Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Southern Pacific ROW Feasibility Study CITY OF DUB�Xd AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 28, 1985 SUBJECT Presentation on Southern Pacific Right-of-l, ay/I-0`80 Transportation Feasibility Study EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Joseph P. ,''Murphy , Project Manager dated January 10 , 1985 ; San Ramon Branch Line informational Sheet ; Description of Study Alternatives ; Study Evaluation Measures ; Summary of Series I Informational n Workshops RECOMMENDATION Receive presentation and identify concerns FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time DESCRIPTIO14 As you are aware , Contra Costa County and Alameda County are jointly conducting a study to identify and evaluate acceptable alternative transportation uses of the 24 . 5 mile San Ramon Branch Line Right-of-Way. The Southern Pacific San Ramon Branch Line Right-of-':.day extends from the City of Martinez to Radum Wye in the City of Pleasanton. A 19. 5 mile portion of the right-of-way between Willow Pass Road in Concord and Alcosta Boulevard has been abandoned for rail service . The i'Mayor and City ' s Planning Director have been participating in this study at the Policy Committee and Technical Advisory Committee levels , respectively. ;Ir. Joseph (Bud) Murphy of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department has requested the opportunity to make a presentation to the Dublin City Council regarding the San Ramon Branch Line Transportation Study. It is anticipated that the presentation will take approximately 15 minus-s . Mr. Murphy is interested in any comments or concerns that the City might have with respect to the information presented on the San Ramon Branch Line Transportation Study. Since the right-of-way is between two residential neighborhoods within the City of Dublin, those concerns which Staff has identified are very similar to concerns that have been voiced in other communities along the SP right- of-way. These general concerns would include : 1 ) Noise impact on adjacent neighborhoods 2 ) Security of adjacent residences from crime that might be generated by some form of transportation activity along the SP right-of-way 3 ) Safety measures protecting individuals from injury in the vicinity of any type of transportation system 4) Increased traffic that might be -enerated on adjacent streets 5 ) Impact on residential property values Iii addition t0 these t'eneral Concerns- , Sta_1' has also identifleta a concern FVltil respect to loci!-ion Of a depot; or service line at the 1ni;e_^Uecticn c f the SP r'1Z' ht-oI-way an:i Amadoc Valley Boulevard . 1A you Imay recall , one L1Cy has concluded a compr•eri ensive trams I 1C study for r:itIador Vai-,-y Boulevard . As part Of t lac study , file esidents Iivi21 in the i ?S1QeClt1'?1 pori,lon of Amador Valley ioulevard have expressed a or'ave concern wiGri respect to the high volur:ie of traffic and the resulting il;pact on t-e sa of their -ri h a - ui:�0i ;r i - - ne1}� lbOr G< <_i 7tc.ff I1 S jlt'7vi _ . ju °, ly b'JiLh co. �s Ji OO it the draft Amador Valley Boulevard Tcali _c Study and liougher`�y itoad l'. .__ c Study to assist his cou .`' p in reviewlnE; Gile SP ri1.1nt-Of-Way as It relat=: t0 both of those maJGr clC"'i;; ['lal� =Ln Li1� v'.i�7, OL' i)UJ11r1. ------------------------------------------------------------- C ', --------------- : v o:3rph _ . i`Ill 'pi1V , / LOI1uLa Cosu,a CoLlrl ;y Pub11C 'sV'Or'kS D?Ua_ :ien tl- Contra Public Works Department J.Michacl Wal(ora Public Works Director Costa 651 Pine Street, Fifth Floor County Martinez, California 94553-1291 WiifiamR.Gray Chief Deputy RECEIY.. ED January 10, 1985 JAN 1 CITY OF DUBLIN Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 230 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Richard: As we previously discussed over the phone, I am requesting an opportunity to make a presentation to the City Council regarding the Southern Pacific Right of Way/I-680 Transportation Feasibility Study. This Study is being conducted by DMJM of San Francisco for Contra Costa County and is intended to identify and evaluate many possible transit uses of this corridor and to determine those proposed uses which are the most feasible. Prior to starting the detailed analysis necessary to evaluate each alternative, we felt it would be important to explain to the community the nature and purpose of the Study and to receive from the community any issues, concerns or suggestions they may have. We have conducted three general community meetings and we are now meeting with the cities, each county, and other interested groups. All of the comments received as a result of this process will be considered during the evaluation process. If it is the desire of your Council to hear a presentation on the Feasibility Study during your Council meeting of January 28, I will arrange for the members of the Study team to be available. I have also enclosed several reports which might be useful as background information. I can be reached at 372-4107 if you should have any questions. V y truly yours, seph P. M phy outhern Pa if* ght of Way roject Manage JPM:sj ltr.davis.tl Enclosures M RAM®N SRANCI 'NE s TRANSPORTATION STUDY L ATIM OF SAN SAWN BRANCHL33E CORRIDOR: The Southern Pacific San Ramon Branchline right of way is an existing transportation corridor which extends from the City of Martinez to Radum Wye (adjacent northerly to Stanley Boulevard in the City of Pleasanton) with a total distance of approximately 24.5 miles. The 19.5 mile portion between Willow Pass Road in Concord and Alcosta Boulevard has been abandoned for rail service. The corridor passes through or is adjacent to the unincorporated areas of both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and through the Cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon, Dublin and Pleasanton. QED FOR CORRIDOR STUDY: In the last 10 to 15 years, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and other East Bay locations have undergone a significant amount of employment generating and residential growth, accompanied by severe traffic and transportation impacts. Even though past transportation studies have made recommendations for improvements which are being implemented, additional transportation improvements are needed to accommodate existing uses, as well as planned growth in the cities and counties. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate a . reasonable number of publicly acceptable alternative transportation uses of the 24.5 mile San Ramon Branchline right of way. The study will include a definition and evaluation of a long list of alternatives, land use and travel demand analysis, a community input program, and a final report which will focus on a short list of alternatives to be explored in greater detail in subsequent analyses. COMMUNITY PARTICIPAT,I,ON PROGRAM: The study will include numerous opportuni- ties for community input into the study process. Initial public input will be obtained by a series of informational workshops at three corridor locations to get early public comments on the study goals and objectives and on the long list of alternatives. A second series of meetings will be held later in the study to review technical findings of the analysis. In addition, workshops will be held with the participating cities and counties. The community participation program is intended to get input from interested and affected citizens and residents, business groups, public agencies, public officials, community and other special interest groups. WHO IS CONDUCTING THE. STUDY: Contra Costa County, in a cooperative effort with Alameda County, has authorized this study to define and evaluate alternative transportation uses of the corridor. To assist in this effort, there is a Technical Advisory Committee composed of representatives from both counties, the cities along the corridor, the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, BART, CALTRANS, MTC, and ABAG. There will also be a study policy committee to be set up by the two counties. The technical work for the study will be performed by the consulting firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall, in association with Barton-Aschman Associates and Earth Metrics Incorporated. The study is currently scheduled for completion in the early spring of 1985. DDTT1OHJ4L MFLRMT19g: To obtain additional information, please contact Mr. Bud Murphy, Contra Costa County, Public Works Department, 651 Pine Street, Fifth Floor, Martinez, CA 94533 or call at (415) 372-4107. 11-20-84 r SAN•RAMON BRANCHLINE DIICw�NGN LOCATION AND KEY TRANSIT EICLO 0 / ` CONCORD q ALIGNMENT OPPORTUNITIES CONCORD TDh 2 9 EASANT HILL Southern Pacific Railroad } e - �� CLAYTON San Ramon Branchline Right-Of-Way e pp o h' E........... Interstate 1-680 f GC Gl AvE - Nr.olaS:o .... Existing Existing BART Line/Station e:vo. -• °ART WALNUT CREEK v "0. MT.DIA°LO •• OI• vI� HP L �tl Gt ►Jr `'- ryTONf ALAM�O� .LAS TRAMPAS PEAR " sD , PD NORTH Q O D p �•o:Q 0 0 1 Z 7 A S J' MILES ct DANVILLE ,DA.oP 9 'hD ......CONTRA. TASSA/Aq............. � COSTA COUNTY 0<Ir O AIAMED4 COUNTY....•...•.• 0 1 .. h fq n AT BIS IIOP PD. ` RAHCH C^O� p0 A HIS CCIS '•C AH+OI V CONZpt..... C.00 .....N,,EO' SAN RAMON ° BRANCHLINE SA TRANSPORTATION AMt1 STUDY .. h 1 si DUBLIN ��-�•_.�\.:r�+'^'.-.�; SI•' I'���V �� i,vc SS aiPPDP? •\"_____ __/ Jival: DMJM `\ `I — IN ASSOCIATION WITH / I •I DAFITOH-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES AND PLEASANTON `I EARTH METRICS c DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ALTERNATIVES San Ramon Branchline Transportation Study General In every study and evaluation of transportation alternatives, there are two basic plans that must be included in order to meet Urban Mass Transportation Agency (UMTA) requirements. The first, called the "No Build" or "Null " alternative is included to provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of potential alternative transportation improvements. In this alternative, only existing transportation facilities and systems are included together with any projects that are "committed" by virtue of being included in existing short range improvement programs. Such projectsmay include freeway widening, new grade separations, new or improved arterial (major) streets, or general transit improvements to routing, schedules , etc. The second required alternative is the Transportation System Management or "TSM" alternative. This alternative includes the existing and committed system from the Null alternative and adds various low cost transportation improvements designed to obtain maximum person carrying capacity from the basic transportation system. Such improvements may include: designation of a new (or sometimes existing) lane on a freeway or major street as a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane reserved for car pools, van pools or buses; installation of ramp metering on freeway access ramps including HOV bypass lanes to allow such vehicles to pass through the meter unimpeded; programs to encourage car pooling and van pooling; and various traffic and parking strategies to reduce congestion. These two alternatives provide a comparison basis for other more capital intense systems. In this study, alternatives include four different vehicle systems applied to one basic alignment with alternative segments and/or terminal locations. The four vehicle systems include: Buses , Light Rail Transit (LRT) , Heavy Rail Transit (BART) and a generic classification termed Advanced Technology Systems. The basic alignment is the Southern Pacific Rail right-of-way from Concord to Pleasanton. Alternative alignments involve segments of I-680 and a short segment of the Walnut Creek Channel in Concord. Busway .Alternatives Busway alternatives will incorporate the bus street beginning at Monument Blvd. to be constructed as part of the Pleasant Hill BART access improvement with transfer provisions at that station. The basic alternative follows the Southern Pacific alignment from Monument Blvd. to Stanley Blvd. in Pleasanton. Alignment alternatives include an extension north from Monument along the Walnut Creek Channel wth a terminus at Concord Avenue or Highway 4 where a major park/ride lot would be provided. The second alignment alternative would follow I-680 between Rudgear Road and Sycamore Valley Road. Operationally, the buses will circulate in neighborhoods acting as collector/ distributor systems, then entering the busway at selected points to operate in an express mode. On-line station stops will be provided at selected major arterial streets where bus feeders will permit transfer to express buses. Park/ride lots will be located at appropriate locations along the busway. LRT Alternatives LRT alternatives also begin in Concord with the basic alternative following the Southern Pacific right-of-way from Willow Pass Road to Stanley Blvd. in Pleasanton. Within this basic alignment alternative, there are optional terminal locations. At the north end, the route could terminate with a turn- back at Willow Pass Road or at the Pleasant Hill BART station. At the south end, it could terminate at a future transfer station on a Livermore-Pleasanton transit line connecting with BART at Bay Fair Station in San Leandro or extend to Stanley Blvd. Alignment alternatives include use of the Walnut Creek Channel past Buchanan Field with terminal options at Concord Avenue or at Highway 4. A second align- ment alternative would use local streets (primarily California Blvd. ) in Walnut Creek between the Southern Pacific right-of-way and a terminal at the Walnut Creek BART station. -2- ^ d Other alignment alternatives include use of I-680 between Rudgear Road and Sycamore Valley Road and between