Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 TriVlyTranspRtsRegnlSignif (2) ,... ~'W$A"~~ '! :"-0 CITY OF DUBLIN . AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Revised Proposal for Adoption) Report by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 11. Resolution / 2. Dublin's requested changes to the Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan! Action Plan / 3. Modification to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance / 4. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Combined Study RECOMMENDATION: ~ I. Adopt Resolution 2. Approve Request For Proposal for Combined Traffic Study . FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Each Tri-Valley jurisdiction is to contribute $15,000 for the Transportation Model Update/Traffic Service Objective Management Study/Transportation Development Fee Study (Combined Study). The $15,000 has been included in the Engineering Operating Budget for Fiscal year 1995-96. DESCRIPTION: On February 27, 1995, the City Council adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation pian/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (plan), with the contingency that changes be made to the Plan. The Council's action was coordinated with similar actions by Alameda County, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) subsequently considered Dublin's requested changes and agreed to incorporate them into the Plan. It was anticipated that Contra Costa County would also adopt the Plan, signifying consensus among all seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. However, on April 11, 1995, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Plan with significant changes. The most notable revision was the deletion of Level of Service D (V IC ratio 0.90) as the Traffic Service Objective at all intersections. = .---------i1'--jf-------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. ~ COPIES TO: Bill vanGelder : CITY CLERK I FILE ~ \~~;"iI'\"' ~ .- Following Contra Costa County's action, the TVTC indicated that the County's proposed changes were unacceptable. Subsequently, the County verbally offered to rescind certain changes made on April 11. The TVTC responded with correspondence requesting clarification on Contra Costa County's position. . Following a number of meetings and consultations between elected officials and staffs ofTri-Valley jurisdictions, the County agreed to rescind changes made on April 11 and substitute the revisions included in Exhibit 3. The revisions on Exhibit 3 were verbally endorsed by the representatives of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions present at the June 28, 1995, TVTC meeting. The City of Dublin's changes were left in place and are reflected in Exhibit 3. In addition to the consensus achieved on the Plan, a scope of work has also been finalized for the hiring ofa consultant by the TVTC to conduct the Transportation Model Update, the Traffic Service Objective Management Study, and the Transportation Development Fee Study, all as a single Combined Study. The draft plan showed 11 intersections did not meet the Level Of Service D; however, after the final model run which included all seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions' changes, 15 intersections did not meet the Level Of Service D standard. The Combined Study is intended to develop actions, which could include land use management, to improve Level of Service for these 15 intersections. The Combined Study also includes updating the land use in the traffic model to ABAG 94 land use numbers and a Traffic Impact Fee study to pay for impx:ovements of regional transportation facilities due to future developments. All Tri-Valley jurisdictions have agreed to participate in the Combined Study and to achieve consensus on actions to achieve Level of Service D. The scope of this study is included as Exhibit 4. The Study should begin in September 1995 and be completed in four to six months. The City Council agreed to participate in the Combined Study as part of its February 27th action, pending unanimous agreement on a scope of work. The City's $15,000 contribution was included in this year's budget. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency will also contribute $25,000 to update the model to ABAG 94 land use numbers. . . Adoption of the Plan by the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions, in conjunction with the agreement to go forward with the Combined Study, is an example of,the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning process to reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. The Plan also fulfills the primary purpose of the March 1991 Joint Powers Agreement among the seven Tri- Valley jurisdictions -- to "provide for the joint preparation of a transportation plan." The City Attorney has also reviewed the changes to the plan and offered some clarifications and typing corrections, of which the consultant has been notified. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Revised Proposal for Adoption) and approve the Request For Proposal for the Combined Study. g: Iogenmiscltranpln2 . Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. -95 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE TRI- VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE \VHEREAS, the City of Dublin has actively participated in the cooperative, multi- jurisdictional planning efforts undertaken by the Tri- Valley Transportation Council; and \VHEREAS, the solution of providing reasonable transportation services in the Tri-Valley 'will require the combined efforts of all of its member jurisdictions and other transportation agencies; and \VHEREAS, the seven Tri- Valley jurisdictions in 1991 formed the Tri-Valley T ransponation Council v.ith the charge of preparing the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan; and \VHEREAS, these jurisdictions working diligently have developed a Tri- Valley Transportation Traffic Model and subsequently produced the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan . for Routes of Regional Significance ("Plan)"; and \VHEREAS, there were opportunities throughout the development of the Plan for public input, the Draft Plan was circulated and there was opportunity for public testimony at all Tri- Valley Transportation Council meetings; and \VHEREAS, each jurisdiction has previously reviewed and commented upon the Circulation Draft and the Plan for Adoption; and \VHEREAS, a follow-up study will be conducted to provide the basis for consensus on actions necessary to achieve Level of Service D at all study intersections within the Tri- Valley; and \VHEREAS, the successful implementation of the Plan is partially contingent upon the adequate funding oftransportation facilities which may require a Regional Traffic Impact Fee; NO\V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin has determined and orders as follows: 1. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance is recommended for adoption subject to inclusion of the modifications shown on Exhibit 2; . 2. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance shall be used as a guide when adopting or amending elements to the City's General Plan and specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs; EXHIBIT 1 3. The City shall consider working with other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley region to adopt multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning agreements; 4. Following completion of the Combined Study, the City shall consider adopting actions required to achieve compliance with Traffic Service Objectives; 5. The City shall contribute $15,000 as its fair share of the "Combined Study: Transportation Model Upgrade, Transportation Service Objectives Management Study and Traffic Impact Fee Study." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g: Iogenmisclresorwp . . . -' CITY OF DUBLIN PO, Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Ofllces, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 March 17, 1995 Millie Greenberg, Chairperson Tri. Valley Transportation Council c/o TO\lm of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville CA 94526 SUBJECT: Changes to Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Dear Millie: . We would like to commend the Tri- Val1ey Transportation Council (TVTC) and the Tri. Valley Transportation Technical Advisory Com;nitt,ee for all of their hard work in preparing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Acticm Plan (Plan). At their February '27, ] 995, meeting The Dublin City Council approved the adoption of the Plan with the contingency that the following changes be made. Added text is underlined and deleted test is indicated by brackets, [ J. Add the fol1owing to the first "resolved" statement to read as follows: ". . .or Capital Improvement Programs, with th~.r~")11 ;win~ revisions to the Plcm. 1. Page xiii, paragraph 2: Delete the ~j1ird sentence, heginning with "nevertheless", regarding indirect c~Tects on growth. 2. Page 119, paragraph 5: Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered [ ] for the freeway system in locations where through traffic made achievement ofTSOs impossible for the TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodatf'.~, ramp metering would allow achievement of CMP mandated levels of s~r\'ice on the freeways. Reduced LOS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the strMegv for resolvinf! TSO v;o!(ltio!1:\. as discllssed on p, 237 of the Plm},. 3. Page 121, column 5, row 4: Revise the table to add a footnote reference at the "Dublin-Reduced Land Use" entry with the footnote to read as follows: "Via consideration of growth plan per p. 232 of Plan". . 4. Page 131, paragraph 3: Revise to read as -:~lIows: Jurisdictions EXHIBIT 2 Admin;str<llion (1115) 833.6650 . City COlIn::,1 (415) R3~,GG05 . F'nilrlcr' :-115) R:C 66-10. Building Inspection (415) 833,6620 .1..... ','A"I f""A". r:H'I Corie E nlorcement (415) B33.(;620 . [; n~l'np.elinD (41 :') 6:l:l.6fi:l( . Planning (415) 833,6610 March 17, 1995 Millie Greenberg, TVTC TVTC Resolution Page 2 . in Tri~Valley may implement a proactive Gro\\1h and Congestion management strategy once a detailed gro\\1h management study has been conducted. The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of gro\\1h management/control that would be required for each applicable Tri- Valley jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any developmenf ;-eduction should be proportional to the traffic distribution [ ~ for each jurisdiction. ~ development reductions should he cnn~.idered for their eCJuitahle effect on the development potential of the participating jurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "r"ce" to devel np. and i r adopted. shall i nsme that j\ITisdictions with rel{ltivelv ~re{lter development potential do not hear the full [1[1111t of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this development reductio.n to traffic impact fees should be analyzed; other alternatives such as a toll road mav also he anal\'7ed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know eX(1\.tly how much reduction in development or grov..1h management/contn:1 is needed to meet the TSOs. The ~ro\\1h mann~ement study and a~lY imJ1nct fees would ench have to he approved ummimotlslv. Violations '.)r proiEcted violations ofTSO standards remaininG" after a Growth mana~ement strategv is adopted shall he resolved as discussed on p, 231 oflhe Plan. . NOTE: The last paragraph on p. 232 is id~t'i:ical to this paragraph, and the same changes are proposed for that text as shO\\11 helow. 5. Page 197, Recommended Actions: 1.:nr...:i!kr put~ in place mutually agreed and equitable multi-jurisdiction,.! gnwth management to insure achievement ofTSOs. 6. Page 232, last paragraph: Revise to read as follows: Jurisdictions in Tri-Vnlley may implement a pronctive Gro\'~1h and Congestion Management strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of growth management/control that would be required for each applicable Tri- Valley jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any develop!nent reduction should be proportional to the traffic distributio:, [ ] f(IT each jurisdiction. Am. ,. development reductions should he considered for their equitahle effect on the development potential of the participatin(; iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop. and if adopted. shall insure that Jurisdictions with relatively ~reater develop:i~ent potential do not hear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this . 'Villi 1-11 I I, 1..,".1,) Millie Ureenoeri, TVTC . TVTC Resolution . . Page 3 . development reduction to trRme impact fees should be analyud; U1ht:r alrerneUvcs-.Such 898 toll fORd may also he Lll1l1lvz.ed. All jurisdictions wlll lhen review this infonnution aJ1d know cxnctly how muoh reduction in development or gro\\1h lTIa.nagement!contro! :s needed to meet the TSOs. The ~ro\\'1h rolln:12em':nt study on" nny In'p"(~t fees would ~Bch hAve to be CT"prove.d ununilllOUI:lv. Yiolatiom; or pmie.ctcd viola\lon~ nfTSO standards rcmaininJ,: Qfter R ~ro'y1h m;)ne.iet11t~l1t l'tratc~y is adopted sholl be resolved as discus.