Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 8.3 Tri-Vly Transportation Council Report (2)
AGENDA STATEMENT ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 12, 1990 1%Y 0 /V SUBJECT: Review of Tri-Valley Transportation Council Initial Report REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: A Perspective on Tri-Valley Transportation RECOMMENDATION Consider the draft comments, make any needed tT I �.�/ revisions and direct Staff to send the comments to the TVTC FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has prepared for the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) an Initial Report titled "A Perspective on Tri-Valley Transportation" . The intent of the report was 1) to identify Tri-Valley transportation issues and opportunities and 2) suggest an ongoing Tri-Valley transportation planning program. The report suggests the preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Implementation Program; and a potential sequence of tasks to develop it. Strategies to administer and fund the future planning efforts are left to the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee to develop for TVTC consideration and action. The TVTC is discussing the hiring of an outside project manager f' and consultant to prepare the plan within an 18 to 24 month time frame. Financing discussions have concentrated on various forms of shared financing among the agencies as well as other public and private funding sources . The TVTC has also discussed the organizational options of a Joint Powers Agency and a Memorandum of Understanding. Staff has prepared draft comments for City Council review and consideration in order to help meet the stated intent of the report. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following draft comments, make any needed revisions and direct Staff to send comments to the TVTC: - Page 9 ; under 2) Local Planning: fifth bullet should read "extension of Hacienda Drive to segment of Dublin Boulevard. " Extension to the Dougherty Valley is not planned nor proposed in the Dublin General Plan. - Page 9, under 3) Transit Planning: first paragraph, first sentence should refer to "East Dublin/Pleasanton" station rather than East Dublin/Hacienda. - Page 12, Table 2 Tri-Valley Population Estimates, Dublin, Local Estimates County/City GP's should read: "56,500 to 85,500 (build- out) " and comments should read: "local build-out range incorporating current concepts in East and West Dublin GP amendment studies . " - Page 13, Table 3 Tri-Valley Employment Estimates, Dublin, ABAG Projections - 2005, PRO-89 should read: "20,600" . - Page 15, Table 4 Potential Growth In The Tri-Valley Area, East Dublin, comments should read: " . . .Area includes about 7 ,400 acres . . . " - Page 15, Table 4 Potential Growth In The Tri-Valley Area, West Dublin, Estimated Potential Development should read: 112,200 to 4 ,400 d.u. " and Facilities Likely To Be Affected should read: "580 interchanges with Eden Canyon Road and Schaefer Ranch Road" . - Page 17, under 3 . Areas with Major Development Potential, third paragraph, fifth bullet should read: "access to I-580 from new development in the Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys will put strains on north/south arterials through Dublin. " This comment paraphrases the second bullet in the context of Dublin rather than San Ramon and Danville. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. J44&A4 COPIES TO: Planning File �j A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION I � ' Prepared for The Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee and The Tri-Valley Transportation Council 1 i by The Metropolitan Transportation Commission November 1989 Revised December 1989 Mac . F ILE co '{ METROPOLITAN I TRANSPORTATION COMM.1 SS IO N r; I i EXtHIBIT A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPORTATION Prepared for The Tri—Valley. Technical Advisory Committee and The Tri—Valley Transportation Council by The Metropolitan Transportation Commission November 1989 Revised December 1989 A c-RSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPu,,,ATION TABLE OF CONTENTS S E C T I O N P A G E I. INTRODUCTION 1 . Study Purpose 1 2. Overview 1 II . POLICIES AND PLANS 1 . Comparison of General Plan Policies 3 2. Transportation Improvements a) Programmed Improvements 6 b) Planned Improvements g c) Coordination of Facilities Planning 9 III . GROWTH ESTIMATES 1 . Population 11 2. Employment 11 3. Areas with Major Development Potential 11 4. Travel Demand 17 IV. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 1 . Highway and Arterials 20 2. Transit 21 3. Air Quality 22 4. Land Use 22 5. Finance 24 V. POSSIBLE WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 1 . Plan Content 25 2. Planning Process 27 A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPORTATION I. INTRODUCTION 1 . Study Purpose At the request of the Tri—Valley Transportation Council , the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has conducted a study of current and projected future transportation conditions in the Tri—Valley area. The study area contains the cities of Danville and San Ramon in Contra Costa County; the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore in Alameda County; and the adjacent unincorporated portions of the two counties (see FIGURE 1) . The goals of the study have been: • to identify transportation issues and opportunities common to the cities and counties within the Tri—Valley that might serve as a basis for a cooperative, multi—jurisdictional planning endeavor; and 0 to suggest an ongoing planning program which all participants would support and contribute to, and potential strategies for administering — and funding the program. MTC, with assistance from the Tri—Valley Technical Advisory Committee, has pursued these objectives by reviewing studies, plans, and policy documents relating to transForta'=flr cordifior.s in both individual cities and the Tri—Valley as a whole; or growth estimates and travel demand forecasts for the Tri—Valley area; and based on discussions with key city and county staffs, identifying critical transportation issues and potential growth impacts in each of the member jurisdictions. The rest of the Introduction provides an overview of current conditions in the Tri—Valley, focusing primarily on the state of the transportation system. Section II reviews various planning policies used to guide transportation decision making in the Tri—Valley; it also discusses significant transportation programming and planning activities currently underway. Section III provides a review of estimates of population, employment, and t.ravel :,derand for the Tri—Valley; the emphasis in this section is on are lLf exis:ing forecasts, rather than efforts to develop new forecasts for this study. Section IV briefly discusses significant issues and opportunities that arise from a review of the materials presented in Sections II and III. Possible activities for an ongoing work program are presented in Section V. Strategies for administering and funding future planning efforts will be developed by the Tri—Valley Technical Advisory Committee for Council consideration and approval . - 2. Overview of Current Conditions: State of the Valley Over the past two decades, the Tri—Valley has been characterized by rapid and sustained growth, initially in households and population and more recently in employment and commercial development. Approximately 100,000 people lived in the Tri—Valley in 1970; -by 1980, the population had grown to 150,000. ABAG' s Projections '89 forecast a further increase to about J 235,000 by 1990, a growth of approximately 135% in 20 years. Employment rose from 26,000 in 1970 to 46,000 in 1980, and is projected to reach 108,000 by 1990, a growth rate of 315% since 1970. Tri—Valley population —1- +; JM/rbp/6349p r �J 19 680 l � •\ 31 \` VALLEJO 78 enic SUISUN:, BAY PA8LO�' BAY / Hercules oNTao J — Pin e wPTEaf•r Low PA MA vy � PACI.Tc C CORD BUC NAN RD CYPRESS D 80 4 9��9 C<AV p, ANTIOCH �Bq TON �EPQ LONE TREE WY PLEASANT v P RICHMOND HILL v`0` �A Ro qO ' m 14 ?� �v`� CLAYTON BRENTWOOD 0 El Cerrito HAP P O Y VAL EY Q ��' "�•� 9• - WALNUT a i4lban?,_,, 14 MT ;ABLOEL ?�CREEK CONTRA �'QS I .BERKELE • X°LAFAYETT _ COSTA S"oR EEK RV 1 �ORINDA Q oft C 1 80 cf ' m ..Pied n1 ALAIv�]�'( ���r,•'' 9°Z� MORAGA ` OAKLAND �� o4M, �♦ 13 �---�- DANtLLE tic TASSAJARA _• '/- a, 1 Alam 580 RD C: a hlO�y�4�O c , cr ~ ✓ Z 185 680 n a 9� San _ n c o �. SA m 9 �+ 'BLIP , y 0 o P South Z HAY WARD o q9 D STANLEY BL ✓` ; , n Francisco , o, o PL ASANTON o F9� \ % 9LIVERMORE4 a , SA BRUNO O \ 91 By 38 ,�. �° 84 F ibrae 880 '•. nlon City o,�o SAN ` m9 � ALAMEDA MATEO � \ NT Fo er City � 84 Belmont \ Newark 101 _ _ FIGURE 1 ' ALF an CarIREDWOOD �� TRINALLE V100N CITY ���— ''^ �' AREA AY -2- growth, like gm. -, in Central Contra Costa Count _ was originally spurred by employed residents traveling to jobs in the "inner" Bay Area - San Francisco, Oakland, and adjacent employment sites. With the construction of Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park, however, along with continuing growth of employers such as Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Sandia, the Tri-Valley became an area that attracted commuters as well as one that housed workers employed in other parts of the Bay Area. With increasing business development and a comparatively slower rate of housing growth, housing prices increased rapidly and fewer middle and low income workers were able to purchase houses near their Tri-Valley jobs. Today, therefore, the Tri-Valley experiences two major "external " commute movements in addition to commuter movements within the study area: an "out-commute" of residents to jobs in San Francisco and East Bay cities from Oakland to San Jose; and an "in-commute" of workers living in central Contra Costa County, Pittsburg, Antioch, and cities in the Central Valley. A growing amount of commuter traffic traveling to (or through) the Tri-Valley is coming long distances. A number of recent studies have shown that many Bay Area residents are moving to the Central