerly subject to large-scale development proposal City with remaining residential and commercial/industrial capacity Rural area with medium-scale devel- opment proposal Rural area in Contra Costa County outside of other subareas Rural area with large-scale develop- ment proposal Rural area formerly subject to large- scale development proposal Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., April 23, 1993. Land Use Opportunities and Constraints Transportation Limited access on arterial roads with existing congestion levels Existing congestion on arterials and 1-680 ' Limited access potential Lawsuits filed because of potential traffic congestion Existing congestion on arterials and 1-680 Location near most congested part of 1-580 corridor Good transit potential Generally good arterial capacity Opportunities to increase residen- tial densities Potential for transit-oriented de- velopment Generally good arterial capacity Opportunities to increase residen- tial densities. Limited access potential Existing congestion on arterials and 1-680 Good access given density and level of proposed development Limited access potential Limited access potential Limited access potential Other Nearly built-out Nearly build-out Lacks water, sewer, and other urban infrastructure Nearly buill-out City/County conflict Proposed Land Use Management Oplion None identified Increase housing densities and affordability in remaining vacant sites, Reduce overall level of proposed resi- dential development Increase housing densities and affordability in, remaining vacant sites Reduce overall level of proposed resi- dential and commercial development Large supply of commercial/industrial Reduce existing commercial/industrial land use land use designations City/County conflict; wastewater disposal Significant backbone infrastructure exists Rejected by Pleasanton's voters Nearly buill-out Limited development potential Lacks water, sewer, and other urban infrastructure Rejected by Dublin's voters Reduce overall level of proposed resi- dential development and design for maximum transit orientation Continue residential/mixed-use con, versions with increased densities None identilied Increase housing densities and affordability in remaining vacant sites None identified None identified Eliminate proposed residential devel- opment None identified Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LEGEND ~ Congested Roadway (Not to Scnlr) Danville \ ... u Z l.J 0: it 0 ~ 0: i JOHNS 10\\ ~ --- - - --- , \ \ cou(\~~ - cos\O . /- ' CoP\JO CO\)(\t'l ,. eOO /' ~\Orfl ~-",. .' ,- --- /' --- \ , "- , , '. '" - , '" Figure 6-60 Note: Does not include gateway conslroinls, CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH ZERO GROWTH LAND USE AL TERNA T.IVE Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ LEGEND COUfl:! ' ,--- cos\.o "" , C (\\.(0 . ... cot}(\\.'1 o /- 00 /__.. - p..\o('{'e Congested Roadway --- --- --- (No I 10 Scale) --- --- --- " --- fi? 0: ~~ ...,. o;z <>~ :> "" MAY SCHOOL RO ll! ~ 0: ~ , , "--- .. - --- ~ --- ~ :< ISABEL (XfENSIOII N. CANYONS PKWY Cl 0: <:> <> ~ C, Q: ... ... ~ ... ... Q: t:l EAST AV TEStA RO Figure 6-6b 84 NILES CANYON RO CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH ZERO GROWTH LAND USE AL TERNA TIVE Note: Does not include gateway constraints, 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. Higber 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. Growtb 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 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. 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. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 114 Table 6-4 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Potential Alternatives Alternativel Description Road Improvements Beyond 2010 Expected Network Transit. Improvements Beyond 2010 Expected Network Higher Densities Reduced Growth Rates Through 2010 Alt. 1: Emphasize Road Improvements A lot None None None (2010 Expected) Reduced LOS Standards Some (freeways only) Increased Transportation Demand Measures Some (1,35 AVR) Description: Ten lanes on 1-580, Route 84 as six-lane arterial, Vasco Road as four-lane expressway, interchange improvements, eight lanes on 1-680 south of Route 84, 1.35 AVR for large employers, some freeway segments at LOS F. All. 2: Emphasize Transit Improvements None A lot A lot (15+dul within 1/4 mile of transit) Some Some (1,35 AVR) Some (freeways only) Description: Extensive express bus service, substantial land use density increases near transit nodes (at least 15 d.u. per acre), HOV lanes on 1-680 and 1-580, some reduced growth by 2010, relaxed LOS standards on freeways, 1.35 A VR for large employers. Alt. 3: Emphasize Policy Options Some Some None None A lot A lot Description: Improved arterial system but not freeways, additional trunk-line transit service, relaxed LOS standards on all roads" substantial TOM measures including mandatory trip reductions. Alt. 4: Emphasize Growth Management None None Some None A lot (2000 levels) Description: Increase densities near transit nodes, overall decrease in rate of development in 2010 to 1/2 the "expected" level, growth control options include: approved GPAs only, pro rate based on percentage of "expected," geographical based on available infrastructure. Total amount of development would not be changed, only the quantity assumed for the year 2010. None Table 6-5 Consensus Alternative for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Jurisdiction's Road Transit Higher Reduced Land Usel Reduced LOS Increased TOM Preferences Improvements Improvements Densities Growth Rate Standard Measures Alameda County Some Some A lot None (include phas- Some (freeways Some (1.35 AVR) ing and concurrence only) requirements) Contra Costa County Some A lot Some A lotI Some? (Vasco, AlaI Highway 84, and freeways) Danville Some Some Some A lot None None Dublin Some Some Some Some2 Some Some Livermore Some Some Some Some None Some Pleasanton Some Some Some A lot None None San Ramon Some Some Some A lot None None AL T ##5: Consensus Some Some Some Some Some? (Try Some Alternative everything else first) 1 Provided that all jurisdictions participate proportionately. 2 Via consideration of growth plan per page 232 of the Plan. 7. Recommended Improvement Plan Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the.TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valleyrather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. · Financial constraints. · Physical limitations within corridors-. · Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives mayor may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing 1-680 and 1-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 117 Recommended Improvement Plan Plan Overview The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrat- ed plan. The transportation plan comprises enhancement to roadway capacity coupled with increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financial- ly constrained in that it includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be funded given extension of federal and state programs, or fundable by new development at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the financing plan. The following sections provide an overview of the plan. Road Improvements .'i , The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials, and intersections. These are all based on the reality of gateway constraints. Gateway Constraints. Analysis of alternatives through the planning process showed that the TVTC's best interests would not be served by widening any of the gateways for single-occupant vehicles leading into the area. The gateways include 1-680 north and south, 1-580 east and west, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road. Widening of these gateways would still leave the freeways congested, would lead to more through traffic, and would increase traffic volumes on other Tri-Valley roads. This is true because of the Tri-Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County. The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior freeways and arterials should be sized to handle only what traffic can get through the gateways. Thus, the plan recognizes that congestion will occur for several hours each weekday at the gateways, but this will have the positive effect of meter~ng single- occupant vehicle travel to and from the area. Within the Tri-Valley area, the road system is designed to minimize congestion. While not ideal (the ideal would be to have no congestion anywhere), the roadway plan when combined with a balance between jobs and housing, produces the best conditions to be reasonably expected. The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gate- ways, as discussed below: 1-680 North. The section north of Diablo Road cannot practically be widened beyond the HOV lanes under construction. The gateway constraint assumption recognizes this reality. 1-680 South. The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited widening would support the investment in Route 84 capacity. Accordingly, the plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes (see Chapter 7). Gateway constraints would still apply for single-occupant vehicles. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 118 Recommended Improvement Plan 1-580 West. This section between Tri-Valley and Castro Valley has a projected demand of 10,300 vehicles eastbound in the PM peak hour. Widening beyond the current four lanes is infeasible. " 1-580 East (Altamont Pass): Alameda County policy, in recognition of the need to encourage shorter commuter and not overload Tri-Valley roads with regional traffic, opposes increases to capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Therefore, gateway constraint is warranted. The plan includes HOV lanes, as a second priority project, in recognition of the importance of 1-580 as a regional facility (see Chapter 7). The gateway constraint policy also applies to Patt~rson Road, Tesla Road, and Old Altamont Road. Crow Canyon Road (to Castro Valley). Safety improvements are planned for this section of Crow Canyon Road. However, the TVTC supports maintaining the two- lane cross-section. Vasco Road. Vasco Road is planned for implementation as a two-lane road. However, the two-lane road project should be done in such a manner to not preclude future accommodation of public transit or other improvements as subse- quently determined appropriate. The Plan is based upon the following set of assumptions regarding gateway capacity on the freeways and major arterials which access the Tri-Valley: · 1-680 to the north. Six lanes plus HOV lanes. · 1-580. Eight lanes. · 1-680 to the south. Six lanes plus HOV lanes. · Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley. Two lanes. · Vasco Road north of 1-580. Two lanes. Any departure from these assumptions would required amending the Plan. The TVTP/AP, by incorporating a gateway constraint methodology, is breaking new ground. Action Plans being prepared for adjacent subareas in Contra Costa County have not employed this methodology. Consequently, the use of the gateway constraint methodology could raise a consistency issue between the TVTP/AP and adjacent Action Plans in Central, East, and Southwest Contra Costa County. Furthermore, no formal- ized approach for conducting the gateway constraint method of analysis has been adopted by either the Alameda or Contra Costa CMAs. The Contra Costa Transporta- tion Authority's Technical Procedures is reticent on the gateway constraint methodology. Current gateways are established by two factors: geographic constraints and financial constraints. To some degree the geographic constraints can be overcome through significant capital investments in new highway projects. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is based upon the assumption that significant capacity enhance- Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 119 Recommended Improvement Plan ments to the gateways serving Tri-Valley are financially infeasible. The Policy of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is to work closely with neighboring jurisdictions, Congestion Management Agencies, Caltrans, and MTC to resolve capacity problems at the gateways and as needed through the partnership activities and to subsequently adjust our Transportation Plan should funding of mutual acceptable facilities become possible. ' Freeway Ramp Metering. Ramp metering is a way of controlling the volume of traffic entering a freeway so the system is as efficient as possible. A survey made for the Federal Highway Administration of seven ramp metering systems in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after installing ramp metering and travel times decreased 16.5 percent. At the same time reductions of freeway congestion averaged approximately 60 percent. An analysis of the FLOW system in Seattle (ramp metering and HOV lanes) revealed that in addition to similar improvements in speed and travel time, highway throughput increased from 12 to 40 percent as a result of ramp metering. An additional benefit from ramp metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions from 20 to 58 percent have been achieved through improved merging operations. Without ramp metering, bottlenecks will develop on the freeway that decrease throughput and lead to longer delays than motorists face at the meters themselves. Ramp meters also encourage the peak spreading that needs to occur to keep the gateways flowing. This happens because motorists are willing to accept only up to about a 10-minute wait at the meters. Beyond that, they will adjust their trip-making (i.e., choose to travel at a different time or choose a different mode). This peak spreading helps to get the most out of the system when gateway constraints are a reality. Without ramp metering it is projected that the freeway flow will break down and be congested for long periods of time with the on-ramps not being able to flow at their designed flow rates. The on-ramps will be metered by freeway congestion rather than planned rates. Staff believes a metered system will move more people more effectively and equitably than an unmanaged system. The uninetered system is also more prone to be blocked by congestion-induced accidents than a metered system. An additional major benefit of ramp metering is that it can be combined with HOV bypass to provide an additional powerful incentive for carpooling and can help buses increase average speeds. When combined with HOV lanes on the freeways, the ramp metering-with-bypass system allows carpools and buses to travel unimpeded through- out the system. Ramp metering has two potential drawbacks: backups on the local street system, and rewarding long-distance commuters. The potential for backups on local streets can be minimized through ramp widening and strategic placement of the meters. The risk of rewarding long-distance commutes can be minimized by instituting a system of ramp metering for the entire length of a freeway, rather than in isolated locations. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 120 Recommended Improvement Plan The Tri..Valley Transportation Plan includes ramp metering with HOV bypass with the proviso that this. not seriously impact local streets and that local implementation be tied with implementation along all of 1-680 and 1-580 in neighboring communities. Freeway HOV Lanes. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction along 1-680 between Rudgear Road and 1-580. HOV lanes provide the advantage of reducing travel times for ridesharers and transit patrons. They also enhance mobility during off-peak hours by being available for all vehicles. This is especially important when considering truck traffic, which increasingly relies on off-peak hours to reach destinations without undue delays. The TVTC recognizes the benefits of HOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-lane pro- grams do not work. Such an ill-fated attempt at providing HOV lanes on 1-580 resulted in federal legislation prohibiting their use on that freeway in unincorporated areas. Thus, HOV lanes must be added to the freeways. HOV lanes on both 1-680 and 1-580 are included in the plan. Due to the expense of the projects, however, some segments are included as lower priority projects. 1-680 south of 1-580 has been_designed to accommodate the addition of HOV lanes, but pavement widening would be required. Top funding priority should be given to the section south of Route 84 to the top of the Sunol Grade, which is the border of Area 4 in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This section will experience significant traffic increases due to the planned capacity increases to Route 84. The section of 1-680 between Alcosta Boulevard and Route 84 should also be planned to include HOV lanes b~t with a lower funding priority. On 1-580, HOV lanes would be more difficult and costly to build because the inter- changes have not been built to accommodate them. However, the Caltrans Route Concept calls for 10 lanes plus BART in the median for 1-580. The most important segment for funding priority on I~580 is the segment between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This segment is predicted to experience the highest traffic demand along 1-580 in the Tri-Valley. To accommodate the extra freeway width, the interchanges at El CharrolFallon and Airway would need to be rebuilt. The El Charro/ Fallon interchange is planned to be rebuilt anyway. In addition, the planned new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) would need to be built to accommodate the width. As a lower funding priority, the plan also includes extending the 1-580 HOV lanes east to the Alameda County border. This would require widening four interchanges in Livermore (N. Livermore, First, Vasco, and Greenville), and three interchanges/crossings east of Livermore. . Extending HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road is more problematic. With the BART extension and the I-580/I-680 interchange project, this section will be built out to its full Route Concept width of 10 lanes plus BART. The section will have four through lanes, as it does today, plus auxiliary lanes between interchanges. Thus, HOV . lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita are not included in the plan. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 121 Recommended Improvement Plan Arterial Issues: The planned arterial system has been designed to provide smooth circulation in and between the Tri-Valley cities and to provide access to the freeway system. Intersections and freeway interchanges are the focal points of the arterial system. All of the widenings and extensions are necessary to serve new development, so the plan calls for direct developer construction or at least funding. The primary issue is how to share costs between jurisdictions having joint respon- sibility for a particular road. This is discussed further in the Financing Plan chapter. There are two major arterials in the Tri-Valley that do not provide direct access to planned development but rather serve interregional traffic between Alameda County and Contra Costa County. These two arterials are Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road. Crow Canyon Road. The portion of Crow Canyon Road west of Bollinger Canyon Road is a two-lane rural road that lies within the jurisdiction of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. While once used by its adjacent residents to bring goods to the market, today, Crow Canyon Road is being used by commuters as an alternate route to the I-580/I-680 freeways. Development in the vicinity of Crow Canyon Road, especially in the fast-growing San Ramon Valley area, has generat- ed a significant increase in traffic on this roadway. The expected forecast for this roadway is LOS F. The roadway, which is a narrow and winding road, was not designed to handle commuter traffic and does not have adequate width and alignment. The Alameda County, in collaboration with Contra Costa County and the City of San Ramon prepared and developed a project study report, pursuant to California Senate Bill 1149. The report recommended the construction of eight-foot shoulders, climbing lanes and road realIgnment eliminating short-radii curves. Contra Costa County has in its Measure C program the improvement of Crow Canyon Road within Contra Costa County. Alameda County, however, is seeking for funds to improve the two-lane section of the roadway. Unfortunately, improve- ment of this portion of Crow Canyon Road cannot be directed to a particular developer construction. But since the traffic forecast clearly indicates that traffic increase on this roadway is development related, it is recommended that subregional transportation impact fees be used to improve the section of Crow Canyon Road within the Tri-Valley area. Vasco Road. Vasco Road is a narrow and winding rural road that is a major commuter and truck route linking the Tri-Valley with eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 17 miles of Vasco Road, starting at a point on Vasco Road approximately one-half mile south of the County Line to the intersection of Camino Diablo in Contra Costa County, will be relocated as a result of the construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This portion of Vasco Road is designed as a two-lane highway based on state and county standards for new roads with comfortable speeds of up to 65 mph. Meanwhile, the remaining section of the Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 122 Recommended Improvement Plan roadway in Alameda County (approximately three miles in length) has tight curves and narrow shoulders with advisory speeds along curves of less than 35 mph. Vasco Road is expected to have a Level of ServiceF in the year 2010. As much as the Plan calls for a policy limiting the capacity of Vasco Road to two lanes, it is necessary that this roadway be realigned to improve traffic flow and safety. Alameda County is currently seeking funds to improve the section of the roadway from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City Limit. This proposed improvement includes realignment of the roadway, widening of shoulders,a nd installing passing lanes without increasing its capacity, consistent with the standards being used in the Los Vaqueros-Vasco Road project. Projected congestion on this roadway cannot be directed to a particular develop- ment but its future congestion is truly the result of developments in the region. It is also recommended that subregional traffic mitigation fees be used to improve this facility. Transit Improvements The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- lin/Pleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection routes will also need to be rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Dougherty Valley. In addition, nine new express bus routes are included in the plan to serve the follow- ing corridors not served by BART: 1-680 north to Walnut Creek, Vasco Road to East County, and 1-680 south to Fremont. The Tri-Valley Transit Plan has been developed to correspond to expected funding levels. Since the area is expected to almost double in population, the assumption is that transit funding will also double. It is important to note that this assumption may not be realized. Transit funding may not keep pace with population increase. Never- theless, the plan includes the provision for significant new services plus greater use of existing routes that have available capacity. Additional riders can be served without additional investment. Note, however, that the development pattern in the Tri-Valley is one of overall low density, and the new areas proposed for development will generally reinforce the low- density pattern. The low-density pattern does not support the extensive use of transit or cost-effective transit operations. If transit is to serve a much greater role than it does today, development densities will need to increase. Growth Management The TVTC recognizes that its mission is not to plan land use. Land use inputs to the plan came from the planning department of each member jurisdiction. Projections are also available from ABAG, and the "expected" land use on which the plan is based is Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 123 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: · 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 Action Plans. The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: · Submission t-o 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. 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 wbere redevelop- ment is anticipated. 2. Cbange distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts on Regional Routes. 3. Probibit urban expansion in specified geograpbic 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 Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 124 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 Tbe tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth Management Elements.1 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. Tbe 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. 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.2 IGrowth Management Implementation Documents, CCTA, December 1992, p.IG-51. 2Ibid., p. IG-52. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 125 Recommended Improvement Plan General Plan Consistency with Contra Costa County 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 forany changes to the General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC and the process for imple- menting 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. Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive.Growth and Congestion Management 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 for each jurisdiction. Any development reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of the participating jurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop, and if adopted, shall insure that jurisdictions with relatively greater development potential do not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed; other alternatives such as a 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 projected violations of TSO standards remaining after a growth management strategy is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on page 237 of the Plan. . Jobs-Housing Balance Another aspect of land use growth relevant to transportation planning is jobs-housing balance. The Tri-Valley now has more housing than jobs. The 2010 expected land use scenario includes more job growth than housing growth, which will establish a balance. Because of the dynamics of the Bay Area, in-commuting and out-commuting will still occur, but at least they are reduced with a jobs-housing balance in the Tri- Valley. The importance of a jobs-housing balance is further reinforced by the gateway constraints that will exist in the Tri-Valley area. Trip-making into and out of the area will become increasingly difficult in the future. The provision of a job for every Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 126 Recommended Improvement Plan employed resident and vice versa will minimize the need for residents to leave the area for work. This will minimize the traffic pressure at the gateways. An important issue to remember with regard to jobs-housing balance is that the numerical count alone is insufficient to achieve the desired result of minimizing travel. The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level. Reduced Level of SeNice Standards The TVTC has seen that the originally intended transportation service objective of LOS E on the freeways based on demand cannot be met in many locations regardless of land use assumptions. In fact, this standard cannot even be met with todays volumes. This is true because growth in San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and Central and East Contra Costa County will fill up the Tri-Valley freeways even if Tri- Valley jurisdictions do not grow. Therefore, the TVTC will accept congestion at the gateways recognizing that while it is not ideal, at least it will minimize through traffic. The focus then shifts to maintaining adequate levels of service, and providing transit options, for trips within the Tri-Valley. The transportation plan succeeds in avoiding congestion on the arterial system. Also, 1-680 b~tween Alamo and Route 84 is expected to flow smoothly. Level of.SerVice F conditions, however, are expected on 1-580 westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This would be partially alleviated with high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) The TVTC supports TDM measures; however, TVTC does not want to base the Transportation Plan on unrealistic TDM goals without supporting programs. Through the plan process, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-mandat- ed average vehicle ridership (A VR) of 1.35 was tested. This applies to employers with 100 or more employees. The TVTC estimated that such large employers make up only about 10 percent of all employment. This, coupled with the fact that commute trips make up about 35 percent to 40 percent of the PM peak-hour traffic stream, means that the BAAQMD mandate will have negligible impact on traffic levels. The TVTC also investigated the impact of achieving an AVR of 1.35 for all employers, throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the "ambient" AVR of 1.10- 1.15, this would be a 20 percent improvement. Given the commute trip proportion of total PM peak-hour traffic, a 20 percent increase in A VR would translate into 7 percent to 8 percent less traffic on the roads. While this would create a significant improvement in operations, it would not significantly reduce the need for road building. Nevertheless, if at least a 10 percent increase in AVR were not achieved, additional intersection improvements, beyond what are included in the plan, would probably be necessary. . Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 127 Recommended Improvement Plan The achievement of a 20 percent increase in AVR would not be easy. The TVTC believes that this would require a significant increase in the cost of solo commuting. However, the TVTC is not in favor of parking charges. Gasoline tax increases would be more acceptable, provided they were levied regionwide (including San Joaquin County). Gas tax increases would encourage commute alternatives and would provide more money for transportation investments. The plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in A VR for all employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption a~d enforce- ment of local trip reduction ordinances. The 10 percent increase in A VR will bring some of the intersections otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into compliance with the TSOs. Road Improvement Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes many road improvement projects. These projects were developed by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC. Projects range from intersection modifications to freeway improvements and new roads. The resulting system would provide good circulation within the Tri-Valley area. Figure 7-1 shows the planned roadway system. Figure 5-2 in Chapter 5 shows the planned changes to freeway interchanges. Details on planned intersection lane configurations are included in the Technical Appendix. A detailed listing of the planned roadway improvements is shown in Table 7-1. Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program: 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been preliminarily determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the TSOs through 2010. This list may be modified in subsequent studies. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 128 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville ------- LEGEND 8 Number of Freeway Lones 6-Lone or 8-Lone Arterial IIIIIII = 4-Lone Arterial - other streets ore 2-Lanes o Improved Interchange .... u z .... 0: ~ Cl ~ 0: ~ JOHNS ,QI~ VI ~ , , ,,-, , '" - , '" --- .--- --- ~ (Nol 10 Sw/€) couf'.\.~ costO - /~ '..to ,-' Cou(\ 'I Cof'. ' -- 00 ___ ' ,-- p..\o('{'e Figure 7-10 PLANNED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ~ --- --- (No' '0 Seal.) -- -- --- ---- :> "" MAY SCHOOL RO I ... --- ~ , , .~ , , '\,....-- ~ ~ -- ~ ~5 ~~ ISABtl EXTtNS'ON 8+Aux. LEGEND 8 Number of Freeway Lones - 6-Lane or 8-Lane Arterial 1111111- 4-lane Arterial - other streets are 2-Lanes o = Improved Interchange cou~------ coS\.O - ' (\ \.( 0 ___ - cc;i (\ t'l CO ___' - 00 _ _ ___ - - p..\O('{'e --- :E i l:l ~ Figure 7-1b 84 PLANNED TRANSPORT A TION NETWORK HILES CANYON RD Table 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Caltrans 1-680 Rudgear Road Alcosta Boulevard 6 6+2HOV 1-680 Diablo Road Bollinger Canyon Road S S+2HOV 6+2HOV+2 Aux I-S80 at slo Dublin Boulevard-New IC (hook ramps) Completed 1-580 at I-S8D-New SB I-S80 to EB 1-580 f1yover IC Completed 1-580 at I-S8D-New NB to WB f1yover Planned Vallecitos Road (Highway 84) 1-680 Isabel Avenue 2 UA 4DA 1-680 HOV Lanes Route 84 Sunol Grade Completed I-S80 HOV Lanes Alcosta Route 84 Planned 1-580 HOV Lanes Tassajara N, Livermore Avenue Completed 1-580 HOV Lanes N. Livermore County Line Planned Dublin Dougherty Road N. City Limit/County Line Dublin Boulevard 4UA GDA Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 1-580 SDA 8DA Transit Spine Dublin Boulevard E. of Hacienda Tassajara Road 2 4DA Transit Spine Tassajara Road Gleason Road 4DA Dublin Boulevard Donlon Way San Ramon Road 2DA 4DA Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Village Parkway 4DA 6DA . . Dublin Boulevard Village Parkway Dougherty Road 4DA 6DA Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road East City Limit 2UA 6DA Dublin Boulevard Eden Canyon Road End of Existing Dublin Boulevard 2DA 1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange Complete Schaefer Ranch Road 1-580 Dublin Boulevard/Hollis Canyon Road 4DA Hacienda Drive 1-580 Dublin Boulevard 4DA SDA Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive 4DA 4DA Gleason Drive Hacienda Drive Tassajara Road 4DA 4DA Gleason Drive Tassajara Road Fallon 2UA 4DA Gleason Drive Fallon Dublin Boulevard 4DA San Ramon Road Vomac Road Silvergate Drive 2DA 4DA . Table 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued) Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Tassajara Road County Line Gleason Drive 2UA 2UA 6DA Tassajara Road Gleason Dublin Boulevard 2UA 4DA 6DA T assajara Road Dublin Road 1-560 2UA 4DA 6DA Scarlett Drive Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 4DA Livermore Collier Canyon Road/Airway Boulevard link Collier Canyon Road 1-560 4DA Concannon Boulevard Extension Arroyo Road Livermore Avenue 2UA Concannon Boulevard Extension Murdell Lane Isabel Avenue 4DA Dalton Avenue Extension Vasco Road Laughlin Road 4DA Dalton Avenue Extension Laughlin Road 1-560 4DA First Street Portal a Avenue 1-560 2UA 60A Greenville Road 1-560 Patterson Pass Road 2UA 60A 1-580 at First Street-Change interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Isabel Avenue-New interchange Completed 1-560 at Greenville Road-New interchange IC Partial Completed 1-580 at North Livermore Avenue-Change interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Vasco Road-New interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Portola Avenue-Remove interchange IC Removed Industrial Way Preston Avenue Vasco Road 2COL Isabel Avenue 1-580 Airway ,/2UA 2UA 6DA Isabel Avenue Airway Vineyard 2UA 6DA Isabel Avenue Vallecitos Vineyard Avenue 2DA 4DA Jack London Parkway EI Charro Road Kitty Hawk Road -/2UA 40A Las Positas Road North Livermore Avenue First Street 2UA 4DA Las Positas Road Extension Las Positas Road Vasco Road 4DA Laughlin Road Dalton Avenue Northfront Road 2COL North Canyon Parkway Doolan Road Collier Canyon Road -/4 ()A 6DA North Canyon Parkway Collier Canyon Isabel/Cayetano 4DA 6DA Table 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued) Cross-Section (Number 01 Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 North Mines Road First Street North Mines Road 4DA North Mines Road Extension Las Positas Road First Street 2COL Portola Avenue Murrieta Boulevard First Street 2/4UA 4DA Portola Avenue 1-580 North Canyon 4DA Scenic Avenue Extension Laughlin Dalton 2UA 4DA Vasco Road Scenic 1.580 2UN2DA 4DA 6DA Vasco Road 1-580 Pallerson Pass Road 4DA 6DA Vasco Road Scenic Dalton 2UA 4DA Vasco Road Pallerson Pass Road East Avenue 2/4UA 4DA North Livermore Avenue 1.5 miles N. of 1.580 1.580 2UA 4DA 6DA North Livermore Avenue 1,5 miles N. of 1.580 Isabel/Cayetano 2UA 4DA Isabel/Cayetano 1-580 North Canyons Parkway 4DA 8DA Isabel/Cayetano North Canyons Parkway 2 miles north of 1-580 2UA 6DA Isabel/Cayetano 2 miles north of 1.580 5 miles north of 1-580 2UA 4DA Isabel/Cayetano 5 miles north of 1-580 2UA Pleasanton Bernal Avenue Foothill Road 1-680 2UA 4DA Bernal Avenue EIB 1-680 KolI Center Drive 2DA 6DA . Bernal Avenue EIB Koll Center Drive Valley Avenue 2DA 6DA Bernal Avenue EtB First Street Stanley Boulevard 2UA 4UA Busch Road Valley Avenue Ef Charro Avenue 4DA Del Valle Parkway Main Street Bernal Avenue 4DA Dublin Canyon Road W/B Stone ridge Mall Road Foothill Road 2UA 3DA EI Charro Road 1.580 Stone ridge Drive 2UA 4DA 6DA EI Charro Road Stone ridge Drive Stanley 2UA 4DA Foothill Road NIB Deodar Way 1-580 3DA 60A Foothill Road Stone ridge Drive Muirwood Drive North 2UA 4UA Hacienda Drive 1-580 Owens Drive 6DA . Table 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued) Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) From To 1990 2000 2010 Hopyard Road Valley Avenue Division Street 2/4UA 4DA 1-580 at Foothill Road-Change interchange IC Completed 1-580 at Hacienda Drive-New interchange Completed 1-580 at Santa Rita Road-Change interchange IC Completed 1-680 at W. Las Positas Boulevard-New interchange Compleled Rosewood Drive Old Santa Rita Road Santa Rita Road 4DA 6DA Santa Rita Avenue 1-580 Old Santa Rita Road 4DA 6DA Stone ridge Drive Hopyard Road Santa Rita Road 4DA 6DA Stone ridge Drive Santa Rita Road EI Charro Road -/2 DA/4 DA 4DA 60A Sunol Boulevard First Street 1-680 4UA 60A Sunol Boulevard 1-680 Castlewood Drive 2UA 4DA Valley Avenue Bernal Avenue Sunol Boulevard 4DA West Las Positas Boulevard Foothill Road Payne Road 2UA 40A West Las Positas Boulevard Hopyard Road Stone ridge Drive 4DA 6DA Danville Diablo Road Diablo Road Green Valley Road 2UA 4UA San Ramon Valley Boulevard Sycamore Valley Road Crow Canyon Road 2UA 4UA 1-680 at Sycamore Valley Boulevard-Change interchange IC . Completed San Ramon Crow Canyon Road SI. George Tassajara Ranch Drive 4DA 6DA Deerwood Place Fostoria Way Overcrossing Crow Canyon Road 4UA Fostoria Way Overcrossing Camino Ramon Deerwood Place 4DA 1-680 at Alcosta Boulevard-Remove SB off-ramp Ramp Removed 1-680 at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (A1costa Boulevard)-New hook ramp Completed San Ramon Valley Boulevard Montevideo Drive Afcosta Boulevard 2DA 4DA West Side Collector San Ramon Valley Boulevard San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2COL Old Ranch Road Dougherty Road Alcosta Boulevard 2UA 4DA Bollinger Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard City limits 4DA 6DA Table 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued) From Alameda County Dublin Boulevard East Extension Fallon Road 1-580 at Fallon Road-Change interchange Va~co Road operational improvements Crow Canyon Road operational improvements Cross-Section (Number of lanes) To 1990 2000 2010 Tassajara Road Doolan Road 2DA 6DA Tassajara Road 1-580 -/2UA 4DA 6DA IC Completed Isabel Avenue Alameda County Line Completed Alameda County Line Castro Valley Completed Contra Costa County Bollinger Canyon Road Extension Bollinger Canyon Road Extension East Branch Road Camino Tassajara Dougherty Road Windemere Parkway San Ramon City Limits Dougherty Road North Bollinger Canyon Extension Danville Town Limit Crow Canyon Road Bollinger Canyon Extension . No change from previous network DA Divided Arterial COl Collector EIB Eastbound Nonexistent uA Undivided Arterial IC Interchange W/B Westbound Changes from previous list Dougherty Road Dougherty Road South Windemere Parkway County Line County Line Camino Tassajara 6DA 4DA 4DA 2DA 4DA 4DA 4DA 6DA 6DA 2UA 2/4UA Recommended Improvement Plan 1. 1-580/I-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including interchange improvement at I-580Nallecitos and a new interchange at I -580/Isabel. 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tri-Valley. 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. 1-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. 1-680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. I-580/Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. 10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of realigning the roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and MM 4.45 (located one mile north of Norris Canyon Road). 11. Vasco Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of the realignment of Vasco Road from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City limit, without increasing the capacity of the gateway. This is consistent with the standards used in the Vasco Road relocation project" by the Contra Costa Water District in conjunction with the Los Vaqueros reservoir project. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are preliminarily considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri- Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. 1-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on 1-580 from Livermore Avenue to the Alameda County border. 2. 