Sycamore Valley Road and Crow Canyon Road. Operationally, LRT vehicles would shuttle between terminals, however, in the event that the I-580 corridor were to use LRT, the system could include an operational connection between the two corridors. Similarly, this alternative could be extended north-eastward to serve the Pittsburg/Antioch corridor. BART Alternatives BART alternatives begin either at the Pleasant Hill BART station or at the Walnut Creek BART station. From the Pleasant Hill Station, the alignment would follow the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Rudgear Road, enter the I-680 right-of-way to Sycamore Valley Raod where it would again enter the Southern Pacific alignment to Pleasanton. The basic alignment with the Walnut Creek Station connection, the route would follow the I-680 right-of- way from .the station to Sycamore Valley where it would join the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Pleasanton. At the south end, various options are available. An operational connection could be provided with the Livermore- Pleasanton BART Extension or a connection station could be provided with the Southern Pacific corridor extending south to a terminal at Stanley Blvd. Operationally, the BART alternative assumes an operational connection with the existing Concord BART line. From the Concord station (or a future Pittsburg/Antioch extension) the line would branch at either the Pleasant Hill or Walnut Creek Station with service extending south in the Southern Pacific corridor and also to Oakland-San Francisco as at present. Advanced Technology Alternative The advanced technology alternative uses the Southern Pacific right-of-way as its basic alignment. However, its smaller scale, grade separated operation and short turning radius, excursions into major activity centers to provide more direct service is a potential . As with other alternatives, connections to the BART system would be provided at the Pleasant Hill station and at the future Livermore-Pleasanton extension. -3- v Common Features All alternatives have several features or requirements.in common. All alternatives will include provisions for recreational trails and utility easements. In addition, each alternative will include park/ride lots at appropriate locations since the automobile will probably provide the most important feeder system to any transit system in the corridor. -4- ' S.P. Right-Of-Way NO-BU ILD ALTERNATIVE auc ANA" � Nov. ";IL CONCORD mmmm Programmed Freeway Widening EASANT Z- (incl . Interchange HILL LAITO" Not shown: Programmed Local Street Improvements Programmed Bus WALNUT CREEK Service Improvements LA 0 LAS TRAMPAS PEAK % NORTH MILES BISHOP RANCH CV N4 TRANSPORTATION STUDY DUBLIN L11-104F MINIC:— DMJM 21, 1984 - ` , TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 'I 'D ALTERNATIVES � CONCORD (Freeway) Bus/HOV Lanes EASANT HILL mmmm Bus Street (P.H. CLAYTON BART Specific Plan) nomemi Bus Preferential Lanes WALNUT CREEK Bus Service Improvements o. Improvements NORTH LA MILES A C9 BISHOP RANCH SAN RAMON AMkN STUDY DUBLIN SIS DMJM IN ASSOCIATION 16TW Nov. 21, 1984 ' ^ ~ Nov. BUSWAY ALTERNATIVES dUCHANAN FIELD S.P. Right-of-Way CONCORD 1-680 Freeway EASA H L To Buchanan Field via Walnut Creek LAYTO Channel Potential Service Lines ALNUT CREEK MT.DIABLO ALAMO LAS TPAMPAS PEAK NORTH MILES SHOP AINICH C. SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE SA AM TRANSPORTATION STUDY DUBLIN DMJM :A:TOH-ASCHMAM ASSOCIATES AND 21, 1984 ` ' LRT ALTERNATIVES FIE D CONCORD S.P. Right-of-Way 1-680 Freeway EASANT / Nov. HILL imimew From Monument 61 vd. CLAYTON Field via Walnut Creek Channel To Walnut Creek BART Station via local streets WALNUT CREEK Potential BART Transfer 0 Existing 0 Potential future LPX ALAMO LAS PEAK NORTH DANVILLE RANcH SAN RAMON TRANSPORTATION STUDY DUBLIN DMJM ?l, 1984 e_ BART ALTERNATIVES JUCHAN AN FIELD " ® S.P. Right-of-Way g CONCORD ' ;� -• .oe�. I-680 Freeway EASAN , + ��®�• Existing BART HILL * System/Station •� CLAYTON o coo o Potential Future BART Extension U T,pIA BLJ ALVO. WALNUT CREEK ,J °. MT.01AOLO OtryglL � u 1 / 1 \ W \ \ `- ITO" ALAMO\ v''cer \ LAS TNAM°AS PEAK ��\ n° NORTH 'o'e♦ D 0 / S ] 4 3 MILE! DANVILLE vc•aow as a c..•,N •.•.....................COSTA COUNTY ALAMEOA 9,CO UNTY y y � 915NOV RANCH � G •J P° q ` OUMZ y....... s CONt P?.A OJT• ro / �OJ. SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE sA; TRANSPORTATION A STUDY .\ ........ =� �1 TL.yAl�FA X 4UNICIV IL L ` i INf.55 j)R(� ALIGNMENTS A � DMJM IN•OAOCI•TIOM WITH J � 13ARTON-ASCHMAN AMCIATF! AND PL EA gANTON / EARTN METRICS �� � / I Nov. 21, 1984 ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY7 GUIDEWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES GUCHANAN CONCORD S.P. Right-of-Way 'C'E'ASANT 1111111112 To Buchanan Field HILL via Walnut Creek F Channel CLAYTON 0000••• Via local streets 11'11GLO Potential BART Transfer I..- - Stations: ......... WALNUT CREEK Existing Potential Future LPX LAA ALAMO NORTH o 2 3 4 5 MILES DANVILLL co.4 rRA CDs r� :�u ry 81s.op RNcm z SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE TRANSPORTATION AN! STUDY L DU 3L—J Ar 1011E DMJM BARTON-43CH...ASSOCIATES A.. PLEASANTON a A R TH METRICS Nov. 21, 1984 a DRAFT SAN RAMON ERANCHLINE TRANSPORTATION STUDY TASK 5.1 EVALUATION MEASURES Prepared For CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By ®MJM In Association With Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Earth Metrics Inc. NOVEMBER 20, 1984 MEASURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES GENERAL Evaluation of alternatives in the San Ramon Branchline Study involves a two-step process. First, the "long-list" of alternatives will be screened to produce a list of representative system alternatives that will be i subjected to more detailed analysis including network analysis for patronage estimates and concept level cost estimates. The results of that analysis will be used to compare the effectiveness of each alternative against all others. The set of goals and objectives prepared under Task 1 .1 will provide the basis for comparison at both evaluation levels. However, the initial evaluation will be qualitative in nature while the second level will also include statistical data. This document presents a preliminary list of measures to be used in the second evaluation. Specific measures of Effectiveness (MOE) are given for each of the stated objectives. Three types of measures are proposed, consistent with the level of analysis in this study: Quantitative - These measures are ones that will produce or be derived from numerical data generated in the analysis. Examples include number of at-grade crossings, cost per passenger, passengers per vehicle mile, etc. Relative - These measures include those for which detailed analysis will not be accomplished but where numeric values can be determined in relative terms. Examples are population and employment within I mile of stations, commercial space with 4 mile, etc. Qualitative - These measures also include those for which no detailed analysis can be done at this level of study but where an assessment of potential impact is made. Examples include environmental , social , economic factors. 