HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 TriVlyTran Plan-Routes
CITY CLERK
File # ITJ@]~[Q]-[!E[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 21, 2000
SUBJECT:
Approval of the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Resolution adopting the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan! Action Plan
2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan!Action
Plan document
Letter from San Ramon Councilmember Dave Hudson
Draft letter to Steven Goetz, Chairman of the TVTC TAC
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley
~tansportation Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance
. . and authorize the Public Works Director to send the attached letter
to the Chairman ofthe Technical Advisory Committee of the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
There is no cost to the City associated with the development of the
2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan!Action Plan.
DESCRIPTION: On August 8, 1995; the City Council adopted the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan!Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Plan). The Council's action was
coordinated with similar actions by Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Danville, Livermore,
Pleasanton and San Ramon.
Adoption of the Plan by the seven Tri- Valley jurisdictions was an example of a cooperative, multi-
jurisdictional planning process to reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts. 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."
Member jurisdictions are to consider the Plan when adopting or amending the circulation elements of
general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs. However, the Plan
does not represent a transportation improvement program for the local jurisdictions, nor does it represent a
congestion management plan for Alameda or Contra Costa County. The Plan only assesses transportation
COPIES TO:
Steven L. Goetz, TVTC TAC Chairperson
ITEM NO. 8_1
G:\AGENMISC\agst TVTP-AP.doc
planning issues within the Tri- Valley area and outlines recommended goals, objectives and actions for
addressing those issues. Therefore, the Plan is not a policy document and does not obligate the City of
Dublin to meet any requirements.
Approximately one year ago, an effort to develop a 2000 Update to the Plan was initiated. All members
of the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee, including Staff from the City of Dublin, have since
provided input to the process and introduced changes that led to the development of the 2000 Update to
the Plan. There were opportunities for public input throughout the development of the 2000 Update to the
Plan, as well as opportunities for public testimony at all Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)
meetings. This document represents the first update to the Plan since it was originally adopted in 1995.
The TVTC voted in favor of the updated Plan during its meeting on September 27,2000. However, the
vote included suspending (for that meeting only) the provision of the TVTC Joint Powers Agreement that
required unanimous approval of all seven members for any action of the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan! Action Plan. Only six member agencies were present at this TVTC meeting and voted unanimously
to approve the 2000 Update to the Plan. Councilmember Dave Hudson of San Ramon was not present at
the meeting; however, Mr. Hudson has since submitted a letter supporting the action of the TVTC on
September 27, 2000, to adopt the 2000 Update to the Plan. A Copy of this letter and the 2000 Update to
the Plan document are attached herewith.
The revised Plan provides updates to Chapters 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 of the original Plan. Chapter 1
(Introduction) of the revised Plan focuses on updating the goals, regional actions, and more specific
Traffic Service Objectives and actions for each Route of Regional Significance. This chapter also
clarifies the Plan's relationship to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's 2000 Update to the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Chapter 2 (Forecast Conditions) of the revised Plan updates the forecasts for jobs and households in the
Tri-Valley travel forecast model, although this chapter does not update the results of the model. Chapter
7 (Recommended Improvement Plan) has been edited to respond to traffic and road improvement changes
that have occurred over the last five years and to address new issues that have arisen since the Plan was
adopted in 1995. The updated chapter includes clarifications to the gateway constraint concept by
indicating that the interior freeways and arterials in the Tri- Valley area should only be sized to handle
traffic that can get through the capacity-constrained gateways. The gateways include 1-680 north and
south, 1-580 east and west, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road. Widening of these
gateways would leave the freeways congested, lead to more through traffic, and increase traffic volumes
on other Tri- Valley roads.
Chapter 7 of the revised Plan also provides a discussion of ramp metering and corridor management
strategies, and the status of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Additionally, this chapter
provides an updated I list of planned roadway improvements within each Tri- Valley jurisdiction and
discusses the addition of the ACE commuter service (which was not mentioned at all in the 1995 Plan).
The discussion of the jobs-housing balance and its role in supporting an efficient transportation system
was also refined in Chapter 7.
Page 2
Chapter 9 (Action Plan) of the revised Plan updates the Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs), planned
improvements, and recommended actions to achieve those TSOs. While it is built on Chapter 9 of the
original Plan, the revised chapter does not include the detailed information on existing and future traffic
volumes and levels of service, or the list of potential additional actions. Instead, the updated chapter
describes, for each Route of Regional Significance, the existing configuration of the facility, planned
improvements, the TSOs adopted (with any potential updates indicated) for the facility, and the actions
designed to achieve those TSOs.
Chapter 10 (Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review) of the revised Plan has been updated to
include a summary of the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee and has deleted the discussion that
describes how the fee would be developed.
Specific changes made to the Plan that pertain to the City of Dublin include corrections made to planned
roadway improvements and recommended actions on City streets found on pages 25, 45, 46 and 56.
Other minor corr.ections were missed in the final update to the Plan, including street names and limits for
planned roadway improvements on page 25. These corrections are not critical and can be easily made on
the next update to the Plan.
Similar to the original Plan adopted in 1995, the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan!Action Plan is consistent with the City of Dublin's General Plan, Specific Plans, and Capital
Improvement Program.
Because of the time needed to reach agreement between the seven member jurisdictions, and the many
Plan drafts, there were a few minor discrepancies that Staff would request be resolved in the next Plan
update. Thesediscrepancies are outlined in the attached draft letter (Attachment #4) to the Chairman of
the TVTC Technical Advisory Committee.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance and that the Public Works Director
be authorized to send the attached draft letter to the Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee of
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
Page 3
\ cr-G 't ()
RESOLUTION NO. - 00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING THE 2000 UPDATE TO THE
TRI-V ALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN
FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has actively participated in the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional
planning efforts undertaken by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions in 1991 formed the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council with the charge of preparing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted the Plan on August 8, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Update to the Plan represents the first update to the Plan and was initiated by
the member jurisdictions to update the goals, regional actions, and more specific traffic service objectives
and actions for each Regional Route; and
WHEREAS, there were opportunities throughout the development of the 2000 Update to the Plan for
public input, and the Draft 2000 Update to the Plan was circulated and there was opportunity for public
testimony at all Tri-Valley Transportation Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, each jurisdiction has previously reviewed and commented upon the Circulation Draft
and the Plan for Adoption for the 2000 Update; and
WH;EREAS, six member agencies ofthe Tri- Valley Transportation Council voted unanimously in
favor of the 2000 Update to the Plan during the Tri-Valley Transportation Council meeting on September 27,
2000; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon representative to the Tri- Valley Transportation Council has
submitted a letter supporting the action of the other six member agencies on September 27, 2000, to adopt
the 2000 Update to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, said letter from the City of San Ramon representative has completed the required
unanimous approval of all seven members for any action of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan!Action Plan,
as specified in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Joint Powers Agreement; and
,.
~---"_._~._wt.,-_.~..
< z..- HI')! l [l)
). c-~ ~t
WHEREAS, the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance is consistent with the City of Dublin's General Plan and Specific Plans, zoning
ordinances and capital improvement programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin has
. determined and orders as follows:
1. The 2000 Update to the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance is approved; and
2. The 2000 Update to 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November, 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\AGENMISC\reso TVTp.AP.doc
-2-
~ '1:, YID
2000 Update
10 Ihe Trl-Yalley 'ransporlallon
Plan! Acllon Plan
Prepared for the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council and
Southwest Area Transportation Committee
Adopted September 27,2000
~.~
-----."4~~~;;!iif;:i!!<'i4'.;::l,.:.~:.
3 Cr'b <(.{)
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Page ii
Adopted September 27, 2000
t.t
~~
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.... ................ .... ......... lit ............. .......... ..... ... ........ .............. ............. ........ ...... ........ 1
Action Plans For Routes Of Regional Significance 2
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes 2
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and National Highway System (NHS) 2
Relationship to County Plans 3
2. Forecast. Conditions ......... ........ ........ Ii ............ ......... ... .....111.......... ....... ........ .............. ..~..... ..... ... 5
Forecast Growth of Households and Jobs
Jobs-Housing Balance
Comparison of New and Old Forecasts of Household and Job Growth
Comparison of New and Old Forecasts of Household and Job Growth
5
7
8
9
7. Recommended Improvement Plan (Updated) ....................................................................~ 13
Plan Overview
Road Improvements
Transit Improvements
Land Use and Growth Management
General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County
General Plan Consistency with Contra Costa Action Plans
Jobs-Housing Balance
Reduced Level-of-Service Standards
Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
Road Improvement Plan
The Transit Plan
Critical Regional Projects
Freight Transportation
13
14
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
24
28
29
32
9. . Action Plan ........... ..................... ........... ... ................. ............ .............................................33
Regional Actions
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
33
34
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page jii
t; ~ 1V
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
10. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review ..................................................................65
Plan Adoption
Plan Financing
Subregional Transportation Impact Fee
Shared Facilities
Monitoring TranspOrtation Service Objectives
Development Applications
Amending the Plan
Conflict Resolution
Future Role of TVTC
65
65
65
67
67
69
70
71
71
Page iv
Adopted September 27,2000
b ~6 rt
I. Introduction
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan assesses transportation issues within the Tri-Valley area and
outlines a recommended package of goals, objectives and actions for addressing those issues. The
study area includes Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated
portions of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. In addition to serving as a guide for
transportation planning through 2010, the plan also represents the Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C, and
provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. As the Action Plan for the Tri-Valley, many of the Plan's
recommendations and goals will be incorporated into the 2000 Update to the Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
These recommendations will also be used in defining new or renewed gas or sales tax programs
for funding transportation improvements. The TVTC joint powers agreement states that member
jurisdictions are to consider the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending the
circulation elements of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement
programs. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and
regulations that exist in each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions.
This document represents the first update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan since it was
originally adopted in 1995. This update focuses on updating the goals, regional actions, and
more specific traffic service objectives & actions for each Regional Route. Besides this
introduction, this update revises Chapter 2 on forecast conditions, Chapter 7 on the
recommended improvement plan, Chapter 9 on the updated Action Plans, and Chapter 10 on
plan implementation.
As with the original plan, this update was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC), which includes elected officials from each of the seven member jurisdictions, under a
joint powers agreement. The TVTC was assisted by the Tri-Valley Techriical Advisory
Committee (TVTAC), which includes staff transportation planners and engineers from each
agency. The Plan is also intended to fulfill the requirement for preparation of Action Plans under
Measure C in Contra Costa County. Although Alameda County does not have a similar Action
Plan requirement, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda County portion of Tri-
Valley. Routes of Regional Significance have been adopted by each cityin Contra Costa, as well
as the County, as part of the Measure C Growth Management Program. Routes of Regional
Significance are those roads that serve regional mobility, or act as reliever routes for the regional
system, and serve more than one jurisdiction. The designated routes are exempt from the leve1-
of-service standards for non-regional routes under Measure C. Instead, regional committees such
as the TVTC must adopt Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) for these routes. These TSOs represent
quantifiable measures of traffic service that reflect the goals for that Regional Route. The Plan
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 1
I
~
YtJ
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
also includes Routes of Regional Significance for Alameda County portions of Tri-Valley,
although these are not mandated by county policy (see Figure 1-1).
Action Plans For Routes Of Regional Significance
To meet Contra Costa's Measure C requirements for action plans, the Tri-Valley Action Plan
must include the following components.
1. Long-range assumptions regarding future land use.
2. Adopted traffic service objectives that use a quantifiable measure of effectiveness and include
a target date for attaining the objective. For regional Routes that connect two or more sub
areas, adopted objectives are to be the same in the Action Plans prepared by different
Regional Committees.
3. Specific actions to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction.
4. Requirements for consult~tion on environmental documents among participating localities.
Each Regional Committee will develop its own requirements specifying a threshold size for
projects to be subject to the consultation requirements.
5. A procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amendments
that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans.
6. A schedule for the Regional Committee and the Authority to review progress in attaining
traffic service objectives, and revision of Action Plan as needed.
Chapter 2 looks at changes in forecast population & job growth within the Tri-Valley. Chapter 9
in this document outlines updated TSOs and the actions, and the schedule and responsibilities for
achieving those TSOs. Chapter 10 contains the requirements for environmental consultation and
land use review, and the schedule for monitoring the Action Plan.
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes
These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the state-
mandated CMP. In the Tri-VaUey, they include only I-680, I-580, and Route 84. The respective
county CMPs are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and National Highway System (NHS)
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defined a system, called the Metropolitan
Transportation System, in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan, and the system has been
updated for the 1998 RTP. The purpose of the MTSis to define those facilities and services that
are crucial to freight and passenger mobility in the Bay Area. The MTS includes streets and
Page 2
Adopted September 27, 2000
q Cfb PC>
Chapter 1 Introduction
highways, transit systems, seaports, airports, truck terminals, rail yards, and transfer points. In
addition to arterial streets and highways, the MTS in the Tri-Valley includes transit corridors
along 1-680, 1-580, and Route 84; the Livermore airport; and the Altamont Pass railroad tracks,
from the Altamont Pass to Fremont. The Plan also r~commends adding the ACE commuter rail
service as part ofthe next update of the MTS.
The criteria for defining streets and highways in the MTS are as follows:
. Serves a major Bay Area activity center
. Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections
. Serves as a reliever for a freeway
. Provides important connection in the MTS system
. Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion
. Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities.
Significance of MTS Designation. Roads that are part of the MTS may benefit from funding available to
regional facilities. Any road not in the MTS is considered as serving primarily local travel.
The National Highway System (NHS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (IS TEA)
calls for the U.S. Congress to designate a National Highway System by December 1995. For the
Bay Area, MTC has developed a recommended NHS, which is a subset of the MTS. The purpose
of the NHS is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve
major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation
facilities, and other intermodaltransportation facilities and other major travel destination, meet
national defense requirements, and serve interstate and interregional travel. The NHS was
proposed to focus federal funds to improve a limited number of high priority routes.
