HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 TriVlyTranspRtsRegnlSignif
,...
~'W$A"~~
'!
:"-0
CITY OF DUBLIN
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 8, 1995
SUBJECT:
Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance (Revised Proposal for Adoption)
Report by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
11. Resolution
/ 2. Dublin's requested changes to the Draft Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan! Action Plan
/ 3. Modification to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
for Routes of Regional Significance
/ 4. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Combined Study
RECOMMENDATION:
~ I. Adopt Resolution
2. Approve Request For Proposal for Combined Traffic Study
.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Each Tri-Valley jurisdiction is to contribute $15,000 for the
Transportation Model Update/Traffic Service Objective
Management Study/Transportation Development Fee Study
(Combined Study). The $15,000 has been included in the
Engineering Operating Budget for Fiscal year 1995-96.
DESCRIPTION: On February 27, 1995, the City Council adopted the Tri-Valley
Transportation pian/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (plan), with the contingency that
changes be made to the Plan. The Council's action was coordinated with similar actions by Alameda
County, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) subsequently considered Dublin's requested changes and agreed to incorporate them into the
Plan.
It was anticipated that Contra Costa County would also adopt the Plan, signifying consensus among all
seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. However, on April 11, 1995, the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors adopted the Plan with significant changes. The most notable revision was the deletion of
Level of Service D (V IC ratio 0.90) as the Traffic Service Objective at all intersections.
=
.---------i1'--jf--------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ~ COPIES TO: Bill vanGelder
: CITY CLERK
I FILE ~
\~~;"iI'\"'
~
.-
Following Contra Costa County's action, the TVTC indicated that the County's proposed changes were
unacceptable. Subsequently, the County verbally offered to rescind certain changes made on April 11.
The TVTC responded with correspondence requesting clarification on Contra Costa County's position. .
Following a number of meetings and consultations between elected officials and staffs ofTri-Valley
jurisdictions, the County agreed to rescind changes made on April 11 and substitute the revisions included
in Exhibit 3. The revisions on Exhibit 3 were verbally endorsed by the representatives of the Tri-Valley
jurisdictions present at the June 28, 1995, TVTC meeting. The City of Dublin's changes were left in
place and are reflected in Exhibit 3.
In addition to the consensus achieved on the Plan, a scope of work has also been finalized for the hiring
ofa consultant by the TVTC to conduct the Transportation Model Update, the Traffic Service Objective
Management Study, and the Transportation Development Fee Study, all as a single Combined Study. The
draft plan showed 11 intersections did not meet the Level Of Service D; however, after the final model
run which included all seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions' changes, 15 intersections did not meet the Level Of
Service D standard. The Combined Study is intended to develop actions, which could include land use
management, to improve Level of Service for these 15 intersections. The Combined Study also includes
updating the land use in the traffic model to ABAG 94 land use numbers and a Traffic Impact Fee study to
pay for impx:ovements of regional transportation facilities due to future developments.
All Tri-Valley jurisdictions have agreed to participate in the Combined Study and to achieve consensus on
actions to achieve Level of Service D. The scope of this study is included as Exhibit 4. The Study should
begin in September 1995 and be completed in four to six months. The City Council agreed to participate
in the Combined Study as part of its February 27th action, pending unanimous agreement on a scope of
work. The City's $15,000 contribution was included in this year's budget. The Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency will also contribute $25,000 to update the model to ABAG 94 land use
numbers.
.
. Adoption of the Plan by the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions, in conjunction with the agreement to go
forward with the Combined Study, is an example of,the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning process
to reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. The Plan also fulfills the primary
purpose of the March 1991 Joint Powers Agreement among the seven Tri- Valley jurisdictions -- to
"provide for the joint preparation of a transportation plan."
The City Attorney has also reviewed the changes to the plan and offered some clarifications and typing
corrections, of which the consultant has been notified. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the
resolution adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance
(Revised Proposal for Adoption) and approve the Request For Proposal for the Combined Study.
g: Iogenmiscltranpln2
.
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. -95
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE TRI- VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN FOR
ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
\VHEREAS, the City of Dublin has actively participated in the cooperative, multi-
jurisdictional planning efforts undertaken by the Tri- Valley Transportation Council; and
\VHEREAS, the solution of providing reasonable transportation services in the Tri-Valley
'will require the combined efforts of all of its member jurisdictions and other transportation agencies; and
\VHEREAS, the seven Tri- Valley jurisdictions in 1991 formed the Tri-Valley
T ransponation Council v.ith the charge of preparing the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan; and
\VHEREAS, these jurisdictions working diligently have developed a Tri- Valley
Transportation Traffic Model and subsequently produced the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
. for Routes of Regional Significance ("Plan)"; and
\VHEREAS, there were opportunities throughout the development of the Plan for public
input, the Draft Plan was circulated and there was opportunity for public testimony at all Tri- Valley
Transportation Council meetings; and
\VHEREAS, each jurisdiction has previously reviewed and commented upon the
Circulation Draft and the Plan for Adoption; and
\VHEREAS, a follow-up study will be conducted to provide the basis for consensus on
actions necessary to achieve Level of Service D at all study intersections within the Tri- Valley; and
\VHEREAS, the successful implementation of the Plan is partially contingent upon the
adequate funding oftransportation facilities which may require a Regional Traffic Impact Fee;
NO\V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin has determined and
orders as follows:
1. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance is
recommended for adoption subject to inclusion of the modifications shown on Exhibit 2;
.
2.
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance shall
be used as a guide when adopting or amending elements to the City's General Plan and
specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs;
EXHIBIT 1
3. The City shall consider working with other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley region to adopt
multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning agreements;
4.
Following completion of the Combined Study, the City shall consider adopting actions
required to achieve compliance with Traffic Service Objectives;
5. The City shall contribute $15,000 as its fair share of the "Combined Study: Transportation
Model Upgrade, Transportation Service Objectives Management Study and Traffic Impact
Fee Study."
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g: Iogenmisclresorwp
.
.
.
-'
CITY OF DUBLIN
PO, Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
City Ofllces, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
March 17, 1995
Millie Greenberg, Chairperson
Tri. Valley Transportation Council
c/o TO\lm of Danville
510 La Gonda Way
Danville CA 94526
SUBJECT: Changes to Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
Dear Millie:
.
We would like to commend the Tri- Val1ey Transportation Council (TVTC) and the
Tri. Valley Transportation Technical Advisory Com;nitt,ee for all of their hard work in
preparing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Acticm Plan (Plan). At their February '27,
] 995, meeting The Dublin City Council approved the adoption of the Plan with the
contingency that the following changes be made. Added text is underlined and deleted
test is indicated by brackets, [ J.
Add the fol1owing to the first "resolved" statement to read as follows:
". . .or Capital Improvement Programs, with th~.r~")11 ;win~ revisions to the Plcm.
1. Page xiii, paragraph 2: Delete the ~j1ird sentence, heginning with
"nevertheless", regarding indirect c~Tects on growth.
2. Page 119, paragraph 5: Reduced LOS Standards. These were
considered [ ] for the freeway system in locations where through traffic
made achievement ofTSOs impossible for the TVTC to achieve. While
demand volumes could not be accommodatf'.~, ramp metering would allow
achievement of CMP mandated levels of s~r\'ice on the freeways.
Reduced LOS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the
strMegv for resolvinf! TSO v;o!(ltio!1:\. as discllssed on p, 237 of the Plm},.
3.
Page 121, column 5, row 4: Revise the table to add a footnote
reference at the "Dublin-Reduced Land Use" entry with the footnote to
read as follows: "Via consideration of growth plan per p. 232 of Plan".
.
4. Page 131, paragraph 3: Revise to read as -:~lIows: Jurisdictions
EXHIBIT 2
Admin;str<llion (1115) 833.6650 . City COlIn::,1 (415) R3~,GG05 . F'nilrlcr' :-115) R:C 66-10. Building Inspection (415) 833,6620
.1..... ','A"I f""A". r:H'I Corie E nlorcement (415) B33.(;620 . [; n~l'np.elinD (41 :') 6:l:l.6fi:l( . Planning (415) 833,6610
March 17, 1995
Millie Greenberg, TVTC
TVTC Resolution
Page 2
.
in Tri~Valley may implement a proactive Gro\\1h and Congestion
management strategy once a detailed gro\\1h management study has been
conducted. The study should indicate the development reductions, land
use density reductions, or other types of gro\\1h management/control that
would be required for each applicable Tri- Valley jurisdiction in order to
achieve TSO standards. Any developmenf ;-eduction should be
proportional to the traffic distribution [ ~ for each jurisdiction. ~
development reductions should he cnn~.idered for their eCJuitahle effect on
the development potential of the participating jurisdictions. Reductions
should not create a "r"ce" to devel np. and i r adopted. shall i nsme that
j\ITisdictions with rel{ltivelv ~re{lter development potential do not hear the
full [1[1111t of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this
development reductio.n to traffic impact fees should be analyzed; other
alternatives such as a toll road mav also he anal\'7ed. All jurisdictions will
then review this information and know eX(1\.tly how much reduction in
development or grov..1h management/contn:1 is needed to meet the TSOs.
The ~ro\\1h mann~ement study and a~lY imJ1nct fees would ench have to he
approved ummimotlslv. Violations '.)r proiEcted violations ofTSO
standards remaininG" after a Growth mana~ement strategv is adopted shall
he resolved as discussed on p, 231 oflhe Plan.
.
NOTE: The last paragraph on p. 232 is id~t'i:ical to this paragraph, and
the same changes are proposed for that text as shO\\11 helow.
5. Page 197, Recommended Actions: 1.:nr...:i!kr put~ in place mutually
agreed and equitable multi-jurisdiction,.! gnwth management to insure
achievement ofTSOs.
6.
Page 232, last paragraph: Revise to read as follows: Jurisdictions in
Tri-Vnlley may implement a pronctive Gro\'~1h 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 develop!nent reduction should be
proportional to the traffic distributio:, [ ] f(IT each jurisdiction. Am.
,.
development reductions should he considered for their equitahle effect on
the development potential of the participatin(; iurisdictions. Reductions
should not create a "race" to develop. and if adopted. shall insure that
Jurisdictions with relatively ~reater develop:i~ent potential do not hear the
full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this
.
