HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.3 Dougherty Rd Reconstruction Closure (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: May 27, 1986
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Closure of Dougherty Road for Reconstruction
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Resolution
2) Letter from Rafanelli & Nahas dated March 3, 1986.
3) Traffic Study from TJKM Traffic Engineers dated April 11,
1986.
4) Letter from Tetrad Engineering dated May 1, 1986.
5) Letter from TJKM.
6) Letter from City of Danville.
7) Letter from City of San Ramon.
8) Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire
Department.
9) Letter from Dublin Police Services.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing and receive TJKM presentation.
2) Receive Public input.
I3) Question Staff and Public.
4) Close Public Hearing
5) Adopt Resolution for the temporary closure of a portion of
Dougherty Road.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No cost to City.
DESCRIPTION:
Rafanelli and Nahas, developers of the Villages at Alamo Creek, have requested
the temporary closure of Dougherty Road from Amador Valley Blvd. north to the Dublin
City Limit, during reconstruction to a new horizontal and vertical location. This
work is required as part of the City's approval of their development, and they have
requested closure of the road in order to complete the improvements within the summer
construction season.
The developer's engineer has outlined a construction method under which the
road would remain open with traffic maintained on existing pavement during the first
nine weeks of the project. The road would then be closed for six weeks for grading
and construction of the new road. With construction starting in June, the road would
be closed during portions of August and September, with the stipulation that
emergency access would be provided.
TJKM has prepared a preliminary detour plan and has identified pros and cons
related to the proposed closure of Dougherty Road as follows:
"Temporary closure would have measurable and noticeable primary and secondary
impacts on (1) motorists presently using the segment of roadway planned for closure;
(2) emergency vehicles; and (3) residents along the preliminary detour route. The
absence of closure, however, could result in (1) hazardous conditions for
construction personnel; (2) hazardous conditions for through traffic on Dougherty
Road; and (3) an extended construction schedule.
The Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to Sunny Glen Retirement Center, the
Alcosta Senior Center, the City of San Ramon, the City of Danville, and Rafanelli and
Nahas, published in the Herald, and posted in public buildings in the City of Dublin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Rafanelli & Nahas
TJKM
Tetrad Engineering
.:DSRSD Fire Dept.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ORDERING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF A PORTION
OF DOUGIEtTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Dougherty Road is to be reconstructed; and
WHEREAS, the developer who is responsible for the reconstruction has
requested the temporary closure of Dougherty Road from Amador Valley Blvd. north to
the Dublin City Limit; and
WHEREAS, the City's Traffic Engineer has prepared a preliminary detour
plan and has identified pros and cons related to the proposed closure of Dougherty
Road as follows: "Temporary closure would have measurable and noticeable primary and
secondary impacts on (1) motorists presently using the segment of roadway planned for
closure; (2) emergency vehicles; and (3) residents along the preliminary detour
route. The absence of closure, however, could result in (1) hazardous conditions for
construction personnel; (2) hazardous conditions for through traffic on Dougherty
Road; and (3) an extended construction schedule."; and
WHEREAS, the developer's engineer has indicated that the construction
work could be done in fifteen weeks with the road remaining open for the first nine
weeks and closed the remaining six weeks; and
WHEREAS, the City feels that the temporary closure of Dougherty Road is
necessary for the safety and protection of motorists and construction personnel;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Dougherty Road may be temporarily
closed for the completion of the reconstruction work for a period of approximately
six consecutive weeks during the months of August and September, 1986, with provision
of an emergency access through the site for fire protection.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
vE7*- _ "_K ry;.�.,;r:.�-, .. •.^> r r> x :y ->r,.F;;."
" . .
Rafanelli and Nahas }`MAR 6 1 �
Real Estate Development
March 3, 1986
Mr. Lee Thompson
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Lee:
It is our plan to complete the construction of Dougherty.Road in its
new configuration commencing this spring. The new design for Dougherty
Road requires a complete realignment, both horizontally and vertically.
Reconstruction will be underway at the same time as the mass grading of
our site and the realignment of Alamo Creek, all of which must be
finished prior to winter rains. It will be very difficult to complete
the reconstruction on Dougherty Road within the summer construction
season unless we are able to temporarily close the road during
construction.
There are important reasons in support of the closure:
1. Alternate temporary routes alongside Dougherty Road will be
difficult due to the mass grading and housing construction
underway on the west side and the presence of Camp Parks on the
east side
2. During construction of the new road bed, it will be very
difficult to maintain a safe travel way. Each day during the
grading process, the location of cuts and fills will change
providing ditches and embankments, which will be difficult to
mark safely.
3. The current alignment of the PG&E power poles will remain until a
new road grade has been established and conduits .and boxes
installed. Several of the existing poles will be in the middle
of the new street alignment until such time as the underground
facility is completed. This will create further difficulties
with safely routing traffic through the site.