Relationship to County Plans
As noted above, the updated Tri-Valley Action Plan will be combined with action plans from the
other four subareas in Contra Costa County in the 2000 update to the Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In Alameda County, a countywide transportation plan was
completed in May 1999. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is compatible with the Alameda
County Long-Range Transportation Plan, although it is more detailed and focused in the Tri-
Valley Area. The recommendations of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be incorporated
into future updates of the Alameda County Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 3
q '1:, ~D
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Page 4
Adopted September 27, 2000
t~ a1 &-D
2. Forecast Conditions
Since the adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan in 1995, significant changes inforecasts
of the expected number of new households and jobs within the Tri-Valley and region have
occurred. These changes, which reflect both new assumptions about growth and revisions to
planning policies, are outlined in the following tables and maps.
Forecast Growth of Households and Jobs
Table 1 summarizes the most ABAG forecasts of household and job growth in the Tri-Valley.
These forecasts are shown for jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in. both Alameda and
Contra Costa counties.
Household Growth The Tri-Valley is forecast to add almost 45,000 new households between 2000
and 2020, a 45 percent increase. About three-quarters of that growth will occur in Alameda
County, especially in Dublin and Livermore. The Alameda County portions of the Tri-Valley are
forecast to add about 35,000 households, a 60 percent increase. Dublin alone is forecast to add
14,000 new homes, an increase of 140 percent. In contrast, the Contra Costa portion of the Tri-
Valley will add 11,000 new households, which will be located in unincorporated Dougherty
Valley. Both Dublin and Livermore will add more households individually than the Contra Costa
areas will as a whole.
Job Growth The Tri-Valley is forecast to add jobs at a faster rate than households. Over 88,000
new jobs are expected between 2000 and 2020, a 60 percent increase. As with households, about
three-quarters of that growth will occur in Alameda County, all of which will.occur in Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore. The Alameda County portions of the Tri-Valley are forecast to ,add
about 66,000 jobs, a 60 percent increase. Dublin will add the most jobs - over 23,000, a
doubling of the number of jobs - but Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon in Contra Costa
will each add over 20,000 new jobs. Almost all job growth in Contra Costa will occur in San
Ramon, where the number of jobs will increase by 60 percent. '
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 5
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
~l ~ c;D
Table 1 Growth in Households and Jobs in Tri-Valley, 1990-2020
Based on Proiedions '98
liOUSHIOLDS
2000
2020
. .
--~._._---_.__.__._..._-_._. ._._---~-~-_.__._-.--.._------ - ---".- .-- .... -----. ~._-~---~.- -_.._--~..__._--
1990
2010
2,368
Growlh, 1990-2020
38%
4)07
4,334
8,091
19,500.
17,328
16,004
11,855
1,007
41%
33%
2,1930/0
63%
252%
76%
62%
1,975%
84%
Grovilh,2000.-2020
1,057
915
1,008
6,925
9,905
14,126
11,320
8,390
1,007
34,843 .
44,748
14%
6%
6%
451%
}4%
140%
44%
37%
1,975%
59%
45%
.>>.
Contra [ostg{ounty.. 42,252 46,6'13 . 58,157 68,666 26,.414. 63% 22;053 47%
Dublin 12,853 22,330 33,509 45,741 32,888 256% 23,411 105%
Livermore 32,439 38,736 53,260 58,802 26,363 81 % 20,066 52%
Pleasonion 32,363 40,174 51,968 62,910 30,547 94% 22,736 57%
Other Unincorporated 1,144 U 44 1,144 1,144 0 0% 0 0%
Alam~da [OUllty 78,799 102,384 139,88/ . 168,597. . 89,198. /14%: . 66,213 65%
All Tri-Valley 121,051 148,997 198,638 237,263 116,212 96% 88,266 59%
NOTE The information in Table 1 is taken from the forecasts contained in tfle Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Land Use Information
System '99 (LUIS-99), which is based on ABAG's Proiections '98. Because tfle trofflc analysis zones in tfle LUIS do not correspond exactly to city,
town or sphere of influence boundaries, do not correspond exactly to published ABAG forecasts. San Ramon includes neither Dougherty nor Tassajaro
Volleys; Dublin includes both East and West Dublin; Livermore includes the NortflLivermore planning area.
Alamo-Blackhawk 6,212 7,523 7,949 8,580
Danville 11,499 15,291 15,923 16,206
San Ramon 12,977 16,303 17,100 17,311
Otfler Unincorporated 369 1,535 5,461 8,460
COl/fra Costa [OUllty ,', 31,"057 . :-40,652 .46,433 50,557
Dublin 6,885 10,087 16,080 24,213
Livermore 2U 15 25,799 31,827 37,119
Pleosonton 19) 82 22,647 27,034 31,037
Other Unincorporated 51 51 858 1,058
'. . t . .' :
Alameda [ounty. . .47)33 .', 58,584 . 15,199 93,.427 4~~ 194' 98%
All Tri-Valley 78,290 99,236 .122,232 143,984 I 65,694
__ ....m..._...".--___._........ _..~_.. ...___ ._...--,-____. _._._.._ .... _... .. ~.......m"""''''''''I'''_'__''''_~''''
}.?~~~__.._.~_~....._ ...._!990 .__...._..:._ 200~.... .._..__~10 ___._..._.2020 __1_.~.~~wtl~!.990 2?~__.~~~lh, 2000_._~~~.__.
Alomo-BlockllOwk 3,344 - 3,809 3,878 4,326 982 29% 517 14%
Donville 8,307 8,431 9,102 9,469 1,162 14% 1,038 12%
San Ramon 30,481 34,253 45,657 54,751 24,270 80% 20,498 60%
Otfler Unincorporated 120 120 120 120 0 0% 0 0%
Page 6
Adopted September 27, 2000
p.. 6b f?'O
Chapter 2 ForecQst Conditions
Jobs-Housing Balance
As a region, the Tri-Valley has, and is forecast to keep, a balance between jobs and employed
residents. As Table 2 shows, the Tri-Valley had roughly one job for each worker that lived there
in 1990 and will have one job for each resident worker in 2000, 2010 and 2020 as well. While
the Tri-Valley as a whole has reached a jobs-housing balance, not every area within it is balanced.
Some jurisdictions, such as San Ramon and Dublin, have more jobs than workers; other areas,
such as Danville and Alamo-Blackhawk, have more employed residents than jobs.
Table 2 Jobs per Employed Resident
Based on ABAG Pro;ection$ '98
Subregional Area 1990 2000 2010 2020
Danville (includes sphere of influence (SOl)) 0.45 0.37 0.36 0.40
San Ramon (SOl excluding Dougherty Valley) 1.48 1.30 1.63 1.96
Alamo-Blackhawk (unincorporated area) 0.40 0.35 0.33 0.34
Remaining Contra Costa 0.64 0040 0.38 0.32
Dublin (SOl including East and West Dublin) 1.12 1.55 1.34 1.19
Livermore (SOl including North Livermore) 1.02 1,01 1.06 0.98
Pleasanton (SOl) 1.07 1.11 1.12 1.16
Remaining Alameda 1.93 1.58 1.53 1.52
All Tri~Volley '0.99' 'N 0.98 .-==: > 1.02 '.' " "? :
.. . . , " ,l.Q3
-:':
-~_. < ,.
Despite this balance between jobs and workers in the Tri-Valley, a considerable number of
workers leave the Tri-Valley for work each day. The booklet "Looking to the Future" published
by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority noted that modeling suggests that as many as 45
percent of workers living in the Tri-Valley le:;lve it to commute to jobs elsewhere. Many of these
workers commute to the Silicon Valley and San Francisco where jobs far outnumber the number
of employed residents.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 7
l ~ Clb Y [)
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
,
.....
-1-.
,
','
;.
.=1 .....
.,
.."........
"....,. ,"'"
, ,
h:_ illu U:I!!DI:Ii 1(111"-'
I:::=J . !!I) - 51
I:::=J .~. ~
I:::=J 51. ~o
D 201.7!O
~J 751.2000
~ 2001 . 11000
'\.
"'j,
"",
_....L--:.':.._ ._._
llallll!: I.IIG 1'bps:lill1; 'WI
I
".,..,.~....-:':':~'"'''' "
,
....."....'.\": ..... "...."..
~ I
h:rm: il ph; 00.20
r---l
.1 .~1l..5i
c=J -~- ~
L-' 51- ID)
CJ l.'}1-7~
r:-':;-l P.i1- a.oo
a ~01.11100
1
I
"
"
Page 8
Adopted September 21, 2000
lL\ rt ~o
Chapter 2 Forecast Conditions
Comparison of New and Old Forecasts of Household and Job Growth
The following two tables compare the number of forecast households and jobs in 2010 used in
the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation PI3;n and more recent forecasts.
The overall observation is that the forecasts upon which the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
was based were more robust than what is now expected to occur. The 1995 Plan forecast that the
Tri-Valley would have 139,659 households and 202,886 jobs in 2010. ABAG's Projections '98;
the forecasts now available for transportation planning, forecasts that the Tri-Valley would have
123,454 households and 198,638 jobs in 2010. These,forecasts represent a 12 percent reduction
in expected households and a two percent reduction in jobs for the year 2010.
This expected reduction in household and job growth used in the 1995 Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan suggests that traffic volumes will also be generally lower than that expected
in the Plan. Lower traffic volumes would mean that the TSOs established in the Plan would be
more likely to be met, in most cases, with the actions established in the Plan to achieve those
TSOs.
As in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan, the "buildout"of adopted general plans will
exceed current forecasts, both for 2010 and 2020. This general plan buildout, which is based on
policies existing at the time of the 1995 Tri-ValleyPlan, would occur at some undefined point in
the future. Since it exceeds both 2010 and 2020 forecasts, it would likely occur sometime after
2020.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 9
l'S" 1 yO
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Table 3 Forecast Growth In Households in Tri.Valley, 1990-2020
Comparison of Projections '90 to Projections '98
.~.~~SE_~~~DS.. ..~ .,... ........_1. __ _.._~~~._,..___I. .. .__ n....._... ....~~~o _ ... ....____.1... . .. ..,__,..._..._~~!~__.__-1 2020
: . ' -";X: .____.. :.~~Proj 90 Pr~!..!~ ..._~roj.90..... .~~!~_~roj:90 .__. Proj.~8........~~~i_ld~~~.t _.PrI1.9~
Danville" 10,999 11,499 14,748 15,291 14,748 15,923 14,748 16,206
San Ramon.... 13,179 12,977 15,884 16,303 15,884 17,100 25,485 17,311
Alamo-Blackhawk.... 5,998 6,212 7,696 7,523 7,696 7,949 7,696 8,580
Other Contra Costa County 694 369 2,780 1,535 9,257 5,461 5,343 8,460
CC Totnl 30,870. n057 ';i 41, /08. .40,lS2 47,585 .46,433' .:: '53,272 50,557
~ ~ . I .
Dublin" 7 10,087 19,394 16,080 29,868 24,213
Livermore" 20 25,799 40,965 31,827 48,124 37,119
Pleasanton" 19 22,647 30,857 27,034 31,066 31,130
Remainder 51 858 2,080 858 1,058
:~~~~lal' +7~ ---::::I:~~::' I:: - ~:::~~: ~:f'
... .................:...~... ._...;yn...._I.~.......D _._-~.-~~i~~ff-~ -'. ~iff. __:.~Y~~. % Diff~. 1...... .~iff. .ri..~!~~
Danville" 3.7% 1,175 8.0% 1,458 9.9%
Son Ramon.... 2.6% 1,216 7.7% (8,174) -32.1%
Alamo-Blackhawk.... ) -2.2% 253 3.3% 884 11.5%
Other Contra Costo County ) -44.8% (3,796) -41.0% 3,117 58.3%
..
'ceToto" y ) ..1.1% '.'0,152) ;2.4%: (2,115):;-5.1%
Dublin" ) -14.9% (3,314) -17.1 % (5,655) -18.9%
Livermore" ) -2.1% (9,138) -22.30/0 (11,005) -22.9%
Pleasanton" ) -9.8% (3,823) .12.4% 64 0.2%
Remainder 0.0% 1,222 142.4% 200 23.3%
Ala Total ) -7.5% I"" (15,053) . -/6.3% ::.. 06,396)' . .14.99~
Grand Total (277) -0.4% I (S,228f.........--:s.O%T (16,20S) -~11-:6oA;..T-(liiiW---=-lGo/~-1
NOTE The information in Table 1 is taken from the forecasts contained in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's land Use Information System
'99 (WIS-99), which is based on ABAG's Proiections '98. Because the traffic analysis zones in the LUIS do not correspond exactly to city, town or sphere
of influence baundaries, do not correspond exactly to published ABAG forecasts. San Ramon includes neither Dougherty nor Tassajara Valleys; Dublin
includes both East and West Dublin; Livermore includes the North Livermore planning area. "Buildout" refers to the development of on area to the full
potential in the General Plan, os defined in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.
Page 10
Adopted September 27, 2000
(~ <rb ~D
Chapter 2 Forecast Conditions
Table 4 Forecast Growth In Jobs in Tri.Yalley, 1990-2020
Comparison of Projections '90 to Projections '98
........... .J ._.._____!~.!O... .. ,.__1..... .._...._... ~~O. ___.__ ...1.. _ ____~_O.~~___."..... ..1_... . .. .._~~~~..._._._.._J
... '. '. :.Proi90 Proj 98 :; Proi 90: .:Proj 98 .: Proi~O :'. . Pro;-cja i~Buil~~ut" ". Pro.i 98
Oanvi";r-...----.-- ---'6";OOS-- 8,307- -8,012- 8,431 8,012' '--'-9:1Oi 8,iii'2'--' 9,469
San Ramon**** 27,679 30,481 36,314 34,253 45,179 45,657 46,809 54,751
Alamo-Blackhawk***' 1,613 3,344 1,613 3,809 1,613 3,878 1,613 4,326
Other Contra Costa County 121 120 121 120 121 120 90 120
.(C..ro',!!~'~~~_. ,. ,.:. 35,4'18 42~252 ::.< ~._46;'060 '.,-.. > 46,6 13 J:' 5{9~~.._..~~ 58/S!. 56:524 i'j 68:666;'
Dublin** 13,197 12;853 18,432 22,330 24,611 33,509 54,046 45,741
Livermore*' 33,527 32,439 47,467 38,736 63,970 53,260 120,649 58,802
Pleasanton** 28,363 32,363 47,314 40,174 58,236 51,968 64,618 62,910
Remainder 1,144 1,144 1,1441,144 1,144 1,144 1,144 1,144
,Ala TOIIII" 76;-231 ;'.:.:[:78,799' 1.14,351 102,384' _..14"7,96F- 139,8~1> 240,457,'. 1.68,5~7
Grand Total 111,649 121,051 160A17 148,997 202,886' 198,638 296,981 237,263
..., ........... .-_........ -... .-.-..--..-... ......-. f-..--.---.... ._ .n._," ..__......___ _....... _.___ _.. _ ........._.___ _... ..... __'_ .._ ....__ . "'_'_'_
.. . < i I :;Diff:J.... % Dlff. :.f.:Diff. ".' .cyoDiff.Y' "'.Dift ~.:L!~Diff. ;. Di~~' }/oDiff.'