~t"d on p. 237 of the Plan:' 7. Pngc 23~, first )>arngrnph: Delete the last sentence r~gnrdillg indirccl effects on growth, 8. Pllge 23~, third par \gruph, (hird sentence: Revise ns follows: In Alameda County, th',' jl:r;sdictiDn with the TSO violation can elect to modify gro\\1h T3les, :;nprove th~ facility, or ~eek u lower TSO st3.J'idard through the [ ] process set forth [ J on p, ~"n ofrhe Pla1l. 9. Page 237, third paragraph: Delete the third sentence beginning with "neveI1helcss" regarding indirect effects on growth. . Again, we would like to thonk you and the TVTC for doing such a commendable job. Please do not hesitate to crdl if you huve any qu~stions on lhe~~ materials. Sin relY~ Guy . uston Mnyor GH/MS/mh cc: City Council Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney Lee S. Thompson, Publio Works Direc,tor Lf\Urence Tong, PlEUu1ing Director Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer Carol Cirelli, Sr. Pl81mer r:\cOrres\nlthren\03l6tVlC . TRI- V ALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE PROPOSM~ep+IeN Prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council Prepared by Trl-VaIley Technical Advisory Committee In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. January 1 aa6 3Vl'( -Apffl1995 . . Notc: Polic,' dircction:; or ,"mion: rcoommcndcd in thi3 draft rcport arc :ubjcot to changc pcnding rcvicw, commcnt, and approval b)' TVTC and it:; mcmbcr juri:3diction3. . EXHIBIT 3 . . . Executive Summary Transportation Service Objectives A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objecti\'es. These are objectives that the Tri-Valley cities and counties should use as a guide to making transportation and land use decisions. In Contra Costa County under Measure C, the jurisdictions are required to make a good-faith effort to comply 'With the transportation service objectives on routes of regional significance or risk the loss of return-to-source funds. In Alameda County once the plan is adopted, ifidividual jurisdictions are responsi- ble for maintaining Transportation Service Objectives through their general plans. The transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows: . Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90 or 0.91) on arterials, and measured at intersections. Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways. !-.laintain Level of Service E conditions on 1-580 for no more than four hours per day (except on AJ.tamont Pass) and on 1-680 for no more than eight hours per day. Do not increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles at gateways. Increase average vehicle ridership for commute trips by 10 percent. Increase the transit mode share through providing express transit travel times that are competitive with autos. . . . . . The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document, such as a General Plan. \\7ffile the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpret~ ed as limiting growth to the assumed levels. ~;e""erthclc:c, :he plan doc: e:toblich Tra.ncporta:ion Service Objecti....e:, which may indirectly influence ~ow:h rates. Cro'?-th beyond what i: acsumed herein moy occur provided the TEOt:; ore met. If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri- Valley jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road v.ridening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b) implement other measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physical- ly impacted. Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the follov.'ing components: . Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans. . Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amend- ments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans. The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. xiii Executive Summary · Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revisionts) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated v.ith proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amend. ments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA. . Financing the Tri- Valley Transportation Pldn The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financially constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provided by existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The j\letropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding is suggested through the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new, unapproved development. The PI~ identifies 11 regional transportation improvements that could be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-l). Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about S2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space. This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the neA"US relationship between new development and its impact on traffic. Plan Implementation . In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by each TVTC member jurisdiction. The folloy,inb' clemente ettould be adcp:.cd: . 2010 Planned Tran::porta:ion Xdv;ork Transportation Se:,,;iee Objectivc::; .'\ction Plane for Router of Rc;ional Si;Bi.ficancc (::;ee Chapter 9) Financing Plan Subregional Trancportation Impact Fcc concept . . . . . Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. xiv . . . = 3. Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Consistent 'ivith the Contra Costa and luameda countywide transportation plans, the Tri.Valley Transportation Council has adopted the following broad goals to guide this planning effort. . Improve safety Manage congestion Enhance mobility Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use Provide adequate transportation systems to support land use plans Integrate transportation planning 'with concerns relating to air quality, community character and other environmental factors Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced mobility. . . . . . . According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating transportation system effectiveness. No one jurisdiction's actions can assure that traffic service objectives on Regional Routes will be met. Compliance will be determined on the basis of participation and implementation of Action Plans. The following are requirements for a jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: . Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans. Local implementation of actions dccignod to attain tro..:5ie Gomeo objoctivos consis- tent with adopted Action Plans. . Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc. 38 Goals and Transponation Service Objectives · Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies (e.g., requiring payment of fees or participation in the TSMlTDM program). · Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans. Submiccion to Rc;ionol Committee of proposcd rc','icion(s) to :\ction Plan to ::nitigatc i.r:1pactc associated v.ith propoccd Ceneral PIon amendments. Ceneral Plan D..I::3.e::.1d.mcnts that would reduce tho c::ec:iyeneec of adopted .^..e:ion Plane may lead to a determination of non compli~ec if ~he .^...ction Plan cannot be rcviced v.ith the approval of the Regional Committee and tho CCT,;^.. (for Contra Cocta County jurisdiction::;). · Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA (for Contra Costa County jurisdictions). . Preliminary TSOs were presented to the Tri.Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved by the TVTC in March 1993. The follov.-ing list presents the approved TSOs. One or more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs. Link Levels of Service (LOS). Maintain LOS no worse than E (V/C :::: 0.99) on freeways and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy condition, v.-ith speeds about 35 mph on freeways. Tbis standard is sometimes not met under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, tbis corresponds to the existing CMF standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject . to an intersection LOS standard. Hours of Congestion. Maintain LOS E conditions on I.580 for no more than two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, except over Altamont Pass, where no TSO has been adopted. LOS E on 1.680 for no more than four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints discussed in Chapter 5, tbis is the best the plan can achieve. - Intersection Levels of Service. Maintain LOS no worse than D (V/C = 0.90) for signal- ized intersections during peak hours where the standard is now being met. Achieve LOS D by 2010 at locations not currently in compliance. The methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements. Tillo ic thc standard to which all Tn Valley juriodietionc pFGcontly adhcre. Under current conditions, only three of the study intersections violate this standard. Tri. Valley Gatewa)'s. 1-580, 1.680, and Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San Ramon) and Vasco Road (north of Livermore). Maintain existing capacity for single- occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of this issue.) . Banon-Aschman Assoc:iates, Inc. 39 . . . = Plan Alternatives The reduced grovvth scenario was shown, however, to have a profound effect on traffic levels on the arterial system. The TAC concluded that congestion on the arterial system could be controlled through growth management, even though congestion on the freeway system could not. Plan Evolution The TVTAC outlined four alternatives for consideration by the TVTC (see Table 6-4). These were combinations of various elements discussed and tested throughout the plan evolution. These four alternatives were presented to the individual councils of each city and the boards of the two counties. These elected representatives provided input as to which plan elements should be pursued further. Table 6-5 shows the composite of positions taken by each body. The TVTAC interpretation of the policy direction was as follows: 1. Road Improvements. Pursue the maximum amount of improvement within the limits of physical feasibility, but keep the regional impact fee within the $1,000- $2,000 per dwelling unit range. This was thought to be the highest politically feasible subregional traffic impact fee. 2. Transit Improvements. Provide transit options in the well-travelled corridors, but recognize that transit cannot carry a significant mode share given the suburban land use pattern of the area. 3. Higher Densities. The benefit of higher densities from a transportation perspective is that transit can be a more effective alternative to driving. There was some interest in changing development patterns to increase overall densities, especially in transit corridors. Recently approved specific plans for East Dublin and North Livermore create some higher-density areas. Densities necessary to support significant transit usage need to be at least 15 dwelling units per acre. 4. Growth Management. The TVTC agreed to proceed with a speci.fic growth man- agement study to resolve projected TSO deficiencies at 11 intersections and to define equitable sharing of the burden. 5. Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered ~ for the freeway system in locations where through traffic made achievement of TSOs impossible for the TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodated., ramp metering would allow achievement of eMF-mandated levels of service on the freeways. Reduced WS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the stratecr for resolving' TSO violations. as discussed on pag'e 237 of the Plan. 6. TDM Measures. The need for realistically achievable ridesharing goals was recognized. However, the TVTC is not in favor of simply assuming away problems. They also are not in favor of aggressive programs such as paid parking. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 119 ... ca ... l.., o 0- en e: ca l.., I- >- Q) -I ctS > I 'i:: f- a.... o - Q) > ;:; ca s: l.., Q,) ... < en :J LOCI) ,e: <0(1) ~~ .co ~u , I, H I: i c:1 cal II 0..1 c' o " ;i I, II I I ~ o I-- "OQ) Q.l ~ VJ ::J ro VJ Q.l ro U Q.l E::E EC > <! I.f) C'? Q.l E o (/) :Q <! If) >-. ro ~ Q.l Q.l ..::: '0 - c: o ro ~ - ro~ >0:>_ _ >-. <I.l C'-. ro ~ Q.l 3= 3= E.c Q.l 0.21 Q.l (/)I..= I i , ;1 ;1 (/) o ....J "0"0 Q.l ..... u ro ::J"O "0 c I:) ro O:(/) Q.l c- ~ >-. 0- (/):5 JJ Q.l ro () .ca; 0..::: (l) ::1_ "'Og~ .2oc u () Q.l .!:..... E -....Q.l (l) ~ .= :5 015- E z.s ~ < .Q < (l) E o (/) ~ o en >-. C ::I o C,) rcJ '0 (l) E (tl <( <:::> E o en :2 <1: ~ o en >.. E ::J o () (tl u; o C,) rcJ ..... E o C,) Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. -.. <:::> If) ::l " C a:> ro_ ....Jro "00: <:::> .- u::: ::J 3= "00 (l) ..... :::::c:> If) o ..... .- I:) ,,= _ VJ - C .Ql a:> ICl Q) c (l) E a:> ~> If) 0 C .... roo. .=S II) c (l) E a:> > '02 roo. o E 0:_ l/) -c: ~ .2g :t,?