1-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV Lane project from 1-580 to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on 1-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. I-580/I-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the I-580/I-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. Final Tri -Valley Transportation pian Adopted July 1995 136 Recommended Improvement Plan The Transit Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes several transit improvements. These were developed by a transit subcommittee of the TVTAC. The subcommittee included representatives from BART, CCCTA (County Connection). LAVTA (WHEELS), and Contra Costa County. The plan includes the following major components: BART extension to east Dublin (two stations)~ park-and-ride lots, express bus service in heavily traveled corridors, local bus service to new development areas, reoriented local bus service to serve BART and park-and-ride lots, and decreased headways on existing routes. For modeling purposes, specific bus routes were developed and tested. Howev- er, the TVTP is not intended to be a detailed long-range plan for transit provision. Therefore, the specific routes, which are described in the Appendix, should not be interpreted literally, but as representative of the type of service (headways and corridors served) that should be provided. The following are descriptions of the planned transit seryice. BART Extension: The plan includes the BART extension to East Dublin with two , stations in the Tri-Valley. The extension is currently under construction and is projected to open in 1996. The planned BART headways are nine minutes. Both stations are assumed to have parking lots. The patronage forecasts from the traffic model indicate demand for at least 6,000 parking spaces combined for the two stations. Two BART feeder bus lines would be operated: one to Bishop Ranch and Danville, and one to Livermore. Both would have 30-minute headways. Park-n-Ride Lots: The plan includes 11 new park-n-ride lots (See Figure 7-2). These would be served by various bus lines and could also serve as staging locations for carpools. County Connection: The plan calls for the expansion of service from the current three lines serving Tri-Valley (30-minute headways) to eight lines. Three lines would have 30-minute headways and five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would serve Danville, San Ramon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley, and some would extend down to the East Dublin BART station. WHEELS: Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines with 30-60 minute headways to 21 lines, all with 30-minute headways. The route system would be extensively revised to serve the two BART stations, park-n-ride lots, and the newly developed areas of East Dublin and North Livermore. Some routes would also extend into San Ramon and Danville. Express Bus Service: The plan calls for the provision of nine pew express bus routes operating in the 1-680, 1-580, and Vasco Road corridors. The following areas are served: Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 137 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Danville ------ \ , , \ , , ,,-, , '" --- - , '" --- I JOHNS10l:l .. ~ (Nol 10 Sea!.) cou{\~1 .. costO ,,"--- {\tfO ,'/c. ou{\\.'1 co _' --- 00 /' ' _ /' ~\off'e Figure ]-20 PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS \ \ \ \ ~ \ I = ;If 0 \ ot-lI = NOT1oI,j lIS 11.1 lIS Q) - \ Q.. ci c: - \ en Q) \ ~ as .- I Co) \ 0 U) U) < c: CO e \ \ ..c: i ) Co) U) ~~ , , < J I ----. oS C '; 0 e:. .... ... j as OJ 011 TT7WG3W ?:I' e. . 7.' -;),:0-' o.e. ,"\ '. :::l ....... '0 0,0 -' ' 1ft \ 0 &,-0 ,4> ,ce- 0\0 ;:'"2.. Co, 0' t.>\ \ tnI (X)SYII Ii! ~ ~ en ,!. I- ~ 0 6. ...J t= W C - a: I C Z < I ~ a: < a.. \. \ \ \ \ i ~ ~ \ d ~ i ^" 3MOfI~ 'N Recommended Improvement Plan 1. Santa Clara County to Pleasanton 2. Hayward to San Ramon 3. Santa Clara County to San Ramon 4. Fremont to San Ramon 5. Brentwood to Pleasanton 6. Brentwood to Livermore 7. Fremont to Livermore 8. Hayward to Pleasanton 9. Hayward to Livermore These routes each have 20-minute headways. The plan does not specify what agency would operate the express routes. To serve the Altamont Pass commute, it is anticipat- ed that the San Joaquin Regional Transit District will offer express bus service to various locations in the Bay Area. Freight Transportation Freight transportation provides an important contribution to the economy. As such, it is both necessary and appropriate that the Plan give strategic priority to the move- ment of freight. To highlight the strategic importance of freight transportation, this plan designates 1-580 as a Critical Freight Route and 1-680 as a Major Freight Route. These designations are consistent with the Alameda County Long-Range Transporta- tion Plan. Truck volume studies show that 1-580 at the Altamont Pass carries more than 20,000 trucks each weekday while 1-680 at the Sunol Pass carries more than 15,000 trucks per day. As a Critical Freight Route, 1-580 should be accorded priority for intermodal funding . under ISTEA. Also, 1-580 should be operated in a manner which ensures that freight can be moved with maximum efficiency. To this end. expenditure priority should be given to those operational improvements necessary to prevent the encroachment of commute traffic from congesting Critical Freight Routes during midday hours (midday hours are defined from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). A13 a Major Freight Route, 1-680 should be given consideration for intermodal funding under ISTEA. One transportation management strategy to be evaluated further and considered later is to implement ramp metering during midday hours, as necessary, to maintain acceptable speeds on 1-580 and 1-680. At such time as environmental review is conducted for a systemwide ramp metering plan for the Tri-Valley, ramp metering during midday hours to maintain smooth freight movements should also be considered. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 140 8. Financial Plan Implementation of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be fiIlanced through a combination of public and private sources. The primary existing funding sources include the Measure C program in Contra Costa County and th~'Alameda County Measure B program. Funds are also available through various federal, state and local programs. These are administered through MTC via the Regional Transportation Plan. All assumptions for state and federal funding are taken from MTC/RTP estimates. Alameda County Measure 8 Alameda County voters, approved Measure B, a 15-year one-half percent sales tax, in November, 1986. Measure B was based on the August, 1986 Alameda County Trans- portation Expenditure Plan. Approximately two-thirds of the total Measure B revenue is to be spent on 10 capital improvement projects. Three of the 10 projects are located in the Tri-Valley area. The total Measure B funding programmed to Tri-Valley is $293.6 million. · Interstate 580/680 Interchange. $89.3 million to provide a southbound-to- eastbound direct connector. · Route 84. $19.9 million to construct a two-lane road on the Isabel Avenue align- ment between Jack London and Concannon. Other sources (MTC, Livermore impact fees, Ruby Hills development) will contribute $43.0 million to overall Route 84 improvements. · BART Extension. $170 million to extend BART from San Leandro to Pleasanton/Dublin. Other sources will contribute $367 million to this project. . Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 ,>'''~' 141 Financial Plan Refer to the Alameda County Transportation Authority's Strategic Plan, Fiscal year 1993/94, for project and funding specifics. The remaining money is being distributed directly to local entities for current transportation needs. Alameda County Plan The Alameda County Long-Range Transportation Plan identifies a two-phased, Tier 1 and Tier 2, investment program to maintain and enhance the county transportation network. The Tier 1 program is based on reasonable expectations of available revenue sources over the next 20 years to 2014. The County is expecting to r,eceive a total of $1.15 billion during this period. These sources are in addition to the Measure B funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has gone through a similar process for the whole Bay Area and identified what they call Track 1 projects. These are projects that would be funded by the assumed continuation of existing state and federal funding programs. Table 8-1 shows the Tier 1 projects in the Tri-Valleyand compares the Alameda County list to MTC's Track 1. ' Table 8-1 Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley MTC Track I AC Tier 1 Comments! Description (mil esc.$) (mil esc. $) Clarifications Altamont Rail Service- See Com- 3.2 Funding for initial stage planned by Demonstration Project ments San Joaquin County. MTC staff stated they will include a footnote in the RTP stating support. if San Joaquin County allocates funds to the project. Enhanced Bus Service 0 $5.0 To serve Planning Area 4. 1-58011-680 SB to EB flyover. hook 16.0 17.0 Pending review of 1-580/1-680 inter- ramps. and complete ramp braid to change funding program. Construction retain Hopyard Road access. scheduled to begin '97. West DublinlPleasanton BART station 19.0 27.5 BART extension to be completed by '95. will build shell for West Dublin station. New Route 84/1-580 30.0 20.0 Project Study Report being interchange developed. 1-580 truck/auto separation on we 12.Q Q Safety-operational improvements to 1-205 at 1-580. interchange. Dependent on San Joaq- uin County provision of $5 million. Total $77.0 $72.7 Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 142 FinancIal Plan The Alameda County Tier 2 program is essentially unfunded, being based on assump- tions about new revenue sources, such as the continuation of Measure B and a regional gas tax. Table 8-2 shows the Tier 2 project list for Tri-Valley. Table 8-2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley Description AC Tier 2 (mil esc $) Comments! Clarifications Local Transit Operations- LAVTA Altamont Pass Rail Service- Demonstration Project 1-580/1-680 flyover, complete hook ramps to Dublin, and complete ramp braid to retain Hopyard Road access 1-580 HOV lane West Dublin BART Station Route 84 Freeway/Expressway and complete Route 84/1-580 Interchange Enhanced Bus Service Vasco Road Operational Improvements Total 4.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 - 180.0 23.0 1Q..Q $229.7 CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall. Pending corridor study results. CMA recom- mends funding Alameda County share of demo service in Tier 1. To be determined pending review of 1-58011- 680 interchange funding program. To be determined pending outcome of corri- dor study. CMA recommends project for Tier 1 and T rack I. Reallocate $27.5 million of the $180 million to West Dublin BART station if MTC adopts RTP with BART station in Track II. To serve Planning Area 4. Contra Costa County On November 8, 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, which became effective in April 1989. The Measure C "Expenditure Plan" directs funds generated through Measure C to a wide variety of planning; operational and capital improvements, collectively designed to improve transportation service in Contra Costa County. The "Expenditure Plan" includes Capital Improvement projects that fall into Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 143 Financial Plan three categories: (1) Highways and Arterials. (2) Transit. and (3) Trails. In addition there are five programs included within Measure C: (1) Elderly and Handicapped Transit Service, (2) Local Street Maintenance and Improvements, (3) Carpools, Van pools and Park-and-Ride Lots, (4) Bus Transit Improvements and Coordination, and (5) Regional Transportation Planning and Growth Management. Approximately 70 percent of the revenues are allocated to capital improvement projects and 30 percent to programs. The seven-year "Strategic Plan" provides detailed specific commitments for specific projects. The balance of the program is represented as lump sum amounts shown by year. The current "Strategic Plan" is detailed through fiscal year 1997. It is updated every two years and is currently undergoing its first update. Tri-Valley projects identified by CCTA for Measure C funding to date include the following. The total Measure C funding in Tri-Valley is $27.4 million. · 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes: $10 million to construct auxiliary lanes between Diablo Road and.Bollinger Canyon Road interchanges. Other sources must contribute $27 million. (Source: Regional Transportation Plan, MTC.) · Construct Fostoria Parkway Overcrossing: $11.5 million to construct the 1-680 overcrossing. Other funding sources amount to $1.8 million. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) · Arterial Street Improvements: $5.9 million to modify/improve the arterial road network in Tri-Valley. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) Private Funding The majority of the arterial system and interchange improvements in the Tri-Valley will be built or funded by new development. This is reflective of the fact that the arterial extensions and widenings are to build additional capacity to serve new development. The new roads and widenings will either be built directly by the developers or will be paid for through local traffic impact fees. Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, and San Ramon all have development fees. These fees will in a large measure fund the needed arterial infrastructure for the expected year 2010 transporta- tion system. However, there are 11 critical regional projects that either lack funding entirely or are not completely funded. The need for these projects cannot be tied to any single development or even any single city. These are described below. Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. If the developer-funded, assumed local arterial improvements are not built, changes to the financing plan would be necessary. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program: Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 144 Financial Plan 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been preliminarily determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the transportation service objec- tives through 2010. 1. I-5801I-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. FoUr lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including a new interchange at I-580/Isabel. 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tri-Valley. 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. 1-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with IlOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. I-680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. I-580/Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. 10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. Realigning the roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and one mile north of Norris Canyon Road. 11. Vasco Road Operational Improvements. Realignment and upgrading of Vasco Road from the Alameda County line to the Livermore City limit, while retaining the two-lane cross-section. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 145 Financlai Plan 12. Express Bus Service. Providing the capital cost of adding nine express bus routes connecting the Tri- Valley' with surrounding communities and taking advantage of the freeway HOV lanes. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are preliminarily considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. 1-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on 1-580 from Livermore Avenue to the San Joaquin County border. 2. 1-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV Lane project from Alcosta Boule- vard to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on 1-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. 1-580/I-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the I-580/I-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. Funding for Regional Projects Most of the regional projects have some funding already committed (see Table 8-3). Additional funds are needed to make up the shortfall. This plan does not rely on Alameda County Tier 2 funding becoming available. The total shortfall is $311.1 million. The regional improvements are all necessary to serve new development. Because Tier 2 funding is uncertain and because the regional projects are vital to safe and efficient transportation in the Tri-Valley, a subregional impact fee should be adopted to cover the shortfall. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 146 Table 8-3 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding1 Project Estimated Cost (millions of current dollars at time of construction) Major Funding Sources Amount of Funding Unfunded Available (millions) Amount (millions) $89.3 $5.6 $63 $137 $10 $27 $510 $27 0 $37 0 $14.4 $28.5 $0 $0 $2 $0 $11.3 $1.7 $8,6 $0 ' $25 0 $16.2 $694.5 $311.1 1-58011-680 Interchange Route 84 (includes interchanges at 1-580 and Stanley) 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) BART Extension (2 stations; East and West DublinlPleasanton Station) 1-580 HOV Lanes (Tassajara to N. Livermore) 1-680 HOV Lanes (Route 84 to Sunol Grade) Ramp Metering 1-580/Foothilllnterchange Alcosta Interchange Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements Vasco Road Realignment Express Bus Service Total $94.9 $200 Measure B Measure B, MTc Livermore, Others $37 Measure C $537 Measure B State, Local caltrans $37 $14.4 $20.5 $2 $11.3 $10.32 Caltrans Measure C $25 $16.2 $1,005.6 t This table is preliminary in nature. The project list is subject to further discussion at the TvtC. 2 Assumes that one-half the cost will be paid by Area 4 (Tri-Valley) and one-half the cost by Area 3. Financial Plan Subregional Impact Fees There is general consensus at TVTC that unbuilt development should pay its fair share to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by that development. Construction of the major regional improvement projects listed in Table 8-3 is estimated to cost close to $1 billion, and constitutes the regional improvement program needed to serve existing and planned development in the Tri-Valley and surrounding region. Roughly 70 percent of the total project cost is expected to be funded through local, state, and federal sources over the next 20 years. The remaining 30 percent is unfunded. TVTC wishes to explore the possibility of generating revenues for this unfunded portion through implementation of a subregional transportation impact fee. For illustrative purposes, a fee amount was estimated assuming that at the need for new transportation facilities will be generated equally by residential and commercial growth, and that funding responsibility would be equally divided among these two types of development. Furthermore, the fee calculation uses a trip-based methodology, which means that the amount of the fee would depend upon the number of peak-hour trips generated by each new development project. Finally, it was assumed that the total unfunded amount shown in Table 8-3 would be paid for through the subregional transportation impact fee. This final assumption is subject to change, given that the estimates for future public funding of $694 million is tenuous at best, and that the nexus relationship between traffic impacts generated by new development, and project needs, would need to be fully evaluated before a fee could be adopted. Also a number of procedural and administrative hurdles would need to be cleared in order to adopt such a fee. The results of the trip-based fee calculation was translated into equivalent dwelling units for residential development, and square footage for non-residential development. The fee amount for new residential development would be approximately $2,800 per . dwelling unit. The amount for office, commercial, or industrial use would be approxi- mately $6 per square foot. 