'Villi 1-11 I I, 1..,".1,)
Millie Ureenoeri, TVTC
. TVTC Resolution
. . Page 3
.
development reduction to trRme impact fees should be analyud; U1ht:r
alrerneUvcs-.Such 898 toll fORd may also he Lll1l1lvz.ed. All jurisdictions wlll
lhen review this infonnution aJ1d know cxnctly how muoh reduction in
development or gro\\1h lTIa.nagement!contro! :s needed to meet the TSOs.
The ~ro\\'1h rolln:12em':nt study on" nny In'p"(~t fees would ~Bch hAve to be
CT"prove.d ununilllOUI:lv. Yiolatiom; or pmie.ctcd viola\lon~ nfTSO
standards rcmaininJ,: Qfter R ~ro'y1h m;)ne.iet11t~l1t l'tratc~y is adopted sholl
be resolved as discus.~t"d on p. 237 of the Plan:'
7.
Pngc 23~, first )>arngrnph: Delete the last sentence r~gnrdillg indirccl
effects on growth,
8.
Pllge 23~, third par \gruph, (hird sentence: Revise ns follows: In
Alameda County, th',' jl:r;sdictiDn with the TSO violation can elect to
modify gro\\1h T3les, :;nprove th~ facility, or ~eek u lower TSO st3.J'idard
through the [ ] process set forth [ J on p, ~"n ofrhe Pla1l.
9.
Page 237, third paragraph: Delete the third sentence beginning with
"neveI1helcss" regarding indirect effects on growth.
.
Again, we would like to thonk you and the TVTC for doing such a commendable job.
Please do not hesitate to crdl if you huve any qu~stions on lhe~~ materials.
Sin relY~
Guy . uston
Mnyor
GH/MS/mh
cc: City Council
Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney
Lee S. Thompson, Publio Works Direc,tor
Lf\Urence Tong, PlEUu1ing Director
Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer
Carol Cirelli, Sr. Pl81mer
r:\cOrres\nlthren\03l6tVlC
.
TRI- V ALLEY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN/
ACTION PLAN
FOR
ROUTES OF
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROPOSM~ep+IeN
Prepared for
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Prepared by
Trl-VaIley Technical Advisory Committee
In conjunction with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
January 1 aa6
3Vl'(
-Apffl1995
.
.
Notc: Polic,' dircction:; or ,"mion: rcoommcndcd in thi3 draft rcport arc :ubjcot to
changc pcnding rcvicw, commcnt, and approval b)' TVTC and it:; mcmbcr
juri:3diction3.
.
EXHIBIT 3
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Transportation Service Objectives
A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objecti\'es. 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, ifidividual jurisdictions are responsi-
ble for maintaining Transportation Service Objectives through their general plans. The
transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows:
.
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.
!-.laintain Level of Service E conditions on 1-580 for no more than four hours per day
(except on AJ.tamont Pass) and on 1-680 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.
\\7ffile the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpret~
ed as limiting growth to the assumed levels. ~;e""erthclc:c, :he plan doc: e:toblich
Tra.ncporta:ion Service Objecti....e:, which may indirectly influence ~ow:h rates. Cro'?-th
beyond what i: acsumed herein moy occur provided the TEOt:; ore met. If there are TSO
violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri- Valley jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction
can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road v.ridening) to correct the
TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b) implement other measures
intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional
Significance network and contribute to significant improvements in air quality. Failing
this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event
that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, the
jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physical-
ly impacted.
Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the follov.'ing components:
.
Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans.
.
Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amend-
ments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans.
The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in
compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
xiii
Executive Summary
· Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revisionts) to Action Plan to mitigate
impacts associated v.ith proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amend.
ments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a
determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the
approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA.
.
Financing the Tri- Valley Transportation Pldn
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 j\letropolitan Transportation
Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for
estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding is suggested through
the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new, unapproved development. The
PI~ 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
S2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space.
This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees
are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the neA"US
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. The folloy,inb' clemente ettould be adcp:.cd:
.
2010 Planned Tran::porta:ion Xdv;ork
Transportation Se:,,;iee Objectivc::;
.'\ction Plane for Router of Rc;ional Si;Bi.ficancc (::;ee Chapter 9)
Financing Plan
Subregional Trancportation Impact Fcc concept
.
.
.
.
.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
xiv
.
.
.
=
3.
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Consistent 'ivith the Contra Costa and luameda countywide transportation plans, the
Tri.Valley Transportation Council has adopted the following broad goals to guide this
planning effort.
.
Improve safety
Manage congestion
Enhance mobility
Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use
Provide adequate transportation systems to support land use plans
Integrate transportation planning 'with concerns relating to air quality, community
character and other environmental factors
Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced
mobility.
.
.
.
.
.
.
According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the
specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are
quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating
transportation system effectiveness.
No one jurisdiction's actions can assure that traffic service objectives on Regional
Routes will be met. Compliance will be determined on the basis of participation and
implementation of Action Plans. The following are requirements for a jurisdiction to be
considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
.
Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans.
Local implementation of actions dccignod to attain tro..:5ie Gomeo objoctivos consis-
tent with adopted Action Plans.
.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
38
Goals and Transponation 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.
Submiccion to Rc;ionol Committee of proposcd rc','icion(s) to :\ction Plan to
::nitigatc i.r:1pactc associated v.ith propoccd Ceneral PIon amendments. Ceneral
Plan D..I::3.e::.1d.mcnts that would reduce tho c::ec:iyeneec of adopted .^..e:ion Plane
may lead to a determination of non compli~ec if ~he .^...ction Plan cannot be
rcviced v.ith the approval of the Regional Committee and tho CCT,;^.. (for Contra
Cocta County jurisdiction::;).
· 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 follov.-ing 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, v.-ith speeds about 35 mph on freeways. Tbis standard is sometimes not met
under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, tbis corresponds to the existing CMF
standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject .
to an intersection LOS standard.
Hours of Congestion. Maintain LOS E conditions on I.580 for no more than two hours
in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, except over Altamont Pass, where no
TSO has been adopted. LOS E on 1.680 for no more than four hours in the morning
and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints discussed in Chapter 5,
tbis 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. Tillo ic thc standard to which all Tn Valley
juriodietionc pFGcontly adhcre. Under current conditions, only three of the study
intersections violate this standard.
Tri. Valley Gatewa)'s. 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.)
.
Banon-Aschman Assoc:iates, Inc.
39
.
.
.
=
Plan Alternatives
The reduced grovvth scenario was shown, however, to have a profound effect on traffic
levels on the arterial system. The TAC concluded that congestion on the arterial
system could be controlled through growth management, even though congestion on
the freeway system could not.
Plan Evolution
The TVTAC outlined four alternatives for consideration by the TVTC (see Table 6-4).
These were combinations of various elements discussed and tested throughout the
plan evolution.
These four alternatives were presented to the individual councils of each city and the
boards of the two counties. These elected representatives provided input as to which
plan elements should be pursued further. Table 6-5 shows the composite of positions
taken by each body. The TVTAC interpretation of the policy direction was as follows:
1. Road Improvements. Pursue the maximum amount of improvement within the
limits of physical feasibility, but keep the regional impact fee within the $1,000-
$2,000 per dwelling unit range. This was thought to be the highest politically
feasible subregional traffic impact fee.
2. Transit Improvements. Provide transit options in the well-travelled corridors, but
recognize that transit cannot carry a significant mode share given the suburban
land use pattern of the area.
3. Higher Densities. The benefit of higher densities from a transportation perspective
is that transit can be a more effective alternative to driving. There was some
interest in changing development patterns to increase overall densities, especially
in transit corridors. Recently approved specific plans for East Dublin and North
Livermore create some higher-density areas. Densities necessary to support
significant transit usage need to be at least 15 dwelling units per acre.
4. Growth Management. The TVTC agreed to proceed with a speci.fic 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 eMF-mandated levels of service on the
freeways. Reduced WS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the
stratecr for resolving' TSO violations. as discussed on pag'e 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.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
119
...
ca
...
l..,
o
0-
en
e:
ca
l..,
I-
>-
Q)
-I
ctS
>
I
'i::
f-
a....
o
-
Q)
>
;:;
ca
s:
l..,
Q,)
...
<
en
:J
LOCI)
,e:
<0(1)
~~
.co
~u
,
I,
H
I:
i
c:1
cal
II
0..1
c'
o
"
;i
I,
II
I
I
~
o
I--
"OQ)
Q.l ~
VJ ::J
ro VJ
Q.l ro
U Q.l
E::E
EC
>
<!
I.f)
C'?
Q.l
E
o
(/)
:Q
<!
If)
>-.
ro
~
Q.l
Q.l
..:::
'0
- c:
o ro
~ -
ro~
>0:>_
_ >-. <I.l
C'-. ro ~
Q.l 3= 3=
E.c Q.l
0.21 Q.l
(/)I..=
I
i
,
;1
;1
(/)
o
....J
"0"0
Q.l .....
u ro
::J"O
"0 c
I:) ro
O:(/)
Q.l
c-
~ >-.
0-
(/):5
JJ Q.l
ro ()
.ca;
0..:::
(l) ::1_
"'Og~
.2oc
u () Q.l
.!:..... E
-....Q.l
(l) ~ .=
:5 015- E
z.s ~ <
.Q
<
(l)
E
o
(/)
~
o
en
>-.
C
::I
o
C,)
rcJ
'0
(l)
E
(tl
<(
<:::>
E
o
en
:2
<1:
~
o
en
>..
E
::J
o
()
(tl
u;
o
C,)
rcJ
.....
E
o
C,)
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
-..
<:::>
If)
::l
"
C a:>
ro_
....Jro
"00:
<:::> .-
u:::
::J 3=
"00
(l) .....
:::::c:>
If)
o
..... .-
I:) ,,=
_ VJ
- C
.Ql a:>
ICl
Q)
c
(l)
E
a:>
~>
If) 0
C ....
roo.