Valley in their search for affordable housing. San Joaquin County has absorbed most of this "spill-over" growth, but rising housing prices in Tracy and Manteca are now forcing new homebuyers south into Stanislaus County, further lengthening commute distances . A 1988 survey conducted by MTC indicated that almost half of those commuting between the Central Valley and the Bay Area held jobs in the Tri-Valley; and had lived in their Central Valley residences less than two years, with many of these new Valley dwellers having moved from Bay Area cities such as Livermore, San Jose and Fremont. As residents and employees in the Tri-Valley know, traffic has become increasingly congested over the past few years . Freeway congestion during the morning peak is severe on I-680 southbound, from Danville to Crow Canyon Road, and on I-580 westbound, with congestion starting east of I-680 and continuing sporadically through Dublin Canyon into Hayward. During the evening commute, congestion is most noticeable in the southbound and westbound approaches to the I-580/I-680 interchange. Programmed widenings of I-680 from Pleasanton to Danville and I-580 through Dublin Canyon are expected to alleviate some of the worst congestion over the short term. Local transportation problems include the need for improved freeway access , unresolved questions ab,ct the Vasco Road and Route 84 alignments, congestion on many arterials in the Tri-Valley and expansion and coordination of transit systems , especially as regards the BART extension. II. POLICIES AND PLANS 1 . Comparison of General Plan Policies General Plan policies for the seven jurisdictions are summarized in TABLE 1 . This table is not a comprehensive listing of policies; rather, it is a synopsis of principal policies meant to highlight those aspects of each jurisdiction' s policy base that have implications for transportation. The following generalizations can be drawn from a review of the table: a. Residential and Office/Commercial Development • low density single family development policies predominate; -3- JM/rbp/6349p tUI- LLEY POLICY MAIRIx—. _— ---- --_ 1 I I I 1 I LFFI[f/CO'iMERCI AI ACONDOMEO IRANSMRTAI ION INTERJURISDICTIORAL i " I IJURISDICTION " RESIOENfIAL DEVELOPMENT "DEVELOPMENT 'JOOS/HOUSING OALANCE- ROADUAYS/TRAFFIC- TRANSII RAILROM RIGHT OF WAY SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AIR OJCLi TY 19ANSFORTAf:ON fU11OING PLANNING _ 1 IpANVILLE 1 •Maintain single,-amity -No regional shopping- No ztata t - -Support KM I—on 680 •SUK.art,!Apenled bars .'NO,transit in S-PSC a. -Participate In,regi—L., •Enc r,ge hiSh rc4--t -tins Join[Powers Agree- 'Identify and evaluate i 'P'r'edm once center:: '-Mitigate'regimen traffic'-sys(,n,in oordinmuion •Recur.vded for progi anc axoo.of t -•.port n.-Or witu San Rax,n and additimat rcgi«ul lr.ns-1 I I -Prepare ul on9 range plan -Focus devclofacnt In - m Oanvilte streets wi tl.CCCIAa linear park/bikeway Plans for tw park and County to finance trans- portatim corridors I I ter fassajara aM;Dough- d-lal a, •Hitigete tapes[of 680. •Nlnimite b's tvpocts i .. ride lots portalion isorovemnls '(,prove Yri-Va11ey bus I ' I I arty"valleys with CounlY •ACHitimal development conge,stim on city residential area s xw far develofa'ent service I I I and San Rai—earl link along Fostoria Way end streets '6A0 is preferred transit 'Has three aS.es,-nl I 1 development to LOS Sycannre.Valley/ right of way districts I I I st aMards Tassajara Area I SAN DAMON .I•Law density develoryaent -Virtually all new office- •0a1 Once"In-cermuting -Need interchange'Ins- `Preserve transit options -NO!ransit in S.P. 'ISM ordinance •Cmsider.ca,Gan nr_nox Id- 'Developers-fees(can be •Coordinate Circulation 1 in O«9herty Valley space In Crow Canyon and with out-C , ti - provement w 680/Atcestn When designing new roads •Reco—rded for we as •Preamte prograim which (evens at intersectsom used for city-wide ton- et eseent of General Plan 1 I'' I -High density only near Bishop Ranch- •Achieve reg tonal -Need new N-S'r ate 1rw • .mote we of 1-680 lire°-park/bikeway edim•,.trips when evaluating xeU for grave ants) with mighborlre juris= I li 1 downtown -0evel Gp'downtan as (Tri-Valley) Dougherty Valtey.to 580 corridor for transit *Level of<rvice iaprovenvntS "•Hitig.1im fees it traffic dietfore I I, I •Growth evet.peent clam nt principal retail center Joh/haaing'balerce -Crew[am/m Rd.corridor ordinance ,•Inve.tig•te'med for;' zt:dy-concludes aulor ins- under'devel ailment ... .° - sir Guallty wni taring paste wand«cur I I I Station in City I 1BU9Lta j nlediuO to aMdiun-high- °X191 dereitY deJelapnent Walley-w fdwf.lr'sh.rux�.�°Iaprove 680 access •'*Support BART extension •Reserve as potential- No statement •Rcgast 9AAYAD to set eb- -Share costs for laproy- -Nark with San Reamt on I density In oast Dublin In daUstaAn(near DART) of housing are needtd,'- '*Six•taM exteroim of *Joint:Pairs agreement ,.trarspertation wrridor - n .. ,_tleh air gj::ity anal- Ing Daugherty Rd. 680/Ateaata:at—honge I I 1 •Lou derefly in wuKt it - particularly for market Dublin Blvd.through to we TDA/tills for ,•�ider,other, toring stallm In O'JOlin *Work,with Alamein C..on I Dublin mInl—ml to Parks RFTA � LAVTA sU.—tive. � � � 14velop_t of Sint. •S ix.Ia.divided arter- Rite cite 1 .. let on DoWgherty Rd. 1 •'" '. I'.1PLEASANTOW., I•Growth'Managemaenc •EmwraBe•.develdptnmt -Seek balance of"Jobs ;°[-telling aYSta to *Project transit i.preve•,-Acquire for,<irculattm `Existing ISM ordinance *Verify air y+atity pro- *Support we of assns- *Task with Dublin,Liver- I Prograa limits most wldch-Is cenpatible with :and housing within Tri- monitor LOC mint needs based m trip we .. :•FUlltlx tr•mportetim ,Jest lore wish spot - "rent districts mre, and Al—Co. I" r -• 1._.:,;. I'development to 650[nits en lrenmental c Valley cmmJte area,mt *Traffic studies for ndurtt,:n goals of iSM •Cam[der alterrotives uordtro:or amitoring, 'Developers-fen deter- reg•rdfng aneriat ey,- I 1 per year strelncs necessertly within each dewtopmont tikety to' ordirorve .•Require mJ.r basimso mImd project by project tersirwu:of Stm:rldge I I Jurisdiction eawe LM D'- •Support LAVIA parks to fund permanent Dr.and Nat!erda Dr_ I I -*Traffic mi tipa[Im ` •SUppo:t LIT study for st•ti ore •Prcaotc aulti-juridic- I required for developments 6SO currfdor - •Notify lose; d e;a r-91-1. donut planning for I likely to cause LOS E - '•Reserve lend fnr DART Jurjsd(ctloa of proposed prallel irtrrlal system I 1 I I (cxr-ept'in COD) - st.ti v and we as park projects WE.?,Easy effect to rel IE-feecwr;cm-. . _ L,j.,•- I `: ;; •: aM'rid!lots nc r e giol e qucy geztlon .. I •. IL IVERMORE :I.•Grourh itched to between•Preserve.large tracts *Balance does rat Iaply•..•Need 580 Interchange -!Ptamim based on m •NO corridor scquisl[iore' -go city'progran -Increase ratio of eapuoY-•New develgxrcnt should •Cooperate with Dublin end I 1.5%and 3.5%per year for Industrial develop--. that each connsitity Isprovements, :..BART.or UT before 2010 made yet `two wJor'eaployere have ment to residents. ' pay for site r-_toted Pleasanton to 6-.top 5L0 mnt should reflect region- -Concern over Vasco Rd. prograas • ' 'For short terzi,mitigating lspr"Esa,auts Ord emtri- reliever°yet- I •High,prt ority for ex- wide total and Highway 84 align- es to"roll back• bate fee for city-wide •York with AtamKa County I tending urban services rants - impacts of 9rnwth m air cxntlstive iepnets - on su1bre9lona1 arteriats 1 indwtrial areas quality not necessary •Work with Contra Cost. I •N County significant growth on Vasco Rd.OLt9n-I I I until air q,aiity probtess mnt or I reeled ' I (CONTRA ,I 'Permit el vitopwnt c -Plan e.variety of em= •'Support housing.end .•Cmsider secondary Sys- •Establish corridors `4d transit development m-Has two TSM ordinances •Emourage inlill ha�z irg 'ASxcz:amt districts en- 'Reduce cwu!•ti ve re I - - (COSTA I sistent with Growth m ptoymnt areas to-cm- lob info ll to redress teas of expressways as along.freeways for high S.P.-south of Rudgcar Road•Investigating aasim.,a and new de`rel oprcnt which couraged over develop- giorol traffic iapacts I I COINTY I Hanngement"Plan and tribute to tax base and' inbalences ;partial solution to speed alternatives to 'Cmsider'other'alterna- parking ratios,short m[i9txus to old mat Ices of development through I other general plan welfefe o(.[rxnry aid •Develop ouding mch- fro way congestion driving°lox s before developing m parking Only in development -Measure B funds mtin- aulti-jurisdictival 1 fci es various cities en(svm[o spread costs Minims xe tacel Trips m right of'way" aajor c end a eas gent upon develops g plemi g processes a W I of fact IIrating balance freeways,consider rasp establish a continuous Growth Mana9emnt Pions nor ms I I 1 1 between existing and new interim,support HOV fares b(kawy-system with I I . i el—elofn -Permit development,sly in ,ighb ring jurisdictions 1 I ( locations where LOS standards. I I I are ensured I !A,,Al AMEOA I •Permit urban dl v topmost -Permit Only it need for -Su,,,ort ace -Require transportation -Support[aaly es en m -Continue to protect •Adapt policies am •RCdxe de,,Im-_exy m 'Measure B fueds t nJ'Create new pnograa to I -1CQIV1Y .I w sirA:cities when facilities carrot tx met achieve -wide Wtime imaet a amt for of DART to Pleasanlmt ride,r for passible rcquir ntse for major private su..m�il< HART, isprave 580/6801 pl An foreLAV[..Sp rto- 1 I I —i es provided by dv- and only Mere -Provide range of housing majar projects nand Livernar< tut ns ona[im developers and employers 'Pr.Jec[r w for eon rchaMe,construct aim facilities I velorment or W other out not be in caw densities in each -Cmsider odeptim of .'Explore Goss i4i alias for lac(li[yra q.Ii,y'i.,n.. Rt. espressway I I I i[Y sin wins other u1_5 Cm nity pertorm ardards for Ltd trun.. ...ry -East Canty R-O-V, . I I . culturat or n space is iaruels met«at mud in LAV m•i c «tin, save light rail - I ocon".l wrban regi mat facilities tEv't a destiru-iar r p,b:mial I U[ directly s•:rvM try OAR( fr 1 d I. j • policies t ect a growing concern for resi,._,itial growth management; • most jurisdictions