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. TVTC recognizes that imposition of $6 per square foot fee on non-residential develop- ment could have a negative impact on the economic development of the Tri-Valley area. Accordingly, TVTC will explore in greater detail the fee calculation methodology, and approaches to reducing the fee burden on projects that could significantly support continued economic growth in Tri-Valley. At a minimum, further study will be needed to determine the following: 1. The extent to which traffic generated by commercial development uses the freeway facilities identified in Table 8-3; and Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 148 Financial Plan 2. The extent to which commercial-generated traffic contributes to peak-hour conges- tion. For example, AM peak-hour traffic generated by retail development generally occurs after the work-trip commute peak hour. These fees are illustrative of the level of impact fees required but are not meant to be final calculations. The TVTC must go beyond this plan to develop an impact fee program that would establish a legal nexus between development levels and fees charged and also clarify many ancillary issues. At a minimum, the program needs to consider the following issues: . Land Use Categories. Will there be one fee for all residential development or will it vary with density? Similarly, how many commercial categories will be used? Jurisdictions typically use three categories: retail, industrial, and office. Would even more categories be useful? . Credits. Should certain projects that have already contributed regional improve- ments, such as Hacienda Business Park, be entitled to a fee credit? . Exemptions. Should certain project with significant social value, such as low- income housIng, be exempt from fees? What about projects that significantly enhance the area's economic development? . . Fee Collection. How and by whom should the fees be collected? Who will bank the funds and contract for transportation projects? . Transfer of Funds Between Jurisdictions. A subregional fee collected among the seven jurisdictions of Tri-Valley could potentially result in a situation where funds collected in one jurisdiction were expended on the construction of regional projects in another jurisdiction. The concept of a subregional fee for the Tri-Valley will need to address the acceptability and magnitude of cross-jurisdictional transfers of fee revenues. TVTC has established that it does not wish for any regional fee revenues collected in Tri-Valley to be expended on projects outside of the Tri- Valley subarea. . Relationship to Future Countywide or Regionwide Fee Programs. If in the future, a countywide or regionwide (nine-county Bay Area) fee program is established, the relationship of those programs to the Tri-Valley regional fee will need to be addressed, especially with regard to crediting an in-place Tri-Valley fee toward a countywide fee. . Impact of the Fee on Growth. Fee levels that are too high for either residential or nonresidential development may adversely affect the efforts of TVTC jurisdictions to promote economic growth or affordable housing opportunities. To address the concerns, the TVTC will seek the assistance of the Association of Bay Area Governments to evaluate the economic impacts of a regional transportation impact fee on economic and residential growth in the. Tri Valley area. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 149 Table 8-4 Required Subregional Transportation Impact Fee Tri Valley Area Development Growth1 Required Funding2 Housing Jobs 55,326 dwelling units 3 26,390,583 square feet 4 $155.55 million $ 155.55 million Total Funding Required $311.1 million 2 Represents new approvals only. Excludes projects with vested tentative map. See Appendix B for details. Fees are assumed to be divided evenly between residential and commercial developments. Based on full 2010 expected growth. no growth-management reduction. Square footage based on the assumption that each job requires 333 square feet on average. , 4 Regional Fee $2.811 per dwelling unit $5.89 per square foot Financial Plan . Protection of the Fee's Revenue-Generating Potential. During the development of the Plan, major development proposals in the Tri Valley have been approved and their ability to generate revenues for regional transportation projects has been lost. Further erosion of the revenue-generating potential of the fee program may continue as details on the fee program are resolved. TVTC encourages local jurisdictions to condition any development approval with participation in a regional transportation impact fee program, contingent on the eventual agreement by Tri Valley jurisdictions on a fee program. Following adoption of this plan, TVTC will consider the fee study as it highest priority. TVTC will pursue comple- tion of the fee study within 12 months. , Spatial Distribution of Fees and Benefits Elected officials are concerned about where impact fees are collected and where they are spent. Table 8-5 shows the 2010 estimated peak-hour usage pattern for each of the high-priority projects. Each jurisdiction would benefit from two or more of the regional projects. Table 8-5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects 2010 Traffic Origin San Uninc. Project Danville Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Through 1-580/1-680 Interchange 6% 6% 6% 20% 34% 14% 14% Route 84 1% 1% 2% 9% 10% 49% 28% 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes 23% 22% 16% 10% 10% 4% 15% BART Extension 2% 5% 6% 14% 16% 22% 34% 1-580 HOV Lanes 0% 6% 3% 15% 15% 39% 28% 1-680 HOV Lanes 3% 4% 5% 13% 30% 27% 19% 1-680/Alcosta 0% 38% 28% 28% 2% 0% 0% 1-580/Foothill 2% 6% 12% 43% 31% 6% 0% Crow Canyon Safety 36% 31% 9% 3% 2% 0% 19% Vasco Safety 1% 1% 10% 9% 12% 44% 23% Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 151 Financial Plan Table 8-6 compares payment to expenditures by jurisdiction. Expenditures are summa- rized based on the physical location of improvements and based on the amount of new development trips using the new facilities. Based on usage, Livermore is the primary beneficiary of impact fees because of two factors: (1) Livermore has more planned growth than any other jurisdiction; and (2) Livermore will be the primary user of Route 84, which is the largest unfunded component of the plan. Whether considering benefit by facility location or by usage pattern, the impact fees would result in a transfer of $18 to 20 million from Contra Costa County jurisdictions to Alameda County jurisdictions. However, this calculation includes only the unfunded portion of each project. If Measure C and Measure B monies are added to the analysis, then the amount spent in each county is almost exactly equal to the money generated. Table 8-6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee Fees Spent ($ millions) Fees Generated Based on Based on Jurisdiction ($ millions) Geography Usage Danville 2 17 5 San Ramon 2 17 16 Contra Costa County 50 0 15 Contra Costa County Subtotal 54 34 36 Dublin 74 24 47 Pleasanton 75 95 48 Livermore 105 95 179 Alameda County 2 63 0 Alameda Subtotal 257 277 275 Total 311 311 311 Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 152 Financial Plan Potential Future Funding Sources Other future funding sources have been discussed for the Tti-Valley. Alameda County has discussed a Tier 2 funding program, which includes a 10-cent regional gas tax and a continuation of Measure B. There is. also the State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP), which could provide up to 50 percent reimbursement of construction costs. The Mid-State Toll Road has also been proposed to provide trans- portation capacity in the Route 84 corridor without public investment. The major potential future sources are dis,cussed briefly below, although because of their uncer- tainty, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan does not rely on their provision. County Sales Tax Measures The county sales tax measures, currently funding several transportation improve- ments, have a limited life span. Measure B in Alameda County will expire in 2002. Measure C in Contra Costa County will expire in 2008. There is a chance that these sales tax programs, through a successful election, could be extended. They were originally passed with a simple majority vote. Recent court decisions in other counties, however, have shown that a two-thirds vote may be required to enact future tax initiatives. Achieving a super majority at the polls is considered nearly impossible for a proposed tax 'increase ballot measure. County Gas Tax/Regional Gas Tax A county tax or regional tax may be imposed on motor vehicle fuels for the purposes of transportation investment according to enabling state legislation which was adopted in 1981. The tax would be imposed in increments of one cent per gallon per year with no state-imposed lifetime limit. Prior to imposition and collection of a tax, a proposition granting authority to the county to impose the tax must be submitted and approved by the voters at an election. A proposition may be submitted to the voters only if a written agreement is made with respect to allocation of the revenues between the county and the cities. Additional gas taxes would provide several benefits. Drivers will look for alternatives to the private automobile as driving costs (e.g., increased fuel prices) increase, reducing systemwide demands. Demand may be reduced by telecommuting, ride- sharing, transit, or linking trip purposes. The additional revenue obtained as a result of the higher tax would create a larger "pot of money" for transportation related projects. Toll Financing A toll road, the Mid-State Toll Road, has been proposed for the Route 84 corridor, connecting between 1-680 in Sunol and the Antioch area. The toll road is now in the planning stages, with an environmental impact report (EIR) under development. At the request of MTC and Tri-Valley agencies, the EIR will study several options in the Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 153 Financial Plan corridor, including transit. The City of Livermore and the Alameda County CMA have adopted resolutions opposing a private toll road in the Route 84 corridor. A public toll road has also been discussed, although no official positions have been taken. Because of the uncertain nature of the Mid-State Toll Road, either public or private, it is not included as a funding source for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that $137 million of the unfunded portion of the plan is attribut- able to Route 84. If the decision were made to adopt and build a toll road within the 2010 horizon of this plan, the proposed regional impact fee could be reduced, or the $137 million could be applied to one of the second priority regional projects discussed in the next section. This assumes that none of the $137 million woul~ be needed to provide the required free roadway in the toll road corridor. Potential Future Transportation Projects The plan identifies three regional transportation projects that would be desirable for the area but are not required to meet transportation service objectives: high-occupancy vehicle lanes on 1-680 between Alcosta and Route 84, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on 1-580 between North Livermore Avenue and the San Joaquin County line, and the addition of a northbound to westbound flyover ramp at the I-580/I-p80 interchange. If more transportation funds become available than were assumed in this plan, the TVTC would like them to be allocated to these projects. Table 8-7 provides preliminary cost estimates for these projects. In current dollars the total cost would be $245 million. Table 8-7 Cost Estimates for Second Priority Regional Projects Project Cost (millions of current dollars) 1-580 HOV Lanes (N. Livermore Avenue to San Joaquin County Line) 1-680 HOV Lanes (Alcosta to Route 84) 1-580/1-680 Interchange- NB to WB Flyover Ramp Total $85 40 120 $245 Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 154 Financial Plan Detailed Finance Plan' Table 8-8 provides the detailed financing plan for the 2010 planned network. Note that the cost estimates are preliminary and ultimately need to be refined by the responsible jurisdiction. The overall program cost is projected to be $1,482,310,000. Approximately 47 percent of the projected cost ($695,690,000) is publicly funded, primarily through Measure B arid Measure C programs. Thirty-three percent ($491,720,000) of the projected cost would be funded by direct developer exactions from localities. These would be either local impact fees or required project mitigation impr.ovements. The remaining 20 percent ($294,900,000) of the program cost would be funded by the subregional transportation impact fee. Besides the subregional impact fee, the other aspect of the finance plan that needs to be finalized is the cost sharing arrangement between jurisdictions that have responsi- bility for a particular route of regional significance. One option is to adopt a policy that each jurisdiction is responsible for the routes within its boundaries. Another option is to determine where traffic goes from each jurisdiction and assess funding responsibili- ty based on proportional traffic shares. In any event, the cost sharing formulae need to be developed through negotiation between affected jurisdictions. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 155 Table 8-8 Finance Plan- Tri-Valley 2010 Planned Network Cost Publicly Privately Jurisdictionl Subregional Element (in millions) Funded Source Funded Source Methodl Impact Fee Callrans and BART 1-580/1-680 interchange SB to EB ramp $94.9 89.30 Measure B 5.6 Route 84 4-lane arterial 220.00 53.0 Measure B/MTC 10,0 Developer/Fees PUll/Fee 137,0 1-680 Auxiliary lanes (Diablo to Bollinger) 37,00 10.00 Measure C 27,00 BART extension to Pleasanton DPX2 510,00 510.00 Measure B/State/Local/Callrans West Dublin BART Stalion 27,00 27,00 1-580 HOV Lanes 37,0 37.0 1-680 HOV Lanes 14.4 14.4 Express Bus Service (capital cost) 16,2 j.6,2 Ramp Metering 20,S 2M Caltrans Subtotal 957,0 682.8 264,2 Dublin Dougherty Road widening 14.00 14.00 Developer DUlCC/Direct Transit Spine 9.00 9.00 Developer DU/Dlrect Dublin Blvd widening 16.00 16.00 Developer DUlCC/Direct Dublin Blvd. extension (to Schaeffer Ranch) 15.00 15.00 Developer DU/Dlrect 1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange 15,00 15.00 Developer DUlDirect New road: Schaefer Ranch Road 1,00 1.00 Developer DUlDirect Hacienda Drive extension 2.00 2.00 Developer DUlDirect New road: Gleason Drive 12.00 12.00 Developer DUlDirect Tassajara Road widening 17.00 17.00 Developer DU/CC/Direct Scarlett Drive 2.00 2,00 Developer DUlDirect Fallon Road widening/extension 14.00 14,00 Developer DUlCC/Direct t-580/Fallon interchange .wm 15.0 Developer/Fee DUlLI/Fee Subtotal 132.00 132.0 Table 8-8 Finance Plan- Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued) Cost Publicly Privately Jurisdiction/ Subregional Element (in millions) Funded Source Funded Source Method' Impact Fee Livermore Collier Canyon Road/Airway Blvd Connection 5.00 5.00 Developer J Concannon Blvd extension 3.50 3.50 Fees L1/Fee Dalton Avenue extension 2.50 2.50 Fees L1/Fee Greenville Road widening 8.00 8.00 Fees L1/Fee Interchange improvements on 1-580 60.00 60.00 Fees L1/Fee 4 @ $15 (Greenville. Vasco. First, North Livermore) Jack London Pkwy widening 6.00 6.00 Fees L1/Fee Las Positas Road extension 6.50 6.50 Fees L1/Fee Laug~lin Road 2.00 2.00 Developer L1/Direct North Canyon Pkwy widening 3.00 3.00 Fees L1/Fee North Mines Road extension 8.00 8.00 Fees L1/Fee Portola Avenue widening 2.00 2.00 Fees L1/Fee Scenic Avenue extension 0.50 0.50 Developer L1/Direct Vasco Road widening 5.50 5.50 Fees/Developer L1/Direct( 1. 7)/Fee(3.8) North Livermore Avenue widening 7.50 7.50 Developer L1/Direct Isabel/Cayetano 20.00 2Q..QQ Developer Subtotal 140.00 140.00 PleBsanton Bernal Avenue widening & other 10.59 10.59 Developer/Fees PUDirect(2)/Fees(8.59) Improvements 8usch Road extension 4.00 4.00 Developer PUDirect Del Valle Pkwy extension 3.32 3.32 Fees PUFee Dublin Canyon Road widening 0.09 0;09 Developer PUDirect EI Charro Road widening 13.50 13.50 Developer PUDirect Foothill Road widening 4.30 4.30 Fees PUFee Hopyard Road widening 2.80 1.80 City of Pleasanton 1.00 Fees PUFee Table 8-8 Finance Plan- Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued) Cost Publicly Privately Jurisdiction/ Subregional Element (in millions) Funded Source Funded Source Method' Impact Fee Interchange 1-6801W. Las Positas 9.90 9.90 Fees PUFee Santa Rita Widening 1.58 1.58 Developer PUDirect Stanley Blvd Widening 1.00 1.00 Developer/Fees PUDirect(.8)/Fee(.2) Stoneridge Drive extension 1.80 0.09 City of Pleasanton . 1.71 Fees PUFee Sunol Blvd widening 2.03 2.03 Fees PUFee Valley Avenue extension 6.00 6.00 Developer PUDirect 1-580/Foothill Rd. interchange 2.0 2.0 W. Las Positas Blvd widening 10.39 10.39 Fees PUFee Miscellaneous Street and 3.41 3.41 Developer PUDirect Intersection Improvements Subtotal 76.71 1.89 72.82 2.0 Danvllle San Ramon Valley 81vd 6.00 6.00 Measure C 1-680/Sycamore Valley Road interchange 2.0 2.0 Measure C Subtotal 8.0 8.0 San Ramon Bollinger Canyon Road widening 8.00 8.00 Developer SR/CC/Direct Crow Canyon Road widening 10.00 10.00 Fees SR/Fee Deerwood Place extension 0.20 0.20 Developer 1-680/Alcosta Interchange 11.30 11.30 San Ramon Valley Blvd widening 2.00 1.30 ? 0.70 Developer SR/Fee West Side Collector 8.00 !tOO Developer SR/Direct Subtotal 31.50 1.30 18.9 11.3 Alameda County Crow Canyon Rd Operattonallmprovement 10.30 1.7 Measure C 8.6 Dublin Blvd East extension 12.00 12.00 Developer AC/Direct Vasco Road Realignment 25.OQ 25.00 Subtotal 47.30 1.7 12.00 33.6 Table 8-8 Finance Plan- Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued) Element Cost Publicly (in millions) Funded Source Privately Funded Source. Jurisdiction/ Method' Subregional Impact Fee Contra Costa County 80llinger Canyon Road extension Dougherty Road widening New road: E. Branch Road Camino TassajarafTassajara Road widening New road: Windemere Parkway Subtotal 26.00 17.00 8.00 46.00 9.00 106.00 26.00 17.00 8.00 46.00 9.00 106.00 Developer Developer Developer Developer Developer CC/DU/Direct CC/DUlDirect CC/Direct CC/DUlDirect CC/Direct Totals $1,506.51 $695.69 $499.72 $311.10 1 Jurisdiction = City/County responsible for implementation of develpper exactions; Method = either collection of impact fee or direct developer Improvement. 2 Financing for other transit Improvements not shown on this table. These will be specified by the Tri-Valley transit subcommillee. 3 Assumes that developer funding will become available. AC = Alameda County CC = Contra Costa County PL = Pleasanton SR = San Ramon DU = Dublin LI = Livermore ON = Danville Executive Summary 9. Action Plan The Action Plan lists each route of regional significance along with the 2010 planned improvements arid resulting traffic volume and levels of service. The Transportation Plan recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route of regional significance. Potential actions are also listed. These were considered by the TVTC and serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of responsible agencies to implement the actions for each route of regional significance. Actions of Regional Significance Listed below are regional actions which are intended to reduce congestion and improve efficiency on the regional transportation system. These actions are broader in nature than the route-specific actions identified in the following subsection. Implementation of regional actions requires a coordinated effort among local jurisdictions and regional agencies. The TVTC jurisdictions, while not able to directly implement all of these actions, agree to use every opportunity to work cooperatively with responsible agencies, including Caltrans, BART, and MTC, toward their successful implementation. . 1. Conduct a subregional traffic impact fee study to address the funding issues described in Chapter 8, "Financial Plan," and to address the list of priority transportation projects described in Chapter 7, "Recommended Improvement Plan." 2. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans- portation improvements. 3. Increase AVR for work (commute) trips from 1.1 to 1.2. Achieve this increase by requiring and enforcing employer-based TDM programs. Pleasanton's TSM ordinance is an example of how to implement a program. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 160 Executive Summary I 4. Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided study shows metering would I 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 i 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. ,r 6. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds for needed transportation projects. I 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 1-580, subject to cost-effectiveness analysis and/or change to legislation prohibiting them. I 8. Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit district tp 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 agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the 1988 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"). Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 161 Executive Summary The following table shows jurisdiction responsibility by route. However. agencies in one county should not be required to pursue public funding for projects in another county. Tri-Valley Action Plan Responsibility for Implementation Facility Responsible Agency Page Number 1-680 1-580 Sycamore Valley Road Danville Boulevard Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Boulevard Bollinger Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard Dougherty Road Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Hopyard Road Santa Rita Road Stanley Boulevard Stone ridge Drive Sunol Boulevard Route 84 First Street (Livermore) Vasco Road North Canyons Parkway Jack London All All Danville Danville, CCC Danville. eec San Ramon, Ae. CCC. Danville Danville, San Ramon San Ramon. CCC San Ramon CCC. Dublin. San Ramon cee. Dublin. AC Dublin. Ae Dublin Pleasanton Pleasanton Pleasanton, Livermore Pleasanton Pleasanton All Livermore Livermore. AC, CCC. Livermore, AC Livermore 168 170 172 176 1n 181 189 191 194 195 197 199 203 204 206 208 210 211 212 215 216 221 229 The following are not routes of regional significance Stone Valley Road. cec Fallon Road Dublin. Ae Isabel Extension (North of 1-580) Livermore. AC North Livermore Avenue Livermore. AC Las Positas (Pleasanton) Pleasanton Bernal Avenue Pleasanton Hacienda Drive Pleasanton. Dublin 218 219 223 225 226 228 230 . "All" if fee is implemented. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 162 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility: 1-680 North of Livoma at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Existing Configuration Existing Volume I Existing VIe 6 lanes 7.100 1.08 6 lanes 5.000 0.76 6 lanes 4.800 0.73 6 lanes 6.000 0.91 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: HOV lanes. SR 24 to Dublin-under construction; auxiliary lanes. Diablo to Bollinger. SB to EB f1yover and Dublin hook ramps at 1-680/1-580 interchange; improve interchange at Alcosta; add interCl1ange at West Las Positas 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrainedl 6 + HOV 7.800 (constrained) 10 6 + HOV + Aux. 6.300 36 6 5.800 24 6 6.600 (constrained) 30 365 1.00 (1.39) 203 0.70 13 0.87 o 1.00 (1.47) 8 hours of congestion 7 hours of congestion Traffic Pattem Danville 31% Dublin 12% Pleasanton 28% Pleasanton 30% San Ramon 20% Pleasanton 18% Dublin 20% Livennore 27% CCC 18% Livennore 11 % Livennore 5% Dublin 13% Dublin 17% Danville 6% CCC 9% CCC 5% Pleasanton 6% San Ramon 38% Danville 8% Through 19% Livennore 4% CCC 0% San Ramon 14% Danville 3% Through 15% Through 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4% None-Not within VlC = 0.99 VlC = 0.99 No more than five TVTC control hours of congestion TSO to be achieved Recommended Actions 1. Support major transit 1. Pursue funding for 1. Pursue funding 1. Advocate HOV investment (w/Central auxiliary lanes. for 1-680/1-580 lanes. Route 84 to County). interchange. Sunol Grade. 2. Support commute altematives (Bay Areawide). 2. Pursue funding for 2. Advocate HOV 2. Advocate express Alcosta interchange lanes Alcosta to bus service. . improvements. Route 84. 3. Oppose increases to mixed.flow capacity. 3. Support commute altematives 4. Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity. Note: A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 163 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: 1-680 North of Livoma at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes + Widen to 10 lanes. HOV Transit Solution Would require an addi- Would require 80 tional 50 buses per buses per hour or hour (peak direction) or LRT with 5-minute LRT with 5-minute headways or BART headways or BART. or Altamont Pass Rail with 15-minute headways. TOM Solution Would require 20% Would require 60% increase in A VR for all increase in A VR for trip types. or spread all trips, or spread commute over 16 hours commute over 16 per day. hours per day. Land Use Solution Reduce growth in CCC Reduce growth by portion of Tri-Valley by 63,000 units. similar 33.850 units, similar decrease in jobs, decrease in jobs. similar decrease in Santa Clara County. Policy Solution Tolerate congestion, Tolerate congestion, will act as a valve to will reduce trip promote shorter com- lengths. mutes. TSO met. TSO met. 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 164 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary Key Locations Facility: 1.580 West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 8 lanes 7,000 0.80 8 lanes 8,000 0.91 8 lanes 5,100 0.58 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: S8 to E8 flyover at 1-680/1-580 interchange, improve interchanges to pareto design at FoothilVSan Ramon, FallOnlEI Charro, Vasco Road. Greenville Road, North Livermore Avenue, and First Street, remove interchange at Portola: addition of new interchange at Isabel extension (part of the Route 84 project). 2010 Configuration Volume 8 lanes 8,800 (constrained) Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 18 + 8ART 3,914 1.00 (1.07) 8 lanes 8,800 (constrained) 8 lanes 8,800 (constrained) None 20 168 1.00 (1.23) o 1.00 (1.40) (1-1/2 hours of congestion) (4 hours of congestion) (5 hours of con- gestion) Traffic Pattern Dublin Pleasanton Livermore CCC Danville San Ramon Through 23% 24"10 24"10 5"10 1"10 5"10 16"10 Danville 0"10 Livermore 25"10 San Ramon 6"10 Pleasanton 14"10 Livermore 39"10 Danville 1"10 Dublin 15"10 San Ramon 8"10 Pleasanton 15"10 CCC 3"10 CCC 3"10 Dublin 9"10 Through 28"10 Through 40"10 TSO to be achieved None-not within TVTC control Los F no more than 2 hours Recommended Actions None. LOS F no more than 2 hours 1. Pursue HOV lanes Tassajara to N. Livermore. 2. Pursue removal of the restriction on HOV lanes. 1. Support major transit invest- ment in corridor. 2. Oppose increases in mixed- flow capacity. 3. Advocate HOV lanes, N. Livermore to county.line. 4. Pursue removal of the re- striction on HOV lanes. Note: A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 165 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: 1-580 West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont Potential Actions Highway Solution Policy Solution Widen to 1 0 lan~sor 8+ Widen to 10 lanes Widen to 12 HOV lanes (would cause major problems aownstream) Increase BART ridership by Add 40 buses per hour or Add bus service 600 in peak hour LRT with 10-minute (70 buses per headways or extend hour) or rail (1 0- BART. minute headways would be required). Increase A VR by 7% for all Increase AVR by 40% for Increase AVR by trip types. or spread com- all trip types. or spread 40% for all trip mute to 3 hours per day. commute to 8 hours per types, or spread day. commute to 10 hours per day. Reduce development in AC Reduce development as Reduce TV jobs portion of TV by 9,500 follows: by about 35,000, units. must be aecom- Livermore: 11.000 units panied by similar decreases in TV Dublin: 6,500 units households, San Joaquin house- Pleasanton: 6.500 units holds, and Bay Area jobs. Similar reductions in em- ployment. Tolerate moderate conges- Tolerate congestion, revise Tolerate conges- tion, revise TSO to LOS F TSO to LOS F for no more tion, will encour- no more than two hours. than 4 hours. age job develop- ment in San Joaquin. Transit Solution TOM Solution Land Use Solution t Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 166 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Sycamore Valley Road East of 1-680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V /c 4 lanes 1.800 0.50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: None 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 2,360 8 58 0.65 Traffic Pattern Danville San Ramon CCC Uvermore Pleasanton Dublin 44% 2% 48% 6% 0% 0./. TSO to be achieved V/C < 0.90 at intersection. Recommended Actions2 1. 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. The Town of Danville has sole discretion to determine whether any improvements may occur that would modify the design standards of Sycamore Valley Road. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.81 0.63 0.79 0.37 0.47 D B C A A · Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 167 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: DanvlJle Boulevard At Stone Valley Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VlC 2 lanes 1,100 0.61 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: None 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 2 lanes 1,100 (constrained) 20 157 0.61 (1.10) Traffic Pattem Danville San Ramon eec Pleasanton Dublin Uvennore Through 44% 17% 16% 4% 5% 4% 10% TSO to be achieved VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions None. This route is directly affected by the bottleneck on 1-680. Any capacity increases would lead to cut-through traffic. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIe LOS Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Hartz Avenue and Diablo Road Danville Boulevard and Uvoma Road 0.82 0.38 0.76 D A e 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 168 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary Key Locations Facility: Camino Tassajara East of Sycamore Valley Road East of Crow Canyon Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes 1,300 0.36 4 lanes 760 0.21 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1,840 10 128 0.51 41aoes 2,320 Traffic Pattem 0.64 Danville 42% CCC 49% San Ramon 2% Pleasanton 6% Dublin 0% Livennore 2% CCC San Ramon Danville Pleasanton Dublin Livennore 53% 20% 18% 1% 2% 6% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections VlC < 0.90 at intersec- tions' Recommended Actlons2 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 may be considered pending the com- pletion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. I VIC = 0.90 at the Crow Canyon intersection. 2 VIC = 0.90 at the Crow Canyon intersection. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 169 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) - Key Locations Facility: Camino Tassajara East of Sycamore Valley Road East of Crow Canyon 2. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settle- ment Agreement, control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. 3. Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes. accelera- tion/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 accelera- tion/deceleration lanes or bicyCle lanes. The northbound approach at the Camino TassajaralBlackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured to consist of a 4-foot median island, two 12-foot left-tum lanes, one 12-foot through lane, one 12-foot through plus right-tum lane, and one 12.foot right-tum lane. This requires reduCing the exist- ing median island from 12 feet to 4 feet. and reducing the exist. ing 16-foot right-tum lane to a 12-foot right-tum 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. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VlC LOS Unconstrained VlC Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road Camino Tassajara and Diablo 1.15 0.37 0.39 F A A 1.35 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-clirection of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 170 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Camino Tassajara East of Sycamore Valley Road East of 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. TOM 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 TSO Met Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 171 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Key Locations Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) South of Camino Tassajara (Danvillel Existing Configuration Existing Volume I Existing VlC 2 lanes 1.200 0.80 8 lanes 1.900 0.26 4 lanes 1.800 0.50 6 lanes 1;800 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Operational improvements on two-Iane 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 27% 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% TSO to be achieved Maximum operating VlC = 0.91 at speeds within 2- intersections. lane cross-section. VlC = 0.91 at intersec- VlC = < 0.90 at intersec- tions. tions. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 172 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Une Recommended Actions 1 1. Secure funding for operational improvements. East of 1-680 None. Key Locations East of Dougherty (San Ramon) 1. Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes. 2. An initial level of de- velopment of 8.500 units may be construct- ed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement. Up to 11.000 units may be considered pending the completion of addi- tional traffic studies as set forth in the Settle- ment Agreement. 1 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 Executive Summary South of Camino Tassajara (Danville) 1. An initial level of devel- opment of 8.500 units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agree- ment. Up to 11.000 units may be considered pend- ing the completion of addi- tional traffic studies as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. Consistent with the pro- visions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agree- ment. control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. 173 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary Key Locations Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) South of Camino Tassajara (Danville) 3. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (see Camino Tassajara. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VlC LOS Unconstrained VlC Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.68 0.48 1.15 0.98 0.68 0.89 0.79 0.82 0.63 B A F E B D C D B 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 174 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) Tassajara (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 ana service to DV and TVPOA; TVPOA; buses must be buses must be full. full. TOM Solution Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% 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/ Canyon/Camino Tassajara Dougherty. (requires deficiency plan). TSO met. TSO met. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 175 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary Key Locations Facility: San Ramon Valley Boulevard At Bollinger North of Sycamore Valley Road Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 5 lanes 900 0.25 2 lanes 1.025 0.57 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 4 lanes through Danville: Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buseslhour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 5 lanes 1,000 10 84 0.28 4 lanes 1,540 437 0.43 Traffic Pattem Danville San Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Through 11% 69% 3% 110/0 1% 1% 0% Danville San Ramon cec Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Through 55% 43% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% TSO to be achieved V/C 0.91 at intersec- tions. V/C < 0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions 1. Complete widening None. project. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 176 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Railroad Avenue San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Boulevard San Ramon Valley Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps (Alcosta) San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Crow Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Road 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 LOS 0.63 0.81 0.41 0.46 0.76 0.79 0.60 0.45 B o A A C C A A Executive Summary 177 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary Key Locations Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VlC 8 lanes 2.700 0.38 4 lanes 400 0.11 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension east to Dougherty Road (4 lanes - 6 lanes). 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 8 lanes 3.200 54 539 0.44 6 lanes 2.820 24 550 0.52 Traffic Pattem Danville San Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Uvermore Through 6% 44% 42% 6% 2% 1% 0% Danville CCC San Ramon Dublin . Pleasanton Uvermore Through 4% 49% 42% 4% 1% 0% 0% TSO VlC 0.91 at intersec- tions. VlC 0.91 at intersec- tions. Recommended Actions' 1. Improve intersec- tion of Bollinger and Sunset. 1. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Set- tlement Agreement. control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. 2. Improve Bollinger Canyon Road! Alcosta Boulevard Intersection. 3. Complete extension project in conjunction with Dougherty Valley development. , Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its conception. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 178 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC Bollinger Canyon Road and Sunset Boulevard Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (North) Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (South) Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway Bollinger Canyon Road and Camino Ramon Bollinger Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Bollinger Canyon Road and Alcosta , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow. Final Tr; -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' LOS 1.14 1.11 0.34 0.71 0.47 0.70 0.88 0.46 0.63 1.06 Executive Summary F F A C A B D A B F 179 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Key Locations Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta Potential Actions Highway Solution Add free right-tum lane SB on Sunset. Widen intersection at Alcosta to 6 lanes on Bollinger. Transit Solution 16 additional peak- hour buses: must be full. 16 additional peak- hour buses: must be full. TDM Solution Restrict DV peak-hour Restrict DV peak-hour trip generation to 77% trip generation to 77% of normal. of normal. Land Use Solution Reduce DV 2010 Reduce DV 2010 de- development by 3.600 velopment by 3.600 units. units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at J;!ol- Accept LOS F at Bol- IingerlSunset. linger CanyonlAlcosta intersection. Final Tr; -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 180 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Key Locations Facility: Alcosta Boulevard East of 1-680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes 600 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Reconfiguration of Alcostall-680 interchange to improve intersection operation. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1.600 10 65 0.44 Traffic Pattem Danville San Ramon Dublin CCC Pleasanton Livermore 3% 38% 28% 28% 2% 0% TSO to be achieved VIC 0.91 at intersections. Recommended Actions2 1, Secure funding for interchange improvements, 2. Complete improvements at Bollinger CanyonlAlcosta. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps Alcosta Boulevard and Montevideo Road Alcosta Boulevard and Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.84 0.34 0.34 0.82 0.63 1.06 0.60 D A A D B F A , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' 181 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued): Key Locations Facility: Dougherty Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin Boulevard North of Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VlC 6 lanes 2.700 0.50 4 lanes 1.300 0.36 2 lanes 300 0.17 2 lanes 300 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) 6n 423 679 258 VIC constrained [before Action Plan] 0.58 0.43 0.61 0.55 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattem Danville 11% Danville 11 % Danville 8% Danville 220k Pleasanton 27% Pleasanton 27% San Ramon 6% San Ramon 18% CCC 27% CCC 27% Other ecc 46% CCC 39% Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8% Uvermore 60;'- Livermore 6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton 9% Through 0% Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9% TSO to be achieved VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections. VlC < 0,90 at inter- sections. VlC 0.91 at inter- sections. vIe 0.91 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions' 1. Secure developer funding for planned widening. 1. Secure developer funding for planned widening. 1. Secure developer 1. Secure developer funding for planned funding for planned widening. widening. 2. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. 2. Put in place growth controls to Insure achievement of TSOs. 1 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 182 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation VIC LOS Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road (North) Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road (South) Dougherty Road and 1-580 WB Ramps Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 Executive Summary F E A A C E C 183 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Dougherty Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin Boulevard North of Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at DoughertylDublin Boulevard intersec- tion, extension of Hacienda Drive to Windemere Parkway. Grade separation at Grade separation at DoughertylBollinger Dougherty/Bollinget Canyon Road (N) Canyon Road (N) intersection, extension intersection. exten- of Hacienda Drive to sion of Hacienda Windemere Parkway. Drive to Windemere Parkway. Grade separation at Dougherty/Bollinger Canyon Road (N) intersection. exten- sion of Hacienda Drive to Windemere Parkway. Transit Solution Increase ridership on local route. 16 additional peak- hour buses on Bol- linger Canyon Road. 16 additional peak- hour buses on Bol- linger Canyon Road. 16 additional peak- hour buses on Bol- linger Canyon Road. TDM Solution Increase overall A VR Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% Restrict DV to 77% of by 5%. normal peak-hour trip of normal peak-hour normal peak-hour trip rate. trip rate. rate. Land Use Solution Restrict DV develop- Restrict OV develop- Restrict DV devel- ment to 8,500 units in ment to 8.500 units in .op-ment to 8,500 2010. 