.=S
II)
c
(l)
E
a:>
>
'02
roo.
o E
0:_
l/)
-c: ~
.2g
:t,?(l)
~~
'C (l)
~Q:
~
'S;
c:
tIS
Cl
Q)
E
o
C/)
Q.l
C
o
Z
C)
C
o
(j)
Q.l
C
o
Z
en
E
o
(J)
Q)
c
o
Z
<::I
C
(;
(/)
ell
c:
o
Z
ell
c:
o
Z
:2
<1:
Nb
E
o
(j)
E
<
Q)
E
o
(j)
Q)
E
o
(/)
C)
E
o
(j)
Q.l
E
o
(j)
Q.l
E
o
(j)
(Il
E
o
(J)
(:)
E
o
(j)
ell
E
o
C/)
ell
E
o
(/)
ell
E
o
(J)
(Il
E
o
en
ell
E
o
C/)
ell
E
o
en
ell
E
o
C/)
.S
:0
::J
Cl
(l)
~
ell
>
::;
c:
o
C
(tl
r.n
(tl
(Il
a::
c
o
E
tIS
a::
c
tIS
C/)
OJ
C
o
Z
III
E
o
(J)
ell
C
o
Z
Q)
~
i::-Ill
1--01
-E
('-.c
EF::=-
o ~ ~
"?CIl=
:Q
<
III
E
o
(J)
C)
E
o
(j)
Q)
E
o
(J)
(l)
E
o
C/)
Q)
E
o
en
'"
='
en
c
Q)
'"
c
8~
i~
....Gi
..J=
c(c(
c:
ltl
..?:-a::
~Q)
ltl.c
c-
o-
:eo
ON
0..(")
ON
Cia:>
(Il ro
1ii
0.....
:2 Q)
t:c
ltl tIS
0.._
II)
C:.c
gj
.S::! 0
'0.....
r.n
.~ '5
'-'c
=0
(tl-
-1ii
(tl ....
.cQ)
--0
'00
Q) c
~8
e~
a.. >
- '"
.,
j
I
I
I
I,
/i
I
I,
'I
,
.
:1
II
"
"
II
'/
Ii
I
.
.
121
.
.
.
~
Recommended Improvement Plan
11,000 dwelling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri.Valley as a whole. Action
Plans in Contra Costa COWlty 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 f9llowing are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be consider~d
in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
.
Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to
mitigate impacts associated v,;ith proposed General Plan amendments. General
Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans
may lead to a determination of non. compliance :i: :hc Action PlCUl canno: bc
rc'\i:cd ,,-::h :hc appro,'ill of :b.c Rc.;ionill Commi::'cc and :hc CCT.\.
Contra Costa County Action Plans may include the following types of actions:
Land Use Policy
1. Modify allowable densities for newly developing areas or areas where redevelop'
ment is anticipated.
2. Change distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts
on Regional Routes.
3. Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas.
4. Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service objectives.
Capital Projects
· Construction of new roads or transit facilities
· Street or freeway widening
· HOV lane construction
· Adding turn lanes
Banon.Aschman Associates. Inc.
129
Recommended Improvement Plan
Operational Improvements
.
.
Traffic signal coordination
Ramp metering
Revisions to transit routes and schedules
Augmentation of bus service on Regional Routes
.
.
.
Trip Reduction Programs
· h10re 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 adjac(!T1t counties.
General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County
The 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.] 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 the Regional Committee
for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth
Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amendments only in
relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistenc)'. It will be the responsi-
bility 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 Traffu 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.:!
lGrowth Ma.n8.g'ement Implementation Documents. CCTA December 1992. p.IG-51.
.
2Ibid.. P. IG-52.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
130
.
.
.
=
Recommended Improvement Plan
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 Crimeral 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 conduded.
The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or
other types of gro'Wtb. managementJcontrol 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 percentage::; for each jurisdiction. Anv
development reductions should be considered for their eauitable effect on the develop-
ment pOtential of the participating- iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race"
to develop. and if adopted. shall insure that ;urisdictions with relatively g-reater
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 analvzed. All jurisdictions will then
review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development or
growth management/control is needed to meet the 1'805. The g-rowth manag-ement
studv and any impact fees would each have to be approved unanimously. Violations or
pro;ected violations of TSO standards remaining- after a g-rowth manag-ement strateg-y
is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on paEre 237 of the Plan.
Jobs-Housing Balonce
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
employed resident and vice versa will m;n;m;7.e the need for residents to leave the
area for work. This will m;n;m;7.e 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 acbieve the desired result of minimizing travel.
The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
131
Action Plan
4. Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided study shows metering would
be equitable and effective as agreed to by Caltrans and the TVTC and provided
sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HOV bypass lanes wherever space
permits. The TVTC should take the lead and seek funding for a study of ramp
metering.
.
5. Support growth that achieves an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley.
6. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds
for needed transportation projects.
7. Support development of a seamless ROV network in the Tri.Valley to encourage the
use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall work cooperatively v..;th 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.
8. Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit
district to finance ongoing transit operating costs.
9.
Support the preparation by Caltrans of an incident management plan for the
state highways in the Tri-Valley area. The TVTC recognizes that incidents can
have a profound effect on traffic conditions both on the freeways and on the
arterials.
.
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
This section details the various objectives and actions for each designated route of
regional significance within the Tri-Valley. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are present-
ed, together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties
responsible for implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Plan is adopted,
each jurisdiction will be responsible for making a good-faith effort to implement the
agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the-W.QS
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"). An indidduill jwisdiction may o.1so
eloct to implement more Gtrin~nt oetionc, mCGSurCC, or proJ;I'QmS, in addition to thoGC
identified below, on f~eiliticfl with~~ itc jurisdietion. For cxnmple, a juriodictien's iBdi~.'idu
ill mitigation prOgTQm collie. recpond to hib'her future tro15.e lcvclc, accuminb' no gateway
eoootraintc (Dee FiI;UTC 5 1).
.
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
166
.
.
.
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways D3nvillc Version
Facility: Sycamore Valley Road
Key Locations
East of 1-650
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
4 lanes
1,800
0,50
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Nona
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 Panern
Danville 44D/O
San Ramon - 2~~
cec 48%
Livermore 60/0
Pleasanton 0%
Dublin 0%
T50 to be achieved
VIC <; 0.90 al intersection,
Recommended Action~
1, Oppose aAY 9aAsider:J!isR a: aaelilioFlal \'BAisloIlar sapaGir/ on Sycamore Valley
Rea&: 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 Call1ans standard Class II bicycle lanes, ~Ja asliaR ElRa/Il;lo OOA&iaerea
that If/BloIla elimiAalo &IoIBA BSBoloFaIiB~'aeeeleFatioR IMes or l;lisJ'e1s laRDs, The
Town of Danville has solo discretion to determine whether anv imorovements mav
occur that would modify the desien standards of Svcamore Vallev 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 S8 Ramps
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 N8 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
I Volumes and capadty refer to PM peak-hour, peak-drection of flow.
2 Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion.
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
172
2010 Expected Nll'twork
Planned manges: None
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C conSlTained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
TSO to be achieved
Key LDcalions
East of 1-680
4 WleS
1,800
0,50
'.
4 I8l'les
2,360 '.
8 '
;'
/
/
/
/
,
/
,'/
'.
58
0.65 (0,65)
\\
Darrville
San Ramon
CCC
LNBfTTlore
Pleasanton
Dublin
'.
/
V/C < O,go at inter-
sectirxl
Recommended Actions
Action Plan
I.
I
"
/
/
I
I'
I
/
/
./
.,~/.'"
.
rder to meet the TSO requirements, the Ie I of development that may be
roved by a IocaJ jurisdClion shall be consiste t with the identified transportation
improvements and programs for which funding is r~nably assured, Other
jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improv8("'9nts and programs within
their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service m then be exceeded without
violating the TSO.
PM P.ak-Hour 2010 Exrted Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
~ V/C
Sycamore V:E1ey and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81
Sycamore Vall Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63
Sycamore V ey Road and 1-580 NB Ramp5 0.79
Sycamore Ys/ley Road and Camino Tassajana 0.37
SycamorlValley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47
/
/
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LOS
D
B
C
A
A
\
\
,
\
.
173
.
.
.
Action Plan
Delete this page
Exhibit 2 Contra Costa County Resolution Le. Tri-Valley Plan
Banon.Aschman Associates, Inc.
174
Action Plan
Delete this page
Exhibit 2 (continued)
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
175
.
.
.
.
.
.
Action Plan
Tri~Valley Action Plan
Highways D:mvillc Version
Facility: Camino TassajlHa
Key Locations
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
Easlof
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 10 four lanes from Danville Town limits 10 Contra Costa County Une.
2010 Configura lion
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconSlTained)
4 lanes
1.840
10
4 lanes
2.320
128
0,51
0,54
Traffic Pattem
TSO 10 be achieved
Danville 42% CCC 53~~
cce 49% San Ramon 20%
San Ramon 2% Danville 18%
Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1%
Dublin 0% Dublin 2%
Livermore 2% Livermore 601
10
VIC <. 0,90 al inter- vIe <. 0,90 at intersec-
sections tions.!.
Recommended Actions.!.
None Required,
1, An initial level of development of 8,SOO units may be con-
Sll1.lcted in the Dougheny 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
Aareement This aslisA is easse eA the ,"'grssment to Sotlls
Utigalisn nelaBRg ta tAs l)sl:lgl'leFl}' Valley CaAeral PleA ,~meAB
mSRl l;:~seilie rlal'l aRB [R\'irSRmeRtal I"'~aet na~el'l., This
aEltiaFl was agreed to or Dam'i1le, ~aA namaA, eAB CaAlre Casta
CaIolR!)' iFl lAe SelllemaRt ^greemeRt
, V/C = 0,90 at the Crow Canvon intersection,
% V/C ., 0,90 at the Crow Canvon intersection.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
- - - _..I
177
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways D3nville Version (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Facility: Camino Tassajara
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
2. Consistent with the orovisions of the Douoherty Valley Settle-
ment Aoreemenl. control orowth to meet intersection level 01
se/'Vlce standards. ;hc IllaA SReb/IEI bc eased eA laAEI blac as
SUmpllaAS lor TV":::;>!\' tFlJ.: web/lEI Aet resul: iA a ..jebBon 01
trJ.ASIlSrl.:lIion scr:is€ elljcstives, ";Ajs 3stiaA is llascEl SA IRe
^g~8meRt to Se~e litj51J.IiOR ilclatjA!jta tAB OSII!lAEF1J' Valley
CeRer:a PlaA l.meAElmEA:. SIlesiR6 PI3A aREI [AvirSAmeAl31
Imllast nellB~ This seliBR was agrcce/IB Ilj' DaA..iIIe. SaA
;:bmsA, BAa ::::OAIl'S :BS:.:! :ab/At)' iA t"te SClllemSAI AgreemeAI.