Donville** . 2,302 38.3% 419 5.2% 1,090 13.6% 1,457 18.2%
San Ramon**** 2,802 10.1% (2,061) -5.7% 478 1.1% 7,942 17.0%
Alamo-Blackhawk**** 1,731 107.3% 2,196 136.10/0 2,265 140.4% 2,713 168.2%
Other Contra Costa County (1) -0.8% (1) -0.8% (1) -0.8% 30 33.3%
[CTotal. . ~.:: ,..... 6,834 ::.)9.3% . i : 553' 1.2%: <3,832 ' 7.096<. 12,142/'" 2L5~6':
___....:.i.-_______...~.::-~j......_-------..-.:.---........--I ___ . .~. :-.~.
Dublin" (344) -2.6% 3,898 21.1% 8,898 36.2% (8,305) -15.4%
. Livermore** (1,088) -3.2% . (8,731) -18.4% (10,710) -16.7% (61,847) -51.3%
Pleosanton'* 4,000 14.1 % (7,140) -15.1 % (6,268) -10.8% (1,708) -2.6%
Remainder 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
.Ala Tota" " ... .4- ,,?,56S<" 3.4% ' (/ 1;973) , .IQ:.5% ~:. (~,~8OJ" :.':5~-S% '" (71i8~~)';" -29.9%
Grand Total I 9,402 8.4% (11,420) -7.1% (4,248) -2.1% (59,718) .20.1%
NOTE The information in Table 1 is token from the foreca~ts contained in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's land Use Information System
'99 (lUIS-99), which is based on ABAG's Proiections '98. Because the traffic analysis zones in the LUIS do not correspond exactly to city, town or sphere
of influence boundaries, do not correspond exactly to published ABAG forecasts. San Roman includes neither Dougherty nor T assajara Volleys; Dublin
includes both East and West Dublin; Livermore includes the North Livermore plonning areo.
"Buildouf refers to the development of on area to the full potential in the General Plan, os defined in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 11
tl 1)''0
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Page 12
Adopted September 27, 2000
\8'"
% g/O
7. Recommended Improvement Plan
(Updated) . .
Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the T AC and the TVTC decided to focus the
ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley
gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level
of service within the Tri-Valley?
Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question:
1. Financial constraints
2. Physical limitations within corridors
3. Development patterns
Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs
provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for
the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help
supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives mayor may not be successful.
Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and
terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the
existing 1-680 and 1-580 corridors.
Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and
commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development
pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations.
Plan Overview
The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrated plan.
The transportation plan comprises enhancement to roadway capacity coupled with increased
transit service, control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of
congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financially constrained in that it
includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be funded given extension of federal and
State programs, or fundable by n~w development at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the
financing plan.
The following sections provide an overview of the plan.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 13
( q c!b$C
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials, and
intersections. These ate all based on the reality of gateway constraints.
Gateway Constraints Analysis of alternatives through the planning process showed that the TVTC's
best interests would not be served by widening any of the gateways for single-occupant vehicles
leading into the area. The gateways include 1-680 north and south, 1-580 east and west, Crow
Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road. Widening of these gateways would leave the
freeways congested, lead to more through traffic, and increase traffic volumes on other Tri-
Valley roads. This is true because of the Tri-Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin
County and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and Santa
Clara County.
The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior freeways and
arterials should be sized to handle only what traffic can get through the gateways. Thus, the plan
recognizes that congestion will occur for several hours each weekday at the gateways, but this
will hav~ the positive effect of metering single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the area.
Within the Tri-Valley area, the road system is designed to function with these gateways
constrained to minimize congestion. The roadway plan, when combined with a balance between
jobs and housing and given expected financial constraints and forecast travel demands, produces
the best conditions to be reasonably expected.
The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gateways, as
discussed below.
· 1-680 North The section north of Diablo Road cannot be widened beyond the HOV lanes
without overcoming several significant constraints: the widening would require additional
right-of-way, construction of new retaining structures, and the costly reconstruction of
existing overpasses and undercrossings, as ~ell as increase impacts on adjoining land uses.
The gateway constraint assumption recognizes these constraints. This concept should not be
construed as an effort to preclude all potential solutions to mitigate increasing congestion on
1-680 between Interstate 580 and Route 24. TVTC should work cooperatively with
TRANSPAC and CCTA to identify and pursue strategies that are mutually beneficial.
· 1-680 South The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited widening
would help accommodate and balance increased flows into this section from both 1-680 and
the new in Route 84 project. Accordingly, the plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes.
Gateway constraints would still apply for single-occupant vehicles.
· I-S80 West The topographic constraints along the Dublin Grade and the limits imposed at
the 1-680/1-580 interchange make widening beyond the current four lanes prohibitively
expensive. The 1997 opening of the Dublin - Pleasanton BART line provide a new
Page 14
Adopted September 27, 2000
1)...-0 0-6 q--4)
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
alternative to vehicular use of 1-580. The Plan relies on the BART to provide needed
additional capacity through the gateway.
· I-S80 East (Altamont Pass) Alameda County policy, in recognition of the need to encourage
shorter commuter trips and not overload Tri-Valley roads with regional traffic, opposes
increases to capacity for single-occupant vehicles across this gateway. The gateway constraint
policy also applies to Patterson Pass Road, Tesla Road and Old Altamont Road. The plan,
however, includes HOV lanes, as a second-priority project, in recognition of the importance
of 1-580 as a regional facility. The Plan also relies on and supports the continuation of the
recent Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) service across this gateway.
· Crow Canyon Road (to Castro Valley) Safety improvements are planned for this section of Crow
Canyon Road, although, the TVTe supports maintaining the two-lane cross-section.
· Vasco Road While the TVTC supports Vasco Road remaining a two-lane road, thePlan
includes safety improvements to this roadway. Any future upgrade should be done in such a
manner to not preclude future accommodation of public tra.nsit or other improvements as
subsequently determined aRpropriate.
The plan is based upon the following set of assumptions regarding gateway capacity on the
freeways and major arterials that access the Tri-Valley:
· 1-680 North Six: lanes plus HOV lanes
· 1-680 South Six lanes plus HOV lanes
· '-580 West Eight lanes
· '-580 East (Altamont Pass) Eight lanes plus HOV lanes
· Crow Canyon Road (to Castro Valley) Two lanes with safety improvements
· Vasco Road Two lanes with safety. improvements
Any departure from these assumptions would require amending the Plan.
In response to the issues raised by the gateway approach, the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority have established a gateway constraint methodology as part of its Technical Procedures.
Current gateways are established by two factors: geographic constraints and financial constraints.
To some degree, the geographic constraints can be overcome through significant capital
investments in new highway projects. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is based upon
the assumption that significant capacity enhancements to the gateways serving Tri-"Valley are
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page J 5
~.l eF"b ~~
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
financially infeasible. The policy ofthe TVTC is to work closely with neighboring jurisdictions,
Congestion management Agencies, Caltrans, and MTC to resolve capacity problems at the
gateways and as needed through the partnership activities and to subsequently adjust our
Transportation Plan should funding of mutually acceptable facilities become possible.
Corridor Management Congestion Strategies A number of alternative strategies to adding new lanes or
building new roads are available for addressing congestion. These strategies focus on improving
the efficiency of traffic flow on roads, and thereby increasing the number of vehicles or people
that can move through that corridor. The range of potential strategies is broad. They. can include
the addition of auxiliary lanes to freeways, incident management programs such as the Freeway
Service Patrol, changeable message signs that provide information to travelers on travel
alternatives, ramp metering, and support for travel alternatives such as park-and-ride lots and
HOV bypass lanes at freeway ramps. In as sense, the gateway constraint concept is a strategy for
managing the main travel corridors within the Tri-Valley.
Caltrans, with support from MTC, is in the process of implementing Traffic Operations Systems
(rOS) along freeway corridors within the Bay Area. These systems will provide information to
travelers on accidents and other delays on freeways, alternative routes to avoid these delays, and
other information to encourage traveler decisions that would improve efficient roadway
operations.
Ramp metering controls the volume of traffic entering a freeway so the system is as efficient as
possible. As congestion on a freeway increases, the number of vehicles that the freeway can carry
decreases. Although a single freeway lane can carry around 2,200 vehicles per hour under
optimal conditions, as demand exceeds those optimal conditions, the volumes carried actually
drop. Under congested conditions, travel lanes have been observed to carry only around 1,600-
1,700 vehicles per hour. One source of this congestion is the "turbulence" caused by the merging
of vehicles at freeway ramps. By smoothing out this merging, ramp metering can help make the
flow of traffic on the freeway lanes more efficient and thus increase the volumes and speeds. A
survey made for the Federal Highway Administration of seven ramp metering systems in the
United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after
installing ramp metering and travel times decreased 16.5 percent. At the same time reductions of
freeway congestion averaged approximately 60 percent. An analysis of th~ FLOW system in
Seattle (ramp metering and HOV lanes) revealed that in addition to similar improvements in
speed and travel time, highway throughput increased from 12 to 40 percent as a result of ramp
metering. An additional benefit from ramp metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions
from 20 to 58 percent have been achieved through improved merging operations.
Ramp meters can also encourage the peak spreading that needs to occur to keep the gateways
flowing. This happens because motorists are willing to accept only up to about a 10-minute wait
at the meters. Beyond that, they will adjust their trip making (i.e., choose to travel at a different
time or choose a different mode). This peak spreading helps to get the most out of the system
when gateway constraints are a reality.
Page 16
Adopted September 27, 2000
et ) "b ~()
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
In addition, when combined with HOV bypasses, ramp metering can provide an additional
powerful incentive for carpooling and can help buses increase average speeds. When combined
with HOV lanes on the freeways, the ramp metering-with-bypass system allows carpools and
buses to achieve real travel time advantages compared to single-occupant vehicles.
Ramp metering has two potential drawbacks: backups on the local street system and rewarding
long-distance commuters. The potential for backUps on local streets can be minimized through
ramp widening and strategic placement of the meters. Where these mitigation measures are not
possible, ramp metering can significantly reduce levels of service adjoining intersections and
along adjacent streets. The risk of re'Yarding long-distance commutes can be minimized by
instituting a system of ramp metering for the entire length of a freeway, rather than in isolated
locations.
The TVTP/AP supports ramp metering with HOV bypass only where it will not seriously impact
local streets and where' local implementation is tied with implementation along all of 1-680 and 1-
580 in neighboring communities~ Current Caltrans District 4 policy provides for preferential
metered HOV lanes, not HOV bypass lanes. TVTC recommends that this policy be reevaluated
by the District to provide maximum benefits to HOVs.
Freeway HOV Lanes HOV lanes provide the advantage of reducing travel times for ride sharers and
transit patrons. They also enhance mobility during off-peak hours by being available for all
vehicles. This is especially important when considering truck traffic, which increasingly relies on
off-peak hours to reach destinations without undue delays.
The TVTC recognizes the benefits of HOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-Iane programs do not
work. Such an ill-fated attempt at providing HOV lanes on 1-580 resulted in federal legislation
prohibiting their use on freeways in unincorporated areas, which has been only recently changed.
Thus, HOV lanes must be added to the freeways.
HOV lanes on both 1-680 and 1-580 are included in the plan. Due to the expense of the projects,
however, some segments are included as lower priority projects. 1-680 south 00-580 has been
designed to accommodate the addition of HOV lanes,.but pavement widening would be
required. Top funding priority should be given to the section south of Route 84 to the top of the
Sunol Grade, which is the border of Area 4 in the Alameda County Transportation Plan. This
section will experience significant traffic increases due to the planned capacity increases to Route
84. Thesection of 1-680 betWeen Alcosta Boulevard and Route 84 should also be planned to
include HOV lanes but with a lower funding priority.
On 1-580, HOV lanes would be more difficult and costly to build because the interchanges have
not been built to accommodate them. However, the Caltrans route concept report for 1-580 calls
for 10 lanes plus BART in the median. The most important segment for funding priority on 1-
580 is the segment between Tassajara.Road and North Livermore Avenue. This segment is
predicted to experience the highest traffic demand along 1~580 in the Tri-Valley. To
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 17
;J...,,'~ ay;) <;to
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
accommodate the extra freeway width, the interchanges at EI Charro/Fallon and Airway would
need to be rebuilt. The EI Charro/Fallon interchange is planned to be rebuilt anyway. In
addition, the planned new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) would need to be built to
accommodate the width. As a lower funding priority, the plan also includes extending the 1-580
HOV lanes east to the Alameda County border. This would require widening four interchanges
in Livermore (N. Livermore, First, Vasco, and Greenville), and three interchanges or crossings
east of Livermore.
HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road are not included in the plan. With the BART
extension and the 1-580/1-680 interchange project, this section will be built out to its maximum
width giveq the physical constraints of freeway structures and rights-of-way. The section will
have four through lanes, as it does today, plus auxiliary lanes between interchanges.
Arterial Issues The planned arterial system has been designed to provide smooth circulation in
and between the Tri-Valley cities and to provide access to the freeway system. Intersections and
freeway i~terchanges are the focal points of the arterial system. All of the widenings and
extensions are necessary to serve new development, so the plan calls for direct developer
construction or at least funding. The primary issue is how to share costs between jurisdictions
having joint responsibility for a particular road. This is discussed further in the Financing Plan
chapter.