2010. units in 2010. Restrict OV develop- ment to 8,500 units in 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Dougherty/Dublin intersection. Accept LOS E at DoughertylDublin intersection. Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Dougherty/Bollinger DoughertylBollinger Canyon. Canyon. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 184 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Tassajara Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V IC 2 lanes 200 0.11 2 lanes 200 0.11 2 lanes 200 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 Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) . Transit Ridership (peak hour) V1C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 8 lanes 3.700 18 6 lanes 3,750 20 6 lanes 2.600 1,066 0.51 84 0.69 120 0.48 Traffic Pattern Danville 0% Danville 0% Danville 1% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6% Dublin 35% Dublin 1 35% Dublin 17% CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14% Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58% Livermore 10% Uvermore2 10% Uvermore 4% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at intersections, VIC < 0,90 at inter- sections. VIC < 0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions2 1. Secure developer funding for widening, 2. Consider putting in place mutually agreed and equitable multijurisdictional growth man- agement. 3. Consider widening or ex- panding the highway network. improving transit service, or improving transportation de- mand management. 1. Secure developer fund- None. ing for widening. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS 0.76 C 0.65 B 1.05 F 0.70 B 0.84 0 Tassajara Roa~ and Fallon Road Tassajara Road and Highland Road Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue Tassajara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps . Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-dlrectlon of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 185 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Tassajara Road North of 1"580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Tassajara/Dublin intersection, or extension of Hacienda Drive to Windemere Parkway Grade separation at Tassajara/Dublin intersec- tion, or extension of Haci- enda Drive to Windemere Parkway Transit Solution Increased ridership to TVPOA. Increased ridership to TVPOA. TDM Solution Restrict TVPOA to 85% of its normal trip generation, or achieve 15% increase in over- all AVR. Restrict TVPOA to 85% of its normal trip generation. or achieve 15% increase in overall A VR. Land Use Solution Reduce development adjacent Reduce development adja- to Tassajara Road by 900 cent to Tassajara Road by units. 900 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS Fat Tassajara and Dublin interseCtion. Accept LOS F at Tassajara and Dublin intersection. TSO met. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 186 Executive Summary 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 N1A N1A Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N1A N1A Existing VIC 0.31 0.29 N1A NIA 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 VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattem TSO to be achieved Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1 % Danville 1"1. San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5"10 Dublin 58% CCC 2"10 CCC 5% Uvermore 36% CCC 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 57"10 Dublin 24% Pleasanton 13% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 4% Pleasanton 13"10 Livermore 11% Livermore 21"10 Livermore 25% CCC 5% Through 0"10 Through 6% VIC < 0.90 at inter- V1C < 0.90 at inter- V1C < 0.90 at V1C < 0.90 at inter- sections. sections. intersections. sections. Recommended Actions' 1. Secure developer funding for widening. 1. Secure funding for widening! extension. 1. Secure funding for widening! extension. 2. Pursue HOV lanes on 1-580. 1. Secure funding for widening! extension. 2. Pursue HOV lanes on 1-580. I Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 187 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard and SanRamon Road Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.85 0.56 0.73 1.12 1.05 0.90 0.93 0.82 D A C F F D E D , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 188 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Executive Summary Key Locations East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Facility: Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Dublin Bou- levard to 8 lanes or provide grade separations at Dougherty . Tassajara, and Fallon. Add HOV lanes to 1-580. Widen Dublin Bou- levard to 8 lanes or provide grade sepa- rations at Dougherty, Tassajara, and Fallon. Add HOV lanes to 1-580. Transit Solution Increase local bus service. decrease headways to 5 minutes. Increase local bus service, decrease headways to 5 min- utes. TDM Solution Achieve A VR in- crease of about 15%, or restrict E. Dublin trip genera- tion to 85% of nor- mal. Achieve A VR in- crease of about 15%, or restrict E. Dublin trip genera- tion to 85% of nor- mal. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 189 Executive Summary 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 Land Use Solution Reduce E. Dublin Reduce E. Dublin land use by about land use by about 20% overall, or 20% overall. or combine with re- combine with re- ductions in DV and ductions in DV and TVPOA. TVPOA. Policy Solution . Accept LOS F at Tassajara and at Fallon (requires deficiency plan) and LOS E at Dougherty. Accept LOS F at Tassajara and at Fallon (requires deficiency plan) and LOS E at Dougherty. TSO met. TSO met. '. Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 190 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: San Ramon Road North of Dublin Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V IC 4 lanes 1,200 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: None. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V1C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1.000 4 7 0.28 Traffic Pattem Danville Dublin San Ramon Pleasanton Uvermore CCC Through 5% 55% 23% 2% 10% 5% 0% TSO to be achieved V1C < 0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions2 None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0.90 0.45 D A c c I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at Its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 191 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Hopyard Road at Stoneridge Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VlC 6 lanes 2,400 0.44 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6ianes 2,400 20 78 0.44 Traffic Pattern Pleasanton Dublin Danville San Ramon CCC Uvermore Through 64% 23% 1% 2% 6% 4% 0% TSO to be achieved VlC < 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 HopyardlW. Las Positas. 1 Further actionS shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 192 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS Hopyard Road and Owens Drive Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive Hopyard Road and 1-580 EB Ramps Hopyard Road and West Las Positas Hopyard Road and Valley Avenue 0.85 0.58 0.79 0.91 0.66 D A C E B , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility: Hopyard Road at Stoneridge Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Hopyard Road to 8 lanes. Build ade- quate Route 84 to reduce cut-through traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. Install traffic signal phase overlap at _ HopyardlW. Las Positas. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall A VR by about 2%. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton by about 2%, focused on vicinity of Hopyard Road. Policy Solution Accept LOS E (0.91) at intersection of HopyardlLas Positas. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 193 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 6 lanes 1,300 0:24 3 lanes 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road (Sl.6 million), developer funding. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V1C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2,700 6 3 lanes 1,231 63 0.50 100 0.38 Traffic Pattem Pleasanton Dublin Uvermore Danville San Ramon CCC Through 59% 25% 100/0, 0% 2% 4% 00/0, TSO to be achieved V1C < 0.90 at inter- V1C < 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 tum. , Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 194 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS Santa Rita Road and West Las Positas Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Ramps Santa Rita Road and Stone ridge 0.75 0.75 0.94 0.85 C C E D , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility: Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen EBoff-ramp from 1-580 to Santa Rita Road for second EBleft-tum lane. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership (how?). TOM Solution Increase overall AVR by 4%. Land Use Solution Reduce develop- ment in Pleasanton, Dublin, or TVPOA by 4,600 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E (V/C :: 0.94) at San- ta Rita/I-580 EB ramps intersection. TSO met. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 195 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes SOO 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Grade separation at intersection with Isabel. (part of Route 84 project). 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VJC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1,200 4 41 0.33 Traffic Pattern Uvermore Pleasanton Through Danville San Ramon CCC Dublin 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% TSO to be achieved V1C < 0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1. At Valley/Stanley intersection, widen for EB double left-tum lanes. 2. Reduce cut-through traffic with adequate Highway 84. 1 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 196 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard and Main Street Stanley Boulevard and Isabel Extension Stanley Boulevard and Murrieta Boulevard 0.93 E 0.37 A Grade Separation 0.74 C , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility: Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Potential Actions Highway Solution at ValleylStanley wid- en eastbound for double left-tum lanes. Transit Solution Increase local transit ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall A VR by 30% for all trip purposes. Land Use Solution Reduce Livermore and Pleasanton devel- opment by about 13,400 units, similar to reduction in jobs. Policy Solution Accept LOS E (VlC = 0.93) at Stanley and Valley. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 197 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Stoneridge Drive at Hopyard at EI Charro Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 6 lanes 1,200 0.22 N1A N1A N1A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension as 6 lanes to EI Charro to link with Jack London. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 1,200 26 6 lanes 700 None 99 0.22 o 0.13 Traffic Pattem Danville San Ramon Pleasanton Uvermore Dublin CCC Through 1 % Danville 9% San Ramon 53"10 Uvermore 19% Pleasanton 15% CCC 1% Dublin 2% Through 0% 2% 51% 44% 0"10 1"10 2% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections. VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions2 None. None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS StoneridgeDrive and W. Las Positas Stoneridge Drive and 1.680 sa Ramps Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 NB Ramps Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road 0.81 0.49 0.52 0.58 0.85 D A A A D , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 198 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Key Locations Facility: Sunol Boulevard East of 1-6S0 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V1C 4 lanes SOO 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak -hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 1,320 4 23 0.24 Traffic Pattern Danville San Ramon Pleasanton Uvermore Dublin CCC, Through 0"10 1% 46% 33% - 1"10 0% 14% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0,90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions2 None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VlC LOS Sunol Boulevard and Bemal Avenue Sunol Boulevard and 1-6S0 SB Ramps Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.80 0.58 0.54 C A A I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the ,TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 199 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Actign Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Route 84 on Vallecitos Isabel at Jack London West of 1-680 (Niles Canyon) Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 2 lanes 900 0.50 NIA N1A N1A 2010 Expected Network . Planned changes: Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting ana widening Isabel to 6-lane arterial, new interchange at IsabeVI-580, grade separation at IsabeVStanley. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 3,400 12 6 lanes 3,900 16 2 lanes o 0.94 18 0.72 Traffic Pattem CCC Uvermore Pleasanton Dublin Through Danville San Ramon 0% Danville 80% San Ramon 3% Uvermore 0% Pleasanton 17% Dublin 0% CCC 0% Through 0% 2% 49"10 10% 9% 2% 28% TSO to be achieved Link VIC < 0.99 (no inter- Intersection sections) V1C < 0.90 None Recommended Actions' 1 . Secure funding for widening project. 1. Secure funding for widening project. 1. Maintain existing historic high- way designation and function. 3. Seek cooperative fund- ing programs with Central Valley and Fremont-South Bay jurisdictions to miti- gate the impact of addi- tional commute traffic through the Tri-Valley. 2. Accept LOS E at Jack London or widen Route 84 to 8 lanes at Jack London or provide a grade separation. 3. Adopt recommenda- tions of Tri-Vall.y Sub- committee on Route 84. 2. Adopt recommenda- tions of Tri-Valley Sub- committee on Route 84. , Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 200 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan Isabel (Route 84) and Airway Boulevard Isabel (Route 84) and Jack London Isabel (Route 84) and Vallecitos Road Isabel (Route 84) and Stanley Boulevard Vallecitos Road and Vineyard , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 VIC D 0.95 E 0.76 C Grade separation' 0~7 D Executive Summary LOS 201 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Route 84 on VaUecitos Isabel at Jack London Potential Actions Highway Solution Upgrade to expressway, grade separation at Jack London Transit Solution Substantially increased transit service--17 bus- es per hour, must be full. TDM Solution Increase overaU A VR by 30% for all trip types. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton and Livermore by about 13,400 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Jack London. TSO met. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 202 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Facility: First Street (Livermore) Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC Key Locations East of South Livermore 4 lanes 1,100 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Reconfiguration of 1-580/First Street .interchange to Parclo design. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) Traffic Pattem TSO to be achieved Recommended Actions 4 lanes 1,200 4 53 0.33 CCC Danville San Ramon Livermore Pleasanton Dublin Through 0% 0% 0% 88% 7% 0% 5% VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections 1. Secure funding for interchange improve- ments. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VlC First Street and 1-580 WB Ramps First Street and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.61 0.59 , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 LOS B A Executive Summary 203 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Vasco Road N. of Isabel Extension N, of 1-580 S. of 1-580 Existing Configuration . Existing Volume' Existing VlC 2 lanes 1,100 0.61 2 lanes 1.800 1,00 4 lanes 1,100 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Isabel Extension to Scenic, widening to 6 lanes from Scenic to Patterson Pass; realignment and upgrade in Contra Costa County due to reservoir. reconstruction of 1-580Nasco interchange. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak. hour) vie constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 2 lanes 1,500 (constrained) 18 6 lanes 2.580 40 6 lanes 3,150 28 105 1.00 (1.23) 158 0.48 236 0.58 Traffic Pattern Danville San Ramon Livermore Pleasanton CCC Dublin Through 2% Pleasanton 6% Livermore 44% Dublin 12% CCC 4% San Ramon 9% Danville 23% Through 9% Pleasanton 73% Livermore 5% Dublin 4% CCC 3% San Ramon 0% Danville 6% 8% 78% 7% 5% 1% 1% TSO to be achieved None-not within TVTC V/C < 0.90 at inter- VIC < 0.90 at control. sections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for safety improvements on two-lane segment in Alameda County. 2. Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity. 3. Support transit ser- vice in corridor. 4. The safety improve- ments to Vasco Road, while maintaining the two-lane gateway in Alameda County, shall be done in a manner to not preclude future transit, HOV, or other mutually agreed to transportation improvements. 1, Secure develop- 1. Secure devel- er funding for wid- oper funding for ening. widening. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 204 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC Vasco Road and East Avenue Vasco Road and Isabel Extension Vasco Road and 1-580 WB Ramps Vasco Road and 1-580 EB Ramps , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 LOS 0.55 0.60 0.69 070 A A B B Executive Summary 205 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Fallon Road2 N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 2 lanes 10 0.01 2 lanes 10 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 Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V1C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2,900 4 6 lanes 2,450 0.54 o 0.45 Traffic Pattem Danville 10% Danville 11% San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9% CCC 0% CCC 10' '0 Dublin 63% Dublin 55% Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 12% Livermore 7% Livermore 13% Through 0% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections. VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions' 1. Secure funding for widening/extension. 1. Secure funding 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. , Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 206 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Executive Summary PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Fallon Road and Gleason Road Fallon Road and 1-580 WB Ramps EI Charro Road and 1-580 EB Ramps Fallon Road and Tassajara Road Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.62 0.72 0.63 0.76 1.12 B C B C F , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Key Locations Facility: Fallon Road N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Fallon DrivelDublin Boulevard intersec- tion. Add HOV lane to 1-580. Grade separation at Fallon Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersec- tion. Add HOV lane to 1-580. Transit Solution Add 20 buses per hour to Fallon Road; local service to East Dublin. Add 20 buses per hour to Fallon Road; local service to East Dublin, TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by about 25% for all trip types, Increase overall AVR by about 25% for all trip types, Land Use Solution Reduce East Dublin development by 1,000 units or shift 1,000 units away from Fallon/Dublin intersec- tion. Reduce East Dublin development by 1,000 units or shift 1,000 units away from Fallon/Dublin intersection. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Dub- Accept LOS F at Iin/Fallon intersection. Dublin/Fallon inter- section. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 207 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: North Canyons Parkway W. of Isabel Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes ? ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening and extension as 6 lanes from Doolan to Isabel Extension. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 3,090 20 229 0.57 Traffic Pattern Livermore Dublin Pleasanton CCC Danville san Ramon Through 58% 21% 10% 3% 0% -3% 5% TSO VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actlons2 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 VIC LOS North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension 1.02 0.92 F E , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 208 Tri-Valley Action Plan . Highways (Continued) Facility: North Canyons Parkway W. of Isabel Potential Actions Highway Solution Add 2nd L T lane NB on Collier Canyon at N. Canyons Parkway, grade separation at Isabel Extension. Transit Solution Increase in transit ridership in N. Livermore. TOM Solution Increase overall A VR by 10% for all trip types. Land Use Solution Decrease develop- ment levels in N. Livermore by 200 units. Policy Solution Accept poor intersec- tion levels of service. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 Executive Summary Key Locations 209 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan . Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Isabel Extension2 N. of North Canyons Parkway Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V IC NIA NlA NlA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension from '-580 as a 6-lanel4-lane arterial to Vasco Road. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 3,330 12 98 0.62 Traffic Pattem Uvermore Dublin Pleasanton CCC Danville San Ramon Through 61% 14% 13% 3% _ 0% 30/0 7% TSO to be achieved. VlC < 0,90 at inter- sections, Recommended Actions3 1. Secure developer funding for extension, PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Isabel Extension and Vasco Road Isabel Extension and North Livermore Avenue Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway 0.60 0.68 0.92 A B E 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance 3 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 210 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Facility: Isabel Extension N, of North Canyons Parkway Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at N. Canyons Parkway. Transit Solution Increase transit rider- ship in N, Livermore. TOM Solution Increase overall AVR . by 2% for all trip types. Land Use Solution Decrease develop. ment in N. Uvermore by 200 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at N. Canyons Parkway intersection, Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 Executive Summary Key Locations 211 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: North Livermore2 N. of 1-580 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V1C 2 lanes 100 0.06 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to 1-1/2 miles north, 4 lanes to Isabel Extension: modify and widen 1-580/N. Livermore interchange. 2010 Configuration Volume TransitService (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2,610 4 69 0.48 Traffic Pattern Uvermore Dublin Pleasanton CCC Danville San Ramon 82% 8% 7% 2% 0% 1% TSO to be achieved V/C'< 0.90 at intersections, Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for 1-580/N, Livermore interchange improve- ments. 2. Secure developer funding for widening project. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V1C LOS North Livermore Avenue and Isabel Extension North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 EB Ramps North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.68 0.66 0.74 0.58 B B C A , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 212 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: W. Las Positas (Pleasanton)2 E, of 1-680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V IC 4 lanes 480 0.13 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Addition of interchange at 1-6801W. Las Positas; widening to 4 lanes Foothill to Payne, widening to 6 lanes Hopyard to Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1,350 4 67 0.38 Traffic Pattern Danville 0% San Ramon 0% Pleasanton 61% Dublin -15% Livermore 10% CCC 3% Through 10% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0,90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1. Enforce existing growth controls to ensure achievement of TSOs. 2. Reduce through traffic by constructing an adequate Route 84. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 . 213 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS W, Las Positas and Stoneridge Orive W. Las Positas and Hacienda Drive W. Las Positas and Santa Rita Road W. Las Positas and Hopyard Road W. Las Positas and Owens Drive 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.91 0.87 o A C E o , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 214 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Facility: Bernal Avenue2 E. of 1-680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes 1,300 0.36 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to Valley, widening to 4 lanes Foothill to 1-680, widening to 4 lanes First Street to Stanley. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 1,700 10 15 0.31 Traffic Pattem Pleasanton 82% Dublin 1% Livermore 9% CCC 6% Danville 1% San Ramon 1% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections, Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Bernal Avenue and 1-680 SB Ramps Bemal Avenue and 1-680 NB Ramps Bernal Avenue and First 0.83 0.56 0.80 D A C 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 215 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Jack London at Isabel Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC N1A N/A N1A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension as 4 lanes to EI Charro linking with Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak flour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1,860 None N1A 0.52 Traffic Pattern Livermore . Pleasanton Dublin CCC San Ramon Danville 54% 40% 3% 0% 3% 0% TSO to be achieved V1C < 0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions Secure developer funding for extension. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Jack London and Isabel 0.95 E , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 216 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued)' Key Locations Facility: Hacienda Drive2 N, of 1.580 N. of Dublin Blvd. Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V IC 4 lanes ? ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension to Gleason Drive as 4 lanes, widening to 6 lanes 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 3,600 4 lanes 0,67 Traffic Pattern Dublin Pleasanton Livermore CCC Danville San Ramon 56% 25% 2% 15% 1% 1% TSO VIC < 0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for widening and exten- sion in Dublin. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 217 Executive Summary Tri-Valley Action Plan . Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS. Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EB Ramps Hacienda Drive and 1-580 WB Ramps Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive Hacienda Drive and West Las Positas 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.81 0.42 c c C D A , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 218 Executive Summary 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 VIC LOS Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard Isabel and Jack London Isabel and North Canyons Parkway Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 0.93 1.05 1.12 0.95 0.92 0.94 1.06 0.98 1.11 1.15 1.08 E F F E E E F E F F 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 for each jurisdiction. Any development reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of the participating jurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop, and if adopted, shall insure that jurisdictions with relatively greater development potential do 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 projected violations of TSO standards remaining after a growth management strategy is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on page 237 of the Plan. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Pian Adopted July 1995 219 10. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review This chapter describes how the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented. Specific topics inClude plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the subregional traffic impact fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objec- tives, and procedures for handling development applications. Plan Adoption As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that created the TVTC, adoption of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan shall require the unanimous vote of all members of the TVTC, Following plan adoption, all TVTC member jurisdictions agree to consider the Plan when adopting or amending circulation elements of their general plans and specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs ,3 While compliance with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) is essentially volun- tary among the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP become part of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program, the Contra Costa County jurisdictions have a mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the Action Plan for the Contra Costa Tri-Valley jurisdictions, as required by Measure C, Thus, to maintain compliance with Measure C, the Contra Costa County Tri-Valley jurisdictions must make a good-faith effort to implement the planned actions, or risk losing their return-to-source funds, Compliance is tied to local implementation of action policies as set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan." One locality cannot be judged ineligible for local street maintenance and improvement funds because of the unwill- ingness of another locality to participate in the process. 3JPA agreement included in Appendix C. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 220 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review The TVTC has not addressed the issue of whether an environmental impact report will be required for plan adoption: If an ErR is necessary, it should be jointly prepared by all jurisdictions, rather than prepared individually. Plan Financing Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions: the subregional transportation impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that benefit multiple jurisdictions. Subregional Transportation Impact Fee, The TVTP lists the full range of projects that could be included in an impact fee program. First, the list needs to be finalized and adopted. Next, the details of the impact fee program need to be worked out. The following issues should be considered. 1. How many development categories and what fee for each? 2. How would the fee affect growth? 3, Axe there any exempted areas or land use types? 4. When will the fees be collected? 5. When will they be spent? 6. Who will act as banker? 7. What is the priority for constructing- impact fee projects? 8. Axe interim fee measures needed while the above issues are resolved? Mter these issues have been resolved and the program specified, each jurisdiction needs to adopt the program. Shared Facilities. Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of new development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared among jurisdictions. Table 8-8 shows the jurisdictions sharing responsibility for each of the planned improvements that will be paid for directly by developers, For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost sharing between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdiction's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should be negotiated in advance so that when development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is clear, Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 221 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. 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 process set forth on page 237 of the Plan, 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 lies. 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, Mode Split, Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through extensive home interview and work place surveys, These data are available every decade from the D.S, Census and periodically from MTC, In between times, transit . Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 222 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review ridership should be monitored as a surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the TVTP can only be met if transit ridership increases annually. The transit operators routinely collect and report annual ridership. Average Vehicle Ridership. This TSO relates directly to commute trips. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has defined average vehicle ridership (A VR) and how it can be calculated. To calculate A VR, annual employee surveys, conducted by employers, will be necessary. In many places these are already being done, and due to air quality regulations, A VR will soon be annually reported by all employers with over . 100 employees. All Tri-Valley jurisdictions have trip reduction ordinances, so AVR should be increasing in the future. Employers can take credit for shifting trips out of the peak hour, shorter work weeks, and telecommuting in addition to promoting ridesharing and transit usage. A VR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through its trip reduction ordinance, or by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Development Applications Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of new development and does not relieve the jurisdiction of meeting CEQA and CMA requirements. This will affect both environmental impact reports and general plan amendments. Transportation studies for development applications in the Tri-Valley area shall assume gateway constraints described in this plan. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority should acknowledge the use of gateway constraints in their Techni.cal Procedures Manual. Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. In addition to any other cumulative analysis, the cumula- tive analysis section of each EIR should consider the Expected Land Use and trans- portation scenario on which the TVTP is based. The CMAs are required to use ABAG projections, The Expected Land Use scenario is greater than ABAG so it is more conservative and should be considered consistent. Transportation impacts should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transpor- tation Service Objectives, Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with the TVTP network. General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on information supplied by the TVTC member jurisdictions on their expected 2010 developments as of June 1994. Any general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service 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. Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 223 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review 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, 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, page 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 . 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 224 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review 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 I , 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 pealt-hour trips than is currently allowed by the applicable General Plan, shall be deemed consistent with this Action Plan if preceded or accom- panied 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 Commis- sion, 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 fora multi- jurisdictional cooperative planning agreement for development in the Dougherty Valley area. The Contra Costa jurisdictions will consider entering into multi-jurisdic- tional cooperative planning agreements with Alameda County jurisdictions in the Tri- Valley area. 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, r I 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 1-580 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. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 225 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review 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. 4. Majority vote of all members present required for action on any other matter. Future Role of MC It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Plan will rest primarily with the individual jurisdictions. However, the plan has identified some continuing functions for the TVTC, as follows: - · Housing and future updates of the Tri-Valley Model · Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportatio~ Plan · Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee · Coordinated implementation of Actions requiring interjurisdictional cooperation Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 226 Appendices Appendix A Description of VCCC Program Technical Procedures 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service is the primary measure of effectiveness to be used in evaluating traffic operations at intersections on Basic Routes, All participating jurisdictions must use the adopted Level of Service methodology in developing their General Plan Growth. Management Element, monitoring of Level of Service at Reporting Intersections. and preparing Traffic Impact Studies, If a jurisdiction electS to use another method for calculating Level of Service. it must be used in addition to the adopted methodology described in this section, Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance may also include Level of Service as a quantifiable measure of effectiveness for Regional Routes. In these cases, the adopted Level of Service methodology shall also be used. The Level of Service methodology will be used to evaluate actUal signalized intersection levels of service given traffic count data, It will also be used to evaluate future levels of service given traffic projections. The adopted method is similar to the Circular 212 Planning Method except that through movement capacity has been increased from 1,500 vehicles per hour to 1,800 vehicles per hour, Level of Service is calculated by critical movement with lower capacities assumed for turning movements. 7.1 SATURATION FLOW RATES The saturation flow rate is the basis for determining the capacity of an intersection. It represents the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an intersection under prevailing traffic conditions. The CCT A has modified the Circular 212 Operations and Design Method by assuming a saturation flow rate of 1.800 vehicles per hour. (rather than 1,500 vehicles per hour). Saturation flow rates were measured at four intersections in Contra Costa County in February, 1990 to verify the appropriateness of this saturation flow rate. The method for collecting saturation flow cate data described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual was used. The results are summarized in Table 8. Considerable variation in satUration flow rates were observed at each intersection. The data suggested that the operations and desjgn capacities based on the 1.800 vehicles per hour saturation flow rate are frequently achieved within Contra Costa County, .,...........10 43 Technical Procedures As indicated in Table 8, the saturation flow rates varied by movement type, Exclusive left.tum saturation flow rates were approximately 10 percent less than those for through lanes. Saturation flow rates for shared left and through lanes were 18 percent lower than fDr through lanes. Sufficient data was not COllected to provide statistical accuracy for these averages. They were consistent, however, with the passenger car equivalent (PCE) values adjustments provided in Circular 212, 7.2 OPTIONAL CAPACITY REDUCTION The effect of vehicle mix, intersection geometrics and other factors on intersection capacity is well documented, These factors, however, are not considered directly in the Circular 212 Planning Methodology. This was why a lower capacity (1.500 vph) was originally selected for use in Circular 212, The CCTA methodology, which uses a higher capacity (1,800 vph), may underestimate existing or future congestion at some locations. The reductions in the capacities provided in Table 9 are therefore optional, provided that measurement of saturation flow rates justify the lower capacities. Once an intersection's capacity is reduced, it cannot be increased unless intersection geometrics are improved and higher saturation flow rates have been measured in the field. Under no circumstances can a signalized intersection capacity above 1,800 vph be used under the CCT A methodology. Saturation flow rates must be measured using the technique described in Chapter 9, Appendix IV of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, (A copy is provided in Appendix A of these TeChnical Procedures). The saturation flow rates must be adjusted to establish the capacity for the traffic movement considered. Adjustment of the saturation flow rates should be performed as described in equation 9-1 of the 1985 HCM: c, = $, x (~); Where (for lane group or approach i) c, = &, - capacity in vehicles per hour; saturation flow rate in vehicles per hour; effective green time in seconds; and intersection cycle length in seconds. g - C = a:\IocIIprD.IO 45 I I , ~ I I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Procedures 7.3 SlJPPLEMENT AL ANALYSIS OF DELAY Because the CCT A Level of Service method applies fixed critical lane volumes uniformly throughout the county, the method may underestimate congestion at locations with poor geometrics (older intersections with poor turning radii and small approach widths), or overestimate congestion at locations with excellent geometrics (newer intersections with ideal conditions) and aggressive drivers. The selected method may not identify locations where severe congestion is limited to a single intersection approach, nor does it reflect significant peaking and congestion within the peak hour, To address these shortcomings, the following supplemental analyses may be performed in addition to usin~ the CCT A's method to identify congested locations: Field measurement of delay on the congested approach or full intersection can be collected using the methodology described in Chapter 9, Appendix III of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The measured delay should be compared with those provided in Table 9-1 of the HCM. The summary of intersection levels of service should be supplemented to reflect the results of the delay analyses when significant variations are found. 