support additional office and commercial development, and emphasize locational patterns that reinforce ji existing job centers (downtowns, major business parks) . b. Job/Housing Balance � ::� • most jurisdictions recognize a need to balance jobs and housing and to do this within the Tri—Valley area rather than within each jurisdiction; but •' it is unclear -from General Plan policies, whether.."balance" means =� providing housing opportunities equal to employment opportunities in order to create a statistical balance, or means providing a range of housing t g employees 1 ; g ypes and values reflecting the income levels of em to ees working in the Tri—Valley (the issue of "affordability") , I C. Roadways/Traffic 4y � . • there is a shared concern over two basic freeway issues: (1 ) access to I=580 and 1480 (the need for interchange improvements) ; and (2) mitigation of freeway impacts on local streets (need for a reliever route system.); • most -cities address specific' improvements to'selected 'arterials (eg. y-; Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Vasco Road, etc.) ; and '- • several jurisdictions reference the need to monitor the level of service on local arterials as a basis for determining performance 171i standards. d. Transit • there is recognition of the need for expanded, coordinated bus 1'. service (CCCTA, LAVTA) in the corridor; and • Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County support a BART extension into East County. , Livermore assumes no BART or LRT before 2010. e. Abandoned Railroad Rights—of—Way • Contra Costa County, Danville and San Ramon have jointly agreed not L to use the SP right—of—way in the San Ramon Valley for transit: a preference for using t.ht Ti-ght—of—way as a linear parkway or bikeway 1 ' is recommended instead. The I-680 corridor is viewed as a preferred ;.! alignment for future transit development; and • 'Alameda County jurisdictions recommend protecting SP rights—of—way in East County as possible future transportation corridors; Alameda j . County has identified the potential for LRT in these corridors. f. Transportation Systems Management t� • TSM ordinances have been adopted in Pleasanton, San Ramon and Contra Costa County; Livermore-'.s two major employers' have their own TSM programs; 1 Alameda County will prepare TSM policies for major employers and developers; and • Danville and Dublin lack a major employer base to warrant adoption of TSM policies. —5- JM/rbp/6349P g. Air Quality . • most of the emphasis is on the need for increased monitoring and evaluation of air quality; and • Livermore policies reference the need to limit growth until air quality problems are corrected. h. , Transportation Funding A variety of mechanisms are used within the Tri—Valley to finance local transportation improvements: • project specific developer fees are collected 'by Pleasanton and Dublin for specific improvements; • fixed rate developer fees- are collected by San Ramon, Livermore and Contra Costa county for city(county)—wide improvements ; • additional mitigation measures are required by San Ramon for projects with major traffic impacts; : • assessment districts are used In Danville, Dublin, Pleasanton and Contra Costa County; • a joint exercise of powers agreement allows for shared financing of , ,,. specific ,improv,ements ,j n,,Danvi l l e, San Ramon and Contra Costa County; and • both counties have 1/2 cent sales tax measures to finance transportation improvements. i . Inter—jurisdictional Planning • all jurisdictions indicate a need to cooperate on a variety of planning issues: reducing freeway .congestion, bus service, specific arterial improvements (Dublin, Livermore, and Alameda County cooperation regarding extensions of Hacienda Drive, Stoneridge Drive, etc.) , new roadway alignments (Vasco Road) , etc. ; and • Contra Costa County policies address the possibility of establishing multi—jurisdictional planning processes and forums to develop strategies for reducing the cumulative traffic impacts of development. 2. Transportation Improvements * The following information summarizes current programs and plans for upgrading transportation facilities and services in the Tri—Valley. r 'a. ' Programmed Improvements' .*' ' 1) 1988 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The STIP programs approximately $116,000,000 ($1988) for improvements to I-680 and I-580 in the Tri—Valley. These projects include interchange con structions..and upgrades.along .I-580, widenings of I-680 , and interchange and overcrossing improvements along I-680. Many of the projects are being funded . in total or in part with local funds. The specific projects and programmed expenditures are listed below. —6— r. .. JM/rbp/6349p , _ .. rCost (1000$) I-680: • Widen I-680 to 6 lanes between Route 238 and Route 84 $ 10,939 • Construct soundwalls on I-680 south of I-580 2,500 • Widen overcrossing and construct ramps, etc. , at 13,908* E- I-680 and Stoneridge Drive �'.. • Modify ramps and signals at I-680/ 1 ,500** Crow Canyon Rd. interchange • Widen I-680 to 8 lanes, from north of I-580 to 25,128 l�J Rudgear Road . • Construct ,soundwalls on I-680, from north .of I-580 to 10,000 Rudgear Road : .. I-580: • Modify I-580/Route 84 (First Street) interchange $ 4,839* • Construct I-580/Collier Canyon Road interchange 7,688* • Modify I-580/Airway Boulevard interchange 3,848* • Construct additional overcrossing and ramps at 6,811* I-580/Santa Rita Road • Construct new interchange, etc. , at. I-580/ 14,037* Hacienda Drive extension * Indicates totally locally funded project ** Indicates project partially funded with local monies A combination of local money and Federal-Aid-Urban (FAU) money totalling approximately $5,000,000 is also programmed to upgrade local streets and roads (widenings, signals) in the Tri-Valley. 2) Contra Costa County' s One-Half Cent Sales Tax Measure (Measure C) �-- Contra Costa County' s sales tax expenditure plan provides for $13,600,000 ($1988) in sales tax revenues to be spent in the San Ramon Valley. A final list of projects has not yet been prepared, but the following projects were listed in the project description section of the expenditure plan and would likely be given high priority in the final list: • construction of I-680 auxiliary lanes between E1 Cerro Boulevard iJ and Bollinger Canyon Road; • construction of Fostoria Way overcrossing; ' • widening of San Ramon Valley Boulevard between Hartz Avenue and Alcosta Boulevard; -- • widening of Dougherty Road from the Alameda County line to Crow Canyon Road; and ti • widening of Crow Canyon Road from the Alameda County line to Bollinger Canyon Road. f l�f I -7- =I� JM/rbp/6349p ` '" 3. Alameda County' s One Half Cent Sales Tax Measure (Measure B) In 1986 Alameda County voters approved a one-half cent sales tax increase for transportation expenditures. A total of $234,000,000* ($1986) in sales tax revenues is targeted for the following projects: • I-580/I-680 interchange modification $ 44,000,000 • new Route 84 facility (Isabel Avenue) 20,000,000 • BART Dublin Extension 170,000,000 . ;These projects are to be supported.-.with -approximately $85,000,000 in additional funding from other sources, including local assessment districts and private contributions. Since the passage of Measure B, estimates of sales tax revenues have been reduced. Accordingly the County' s Transportation Authority has rolled back the amount of Measure B support for each project by 13%. Project scopes have not been revised, however. 4. Transit Programming Aside from previously referenced Measure B funding .for the BART Dublin extension, programmed transit improvements in the Tri-Valley are relatively modest. Currently the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) has $6,300,000 in capital improvements programmed in FY 1989/90. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) has a total of $11 ,000,000 in capital improvements programmed over the next five years; however, no estimate can be made of what portion of these improvements will specifically benefit the Tri-Valley. b. Planned Improvements 1 ) Caltrans Planning Caltrans' Route Concept Reports describe the ultimate planned widths for state and interstate highways in California. The current Route Concepts for Tri-Valley highways are: • I-680- 8 lanes from Pleasanton to Danville (assumes demand in excess of 8 lane capacity will be accommodated by transit) ; • I-580-. , 8 lanes from the San Joaquin County line to I-680; 10 *lanes from I-680 to Hayward; • Route 84- 6 lanes from I-680 to I-580 (Vallecitos Road) ; 4 to 61anes from I-580 to Route 160 (This unbuilt section of the facility will be located in the Vasco Road corridor though a specific alignment has not yet been determined) . Following the completion of the projects programmed in the 1988 STIP, I-680 will be at its Route Concept width from I-580 through Danville. I-580 is already at its Route Concept width between I-680 and the county line. -8- JM/rbp/6349p I' 'j 2) Local P. .ling - City and county General Plans indicate a sizeable inventory of proposed but as yet unfunded additions to the existing local street and arterial system. Significant improvements include the following: f^^ • modification of I-680/Stone Valley Road interchange; • an expansion of Crow Canyon Road to 6 lanes from the Alameda County line to the current 6 lane segment; 17; • expansion of Dougherty Road; • extension of Dublin Boulevard to connect with the proposed north Canyons Parkway in Livermore; r7, • extension of Hacienda Drive to new segment of Dublin Boulevard, t : and perhaps beyond to the Dougherty Valley; • modification and upgrade of the E1 Charro Road/Fallon Road interchange with I-580; • expansion and coordination of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton and Las Positas Boulevard in Livermore; • widening and possible realignment of Route 84 (Vallecitos Road) between I-680 and I-580; • relocation and expansion of Vasco Road north of I-580. F7 3) Transit Planning �= BART' s plan for expansion (beyond Measure B proposals) include extension of BART east of Dublin to Livermore with