3. OI3IlBSC an)' oonsiEieraliaA 01 aEle/itiaAJ.1 "CRist/Ill/' sallasil)' eA
CamiAa TJ.ss.:ljmn. Camino T2Ssajara within the Town of
Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of lour through lanes,
accelerationldeceleration lanes at all intersections. leh-tum
pocket:s at all intersections. and Callrans standard Class 1/
bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate
suc:i'a accelerationldeoeleration lanes or bicycle lanes. TRis eeti()fl
is 9E1Saa' SA lAe ,'l.!lfeemSPlI te Sellle uti51aliaA nelatlAglB IRs
DSIl!jRBRY V;:\:IC)' CORBral rbn AmcAelmeAt, Slleeilia Plan and
EA~'iI'eAmeA\allmlls6t nCllan, Th:s aslisA WllS agrcea' Ie Ill'
DaRville. San namsA, aAa :BAlra Ces:.J Cab/At}' iA tho SctBe
maAt ^greeffieAI.
.
The nol1hbound approach at the Camino T assajaralBlackhawk
Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured 10
consist 01 a 4-loot median island, two 12-loot leh-tum lanes, one
12-1001 through lane. one 12-loot through plus right-turn lane,
and one 12-loot right-rum lane. This requires reducing the exist-
ing median island from 12 leet to 4 leel. and reducing the exist-
ing 16-toot right-turn lane to a 12-loot right-turn lane. This can be
aooomplished within existing curtrtooCUrD width. Any expansion
or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the ap_
prwal of the Town 01 Danville. TAD TewA al DaRville Ras sale
ai!>al'etieA Ie aeleFmiAe 'NRelAer BA)' '..:ie/aAiA!! al lAis iAleF5eaBaR
RIa)' a8Bb/r la a eeRRgb/raBBR witR aursiEic 8\lFB Is eUr:8 wiekRs lIlat
aA:! g~aler lRaA 8b1R'eRII)' exisl
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Inlersectlon LOS Wlthout Action Plan
VIC
LOS
Unconstrained VIC
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
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction 01 flow.
.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
178
.
.
.
=
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways D3nville Version (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Camino Tassajara
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen Camino
Ta.ssajara to 6 lanes
Transit Solution
Add 40 buses per hour
service to Dougherty
Valley and Tassajara
Valley; must be full to
actaieve TSO,
TDM Solution
Restrict DV and
TVPOA peak-hour and
peak-period trip gener-
ation to DV - 77% of
normal, and TVPOA -
8% of normal.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV to 8,500
units by 2010, TVPOA
to 11 g units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at
Camino Tassajaral
Blackhawk intersection
(daoo;eRe)' plcJn re
~
TSO Met
. These pelORtial saBeRS vialatE BlC Town af DaRville CEmer;J! Pkm. Me !he Dswgfrlsl'/3' 1'3!/er SeRJemsRt ,~!I,<f:efFIel'lt eeP-yeeR
CaRlra Casta Ca"'RI:,', DaRville, aRB baR naFflaR, Baled May ~ 1, 100 t
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
179
T . Valley Action Plan
Hi ways-Contra Costa County Version
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
Facility: Camino
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
4 lanes
1,300
0.35
2010 Expected Network
Planned manges: Widening to four Ia
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C consuained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
128
0,51 ()
Traffic Pattern
T50 to be achieved
Recommended Action.
/
None Recp.lired.
Action Plan
.
Key l..Jx:ations
East of
Crow' Canyon '
4 lanes
760
0,21
4 lanes
2,320
.
In order to meet the TSO irements, the level of development
that may be approved by a jurisdiction shall be consistent
with the identified transportation I provements and programs for
which funcing is raasooably assu Other jurisdictions may
elect not to implement such improv nls and programs within
their jurisdiction. and the minimum leve f service may then be
exc:eedecl without violating the TSO.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Interaectlon LOS Without Action Plan
/ VlC
/'
/
O~(/
/
Danville 42% C 53%
CCC 49'%. Ramon 20%
San Ramon 2% II Danv 18%
Pleasanton 60;../ PI
~ublin J~
Livermore / 2%
/
I
VlC .<;-0.90 at inter-
sedi~s
/
Camino assajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon
Cami!)O Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road
Cam'fno Tassajara and Diablo
/
/
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1.15
0.37
0.3Q
LOS
'.
F
A
A
.
180
Action Plan
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways D~:mville Version
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
at County Una
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danville)
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
2 lanes
1,200
0,80
8 lanes
1,900
0.26
4 lanes
1,600
0,50
5 lanes
1,800
0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Operational improvements on rwo-Iane section; widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road.
2010 Configuration 2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1-'00 2,560 3,690 3,810
Transit Service (buses/hour both <I 56 12 12
directions)
Transit Ridel1>hip (peak hour) 5 204 170 170
V/C constrained [before Action 0,93 0,36 0,68 0,71
Plan] (unconstrained)
.
Traffic Pattern Danvilla 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27%
San Ramon 3' % Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25%
CCC 9% CCC , 8% CCC 35% CCC 35%
Dublin 3% Dublin I % Dublin 5% Dublin 5%
Pleasanton , % Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5%
Livermore , % Livermore , % Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
Through , 9% Through 0% Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
Maximum operating V/C.. ~ 0,91 VIC = ~ O.g, at
speeds within 2- at intel1>ections. intel1>ections,
lane cross-section,
VIC .. < 0.90 at intersec-
tions.
.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
181
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways D3nvillc Vcr~ion (Continued)
Action Plan
.
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
Key Locations
at County une
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danville)
Recommended Action~
East of 1-680
1, Secure funding
for operational
improvements,
None.
1. Secure funding for
widening to 6 lanes.
1. An initial level of devel-
opment of 8,500 units may
be construc:ted in the
Dougherty Valley based on
the Settlement Agreement
Up to 1 1,000 units may be
considered pending the
completion of additional
traffic studies as set forth in
the Settlement Aoreemenl.
This aetisA is Baseel aR tl=le
,^,greemcRtts SeRle Liliga
tisR nelaliAg 18 ll'la
GeO/gl=leFtj' Vall8)' CeReral
?bll AmeASffisRt. E:jleaifie
;"laA aAd EA..iraRmeAI31
Iffijlaet nejlert. This aelieA
was agrees 10 BY DaRville.
S:ln naffien. aAS CeRlfa
Cebt.a CeO/Air in tAe E:ettle
mOAtl,grssmeAt
.
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 pe"nding
the completion of addi-
tional traffic studies ~
set forth in the Settle-
ment Aoreement.
2. Consistent with the provi.
sions of the Douohenv
Valley Settlement Aoree-
ment. control orowth to
meet intersection level of
service standards. TRe jllan
sAs",lsbo bases aR laRS
O/ee 856UffijltiSRS far
1\'1'0,". tRal wa",ls Rei
ras"," iR a 'lielatieR ef trans
jleRatieR ser:viee ebjeetives.
This BetieR was ao\'ele1gee/
by tRe TewR ef DaFI'.'illa.
CeRtra CObia CeblRty may
Gl;ljl1ge~ e/iflereAt aetisAs.
Tl:lis aetisA is Basee/ SA tAB
^grsemeAtte SaRle Litigll
liaR RelaliRgts tho
OeO/gRoA)' Valle)' CeReral
PIBA AmeRsmeAt, S1geeilie
PIBA ans [R'lir:eAmsRta/
Im19aet ne1gert. This aelieA
was agress Ie B)' OaR,'iIIs,
SeA nameR, flAS CeAtFa
COGIe CO"'Rt)' iR the BeRls
meAl ^gr:esmBAl
.
I Further ac:t:ions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion,
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
182
.
.
.
=
Tri~Valley Action Plan
Highways DJnvillc Vcr~ion (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Fsclllty: Cro..... Canyon Road
at County Line
South of Camino T assajara
(Danville)
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
3. Improve Camino
Tassajara intersection (see
Camino Tassajara.
4. Opllese aaailianal wia3R
iAg of Crew GaRren neaa
wiltlin Danvillc.
PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected IntersBetion LOS WIthout Action PllIn
VIC
LOS
Unconstrained vIe
Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI.
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 S9 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
B
D
C
D
B
~
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow,
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
183
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan .
Highways D3nville Version (Continued)
Key Loc:aoons
East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of I-SSO (San Ramon) (Danville)
Potential Actions
Highway Solution 8 lanes on 5 lanes on Camino
Crow Canyon, T assajara,
Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour
service to DV and service 10 DV and TVPOA:
TVPOA: buses must be buses musl be full.
full.
T~M Sol;;tion Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% of nor-
normal tip-making, mal trip-making, TVPOA to
TVPOA to B% of nor- B% of normal trip-making.
mal trip-making,
Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 .
8,500 unilS, TVPOA to unilS, TVPOA to 1 19 unilS
119 uni:s in 2010, in 2010,
Poli:::')' Solution Accept LOS E at Accept LOS F at Crow
Crow Canyonl Canyon/Camino Tassajara
Dougherty, (requires deficiency plan),
TSO met TSO met
These ~eleFllial as1ieFls vielete IRe Tawn sf DaA'iille Caner;:)1 Plan, BAS tl:1e [)sughSI73' 1';:)/1&)' bct#eI'fi8RI,f;gri3SffiGnl llet:vieeFl
CeRtfe Cesla Cel.lAT)', DaRville, aRsbaR naFRaR, elates lAB)' ~~, 1Q3~,
.
Bar1on-Aschman Associates, Inc.
184
Action Plan
.