112084 r MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) Goal 1 - Aid in the resolution of current and future travel demand problems in the San Ramon Valley. Objective: The transit system should be competitive wth auto travel in terms of time and cost. M.O.E. 1. Door-to-door travel time (quantitative) 2. Corridor travel time (quantitative) 3. Cost - (this is a function of fare policy rather than system alt. ) Objective: System access should be convenient and available to bus, auto , pedestrian and bicycle modes. M.O.E. 1. Major arterial access to station areas (relative) 2. Population/employment within 4 mile of stations/stops (relative) Objective: Provide adequate and secure park/ride facilities and capacity. M.O.E. 1 . Size of park/ride lots at terminal stations (quantitative) . 2. Size of park/ride lots at intermediate stations (quantitative) 3. Total spaces available (quantitative) Objective: Access points should be located to serve major destination areas as directly as possible. M.O.E. 1. Employment within J mile of stations/stops (relative) 2. Commercial space within 4 mile of stations/stops (relative) Objective: The system should be accessible to handicapped persons. M.O.E. Accessibility (This is a design issue - all systems can be made accessible, however, with varying degrees of ease and delay. Objective: The system should produce minimal interference with traffic flow on streets and at intersections. M.O. E. 1 . Crossing traffic volume on at-grade street crossings (quantitative) 2. Number of at-grade crossings (quantitative) 3. Traffic lane reductions (width or number) 4. Type of signalization ( relative) Goal 2 - Support Regional and Local Development Goals. Objective: Reinforce existing and projected activity centers in accordance with local community plans. r M.O.E. 1 . Existing land use at stations/stops (qualitative) 2. Zoning at stations/stops (qualitative) 3. Consistent with community general plan (qualitative) 4. Consistent with regional plans and policies (qualitative) Objective: Retain semi-rural character of communities such as .Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. M.O.E. 1 . Neighborhood compatibility (relative) 2. Potential to affect sensitive land uses (qualitative) 3. Number and extent of use of Section 4-F parklands (quantitative) Objective: Promote efficient and rational use of land. M.O.E. 1. Patronage (reduce demand for parking in activity centers and reduced demand for added traffic lanes) . 2. Conformance with community general plans (qualitative) Objective: Provide opportunity for joint use of R-O-W for recreational use and utility corridors. M.O.E. 1. Right-of-way required for transit (quantitative) Objective: Promote joint development where desirable. M.O.E. 1 . Existing land use at station sites (qualitative) 2. Zoning at station sites (qualitative) Goal 3 - Produce Minimal Adverse Social , Economic and Environmental Impacts. Objective: Minimize adverse environmental impacts. M.O.E. 1. Potential changes in regional emissions (qualitative) 2. Potential noise impacts (qualitative) 3. Potential sensitive habit at impacts (qualitative) 4. Potential encroachment into 100 year flood plain (qualitative) 112084 -3 5. Number of potential elig;ble historic site affected (qualitative) Objective: Minimum noise impact on sensitive receptors . M.O.E. 1 . Number of sensitive receptors with potential impact (quantitative) Objective: Incorporate high standard of aesthetic quality M.O.E. 1 . Potential for visual intrusion (qualitative) 2. Potential for urban design or community character impact (qualitative) Objective: Enhance employment access for transit dependent persons. M.O.E. 1. Potential economic development opportunities (qualitative) 2. Employment areas served (relative) Objective: Minimize community disruption M.O.E. 1. Potential impact on residential (relative) 2. Potential impact on existing commercial and industrial areas (relative) 3. Extent of residential displacement (relative) 4. Extent of business displacement (relative) Goal 4 - Provide Cost Effective Transportation Objective: Reduce Capital Investment M.O.E. 1 . Capital cost (quantitative) 2. Annualized capital cost per annual passenger (quantitative) Objective: Reduce Operating and Maintenance Cost M.O.E. 1 . Operating Cost (quantitative) 2. Operative cost per vehicle mile (quantitative) 3. Annual operating cost per annual passenger (quantitative) 112084 -4- •Objective: Miximize use of existing transportation facilities M.O.E. 1 . Additional right-of-way required (relative) Objective: Provide maximum safety for both users and non-users. M.O.E. 1 . Exclusivity of right-of-way (relative) 2. Security at stations (relative) 3. Security on-board vehicles (relative) 4. Pedestrian/auto vehicle/transit conflicts (relative) Objective: Maximum integration/coordination with existing trunk line systems. M.O.E. 1 . Number of interface points (quantitative) 2. Directness of connection (qualitative) 3. Ease of transfer (qualitative) Goal 5 - Offer Opportunity and Ability for Early Implementation Objective: The system should have a proven performance history. M.O.E. 1 . Systems in revenue service (quantitative) Objective: Maximum use of "off the shelf" hardware. M.O.E. 1 . Development Status (relative) 2. Number of U.S. suppliers (relative) 3. Number of world-wide suppliers (relative) Objective: Capability of staged development and economical expansion. M.O.E. 1. Implementation time (relative) 2. Phasing potential (relative) 3. Terminal conditions (relative) 112084 -5- J SAN RAMON RRANCHLINE TRANSPORTATION STUDY SUMMARY OF SERIES 1 INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS Prepared For CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By DMJM In Association with Earth Metrics Incorporated NOVEMBER 30, 1984 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A series of three informational workshops was conducted during the last week of November, 1984, to obtain early public input on the San Ramon Branchline Transportation Study, being conducted by Contra Costa County and Alameda County. The presentations by Contra Costa County staff and the study consul- tants, Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM) and Earth Metrics Incorporated, as well as comments, questions and issues of concern registered by the public at the meetings are summarized herein. The meetings were held at three separate corridor locations at the following places and times: Monday, November 26, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Amador Valley High School cafeteria 1155 Santa Rita