three i. additional stations (east Dublin/Hacienda, west Livermore, east Livermore) ; and park-and-ride lots in West Livermore and Dublin and possibly next to the Santa Rita jail (the Dublin lot would -- be temporary Fending construction of the Dublin station) . The current CCCTA service plan includes redesigning routes to serve Bishop Ranch during commute periods, implementing a van r feeder service in the Danville/San Ramon area and introducing L'; express bus service from North Concord to AT & T in Hacienda Business Park. In addition, peak period service along I-680 (Route #121 ) may be doubled, and a new route developed to link east San Ramon with its downtown. LAVTA' s Short-Range Transit Plan recommends sEveral 'f modifications to service to be implemented in September 1990: -- increasing peak period service on roughly half of the LAVTA fixed routes; and providing direct peak period service to Bishop Ranch from park-and-ride lots at West Livermore and Hacienda Business Park. In addition, LAVTA is studying the feasibility of replacing its fixed route service with dial-a-ride service during mid-days and Saturdays. C. Coordination of Facilities Planning The Tri-Valley Transportation newtwork shown in FIGURE 2 shows !. . long-range proposals for arterial development in the Valley based on existing general plans, or in Contra Costa County' s case, a draft plan. There are a number of inconsistencies and uncertainties along jurisdictional boundaries that need to be addressed in a continuing planning process. Four of the more significant ones are as follows: l -9- JM/rbp/6349p URE 2 syFaeore va FIG � vauey �'aai i LEGEND { TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION -= Freeway NETWORK Expressway AS Per Adopted Arterial General Plans z 1 -4+i-r1 S.P Right of Way Interchange Rd G o ................ Q, Proposed Interchange o a Proposed Road Segments Shown in Dashed Lines. n° w _ a°r o 'ry 2 Current dumber of Lanes ,\, a , (4) Future Number of Lanes or.` o b o e 1 r _. rr\ ROpG� • T Rd. a. v, 1 Wblin Blvd !\ ... •.• .B 6) i° n kki eX,�,pD 'ss°n Pass Z (a .. . V4ylf ` '+ . b O el L ••• .rr...... Ias Positas Rd ,aD la Ave S`c° ) 4 O•("�i r Carly°°�Rd. lAl Go arid9 Dr y C• .. ........ _ C V z' n � ..^ei\d9en (G1••..Pj O (��.•.... � h a 5 b� mar �! o • `+ 6' G ad. gto tansyO - . C J .. g: � N q K. ._ �2 5'\!1 \`a=.b n.�� /�.�•f•.°•y•am•..." 'oa_T''.'° (w 9)�'' M y Ea, t(A<v)e�n V o5 >Valley Ave 4 � Stnley Blvd n v t - � ,0`e Telsa Rd' o Ca r C `1 J L n Blv • •'O•li1 2 6 •Concn°n •• ••. z 0 (11> 'o l z dal�r e{ \•\ -. 2l,•\ d,l V G J \ c .l V` C 1 r 1 • Hacienda Drive. This facility, which currently stops south of I-580, will be connected to I-580 with a new interchange. Pleasanton and San Ramon advocate extending the road north into �... the Dougherty Valley through county/federal lands. Dublin' s plan calls for extending the facility no further north than the r planned Dublin Boulevard extension. • Dougherty Road (Crow Canyon Road to Dublin Boulevard) . Danville and San Ramon propose that the facility be widened to six F,; lanes. Contra Costa County's plan calls for the arterial to be L,f operated as a two lane expressway. �, • Crow Canyon Road (I-680 to I-580) . This facility has become a popular I-680/I-580 interchange bypass for commuters travelling between the San Ramon Valley and the East Bay. Principal concerns focus on adequacy of facility capacity through the corridor and neighborhood impacts. • Route 84. The location of this facility is an issue both north and south of I-580. Because of the pending construction of two ii reservoirs to the north in Contra Costa County, Vasco Road is being relocated. Livermore's plan shows the facility relocated west of its current location to connect at I-580 with the previously mentioned new Route 84 (Isabel Road) facility funded by Measure B. Caltrans planning for a freeway in the corridor has also considered alignments to the east, including one that could connect with 'Greenville Road at I-580. The potential to build a Route 84 bypass of Livermore around the city' s southern flank was considered a number of years ago. This concept is currently dormant. III. GROWTH ESTIMATES As mentioned, The Tri—Valle has been growing at a faster rate than the entire i. ! Y 9 9 Bay Area and it is anticipated that this will continue over the next two decades. Tri—Valley cities are rapidly building out towards shared boundaries and the emergence of large scale development in new locations will add to the Valley's transportation problems. The following data and information provide ,quantitative measures of this growth: 1 : Population Population estimates -for the Tri—Valley are shown in TABLE 2. These data come from two sources: a series of ABAG projections and local estimates. i.r While a number of differences exist between the two data sets at the city level , in the aggregate the estimates are very close. An inspection of the ABAG Projections 89 data reveals the following: • percentage wise, population growth in -the Tri—Valley between 1989 and 2005 is estimated to be more than three times that estimated for the Bay Area (48% compared to 15%) ; y • for the five year period between 2005 and 2010 the Valley' s growth is estimated at six times that of the Bay Area (15% compared to 2%) ; "- • projected population growth in the Valley between 1989 and 2010 is the equivalent of adding the residential population of one more Livermore and two more Pleasantons; and • as might be expected, Alameda County cities in the Tri—Valley grow more substantially than their counterparts in Contra Costa County. "`; JM/rbp/6349p ILI TABLE 2 TRI-VALLEY POPULATION ESTIMATES CURRENT I ABAG PROJECTIONS - 2005 I LOCAL ESTIMATES 1 COMMUNITY I POPULATION I PRO 85 ( PRO 87 I PRO 89 1 (2010) I COUNTY/CITY GP's•) COMMENTS I(ABAG PRO 89)I 1 1 I I '- Dublin 1 25;500 1 46,300 1 46,400 1 46,200 I 1 41,250 (2005) '10 Local estimate does not incorporate current concepts I I I I I I 46,250 (2010 1 embodied in East and West Dublin Specific Area Plans. 1 I l I 1 i Livermore 1 59,900 1 78,000 1 77,,200 1 83,300 1 1 ±80,000(buildout)l I ( I I I I I I I i I I Pleasanton i 54,700 1 72,700 1 72,500 ( 87,400 1 1 74,000 East Alameda Countyl 5,300 1 5,300 1 5,500 1 8,200 1 1 I I I I 1 ! I I SUBTOTAL 1 145,400 1 202,300 1 201,600 ( 225,100 1 273,800 1 10 55% increase between 1989 and 2005 10 22% increase between 2005 and 2010 1 I I l ^' I I I I •I I I •_ Danville 1 35,200 1 43,300 1 41,900 1 43,900 1 ( 41,900 1 I I I ( I I San Ramon 1 37,500 I 41,400 l 58,100 I 56,700 1 I 62,800 (Blayney Io Difference between PRO 85 and PRO 87 reflects- San i' I Dyett Consultant)l Ramon GP Amendment. _ • I 1 1 I I i •. I I I I I I r Alamo/Blackhawk 1 16,900 1 18,400 1 18,100 1 21,300 1 1 21,600 1 SUBTOTAL 1 89,600 ( 103;100 1 118,100 1 121,900 1 126,800 1 Io 36% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I 1 I I I 10 4% increase between 2005 and 2010 TOTAL 1 235,000 1 305,400 1 319,700 i 347,000 1 400,600 1 Io 48% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I I I I I to 15% increase between 2005 and 2010 • 1 j I I I I I I I i I I i I BAY AREA 1 5,935,558 16,521,083 16,663,477 16,840,984 17,001.480 I Io 15% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I I I I I Io 2% increase between 2005 and 2010 5993p-4 TABLE 3 TRI-VALLEY EMPLOYMENT EStIMATES CURRENT 1 ABAG PROJCCTIONS - 2005 I LOCAL ESTIMATES 1 COMMUNITY I EMPLOYMENT I PRO 85 I PRO 87 I PRO 89 1 (2010) 1 COUNTY/CITY GP's I COMMENTS 1(ABAG PRO 89)1 I I I I Dublin 1 12,200 1 16,700 1 20,900 1 19,600 ( l0 515 acs added 1990-2005 1 I I I I I to 165_acs added 2005-2010 1 I I I I I I I Livermore 1 27,700 1 44,900 i 45,-000 1 51,700 1 1 45,000 1 l I I -.- I I I I I I Pleasanton 1 28,200 1 51,100 1 47,100 1 50,900 1 1 58,640(buildout) _1 l l I - I ! I • 1 . I I I I I I East Alameda Countyl 2,600 1 4,000 1 3,500 1 3,400 1 I I I I I I I ! I SUBTOTAL 1 70,700 1 116,700 1 ; 116,500 1 125,600 1 139,500 1 1 o 78% increase between 1989 and 2005 o 11% increase between 2005 and 2010 Danville ( 9,300 1 13,100 1 11,700 1 12,000 1 1 13,100(bgildout) 1 l 1 I l I I I I I I I San Ramon 1 24,100 1 39,900 1 39,600 1 40,800 1 1 54,115(buildout) 1 I I I l 1 I I I I I I I Alamo/Blackhawk 1 3,900 1 5,200 1 5,900 1 5,800 I I I SUBTOTAL 1 37,300 1 58,200 1 57,200 1 58,600 1 62,200 1 1 o 57% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I I I I 1 o 6% increase between 2005 and 2010 I I I I I I I TOTAL 1 108,000 1 174,900 1 173,700 1 184,200 1 201,700 1 1 o 70% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I I I I I 1 o 9% increase between 2005 and 2010 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bay Area 1 3,052,490 13,912,100 13,894,000 13,914,664 14,104,305 1 l0 28% increase between 1989 and 2005 I I I I I I t o 5% increase between 2005 and 2010 5993p-5 FIGURE 3 POTENTIAL MAJOR GROWTH AREAS IN THE TRI-VALLEY 680 Cowell Ranch.. I Danville i Dougherty y Valle , � I Camino Tassa'ara ' � Mountain N r House \ �4NO 40HO re r �h LiVer / o North West Dublin ; San `- ` Livermore Ramon. Area Last Dublin Castro Dubii¢ Valley .� 680 . I East Dublin ea) ---� Livermore i C c v D. i _ Hayward d r t u _ _ s � . c r s t I 2 9 a t Pleas n n o V I PI sa i ea n ton <>' '': �>� �� `P o z. Ridge Y I � I 1 0 v Ruby N b y I _ c s I L1 t 139 -�<' �` : 8q) H' 1 oy Union Cit r©Mont _ 238 (8a °� i - - - iHnLc 4 POTENTIAL GROWTH IN THE TRI-VALLEY AREA I 1 I I ESTIMATED ( FACILITIES LIKELY I I AREA (JURISDICTION (ACREAGE (POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ( TO BE AFFECTED I C O M M E N T S 1 Dougherty I Contra 1 5,236 1 3,400 to 15,000 d.u. I Dougherty Rd; Crow I San Ramon has applied to annex area. City has passed a I Valley I Costa 1 1 I Canyon Rd; Bollinger Canyon Rd; 1 General Plan amendment for area and will conduct specific i I County I 1 ( Dublin Blvd.; Old Ranch Rd; I plan study. City recommends 4,240 units. County has 1 ( I 1 I I Alcosta Blvd; 680 interchanges ( area currently designated as agricultural land, but also I with Crow Canyon Rd, Bollinger 1 as a priority general plan amendment area. County has 1 Canyon Rd; Alcosta Blvd; 580 1 included this area in its alternatives analysis for the 1 1 1 I I 1 interchanges with Dougherty Rd; 1 General Plan EIR, and has provided as many as 15,000 d.u.;l 1 I I I 1 Tassajara Rd 1 however, nothing has been approved. An EIR on development) I J 1 ( alternatives is being prepared. I ( Camino I Contra 1 2,400 1 5,000 d.u. 1 Camino Tassajara; Dtiblin Blvd; I Property owners have asked the County to consider a 1 Tassajara 1 Costa ( 1 I Tassajara Rd/580 interchange; 1 General Plan amendment for this area. It is included I 1 County 1 1 1.03 million 1 Sycamore Valley Rd; Crow Canyon i the County's alternatives analysis' I I I I sq. feet commercial I Rd; 680 interchanges with above 1 (. roads I I . ( Cowell I Contra 1 4,907 1 7,600 d.u., 1 Vasco Rd; Possibly need new I Currently planned and zoned as open space/agricultural 1 I Ranch 1 Costa I 11.4 million ( N—S route to 580 I land. Not authorized for General Plan amendment study.. 