(l) ~~ 'C (l) ~Q: ~ 'S; c: tIS Cl Q) E o C/) Q.l C o Z C) C o (j) Q.l C o Z en E o (J) Q) c o Z <::I C (; (/) ell c: o Z ell c: o Z :2 <1: Nb E o (j) E < Q) E o (j) Q) E o (/) C) E o (j) Q.l E o (j) Q.l E o (j) (Il E o (J) (:) E o (j) ell E o C/) ell E o (/) ell E o (J) (Il E o en ell E o C/) ell E o en ell E o C/) .S :0 ::J Cl (l) ~ ell > ::; c: o C (tl r.n (tl (Il a:: c o E tIS a:: c tIS C/) OJ C o Z III E o (J) ell C o Z Q) ~ i::-Ill 1--01 -E ('-.c EF::=- o ~ ~ "?CIl= :Q < III E o (J) C) E o (j) Q) E o (J) (l) E o C/) Q) E o en '" =' en c Q) '" c 8~ i~ ....Gi ..J= c(c( c: ltl ..?:-a:: ~Q) ltl.c c- o- :eo ON 0..(") ON Cia:> (Il ro 1ii 0..... :2 Q) t:c ltl tIS 0.._ II) C:.c gj .S::! 0 '0..... r.n .~ '5 '-'c =0 (tl- -1ii (tl .... .cQ) --0 '00 Q) c ~8 e~ a.. > - '" ., j I I I I, /i I I, 'I , . :1 II " " II '/ Ii I . . 121 . . . ~ Recommended Improvement Plan 11,000 dwelling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri.Valley as a whole. Action Plans in Contra Costa COWlty are mandated by Measure C to address growth manage. ment issues when TSOs cannot otherwise be met. CCTA guidelines for Action Plans state that they may include policies to prohibit urban expansion in specified geograph. ic areas and to change the distribution of planned land uses to reduce impacts on regional routes. It should be noted that the TVTP is a 2010 plan and land use recommendations apply to 2010 and not buildout. Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the following components: · Long.range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans. · Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amendments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans. The f9llowing are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be consider~d in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: . Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated v,;ith proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non. compliance :i: :hc Action PlCUl canno: bc rc'\i:cd ,,-::h :hc appro,'ill of :b.c Rc.;ionill Commi::'cc and :hc CCT.\. Contra Costa County Action Plans may include the following types of actions: Land Use Policy 1. Modify allowable densities for newly developing areas or areas where redevelop' ment is anticipated. 2. Change distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts on Regional Routes. 3. Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas. 4. Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service objectives. Capital Projects · Construction of new roads or transit facilities · Street or freeway widening · HOV lane construction · Adding turn lanes Banon.Aschman Associates. Inc. 129 Recommended Improvement Plan Operational Improvements . . Traffic signal coordination Ramp metering Revisions to transit routes and schedules Augmentation of bus service on Regional Routes . . . Trip Reduction Programs · h10re stringent TDM requirements within corridor · Focused ridesharing campaigns · Parking limitations and charges Institutional Intergovernmental Programs · Coordinated efforts to attract State and Federal funding for projects in the County. · Communication and cooperation with jurisdictions in adjac(!T1t counties. General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth .. Management Elements.] If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistenc)'. It will be the responsi- bility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either: 1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffu Service Objectives; or 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a findings of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program.:! lGrowth Ma.n8.g'ement Implementation Documents. CCTA December 1992. p.IG-51. . 2Ibid.. P. IG-52. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 130 . . . = Recommended Improvement Plan General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC and the process for imple- menting this review. Approval of a Crimeral Plan Amendment found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA.. Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by.revising the proposed amend- ment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or Board denial of the amendment. Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Management strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conduded. The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of gro'Wtb. managementJcontrol that would be required for each applicable Tri-Valley jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be proportional to the traffic distribution percentage::; for each jurisdiction. Anv development reductions should be considered for their eauitable effect on the develop- ment pOtential of the participating- iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop. and if adopted. shall insure that ;urisdictions with relatively g-reater development potential do not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed.,;, other alternatives such as a toll road may also be analvzed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development or growth management/control is needed to meet the 1'805. The g-rowth manag-ement studv and any impact fees would each have to be approved unanimously. Violations or pro;ected violations of TSO standards remaining- after a g-rowth manag-ement strateg-y is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on paEre 237 of the Plan. Jobs-Housing Balonce Another aspect of land use growth relevant to transportation planning is jobs-housing balance. The Tri-Valley now has more housing than jobs. The 2010 expected land use scenario includes more job growth than housing growth, which will establish a balance. Because of the dynamics of the Bay Area, in--commuting and out-commuting will still occur, but at least they are reduced with a jobs-housing balance in the Tri- Valley. The importance of a jobs-housing balance is further reinforced by the gateway constraints that will exist in the Tri-Valley area. Trip-making into and out of the area will become increasingly difficult in the future. The provision of a job for every employed resident and vice versa will m;n;m;7.e the need for residents to leave the area for work. This will m;n;m;7.e the traffic pressure at the gateways. An important issue to remember with regard to jobs~housing balance is that the numerical count alone is insufficient to acbieve the desired result of minimizing travel. The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 131 Action Plan 4. Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided study shows metering would be equitable and effective as agreed to by Caltrans and the TVTC and provided sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HOV bypass lanes wherever space permits. The TVTC should take the lead and seek funding for a study of ramp metering. . 5. Support growth that achieves an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley. 6. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds for needed transportation projects. 7. Support development of a seamless ROV network in the Tri.Valley to encourage the use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall work cooperatively v..;th Caltrans, MTC, and affected jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system, especially on 1-580, subject to cost-effectiveness analysis and/or change to legislation prohibiting them. 8. Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit district to finance ongoing transit operating costs. 9. Support the preparation by Caltrans of an incident management plan for the state highways in the Tri-Valley area. The TVTC recognizes that incidents can have a profound effect on traffic conditions both on the freeways and on the arterials. . Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance This section details the various objectives and actions for each designated route of regional significance within the Tri-Valley. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are present- ed, together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties responsible for implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Plan is adopted, each jurisdiction will be responsible for making a good-faith effort to implement the agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the-W.QS 1988 Measure C Growth Management Program will be judged based upon its efforts to implement agreed-upon actions. The actions, programs, and measures identified in the Action Plan are intended to mitigate congestion and achieve the Traffic Service Objectives assuming that future traffic will be constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri- Valley Gateways (see Chapter 5, "'Gateway Constraints"). An indidduill jwisdiction may o.1so eloct to implement more Gtrin~nt oetionc, mCGSurCC, or proJ;I'QmS, in addition to thoGC identified below, on f~eiliticfl with~~ itc jurisdietion. For cxnmple, a juriodictien's iBdi~.'idu ill mitigation prOgTQm collie. recpond to hib'her future tro15.e lcvclc, accuminb' no gateway eoootraintc (Dee FiI;UTC 5 1). . Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 166 . . . Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways D3nvillc Version Facility: Sycamore Valley Road Key Locations East of 1-650 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 4 lanes 1,800 0,50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Nona 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C constrained (before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 2,360 8 58 0,65 Traffic Panern Danville 44D/O San Ramon - 2~~ cec 48% Livermore 60/0 Pleasanton 0% Dublin 0% T50 to be achieved VIC <; 0.90 al intersection, Recommended Action~ 1, Oppose aAY 9aAsider:J!isR a: aaelilioFlal \'BAisloIlar sapaGir/ on Sycamore Valley Rea&: Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left-turn pockets at all intersec- tions, and Call1ans standard Class II bicycle lanes, ~Ja asliaR ElRa/Il;lo OOA&iaerea that If/BloIla elimiAalo &IoIBA BSBoloFaIiB~'aeeeleFatioR IMes or l;lisJ'e1s laRDs, The Town of Danville has solo discretion to determine whether anv imorovements mav occur that would modify the desien standards of Svcamore Vallev Road, PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 S8 Ramps Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 N8 Ramps Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.81 0.63 0.79 0.37 0,47 D B C A A I Volumes and capadty refer to PM peak-hour, peak-drection of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion. Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 172 2010 Expected Nll'twork Planned manges: None 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections ) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C conSlTained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern TSO to be achieved Key LDcalions East of 1-680 4 WleS 1,800 0,50 '. 4 I8l'les 2,360 '. 8 ' ;' / / / / , / ,'/ '. 58 0.65 (0,65) \\ Darrville San Ramon CCC LNBfTTlore Pleasanton Dublin '. / V/C < O,go at inter- sectirxl Recommended Actions Action Plan I. I " / / I I' I / / ./ .,~/.'" . rder to meet the TSO requirements, the Ie I of development that may be roved by a IocaJ jurisdClion shall be consiste t with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is r~nably assured, Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improv8("'9nts and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service m then be exceeded without violating the TSO. PM P.ak-Hour 2010 Exrted Intersection LOS Without Action Plan ~ V/C Sycamore V:E1ey and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 Sycamore Vall Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 Sycamore V ey Road and 1-580 NB Ramp5 0.79 Sycamore Ys/ley Road and Camino Tassajana 0.37 SycamorlValley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 / / Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. LOS D B C A A \ \ , \ . 173 . . . Action Plan Delete this page Exhibit 2 Contra Costa County Resolution Le. Tri-Valley Plan Banon.Aschman Associates, Inc. 174 Action Plan Delete this page Exhibit 2 (continued) Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 175 . . . . . . Action Plan Tri~Valley Action Plan Highways D:mvillc Version Facility: Camino TassajlHa Key Locations East of Sycamore Valley Road Easlof Crow Canyon .' Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes 1,300 0.36 4 lanes 760 0.21 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening 10 four lanes from Danville Town limits 10 Contra Costa County Une. 2010 Configura lion Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections ) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconSlTained) 4 lanes 1.840 10 4 lanes 2.320 128 0,51 0,54 Traffic Pattem TSO 10 be achieved Danville 42% CCC 53~~ cce 49% San Ramon 20% San Ramon 2% Danville 18% Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1% Dublin 0% Dublin 2% Livermore 2% Livermore 601 10 VIC <. 0,90 al inter- vIe <. 