Road Pleasanton Tuesday, November 27, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Montclair School 300 Quinterra Lane Danville Thursday, November 29, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Walnut Creek Intermediate School multipurpose room 2445 Walnut Boulevard Walnut Creek The south corridor meeting in Pleasanton was attended by approximately nine people; the central corridor meeting in Danville was attended by approximately 60 people; and the north corridor meeting in Walnut Creek was attended by approximately 37 persons. WORKSHOP AGENDA An agenda for the three public workshops is included as Appendix A. The first six agenda items were a presentation of study items by members of the study team. This portion of the program was followed by individual table discus- sions in a workshop setting and reports by group moderators of comments, questions and issues of each group. The meeting at Pleasanton had fewer persons in attendance and the format for community involvement was an open forum of questions and answers, rather than conducted table discussions. Materials distributed to all public workshop participants included the follow- ing reports and materials. - Workshop Agenda. - Summary Sheet of the San Ramon Branchline Transportation Study with Corridor Map. - List of Rey Study Issues Identified To Date. - Description of Study Alternatives and Maps. - A Paper on Transit Technology Alternatives. - Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Measures. a Graphics displayed at all three public meetings included the following items. - Aerial photograpphs of the San Ramon Branchline Corridor. - San Francisco Bay Area employment distribution and trends. - San Francisco Bay Area population distribution and trends. - Increases in average daily traffic in the study vicinity. - A Board Summarizing Opportunities for Public Input. A summmary of items discussed at all three public meetings under each agenda item is presented below. 1 INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME Bud Murphy of Contra Costa County welcomed everyone to the meetings, introduced members of the study team (DMJM and Earth Metrics Incorporated), and provided an overview of the San Ramon Branchline Study. The overview consisted of a description of the history and nature of the Southern Pacific San Ramon Branchline Corridor, the purpose and need of the overall study and a brief introduction to the commmunity participation program. ? STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. DMJM discussed growth trends in the 9 County Bay Area and the need for study as a result of recent increased employment generating and residential construction, population growth and traffic congestion. -Even though past transportation studies have made recommendations for improvements which are being implemented, additional transportation improvements are needed to accommodate existing uses, as well as planned growth in the cities and counties. 1. STUDY SCOPE DMJM identified the scope of the current feasibility phase of the San Ramon Branchline Study. The scope includes the identification and evaluation of a reasonable number of publicly acceptable alternative transportation uses of the 24.5 mile San Ramon Branchline right of way. The study will include a definition and evaluation of a long list of alternatives, land use and travel demand analysis, a commmunity input program, and a final report which will focus on a short list of alternatives to be explored in greater detail in subsequent analyses. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PR TGHTIS MEETING Earth Metrics described the goals of the community participation process as being threefold. - To inform the public about the study. To provide opportunities for public input. To determine community perceptions of transportation needs and transportation uses of the corridor. • Earth Metrics also described the following items: opportunities for public input throughout the overall feasibility study, list of groups that have expressed an interest in the project, the preliminary issues identified to date, and the logistics of the Workshop portion of the program. All persons Were encouraged to sign up on the Study's Mailing List. i 5, pyEgVIEW OF AL TERNAT ES AND TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIEB DMJM discussed transit technologies being investigated. The discussion of transit technologies centered around a slide show of alternative transit technologies including buses, light rail transit, and BART, as Well as advanced rail technology in service in other countries. Alternative transportation uses discussed for the Southern Pacific San Ramon Branchline Study included No Build, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), Busway, LRT and BART. 6. OYERVTEW OF GO T S AND OB TECT= DMJM discussed goals and objectives identified for the San Ramon Branchline Study and reviewed the evaluation measures intended to provide criteria for the evaluation of alternatives. 7 TNDIV TD UAL TABLE DZSCLU SSTONS After presentations by the study team, the Workshop portion of the program commenced, Where workshop participants formed discussion groups of six to eight people (except at the Pleasanton meeting Where the format of this part of the program Was that of an open forums question and answer). Each group appointed a moderator to lead the discussions and a recorder to take notes. Discussion guides were distributed to each table that focused the workshop discussion on the following four items. - Perceptions of the transportation requirements. - Preliminary long list of alternatives. - Goals, objectives, and measures. - Study issues. The Discussion Guide is included as Appendix B. Group discussions lasted for approximately 30 minutes. B. S mm RV nT+ n RCUP REPORTS AND DTSCU��IONS Following the individual table discussions, one member of each smaller group presented the findings of the discussion to the group at large. Below is a summary of the items discussed by the individual groups at the Danville and Walnut Creek meetings of November 27 and 29 and by the open discussion held in Pleasanton on November 26. Appendix C contains a detailed listing of the items as they were presented at the ttrree meetings. The comments received represent diverse public opinions as shown below in the summary of public comments. ,c�,T►^`ARY OF PUBt TC COMMENTS RECEn1ED TN SERIES 1 MEETINGS perception of the Transportation Ream rements - There is a definite need for a transportation system in the area. - There is no need for a transportation system and that need must be demonstrated before the study continues. - There is some question as to why only transportation alternatives are being considered for the right of way ; some people feel other uses should be given more consideration. - East/west transportation needs in the area should be addressed as well as north/south