1 I I County I 1 sq. feet commercial I I would like County to perform specific plan study". 1 I I 1 17.7 million sq. feet I i I 1 business park 1 1 1 convention center ( ( I I East 1 Dublin, 13,400 [1]1 To be determined I Tassajara Rd; Dublin Blvd; i Specific plan study in progress. City has annexed part 1 1 Dublin 1 Alameda I 1 ( possible vehicle storage problems 1 of area.- I County i I I on N—S routes between Dublin 1 i Blvd and 580; 580 interchanges I 1 1 I i I with Fallon Rd Tassaiara Rd f I 1 I 17,400 [211 10,000 to 20,000 d.u.1 Same as above plus Airway Blvd/ 1 General Plan amendment study and specific plan in I I I I I 1 580 interchange 1 progress. Area includes Bove 3,400 acres. Part of a► I ( 1 also included in Livermore's long range plans. I 1 West 1 Alameda 1 3,400 1 3,500 d.u. 1 580 interchanges with Eden Canyon I. General Plan amendment study and specific plan in 1 Dublin I County I I I Rd and San Ramon Rd I progress. Area would have no major transportation impact I I 1 I I I I on adjacent San Ramon area. Half of area would be open I I I -I I I I space I 1 North ( Livermore 1 2,830 1 up to 7,000 d.u. I Vasco Rd; Northfront Rd, Spring— I Approximately half of the area is in Livermore. All of I 1 Livermore I Alameda I I I town Blvd; N. Canyons Pkwy; 580 1 the area is in Livermore's sphere of influence. General I I Area "A" I County I I I interchanges with Rte 84 and I Plan amendment for area was adopted in March, 1988. 1 ( I I 1 ( Vasco Rd I Development will be subject to City's growth management 1 I I I ( I policies I * These two areas are not authorized for General Plan Amendment (GPA) Study. Board of Supervisors recently denied request by Cowell Foundation for GPA Study. Camino Tassajara area is included in the alternatives analysis for the General Plan EIR. Neither of these areas has the same status as Dougherty Valley which is identified by County `.,soft as a General Plan Amendment Priority Area. (KM/rbp/6435p-1) TABLE 4 (cont.) POTENTIAL GROWTH IN THE TRI—VALLEY AREA , .. ESTIMATED FACILITIES LIKELY a: ,.AREA IJURISOICTION JACREAGE 1POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE AFFECTED � �, , . C O M M E N T S s North Alameda 1 14,000 Up to 22,000 d.u. Vasco Rd; Livermore Ave; .County's land use designation for most of area is •.Livermore County ( 500,000 square feet Collier Canyon Rd; Ooolan Canyon I agricultural land and will-'remain as such until retail Rd; N. Canyons Pkwy; Dublin I annexation. Part of. area is also included in Dublin's � z Up to 500 acres- Blvd; 580 interchanges with I long range plans. office/commerci.al Airway Blvd, Livermore Ave, f. _f Rte 84 Vasco Rd ( I Pleasanton I Alameda 11,700 Up to 7,000 d.u. ( Foothill Rd; 580/Foothill I County's land use designation is large parcel agriculto Ridge I County Rd interchange; 580/680 and major parks. Pleasanton City Council will decide interchange; 680 interchanges ( fall, 1989 whether or not to proceed with annexation with Bernal Ave and Stoneridge process. Range of alternatives includes designating I LDrive area as park. I Ruby Hills I Alameda 1,300 1,000 d.u. Rte 84, Would be developed as unincorporated area. Draft EIR in progress. I Mountain Alameda 6,240 18,500 to 21,500 d.u.1 Increased traffic on 580; Must first apply to County for general plan amendment. House and San (2,740 1 ( 580/205 interchange I Joaquin I AC 3,5001 J I Counties SJC) I I K M/'bp/6435p-2 r .'� 2. Employment Employment is expected to grow even faster than population over the next twenty years. TABLE 3 shows ABAG and local estimates of employment for 2005 and 2010. Significant findings include the following: i • Tri—Valley employment growth will be two and one half times more rapid than Bay Area employment growth for the period 1989 to 2005 (70X compared to 5X); " S� • between 2005 and 2010 the Tri—Valley percentage increase will be 'nearly twice that of the Bay.Area (9X compared to 5X) ; . • .` ° ' Livermore, Pleasanton 'and San Ramon wi11 'come close to doubling their f combined present number of jobs by 2005 or build—out; and • Dublin will experience considerable employment growth with the ` addition of substantial acreage in office, commercial and industrial uses: 3. Areas with Major Development Potential While much information about the location, scale and density of future development in the Tri—Valley can be obtained from General Plans, many large scale :developments .are currently,.in 'the early planning stages. FIGURE 3 shows those emerging developments assumed to have the greatest potential to impact local and subregional traffic. Known details about ` these developments are presented in TABLE 4. It should be note0i 4.-F3t acne of th_ development shown on the map had been approved at the time this study was completed. Further, the shaded areas showing where potential development would occur are schematic representations only. A qualitative assessment of these growth areas leads .to the following assumptions about impacts on freeways and arterials: • I-580 and I-680 will carry large amounts of local and regional traffic; • access to I-680 from new development in the Dougherty and Tassajara ! Valleys will put strains on east—west arterials through San Ramon and Danville; • congestion at ceTtair, -freeway interchanges will probably affect traffic flows on local streets; • depending on how close the alignment of the proposed Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons' Parkway is to 'I-580, there may be vehicle storage problems on approaches to I-580 interchanges; and • upgraded and/or new north—south routes crossing two or more jurisdictions will likely be needed to improve access to I-580 from potential development in San Ramon and Contra Costa County. 4. Travel Demand Over the past decade, the Tri—Valley has been the subject of a number of } transportation studies. Some of these have focused specifically on the Tri—Valley while others have.focused on a portion of it or have included the area within a larger regional planning context. The larger regional 1;..; studies have relied primarily on ABAG population and employment forecasts; the smaller Valley specific studies have used local General Plan projections or have estimated traffic on the basis of trip generation factors specific to different kinds of land use activity. However, —17- JM/rb BASE CASE - Projected Levels of Service (LOS the Two Hour A.M. Peak Period on 1-680/1.580 Corridor Highways, .a the Year 2005 /r d ?9 1 J. 680 31 1 \ VALLEJO �e I V _ 78 _ enic I SUN� BAY ' e PAY PARL(; Hercules 160 / i jTE Pin a .;: � • - 11111 fill.l l l l/ 1A \\ L l // // eC AN R �/ - o A CORD 1 1111111\1 1 ANTIOCH O Y"S ' rrOAN �EPV G LONE TREE PLEASANT RICHMOND HILL p CLAYTON Cr o° < ►j_NT WOOD ; 0 E l Cerrito HAOpr t : o ` , > Zi ` f ` •c r � � ,! WALNUT a Cr ��//� ��/111111111 • �- ;>Iban�. � \i 11111111f��!'� / CREEK CONTRA MARS. _ Rc lllllltllli.l� BERKEL \\\��� 14 QLAFAYETT�r.�� COSTA 6 =. aINDA 80 -m ..Pied 1 ALAMO MORAGA OAKLANtS. � ` 13y - QANVILL > rn Alam �680 ` B0 ,o? ice' _ San'_ n c \ ��i _ \111111111111 t 6USdIIN' \Ull . \\\ 58C = Z\\1 Ir\ \\\1111111111 � _T� ♦ � �� 1i�1 \\\III111111\\\\ �a • isbane p ` 1 1111111\\ll 11 1 .1111111 f I IIIIIIIIIIIIlIII I\\� 9 J T + I Sou; \\ HAY WARD : ` s _ :n:FranL>9Cp c t SANTON LIvERMORE ;. s ` so �� SA BRUNO coo \ 92 .8 'Ibrae ® nron Clty +/O� 84 SAN r m m9 ` ."ALAMEDA ' MATEO Fo er City N ® Belmon \ Newark v`< an Carlos - - ---= ALIF REDWOOD -� OON CITY AY LOS A or B (Little to No Delay) II11111111111111111111111111 Source: 1-680;1-580 Corridor Study (MTC) LOS C or D (Tolerable Delay) ■®■ ®■ v m A m FIGURE 4 •LOS E or F (Intolerable Delay) 1 . regardless of level of analysis or growth a._.,mptions used, these studies all come to the same conclusion: if current trends continue lengthy segments of the Tri-Valley freeway and arterial system will experience much higher levels of congestion in the future than they do today. a. I-680/I-580 Corridor Study _In 1986, MTC completed a study of transportation for the area covering all of Alameda and Contra Costa counties east of the East Bay Hills. Based on ABAG projections current at the time, and employing a sub=regional model specifically designed for the"study, travel forecasts' for_the two hour morning peak period in the year 2005 showed considerable congestion on trunkline facilities throughout the study area. FIGURE 4 shows the levels of service (LOS)* projected for freeways in the study area assuming only modest improvements to the existing system (no additional improvement to !' existing freeway system except for programmed projects, no BART extensions). Note the congested segments on I-680, I-580 and the Val lecitos Road. As part of this study MTC also investigated the traffic impacts of _"build,ing-out".. the local General Plans. Peak period vehicle trips under this scenario were found 'to` xceed trips based on ABAG projections by 10% in the San Ramon Valley and by 92% in Eastern Alameda County leading to even higher levels of congestion on both freeways and local arterials. b. East Court; ^orridor Study In 1987, Contra Costa County used a variant of the MTC I-680/I-580 model ;.. tc identify a preferred corridor for the extension of Vasco