There are two major arterials in the Tri-Valley that do not provide direct access to planned
development but rather serve interregional traffic between Alameda County and Contra Costa
County. These two arterials are Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road.
Crow Canyon Road The portion of Crow Canyon Road west of Bollinger Canyon Road is a two-
lane rural road that lies within the jurisdiction of Alameda County and Contra Costa County.
While once used by its adjacent residents to bring goods to the market, today Crow Canyon
Road is being used by commuters as an alternate to the 1-580/1-680 freeways. Development in
the vicinity of Crow Canyon Road, especially in the fast-growing San Ramon Valley area, has
generated a significant increase in traffic on this roadway. The expected forecast for this roadway
is LOS F.
The roadway, which is a narrow and winding road, was not designed to handle commuter traffic
and does not have adequate width or alignment. Alameda County, in collaboration with Contra
Costa County and the City of San Ramon, prepared and developed a project study report,
pursuant to California Senate Bill 1149. The report recommended the construction of eight-foot
shoulders, climbing lanes, and road realignment eliminating short-radii curves.
Contra Costa County has in its Measure C program the improvement of Crow Canyon Road
within Contra Costa County. Alameda County, however, is seeking for funds to improve the
two-lane section of the roadway. Unfortunately, improvement of this portion of Crow Canyon
Road cannot be directed to a particular developer construction. But since the traffic forecast
Page 18
Adopted September 27, 2000
~t...t ('6 )('0
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
clearly indicates that traffic increase on this roadway is development-related, it is recommended
that subregional transportation impact fees be used to improve the section of Crow Canyon Road
within the Tri-Valley. '
Vasco Road Vasco Road is a narrow and winding rural road that is a major commuter and truck
route linking the Tri-Valley with eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 17 miles of Vasco
Road, starting at a point on Vasco Road approximately one-half mile south of the county line to
the intersection of Camino Diablo in Contra Costa County, has been relocated as a result of the
construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This portion of Vasco Road is designed to State and
County standards. The remaining section of the roadway in Alameda County (approximately
three miles in length) needs to be upgraded to these standards as well to improve traffic flow and
safety. Alameda County is currently seeking funds to improve the section of the roadway from
the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City limit. This proposed improvement includes
realignment of the roadway, widening of shoulders, and installing passing lanes without
increasing its capacity, consistent with the standards beings used in the Los Vaqueros-Vasco Road
project.
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
The key transit improvements in the Tri:Valley have been the extension of BART to Dublin-
Pleasanton and the institution of ACE commuter service between the Central Valley and Santa
Clara County. Local WHEELS routes rerouted to serve the BART and ACE station and create
transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection routes
have also been rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas: North Livermore, East
Dublin, and Dougherty Valley. In addition, nine new express bus routes are included in the plan
to serve the following corridors not served by BART: 1-680 north to Walnut Creek, Vasco Road
to East County, and 1-680 south to Fremont. Some new express bus service has been
implemented, included subscription bus service between BART and Concord and service between
Walnut Creek and Bishop Ranch and the ACE station. TriDelta transit is beginning new service
between East Contra Costa and Livermore.
The Tri-Valley Transit Plan has been developed to correspond to expected funding levels. Since
the area is expected to almost double in population, the hope is that transit funding will also
double, although transit funding may not keep pace with population increases. Nevertheless, the
plan includes the provision for significant new services 'plus greater use of existing routes that
have available capacity. Additional riders can be served without additional investment.
The development pattern in the Tri-Valley is one of overall low density, however, and the new
areas proposed for development will generally reinforce the low-density pattern. The low-density
pattern does not support the extensive use of transit or cost-effective transit operations. If transit
is to serve a much greater role than it does today, development densitie!! will need to increase.
Some plans for higher residential or commercial densities, or both, around BART stations are
planned or under development. The East Dublin plan focuses higher densities near the existing
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 19
~~91>
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
BART station. Plans are being developed for a dense commercial and residential development
around the planned West Dublin station.
LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
The TVTC recognizes that its mission is not to plan land use. Land use inputs to the plan came
from the planning department of each member jurisdiction. Projections are also available from
ABAG, and the "expected" land use on which the plan is based is 11,000 dwelling units higher
than Projections '92 for the Tri-Valley as a whole. Action Plans in Contra Costa County are
mandated by Measure C to address growth management issues when TSOs cannot otherwise be
met. CCT A guidelines for Action Plans state that they may include policies to prohibit urban
expansion in specified geographic areas and to change the distribution of planned land uses to
reduce impacts on regional routes. It should be noted that the TVTP/AP 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
· A procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amendments
that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans
The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in
compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
· Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts
associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would
reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-
compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee
and the CCT A.
Contra Costa Action Plans may include the following types of actions:
land Use Policy
· Modify allowable densities for newly developing areas or areas where redevelopment is
anticipated.
· Change distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts on
Regional Routes.
· Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas.
· Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service objectives.
Page 20
Adopted September 27, 2000
).--6 ~'h <t.~
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
Capital Projects
· Construction of new roads or transit facilities
· Street or freeway widening
· HOV lane construction
· Adding turn lanes
Operational Improvements
· Traffic signal coordination
· Ramp metering under specific conditions
· Revisions to transit routes and schedules
· Augmentation of bus service on Regional Routes
Trip Reduction Programs
· Continue coordinated TDM programs within the Tri-Valley area
.
Focused ridesharing campaigns
.
Parking management programs
Institutional Intergovernmental Programs
· Coordinated efforts to attract State and federal funding for proj~cts in the Tri-Valley
· Communication and cooperation with jurisdictions in adjacent 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 to the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve
Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the R TPCs 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:
. Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 21
..J- ., C'f.; t;"- ()
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet
Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
2. Proposed modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amendments
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.
General Plan Consistency with Contra Costa Action Plans
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based on adopted General Plan land
uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network. Consistency with the
Action Plans must be established for any changes to the General Plan may significantly reduce the
ability of the facility to meet the TSOs. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type
and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC 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 and Maintenance
Improvement Funds from the CCTA.
Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amendment,
adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or
Board denial of the amendment.
Jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Management
Strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study should
indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of growth
management or control that would be required for each applicable Tri-Valley jurisdiction to
achieve TSOs. Any development reduction should be proportional to the traffic distribution
percentages for each jurisdiction. Also, the impact of this development reduction to traffic impact .
fees should be analyzed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know exactly how
much reduction in development or growth management or control is needed to meet the TSOs.
JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
One of the most important strategies for linking land use and transportation is jobs-housing
balance. In theory, the more workers can either find affordable, attractive' housing close to their
jobs, or a job that matches their skills and income needs near their place of residence, the more
they can shorten the length and duration of their journey to work. Studies have, in fact, shown
that a greater jobs-housing balance can shorten work trips, reduce the overall number of work
trips and encourage more walking trips.
Page 22
Adopted September 27, 2000
~~ ~ ~o
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
In addition, since commute patterns in "imbalanced" areas are now highly directional, adding
new jobs could encourage commuting in the direction where capacity remains. This shift would
spread traffic demand more and make more efficient use of out investment in the system.
Jobs-housing balance in one area, however, doesn't mean that no one will leave to work in
another. In a multi-centered, intensively developed and continually changing urban region like
the Bay Area, people usually need to travel beyond their immediate neighborhood not only for
work, but also for shopping, childcare, recreation, and other needs. And the large number of
dual-career households requires difficult balancing between the different commute needs of the
two earners. In addition, even if one area achieves jobs-housing balance imbalances in other areas.
will draw workers from balanced areas to where there is a deficit of workers to fill the jobs.
For example, even though the Tri-Valley has a pretty good balance between jobs and employed
residents, around 45 percent of those employed residents commute to jobs outside that sub-area.
As long as the Silicon Valley continues adding new jobs but few new houses, those businesses will
need to bring in workers from adjoining areas like the Tri-Valley and even further afield.
Employers in the Tri- Valley will likewise need to find their workersin places like Central and
East Contra Costa and the Central Valley.
Urban location theory suggests that greater jobs-housing balance should occur as part of market
interactions. While this balancing appears to have taken place, at least to some extent and in
some areas, it has not occurred in the Bay Area. If local and regional policies can make a greater
proximity between jobs and housing attractive and affordable to the workers in those jobs, the
jobs-housing balance can help support greater efficiency on the transportation system.
REDUCED LEVEL-Of-SERVICE STANDARDS
The TVTC has seen that the originally intended transportation service objective of LOS E on the
freeways based on demand cannot be met in many locations regardless of land use assumptions.
In fact, this standard cannot even be met with today's volumes. This is true because growth in
San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and Central and East Contra Costa County will fill up
the Tri-Valley freeways even if Tri-Valley jurisdictions do not grow. Therefore, the TVTC will
accept congestion at the gateways recognizing that while it is not ideal, at least it will minimize
through traffic. The. focus then shifts to maintaining adequate levels of service, and providing
transit options, for trips within the Tri-Valley.
The transportation plan succeeds in avoiding congestion on the arterial system. Also, 1-680
between Alamo and Route 84 is expected to flow smoothly. Level-of-service F conditions,
however, are expected on 1-580 westbound between Vasco and Portola in the morning and
eastbound between Foothill Road andSanta Rita/Tassajara in tIie evening. This would be
partially alleviated with HOV lanes and ramp metering.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 23
~ '1 <(D
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TOM)
While the TVTC supports TDM measures, it does not want to base the Plan on unrealistic TDM
goals that are not supported by feasible programs. Through the plan process, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) goal of an average vehicle ridership (A VR) of 1.35 was
tested. This goal applied to employers with 100 or more employees. The TVTC estimated that
such large employers make up only about 10 percent of all employment.
The TVTC also investigated the impact of achieving an A VR of 1.35 for all employers,
throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the "ambient" AVR of 1.10-1.15, this
would be a 20 percent improvement. Given the commute trip proportion of total PM peak-hour
traffic, a 20 percent increase in A VR would translate into seven percent to eight percent less
traffic on the roads. While this would create a significant improvement in operations, it would
not significantly reduce the need for road building. Nevertheless, if at least a 10 percent increase
in A VR were not achieved, additional intersection improvements, beyond what are included in
the plan, would probably be necessary.
The achievement of a 20 percent increase in A VR would not be easy. The TVTC believes that
this would require a significant increase in the cost of solo commuting. The TVTC, however, is
not in favor of parking charges. Gasoline tax increases would be more acceptable, provided they
were levied region-wide (including San Joaquin County). Gas tax increases would encourage
commute alternatives and would provide more money for transportation improvements.
The Plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in A VR for all
employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption and enforcement of local trip
reduction ordinances..The 10 percent increase in AVR will bring some of the intersections
otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into compliance with the TSOs.
Road Improvement Plan
The TVTP/AP includes many road improvement projects. These projects were developed by the
member jurisdictions of the TVTC. ProjeCts range from intersection modifications to freeway
improvements and new roads. The resulting system would provide good circulation within the
Tri-Valley. Figure 7-1 shows the planned roadway system. Figure 5-2 in Chapter 5 shows the
planned changes to freeway interchanges. Details on planned intersection lane configurations are
included in the Technical Appendix. A detailed listing of the planned roadway improvements is
shown in Table 7-1.
Page 24
Adopted September 27, 2000
::'C'a C"b 8'b
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
Table 7-1 Delailed List o' Planned Roadway Improvements " /
/ /
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes) /
Fodlity From To 1990 2000 2010
-,.."......._,..,..
Coltron.
1-680 Rudgear Rd. Alcosto Blvd. 6 6+2HOV
1-680 Diablo Rd. Bollinger Canyon Rd. 6 6+2HOV 6+2HOV+20ux
1.680 slo Dublin Blvd.: new interchange > Completed
1-580 at 1-680: new SB to EB lIyover > Completed
1-580 011.680: new N8 01 WB flyover > > Planned
Volledtos Rd. (Route 84) 1-680 Isabel Avenue 2UA > 40A
1-680 HOV lanes Route 84 Sunol Grode > > Compleled
1-680 HOV lanes Akosto Blvd. Route 84 > > Planned
1-580 HOV lanes T ossojoro Rd. N. Uvermore Ave. > > Completed
1-580 HOV lanes N. Uvermore Ave. County line > > Planned
.....,..-..---...--.....- ....- ."'--"."""-'-
Dublin
Dougherty Rd. N. Gty limit/county line Dublin Blvd. 4UA > 60A
Dougherty Rd. Dublin Blvd. 1-580 6DA > 8DA
Transit Spine Dublin Blvd. ala Hodendo T ossojoro Rd. > 2 4DA
Tronsit Spine Tossojoro Rd. Gleason Rd. > > 4DA
Dublin Blvd. Donlon Way Son Ramon Rd. 2DA 4DA
Dublin Blvd. Son Roman Rd. Village Pkwoy. 4DA 6DA
Dublin Blvd. Village Pkwy. Dougherty Rd. 4DA > 6DA
Dublin Blvd. Dougherty Rd. East city Iimil > 2UA 6DA
Dublin Blvd. Eden Canyon Rd. Existing Dublin Blvd. > > 2DA
1-580!Schoefer Ranch Rd. > > Compleled
Schaefer Ranch Rd. 1-580 Dublin BlvdJHollis Canyon Rd. > > 4DA
Hacienda Dr. 1-580 Dublin Blvd. > 4DA 60A
Hadenda Dr. Dublin Blvd. Gleason Or. > 4DA
Gleason Dr. Hadenda Dr. T ossojoro Rd. > 4DA 40A
Gleason Dr. Tassajoro Rd. Follon Rd. > 2UA 4DA
Gleason Dr. Follon Rd. Dublin Blvd. > > 4DA
Son Ramon Rd. Vomoc Rd. Silvergate Dr. 2DA 4DA
Tassajaro Rd. County line Central Pkwy. 2UA 4DA 6DA
T ossojoro Rd. Cenlrol Pkwy. Dublin Blvd. 2UA 4DA 8DA
Tassajoro Rd. Dublin Blvd. 1.580 2UA 40A 8DA
Scarlett Dr. Dougherty Rd. Dublin Blvd. > > 4DA
-..--.- ...-.--
Livermole
Concannon Blvd. Extension Arroyo Rd. Uvermore Ave. > 2UA
Concannon Blvd. Extension Murdellln. Isabel Ave. > 4DA
Oollon Ave. Extension Vosco Rd. Loughlin Ave. > 2DA
Adopted September 27,2000 Page 2S
~\ Cl'l~ ~
Alternatives under study include revision to the I-680/Stoneridge Dr. Ie
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 27
~? ~~
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Table 7..1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
> 2COL
2UA 4DA
4DA 4DA 6DA
> 2DA 6DA
-/2UA 4DA 6DA
> > Completed
> > Completed
> > Completed
..--.."---, -..