needs. - The origins and destinations of the potential patronage should be evaluated in order to determine who will use the system. - There are questions regarding who the decision makers are for this project, i.e. , the various committees and decision making bodies appear very pro development of the corridor and not particularly willing to look at nontransportation alternatives. Some people do not feel that they are being given a choice over how the corridor will be used. - The study area should continue beyond Stanley Boulevard since Livermore residents could be considered potential patrons. - Pleasanton should not be in the study area unless Southern Pacific has announced plans to abandon the right of way through Dublin and Pleasanton. Prelim1ary Of Alternatives - The list of alternatives is too long and should be shortened. - The county and consultants seem to be promoting LRT over the other alternatives. - Maglev should be eliminated as an alternative (infeasible). - LRT on city streets in the San Ramon Valley is inappropriate. - The no build alternative should be vigorously studied. The following are the alternatives suggested at the meeting. - Trolley coach (bus) system. - Battery powered buses. - Install LRT line compatible With later implementation of BAFT. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternatives including buses and carpools. Trails only use of the right of way. - Pedestrian and bicycle use of the right of way - either with or without some type of transit system. Subterranean system. Use of the center median of 1680. Look at more advanced transit modes. Constrained use of corridor (e. g. , peak hour use only). LRT only. LRT over buses or BART. Integrate bus and rail system in the area. Keep transit within the right of way. Bus alternatives should bypass residential areas. Goals, Obiect"jyes, and Measures - The goals, objectives, and measures seem fairly comprehensive. - In addition to capital and operating costs, total costs should be addressed. Stud Issues ENVIRONMENTAL - Impacts of a transit system on future growth in the valley. - Residents of the central area of the corridor feel that the central section of the right of way will become a conduit for those who live at either end and will not serve the needs of those in between. - The number of at grade crossings in the right of way and the safety associated with them are major considerations. - An overhead electrical system and/or elevated system are unacceptable. - Environmental impacts to residential areas along the corridor are most important, including impacts to the quality of life and the property values along the corridor. - The right of way is too narrow in some places to properly accommodate some of the alternatives. Land use sharing of the right of way should be considered (i.e. , recreational and trannsportation use ). Environmental impacts along the corridor resulting from any of the alternatives including pollution problems, increased parking demand, and noise and vibration impacts should be examined in depth. FINANCIAL - There is some question as to who will pay for the system and whether there is need for such a system. - The current negotiations between Southern Pacific and Contra Costa County should be made public. - The long term need for acquiring land outside the right of way should be addressed, particularly in the narrower parts of the corridor. - Compensation to residents bordering the right of way for decline in property values is a concern. POLITICAL - There are questions regarding the formation of the committees involved in the study, i.e. , they don' t properly represent those affected by development of the right of way. - There is some question as to how much input the citizens will have on the final decision regarding use of the right of way. - Some residents of Alamo feel that they are not adequately represented in the study decision making process. - The method of evaluating the importance of the alternatives should be outlined. APPENDIX A. WORKSHOP AGENDA AGENDA SAN RAMON BRANCHLIKE TRANSPORTATION STUDY SERIES 1 INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS TO BE HELD WEEK OF NOVEMBER 26TH, 1984 - Monday, November 26, 1984: Amador Valley High School, Pleasanton - Tuesday, November 27, 1984 : Montair School, Danville - Thursday, November 29, 1984 : Walnut Creek Intermediate School, Walnut Creek WORKSH^P AG12 1 . Introduction and Welcome (Bud Murphy, Contra Costa County ) 2. Stud. Background and Purpose (Wallace Dela Barre, DKiFI) 3. Study Scope (Wallace Dela Barre, DN..TM) 4. Community Participation Process and Purpose of Tonight's Meeting (Kay Wilson, Gary Deghi, Earth Metrics) 5. Overview of Alternatives and Transit Technologies (Wallace Dela Barre, DMJ M) 6. overview of Goals and Objectives (Wallace Dela Barre, DNJN,) 7. Individual Table Discussions on the Following Items: - Perception of the Transportation Requirements - Preliminary Long List of Alternatives - Goals, Objectives, and Measures - Study Issues 8 . Group Reports/Discussion 9. Adjournment APPENDIX B. WORKSHC :SCUSSION GUIDE WORKSHOP DISCUSSION GUIDE 1 . Traffic in the I-680 corridor has been increasing rapidly, reflecting the growth in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. With that increase has come serious congestion , particularly during peak commuter hours as residents travel to major employment centers in Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Pleasanton and other areas of the Bay Region. Regional projections by ABAG, MTC, Cal"trans and the counties indicate that further increases in travel demand will occur as the counties mature. Proposed improvements to I-680 and to some major arterials in the various communities in the San Ramon Valley will accommodate some of that growth but projections show that even with those improvements , unacceptable traffic congestion will still remain and more capacity will be necessary. What measures do you think are appropriate to meet the travel requirements in the Valley? What role should transit play? In your opinion,, what type of transit and what features (suc'r, as travel time/speed, park/ride facilities , cost, comfort, etc. ) of the transit system are most important in attracting passengers? 2. Several potential transit alternatives have been defined for examination in this corridor. In your opinion, does this list include all reasonable alternatives? If not, what should be added? Why? 3. A set of goals , objectives and measurement factors has been proposed to evaluate the potential alternatives . Are the goals and objectives consistent with your desires and those of your community? Are there others that should be added? If so , how should they be measured to test the ability of the alternatives to satisfy or support the goal and/or objective? 