Road between Livermore and Antioch. The route selected by the study had an alignment east of the existing Vasco Road alignment to the north and west of the alignment through Livermore connecting with I-580 at the Isabel Road/Kittyhawk Road interchange. The study determined that the new facility would need to be constructed as a six lane freeway to avoid operating at LOS E or F between the Alameda/Contra Costa county line and I-580. . c. Tri-Valley Transportation Study In ' 1983 the TJKM consulting firm developed an overall assessment of transportation facilities for much of the Tri-Valley. The study tested four potential growth scenarios which differentiated between "reasonably foreseeable" and "contemplated" levels of growth. Three of the four scenarios did not differ dramatically from ABAG forecasts and produced projections which could be fairly well accommodated by the existing freeway system. Under the fourth scenario, a "build-out" of all reasonably foreseeable and contemplated development, both I-680 southbound and I-580 westbound were projected to be LOS-F throughout the study area, 'except for -I-680 north of Bernal Avenue (LOS-E) . The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a system for classifying highway service levels (or congestion levels) that .ranks roadway segments from A to F. A represents free flow condition (no i congestion) while F represents stop-and-go, bumper to bumper traffic. -19- �:_{ JM/rbp/6349p d. I-580/I-205 Origin-Destination Survey In May 1988 MTC and the San Joaquin Area County of Governments jointly undertook a survey of commuters using I-580 over the Altamont Pass. The survey which included the counting of trips , classification of vehicles and commuter questionnaire revealed the following: • on an average work day approximately..12,000 vehicles cross the Alameda/San Joaquin county line on I-580 in the peak direction during the peak three hour periods; T, • I-580,over the Altamont Pass. is. relatively. congestion .free at all r.r:. 'times; _ . _ _ a .. • during a twelve hour -period, 86% of the vehicles.were autos (66% single occupant) and 13% trucks; • 86% of the trips made by the 3,000 respondents to the origin destination questionnaire were commuter trips .(i .e. 5 out of 6 trips) ; • 70% of the home locations of the respondents were in San Joaquin County (33% Tracy; 20% Manteca, 10% Stockton; 7% other) • 52% of the commuters were commuting to jobs in 'the''Tri—Valley (14% Pleasanton, 12% Livermore, 5% Dublin, 5% San Ramon, 3% Danville/Alamo and 13% Alameda County); and • 16% of. the commuter trips were'to SantaClara County •job sites. The importance of Bay Area—Central Valley commuting is well known: peak hour volumes' on I-580 through 'the Altamont pass increased from 4,250 in 1980 to 6,200 in 1986, an increase of approximately 50% in just six years; and Contra Costa County demographic data for 2005 indicate 31 ,000 work trips will travel daily through the pass. The potential for new developments east of the county line (Mountain House Road project) could reinforce and intensify the inter—regional commute with potentially dire consequences for 1-580. IV. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES The following list of issues and opportunities is intended to stimulate thinking about the future role of the Tri—Valley Transportation Council . It is based on information presented in the preceding sections which indicates that in the face of rapid growth the Tri—Valley will. confront transportation problems of increasing severity; and there is a need to refine and implement local plans and policies in a more Valley—wide context than is currently the case. 1 . Hi ghwa•y and Arterial s a. Tri Valley Arterial System - Perhaps the principal catalyst for consensus building in the Tri-Valley is its network of major streets and roads. Development of the system shown in FIGURE 2 (page 10) will' benefit .from. multi—jurisdictional. cooperation in planning the size, alignment' and 'lane continuity of arterials. Deserving special attention are those arterials that run through a number of jurisdictions: e.g. , north—south routes -..Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara, Collier Canyon Road, Livermore Avenue/Highland Road, Vasco Road; east—west routes— Crow Canyon Road, Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, Stoneridge Drive (Pleasanton)/Las Positas Boulevard (Livermore) extension, Stanley Boulevard. —20- JM/rbp/6349p I b. Congestion Mitigation There is potential in the Tri—Valley to upgrade strategically located major arterials to reduce congestion on adjacent freeways and minor local streets, make more efficient use of the roadway network, improve safety r . and environmental quality, and enhance the ability of these routes to attract federal funding through emerging flexible funding policies. Improvements would include consideration of signal., synchronization, removal of parking, access restrictions, turning lanes, spot widenings, grade separations and arterial completion. This concept is being' aggressively pursued -'in the Bay Area and .in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Among the candidate arterials in the study area are the proposed Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway extension, the Stoneridge Drive (Pleasanton)/Las Positas Drive (Livermore) extension, and Stanley Boulevard. A number of other congestion mitigation measures deserve consideration. These include ramp meterings, HOV lanes and employing a traffic operations system, an emerging Cal trans strategy for improving freeway operations; it I.� incorporates surveillance, motorist information and management systems to minimize congestion related delays c: Traffic Monitoring Traffic monitoring is a requirement of two government mandates: Contra Costa County's Measure .0 and AB 471 (its provisions to be voted on by the electorate ii. ~:e, i; +_). To receive a percentage of Measure C sales tax revenues, Contra Costa jurisdictions must monitor traffic levels at key intersections, compare these traffic levels with specific levels of service standards included in their General Plans, and periodically report these findings to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. All jurisdictions in Contra Costa have adopted resolutions indicating their intent to comply with traffic monitoring and level of service requirements included in Measure C. The provisions of AB 471 , if approved in next June' s election, will .' require that each county develop a congestion management program (CMP) to improve traffic-flow on local streets. An important part of this program is the estab+ishrent !of llpuels of service standards for major arterials. The development o-'I* sorb a -pTug-ram will require the implementation of a ?: standardized system for counting vehicles at key locations on the ` . Tri—Valley arterial system. Information ,of this type will also assist in coordinating signals on inter—jurisdictional arterials and ramp metering I7 signals with signals on adjacent city streets. d. Tri—Valley TSM Program j While some communities and major employers have fairly successful TSM programs in place, there is no,Valley—wide. TSM .program. ..Such a .program could borrow from the "successes of 'existing programs while implementing comprehensive and uniform standards over a large. area. Such a program would benefit from having the large commuter base necessary to promote a successful ;ridesharing program. . A Valley—wide 'TSM program would also ensure that no single community would be' at a disadvantage for enforcing a strict TSM program. i —21— : JM/rbp/6349p 2. Transit a. Enhanced Transit Planning Local plans and policies support improved transit service in the Tri-Valley. As the sub-region grows there will be a need to emphasize: • coordination and expansion of LAVTA and CCCTA bus service; • coordination of marketing and promotion; • planning of feeder service to future BART stations; and • operation of express bus sery ice to major employment centers. b. Corridor Transit Studies Limitations on increasing I-680 capacity, combined with the opposition to transit development in the parallel SP right-of-way, suggest that a transit system in the I-680 corridor may be a partial solution to freeway congestion. (Caltrans has indicated in its Route Concept Report for I-680 that 12 lanes' of freeway would be required through the' San Ramon ,Valley by 2005 to accommodate anticipated traffic; Caltrans suggests providing capacity beyond 8 lanes would be impractical ) . A feasibility study that considers various types of transit/freeway improvements in the I-680 corridor would be an important first step towards increasing mobility in the corridor. Caltrans, Central Contra Costa County cities, and Solano County should also participate in the study. Alameda County has acquired title to most of the abandoned railroad rights-of-way through Pleasanton and Livermore and has made a preliminary assessment of their potential use for light rail service. This potential combined with emerging interests in connecting the Bay Area and the Central Valley with rail service through the Altamont Pass suggest more detailed analyses of these corridors to be in order. C. BART extension to Dublin and Beyond . Short-range issues include funding the Dublin extension shortfall (in excess of $100 million ) and the potentially adverse impacts of the Dublin station as an end of the line station on downtown Dublin parking and circulation. Long-range considerations relate to funding .BART' s extension to Livermore (and possibly into the Central, Valley) , and development policies for stations and their environs. . . 