0,90 at intersec- sections tions.!. Recommended Actions.!. None Required, 1, An initial level of development of 8,SOO units may be con- Sll1.lcted in the Dougheny Valley based on the Settlement Agree- ment Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the com. pletion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the Settlement Aareement This aslisA is easse eA the ,"'grssment to Sotlls Utigalisn nelaBRg ta tAs l)sl:lgl'leFl}' Valley CaAeral PleA ,~meAB mSRl l;:~seilie rlal'l aRB [R\'irSRmeRtal I"'~aet na~el'l., This aEltiaFl was agreed to or Dam'i1le, ~aA namaA, eAB CaAlre Casta CaIolR!)' iFl lAe SelllemaRt ^greemeRt , V/C = 0,90 at the Crow Canvon intersection, % V/C ., 0,90 at the Crow Canvon intersection. Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc. - - - _..I 177 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways D3nville Version (Continued) . Key Locations Facility: Camino Tassajara East of Sycamore Valley Road East of Crow Canyon 2. Consistent with the orovisions of the Douoherty Valley Settle- ment Aoreemenl. control orowth to meet intersection level 01 se/'Vlce standards. ;hc IllaA SReb/IEI bc eased eA laAEI blac as SUmpllaAS lor TV":::;>!\' tFlJ.: web/lEI Aet resul: iA a ..jebBon 01 trJ.ASIlSrl.:lIion scr:is€ elljcstives, ";Ajs 3stiaA is llascEl SA IRe ^g~8meRt to Se~e litj51J.IiOR ilclatjA!jta tAB OSII!lAEF1J' Valley CeRer:a PlaA l.meAElmEA:. SIlesiR6 PI3A aREI [AvirSAmeAl31 Imllast nellB~ This seliBR was agrcce/IB Ilj' DaA..iIIe. SaA ;:bmsA, BAa ::::OAIl'S :BS:.:! :ab/At)' iA t"te SClllemSAI AgreemeAI. 3. OI3IlBSC an)' oonsiEieraliaA 01 aEle/itiaAJ.1 "CRist/Ill/' sallasil)' eA CamiAa TJ.ss.:ljmn. Camino T2Ssajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of lour through lanes, accelerationldeceleration lanes at all intersections. leh-tum pocket:s at all intersections. and Callrans standard Class 1/ bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate suc:i'a accelerationldeoeleration lanes or bicycle lanes. TRis eeti()fl is 9E1Saa' SA lAe ,'l.!lfeemSPlI te Sellle uti51aliaA nelatlAglB IRs DSIl!jRBRY V;:\:IC)' CORBral rbn AmcAelmeAt, Slleeilia Plan and EA~'iI'eAmeA\allmlls6t nCllan, Th:s aslisA WllS agrcea' Ie Ill' DaRville. San namsA, aAa :BAlra Ces:.J Cab/At}' iA tho SctBe maAt ^greeffieAI. . The nol1hbound approach at the Camino T assajaralBlackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured 10 consist 01 a 4-loot median island, two 12-loot leh-tum lanes, one 12-1001 through lane. one 12-loot through plus right-turn lane, and one 12-loot right-rum lane. This requires reducing the exist- ing median island from 12 leet to 4 leel. and reducing the exist- ing 16-toot right-turn lane to a 12-loot right-turn lane. This can be aooomplished within existing curtrtooCUrD width. Any expansion or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the ap_ prwal of the Town 01 Danville. TAD TewA al DaRville Ras sale ai!>al'etieA Ie aeleFmiAe 'NRelAer BA)' '..:ie/aAiA!! al lAis iAleF5eaBaR RIa)' a8Bb/r la a eeRRgb/raBBR witR aursiEic 8\lFB Is eUr:8 wiekRs lIlat aA:! g~aler lRaA 8b1R'eRII)' exisl PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Inlersectlon LOS Wlthout Action Plan VIC LOS Unconstrained VIC Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road Camino Tassajara and Diablo 1.15 0.37 0.39 F A A 1.35 I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction 01 flow. . Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 178 . . . = Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways D3nville Version (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Camino Tassajara East of Sycamore Valley Road East of Crow Canyon Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Camino Ta.ssajara to 6 lanes Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour service to Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley; must be full to actaieve TSO, TDM Solution Restrict DV and TVPOA peak-hour and peak-period trip gener- ation to DV - 77% of normal, and TVPOA - 8% of normal. Land Use Solution Restrict DV to 8,500 units by 2010, TVPOA to 11 g units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Camino Tassajaral Blackhawk intersection (daoo;eRe)' plcJn re ~ TSO Met . These pelORtial saBeRS vialatE BlC Town af DaRville CEmer;J! Pkm. Me !he Dswgfrlsl'/3' 1'3!/er SeRJemsRt ,~!I,<f:efFIel'lt eeP-yeeR CaRlra Casta Ca"'RI:,', DaRville, aRB baR naFflaR, Baled May ~ 1, 100 t Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 179 T . Valley Action Plan Hi ways-Contra Costa County Version East of Sycamore Valley Road Facility: Camino Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 4 lanes 1,300 0.35 2010 Expected Network Planned manges: Widening to four Ia 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C consuained [before Action Plan) (unconstrained) 128 0,51 () Traffic Pattern T50 to be achieved Recommended Action. / None Recp.lired. Action Plan . Key l..Jx:ations East of Crow' Canyon ' 4 lanes 760 0,21 4 lanes 2,320 . In order to meet the TSO irements, the level of development that may be approved by a jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation I provements and programs for which funcing is raasooably assu Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improv nls and programs within their jurisdiction. and the minimum leve f service may then be exc:eedecl without violating the TSO. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Interaectlon LOS Without Action Plan / VlC /' / O~(/ / Danville 42% C 53% CCC 49'%. Ramon 20% San Ramon 2% II Danv 18% Pleasanton 60;../ PI ~ublin J~ Livermore / 2% / I VlC .<;-0.90 at inter- sedi~s / Camino assajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon Cami!)O Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road Cam'fno Tassajara and Diablo / / Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1.15 0.37 0.3Q LOS '. F A A . 180 Action Plan . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways D~:mville Version Key Locations Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Una East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) South of Camino Tassajara (Danville) Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 2 lanes 1,200 0,80 8 lanes 1,900 0.26 4 lanes 1,600 0,50 5 lanes 1,800 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Operational improvements on rwo-Iane section; widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1-'00 2,560 3,690 3,810 Transit Service (buses/hour both <I 56 12 12 directions) Transit Ridel1>hip (peak hour) 5 204 170 170 V/C constrained [before Action 0,93 0,36 0,68 0,71 Plan] (unconstrained) . Traffic Pattern Danvilla 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 3' % Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25% CCC 9% CCC , 8% CCC 35% CCC 35% Dublin 3% Dublin I % Dublin 5% Dublin 5% Pleasanton , % Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5% Livermore , % Livermore , % Livermore 3% Livermore 3% Through , 9% Through 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved Maximum operating V/C.. ~ 0,91 VIC = ~ O.g, at speeds within 2- at intel1>ections. intel1>ections, lane cross-section, VIC .. < 0.90 at intersec- tions. . Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 181 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways D3nvillc Vcr~ion (Continued) Action Plan . Facility: Crow Canyon Road Key Locations at County une East of Dougherty (San Ramon) South of Camino Tassajara (Danville) Recommended Action~ East of 1-680 1, Secure funding for operational improvements, None. 1. Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes. 1. An initial level of devel- opment of 8,500 units may be construc:ted in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement Up to 1 1,000 units may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the Settlement Aoreemenl. This aetisA is Baseel aR tl=le ,^,greemcRtts SeRle Liliga tisR nelaliAg 18 ll'la GeO/gl=leFtj' Vall8)' CeReral ?bll AmeASffisRt. E:jleaifie ;"laA aAd EA..iraRmeAI31 Iffijlaet nejlert. This aelieA was agrees 10 BY DaRville. S:ln naffien. aAS CeRlfa Cebt.a CeO/Air in tAe E:ettle mOAtl,grssmeAt . 2. An initial level of de- velopment of 8,500 units may be construct- ed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement. Up to 11.000 units may be considered pe"nding the completion of addi- tional traffic studies ~ set forth in the Settle- ment Aoreement. 2. Consistent with the provi. sions of the Douohenv Valley Settlement Aoree- ment. control orowth to meet intersection level of service standards. TRe jllan sAs",lsbo bases aR laRS O/ee 856UffijltiSRS far 1\'1'0,". tRal wa",ls Rei ras"," iR a 'lielatieR ef trans jleRatieR ser:viee ebjeetives. This BetieR was ao\'ele1gee/ by tRe TewR ef DaFI'.'illa. CeRtra CObia CeblRty may Gl;ljl1ge~ e/iflereAt aetisAs. Tl:lis aetisA is Basee/ SA tAB ^grsemeAtte SaRle Litigll liaR RelaliRgts tho OeO/gRoA)' Valle)' CeReral PIBA AmeRsmeAt, S1geeilie PIBA ans [R'lir:eAmsRta/ Im19aet ne1gert. This aelieA was agress Ie B)' OaR,'iIIs, SeA nameR, flAS CeAtFa COGIe CO"'Rt)' iR the BeRls meAl ^gr:esmBAl . I Further ac:t:ions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion, Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 182 . . . = Tri~Valley Action Plan Highways DJnvillc Vcr~ion (Continued) Action Plan Key Locations Fsclllty: Cro..... Canyon Road at County Line South of Camino T assajara (Danville) East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) 3. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (see Camino Tassajara. 4. Opllese aaailianal wia3R iAg of Crew GaRren neaa wiltlin Danvillc. PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected IntersBetion LOS WIthout Action PllIn VIC LOS Unconstrained vIe Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 S9 Ramps Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty Crow Canyon Road and 1.680 NB Ramps Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0,68 0.48 1.15 0.98 0,68 0.89 0.79 0,82 0.63 B A F B D C D B ~ , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow, Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 183 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan . Highways D3nville Version (Continued) Key Loc:aoons East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of I-SSO (San Ramon) (Danville) Potential Actions Highway Solution 8 lanes on 5 lanes on Camino Crow Canyon, T assajara, Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour service to DV and service 10 DV and TVPOA: TVPOA: buses must be buses musl be full. full. T~M Sol;;tion Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% of nor- normal tip-making, mal trip-making, TVPOA to TVPOA to B% of nor- B% of normal trip-making. mal trip-making, Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 . 8,500 unilS, TVPOA to unilS, TVPOA to 1 19 unilS 119 uni:s in 2010, in 2010, Poli:::')' Solution Accept LOS E at Accept LOS F at Crow Crow Canyonl Canyon/Camino Tassajara Dougherty, (requires deficiency plan), TSO met TSO met These ~eleFllial as1ieFls vielete IRe Tawn sf DaA'iille Caner;:)1 Plan, BAS tl:1e [)sughSI73' 1';:)/1&)' bct#eI'fi8RI,f;gri3SffiGnl llet:vieeFl CeRtfe Cesla Cel.lAT)', DaRville, aRsbaR naFRaR, elates lAB)' ~~, 1Q3~, . Bar1on-Aschman Associates, Inc. 184 Action Plan . , Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways-Contra Costa County Version , \ Facility: Crow Cany ./ at County Una East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) /. South of e~no Tassajara (Danviller / / Kay Locations Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing vie 6 Ia60s }~oo /0.33 / ,/ nlS on lWo-lane section; widening to 6 lanes.Aloosta to Tassajara Ranch Road. ./ 8 lanes 1,900 0.26 4 lanes 1,800 0.50 2010 Expeeled Network Planned changes: Operational improve 2010 Conflguratlo,n Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) vIe constrained [befom Action Plan] (unconstrained) 2 lanes 1,400 4 / 6 lanes.- 3,69<Y 12// / /170 / 0,68 / .6 lanes 3,810 12 5 0,93 170 0.71 . T raffle Pa ttem Danville San Ramon eee Dublin PleasanlOn Uvemlore Through I 36% San Rafuon 31"" DalJY111e 9% ~~e ~~ublin ZO ::Ieasanton ;-: 1 % Livermore . 190/0 Through 59% San Ramon 1"" Danville 1 eee 1 % ublin 0% asanton 1 % Uv 0% Throu h TSO to be achieved ..--' / , .........,~m operabng s~ within 2- I~ Cl'tlss-section. vIe - < 0.90 at intersections. vie _ < O. lions. 270/0 San Ramon 25% Danville 35% eee 5% Dublin 5% Pleasanton 3% Livermore 0% Through 27% 25% 35% 5% 5% 3% 0% vIe _ < 0.90 at intersec- tions. . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 185 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued) \ \ \ Facility: Crow ~yon Road at County Une \ Recommended Actlons \ \ \ ,. Secure funding fO( openational improvements. '\ \ \ \ \ \, 1, Secure funding for 1 initial level of devel- widening to 6 lanes. .opment of 8,500 units may / be construC!ed in the 2, An initial level of de! Dougherty Valley based on velopment of 8,SOO;J'nits the Settlement Agreement may be construC!tld in Up to 11,000 units may be the Dougherty ;ialley considered pencing the based on th9'Settlement completion of additional Agreement:' Up to 11,000 traffIC studies. units may be considered pencing the completion In order to meet the TSO of aOditional ttaHic n:tquin:tments, the level of stUc:ies. development that may be // approved by a local juriscic;- / In order to meet the TSO lion shall be consistsnt with ~irements, the level the identifted transportation of development that may improvements and be approved by a local programs lor which funding jurisdiction shall be con- is Itlasonably assured. sistont with the identified Other juriscictions may transponation improve- elect not 10 implement sud'1 \ menlS and programs fO( improvements and which tuncing is reason- programs within their juris- ~blY assured, Other diction, and the minimum jurisdictions may eleC! level of service may then be not 10 implement such exceeded without violating , provements and pro- the TSO. gramS within their juris- dietton, and the minimum level bt service may then be exceeded without violating ihe TSO. \ Key Locations East of 1-680 East of Dougherty (San Ramon) None. \ \ \ \ \ // >< ./'/ / / // / /' / // // Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. " // Action Plan / / / / . // South of ~ino Tassajana (Danvil!4'~'" / . . 186 . . . Action Plan Tri':Valley Action Plan Highvyays-Contra Costa County Version (Continued) \. PM Peak../iour 2010 Expected InterMCtlon LOS Without Action Plan " VIC \ \ \ Crow Canyon Road ~d Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 Crow Canyon Road am! 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48 Crow Canyon Road and "Camino Tassajara 1.15 , Crow Canyon Road and DOl:'gherty 0.98 Crow Canyon Road and 1-680. NB Ramps 0.68 Crow Canyon Road and Cami~ Ramon 0,89 Crow Canyon Road and San R~ Valley Boule. 0.79 vwd ' \ Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta . . 0.82 Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63 , 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak..J1ou~;.peak-direction of fiow. \. ;' ./ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , /'/ '\ \\ \ / / II / Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. LOS , B A F E B D C 0' B 187 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued) . Key Locations , East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility: Crow CanYon Road at County Una East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (DanviJIe) Potential Actions \ Highway Solution \ 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino Crow Canyon. T assajara. , \ Transit Solution \ Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour , service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA; \ \ TVPOA; buses must be buses must be full. \ \ full. " \ TOM Solution , Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% of nor. \ \ normal trip-making. mal trip-making. \ , \ \ \ Land Use Solution Restrict DV 20'0 to Restrict DV 20'0 to 8,500 . 8,500 unils. units, Policy Solution ~ '=opl LOS E al Cmw Accept LOS F at Crow CanyorVDougherty . Canyon/Camino Tassajara TSO met. TSO met. \ \ / / ,,/ ,,/ ./ . / ~rton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 188' 2010 Configuration 5 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,000 1,540 Transit Service (buses/hour both 10 directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) 84 437 VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0,28 0.43 (un~onstrained) . Traffic Pattem Danville Danville 55% 11% San Ramon 69% San Ramon 43% CCC 3% CCC 1% Dublin 11% Dublin 0% PJeasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Livermore 1% Uvermore 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved vIe ~ 0,91 at V/C < 0.90 at inter- intersections. sections. Recommended Actions 1. Complete widening None. project. . . Action Plan Tri-ValJey Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: San Ramon Valley Boulevard North of Sycamore Valley Road At Bollinger Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 2 lanes 1,025 0,57 5 lanes 900 0.25 2010 Expeocted Network Planned dlanges: Widening to 4 lanes through Danville: Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon. Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 189 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Facility: BOllinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta E;o:isting Configuration E;o:isting Volume' Existing V/C 8 lanes 2,700 0.38 4 lanes 400 0,11 2010 Expected Network Planned manges: Extension east to Dougherty Road (4 lanes - 6 lanes), 2010 Configuration B lanes 6 lanes Volume 3.200 2.820 Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 54 24 rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) 539 550 V/C constrained [before Action ?Ian] 0.44 0.52 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattem Danville 6% Danville 4Q' JQ . San Ramon 44% cee 4 9"10 cec 420/Q San Flamon 42% Dublin 6% Dublin 4Q/Q Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 0% ThM:lugh 0% ThM:lugh 0% TSO V/C ~ 0.91 at V/C ~ 0.91 at intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions' 1. ImpM:lve intersec. tion of Bollinger and Sunset 1. Consistent with the provisions of the Douohenv Vallev Set- tlement Aoreement. control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. 2. Improve Bollinger Canyon RoadlAlc:osla BoulevaItf Intersection. 3. Complete extension project in conjunction with Dougherty Va/ley development , Further ac:tlons snail be loentmeo bv the TSO Manaoement St1.IdV at ItS concePbon. . ':... Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 191 . . . Tri~Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facility: Alcosta Boulevard Key Locations East of 1.680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 4 lanes 600 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Reconfiguraoon of Alcostall.B80 interchange to improve inte!1;ec;;oon operation, 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) V/C c::mstrained (before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 4 lanes 1.600 10 65 0.44 Traffic Pattern Oanville San Ramon Dublin ecc Pleasanton Livermore 3% 38% 28% 28% 2% 0% TSO to be achieved V/C ~ 0,91 at intersections. Recommended Actions! 1. Secure funding for interdlange improvements. 2. Complete improvements at Bollinger CanyonlAlcosta, PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS D A A o B F A Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.84 A1costa Boulevard and Montevideo Road 0.34 A1costa Boulevard and Village Paricway 0.34 A1costa Boulevard and Crow Canyon 0.82 A1costa Boulevard and Norris Canyon 0.63 A1costa Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 A1costa Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.60 I Volumes and capaal)' refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow. 2 Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion, Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 194 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Facilily: Doughmy Road North of 1.580 North of Dublin Boulevard North of Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 6 lanes 2.700 0,50 4 lanes 1,300 0,36 2 lanes 300 0,17 2 lanes 300 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned dlanges: Widening to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard, 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 5 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 4.200 2.300 3,310 2.990 Transit Service (buses/hour both 28 28 directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5n 423 679 258 vIe constrained lbefore Action Plan] 0.58 043 0,51 0.55 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattem Danville '1% Danville 1 1 % Danville 8% Danville 22% . Pleasanton 27% PleasanlOn 27% San Ramon 5% San Ramon 18% cec 27% cce 27% Other eee 45% cce 39% Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8% Livermore 5% Livem10rn 5% Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 9% Through 0% Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9% TSO to be achieved vIe < 0.90 at inter- sections. V/C < 0,90 at inter. sections. V/C ~ 0,91 at intersections, V/C ~ 0.91 at intersections. Recommended Actlon~ 1. Secure developer funding for planned widening. 1, 5ea.Jre developer funcing lor planned widening. 1, Secure developer 1. Secure developer funding for planned funding for planned widening. widening, 2. Put in place gruwth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. 2. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. , Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion, . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 195 . . . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facility: TassajaI'B Road Key Lo:::ations North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 2 lanes 200 0.' , 2 lanes 200 . . 0," 2 lanes 200 0,' , 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: VVidening to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard. 6 lanes nonh of Dublin Boulevard to County une. 4 lanes nonh of County une. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) T ransil Ridership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2,600 5 lanes 3.700 18 6 lanes 3,750 20 1,066 0,5' 84 0,69 120 OA5 Traffic Pattem Danville 0% Danville O~' Danvilla 1% ,~ San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon ~~I I> ,. Dublin 35% Dublin' 35% Dublin 17% cce 36% cee 36% Plaasanlon 14% Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% eee 58% Livermore 10% Livermore2 10% Livermore 4% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at intersections, VIe < 0,90 at inter. sections, vIe < 0,90 at intersections. Recommended Actions.:. None, ,. Secure developer funding for widening. 2. Put Consider outtine in place mutually agreed and equitable mUltijurisdictional growth man- agement la inslolro aGhiOllo meAt af TSOa 3. Consider widening or ex- panding the highway network, improving transit service, or improving transportation de- mand management ,. Secure oeveloper fund- ing for widening. VlC LOS 0.76 C 0.65 B 1.05 F 0.70 B 0.54 D PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan Tassajara Road and Fallon Road Tassajara Road and Highland Road Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue Tassajara Road and 1-580 we Ramps I Volumes and capaCIty refer to PM peak-hour, peak-dlrecllon of flow. t Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 197 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Faclllty; Dublin Boulevard West ot 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes N/A N/A Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N/A N/A Existing V/C 0.31 0,29 NlA N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes ITom Donlon 10 Tassajara; extension as 6 lanes 10 N, Canyon Parkway. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 2,000 2,035 2.765 2,520 Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 14 16 rections) T ransil Ridership (peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042 VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0,37 0.38 0,51 0,47 (unconstrained) Traftic Pattern Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1 % Danville 1% San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5% Dublin 56% eee 2% cce 5% Livermore 36% eee 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 57% Dublin 24% Pleasanton 13% Pleasanlon 9% Pleasanton ~ % Pleasanton 13% Livermore 11% Liv9fTTlore 21% Livermore 25t}~ cce 5% Through 0% Through 6% vIe < 0.90 at inler- vIe < 0,90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at VlC < 0.90 at inter- sections, sections, intersections. sections. 1, Sealre developer 1, Sealre funding 1. Sealre funding ,. Sealre funding funding tor widening, tor wideningl tor wideningl tor wideningl extension. extension. extension. 2. Pursue HOV 2. Pursue HOV lanes on 1-580. lanes on 1-580. . TSO to be achieved RecDmmended Actions.!. 1 Further aetions shall be identified bv the TOO Manaoement Studv at its comoletion. . ---------... . Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 199 . . . = TriwValley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facility: San Ramon Road Key Locations North of Dublin .