7.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE -CALCULATION METHOD Signalized intersection levels of service should be calculated using the following nine steps: STEP 1: Lane Geometry Identify the number and type of lanes for each approach. STEP 2: Intersection Volumes Identify by counting (if analysis of existing conditions) or estimating (if analysis of future conditions) left-turn, through, and right-turn volumes for each approach for the peak (design) hour volumes in vehicles per hour for each peak hour to be analyzed. In most cases, the analysis will assess both the AM and PM weekday peak hour. For projectS with peak periods that occur during midday or on weekends, additional time periods should be analyzed, -=.......10 46 Technical Procedures STEP 3: Phasing Identify the type of phasing (protected lefts turns, shared, or split) to be used at the intersection. STEP 4: Left-Turn Check The left turn check will apply to Level of Service calculations for future conditions where the demand is estimated. Determination of the need for left turn phasing for existing conditions should be made based on actual traffic count, left turn delay, observed queuing and accident history data. If permissive left turn phasing is provided, a check must be made to determine if sufficient left turn capacity if provided. The left turn capacity is the combination of left turn made against opposing through movements and left made during the yellow change interval. The capacity during the yellow change interval (Ve) - the maximum numbers of left turns that can clean in this period - equals two times the number of signal cycles per hour, If the number of cycles per hour is not known, assume that the maximum number of left turns that can clear the intersection in one hour equals 90, The capacity for left turns during the green cycle (V J - the maximum number of left turns that can clear against opposing traffic volumes - is estimated using the following equation: VL = 1.200(~) - Vo Where: VL = G = C = Vo = left-turn volume, in vehicles per hour, that can clear during the green for opposing through traffic. maximum green plus yellow time, · cycle time for opposing through traffic. · sum of opposing through and right-turn volumes, in vehicles per hour. a:~.IO 47 I I I I I I (. I I I I I I I I I Technical Procedures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. If either the maximum green time or the cy:ie time is not known, use the through and right-turn volumes for the approach divided by the number of lanes. Add the number of left-turns calculated in the change interval Vc to the number calculated in the permitted left for a total number of left-turns which can clear without a protected left VL. If the number of left-turns calculated above (Left turn capacity) is more than those estimated for the project, no protected left-turn phase is needed. If the number of left tums calculated above is less than the left turn demand, operating difficulties and increasing delays will be experienced. STEP 5: Adjust Turning Volumes Two situations may require adjustment of observed turning volumes: 1. Right turns where no separate right turn lane is provided and significant pedestrian activity exists, 2. Left turns where no separate left turn lane is provided. The PCE adjustments recommended in Circular 212 (see Appendix A of the Technical Procedures) should be used. If the VCCC model is used, adjustments to the turn volumes should be made prior to entering into -the program. STEP 6. Calculate Volume-la-Capacity Ratio by Movement The volume-to-capacity ratio of each of the 12 individual movements and any combined movements of the intersection are calculated as follows: . Right turn volumes from exclusive right turn lanes are adjusted for right turDS on red by the non-conflicting left turn volumes with a minimum reduction of 90 vehicles per hour, (Non-conflicting left tums go concurrently with the right turn. For example, the non-conflicting left turn for the northbound right turn is the westbound left turn.) . Oetennine the capacity of each movement and each combined movement from Table 9. -=........10 48 I Technical Procedures I . Calculate the ,volume-to-capacity ratio for each movement and combined movement by dividing the adjusted volumes by the capacities. For combined movements, use the combined volumes divided by the combined capacities. I . I b TABLE 9 Lane Capacitiesl Lane Type 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+-Phase Exclusive Lane 1,800 1,720 ' 1,650 Shared Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650 Dual Turn Lanes:.3 1,636 1,564 1,500 Triple Turn Lanes:" 1 ,565 1,496 1,435 I I I , 2 Capacities for single lane. If multiple lanes are provided, capacity in the table is multiplied by number of lanes to obtain total capacity for movement group, Can include one shared lane (e.g. one exclusive left, plus one shared through left is considered dual turn lane). Assumes 45%-55% lane split. Assumes lane use 15 % higher in the most used lane. I 3 I . I STEP 7: Determine Critical Volume-to-Capacity Ratios I Determine the highest total conflicting volume-to-capacity ratios for both the nonh-south and east-west directions. For a non-split phased direction, the highest total of the I right-turn or the through (or through plus right-turn if no exclusive right-turn lane exists) plus the opposing left-turn volume-to-capacity ratios are chosen. For a split phased direction, the I highest volume-to-capacity ratio from each of the approachs is chosen. Free right turns are Dot included in the calculation since they are not under signal control. Circular 212 does not clearly indicate how the critical movements are to be I selected for single lane approaches (that is, when all right, left and thru movements are made from single approach lane), Under the Circular either the approach with the highest volume or both approaches could be designated as the critical movement. As pan of the Level of Service method adopted by the CCT A, however, both approaches should be considered critical movements, a:1Ioci!mI.IO 49 III III III ~ II II III rI III III III ~ II II II [t II II .. Techni~l Procedures STEP 8: Sum the critical volume-to-cap:ity ratios for each approach. STEP 9: Compare the sum of the critical volume-to-capacity ratio with the ranges in Table 10 to determine the intersection Level of Service. TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES LOS A B C D E F Sum of Critical V IC s 0.60 0.61 - 0.70 0.71 - 0.80 0.80 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 > 1.00 -=.......10 so Appendix B Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to, Net New Growth ~ ~ ::3 Table B-1 :b. ~ Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to Net New Growth ::)- ~ ::3 :b. ~ Dwelling Units Jobs Q Total' Net Total' Net Q)' - Cll Jurisdiction Growth Vested3 Growth Growth Vested3 Growth !n S- f) Danville 3,685 2,948 737 2,308 400 1,908 San Ramon 2,709 2,000 709 16,502 16,502 0 Unincorporated Contra Costa County 16,879 1,134 15,744 6,745 0 6,745 Dublin 13,797 172 13,625 24,156 1,013 23,143 Pleasanton 10,514 2,790 7,724 29,997 15,015 14,982 Livermore 17,401 1,422 15,979 38,337 6,188 32,149 Unincorporated Alameda County 808 0 808 324 0 324 Total 65,793 10,467 55,326 118,369 39,118 79,251 2 1 Expected land use growth from 1990 to 2010. 2 Translate to 26,390,583 square feet. 3 As of January 1994. Source: Tri-Valley jurisdictions. cp - " Appendix C Joint Powers Agreement _:WI, '-'I -.,Ii-ll'4V J..L-L-L- J..... . _' J. U V .....' ,.) V ....J V V :: . ....;1 i .~ I_I . '. _.. --.... . . ---. l:f' /' ' :, .~/ ~ L~!;~.) JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE COU~'TY O'F AlAl\-IEDA, COtP.\TI' OF CONTRA COSTA, TOWN OF DA.:"'lVILLE AND CITIES OF DUBLIN, LIVERMORE PLEASANTON AND SAN RAMON 1. Parties, This Joint Powers Agreement, dated March 1, 1991, for the purpose of reference only, is entered into pursuant to Government Code section 6502 by and among the following public agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the Town of Danville, the City of Dublin. the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton and the City of San Ramon (hereafter referred to as "Parties" or "Party"). 2, Recitals. Each Party to this Agreement is a public agency duly authorized and existing under the law of the State of California. The County of Contra Costa, the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon are situmed within the houndaries of the County of Contra Costa, The County of Alameda, t~e City of Dublin, the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton are situated within the boundaries of the County of Alameda, The area commonly known as the "Tri- Valley Area" encompasses the Town of Danville, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon and portions of the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa immediately adjacent to the cities and town. Page 1 of 11 Phuny II !'ax II Fox II / ,,,\ I i '.J W I lot U I ~. i""': I,. V J.. L L L ~ .I...' ....) J. VV"-":">I,,,.l"';l,.. ~' _' nl't .. _ - -. . W -; 14'_'. '_' '.' _ The panies hereto recognize that adequate transportation plannil}g is essential to the orderly development of the Tri- Valley Area and that review and coordiil<ltion of planning and implementation of transportation facilities in the Tri-Valley Area is to the benefit of all parties hereto and their constituents. 3, Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide' for the joint preparation, including sharing of COStS, of a transportation plan and to provide a forum for the review and coordination of planning and implementation of transportation facilities in the Tri- Valley Area. By entering into this Agreement, the panies do not intend to create an agency or entity separate from the Parties to the Agreement and no provision of this Agreement should be so construed. 4. Tri-YaJley Transportation Council. The administration of the activjties called for in this Joint Powers Agreement is- delegated to and vested in the "Tri-Valley Transportation Council" ("Counci\"). The Council shall he comprised of one memher of the board of supervisors and city or town council of the respective Parties to this Agreement, to be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the respective board or council. Each member of the Council shall have one vote. One member shall be elected hy the members of the Council annually to serve as chairperson and one member shall be elected annually to serve Page 2 of 11 , ,-,.....,. I '-II 1,..'11."1 -,I J. i....__ J. 1,) . _I ~ '.-, '... .1(;,L,'-.lt..,.U -..: J. _ -(-, ':, . ') I...: ; .~ C~ . !. Ii. i.:. -.. as vice-chairperson. Each city or town council and board of supervisors may appoint an alternate who may vote in the nbsence of the designated voting member. The meetings of the Council shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950 et seq. A quomm of four members shall be required to transact any business hereunder. The Tri- Valley Transportation Council is authorized and directed, on behalf of all :parties, to perform all acts necessary or desirable to execute and administer this Joint Powers Agreement including, but not limited to: selecting and retaining a consultant to prepare a transportation plan and related environmental documents; authorizing, evaluating and monitoring the expense of preparation of the transportation plan; and other actions consistent with those specified in this Agreement. In particular, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council: a. may review and provide comments to any Party's proposed general plan amendment or specific plan, when regional or subregional transportation issues are involved; b. shall review and provide comments regarding any proposed new freeway, expressway, arterial, transit project or major intersection improvement of regional Page 3 of ] 1 UWI'< ur _ ri 1'< V 1 L L :. ... ~, . :J .1. U C. .:; C. U .) 0 U . ~ 1'~ J."';' .., I;U . '_'.'_ or subregional significance to be located in the Tri- Valley Area; c. shall, upon. unanimous vote of all members, select and retain a consultant to prepare a transportation plan (referred to herein as the ''Tri-Valley Transportation Plan") as specified in paragraph 5 helow, and assess the costS of the consultant among the Parties; d. may seek, on behalf of the Council, a Party or Parties, funding from Federal, State or local sources for transportation planning, facilities, improvements, projects and/or operations which are consistent with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan; and e. may serve as a forum for the resolution of transportation-related disputes between the Parties. 5. Tri- VallGY Transportation Plnn. The Tri- Valley Transportation Plan and related environmental documents shall he prepared by a consultant selected by the Council. At a minimum, the Tri- Valley Tramiportation Plan shall identify current and future needs for transportation facilities and programs in the Tri- Valley Area and current and anticipated future deficiencies in such transportation facilities and programs. "Transportation facilities and programs" include freeways and freeway interchanges, expressways, arterials, major Page 4 of 11 , U WI '4 U' J...' n I '4 V .L. 1- 1- [... .L.... . _' ~ U 0 ...) V U __) r_,....' :: ' :' J. 1'11_'. '.: '.' ~ ' .,_ intersections of regional or subregional significance and public transit such as light rail. Adoption or amendment of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plnn shall require the unanimous vote of all members of the Council. Following its ndoption, the Parties agree to consider the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending circulation elements of their general plans and specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs. 6, Rescission of MOl.), The Parties hereto are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding, effective May 23, 1989, entitled "Tri- Valley Transportation Planning Program," which established a Tri- Valley Transportation Council. By entering into this Joint Powers Agreement, the Parties hereto agree to rescind and terminate the Memorandum of Understanding and the Tri- Valley Transportation Council created by that Memorandum of Understanding. 7. Administrative Services. There shall be a technical advisory committee ("TACit), made up of one staff member from each Party, with one staff member serving as chairperson. It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the T AC to provide administrative services as neces~ary to the Council, such as preparation of agendas for Council and T AC meetings. The chairperson shall rotate annually among the parties. Page 5 of 11 . UWI"l UI _' ;"1 I iii V J. L... _ '- .. .;.' . _; ~ I..V...J '..: '... _ '''; '-) .' -j;.. _' . _..... 1'41_'. '. _ ... R. Contract of Administration. The Conncil shall select one Party as Contract Administrator. The Contract Administrator, who shall be a T AC representative, shall be responsible for payment of consultant services required by the Council. The Contract Administrator shall prepare regular written reports to the Council and the T AC on the status of consultant services. Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Contract Administrator shall be reimbursed equally by all other Parties, 9, Accountin~ Services, The finance Director of one of the Cities, as designated annually by vote of the Council. ("Finance Director") shall provide accounting services for all payments and receipts required by the terms of this Agreement, and shall be responsible for the safekeeping of all funds paid by or to the Parties to this Agreement. The Finance Director and the Contract Adm'inistrator shall be staff memhers from the same Party. Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Finance Director in providing accounting services shall be reimbursed equally by aM other Parties. 10, E.uvment for Expenses. Each Party to this Agreement shall: a, Pay, upon demand of the Finance Director, its "appropriate share" of all expenses incurred in the performance of activities called for by this Agreement, The "appropriate share" of each Party shall be an equal amount of all expenses. Page 6 of 11 ! UWI\j ur :"'HI\j\ll LLC. ~ U . _,I 1 1-' C\ ..) ~ U _IOU -' ""I~ - - .'-. ,~'-' . :. ,.' - -" b. All hills and invoices for expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement shall be directed to the Finance Director, who shall calculate the amount owed by each Party under the formula set forth in subparagraph a. above, and shall bill each Party accordingly. All bills shall be paid by each Parry upon demand. c, The Finance Director shall demand advance payment by the Parties of the estimated costs of preparation of the Ti'i- Valley Transportation Plan. All such advance payments will be retained in a separate account by the Finance Director and interest earned on such funds shall be used to reduce proportionately the Parties' contributions. 11. Vote Required, a. A unanimous vote of all Parties shall he required for adoption of the annual work program and budget. h. Except as othcI'\vise provided in this Agreement, five votes shall be required for: i) Grant applications; ii) Expenditure of funds; Page 7 of 11 i Ij W I~ U r U H I~ V 1 L L t. . L . :' 1 U ,:, ~ .:. U ~ v U _'H'~ ~_ .,- . '- . .' . - iii) Execution of comracts; and iv) Adoption of policies, rules of procedure and other operational matters of the Council and staff. c. Any ahstention from voting by any memher shall be construed as a "yes" vote on a particular matter. d. A majority vote of those present and vOting shall be required for any other action not specified above, 12. . Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at Rny time upon the written approval of all Pnrties to the Agreement. 13. Notices. Except where this Agreement may specifically provide otherwise. any notices to be sent to any Parry shall be directed to the office of the city manager or county administrator of the Party, with copies to all other city managers and county administrators, 14, Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate as to llny or all Parties upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions: Page 8 of 11 ;JWr'lUr LlHI\l'v' ~ L.L.::. __ ::>lU:::)oU;)OU ',,;- .... : - r '. I: . :.i;_.;. - a. Ninety (90) days' prior 'J.'ritten notice of :ermination by any Party given to the chairperson of the Council; provided, however. that the terminating Party shall be liable for its appropriate share of any expenses incurred up to the date of termination. b. Automatically, upon the Cailure of any Parry to pay its appropriate share of expenses within 60 days of date of invoice. c. Mutual written agreement by all Parties hereto, 15, Disposition of Funds Upon Termination. Any funds remaining with the Finance director, including any interest earned on such funds, upon termination of this Agreement by all Parties shall be returned to each Party in proportion to the contrihution of each Agency. (Continued on next page.) Page 9 of 11 I U W 1'1 U r U H 1\1 V 1 L L t. 11). :JIUb')t'L',jOU _HI'J ._ ...- '-,;-,' I<lO.'_',_- 16. Effective Dale. This Agreement shall hecome effective upon the date of execution of the last signatory hereto. COUNIT OF ALAMEDA Dated: J~,,:z,;; /'i9~ Approved as to Form: ~ City Co'unsel Attest: ' ~J' r!MJ~~.~ Dated: /)1/)/2[// /~ /90,--- / COUN1Y OF CONTRA COSTA ~~- 'rom Powers, Chairmnn Board of Supervisors "- Approved as to Form: - ~ ~ ~- ~~J~ t1k ~ - County COl1nse~ TOWN OF DANVILLE D d S'7"1,n~~/, / tJ (II ate : / {7 ll.(~'~<-.!./~I-/""7- Millie Greenberg, Mayor Approved as to Form: 4-~~~ ~ ,/ Aut ,! k ("J{,thl A'h~ 1 (~illn:lh'rC~ ('onllnucd '"I ne.t p.ge,) Page 10 of 11 l :Ull'" Ui _""Vl.LLC, iLl -:'lU<;.)t5l),)C'U Dated: 3,/I/Q/ Approved as to Form: ~/V?-I/ )j_J1J~_ Dated: Jf~ /'tt,.l7'f/ Dated: 3L,/91 Approved as to F~~m~ 0 '~#j~ Dated: 3-(":;1 Vh..0. 01.23,91 jpaagrm .i H N 1 _ ' '.l-. :-:':,: ;'.JC.!,,)!.:: - C?k/ . ~ 1f.fer W. Snyder, Ma~ AllqarC\( cL CITY OF LIVERMORE &~? (~/-7J Cathie Brown. Mayor Attest: (!!dA1~~ CITY OF P EASANTON ",l.A-A.. )1V/l--<~ @~:~~ CITY OF SAN RAMON All~ 1Ytatf_tVrf ~ Page 11 of 11