3. Air Ouality Air pollution is a significant problem in the Tri-Valley, particularly in Livermore. The main source of air pollution in the Valley is the automobile. Improving air quality will require reducing vehicle emissions `throughout a"much larger area Ahan the Tri-Valley. In general , to improve air quality it will be necessary to: • reduce the number of. vehicle trips through increased use of car pools, transit and non-motorized transportation; and • reduce traffic congestion through various techniques including better coordination of traffic signal timing (particularly on inter-jurisdictional routes) , freeway ramp metering, and HOV lanes. -22- JM/rbp/6349p A ' The Air Quality sue is particularly serious b. ise the Bay Region did not attain federally mandated air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide by August 1988 as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. This F_ fact combined with new, more stringent state air quality standards has resulted in MTC spearheading an effort to develop a transportation control measures plan to reduce vehicular emissions by June 30, 1990, a state mandated deadline. 4. Land Use a. Ultimate Levels of Growth in Major Areas FIGURE 3 and TABLE 4 in Section III show-the location' and extent of proposed developments in the Tri—Valley: The development potential of two !.° of these areas is particularly uncertain because of competing jurisdictional interests: Dougherty Valley (San Ramon and Contra Costa County) ; and the area north of I-580 near Fallon Road (Dublin and Livermore) . It is important that planning differences be resolved and the kind, scale and staging of development in all developing areas be determined as soon as possible. These decisions may have more affect on Tri—Valley transportation during the next twenty years than any others. b. Monitoring and Responding to the Impacts of Growth on Transportation A number of related policies and practices dealing with the impacts of growth on transportation are either currently in force or will be if voter appro sd. Each of these policies and practices provides a framework for Tri—Valley planning corporation. • Measure C. To receive a percentage of Measure C sales tax revenues, Contra Costa jurisdictions must incorporate growth management ! � elements into their General Plans. The growth management element is required to demonstrate that the land use element and circulation element can meet specific intersection level of service standards included in their General Plans. Each jurisdiction is also required to participate in a multi—jurisdictional planning process to reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Through this i ' process, decisions will be made on appropriate mitigation for regional traffic impacts. All jurisdictions in Contra Costa County have adopted resolutions indicating their intent to comply with these growth management requirements; ' • AB 3705. This :legislation permits counties,with city -cooperation, to develop countywide plans. By law, these plans are to include improvement proposals for a 10 to 20 year period for highways and transit, including TSM measures, and an analysis of land use impacts on transportation. Alameda County is in the process of developing its countywide plan and Contra Costa County is preparing to do so; and i . • AB 471 . If SCA-1 is approved by the voters in June, 1990, each county working with its cities will be required to develop congestion management programs (CMPs) . CMPs are to establish level of service standards for specific intensities of land use, develop a TSM program, employ modeling techniques to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on the regional transportation system, prepare an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating adverse impacts, and develop a seven year program of highway and transit projects to { maintain and improve traffic, and transit service, while conforming L..; —23— 1 JM/rbp/6349p to air quality requirements. AB 471 requirements differ from those of AB 3705 in 'that4 they are mandatory• (if SCA-1 passes) , translate directly into programming recommendations, (i .e. , they're project specific) and are prerequisits for receipt of state transportation funds . . MTC is developing regional guidelines to integrate the development of these plans and programs. C. Jobs/Housing Balance The consequences of not deve,lopi.ng adequate -housing opportunities to match the employment opportunities being generated in the Tri—Valley are obvious —, the practice of long distance'commuting will continue; further congesting .the freeways and adding to the financial burden -required to improve the transportation system. As previously mentioned in this report, the principal concern 'is the supply of housing within the study area which is affordable to the employees working in the Tri—Valley. Recognition of the jobs/housing balance in this context could lead to an inter—jurisdictional effort to define the problem more precisely and determine what policies hold :the most promise for addressing it on a Valley—wide basis. d. •• Integration of Development and Transportation Decision Making Increasingly, the need to better integrate decisions about development and transportation is being recognized and the Tri—Valley presents a unique opportunity to do this. The future extension of BART to Dublin and Livermore combined with rail potential of the abandoned railroad rights—of—way in Eastern Alameda County provide the opportunity to review and modify, if appropriate, development policies for adjacent lands to ensure the highest degree of complementation. Higher density residential use combined with more mixed—use development patterns than are currently planned for may be in order in select locations to increase transit patronage and revenue base. It may also be appropriate to revise policies concerning .station location, park—and—ride lots and feeder bus service. 5. Finance a. Local Funding Basic to the development of 'a financial plan to implement proposals the Council may wish to recommend is an appreciation that in all probability much of -,the_,funding will .have .to come from :;local -sources;- federal and state assistance are limited in amount, aggressively competed for and restricted in use. Joint participation in funding Tri—Valley transportation improvements would have two advantages: • it would ensure the realization of critical improvements in a manner consistent with Tri—Valley priorities; and • it would help ,.leverage federal.-and -state monies which are increasingly being made more available to self help counties and cities than to other communities. .. Of the numerous local. funding mechanisms currently being used in the Valley — sales tax revenues, developer impact fees, assessment district fees — the one which may have the most potential for application on a Valley-wide basis is a sub—regional traffic mitigation .fee. Under this proposal all new development would be assessed a uniform-impact fee with the revenues • derived being used to improve or construct transportation JM/rbp/6349p facilities in the Tri—Valley transportation system. Because of its 17- uniformity, the fee would not give any Valley city an advantage or disadvantage in the competition for development. A full range of possible local funding mechanisms is being evaluated as C7, part of the development of the Alameda county—wide transportation plan. The results of this work should provide insights on funding mechanisms appropriate to the Tri—Valley. b. Toll Roads Toll roads are becoming more common throughout the U.S. as traditional highway construction funds from the states and federal governments become increasingly scarce. Three toll roads are currently being developed in Orange County, financed through developer fees and right—of—way contributions as well as anticipated toll revenues. The future Route 84/Vasco Road corridor is a possible candidate for development as a toll road. An initial feasibility study for such a toll road in this corridor was performed for MTC in 1987. At that time, the study concluded that in the near term, revenue generated by the users of the facility would not be sufficient to justify -the capital investment. This of course would not rule out the potential profitability of such a facility in the longer range, particularly, given the scale of residential development anticipated in eastern Contra Costa County. `,' Serious eva;uation of the Route 64/Vasco Road corridor as a potential toll facility would involve other jurisdictions beyond the Tri—Valley and require consideration of many concerns, including those associated with ! ; inter—regional travel patterns. C. Post Interstate Funding Policies As the Federal Interstate Program terminates the federal 9 government is rethinking its transportation policies. A number of new proposals are being advocated which if enacted could result in policies that better serve local needs. Some of the proposals would increase the federal gas tax, provide more money for highway maintenance needs and transit operating costs and allow more flexibility in how federal monies can be spent. . The -concept of flexibility could result in funds currently restricted to highway purposes being made available to improve major 1 county/city arterials (freeway reliever routes) or transit systems. MTC is an active participant in the national debate on this issue, which if successful could result in significant new funding opportunities for the Tri—Valley. V. POSSIBLE WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES .:.. The.development..of an ongoing work;program for the Tri—Valley should reflect consideration of three basic-.assumptions: 'W • there are transportation problems (and pportunities) in the Tri—Valley that cut .across .county/city 'boundaries, including those associated with growth/congestion management, and the development of ! '= countywide plans (these have been identified in this report) ; • the resolution- of these problems is better served by a decision making process in which the seven jurisdictions act in concert rather is than alone; and —25— . 1 JM/rbp/6349p ( ..Itr...:. .a.rta'..:r.n.iw.: w .. .,r.r .rr• :..�...r.:. ...r �....... .r.............................. .. ... _ ......