4 . What do you see as the most important issues to be addressed in evaluating the possible alternatives - please list in order of importance with No. 1 being the most important , etc . APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 26, 1984 MEETING IN PL E AS AN TON 1 . Where does patronage come from? 2. The study area should not stop at Stanley Boulevard in Pleasanton since the Livermore population could be considered potential patrons, the future railroad consolidation project would abandon the Southern Pacific right of way from Livermore to Niles, and more land for a station has been purchased in Livermore. 3. Pleasanton should not be in the study area unless Southern Pacific has announced plans to abandon the right of way through Dublin and Pleasanton. 4. It would be difficult to utilize I580 as an alternative LRT alignment to Livermore since the railroad right of way extends along Stanley Boulevard and planning for a Livermore station near Stanley has begun. 5. A trolley coach (bus) system should be investigated as a transit alternative since they operate quieter than LRT and don' t have fuel odors like regular buses. 6. An alternative system where battery powered buses could be operated off the main like in Santa Barbara should be investigated. This type of system would provide higher patronage in Hacienda Business Park and Bishop Ranch, and would not be dependent on new technology advancements if an inductive system in the ground were used. 7. The list of alternatives is too lengthy and should be shortened to three viable alternatives that can be analyzed quickly. 8. How is the policy committee appointed? One announced member of the committee is a Supervisor from a district which doesn' t include the study area and who has gone on record as being against extensions of BART to the Livermore Valley. 9. The Pleasanton Industrial General Plan Review Committee has endorsed the concept of studying and implementing an LRT proposal. This policy is reinforced by the reelection of the three incumbents to the Pleasanton City Council. 10. The viable alternatives should not include a mag lev proposal. 11 . The study should investigate the possibility of installing an LRT line that would be compatable with possible implementation of a BART system later. 12. Operation of LRT on city streets in the San Ramon Valley would be inappropriate as an LRT system mixed with automobile traffic does not encourage transit ridership. The best transit alignment is the Southern Pacific right of way. PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 27, 1984 MEETING IN DANV ILLE Group #1 1 . The presentation was too technical for laymen to make effective decisions regarding alternatives. 2. The .citizens prefer to express their needs and desires to the experts who, in turn, will be expected to fulfill those needs in the course of the study. 3. The citizens feel that the central area of the corridor will become a conduit between the northern and southern ends of the right of way and that the adverse environmental impacts on this area should be examined. 4. There is a fear of s-La overhead system because of prohibitive environmental impacts (particularly noise and privacy impacts on residents along the right of way). 5. Why does the right of way have to be used for transportation? 6. What about a bus service that would immediately serve the transportation needs of the area and would be much less costly? 7. Pedestrians and bicyclists should be included as potential users of the right of way. 8. The narrow width of the right of way in some areas (50 feet) is a concern. Group 2 9. Impacts to residential areas along the right of way are most important. 10. What power will the citizens have on the final outcome ("big plan") or is this an exercise in futility? 11. Do we need a new transportation system? How many people would leave their cars for transit? The buses are not used to capacity at the present time. 12. What can we learn from the use of the new Silicon Valley light rail system? 13. Trails must be included as a use of the right of way. 14. The citizens are not convinced that a subterranean (below grade) system is not feasible (cost is not the most important factor). Not necessarily a BART-like tunnel ; perhaps trenching with some kind of cover with trails on top. 15. At grade crossings are a major consideration. Many accidents occur at residential train crossings in other cities. 16. What impact will a transportation system in the corridor have on future growth? A transit system will change the character of the valley and will foster more growth, i.e. , a system designed to help might create more problems. 17. Any bus alternative must bypass residential areas. 18. The citizens are violently opposed to systems with overhead electric i lines in residential areas. 19. Any elevated system is unacceptable in residential areas. 20. Because of the high cost of homes here, many people who work in the San Ramon/Livermore area are moving to Tracy, Modesto, Manteca, etc. Statistics on potential ridership must include these people. They will not use the Southern Pacific corridor. Grou� 21 . There is no demonstrated need for the system. An example is that AC buses are underutilized in the area. 22. Who will pay for the system? Is the government willing to pay for an unneeded system? What is the future government obligation to paying for such a system? 23. What would be the speed of the system? With all of the at grade crossings, the system might be slower than taking a bus. 24. What are the current negotiations between Southern Pacific and Contra Costa County? Will the corridor be financially feasible to the county? 25. Will people leave their cars for the system? Even with bad freeway problems, who will use the system? 26. The assessment should look at where potential users come from and where they are going (origin/destination of potential users). 27. It seems that the county and consultants are promoting LRT ("railroad job"). Will other alternatives be seriously considered? For example, what about a bus system along the freeway or use of the right of way for jogging, bicycling and horseback riding, etc. Group f4 28. Development of the Southern Pacific right of way is not necessary now. 29. There is a sense of frustration that citizens are being involved late in the process, i.e. , the basic assumption that the right of way is to be used for transit is being questioned. 30. Comparisons to other metropolitan areas are not accurate. 31. Are there other corridors that can be used? 32. There is concern over funding. Are government funds only to be used for mass transit? If the right of way is not used for transit, who will pay back the government the two million dollars? The need for a transportation system should have been studied before getting government funds. 33. Why is the center of I680 not being used for public transit as was originally planned? 34. People at the ends of the corridor will benefit from a transit system along the corridor while those in the middle will suffer. 