> 6DA
> > 6DA
> > 4DA
2UA 2DA 4DA2
6DA
> > 4DA
COL Collector
IC Interchonge
Facility From To
West Side collector Son Romon Volfey Blvd. Son Ramon Volley Blvd.
Old Ranch Rd. Dougherty Rd. Akosta Blvd.
Bollinger Canyon Rd. A1costo Blvd. City Iimts
-,_." __n__..._...,_,.. ,--", -,.",.,--.",
Alameda County
Dublin Blvd. East Extension Tossojora Rd. Doolan Rd.
Fallon Rd. T ossajara Rd. 1.580
I-50 at Fallon: change IC
Vasco Rd. operational improvements Isabel Ave. Alameda county line
Crow Canyon Rd. operat'1 improvements Alameda county line Castro Volley
-., . ...---....--
Contra Costa (ounty
Bollinger Canyon Rd. Extension Son Ramon city limits Dougherty Rd.
Bollinger Canyon Rd. Extension Dougherty Rd. north Dougherty Rd. south
East Branch Rd. Bollinger Canyon extension Windermere Pkwy
Camino Tossojara Donville town limit Windermere Pkwy
Camino T ossojora Windermere Pkwy County Line
Windermere Pkwy Bollinger Canyon extension Camino Tassoioro
> Further improvements planned DA Divided arterial
- No further improvements planned UA Undivided arterial
The Transit Plan
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes several transit improvements. These were developed
by a transit subcommittee of the TVTAC. The subcommittee included representatives from
BART, CCCTA (County Connection), LAVTA (WHEELS), and Contra Costa County. The plan
includes the following major components: BART extension to east Dublin (two stations), ACE
commuter service, park-and-ride lots, express bus service in heavily traveled corridors, local bus
service to, new development areas, reoriented local bus service to serve BART and park-and-ride
2 The timing and ultimate configuration of improvements to Camino Tassajara are dependent upon several factors,
including future travel patterns, changes in traffic demands and/or safety considerations, and the availability of
sufficient funding to accomplish desired improvements. At this time, no specific funding has been identified,
programmed or committed to accomplish the identified improvements. The widening of Camino Tassajara from two
lanes to four lanes between the DanviIle Town Limits and the proposed Windermere Parkway is not included in the
adopted General Plan Circulation Elements of Contra Costa County, DanvilIe, or San Ramon. The Contra Costa
County General Plan, which constitutes the governing policy document for this segment of Camino Tassajara, indicates
two lanes in 2010 with right-af-way preservation for four lanes
Page 28
Adopted September 27, 2000
':>0, 1 <l 6
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
lots, and decreased headways on existing routes. For modeling purposes, specific bus routes were
developed and tested. However, the TVTP/AP is not intended to be a detailed long-range plan
for transit provision. Therefore, the specific routes,.which are described in the Appendix to the
1995 Plan, should not be interpreted literally, but as representative of the type of service
(headways and corridors served) that should be provided.
The following are description of the planned transit service.
Critical Regional Proiects
Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new
development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional
significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in
a potential regional impact fee program.
1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the
transportation plan (see Figure 1-1).
2. Transit projects can be included.
3. The project must be identified in:' an adopted plan.
4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement.
While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the
project should serve more than one jurisdiction.
The TVTC used these criteria to identify the following planned project as being the most
regionally significant. These projects have been given priority for funding with revenues from the
Tri-Val1ey Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). This list may be modified in response to
updates to the TVTDP. .
1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover and hook ramps.
2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including interchange
improvement at I-680Nallecitos and a new interchange at I-580/Isabel.
3. 1-680 Auxiliary lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road.
4. West Dublin Pleasant BART. Develop new stations on the Dublin-Pleasanton BART line.
5. 1-580 HOV lanes. From Tassajara Road to Vasco Road.
Adopted September 27,2000
Page 29
?,tS crb~' [)
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
6. 1-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade.
7. 1~680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-
ramp with hook ramp.
8. 1-5801F00thilllnterchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design.
9. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of realigning the roadway,
construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow
and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and MM4.45 (located
one-mile north of Norris Canyon Road).
10. Vasco Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of the realignment of Vasco Road from the
new Vasco Road to the Livermore city limit, without increasing the capacity of the gateway.
This is consistent with the standards used in the Vasco Road relocation project by the Contra
Costa Water District in conjunction with the Los Vaqueros reservoir project.
11. Express Bus Service. Capitol costs to establish or expand regional or interregional service. The
Strategic Expenditure Plan establishes funding priorities and programming of the TVTDP
revenue.
The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are preliminarily
considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects
are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to
meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010.
1. Iw580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the ROV project on 1-580 from east of Vasco Road to the
Alameda County border.
2. 1-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV lane project from 1-580 to Route 84. This
would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on 1-680 through the Tri-Valley.
3. 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This
improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the 1-580/1-680
interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections.
BART Extension. The plan includes the BART extension to East and West Dublin. The East
Dublin/Pleasanton extension opened in 1998. The planned BART headways are nine minutes.
Both stations are assumed to have parking lots. The patronage forecasts from the traffic model
indicate demand for at least 6,000 parking spaces combined for the two stations. Two BART
feeder bus lines would be operated: one to Bishop Ranch and Danville, and one to Livermore,
where an interregional transit hub may be established. Both would have 30-minute headways. In
addition, the plan supports the further extension of BART eastward to Greenville Road in
Page 30
Adopted September 77, 7000
Chapter 7 Recommended Improvement Plan
Livermore. This extension would provide an alternative to the automobile for travelers from the
Tri-Valley or the Central Valley to the East Bay and San Francisco and would connect with the
ACE commuter service between Tracy and San Jose.
ACE Commuter Service. The ACE commuter serVice, which runs through the Tri-Valley, provides
peak-hour commuter train service between the Central Valley and Santa Clara County. Since its
beginning in 1998, it has seen a greater response from riders andplans are underway to expand
its capacity. While it is a demonstration project, the Plan supports its continuation and
expanSiOn.
Park-und-Ride Lots. The plan includes 11 new park-and-ride lots (see Figure 7-2) in the 1995 Plan.
These would be served by various bus lines and could also serve as staging loCations for carpools.
County Connection. The plan calls for the expansion of serviee from the current three lines serving
Tri-Valley (30-minute headways) to eight lines. Three lines would have 30-minute headways and
five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would serve Danville, San Ramon, Bishop
Ranch, and Dougherty Valley, and some would extend down to the East Dublin BART station.
WHEELS. Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines with 30-60-
minute headways to 21 lines, all with 30-minute headways. The route system would be
extensively revised to serve the two BART stations, park-and-ride lots, and the newly-developed
areas of East Dublin and North Livermore. Some routes would also extend into San Ramon and
Danville.
Express Bus Service. The plan calls for the provision of nine new express bus routes operating in the
1-680,1-580 and Vasco Road corridors. The following nine areas are served:
1. Santa Clara County to Pleasanton
2. Hayward to San Ramon
3. Santa Clara County to San Ramon
4. Fremont to San Ramon
5. Brentwood to Pleasanton
6. Brentwood to Livermore
7. Fremont to Livermore
8. Hayward to Pleasanton
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 31
%
'1 ~l;
b 7 crt f,>.~
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
9. Hayward to Livermore
These routes each have 20-minute headways. The plan does not specify what'agency would
operate the express routes. To serve the Altamont Pass commute, it is anticipated that the San
Joaquin Regional Transit District will offer express bus service to various locations in the Bay
Area.
Freight Transportation
Freight transportation provides an important contribution to the economy. As such, it is both
necessary and appropriate that the plan give strategic priority to the movement of freight. To
highlight the strategic importance of freight transportation, this plan designates 1-580 as a
Critical Freight Route and 1-680 as a Major Freight Route. These designations are consistent
with the Alameda County Long-Range Transportation Plan. Truck volume studies show that 1-
580 at the Altamont Pass carries more than 20,000 trucks each weekday while 1-680 at the Sunol
Pass carries more than 15,000 trucks per day.
As a Critical Freight Route, 1-580 should be accorded priority for intermodal funding under
ISTEA. Also, 1-580 should be operated in a manner that ensures that freight can be moved with
maximum efficiency. To this end, expenditure priority should be 'given to those operational
improvements necessary to prevent the encroachment of commute traffic from congesting
Critical Freight Routes during midday hours (defined as from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). As a Major
Freight Route, 1-680 should be given consideration for intermodal funding under ISTEA.
One transportation management strategy to be evaluated further and considered later is to
implement ramp metering during midday hours, as necessary, to maintain acceptable speeds on 1-
580 and 1-680. At such time as environmental review is conducted for a system-wide ramp
metering plan for the Tri-Valley, ramp metering during midday hours to maintain smooth freight
movements should also be considered.
Page 32
Adopted September 27, 2000
;~ ~ ~,~
9. Action Plan
The Action Plan lists planned improvements along each route of regional significance. The
Transportation Plan recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route
of regional significance. J,>otential actions are also listed. These were considered by the TVTC and
serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of
responsible agencies to implement the actions for each route of regional significance.
Regional Actions
Listed below are regional actions that are intended to reduce congestion and improve efficiency
on the regional transportation system. These actions are broader in nature than the route-specific
actions identified in the following subsection. Implementation of regional actions requires a
coordination effort among local jurisdictions and regional agencies. The TVTC jurisdictions,
while not able to implement all of these actions directly, agree to use every opportunity to work
cooperatively with responsible agencies, including Ca1trans, BART and MTC, toward their
successful implementation.
1. Increase A VR for peak hour trips from 1.1 to 1.2through increased number or frequency of
express buses, new HOV lanes, other transit improvements and local TDM programs.
2. Improve the operational efficiency of freeways and arterial streets through effective corridor
management strategies. These strategies could include traffic operations systems and ramp
metering, provided studies show that metering would effectively reduce overall delay within
the corridor and not adversely affect operations of adjacent intersections. Provide HOV
bypass lanes wherever space permits.
3. Support growth that achieves an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley.
4. Support new funding sources to support commute alternatives and alternative-fueled vehicles
for transit operators to fund needed transportation projects. The extension of county sales
tax measures is one potential source of such funding. The State legislature has also passed
enabling legislation that would allow MTC to propose a regional gasoline tax to the people
of the Bay Area that would focus on providing increased funding for commute alternatives
and other transportation projects.
5. Support active promotion of regional ridesharing services and commute incentives.
6. Support development of a seamless HOV network in the Tri-Valley to encourage the use of
carpools and bus transit, and explore the possibility of connecting the HOV network to
adjoining areas. The TVTC shall work cooperatively with Caltrans, MTC, and affected
Adopfed September 27, 2000
Page 33
~q t)> 0
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system, especially on 1-580,
where cost-effective.
7. Work to find sources of stable funding to support ongoing transit operations and to support
new or enhanced express bus service.
8. Increase coordination of bus services between transit operators (both inter- and intra-county).
9. Support the preparation by Caltrans of an incident management plan for the State highways
in the Tri-Valley. The TVTC recognizes that incidents can have a profound effect on traffic
conditions both on the freeways and on the arterials.
Since the adoption of the original Tri-Valley Transportation Plan in 1995, several of the previous
regional actions have been completed.
1. The subregional traffic impact fee study to address the funding issues described in Chapter 8,
"Financial Plan," and to address the list of priority transportation projects described in
Chapter 7, "Recommended Improvement Plan" was completed in 1997.
2. In 1998, the Tri-Valley jointly adopted and began implementing a subregional traffic impact
fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, transportation improvements.
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 (TSOs) are presented,
together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties responsible for
implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Plan is adopted, each jurisdiction will be
responsible for making a good faith effort to implement the agreed-upon actions. In Contra
Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the 1988 Measure C Growth Management
Program will be judged based partly upon its efforts to implement these agreed-~pon actions.
The actions, programs and measures identified in the Action Plan are intended to mitigate
congestion and achieve the TSOs 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 individual jurisdiction may also elect to implement more stringent actions,
measures or programs, in addition to those identified below, on facilities within its jurisdictions.
For example, a jurisdiction's individual mitigation program could respond to higher future traffic
levels, assuming no gateway constraints (see Figure 5-4).
Page 34
Adopted September 27, 2000
l.( Ci ~ YO
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Interstate 680
1-680 is 0 6.lane north-south heeway through the Tri-Valley oreo. It connects with
Central Contro Costa and other oreas further north and with Santa Clara Volley to
the southwest. It is 0 six-lane heeway over much of its length; HOV lones,
however, were added between Central Contra Costa and Son Ramon.
· Auxiliary lanes, Diablo Rd. to Bollinger Canyon Rd. -
priority TVTDF project
· Southbound to eastboun'd flyover and Dublin hook
ramps at 1-680/1-580 interchange (under construction)
- priority TVTDF project
· Interchange improvements at Alcosta Boulevard -
priority TVTDFproject
· Add interchange at West Los Positas
Maintain minimum average speed of 30 MPH and a delay index
of 2.0 between Central Contra Costa County and SR 84
No more than 5 hours of congestion south of SR 84
Achieve by: 201 0
Achieve by: 201 0
Between Central Contra Costa County and SR 84
· Pursue funding for auxiliary lanes
· Complete Alcosto interchange improvements (currently being designed)
· Advocate for HOV lanes between Alcosta and SR 84
. South of SR 84
· Advocate HOV lanes horn SR 84 to the Sunol Grade
· Advocate express bus service
· Support commute alternatives
· Oppose increases in mixed-flow capacity
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSOs
· Support gateway policy for regional traffic management
· Support maior transit investment with Central Contra Costa County
· Implement corridor management strategiesfo improve operational efficiency
· Support new or expanded pork-and-ride facilities
· Support the preparation of a comprehensive evaluation of alternative strategies
to managing growing traffic congestion between SR 24 and 1-580 and
identification of recommended strategies for effective traffic management (in
cooperation with Caltrans CGA, TRANSPAC, and Alameda CMA)
Adopted September 27, 2000
Donville, Son Ramon, Contra Costa Counly
Son Ramon
Dublin, Pleosonton, Alameda Counly, TVTC
Pleasanton, Alameda County, TVTC
All TVTC iurisdictions
All TVTC jurisdictions
All TVTC jurisdictions
All MC iurisdictions
All MC iurisdictions
All TVTC jurisdictions .