,
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version
,
\
Facility: Crow Cany
./
at County Una
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
/.
South of e~no Tassajara
(Danviller
/
/
Kay Locations
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vie
6 Ia60s
}~oo
/0.33
/
,/
nlS on lWo-lane section; widening to 6 lanes.Aloosta to Tassajara Ranch Road.
./
8 lanes
1,900
0.26
4 lanes
1,800
0.50
2010 Expeeled Network
Planned changes: Operational improve
2010 Conflguratlo,n
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour
both directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
vIe constrained [befom Action
Plan] (unconstrained)
2 lanes
1,400
4
/
6 lanes.-
3,69<Y
12//
/
/170
/ 0,68
/
.6 lanes
3,810
12
5
0,93
170
0.71
.
T raffle Pa ttem
Danville
San Ramon
eee
Dublin
PleasanlOn
Uvemlore
Through
I
36% San Rafuon
31"" DalJY111e
9% ~~e
~~ublin
ZO ::Ieasanton
;-: 1 % Livermore
. 190/0 Through
59% San Ramon
1"" Danville
1 eee
1 % ublin
0% asanton
1 % Uv
0% Throu h
TSO to be achieved
..--' / ,
.........,~m operabng
s~ within 2-
I~ Cl'tlss-section.
vIe - < 0.90 at
intersections.
vie _ < O.
lions.
270/0 San Ramon
25% Danville
35% eee
5% Dublin
5% Pleasanton
3% Livermore
0% Through
27%
25%
35%
5%
5%
3%
0%
vIe _ < 0.90 at intersec-
tions.
.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
185
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
\
\
\
Facility: Crow ~yon Road at County Une
\
Recommended Actlons
\
\
\
,. Secure funding
fO( openational
improvements.
'\
\
\
\
\
\,
1, Secure funding for 1 initial level of devel-
widening to 6 lanes. .opment of 8,500 units may
/ be construC!ed in the
2, An initial level of de! Dougherty Valley based on
velopment of 8,SOO;J'nits the Settlement Agreement
may be construC!tld in Up to 11,000 units may be
the Dougherty ;ialley considered pencing the
based on th9'Settlement completion of additional
Agreement:' Up to 11,000 traffIC studies.
units may be considered
pencing the completion In order to meet the TSO
of aOditional ttaHic n:tquin:tments, the level of
stUc:ies. development that may be
// approved by a local juriscic;-
/ In order to meet the TSO lion shall be consistsnt with
~irements, the level the identifted transportation
of development that may improvements and
be approved by a local programs lor which funding
jurisdiction shall be con- is Itlasonably assured.
sistont with the identified Other juriscictions may
transponation improve- elect not 10 implement sud'1
\ menlS and programs fO( improvements and
which tuncing is reason- programs within their juris-
~blY assured, Other diction, and the minimum
jurisdictions may eleC! level of service may then be
not 10 implement such exceeded without violating
, provements and pro- the TSO.
gramS within their juris-
dietton, and the minimum
level bt service may then
be exceeded without
violating ihe TSO.
\
Key Locations
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
None.
\
\
\
\
\ //
><
./'/
/
/
//
/
/'
/
//
//
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
"
//
Action Plan
/
/
/
/
.
//
South of ~ino Tassajana
(Danvil!4'~'"
/
.
.
186
.
.
.
Action Plan
Tri':Valley Action Plan
Highvyays-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
\.
PM Peak../iour 2010 Expected InterMCtlon LOS Without Action Plan
" VIC
\
\
\
Crow Canyon Road ~d Crow Canyon PI. 0.68
Crow Canyon Road am! 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48
Crow Canyon Road and "Camino Tassajara 1.15
,
Crow Canyon Road and DOl:'gherty 0.98
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680. NB Ramps 0.68
Crow Canyon Road and Cami~ Ramon 0,89
Crow Canyon Road and San R~ Valley Boule. 0.79
vwd '
\
Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta . . 0.82
Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63
,
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak..J1ou~;.peak-direction of fiow.
\.
;'
./
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
/'/ '\
\\
\
/
/
II
/
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
LOS ,
B
A
F
E
B
D
C
0'
B
187
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
.
Key Locations
, East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara
Facility: Crow CanYon Road at County Una East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (DanviJIe)
Potential Actions \
Highway Solution \ 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino
Crow Canyon. T assajara.
, \
Transit Solution \ Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour
, service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA;
\
\ TVPOA; buses must be buses must be full.
\
\ full.
"
\
TOM Solution , Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% of nor.
\
\ normal trip-making. mal trip-making.
\ ,
\
\
\
Land Use Solution Restrict DV 20'0 to Restrict DV 20'0 to 8,500 .
8,500 unils. units,
Policy Solution ~ '=opl LOS E al Cmw Accept LOS F at Crow
CanyorVDougherty . Canyon/Camino Tassajara
TSO met. TSO met. \
\
/
/
,,/
,,/
./
.
/
~rton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
188'
2010 Configuration 5 lanes 4 lanes
Volume 1,000 1,540
Transit Service (buses/hour both 10
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 84 437
VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0,28 0.43
(un~onstrained)
. Traffic Pattem Danville Danville 55%
11%
San Ramon 69% San Ramon 43%
CCC 3% CCC 1%
Dublin 11% Dublin 0%
PJeasanton 1% Pleasanton 0%
Livermore 1% Uvermore 0%
Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved vIe ~ 0,91 at V/C < 0.90 at inter-
intersections. sections.
Recommended Actions 1. Complete widening None.
project.
.
.
Action Plan
Tri-ValJey Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: San Ramon Valley
Boulevard
North of Sycamore
Valley Road
At Bollinger
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
2 lanes
1,025
0,57
5 lanes
900
0.25
2010 Expeocted Network
Planned dlanges: Widening to 4 lanes through Danville: Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
189
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Facility: BOllinger Canyon Road
East of 1-680
East of Alcosta
E;o:isting Configuration
E;o:isting Volume'
Existing V/C
8 lanes
2,700
0.38
4 lanes
400
0,11
2010 Expected Network
Planned manges: Extension east to Dougherty Road (4 lanes - 6 lanes),
2010 Configuration B lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3.200 2.820
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 54 24
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 539 550
V/C constrained [before Action ?Ian] 0.44 0.52
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem Danville 6% Danville 4Q'
JQ .
San Ramon 44% cee 4 9"10
cec 420/Q San Flamon 42%
Dublin 6% Dublin 4Q/Q
Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1%
Livermore 1% Livermore 0%
ThM:lugh 0% ThM:lugh 0%
TSO V/C ~ 0.91 at V/C ~ 0.91 at
intersections. intersections.
Recommended Actions'
1. ImpM:lve intersec.
tion of Bollinger and
Sunset
1. Consistent with the
provisions of the
Douohenv Vallev Set-
tlement Aoreement.
control growth to meet
intersection level of
service standards.
2. Improve Bollinger
Canyon RoadlAlc:osla
BoulevaItf Intersection.
3. Complete extension
project in conjunction
with Dougherty Va/ley
development
, Further ac:tlons snail be loentmeo bv the TSO Manaoement St1.IdV at ItS concePbon.
.
':...
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
191
.
.
.
Tri~Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Alcosta Boulevard
Key Locations
East of 1.680
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIC
4 lanes
600
0.17
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Reconfiguraoon of Alcostall.B80 interchange to improve inte!1;ec;;oon operation,
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C c::mstrained (before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1.600
10
65
0.44
Traffic Pattern
Oanville
San Ramon
Dublin
ecc
Pleasanton
Livermore
3%
38%
28%
28%
2%
0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C ~ 0,91 at
intersections.
Recommended Actions!
1. Secure funding for interdlange
improvements.
2. Complete improvements at Bollinger CanyonlAlcosta,
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
D
A
A
o
B
F
A
Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.84
A1costa Boulevard and Montevideo Road 0.34
A1costa Boulevard and Village Paricway 0.34
A1costa Boulevard and Crow Canyon 0.82
A1costa Boulevard and Norris Canyon 0.63
A1costa Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06
A1costa Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.60
I Volumes and capaal)' refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow.
2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion,
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
194
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Facilily: Doughmy Road
North of 1.580
North of
Dublin Boulevard
North of
Old Ranch Road
North of Bollinger
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
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 dlanges: Widening to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard,
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 5 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) 5n 423 679 258
vIe constrained lbefore Action Plan] 0.58 043 0,51 0.55
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem Danville '1% Danville 1 1 % Danville 8% Danville 22% .
Pleasanton 27% PleasanlOn 27% San Ramon 5% San Ramon 18%
cec 27% cce 27% Other eee 45% cce 39%
Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8%
Livermore 5% Livem10rn 5% Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 9%
Through 0% Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9%
TSO to be achieved
vIe < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
V/C < 0,90 at inter.
sections.
V/C ~ 0,91 at
intersections,
V/C ~ 0.91 at
intersections.
Recommended Actlon~
1. Secure developer
funding for planned
widening.
1, 5ea.Jre developer
funcing lor planned
widening.
1, Secure developer 1. Secure developer
funding for planned funding for planned
widening. widening,
2. Put in place
gruwth controls to
insure achievement
of TSOs.
2. Put in place growth
controls to insure
achievement of
TSOs.
, Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion,
.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
195
.
.
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: TassajaI'B Road
Key Lo:::ations
North of 1-580
North of Dublin
North of Fallon
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIC
2 lanes
200
0.' ,
2 lanes
200 . .
0,"
2 lanes
200
0,' ,
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: VVidening to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard. 6 lanes nonh of Dublin Boulevard to County une. 4 lanes
nonh of County une.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
T ransil Ridership (peak hour)
VIC constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2,600
5 lanes
3.700
18
6 lanes
3,750
20
1,066
0,5'
84
0,69
120
OA5
Traffic Pattem
Danville 0% Danville O~' Danvilla 1%
,~
San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon ~~I
I> ,.
Dublin 35% Dublin' 35% Dublin 17%
cce 36% cee 36% Plaasanlon 14%
Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% eee 58%
Livermore 10% Livermore2 10% Livermore 4%
Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
VIC < 0.90 at intersections,
VIe < 0,90 at inter.
sections,
vIe < 0,90 at intersections.
Recommended Actions.:.