_. ... _ ..... .... _ _.. • to establish credibility, a joint planning effort must demonstrate its effectiveness by making recommendations that can be' implemented; therefore, and especially in the near-term, the work program should focus on activities that produce tangible results. The principal focus of a work program should be the development of a Tri-Valley transportation plan, with its supporting implementation program and funding strategy, that describes the facilities and programs required to address inter-jurisdictional transportation problems. The plan and program should be consistent with .city, county and regional transportation plans and programs.. 1 . Plan Content Plan content should reflect accommodation of three planning agendae, each of which is characterized by a different degree of certainty and consensus about both the nature of the problems addressed and the kinds of solutions best suited to :resolving them. ti a. Planning for the Near Term (First Priority) This agenda addresses -.-the need to -deal with existing deficiencies on the Valley' s transportation system. It reflects a consensus recognition that parts of the system are broken and need fixing: the location and nature of the problems are known; no further study is warranted; solutions have been identified and near-term action is required. For the most part these deficiencies will be seriously congested segments on the Tri-Valley arterial system. Addressing these problems should be the Council ' s first priority and the focus of its earliest planning activity. Success in resolving some of the more serious existing problems will help establish the Council ' s credibility and effectiveness as a forum for cooperative planning in the Valley. Principal staff work in support of the Council ' s actions to resolve near-term transportation problems would include: • preparation of an inventory of existing major system deficiencies in priority order; • identification of appropriate strategies for addressing these problems (capacity improvements, congestion mitigation measures, etc.) ; and ,`. estimation of costs and funding. sources. '. ' ` b. Planning for the Long-Term (Second Priority) This agenda addresses the need to know more than we do about the potential impacts of future growth and development on the longer-range transportation facilities and services identified in Tri-Valley plans and policies: . how well will the system perform? �:What .changes may be required to facility size and location and amount of service provided? What are .the possible consequences of alternative transportation plans and policies? At this time.the answers to these questions are either vague or unknown. More��analysis is required to-remove uncertainties that exist concerning both the nature of longer-range problems and their solutions; and to provide the Council with better information as a basis for decision making. Implementation of this agenda will extend over -time; it should proceed, however, concommitantly with implementation of the near-term agenda. JM/rbp/6349p Staff support fug the Council ' s work in addressing longer-range transportation needs would .include: I `', • analyses of the potential impacts of anticipated growth on the planned Tri-Valley transportation system to identify problems , these analyses to be based in part on the use of a computer model ; `- • evaluation of the potential for alternative transportation plans and policies to mitigate future problems, again using the computer model ; and • providing Council with recommendations, including, those associated with funding and implemetation,. on how current plans and policies might be changed to address longer-range needs. C. New Approaches to Planning (Third Priority) This agenda recognizes that it is impractical , if not impcssible, to assume we can build our way out of the congestion dilemma; and that changes in land use patterns can influence the effectiveness of transit, automobile use, the length of commuter trips and overall congestion �- levels. Because many of these approaches are new,. of uncertain political consensus, and largely untested in the Tri-Valley, it is suggested that the Council proceed slowly and cautiously to : ncorporate them 1n its planning program. However, as the Council successfully initiates its near-term program, and begins to better understand the long-term I consequences of current policy and develops mutual trust in working together, it should consider the potential of new approaches . Two of the more prc-7i si ng apprcache= are: • ` + • development of a strategy to balance jobs with affordable housing in the Tri-Valley; and x • review and modification, as appropriate, of development and transportation policies in potential rail corridors,--to ensure the highest degree of complementation. 2. Planning Process The development of a Tri-Valley transportation plan and program would involve the following sequence of events: a, Identify major deficiencies on the existing transportation " system that require immediate attention. As already stated, fixing these problems should be the Council 's first priority and constitute the basis for its near-term planning efforts. b. Define a long-range network of highway, arterial and transit facilities for the Tri-Valley (Tri-Valley Transportation System) and evaluate its potential to accommodate travel . Considerable work has been done to define this system (see FIGURE 2) . Additional .work will be necessary to incorporate transit considerations and refinement of the capacity designations for key arterials. i Once a subregional transportation system has -been defined, its ability to { , accommodate future traffic levels should be evaluated. � l L.:.1 r -27- �:✓:' JM/rbp/6349p While there are a number of ways in which this objective could be achieved, it is imperative that the method selected be one that employs a computer model possessing the following attributes. It should: • use a data and assumption base common to all jurisdictions; • be compatible with models used by MTC, Alameda and Contra Costa counties; •. provide a grain of analysis appropriate to Tri—Valley needs; and • be sensitive to large and small scale land use and network changes c. :; Select strategies to address system deficiencies: System deficiencies for the most part will show up as segments where traffic volumes approach or exceed facility capacity resulting in reduced levels of service or "congestion". Empirical data available in each ' jurisdiction, combined with information about possible future conditions derived from the TJKM work, already provide insights about system performance. Depending on the nature of the deficiencies, an assortment of strategies to improve capacity and/or circulation can be identified, evaluated and selected from. :?These _include: • system capacity improvements such as roadway widenings, intersection and interchange improvements, arterial upgrades, etc. ; • traffic management strategies such as HOV lanes , ramp metering, park and ride lots, signal coordination, etc. ; • a Tri—Valley Transportation System Management (TSM) program to reduce peak hour traffic through comprehensive transit and ridesharing programs; • improved transit service (frequency, coverage, coordination) ; and • modification of development policies to reduce demand in locations where it is either impractical and/or too costly to increase capacity. d. Prepare a Tri—Valley Transportation Implementation Program and Funding Strategy This program would guide the implementation of strategies recommended to improve transportation in the Tri—Valley. When completed it would be incorporated in the capital improvement programs of appropriate implementing bodies (state, region, county, city) . It would consist of projects with cost estimates arrayed in priority order.: Priority would be assigned on the basis of need (projects fixing immediate needs would get highest priority) , state of readiness (measured in terms of environmental constraints, and political/community support) and funding availability. This program would have to be consistent with county, regional and state programming practices especially when federal and state funding sources are being looked to for assistance. For a number of reasons it is assumed local financing of Tri—Valley transportation improvements will be important to the success of plan implementation: • state and federal monies are in short supply and heavily competed for; • state funding policies increasingly favor self—help counties; Alameda and Contra Costa counties are already leaders in this regard; and JM/rbp/6349p 'r Fi, • local funds an be raised more quickly and u,ed more flexibly than state and federal funds. Funding for improvements identified as an outcome of inter—jurisdictional transportation planning could be generated in a number of ways, some of these are already being practised at the local level . � i • Tri—Valley traffic mitigation fees applied to new developments; • assessment districts; • special fees based on number of jobs, parking spaces, etc. ' • redevelopment/tax increment financing "' • revenue from joint development activities - ! The development of a funding strategy in support of the planning recommendations will benefit from the consultant work associated with the preparation of the Alameda countywide transportation plan. t . To summarize, the sequence of tasks leading to the development of a Tri—Valley Transportation Plan and Implementation Program are: 1 ) identify and provide for the elimination of major existing system deficiencies: prioritize needs, design projects, determine costs, provide funding (consider using Tri—Valley mitigation fee) , and �- implement; 4 2) define the Tri—Valley transportation system (refine FIGURE 2) ; 3) select an appropriate forecasting model ; -� 4) run the model and identify system deficiencies; � '. 5) evaluate alternative strategies for eliminating deficiencies; 6) select preferred alternatives and identify their costs; 7) develop a funding strategy to finance improvements ; and 8) develop an incremental implementation program that reflects �.� consideration of short and long—term needs, project status and funding availability. (This program would become part of the capital improvement programs of appropriate implementing agencies at the !:.I. state, regional , county and city levels.) iJ 1 , i { u —29- f.T� . JM/rbp/6349p I �