. All TVTC jurisdictions
All TVTC jurisdictions
Page 35
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
41 1 ~l)
Interstate 580
1-580 runs east-west through the Tri-Valley, connecting it with western
Alameda County and with the Central Volley fo the east. It is an eight-lone
freeway over much of its length through the Tri-Valley; there ore some auxiliary
lanes between 1-680 and Santo Rita Rood.
· Southbound to eastbound flyover and Dublin hook ramps
at 1-680/1-580 interchange (under construction) -
priority TVTDF project
· Improve interchanges to "pardo" design ot Foothill-Son
Ramon, Fallon-EI Charro, Vasco Road, Greenville Rood,
North Livermore Avenue, and First Street
· Remove interchange at Portola
· Add new interchange ot Isabel extension - priority TVTDF
project
Maintain a minimum average speed of 30 MPH and a delay Achieve by: 2010
index of 2.0 during peak periods
· Pursue funding for and construction of HOV lanes between T assajara Rd. and
east of Vasco Rd. - priority MDF project
· Advocate HOV lanes between east of Vasco Rd. and county line
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
· Support major transit inveslments in the corridor
· Support gatewoy policies on the Altomont Pass and Dublin Grade
· Implement corridor management strategies to improve operational efficiency
· Support new or exp~nded park-and-ride futilities
Page 36
All MCjurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
Adopted September 27, 2000
l.t 1.. 'i ~
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Sycamore Valley Road
Sycamore Valley Road runs roughly east-west from its intersection with San · None programmed
Ramon Valley Road in downtown Danville to its intersection with Camino
T assajara. This 1.S-mile long rood is 4-lones-wide throughout its length with
raised medians and sidewalks.
Sycamore Valley Rood has a 2010 capacity of:
· Four through hines
· Accelerotion/decelerotion lones and left-turn pockets at all intersections
· Caltrans' standard Class II bicycle lanes
Danville (the Town has sole discretion to determine whether
any improvements may occur that would modify the design .
standards of Sycamore Volley Rood)
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 37
4?> 1 ~~D
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action pran Update
Danville Boulevard
Danville Boulevard is 0 primarily 2~lane road that runs west and parallel to 1- · None programmed
680 from Walnut Creek in Central Contra Costa to downtown Danville, where it
becomes Hartz Avenue.
Volume-to-capacity ratio < 0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
None. This route is directly affect by the bottleneck on 1-680. Any capacity
increases would leod to cut-through traffic.
Page 38
Adopted September 27, 2000
lty ~~l)
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Camino Tassaiara
Camino Tossojora is on east-west route of regional significonce from Sycamore
Volley Rood to Crow Conyon Rood. Comino Tossojora is 0 four-lone rood with 0
raised median, curbs, sidewolks, and bike lanes os it leaves the community of
Blackhawk and narrows to a 2-lone rural roadwoy east of Lawrence Rood.
· Widening to four lanes belween the eastern Oonville town
limits to the Windermere Parkway
· Widening to six lanes belween the Windermere Porkwoy
and the Alameda-Contra Costa caunly line
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections, except volume-to- Achieve by: 2010
capocily ratio of ::;; 0.9 atfhe intersection with Crow Conyon Road
· An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be constructed in the Contra Costo Counly, Son Ramon, Oonville
Dougherty Volley based on the Settlement Agreement. Up to 11,000 units
may be considered pending the completion of odditionoltraffic studies as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement
· Consistent with tlte provisions of the Dougherty Volley Settlement Agreement,
control growth to meet intersection level-of-service stondards
· Comino Tassojoro within the Town of Danville hos 02010 capadly consisting
of four through lones, acceleration-deceleration lanes at 011 intersections,
left-turn pockets at 011 intersections, and Coltrons stondard Closs II bicycle
lanes. No action sltall be considered that would eliminate such acceleration-
deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.
· The northbound approach at the Camino Tassoiora-Blockhawk Rood-Crow
Canyon Rood intersection may be reconfigured to consist of 0 4-foot median
island, two 12.foot left-turn lones, one 12-foot through lone, one 12-
through-plus-right-turn lone, and one 12-foot right-turn lone. Tltis requires
reducing the existing median island from 12 feet to 4 feet, and reducing the
existing 16-foot right-turn lone to 0 12-foot right-turn lone. This can be
accomplished within existing curb.to-curb width. Any expansion or
modifications at this intersection sholl be subject to the approval of the Town
of Donville.
Adopted September 27,2000 Page 39
l.le;
~ Q-..O
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Crow Canyon Road
Crow Canyon Rood is an east-west route of regional significance from the · Operational improvements to the Iwo-Ianesection
Alameda County/Contra Costa County border to Comino Tassjara. At the county . Widening to 6 lanes from Alcosta to TassCijara Ranch Drive
line, Crow Canyon is 0 rural 2-lane rood which widens to 4 lanes and then 6
lanes with a raised median and sidewalks where land use is more commercial.
Crow Canyon Rood remains 6 lanes until Alcosto Boulevard, where it narrows
again to 4 lanes. A variety of medians and roadside development exists
depending on locations of existing land development At Indian Rice Rood, Crow
Canyon widens to 6 lanes and remains 6 lanes to Camino Tassojara.
. Volume-to-capaclty ratio · 0.91 at intersections within Son Achieve by: 2010
Ramon
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Donville, Achieve by: 2010
except volume-to-capacity ratio of :::; 0.9 at the intersection with Camino
T ossajoro
· Secure funding for operational improvements west of Bollinger Canyon Rood
· Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes
· Improve Camino Tassojara intersection (see Camino Tossojara) .
· Improve geometries of intersection of Crow Canyon Road/I-680 southbound
off-rom p
Other Area.Wide Actions to Support TSO
· An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be constructed in the
Dougherty Volley based on the Seltlement Agreement Up to 11,000 units
may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic sl1Jdies os
set forth in the Settlement Agreement
· Consistent with the provisions of the Seltlement Agreement, control growth to
meet intersection level-of-service standards
Alameda County, Son Ramon
Son Ramon
Danville
Son Ramon
Contra Costa County, Son Ramon, Danville
Page 40
Adopted September 27, 2000
4~ '1 Q'D
Chapter 9 Action Plan
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
San Ramon Volley Boulevard is (] route of regional significance in Danville. It is · Widen to 4 lanes through Danville
the continuation of Hartz Avenue south of Railroad Avenue. San Romon Volley . Widen to 4 lanes through Son Ramon
Boulevard has 2 lanes to the Donville Town limit.
Volume-to-capacity ratio · 0.91 at intersections south of Achieve by: 2010
Sycamore Valley Rood
Volume-to-capacity ratio < 0.9 at intersections north of Sycamore Achieve by: 2010
Volley Rood
South of Sycamore Valley Road
Complete planned projects to widen to 4 lanes
Other Area-Wide Adions to Support TSO
None
Donville, Son Ramon
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 41
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
41 1J 1ft
Bollinger Canyon Road
Bollinger Canyon Road is an east-west route defined as a route of regional
Significance from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard. Bollinger
Canyon Rood is a 4-lone rood with a raised median and sidewalks from Crow
Canyon Road to 1-680 and widens to 6 lanes from 1-680 to Alcosta Boulevard.
In conjunction with development of the Dougherty Valley, Bollinger Canyon
Road will be extended east to intersect Dougherty Rood.
· Extend Bollinger Canyon Rood easlword to Dougherty Road
Volume-to-copocify ratio · 0.91 at intersedions
Achieve by: 2010
· Improve intersection at Sunset
· Improve intersection oteomino Ramon
· Improve intersection at Alcosto
· Complete extension project in conjunction with the development of Dougherty
Volley
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
· Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement,
control growth to meet intersection level-of-service standards.
San Ramon
San Ramon
San Roman
Son Roman
San Ramon, Contra Costa County, Danville
Page 42
Adopted September 27, 2000
4 't c~ 'SO
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Aleosla Boulevard
Alcosto BouleVilrd is a 4-1ane, eost~west route with a raised median and
sidewalks, defined as a route of regional significance fro only a snort segment .
from 1-680 to Village Parkway. Alcosta Boulevard extends from San Ramon
Valley Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, nnd includes a full interchange at 1- .
680.
· Reconfigure Alcostn/l-680 interchange to improve
intersection operation.
· Secure funding for interchange improvements at 1-680
· Complete improvements at Bollinger Canyon Rood
Other Area-Wide Adions to Support TSO
None
Son Ramon, CGA
Son Ramon
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 43
4q 6t <?D
Tri-ValleyTransportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Dougherty Road
Dougherty Rood is north-south route that is defined os 0 route of regional · Widen to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard
significance from Crow Convon Rood to 1-580. From Crow Canyon Rood to the . Widen to 610nes north of Dublin Boulevord
Dublin dty limit, Dougherty Rood is 0 winding 2-lone rood. From the dly limit,
Dougherty Rood has 4 trove/lanes. Some sidewalks exist adjacent to completed
housing developments. A bike path (2-woy bike lanes) exists on the east side of
the street. South of Sierra lone, Dougherty Rood becames 0 5-lone rood wjth
the addition of 0 center left-turn lone. The center left-turn lone is rep/oced by 0
northbound lone just north of 1-580 (3 northbound and 2 southbound lanes).
Volume-to-capacity ratio < 0.9 at intersections from 1.580 through Achieve by: 2010
Old Ranch Rood
. Volume-to-capacity ratio · 0.91 at intersections north of Old Achieve by: 2010
Ranch Rood
· Secure funding from developers for planned roadway widenings - Dublin Contra Costa County, Son Ramon, Dublin
and Contra Costa County hove been meeting with developers of Dougherty
Volley to secure funds; o small amount of Dublin traffic impact fee revenues
hove been allocated to the project
· Modify the westbound 1-580 off-ramps to hove two exclusive right-turn Dublin, Co/trans
lones, one optional left- or right-turn lone and one exclusive left-turn lone.
.. Create two northbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Dougherty Rood Dublin
and Amador Volley Boulevard
· Explore effectiveness of implementing transit corridor
Other Area-Wide Adions to Support TSO
Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs
Page 44 Adopted September 27, 2000
t;6 1 ~Q
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Tassaiara Road
Tossoioro Road is 0 north-south rote thot is defined os 0 route of regionol
significonce from Comino Tossojoro to 1-580. Tossojoro Rood is 0 2-lone rood
from Comino Tossojoro to the 1-580 on- and off-romps where it becomes 4
lones.
· . Widen to 8 lones from 1-580 to Central Porkway
· Widen to 6 lanes from Central Porkwoy to county line
Volume-to-capadty ratio · 0.91 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for widening
· Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Central Porkwoy: right-of-way determined
lind will be dedicated as development occurs; currenfty being widened to 4
lanes os port of odjoining development
· Widening to 6 lanes from Central Porkwoy to city limits: developer will be
required to build 4 lanes and dedicate right-of-woy for 6 lones os port of
development
· Widening to 6 lones from city limits to county line: future
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
· Consider putting into ploce mutuolly ogreeoble ond equitoble multi-
jurisdictionol growth monogement - no oction
· Consider widening or exponding the highway network, improving tronsit
service, or improving tronsportotion demand monagement
AllffiC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 45
S\ crt <i (j
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is on east-west route that is defined os 0 route of regional
significance from Son Ramon Rood to Tossojora Rood. Dublin Boulevard is 0 4-
lone rood with sidewolks on both sides and 0 raised median from Son Ramon
Rood to Dougherty Rood and 0 2-lone rood from Dougherty Rood to Tossajara
Rood. West of 1.680, parking is permitted along both sides of the rood.
· Widen to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tossojora
· Extend os 6-lone roadway to North Canyon Parkway
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for widening and extension
· Widening to 6/ones from Son Ramon Rood to Village Parkway: completed
· Widening to 6 lanes from Village Parkway to Sierra Court: design underway;
construction in 2000
· Widening to 6 lanes from Sierra Court to Dougherty Rood: included in Dublin
TIF, but minimal funds allocated
· Widening to 6 lanes from Dougherty Rood to Scarlett Drive: funded through
TlF; design underway; construction in 2000
· Extension from Tassajora Rood to Fallon Rood: to be constructed by
developer of Dublin Ranch, 2002-5
· Extension from Fallon Rood to North Canyons Parkway: future
· Develop intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway to the
follOWing specifications: eastbound - !wo left-turn lones, !wo through
lanes and one right-turn lone; westbound - one right-turn lone, .!wo
through lones, and !wo left-turn lanes.
· Develop intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza os follows:
westbound -!wo left-turn lones, ,gp~_thro.~gb lone, and one through-right
lane; eastbound -one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one through-
right-turn lone; northbound - one right-turn lone with overlap arrow, and
one through 10lie, and one left-turn lone; and southbound - one left-turn
lone, and one through plus right.turn lone.
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
Pursue the development of HOV lanes on 1-580
Dublin
Dublin
All Me jurisdictions
Page 46
Adopted September 27, 2000
S 'l. ~h ~ti
Chapter 9 Action Plan
San Ramon Road
San Ramon Road is the conftnuation of San Ramon Valley Boulevard into the · None
City of Dublin. San Ramon Road is designated as a route of regional
significance from the northern city limit to the southern city limit. From Alcosta
Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road has 4 lanes with a
roised median, bike lones and sidewalks. South of Amador Volley Boulevard,
San Ramon Road widens to 6 lanes.