None,
,. Secure developer funding for
widening.
2. Put Consider outtine in place
mutually agreed and equitable
mUltijurisdictional growth man-
agement la inslolro aGhiOllo
meAt af TSOa
3. Consider widening or ex-
panding the highway network,
improving transit service, or
improving transportation de-
mand management
,. Secure oeveloper fund-
ing for widening.
VlC LOS
0.76 C
0.65 B
1.05 F
0.70 B
0.54 D
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
Tassajara Road and Highland Road
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue
Tassajara Road and 1-580 we Ramps
I Volumes and capaCIty refer to PM peak-hour, peak-dlrecllon of flow.
t Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
197
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Faclllty; Dublin Boulevard West ot 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes N/A N/A
Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N/A N/A
Existing V/C 0.31 0,29 NlA N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes ITom Donlon 10 Tassajara; extension as 6 lanes 10 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)
T ransil Ridership (peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042
VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0,37 0.38 0,51 0,47
(unconstrained)
Traftic Pattern
Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1 % Danville 1%
San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5%
Dublin 56% eee 2% cce 5% Livermore 36%
eee 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 57% Dublin 24%
Pleasanton 13% Pleasanlon 9% Pleasanton ~ % Pleasanton 13%
Livermore 11% Liv9fTTlore 21% Livermore 25t}~ cce 5%
Through 0% Through 6%
vIe < 0.90 at inler- vIe < 0,90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at VlC < 0.90 at inter-
sections, sections, intersections. sections.
1, Sealre developer 1, Sealre funding 1. Sealre funding ,. Sealre funding
funding tor widening, tor wideningl tor wideningl tor wideningl
extension. extension. extension.
2. Pursue HOV 2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580. lanes on 1-580.
.
TSO to be achieved
RecDmmended Actions.!.
1 Further aetions shall be identified bv the TOO Manaoement Studv at its comoletion.
. ---------...
.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
199
.
.
.
=
TriwValley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: San Ramon Road
Key Locations
North of Dublin
.-
Existing Configur.:uion
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
.: lanes
1,200
0,33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None,
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both direclIons)
Transit Ride~hip (peak hour)
V/C constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
.:: lanes
1,000
.:
7
0,28
Traffic Panem
Danville
Dublin
San Ramon
Pleasanton
Livermore
cee
Through
5%
55%
23~~
2%
10%
5%
0%
TSO to be achieved
vIe < 0,90 at
intersections
Recommended Actions!
None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Wlthout Action Plan
vIe
LOS
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard
San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road
0_90
0,45
D
A
C
C
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow,
: Further actions shall be identified bv the T$O Manaoement Study at its comoletion,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
203
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key LocaDons
Facility: Hopyard Road
at Stoneridge
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vIe
5 lanes
2.400
0.44
2010 Expected Network
Planned d'langes: Wiclening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division,
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2,400
20
78
0.44
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton 64%
Dublin 23%
Danville 1%
San Ramon 2%
ecc 6%
Livermore 4%
Through 0%
.
TSO to be achieved
vIe < 0.90 at inter.
sections
Rec:ommended Actions
,. Enforce existing
growth controls in
Pleasanton to insure
achievement of TSOs.
2. Build adequate
Route 84 to reduce
cut-lI1rough traffic from
West Las Positas
Boulevard.
3. Install traffic signal
phase ovenap at
HopyardlW. Las
Poshas.
, Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion,
.
'=
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
204
.
.
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Santa Rita Road
Key Locations
at Stoneridge
1.580 EB Off-Ramp
3 lanes
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vIe
6 lanes
1,300
0,24
2010 Expected Network
Planned d'1anges: Widening 10 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road ($ 1,6 million), developer funding.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Tra,"lsit Service (buses/hour both
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
vIe constrained [before Action Plan]
(un:::onstrained)
6 lanes 3 lanes
2,700 1,231
6
63 100
0,50 0,38
Traffic Pattem
Pleasamon 59%
Dublin 25%
Livermore 10%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 2%
cee 4%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
V!C < 0,90 at inter- VIC < 0,90 at inter-
section. section,
RltCOmmended Action~
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 bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its comolelion,
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
206
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
.
Facility: Stanley Boulevard
Key Locations
at Valley Avenue
:);isting Configuration
E);isting Volume'
:);isting V/C
4 lanes
800
0,22
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project),
2010 Configuration
Volume
I ransit Service (buses/hour both
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIG constrained [before Action Plan]
(un:::onSL"ained)
4 lanes
1,200
4
41
0.33
Livermore 50%
Pleasanton 25%
Through 25%
Oanville 0%
San Ramon 0%
CCC 0%
Dublin 0%
Iraffic Panem
.
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0,90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1, At Valley/Stanley
intersection, widen for
EB double Ieh-tum
lanes.
2. Recluce cuHhrough
tmffic with adequate
Highway 84.
, Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion,
Banon-Aschman Associates. Inc.
.
208
Action Plan
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Stoneridge Drive
at Hopyard
at EI Charro
Existing Configuration
existing Volume'
Existing VIG
6 lanes
1.200
0,22
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned d'langes: Extension as 6 lanes to EI GharTO to link with Jack London.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,200 700
Transit Service (buses/hour both 26 None
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 99 0
vIe constrained [before Action Plan] 0,22 0,13
(unconstrained)
. Traffic Pattern Danville 1 % Danville 0'"
,.
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 53% Livermore 51%
Livermore 19% PJeasanton 44%
Dublin 150/0 ece 0%
CGG 1 % Dublin 1%
Through 2% Through 2.'
,.
TSO to be achieved V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0,90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions!.
None.
None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS WIthout Action Plan
vIe
LOS
Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas
Stoneridge Drive and 1.{)80 S8 Ramps
Stoneridge Drive and 1.{)80 NB Ramps
Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road
Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road
0.81
OA9
0,52
0.58
0.85
D
A
A
A
D
.
I Volumes and capacity reter to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
I Further actions shall be identified bV the TSO Manaaement Studv at its completion.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
210
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Facility: Sunot Boulevard
East of 1.680
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vIe
4 lanes
800
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 Hidership (peak hour)
VIC constrained [before Action Planj
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
1.320
4
23
0.24
Traffic Panem
Danville DO""
San Ramon 1%
Pleasanton 46%
Livermore 33%
Dublin 1%
eee 0%
Through 14%
.
TSO to be achieved
vIe < 0.90 al inter-
sections.
Rl!'COmmended Actions!
None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Acllon Plan
VlC
LOS
Sunol Boulevard and Bernal Avenue
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 S8 Hamps
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps
0.80
0.58
0.54
e
A
A
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
· Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaaement Study at its comoletion,
.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
211
.
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Lo::ations
Facility: Route 84
on Vallecitos
Isabel at
Jack London
West of 1-660
(Niles Canyon)
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing V/C
2 lanes
900
0.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting and widening Isabel to 6-lane
artenal. new interchange atlsabeVI.580, grade separation at Isabel/Stanley.
Recommended Actions.!.
,. Secure funding for
widening project
2. Adopt recommenda-
tions of Tn-Valley Sub-
committee on Route 84,
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 Tn.Valley.
,. Secure funding for
widening project
2. Accept LOS E at Jack
London or widen ROUle
84 to 8 lanes at Jack
London or provide a
grade separation.
3, Adopt recommenda.
tions of Tn-Valley Sub-
committee on Route 64,
,. Maintain existing historic high-
way designation and function,
, Further actions shall be identified bv the TOO Manaoement Studv at its comoletion.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
212
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Stone Valley Road'
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIC
20'0 Expected Network'
Planned changes: None.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di.
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hO:.Jr)
VIC constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
TSO to be achieved
Recommended Actions
Key Locauons
Easl of 1-680
2 lanes
940
0,52
2 lanes
1,400
8,
'.
,
5 '\
0,78
"
Danville
San Ramon
eee
Dublin
Pleasanton 5%
Livermore 4%
Alameda Co.
44%
vIe < 0,90 at inter-
sections
None.
PM Peak-Hour 20'0 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
" vIe
Slone Valley Road -and Danville Boulevard
Stone Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps
Stone Valley ,Road and 1-680 NB Ramps
/
0,82
0.56
0.40
/
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-diraction of flow.
: Not a route of regional significance.
,/
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
o
A
A
,
"o'?
Action Plan
.
--
,
,
/
,..
/
,/
.
\.,
"
.
218
.
.
.
Tri-VaJley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facilily: Fallon Road'
Key locations
N.ofl-580
N, of Dublin
..
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIG
2 lanes
10
0,01
2 lanes
10
0.01
2010 Expocted Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension al6 lanes trom 1-58010 Tassajara Road; reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro
and 1-580 inlerchange.
2010 Gonfiguration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
recuons)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIG constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2.900
4
0,54
6 lanes
2.450
o
0.45
Traffic Pattern
Danville 10"10 Danville 11 "10
San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9"10
GGG 0% GGG 1%
Dublin 63% Dublin 55"10
Pleasanton 15% Pleasanlon 12"10
Livermore 7% Livermore 13%
Through 0% _
TSO to be achieved
V/G <: 0,90 at inter-
sections.
V/G <: 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actlon&1-
1, Secure funding for
widening/extension.
1, Secure funding
for wideningl
extension.
2, Pursue HOV lanes 2. Pursue HOV
on 1-580. lanes on 1-580.
3. Secure funding for
1-5801FaJlon
interchange improve-
ments.
, Further actions shall be identified bv Ihe TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion,
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
219
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
.
Key Locations
Facility: North Canyons Parkway
W, of Isabel
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
!:xisting v/c
4 lanes
?
?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension as 6 Janes from Doolan t.:llsabel Extension.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
vIe constrained [before Action Plan]
(un::::lnstrained)
6 lanes
3,090
20
229
0,57
Traffic Panern
Livermore
Dublin
Pleasanton
CCC
Danville
San Ramon
Through
58%
21%
10%
3%
0%
3%
5%
.
TSO
V/C < 0,90 at inter-
sections,
Recommended Actions:
1. SeC1Jfe 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
vIe
LOS
North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon
North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension
1.02
0.92
F
E
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
: Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its oomoletion,
.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
221
.