35. Will the acquisition of land exceed the existing right of way, especially in the sections where the right of way is only 50 feet wide? The long term needs should be considered. 36. Would a vote of the people in the valley affect the outcome of the decision on the use of the right of way, i.e. , do the people have a choice? Can use of the right of way be put to the vote of the people? 37. Will there be any compensation to bordering residents for loss of property value? If so, what will it be? 38. There is concern over the formation of the committees involved in the study. The people on the committees don' t fully represent the public, i. e. , there should be some citizen representatives. 39. Alamo has been left out completely. Even though it is unincorporated, it exists as a definite community and should be represented. 40. Is the no build alternative included just to look good on paper or will it be vigorously studied? 41 . Sole use of the right of way as a trail is not listed as an alternative. 42. Will transportation needs in the future be more east/west rather than north/south? 43. There are employment figures in the Baur Report. Why are there none in this report? 44. Will this take more taxpayer assessments to fund? Will use be assessed in the same manner that uses are already being taxed for BART? 45. Will expected ridership make the system worth it? This comes back to the question of where people are coming from and where they are going. 46. What is Southern Pacific charging for the property? 47. The only appropriate use for the Southern Pacific right of way through Alamo and Danville (residential areas) is a trail. 48. How can a bus service that stops numerous times along the corridor serve the primary users who want to get quickly from one end of the valley to the other? i PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS RECEIVED AT THE NOVEMBER 29, 1984 MEETING IN WALNUT CREEK The following are comments and questions that were discussed by the groups and presented by one member of each group. Sroup #1 1 . It is agreed that increased transportation capacity is needed and that the automobile is not the way to go. 2. More options should be looked at. For example, the use of I680 along the length of the corridor should be considered. 3. The alternatives are not comprehensive enough. We need to look at the total system to solve county transportation problems rather than just j along the corridor. 4. The goals, objectives, and measures seem fairly comprehensive. One exception is that although the issues of capital and operating costs are addressed, total costs are not. t j croup #2 5. Any transportation solution should include buses (both diesel and ! electric) and carpools as inexpensive means of solving transportation problems. i ! 6. There seems to be a bias against advanced. transit modes, especially since ' some existing modes are not economic. 7. Pollution in the valley is a problem and is a more important concern than a high capapcity system like BART. i 8. Some assurance is needed regarding land use sharing, particularly with ! respect to recreational and environmental uses of the corridor. ! I 9. Any transportation development along the corridor will result in more ! parking facilities (there are objections to this). 10. Will the corridor be used all the time or just at peak hours? There could be more environmental uses of the corridor if the transportation use was constrained. ` 11 . There are no major destinations in the valley except for Bishop Ranch. The system should serve origins and destinations without mode changes. 12. Who is the system going to serve? Are there any worthwhile projections of use patterns? i 13. What influence is any system going to have on development and character of the valley? 14. People perceive the automobile as less expensive, more flexible, and more convenient that transit in most cases. This must be considered. Group 15. We don' t need any transportation system out here. We must look at growth problems in the area (in favor of no growth). 1,6. East/west transportation problems must be addressed. They are more critical than north/south problems. 17. By developing such a corridor directly through residential areas, what will happen to the quality of life in the area? The people moved here to get away from such development. Grouo #4 18. We definitely do need a transporation system in the area. 19. An electrical system would be the best environmentally. 20. Noise/vibration is an issue. An electric system is much quieter than a bus system. 21. The right of way should be used only for light rail transit (LRT). The use of buses should be eliminated in the corridor. 22. The right of way should be used for mass transportation only (separate trails for bikes and pedestrians are appropriate). 23. Bicycles should be allowed on the system (as with BART), although there was a difference of opinion over whether they should be allowed all of the time or just some of the time. 24. There was some thought of an elevated bike system (trails) that would be separate from pedestrians and from the LRT. 25. There should be an integrated bus system with the rail system for convenience to users. 26. If LRVs are used, the system should be flexible to accommodate fluctuating needs (i.e. , one car vs. five or six cars). 27. The busway to Pleasant Hill should be eliminated so that city streets aren' t used (keep transit to the corridor). 28. Noise shouldn' t be a problem, but it should be carefully monitored. There should be someone to report to for noise problems. 29. The transit system should stay on the right of way, otherwise the purpose of a rapid transit line will be defeated (same reasoning for keeping buses out of the right of way). 30. We definitely need a transportation system. A rail system is more attractive than a bus system in terms of reliability and comfort. 31. This right of way should be kept intact for transportation use only if not for now than for the future. 32. The problems and issues associated with at grade crossings should be addressed. Gfouo f5 33• There is some question of the committee(s) responsible for this study. The idea of a BART system in the right of way is not appealing at all. 34. There is concern that some alternatives may not be considered seriously because of the pressure to use the right of way. 35. The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative should be considered first. 36. A light rail system is preferred over buses and BART. The short length of the corridor means that the high speeds of BART are not necessary. 37. The convenience and cost of such a system should be evaluated. 38. The impact to the environment, businesses, and the rural./residential areas along the right of way should be evaluated. The character of the rural/residential areas should remain the same.