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections Achieve by: 2010
None
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 47
Tri..Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
~~
01 7$"()
b
Hopyard Road
Hopyard Road is a north-south route that is defined as a route of regional
Significance from its intersection With 1-580 to its intersection with Del Valle
Parkway and Division Street. South of 1-580 to Valley Avenue, Hopyard Road is
o 6-lane rood with wide lones, sidewalks and 0 raised median. A right-turn
lone exists belween intersections at Owens Drive and Los Positas Boulevard on
the east side (northbound direction) of the rood. Belween Valley Avenue and
Division SlTeet, Hopyord Road changes from 6 lanes with median sidewalks and
bike lanes, to a 3-lane and then 0 2-lane rood with an asphalt concrete path
on the west side.
· Widen to 4 lanes belween Valley and Division (funded
through Pleasanton Traffic Development fees)
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by; 2010
Enforce existing growth controls in Pleasanton to insure achievement of TSOs
- all intersections at LOS D (1999)
Build an adequate Route 84 to reduce cut-through lTaffic from West Las Positas
Boulevard - ongoing process
Install traffic signal phose overlap at intersection with West Las Positas
Boulevard - done os needed
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Pleasanton
All MC jurisdictions
Pleasanton
Page 48
Adopted September 27, 2000
9t~~
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Santa Rita Road
Sonta Rita Rood is 0 north-south route thot is defined os 0 route of regionol · Completed
significance from its intersection with 1-580 in the north; to its intersection with
Stanley Boulevord ond Main Street near downtown Pleosonton. Santo Rito
Rood is 0 6-01en rood with sidewolks and raised medions south of 1-580. At
Volley Avenue; Sonto Rite Rood norrows to 4 10nes.A residenftol frontage rood
on the east side of Santo Rita Rood existing in the segment between Volley
Avenue and Stanley Boulevard.
Volume-to-capacify ratio. <0.9 at intersections Achieve by: 2010
Widen eastbound off-romp at 1-580 to provide two left-turn lanes; currenriy Dublin ond Pleosonton
under design by Dublin; with construction onticipoted in 2000
Redesignote eastbound approach lones at West Los Positos os follows: two left; Pleosonton
one through; ond two right
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Adopted September 27, 2000 Page 49
6? ~ ~~
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Stanley Boulevard
Stanley Boulevard is an east-west arterial that is defined as a route of regional
significance from its intersection with First Street and Holmes Street in
Livermore to its intersection with First Street in Pleasanton. Stanley Boulevard is
,
4 lanes along its enlire length. Bike lanes are continuous along Stanley
Boulevard except in the region near Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreational Area
where the bike lanes convert into 0 2-way bike path on the south side of the
rood.
· Construct grade separation at intersection with Isabel
Parkway os port of SR 84 project (under construction)
At intersection with Valley Avenue-Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton, widen for two Pleasanton
eastbound left-turn lanes; Pleasanton development fees passed C1P construction
at this intersection in 2000.
At intersection with Volley Avenue-Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton, redesignate Pleasanton
lanes as two through lanes and one shared through-right-turn lone
Construct Highway 84 to reduce cut-through traffic All TVTCjurisdictions
Other Area-Wide Adions to Support TSO
None
Page SO Adopted September 21, 2000
lfb q&~O
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Sloneridge Drive
Stoneridge Drive is on east-west route designated os 0 route of regional
significance from Foothill Rood to east of Santo Rito Rood. Stoneridge Drive is
planned to connect to Jock london Boulevard at EI Charro Rood. Stoneridge
Drive varies between 4 ond 6 lanes with raised medion, sidewolks, and bike
lanes from Foothill Rood to Santo Rito Rood. East of Sonto Rita Rood,
Stoneridge narrows to 0 2 -lone rood with sidewolks and bike lanes on the south
side of the street. Stoneridge Drive is plonned for 610nes olong its entire length.
· Extend os 0 six-lone arterial to EI Charro to connect with
the extension of W. Jock london Boulevard from Livermore;
dependent on development; City porlion funded through
Pleasonton Traffic Development Fees
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
None (Pleasonton is considering potenliol improvements to the Stoneridge!l-
580 interchonge)
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Pleosanton
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 51
51 1; ~ (
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Sunol Boulevard
Sunol Boulevard is a 2.lane, north-south route defined as a route of regional
significance from Bernal Avenue to its interchange with 1-680. South of Bernal
Avenue, Sunol Boulevard is 4 lanes with raised median, sidewalk, and bike
lanes. South of Junipero Slreet, Sunol Boulevard narrows to 2 lanes with no
median.
· Widen to 4 lanes from Bernal to Sycomore Rd. ond 6 lanes
from Sycamore Rd. to 1-680
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
None
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Page 52
Adopted September 27, 2000
c;~ Ob ~t
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Slale Roule 84
Stote Route 84 is on arterial street including First Street and Holmes Street
through Livermore and Volletitos Rood south of Pleosonton. (First Street is
described below.) Haimes Street also has 0 varied lond configuration that
chonges from 4 lanes with sidewalks and median, to 2 lones with 0 wide
pointed medion ond sidewolk, to 2 '\ones with no medion. Bike lones are
present where the street norrows to 2 lones. Vollecitos Rood is 0 2 -lone,
winding rural rood.
· Widen ond upgrade Vollecitors Rood to 0 4-lone
expresswoy
· Connect and widen Isabel to 0 6-lone arterial
· Construct 0 new interchange at Isobel and 1-580
· Construct 0 grade seporation at Isobel ond Stonley
Boulewrd.
link volume-to-capacity ratio < 0.99
Achieve by: 201 0
Secure funding for widening of State Route 84
Adopt recommendotions onri-Volley Subcommittee on SR 84
Accept LOS E ot Lock London Boulewrd or widen SR 84 to 8 lanes or provide 0
grade separation
Maintain existing historic highwoy designotion and function
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
Seek cooperative funding programs with Central Volley and Fremont-South Boy
jurisdictions to mitigote the impact of odditional commute traffic through the
Tri.Volley
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
All TVTC jurisdictions
All mc jurisdictions
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 53 '
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
;-'1
u1 )$''{)
C
Rrst Street (livermore)
First Street is currently a part of SR 84. From 1-580 to Portala Avenue, First
Street is 0 6-lane rood. From Portala Avenue to Holmes Street, First Street is 0
4-lane rood with sidewalks, bike lones, and a raised median. (In some
locations, the median. becomes 0 two-way, left-turn lone or disappears
enfirely.) Parking is permitted along some sections of First Street.
· Reconfigure 1-5aO/First Street interchange to "pardo"
design
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure funding for interchange improvements (the project is on the list of
improvements to be funded by livermore's Traffic Impact Fee program,
although no funds hove been allocated for this project os of yet)
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Livermore
Page S4
Adopted September 27, 2000
b~ rt2rO
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Vasco Road
Vasco Road is a nortn-south arterial that is defined os 0 route of regiondf
significance througn Contra Costa County and Alameda County to its termination
at Tesla Rood in the Gty of Livermore. Vasco Road is a 2-lane road along most
of its length, except in developed areas neor Lawrence Livermore Nalional
laboratories wnere it widens to 4 lanes witn concrete curbs, bike lones, and 0
raised landscaped median.
· Widen to 4 lanes from north of Dolton Avenue to Scenic
· Widen to 6 lones from Scenic to Patterson Pass Rood
· Realign and. upgrade in Contra .Costa to accommodate
relocalion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir (completed)
· Reconstruct Vasco/l-580 interchange (Project Study Report
for project is completed; Livermore. is proceeding with
environmental document and project report; phase 1
construction expected in 2002; liming of long-range
improvements is unknown although project is included in
Livermore TIF program)
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
· Secure funding for safety improvements on 2-lane segment in Alameda
County; the safety improvements, while maintaining the 2-lane gateway in
Alameda County, snoll be done in a manner to not preclude future transit,
HOV, or other mutually agreed-to transportalion improvements. Approximate
. cost of 3-mile segment is $30 million. Praject study report equivalent nos
been completed for most crilicol northernmost one-mile segment; eslimated
cost is $7-10 million, depending on alignment.
· Upgrade Vasco/I-580 interchange per the PSR
· Oppose increases in mixed-flow capadty north of lsobel Extension
· Support transit service in corridor
· Secure developer funding for widening projects (Widening to 4 lanes from
Scenic to Garavanta Rancn Road has been completed; remainder to be
completed as development occurs. Right-of-way for 6 lanes between Scenic
and Patterson Pass is dedicoted os development occurs)
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Contra Costa County, Alameda County
Livermore
All MC jurisdictions
All MC jurisdictions
Livermore
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page S5
6\ 61, S1
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Fillion Road
Follon Rood is a 2-lane roadway running north from its intersection
with 1-580 and EI (harro Road at the eastern edge of Dublin.
· Widen and extend as 6-lane rood from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason
Drive and 8.lane road from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard
· Reconstruct FallonjEI Chorro/l-580 interchange
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure funding for widening and extension - developer will be
required to widen Fallon Rood to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin
Boulevard, 6 lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive, and 4
lanes from Gleason Drive to T assajora Rood os port of Dublin Ranch
project and other developments
Pursue development of HOV lanes on 1-580 - ongoing
Secure funding for 1-5801Fallon Rood interchange improvements -
developer of Dublin Ranch is required. to participate in the funding the
interchange improvement; Dublin is preparing PSR
Other Area.Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Dublin, Alameda (ounfy
All TVT( jurisdictions
Dublin, livermore, Pleasanton, Caltrans, Alameda CMA
Page 56
Adopted September 27, 2000
b~ ~ yf>
Chapter 9 Action Plan
North Canyons Parkway
North Canyons Parkway is a 4-lone arterial running parallel to 1-580 between
Airway Boulevard and Collier Canyon Road
· Widen and extend os 6-lone arterial from Doolan to Isabel
Extension (Widening complete from Doolan Road east to
Collier Canyon Road. The remaining segment from Collier
Canyon to Isabel Extension will be completed with
developer and City TIF funding.)
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for widening and extension of roadway - Complete
Improve the intersection of N. Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon Rood -
Improvements will be done in conjunction with approved development in the
area
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Livermore
Livermore
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 57
~?> ~b ~1)
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Adion Plan Update
Isabel Extension
The Isabel Extension is a currently-un built roadway that would extend Isabel · Extend from 1.580 as a 4- to 6-lane arterial - this is in
Porkway/SR 84 north of 1-580 into the North Uvermore planning area the North Livermore Planning Area, and planning for that
area is continuing
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for extension - this is inthe North Livermore Planning
Area, and planning for that area is continuing
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Page S8
Adopted September 21, 2000
~"\ at ~ t>
Chapter 9 Action Plan
North Uvermore Avenue
Currently 0 2-lone ruml rood north of 1-580
· Widen to 6 lones from 1-580 to 1-% miles north ond
widen to 4 lanes to Isobel Extension- this is in the North
Livermore Plonning Area, and planning for that area is
continuing
· Modify ond widen 1-580/N. Livermore interchange - the
PSR is almost complete and expected to be approved by
Caltrans in eorly 2000; timing of the long-range
interchange improvements is unknown, although _ the
project is induded in the City's TIF program
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 201 0
Secure funding for the N. Livermore Avenuejl-580 interchange -the project is
induded in the City's TIF progmm
Secure developer funding for widening of N. Livermore Avenue - this is in the
N. Livermore Planning Area, ond planning for that oreo is continuing
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Livermore
Livermore
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 59
10; 6L <?J
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
West Las Positas Boulevard
West Las Positas Boulevcrd runs southwest to northeast through Pleasonton
from. Foothill Rood to eost of Sonta Rita Rood, roughly poralleling but crossing
Stoneridge Drive. It is 0 4-lone roodwoy between Poyne ond Sonto Rita ond 2
lanes elsewhere
· Add interchonge ot intersection with 1-680 - tosk force
curren~y studying new interchange
· Widen to 4-lanes from Foothill Rood to Payne Avenue
Volume-to-capacity ratio < 0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Reduce through troffic by constructing an adequate SR 84 - portial funding
through TVTDF
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
Enforce existing growth controls to ensure achievement of TSOs - currenriy
underway
All TVTC jurisdictions, Caltrans
Pleasonton
Page 60
Adopted September 27, 2000
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Bernal Avenue
Bernal Avenue is a 2- to 4-lane roadway that runs east from its intersection
with Foothill Road, across 1-680, south of downtown Livermore and then east
and north to its intersection with Stanley Boulevard.
· Widen to 4 lones, Foothill to 1-680
· Widen to 6 lanes, 1-680 to Valley
· Widen to 4 lanes, First Street to Stanley
Volume-to-capacily ratio.<0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
None
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 61
b~ trb <6&
b 1 '1 gO
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
Jack London Boulevard
None
· Widen and extend as 4-lane arterial from Kitty Hawk to EI
Charro os a connection to the Stoneridge extension - No
progress to dote
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections
Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for extension
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSO
None
Livermore
Page 62
Adopted September 27, 2000
b~ ~ ~
Chapter 9 Action Plan
Hacienda Drive
· Extend as 4-lane arterial to Gleason Drive
· Widen to 6 lanes, 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard
Volume-to-capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections Achieve by: 2010
Secure developer funding for widening extension - Developer is required to Dublin
widen Hacienda Drive as port of development along the roadway; construction
is underway (1999)
Other Area-Wide Actions to Support TSOs
None
Adopted September 27, 2000 Page 63
1,<1 0{; y<tl
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plein Update
Page 64
Adopted September 27, 2000
[4 ~ ~4>
I O.Plan Implementation, Monitoring,
and Review
This chapter describes how the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented. Specific
topics include plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the subregional traffic impact
fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objectives, and procedures for handling
development application~.
Plan Adoption
As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement OPA) that created the TVTC, adoption of the Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan shall require the unanimous vote of all members of the TVTC.
Following plan adoption, all TVTC member jurisdictions agree to consider the Plan when
adopting or amending circulation elements of their general plans and specific plans, zoning
ordinances, or capital improvement programs.