.
.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Isabel Extension:
Key Locations
N, of North
Canyons Parkway
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIC
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned d'langes: Extension from 1.580 as a 6-lanel4-lane arterial to Vasco Road.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC consuained [before Action Plan]
(unconsuained)
6 lanes
3,330
12
98
0,62
Traffic Panem
Livermore
Dublin
Pleasanton
eee
Danville
San Ramon
Through
61%
14%
13%
3%
0%
3%
7%
TSO to be achieved,
VIC < O,90 at inter-
sections,
Recommended Actions'
1. Secure developer
funding for extension,
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
vIe
LOS
Isabel Extension and Vasco Road
Isabel Extension and North Uvarmore Avenue
Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway
0.60
0.68
0.92
A
B
E
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
2 Not a route of regional significance
, Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its c::omoletion.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
223
Action Plan
Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in
Chapter 5, the follO\v1ng and other TSO violations are forecast to occur:
Intersection VIC LOS
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.93 E
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F
Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E
Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E
Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp 0.94 E
Alcosla Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road , .06 F
Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road 0.98 E
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road 1 .1 , F
Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F
Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Manage-
ment strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study
should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of
growth managemenUcontrol that would be required for each applicable 'I'ri-Valley
jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be
proportional to the traffic distribution pcrccntQ';;c::: for each jurisdiction. Anv development
reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of
the participating- iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop. and if
adopted. shall insure that iurisdictions with relativelv 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 mav also be analvzed. 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 Em>wth manag-ement studv and anv impact fees would each have to
be approved unanimouslv. Violations or proiected violations of TSO standards remaining
after a Em>wth manag-ement strateg-v is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on pag-e 237
of the Plan.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
232
.
.
.
.
.
.
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives
The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. \Vbile
certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the
specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP
doc::; not control ;rov."th directly but indircctly throu;;h thc TSOG.
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, follov.-ing 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 SV>.TAT. Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of rSOs, 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 o..mcndmc:c..: process set forth Q!l
oaE'e 237 of the Plan. in :his cho.p:cr.
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 IilllS 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 aw::iliary 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 semce 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.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
235
Plan Implementation. Monitoring, and Review
Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary
beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded.
.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted
General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the
network. Consistency ",.;ith 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 ~ll 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. \Vhile the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not
be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. ~;cvcrthclcG::;, ~he plc.n doc::;
c::;tablich TrG.D.::;porta:ion Serollec Objel2ti?c::;, which may indirectly influence bTowth
ffit.e.s.:. Crov.-th beyond what i::: aGGumcd herein mc.y oecur p:Dvidcd the TBOc UTe met.
If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction,
then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road
widening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b)
implement other measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on
the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant
improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the
TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to
the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard,
but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
.
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates in Contra Costa County
and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in
preparing the Growth Management Elements as stated in the aCTA Growth Manage.
ment Implementation Documents. pag-e 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
.
Banon.Aschman Associates, Inc.
237
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
.
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend-
ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.
If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to
a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program.
Development Review Procedures for General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County.
Anv Tri-Vallev area g-eneral plan amendment in Contra Costa Countv that generates
500 or more peak-hour trips than is currently allowed by the applicable General Plan,
shall be deemed consistent with this Action Plan if preceded or accomuanied by a
multi-iurisdictional cooperative planning- agreement that identifies the responsibilities
of the participating- parties to ensure that the subsequent apuroyals will not result in
a violation of Traffic Service Obiectives.
Demonstration of compliance with TSOs shall include. but not be limited to, comuuter
model runs that incorporate each iurisdiction's Five Year Capital Improvement
Program of transpOrtation proiects and the proiects of federal. state. and regional
agencies such as Caltrans, transit ouerators. the MetropOlitan Transportation Commis-
sion, etc. In addition, the computer model database will include each local
iurisdiction's anticiuated land use development proiects realistically expected to be
constructed within the next five vears.
. The Doug-hertv Valley Settlement Ae-reement fulfills this requirement for a multi-
iurisdictional cooperative planning- agreement for development in the Doughertv
Valley area. The Contra Costa iurisdictions will consider entering into multi-iurisdic-
tional cooperative planning- agyeements with Alameda Countv iurisdictions 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.
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. AI1y 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
sectioDS 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.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
238
v"\J ALz(:-
~ .1-
TVTC
~ ~
'1,<jh cI
L1T/ATl~
TRI..VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
TRANSPORTATION MODEL UPGRADE,
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES
MANAGEMENT STUDY
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES
JULY 1995
rev. 7/6/95
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 4
.
.
.
-::.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES MANAGEMENT STUDY
TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
JULY 1995
PURPOSE
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council has recently completed
the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance (TVTP/AP). Within this Plan are recommendations to
develop a Tri-Valley Traffic Impact Fee to defray the costs of
needed regional infrastructure and a further study of critical
intersections which fail to meet the desirable transportation
service objectives of meeting Level of Service "D" or better on
arterial streets. The Tri-Valley Council has additionally agreed to
update the Tri-Valley Traffic Model to ABAG '94 Land Use
Projections.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, a Joint Powers -Agreement was signed by the seven
jurisdictions comprising the Tri-Valley area including Alameda
County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon. The purpose of the JPA is the joint
preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
(TVTP/AP) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan was prepared and presented
to all member jurisdictions in April 1995. The (TVTP/AP)
establishes a transportation network, designates Routes of Regional
Significance and reviews year 2010 traffic projections from
"Expected Land Use" using the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. The
(TVTP/AP) contemplates an Expected Transportation network which
includes both funded and likely to be funded transportation
improvements. The network is financially constrained. Maj or
recommendations of the (TVTP/AP) include: The implementation of a
Transportation Impact Fee to be placed on new development to
facilitate construction of the "Expected Transportation Network";
and resolution of TSO violations at critical intersections of
Routes of Regional Significance.
-1-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
.
Related but separate studies include a Comprehensive Subregional
Planning Pilot Program, the Tri-Valley ABAG '94 Land Use
Projections, sponsored by ABAG and covering the same seven
jurisdictions, and Alameda County CMA Transportation Impact Fee
Study. The consul tant will be responsible for moni taring these
parallel efforts as part of the scope of this study.
SCOPE OF WORK
The following scope of work defines the three maj or study
elements, Model update, TSO violation, and Fee Study, for which the
consul tant should make a proposal. Specific elements have been
spelled out for each of the tasks.
TASK I TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE
The Current Tri-Valley Traffic Model Uses the year 2000 and
2010 "Expected Land Use" provided by each Tri-Valley
jurisdiction. In order to be accepted by MTC updates to the
most recent ABAG projections and MTC 1990 trip tables are
required. The Alameda County cv~ has provided funding to help .
defray the costs of such an update. The work shall consist of
updating the model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ'S) with ABAG
'94 Land Use Projections, validating the traffic model with
ABAG '94 Land Use Projections, modifying the transportation
network as agreed to by TVTAC and, producing year 1990, 2000
and 2010 constrained peak hour and ADT plots for
jurisdictional and C~~ review and approval.
1.1 CONVERT TRI-VALLEY Land Use DATA TO ABAG PROJECTIONS '94
The objective of this task is to review the CCCTA allocation
of ABAG '94 Land Use Projections into Tri-Valley traffic zones
to update the forecast years update the base year and forecast
years (2000 and 2010) population and employment estimates.
The consultant will be provided population and employment
information at the TAZ level by each jurisdiction. If
significant differences remain for the Tri-Valley totals, a
meeting will be hosted by TVTAC to discuss these differences
with appropriate ABAG representatives.
Each jurisdiction shall provide a matrix for its jurisdiction
showing at a TAZ level (or aggregate TAZ level for ABAG
-2-
.
=
.
.
.
=
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
Projections) the "Expected Year 2000, and 2010," the "}UlAG
2000 and 2010," and their "Recommended 2000 and 2010". The
TVTAC will assure that the aggregate population and employment
projections meet ABAG totals for the Tri-Valley prior to the
consultant loading the traffic model.
Any resolution of differences between local jurisdictions
"Expected Land Use" and ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections shall be
the responsibility of Tri-Valley Council and the local
jurisdictions.
1.2 VALIDATE THE TRI-VALLEY MODEL
The object of this task is to update the validation process to
MTC standards. This will entail:
1. 2.1
Reevaluate roadway assignments. This task will
address the model system trip distribution step,
updating homebased work trips to reflect the 1990
census and travel survey data. The consultant
should revise the trip distribution procedures, if
applicable, ror MTC model system consistency. The
consultant will revalidate the trip distribution
model by modifying friction factors and/or adding
area-to-area factors (K-factors) until a good
comparison with MTC trips is achieved. Other
purposes are assumed to remain from the current
model. The targets for consistency with MTC's
estimates will be 5 percent for intracounty and
intraTri-Valley trips and 10 percent for other
significant district-to-district and county-to-
county movements.
Description:
.
Obtain revised trip distribution
model formulation (friction factors,
etc.) from MTC and 1990 "observed"
trips by trip purpose
Incorporate into Tri-Valley Model
Run Tri-Valley Model trip
distribution model and compare
results to MTC
Meet once, collectively with MTC, CMA
and CCTA to discuss results
Where there are significant
differences in results, investigate
network revisions, use of K-factors
.
.
.
.
-3-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
.
and other means to achieve improved
consistency.
Product:
Revised Trip Tables incorporated
into the .Countywide Model
1. 2.2
Revalidate Roadway Assignments
The consultant will revalidate the roadway vehicle
and transit patronage assignments. The consultant
should use the following validation targets for
given facility types:
eScreenlines: All screenlines within ::': 10% of
the total count
eFreeways: 50% of links within ::': 10% of
the Count
eMTS Arterials: 50% of links within :t 15% of
the count
e(>10,OOO .rill T ) 75% of links within ::': 30% of .
the count
The consultant should include a per model run estimate in the
cost proposal. Additional runs may be requested by Tri-Valley
to improve the validation results.