- Existing Configur.:uion Existing Volume' Existing V/C .: lanes 1,200 0,33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: None, 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both direclIons) Transit Ride~hip (peak hour) V/C constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) .:: lanes 1,000 .: 7 0,28 Traffic Panem Danville Dublin San Ramon Pleasanton Livermore cee Through 5% 55% 23~~ 2% 10% 5% 0% TSO to be achieved vIe < 0,90 at intersections Recommended Actions! None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Wlthout Action Plan vIe LOS San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0_90 0,45 D A C C , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow, : Further actions shall be identified bv the T$O Manaoement Study at its comoletion, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 203 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key LocaDons Facility: Hopyard Road at Stoneridge Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing vIe 5 lanes 2.400 0.44 2010 Expected Network Planned d'langes: Wiclening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division, 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2,400 20 78 0.44 Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 64% Dublin 23% Danville 1% San Ramon 2% ecc 6% Livermore 4% Through 0% . TSO to be achieved vIe < 0.90 at inter. sections Rec:ommended Actions ,. Enforce existing growth controls in Pleasanton to insure achievement of TSOs. 2. Build adequate Route 84 to reduce cut-lI1rough traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. 3. Install traffic signal phase ovenap at HopyardlW. Las Poshas. , Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion, . '= Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 204 . . . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facility: Santa Rita Road Key Locations at Stoneridge 1.580 EB Off-Ramp 3 lanes Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing vIe 6 lanes 1,300 0,24 2010 Expected Network Planned d'1anges: Widening 10 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road ($ 1,6 million), developer funding. 2010 Configuration Volume Tra,"lsit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) vIe constrained [before Action Plan] (un:::onstrained) 6 lanes 3 lanes 2,700 1,231 6 63 100 0,50 0,38 Traffic Pattem Pleasamon 59% Dublin 25% Livermore 10% Danville 0% San Ramon 2% cee 4% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V!C < 0,90 at inter- VIC < 0,90 at inter- section. section, RltCOmmended Action~ None. 1. Obtain agree- ments with Dublin and Contra Costa County to widen EB off-ramp to provide double left tum. , Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its comolelion, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 206 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan . Facility: Stanley Boulevard Key Locations at Valley Avenue :);isting Configuration E);isting Volume' :);isting V/C 4 lanes 800 0,22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project), 2010 Configuration Volume I ransit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIG constrained [before Action Plan] (un:::onSL"ained) 4 lanes 1,200 4 41 0.33 Livermore 50% Pleasanton 25% Through 25% Oanville 0% San Ramon 0% CCC 0% Dublin 0% Iraffic Panem . TSO to be achieved V/C < 0,90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1, At Valley/Stanley intersection, widen for EB double Ieh-tum lanes. 2. Recluce cuHhrough tmffic with adequate Highway 84. , Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its completion, Banon-Aschman Associates. Inc. . 208 Action Plan . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Stoneridge Drive at Hopyard at EI Charro Existing Configuration existing Volume' Existing VIG 6 lanes 1.200 0,22 N/A N/A N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned d'langes: Extension as 6 lanes to EI GharTO to link with Jack London. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,200 700 Transit Service (buses/hour both 26 None directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) 99 0 vIe constrained [before Action Plan] 0,22 0,13 (unconstrained) . Traffic Pattern Danville 1 % Danville 0'" ,. San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2% Pleasanton 53% Livermore 51% Livermore 19% PJeasanton 44% Dublin 150/0 ece 0% CGG 1 % Dublin 1% Through 2% Through 2.' ,. TSO to be achieved V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0,90 at inter- sections. sections. Recommended Actions!. None. None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS WIthout Action Plan vIe LOS Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas Stoneridge Drive and 1.{)80 S8 Ramps Stoneridge Drive and 1.{)80 NB Ramps Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road 0.81 OA9 0,52 0.58 0.85 D A A A D . I Volumes and capacity reter to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. I Further actions shall be identified bV the TSO Manaaement Studv at its completion. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 210 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Facility: Sunot Boulevard East of 1.680 Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing vIe 4 lanes 800 0,22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Hidership (peak hour) VIC constrained [before Action Planj (unconstrained) 6 lanes 1.320 4 23 0.24 Traffic Panem Danville DO"" San Ramon 1% Pleasanton 46% Livermore 33% Dublin 1% eee 0% Through 14% . TSO to be achieved vIe < 0.90 al inter- sections. Rl!'COmmended Actions! None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Acllon Plan VlC LOS Sunol Boulevard and Bernal Avenue Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 S8 Hamps Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.80 0.58 0.54 e A A I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. · Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaaement Study at its comoletion, . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 211 . . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Key Lo::ations Facility: Route 84 on Vallecitos Isabel at Jack London West of 1-660 (Niles Canyon) Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing V/C 2 lanes 900 0.50 N/A N/A N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting and widening Isabel to 6-lane artenal. new interchange atlsabeVI.580, grade separation at Isabel/Stanley. Recommended Actions.!. ,. Secure funding for widening project 2. Adopt recommenda- tions of Tn-Valley Sub- committee on Route 84, 3. Seek cooperative fund- ing programs with Central Valley and Fremont-South Bay jUrisdictions to miti. gate the impact of addi- tional commute traffic through the Tn.Valley. ,. Secure funding for widening project 2. Accept LOS E at Jack London or widen ROUle 84 to 8 lanes at Jack London or provide a grade separation. 3, Adopt recommenda. tions of Tn-Valley Sub- committee on Route 64, ,. Maintain existing historic high- way designation and function, , Further actions shall be identified bv the TOO Manaoement Studv at its comoletion. Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc. 212 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Facility: Stone Valley Road' Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC 20'0 Expected Network' Planned changes: None. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di. rections) Transit Ridership (peak hO:.Jr) VIC constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern TSO to be achieved Recommended Actions Key Locauons Easl of 1-680 2 lanes 940 0,52 2 lanes 1,400 8, '. , 5 '\ 0,78 " Danville San Ramon eee Dublin Pleasanton 5% Livermore 4% Alameda Co. 44% vIe < 0,90 at inter- sections None. PM Peak-Hour 20'0 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan " vIe Slone Valley Road -and Danville Boulevard Stone Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps Stone Valley ,Road and 1-680 NB Ramps / 0,82 0.56 0.40 / , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-diraction of flow. : Not a route of regional significance. ,/ Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc. o A A , "o'? Action Plan . -- , , / ,.. / ,/ . \., " . 218 . . . Tri-VaJley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facilily: Fallon Road' Key locations N.ofl-580 N, of Dublin .. Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIG 2 lanes 10 0,01 2 lanes 10 0.01 2010 Expocted Network Planned changes: Widening and extension al6 lanes trom 1-58010 Tassajara Road; reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro and 1-580 inlerchange. 2010 Gonfiguration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- recuons) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VIG constrained [before Action Plan] (unconstrained) 6 lanes 2.900 4 0,54 6 lanes 2.450 o 0.45 Traffic Pattern Danville 10"10 Danville 11 "10 San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9"10 GGG 0% GGG 1% Dublin 63% Dublin 55"10 Pleasanton 15% Pleasanlon 12"10 Livermore 7% Livermore 13% Through 0% _ TSO to be achieved V/G <: 0,90 at inter- sections. V/G <: 0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actlon&1- 1, Secure funding for widening/extension. 1, Secure funding for wideningl extension. 2, Pursue HOV lanes 2. Pursue HOV on 1-580. lanes on 1-580. 3. Secure funding for 1-5801FaJlon interchange improve- ments. , Further actions shall be identified bv Ihe TSO Manaoement Study at its comoletion, Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 219 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) . Key Locations Facility: North Canyons Parkway W, of Isabel Existing Configuration Existing Volume' !:xisting v/c 4 lanes ? ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Widening and extension as 6 Janes from Doolan t.:llsabel Extension. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both di- rections) Transit Ridership (peak hour) vIe constrained [before Action Plan] (un::::lnstrained) 6 lanes 3,090 20 229 0,57 Traffic Panern Livermore Dublin Pleasanton CCC Danville San Ramon Through 58% 21% 10% 3% 0% 3% 5% . TSO V/C < 0,90 at inter- sections, Recommended Actions: 1. SeC1Jfe developer funding for widening/extension, 2. Improve the inter- section of N. Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan vIe LOS North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension 1.02 0.92 F E 1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. : Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its oomoletion, . Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 221 . . . Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Action Plan Facility: Isabel Extension: Key Locations N, of North Canyons Parkway Existing Configuration Existing Volume' Existing VIC N/A N/A N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned d'langes: Extension from 1.580 as a 6-lanel4-lane arterial to Vasco Road. 2010 Configuration Volume Transit Service (buses/hour both directions) Transit Ridership (peak hour) VlC consuained [before Action Plan] (unconsuained) 6 lanes 3,330 12 98 0,62 Traffic Panem Livermore Dublin Pleasanton eee Danville San Ramon Through 61% 14% 13% 3% 0% 3% 7% TSO to be achieved, VIC < O,90 at inter- sections, Recommended Actions' 1. Secure developer funding for extension, PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan vIe LOS Isabel Extension and Vasco Road Isabel Extension and North Uvarmore Avenue Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway 0.60 0.68 0.92 A B E , Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance , Further actions shall be identified bv the TSO Manaoement Studv at its c::omoletion. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 223 Action Plan Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in Chapter 5, the follO\v1ng and other TSO violations are forecast to occur: Intersection VIC LOS Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.93 E Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp 0.94 E Alcosla Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road , .06 F Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road 0.98 E Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road 1 .1 , F Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Manage- ment strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of growth managemenUcontrol that would be required for each applicable 'I'ri-Valley jurisdiction in order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be proportional to the traffic distribution pcrccntQ';;c::: for each jurisdiction. Anv development reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of the participating- iurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop. and if adopted. shall insure that iurisdictions with relativelv greater development potential do not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this develop- ment reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed: other alternatives such as toll road mav also be analvzed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development or growth management/control is needed to meet the TSOs. The Em>wth manag-ement studv and anv impact fees would each have to be approved unanimouslv. Violations or proiected violations of TSO standards remaining after a Em>wth manag-ement strateg-v is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on pag-e 237 of the Plan. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 232 . . . . . . Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. \Vbile certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP doc::; not control ;rov."th directly but indircctly throu;;h thc TSOG. Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road improve~ ments so that the TSOs continue to be met. Achievement of the TSOs depends upon successful implementation of the actions, measures, and programs set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan." In Contra Costa County, if, follov.