While compliance with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) is essentially voluntary among
the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP become part of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program, the Contra Costa County jurisdictions have a
mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the Action Plan for the Contra Costa Tri-Valley
jurisdictions, as required by Measure C. Thus, to maintain compliance with Measure C, the
Contra Costa County Tri-Valley jurisdictions must make a good-faith effort to implement the
planned actions, or risk losing their return-to-source funds. Compliance is tied to local
implementation of ac~on policies as set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan." One locality,
however, cannot be judged ineligible for local street maintenance and improvement funds
because of the unwillingness of another locality to participate in the process.
Plan Financing
Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions: the subregional transportation
impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that benefit multiple
jurisdictions.
SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
In 1998, the member jurisdictions of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council entered into a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement OEPA) that established the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee, or TVTDF.
The TVTDF comprises a set of uniform fees on new development within the Tri-Valley area. The
use of the fee is guided by the TVTDF Strategic Expenditure Plan, which outlines the priorities
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 65
-rl o1J ~Q
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
for the Tri-Valley area as agreed to by the seven TVTC member agencies. The SEP lists project
costs for each of the 11 potential projects; estimates expected revenues from the TVTDP and
other possible revenue sources for the projects; sets a prioritization plan and a time line for
project delivery; 'and identifies the TVTDF jurisdiction responsible for overseeing
implementation of the project.
The list of projects that the fee could fund includes:
1. 1-580/1-680 flyover and hook ramps
2. State Route 84 corridor improvements: 1-580 to 1-680, including the I-580/State Route
84 (Isabel Parkway) interchange
3. 1-680 auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road
4. West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station
5. 1-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road
6. 1-680 HOV lanes from State Route 84 to the top of theSunol Grade
7. 1-580/Foothill Road-San Ramon Road interchange modifications
8. I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange
9. Crow Canyon Road safety improvements
10. Vasco Road safety improvements
11. Express bus service
The current SEP allocates expected TVTDP fee revenues to only seven of these projects: 1) 1-
580/1-680 flyover and hook ramps; 2) State Route 84 corridor improvements (but not the 1-.
580/Isabel Parkway interchange); 3) the 1-680 auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road
and Diablo Road; 4) the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station; 5) the 1-580 HOV lanes from
Tassajara Road to Vasco Road; 6) the 1-580/Poothill Road-San Ramon Road interchange
modifications; and 7) the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange. In addition, a portion of the $4.0
million committed to the West.DPX BART Station could be used for purchasing buses to be used
for express service provided that all of the operating costs are fully funded.
Of the projects with TVTDF funding currently allocated to them, the 1-580/1-680 fly over is the
number one priority. In the current Tri-Valley Strategic Expenditure Plan, funds are committed
to only six of these projects (1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7). Many of the funds generated will be used
initially for studies necessary to define the project and help get additional State or federal
funding. Projects 4 and 5 are not yet in Track 1 of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan.
Each jurisdiction may retain up to 20 percent of TVTDP revenues it collects. This share of the
fees must be used to fund the development or' construction of one the 11 projects listed above.
As of December 31, 1998, the TVTDP had generated about $1.6 million. Through the end of FY
2012/2013, the TVTDP is forecast to generate about $56.7 million to fund identified projects in'
the Tri-Valley. The estimated cost for all eleven identified regional projects, however, is $466.1
million, far greater than expected fee revenues. Even with other sources of funding including
Page 66
Adopted September 27, 2000
1 ).. eib <; 0
Chapter 10 Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Review
Measure C), the SEP estimates a shortfall of about $300 million. Even if Alameda County voters
approve a new Measure B, the shortfall will be in the $150-175 million range.
Under the initial TVTDF fee schedule, single-family residential uses were charged $1,500; multi-
family residential uses were charged $1,050; retail, commercial and office uses were charged
$1.00 per square foot; and industrial uses were charged $0.75 per square foot. All other uses
were charged $600 per peak-hour trip generated. The fees are escalated with increases in
inflation in construction costs.
SHARED FACILITIES
Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of new
development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared among jurisdictions.
'For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost sharing
between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdiction's traffic is
expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries within which the
facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should be negotiated in advance so that when
development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is clear.
Monitoring Transportation Service Obiectives
The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While certain growth
assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the specification of a planned
transportation system and financing program. The TVTP does not control growth directly but
indirectly through the TSOs.
Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service are
largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road improvements so that the TSOs
continue to be met. Achievement of the TSOs depends upon succ~ssful implementation of the
actions, measures, and programs set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan."
In Contra Costa County, if, following good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a TSO is
not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of TVTC and SWAT.
Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of TSOs, a strengthening of actions, or a
combination of these approaches. In Alameda County, the jurisdiction with the TSO violation
can elect to modify growth rates, improve the facility, or seek a lower TSO standard through the
amendment process set forth in this chapter.
The TSOs related to mode split and average vehicle ridership are goals for achievement 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.
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 67
(1 ~6 C?t;
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
The TSOs should be monitored, as part of the updating of the Action Plans. The following
describes how each should be measured. Each jurisdiction should report the results oftheir
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 in terms of hours of congestion. Hours of
congestion can be measured with traffic counts or speed runs and should apply to mixed-flow
lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles capacity
for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of congestion. Freeway
monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA.
Delay Index. The Delay Index compares the time required to travel between two points during the
peak hour to the time required during non-congested, off-peak hours. This measure is defined as
the observed travel time divided by the free-flow travel time:
Delay Index (Dr) = (Observed Travel Time) + (Free-Flow Travel Time)
The minimum value for the Delay Index - which indicates minimum delay - is 1.0. A 01 of 1.0
indicates that traffic is moving at free-flow speed, as measured by floating car runs,
unconstrained by congestion but not exceeding the posted speed limit. (In calculating DI, it is
assumed that vehicles will not exceed the posted speed limit.) As congestion increases and
average speed decreases, the Dr increases as well. For example, a Dr of 2.0 indicates that the trip
takes twice as long during peak hours as during the off-peak, due to congestion and slow speed.
Intersection levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using the VCCC
program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts. Intersection
monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersection 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 intersection for
monitoring. TVTC should initiate a discussion of utilizing intersection level-of-service
calculations based on the Highway Capacity Manual as a supplement or alternative to the VCCC
program.
Mode Split. Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through extensive
home interview and work place surveys. These data are available every decade from the U.S.
Census and periodically from MTC. In between times, transit ridership should be monitored as a
surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the TVTP can only be met if transit ridership
increases annually. The transit operators routinely collect and report annual ridership.
Average Vehicle Ridership. This TSO relates directly to commute trips. The Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan includes a regional action to increase A VR from 1.1 to 1.2. Several T ri- Valley jurisdictions
maintain voluntary employer trip reduction programs to increase A VR.
Page 68
Adopted September 27, 2000
..,.~ 1 y 1>
Chapter 10 Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Review
Development Applications
Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of
new development and does not relieve the jurisdiction of meeting CEQA and CMA
requirements. This will affect both environmental impact reports and general plan amendments.
Transportation studies for development applications in the Tri-Valley area shall assume gateway
constraints described in this plan. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has incorporated
the use of gateway cOll,straints in their Technical Procedures.
Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC,
since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. In
addition to any other cumulative analysis, the cumulative analysis section of each EIR should
consider the Expected Land Use and transportation scenario on which the TVTP is based. The
CMAs are required to use ABAG projections. The Expected Land Use scenario is greater than
ABAG so it is more conservative and should be considered consistent. Transportation impacts
. should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a. violation of
Transportation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with
the TVTP network.
General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are
incorporated into the TVTP, are based on information sUp'plied by the TVTC member
jurisdictions on their expected 2010 developments as of June 1994. Any general plan
amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any
jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the TVTP and
demonstrate that the Transportation Service Objectives could still be met. If further
transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should
specify how they would be funded.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted General Plan
land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network. Consistency
with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the General Plan that may
significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The Regional
. Committee will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require
review by the Regional Committee and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a
General Plan Amendment found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the
jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA.
Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amendment,
adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or
Board denial of the amendment.
Growth Management Tools. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the
plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 69
-r~ cst ~0 ()
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service
Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Grciwthbeyond what is assumed herein
may occur provided the TSOs are met.
If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violation~, 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 llsed 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 to the Regional Committee for evaluation of its
impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program
directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action
Plan success and consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the
amendment to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to
meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amendment
from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.
If neither of these can be done, approval ofrhe General Plan amendment may lead to a finding of
non-compliance with the Growth Management Program.
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 Constraints would
constitute the latter.
This plan is based upon the assumption that major gateways into Tri-Valley will not be expanded
beyond the capacities assumed in the Expected Network as set forth in Chapter 5. Any change in
these assumptions, such as the addition of HOV lanes on 1-580 over the Altamont Pass, would
Page 70
Adopted September 27, 2000
1~ ~b ~()
Chapter 10 Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Review
require that this plan be amended to incorporate revised assumptions for the Tri-Valley gateway
constraints. Increased capacity at the gateways could significantly increase projected congestion
on downstream freeway sections and arterial streets.
As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement governing the TVTC, amendments tq the plan will
require a unanimous vote of all members of the TVTe.
Conflict Resolution
Because of the importance of support for the Plan by all members of the TVTC, the Council
should act on a consensus basis. However, some cases may arise in which consensus cannot be
reached. In cases where conflict exists between jurisdiction within one county, resolution should
be negotiated through the forum of the Congestion. Management Agency for the respective
county. In cases where conflict exists between jurisdictions in different counties, resolution
should be negotiated through the TVTC with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement
applying. These provisions state the following:
1. Unanimous vote of all members required for plan adoption and amendment.
2. Unanimous vote of all members required for adoption of annual work program and
budget;
3. Five votes required for grant applications, expenditure of funds, execution of contracts,
adoption of rules of procedure.
4. Majority vote of all members present required for action on any other matter.
Future Role of MC
It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Plan will rest primarily with the individual
jurisdictions. However, the plan has identified some continuing functions for the TVTC, as
follows:
· Housing and future updates of the Tri-Valley Model
· Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
. Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee
· Coordinated implementation of Actions requiring inter--jurisdictional cooperation
Adopted September 27, 2000
Page 71
11
't
D
Tri..Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Update
f
Page 72
Adopted September 27, 2000 .
1'8 1 fi)
"
f'1~::~' ""':h.. . .
.n";i;f1~A' t-[!;)k ,""."
" . ~ . ," ~::V:t!pr;,:..
eo OCT -3 PH 3: 0'
CITY OF SANRAMON
," " It.
. . .... "'1 "T"'
! '. ::.~:; ';;J"Y~ i; . i. .
- '-.<-" ,.1t-Nl (!r"h-,.
'- '. 'CJ !
2222 CAMINO RAMON
P.O. Box 5148
SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583-1350
PHONE: (925) 275-2200 -
FAX: (925)866-1436
E-MAIL: sannunon@cisan-ramon.ca.us
September 29,2000
Supervisor Scott Haggerty
Chair, Tri-Valley Transportation Council
C/o Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Supervisor Haggerty,
On behalf of the City of San Ramon, I would like to hereby register our affirmative vote
on the adoption of the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance, as presented at the September 27, 2000 meeting of the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council. As San Ramon's representative to the TVTC, I
hereby vote to adopt the 2000 Update of the Tri-ValIey Transportation Plan.
I would also like to clarifY the City's understanding of the footnote to Table 7-1 (page 28)
regarding Camino Tassajara; in this footnote, the term "Danville Town limits" refers to
the current Town limits as of the date of adoption of the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/ Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.
Further, our vote to adopt the 2000 Update does not mean that San. Ramon accepts the
position that the Contra Costa General Plan "constitutes the governing policy document
for this segment of Camino Tassajara", as postulated in the footnote to Table 7-1. The
Tri- Valley Transportation Plan (both 1995 and 2000 Update versions) addresses the
future configuration of Camino Tassajara, and is formally adopted by, and binding on
Contra Costa County. Additionally, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, also
formally adopted by Contra Costa County, the Town of DanvilIe and the City of San
Ramon, establishes policy for Camino Tassajara.
CITY COUNCIL, 275-2330
CITY MANAGER, 275-2330
Crn' CLERK,275-2350
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, 275-2323
POLlCE SERVICES, 275-2270
PUBLIC SERVICES, 275-2260
PARKS & COMMUNITY SEE'
COMMUNlrY CENTER' 275
SENIOR CENTER, 275-231 (
'~~~C'. ~ ~~~F~ ~- ~
r\~ .1"1.' ~'''MPu:Nj_~E_
l q 1; rr~
"
Thank you for your leadership in bringing the 2000 Update of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan to completion and adoption. We look forward to continuing the
partnership between our jurisdictions to develop regional consensus over our shared
transportation needs.
Sincerely, /1 /.. .
~~
Dave Hudson
Councilmember
:,.
Cc: San Ramon City Council
Herb Moniz, City Manager
CITY OF DUBLIN
C{O crt qa
DRAPT
P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
November 22, 2000
Steven L. Goetz, Chairman
Technical Advisory Committee
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
c/o Contra Costa County
Developmental Services
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT:
2000 Update to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
Dear Mr. Goetz:
Attached is a copy of the City of Dublin's Resolution approving the 2000 Update to the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan.
The City of Dublin also identified a few small discrepancies that can be incorporated into the next
update. Please note the following:
1) On page 5, Forecast Growth - Since this section is from a 1998 ABAG plan, it talks about future
households and jobs. As of 2000, some of that growth has already taken place.
2) On page 25, under "Dublin," 4th line - Transit Spine (now Central Parkway) should be from
Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (not to Gleason Road).
3) On page 46, "Dublin Blvd." - Several of the actions do not list the responsible agencies. All
should be Dublin, except that the Extension from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway should
be a joint responsibility between the Cities of Dublin and Livermore.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office at (925) 833-6630.
Sincerely,
Lee S. Thompson
Public Works Director
LST/mb
g:\corres\lst\nov2000\2000 TVTP Update Comments
Administration (925) 833-6650 . City Council (925) 833.6605 . Finance (925) 833-6640 . Build.ina Inspection (925) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (925) 833.6620 . Engineering (925) 833.6630 . Parks & Cc. ~
Economic Development (925) 833.6650 . Police (925) 833-6670 . Pu:,
Community Development (925) 833.6610 . Fire Prevention Bun ___ . ~~._,__