Consultant Product: Revalidated Model
1.2.3
Adjust the peak hour factors accordingly, based on
a minimum of the approximately 11 road facilities
which have volume capacity problems, identified in
the Plan;
1. 2.4
Adjust year 2000 and 2010 forecasts to account for
incremental changes from ABAG's '94 Land Use
Projections
1.3 MODEL MODIFICATIONS
The objective of this task is to evaluate the network based on
model output to determine the necessity for manual adjustments
on various road facilities and around special generators as:
BART, Livermore Lab, Colleges, Airport.
-4-
.
.
.
.
=.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
1.4
TASK II
2.1
MODEL OUTPUT
The objectiye of this task is to provide model output plots,
consisting of ADT, AM, PM peak ho~r volumes for road segments
and intersections. vlc calculations, using the VCCC system,
shall be provided for "Model intersections," (same as used in
TVTP/AP) not meeting LOS "D" conditions. Outputs will be
subject to TVTAC and local jurisdiction review prior to final
publication.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVE (TSO) MANAGEMENT STUDY
One of the maj or recommendations of the TVTP lAP is the
resolution of projected TSO violations at approximately
fifteen (15) intersections of Regional Significance as shown
in the attached list taken from page 232 of the Plan, and the
final "Expected 2010" Tri-Valley model run of June 1995. The
rerun of the Model using ABAG '94 Land Use Projections may
change this list. The intent of this task is to further refine
the nature of the problem and to address those locations where
violations are projected. The focus will be to develop a menu
of options at each location from which affected jurisdictions
may choose feasible solutions to resolving TSO violations at
these locations.
DEFINE TSO PROBLEMS
The (TVTP/AP) contains a set of spec~I~c actions which could
be taken, in whole or in part, to improve the projected TSO
violation on each affected Route or Regional Significance to
improve the intersection to an acceptable level.
Implementation of anyone action within the set of
recommendations generally would not be sufficient to resolve
the TSO violation. Therefore, additional study to refine the
nature of problem and recommended actions are required.
2.1.1
Review existing and proposed roadway and geometry
2.1.2
Conduct select link analysis of each affected
intersection using approved Tri-Valley Model.
2.1.3
Determine AM, PM peak period origins and
destinations for each of the seven jurisdictions at
each of the critical locations.
-5-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
.
2.1.4
Review the resul ts of these analysis with
jurisdiction. The selection of al ternati ves
evaluation and study is subject to review
approval of the affecte~ jurisdiction.
each
for
and
2.2 ISOLATE AND DESCRIBE OTHER CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING VOLUMES
Review adjacent intersections, in particular signalized
intersections at freeway interchanges, to determine if traffic
volume destined to, (projected at), the critical intersections
would face significant constraints in reaching the
intersection i.e. would volume be metered at some adjacent
location resulting in lower volumes than projected?
2.2.1
Quantify any improvement in V Ie related to such
metering effect
2.2.2
If problem appears to be
discuss any new problem.
relocated subj ecti vely
2.3
IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
.'
List, define and evaluate alternative actions which can
mitigate projected LOS violations. Evaluation should include
order of magnitude cost estimates, funding strategy, degree of
effectiveness and any ongoing operational and maintenance
needs. The selection of alternatives for evaluation and study
is subj ect to review and approval of the affected
jurisdictions.
2.3.1
Consider and Evaluate Growth Management Strategies
Consider and evaluate growth management strategies in the
event that intersection capacities cannot be adequately
improved. Strategies may include phasing of development and
reductions in land use intensity. Consideration should be
given to pro rata share of traffic contributed by each
jurisdiction to each of the problem locations
2.3.2
Consider and Evaluated Traffic Demand Management
(TDM) Strategies or other Measures to Meet TSO
Requirements
.
-6-
.
.
.
::
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
2.4 PREPARE DRAFT MENU OF OPTIONS
2.4.1 Provide intersection list of options for each
critical intersection ," indicating option, cost,
funding, impact of mitigation.
2.5 REVIEW OPTIONS WITH JURISDICTIONS AND RECOMMEND OPTIONS
Update menu to indicate results of jurisdiction review to
include acceptability and feasibility.
2.6 PREPARE FINAL SPECIFIC REVISIONS TO ACTION PLAN FOR ADOPTION
BY SEVEN JURISDICTIONS INCLUDING MONITORING PLAN
TASK III. TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The purpose of the Tri-Valley Regional Traffic Impact Fee is
to assess new development a portion of the cost of
implementing new transportation facilities necessitated by
growth in the Tri-Valley area. The fees will be imposed by
each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions and deposited into
a fund set aside to partially defer construction costs of
proj ects listed in the adopted Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. These
projects are the 1-580/680 Direct Connector project and the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, Route 84 from 1-580 to 1-
680, 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon, 1-
580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to North Livermore, 1-680 HOV Lanes
Rout 84 to Sunol Grade, 1-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon
Boulevard Interchange, Alcosta Interchange, Crow Canyon Road
Safety Improvements, Vasco Road Realignment, Express Bus
Service.
The recommendations for the "Development of Tri-Valley Traffic
Impact Fee" must include an equitable fee structure which can
meet the nexus test of reasonable relationships, (essential
nexus, rough proportionality, and Government Code Section
66000FF (AB1600) and be economically feasible.
3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Develop a detailed project description for each of the
following projects:
-7-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
.
-1-580/680 Direct connector Project with Hook Ramps
-West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
-Route 84 from 1-580 to 1-680
-1-680 ~uxiliary Lanes Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon
-1-580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to:N. Livermore
-1-680 HOV Lanes Rout 84 to Sunol Grade
-1-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon Blvd Interchange
-Alcosta Interchange
-Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements
-Vasco Road Realignment
-Express Bus Service
3.1 UPDATE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Update Cost Estimates wi th currently available cost
information from Caltrans, Alameda County Transportatio~
Authority and their consultant, from Bart and other sources.
3.2 PROJECT COMPLETION TIMETABLE
Determine Preliminary proj ect Time Line and Expected .
Construction Dates for those proj ects wi th currently available
funding and schedules; 1-580/680 flyover, Bart West Dublin,
Pleasanton, Isabel Parkway extension/Highway 84_ The
information is to be used in determining needed cash flow.
3.3 NEXUS ANALYSIS
Provide nexus analysis for new development in relation to each
of the projects. The analysis will utilize the updated Tri-
Valley Model using ABAG '94 Land use Projections and include
quantification of non Tri-Valley Traffic percentages. The
BART Environmental Document will also be used as input. The
analysis must recognize and use for comparison those units to
be built after the fee is implemented and take into account
vested projects. The year 1996 shall be considered the first
year for fee purposes.
3.4 ECONOMIC BURDEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT
Provide a summary report of Economic Burden Analysis for new
development in each jurisdiction and the application of this
analysis toward setting the amount and proportion of traffic
impact fees which could be paid by the residential and
-8-
.
.
.
.
3.5
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
business sector. The analysis shall include an assessment of
those current assessments for regional traffic fees, local
traffic fees and any other obligations and assessments.
This would address the need for "credits" for properties
currently contributing toward' regional transportation
improvements.
3.4.1
Vested Development
Evaluate alternative funding strategies to account
for traffic impacts resulting from the construction
of vested development in the Tri-Valley.
REVIEW GROWTH and REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Review growth projections and recommend estimates to be used
in estimating revenues from development fees. Compare growth
projections with historic growth rates in the Tri-Valley.
Revenue sources shall include those used in MTC "Track I" and
"Track II" and J.i.lameda County CM.!I.. "Tier II. II
3.5.1
Summarize by jurisdiction land use categories and
quantity of units
3.5.2
Evaluate alternative (to Development Fees) funding
sources and relate applicability to each project.
Matching funds --will be required to assist in
funding the list of projects. An assessment of
known funding sources and availability of funding
will be required. Sources of information are the
MTC and County CM.!I.. agencies. The summary of new
funding sources should summarize by funding source
estimates of Tri-Valley revenue share, competing
projects and ability to meet funding needs of
assisting in funding specific projects listed for
development fees. Consideration shall be given to
options of tolls for funding Highway 84, including
cost of free alternatives and impacts of toll
segment on overall transportation system.
3.6 PROJECT PRIORITIES
Provide a cost/utility index and matrix for each project to
prioritized projects. Ratings for the utility index will be
-9-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
.
proposed by the consultant and approved by the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council. Attached is a sample Matrix _ The
Consultant should plan on a joint workshop with TVTC members
and the TAC to establish categories and rating scales. The
purpose of the matrix is to help prioritized the list of
projects for funding purposes.
3.7 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES
Develop alternative fee program structures using as variables;
amount of external funding, number and priority of projects,
jurisdictional pro rata traffic impacts. Alternatives should
be geared to "High range impact," $2,000 to $3,000 per unit,
Mid-Range Impacts" $1,000 to $2,000 per unit and "Low-Range
Impacts," less than $1,000 per unit. Strategies must also take
into account cash flow needs for high priority partially
funded projects, (1-580/680 Direct Connector and West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station) .
3.8 MODEL ORDINANCE
Provide outline of the administrative actions needed to
collect manage and disburse the funds. Covered in this task
will be the need for any environmental documentation and cost
estimates to implement the fee.
.
3.9 FINAL REPORT
The consultant should budget for at least six meetings with
TVTAC and four meetings with TVTC.
BUDGET & SCHEDULE
A budget of $125,000 has been allocated for this study. No
additional funds are or will be available to supplement this
amount. The Study must be completed within six months of contract
award.
PROPOSAL DEADLINE
All proposals must be received no later than
, 1995.
-10-
.
.
.
.
:=
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
COMBINED STUDY
July 1995
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals should be brief and limited to addressing the lssues
discussed in this RFP, Proposals must ~lso include.
1. A brier statement or approach to the problem, a scope of work,
total fee, and schedule
2. A general summary of the consultant's qualifications
3. .~ list of similar or related projects undertaken by the
consultant with references
4. Resumes of key personnel who will be assigned to the project,
their role in the study, and billing rates.
5. Small business, MBE, and other affirmative action
qualifications
SELECTION CRITERIA
Selection will be based on the submitted materials and an oral
interview.
Questions and fourteen (14) copies of the proposal should be
submitted to:
Bill van Gelder
Traffic Engineer
P. O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(510) 484-8257
feepro.wp.sm
upd.a1ed 71) 1195
-11-