-ing good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a TSO is not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of TVTC and SV>.TAT. Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of rSOs, a strengthening of actions, or a combination of these approaches. In Alameda County, the jurisdiction with the TSO violation can elect to modify growth rates, improve the facility, or seek a lower TSO standard through the o..mcndmc:c..: process set forth Q!l oaE'e 237 of the Plan. in :his cho.p:cr. The TSOs related to mode split and average vehicle ridership are goals for achieve- ment by 2010. They need to be monitored and adjustments to the plan made if progress is not being made. Progress should be defined as increasing transit ridership and increasing average vehicle ridership. The TSOs should be monitored every two years. The following describes how each should be measured. Each jurisdiction should report the results of their monitoring activities to the TV TAC for review. Any TSO violations should be forwarded to the TVTC 'With recommended actions. Freeway Levels of Service. The TSOs are expressed both in terms of volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and hours of congestion. Volume-to-capacity ratio and hours of congestion can be measured with traffic counts or speed IilllS and should apply to mixed-flow lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles capacity for aw::iliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA. Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of semce should be calculated using the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts. Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersec- tion lies. The intent of the TVTP is to maintain the intersection TSO at all signalized intersections. However, to avoid extensive data collection, each jurisdiction should establish a list of critical intersections for monitoring. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 235 Plan Implementation. Monitoring, and Review Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded. . The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network. Consistency ",.;ith the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The Regional Committee ~ll be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the Regional Committee and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment found to be inconsistent 'with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA. Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amend. ment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or Board denial of the amendment. Growth Management Tools. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. \Vhile the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. ~;cvcrthclcG::;, ~he plc.n doc::; c::;tablich TrG.D.::;porta:ion Serollec Objel2ti?c::;, which may indirectly influence bTowth ffit.e.s.:. Crov.-th beyond what i::: aGGumcd herein mc.y oecur p:Dvidcd the TBOc UTe met. If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road widening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b) implement other measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard, but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted. . The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates in Contra Costa County and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth Management Elements as stated in the aCTA Growth Manage. ment Implementation Documents. pag-e IG-52. If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPs to evaluate proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either: 1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or . Banon.Aschman Associates, Inc. 237 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review . 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. Development Review Procedures for General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County. Anv Tri-Vallev area g-eneral plan amendment in Contra Costa Countv that generates 500 or more peak-hour trips than is currently allowed by the applicable General Plan, shall be deemed consistent with this Action Plan if preceded or accomuanied by a multi-iurisdictional cooperative planning- agreement that identifies the responsibilities of the participating- parties to ensure that the subsequent apuroyals will not result in a violation of Traffic Service Obiectives. Demonstration of compliance with TSOs shall include. but not be limited to, comuuter model runs that incorporate each iurisdiction's Five Year Capital Improvement Program of transpOrtation proiects and the proiects of federal. state. and regional agencies such as Caltrans, transit ouerators. the MetropOlitan Transportation Commis- sion, etc. In addition, the computer model database will include each local iurisdiction's anticiuated land use development proiects realistically expected to be constructed within the next five vears. . The Doug-hertv Valley Settlement Ae-reement fulfills this requirement for a multi- iurisdictional cooperative planning- agreement for development in the Doughertv Valley area. The Contra Costa iurisdictions will consider entering into multi-iurisdic- tional cooperative planning- agyeements with Alameda Countv iurisdictions in the Tri- Valley area. Amending the Plan Amendments can be triggered by: periodic review of the plan (every two to four years); identification of TSO violations; a jurisdiction's proposal to adopt a major general plan amendment that was not considered in the existing plan; and/or a change in the major assumptions underlying the Plan.. A change in the assumptions for Gateway Con- straints would constitute the latter. This plan is based upon the assumption that major gateways into Tri-Valley will not be expanded beyond the capacities assumed in the Expected Network as set forth in Chapter 5. AI1y change in these assumptions, such as the addition of HOV lanes on 1-580 over the Altamont Pass, would require that this plan be amended to incorporate revised assumptions for the Tri-Valley gateway constraints. Increased capacity at the gateways could significantly increase projected congestion on downstream freeway sectioDS and arterial streets. . As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement governing the TVTC, amendments to the plan will require a unanimous vote of all members of the TVTC. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 238 v"\J ALz(:- ~ .1- TVTC ~ ~ '1,<jh cI L1T/ATl~ TRI..VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY TRANSPORTATION MODEL UPGRADE, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES MANAGEMENT STUDY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES JULY 1995 rev. 7/6/95 . . . EXHIBIT 4 . . . -::. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES MANAGEMENT STUDY TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE JULY 1995 PURPOSE The Tri-Valley Transportation Council has recently completed the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (TVTP/AP). Within this Plan are recommendations to develop a Tri-Valley Traffic Impact Fee to defray the costs of needed regional infrastructure and a further study of critical intersections which fail to meet the desirable transportation service objectives of meeting Level of Service "D" or better on arterial streets. The Tri-Valley Council has additionally agreed to update the Tri-Valley Traffic Model to ABAG '94 Land Use Projections. BACKGROUND In 1991, a Joint Powers -Agreement was signed by the seven jurisdictions comprising the Tri-Valley area including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon. The purpose of the JPA is the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in April 1995. The (TVTP/AP) establishes a transportation network, designates Routes of Regional Significance and reviews year 2010 traffic projections from "Expected Land Use" using the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. The (TVTP/AP) contemplates an Expected Transportation network which includes both funded and likely to be funded transportation improvements. The network is financially constrained. Maj or recommendations of the (TVTP/AP) include: The implementation of a Transportation Impact Fee to be placed on new development to facilitate construction of the "Expected Transportation Network"; and resolution of TSO violations at critical intersections of Routes of Regional Significance. -1- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 . Related but separate studies include a Comprehensive Subregional Planning Pilot Program, the Tri-Valley ABAG '94 Land Use Projections, sponsored by ABAG and covering the same seven jurisdictions, and Alameda County CMA Transportation Impact Fee Study. The consul tant will be responsible for moni taring these parallel efforts as part of the scope of this study. SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work defines the three maj or study elements, Model update, TSO violation, and Fee Study, for which the consul tant should make a proposal. Specific elements have been spelled out for each of the tasks. TASK I TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE The Current Tri-Valley Traffic Model Uses the year 2000 and 2010 "Expected Land Use" provided by each Tri-Valley jurisdiction. In order to be accepted by MTC updates to the most recent ABAG projections and MTC 1990 trip tables are required. The Alameda County cv~ has provided funding to help . defray the costs of such an update. The work shall consist of updating the model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ'S) with ABAG '94 Land Use Projections, validating the traffic model with ABAG '94 Land Use Projections, modifying the transportation network as agreed to by TVTAC and, producing year 1990, 2000 and 2010 constrained peak hour and ADT plots for jurisdictional and C~~ review and approval. 1.1 CONVERT TRI-VALLEY Land Use DATA TO ABAG PROJECTIONS '94 The objective of this task is to review the CCCTA allocation of ABAG '94 Land Use Projections into Tri-Valley traffic zones to update the forecast years update the base year and forecast years (2000 and 2010) population and employment estimates. The consultant will be provided population and employment information at the TAZ level by each jurisdiction. If significant differences remain for the Tri-Valley totals, a meeting will be hosted by TVTAC to discuss these differences with appropriate ABAG representatives. Each jurisdiction shall provide a matrix for its jurisdiction showing at a TAZ level (or aggregate TAZ level for ABAG -2- . = . . . = REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 Projections) the "Expected Year 2000, and 2010," the "}UlAG 2000 and 2010," and their "Recommended 2000 and 2010". The TVTAC will assure that the aggregate population and employment projections meet ABAG totals for the Tri-Valley prior to the consultant loading the traffic model. Any resolution of differences between local jurisdictions "Expected Land Use" and ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections shall be the responsibility of Tri-Valley Council and the local jurisdictions. 1.2 VALIDATE THE TRI-VALLEY MODEL The object of this task is to update the validation process to MTC standards. This will entail: 1. 2.1 Reevaluate roadway assignments. This task will address the model system trip distribution step, updating homebased work trips to reflect the 1990 census and travel survey data. The consultant should revise the trip distribution procedures, if applicable, ror MTC model system consistency. The consultant will revalidate the trip distribution model by modifying friction factors and/or adding area-to-area factors (K-factors) until a good comparison with MTC trips is achieved. Other purposes are assumed to remain from the current model. The targets for consistency with MTC's estimates will be 5 percent for intracounty and intraTri-Valley trips and 10 percent for other significant district-to-district and county-to- county movements. Description: . Obtain revised trip distribution model formulation (friction factors, etc.) from MTC and 1990 "observed" trips by trip purpose Incorporate into Tri-Valley Model Run Tri-Valley Model trip distribution model and compare results to MTC Meet once, collectively with MTC, CMA and CCTA to discuss results Where there are significant differences in results, investigate network revisions, use of K-factors . . . . -3- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 . and other means to achieve improved consistency. Product: Revised Trip Tables incorporated into the .Countywide Model 1. 2.2 Revalidate Roadway Assignments The consultant will revalidate the roadway vehicle and transit patronage assignments. The consultant should use the following validation targets for given facility types: eScreenlines: All screenlines within ::': 10% of the total count eFreeways: 50% of links within ::': 10% of the Count eMTS Arterials: 50% of links within :t 15% of the count e(>10,OOO .rill T ) 75% of links within ::': 30% of . the count The consultant should include a per model run estimate in the cost proposal. Additional runs may be requested by Tri-Valley to improve the validation results. Consultant Product: Revalidated Model 1.2.3 Adjust the peak hour factors accordingly, based on a minimum of the approximately 11 road facilities which have volume capacity problems, identified in the Plan; 1. 2.4 Adjust year 2000 and 2010 forecasts to account for incremental changes from ABAG's '94 Land Use Projections 1.3 MODEL MODIFICATIONS The objective of this task is to evaluate the network based on model output to determine the necessity for manual adjustments on various road facilities and around special generators as: BART, Livermore Lab, Colleges, Airport. -4- . . . . =. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 1.4 TASK II 2.1 MODEL OUTPUT The objectiye of this task is to provide model output plots, consisting of ADT, AM, PM peak ho~r volumes for road segments and intersections. vlc calculations, using the VCCC system, shall be provided for "Model intersections," (same as used in TVTP/AP) not meeting LOS "D" conditions. Outputs will be subject to TVTAC and local jurisdiction review prior to final publication. TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVE (TSO) MANAGEMENT STUDY One of the maj or recommendations of the TVTP lAP is the resolution of projected TSO violations at approximately fifteen (15) intersections of Regional Significance as shown in the attached list taken from page 232 of the Plan, and the final "Expected 2010" Tri-Valley model run of June 1995. The rerun of the Model using ABAG '94 Land Use Projections may change this list. The intent of this task is to further refine the nature of the problem and to address those locations where violations are projected. The focus will be to develop a menu of options at each location from which affected jurisdictions may choose feasible solutions to resolving TSO violations at these locations. DEFINE TSO PROBLEMS The (TVTP/AP) contains a set of spec~I~c actions which could be taken, in whole or in part, to improve the projected TSO violation on each affected Route or Regional Significance to improve the intersection to an acceptable level. Implementation of anyone action within the set of recommendations generally would not be sufficient to resolve the TSO violation. Therefore, additional study to refine the nature of problem and recommended actions are required. 2.1.1 Review existing and proposed roadway and geometry 2.1.2 Conduct select link analysis of each affected intersection using approved Tri-Valley Model. 2.1.3 Determine AM, PM peak period origins and destinations for each of the seven jurisdictions at each of the critical locations. -5- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 . 2.1.4 Review the resul ts of these analysis with jurisdiction. The selection of al ternati ves evaluation and study is subject to review approval of the affecte~ jurisdiction. each for and 2.2 ISOLATE AND DESCRIBE OTHER CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING VOLUMES Review adjacent intersections, in particular signalized intersections at freeway interchanges, to determine if traffic volume destined to, (projected at), the critical intersections would face significant constraints in reaching the intersection i.e. would volume be metered at some adjacent location resulting in lower volumes than projected? 2.2.1 Quantify any improvement in V Ie related to such metering effect 2.2.2 If problem appears to be discuss any new problem. relocated subj ecti vely 2.3 IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES .' List, define and evaluate alternative actions which can mitigate projected LOS violations. Evaluation should include order of magnitude cost estimates, funding strategy, degree of effectiveness and any ongoing operational and maintenance needs. The selection of alternatives for evaluation and study is subj ect to review and approval of the affected jurisdictions. 2.3.1 Consider and Evaluate Growth Management Strategies Consider and evaluate growth management strategies in the event that intersection capacities cannot be adequately improved. Strategies may include phasing of development and reductions in land use intensity. Consideration should be given to pro rata share of traffic contributed by each jurisdiction to each of the problem locations 2.3.2 Consider and Evaluated Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Strategies or other Measures to Meet TSO Requirements . -6- . . . :: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 2.4 PREPARE DRAFT MENU OF OPTIONS 2.4.1 Provide intersection list of options for each critical intersection ," indicating option, cost, funding, impact of mitigation. 2.5 REVIEW OPTIONS WITH JURISDICTIONS AND RECOMMEND OPTIONS Update menu to indicate results of jurisdiction review to include acceptability and feasibility. 2.6 PREPARE FINAL SPECIFIC REVISIONS TO ACTION PLAN FOR ADOPTION BY SEVEN JURISDICTIONS INCLUDING MONITORING PLAN TASK III. TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE The purpose of the Tri-Valley Regional Traffic Impact Fee is to assess new development a portion of the cost of implementing new transportation facilities necessitated by growth in the Tri-Valley area. The fees will be imposed by each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions and deposited into a fund set aside to partially defer construction costs of proj ects listed in the adopted Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. These projects are the 1-580/680 Direct Connector project and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, Route 84 from 1-580 to 1- 680, 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon, 1- 580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to North Livermore, 1-680 HOV Lanes Rout 84 to Sunol Grade, 1-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard Interchange, Alcosta Interchange, Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements, Vasco Road Realignment, Express Bus Service. The recommendations for the "Development of Tri-Valley Traffic Impact Fee" must include an equitable fee structure which can meet the nexus test of reasonable relationships, (essential nexus, rough proportionality, and Government Code Section 66000FF (AB1600) and be economically feasible. 3.0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Develop a detailed project description for each of the following projects: -7- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 . -1-580/680 Direct connector Project with Hook Ramps -West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station -Route 84 from 1-580 to 1-680 -1-680 ~uxiliary Lanes Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon -1-580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to:N. Livermore -1-680 HOV Lanes Rout 84 to Sunol Grade -1-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon Blvd Interchange -Alcosta Interchange -Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements -Vasco Road Realignment -Express Bus Service 3.1 UPDATE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Update Cost Estimates wi th currently available cost information from Caltrans, Alameda County Transportatio~ Authority and their consultant, from Bart and other sources. 3.2 PROJECT COMPLETION TIMETABLE Determine Preliminary proj ect Time Line and Expected . Construction Dates for those proj ects wi th currently available funding and schedules; 1-580/680 flyover, Bart West Dublin, Pleasanton, Isabel Parkway extension/Highway 84_ The information is to be used in determining needed cash flow. 3.3 NEXUS ANALYSIS Provide nexus analysis for new development in relation to each of the projects. The analysis will utilize the updated Tri- Valley Model using ABAG '94 Land use Projections and include quantification of non Tri-Valley Traffic percentages. The BART Environmental Document will also be used as input. The analysis must recognize and use for comparison those units to be built after the fee is implemented and take into account vested projects. The year 1996 shall be considered the first year for fee purposes. 3.4 ECONOMIC BURDEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT Provide a summary report of Economic Burden Analysis for new development in each jurisdiction and the application of this analysis toward setting the amount and proportion of traffic impact fees which could be paid by the residential and -8- . . . . 3.5 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 business sector. The analysis shall include an assessment of those current assessments for regional traffic fees, local traffic fees and any other obligations and assessments. This would address the need for "credits" for properties currently contributing toward' regional transportation improvements. 3.4.1 Vested Development Evaluate alternative funding strategies to account for traffic impacts resulting from the construction of vested development in the Tri-Valley. REVIEW GROWTH and REVENUE PROJECTIONS Review growth projections and recommend estimates to be used in estimating revenues from development fees. Compare growth projections with historic growth rates in the Tri-Valley. Revenue sources shall include those used in MTC "Track I" and "Track II" and J.i.lameda County CM.!I.. "Tier II. II 3.5.1 Summarize by jurisdiction land use categories and quantity of units 3.5.2 Evaluate alternative (to Development Fees) funding sources and relate applicability to each project. Matching funds --will be required to assist in funding the list of projects. An assessment of known funding sources and availability of funding will be required. Sources of information are the MTC and County CM.!I.. agencies. The summary of new funding sources should summarize by funding source estimates of Tri-Valley revenue share, competing projects and ability to meet funding needs of assisting in funding specific projects listed for development fees. Consideration shall be given to options of tolls for funding Highway 84, including cost of free alternatives and impacts of toll segment on overall transportation system. 3.6 PROJECT PRIORITIES Provide a cost/utility index and matrix for each project to prioritized projects. Ratings for the utility index will be -9- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 . proposed by the consultant and approved by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Attached is a sample Matrix _ The Consultant should plan on a joint workshop with TVTC members and the TAC to establish categories and rating scales. The purpose of the matrix is to help prioritized the list of projects for funding purposes. 3.7 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES Develop alternative fee program structures using as variables; amount of external funding, number and priority of projects, jurisdictional pro rata traffic impacts. Alternatives should be geared to "High range impact," $2,000 to $3,000 per unit, Mid-Range Impacts" $1,000 to $2,000 per unit and "Low-Range Impacts," less than $1,000 per unit. Strategies must also take into account cash flow needs for high priority partially funded projects, (1-580/680 Direct Connector and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station) . 3.8 MODEL ORDINANCE Provide outline of the administrative actions needed to collect manage and disburse the funds. Covered in this task will be the need for any environmental documentation and cost estimates to implement the fee. . 3.9 FINAL REPORT The consultant should budget for at least six meetings with TVTAC and four meetings with TVTC. BUDGET & SCHEDULE A budget of $125,000 has been allocated for this study. No additional funds are or will be available to supplement this amount. The Study must be completed within six months of contract award. PROPOSAL DEADLINE All proposals must be received no later than , 1995. -10- . . . . := REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Proposals should be brief and limited to addressing the lssues discussed in this RFP, Proposals must ~lso include. 1. A brier statement or approach to the problem, a scope of work, total fee, and schedule 2. A general summary of the consultant's qualifications 3. .~ list of similar or related projects undertaken by the consultant with references 4. Resumes of key personnel who will be assigned to the project, their role in the study, and billing rates. 5. Small business, MBE, and other affirmative action qualifications SELECTION CRITERIA Selection will be based on the submitted materials and an oral interview. Questions and fourteen (14) copies of the proposal should be submitted to: Bill van Gelder Traffic Engineer P. O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 (510) 484-8257 feepro.wp.sm upd.a1ed 71) 1195 -11-