4. Storm drainage from the road will be crossing the .Alamo Creek
Villages and terminating at Alamo Creek. The storm drainage,
therefore, would be crossing any temporary road alignments.
5. As you know, it is our intention to construct a berm along the
Camp Parks frontage 'on Dougherty Road for approximately half of
the length of the project. This will require hauling in excess
of 25,000 yards of material across Dougherty'Road during the
construction period.
20638 PATIO DRIVE,CASTRO VALLEY,CA 94546 (415)537-0486
I
Mr. Lee Thompson -2- March 3, 1986
Lee, the difficulties of accomodating traffic through this job will
cause the majority of the traffic to detour anyway. The affect of not
closing the road will be a longer construction period and increased
liability for ourselves, our contractors, the engineers and the City.
We would appreciate your having the City Traffic Engineer prepare a
study of the impact of closing Dougherty Road during construction. The
scope of the study would include the impact on emergency services, the
impact on other streets in the region and ultimately a simple detour
plan to be put into effect during the closure. Our engineers estimate
a 12 to 14 week construction job.
We would anticipate bringing this before the City Council at the
meeting following our hearing on the tentative map. We recognize that
the cost of this traffic study must be borne by us and we would
appreciate a preliminary estimate from the City's Traffic Engineer for
the work.
Cordially,
C"�Rnald C. Nahas
RCN/mmm
cc: Mark Rafanelli
Rich Ambrose
Chris Kinzel
Bill Webb
April 11, 1986 RECEIVED
APR 111986
PUBLIC' WORKS
Mr. Lee Thompson
City Engineer
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Introduction
TJKM Transportation Consultants has been retained to conduct a traffic impact
analysis and prepare a preliminary detour plan for the proposed temporary closure
of Dougherty Road. Developers of the Alamo Creek Villages residential
development, located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin, have requested a
12- to 14-week closure of Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Road and the
Alameda/Contra Costa County line. Project developers have stated that it would
be very difficult to complete the reconstruction of Dougherty Road (which will be
reconstructed as part of the Alamo Creek Villages development) within the summer
construction season unless temporary closure is permitted.
The project site has been visited, and existing traffic condition data has been
reviewed. Dougherty Road improvement plans, showing the existing and proposed
road alignments, have also been reviewed. Estimates of detoured and diverted
traffic have been prepared, as well as judgments on the likely distribution of
detoured and diverted traffic. Letters have been sent to a number of affected
Mr. Lee Thompson -2- April 11, 1986
agencies to elicit comments on the proposed closure. Written and oral responses
have been received from a number of these agencies. A preliminary detour plan
has been prepared, accompanied by recommendations on signage, publicity, and
related matters.
Setting
Alamo Creek Villages, an approved 1,165-unit residential project, is located on the
eastern edge of the City of Dublin. The project site is bounded on the north by
the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, on the east by Dougherty Road, on the
south by Amador Valley Boulevard (with the exception of sixty units located at the
southwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard), and on the
west by a ridgeline. Project approval was granted by the Dublin City Council in
March of 1986, and construction work is expected to begin in April of 1986. The
100-acre site, which is presently vacant, is shown on Figure 1.
In conjunction with development of the Alamo Creek Villages, Dougherty Road
will be reconstructed. The new design of Dougherty Road will include a
horizontal and vertical realignment of the existing facility. Reconstruction is
scheduled to take place at the same time as mass grading of the project site and
realignment of Alamo Creek. Project developers have requested temporary closure
of Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the County line, for a
12- to 14-week period, for a number of reasons. These reasons are listed below,
and are excerpted from a March 3, 1986 letter from Rafanelli and Nahas (project
developers) to Lee Thompson (City of Dublin):
"There are important reasons in support of the closure:
1. Alternate temporary routes alongside Dougherty Road will be difficult
due to the mass grading and housing construction underway on the west
side and the presence of Camp Parks on the east side.
2. During construction of the new road bed, it will be very difficult to
maintain a safe travel way. Each day during the grading process, the
location of cuts and fills will change providing ditches and
embankments, which will be difficult to mark safely.
Mr. Lee Thompson -3- April 11, 1986
3. The current alignment of the PG&E power poles will remain until a
new road grade has been established and conduits and boxes installed.
Several of the existing poles will be in the middle of the new street
alignment until such time as the underground facility is completed.
This will create further difficulties with safely routing traffic through
the site.
4. Storm drainage from the road will be crossing the Alamo Creek Villages
and terminating at Alamo Creek. The storm drainage, therefore, would
be crossing any temporary road alignments.
5. It is our intention to construct a berm along the Camp Parks frontage
on Dougherty Road for approximately half the length of the project.
This will require hauling in excess of 25,000 yards of material across
Dougherty Road during the construction period."
Although the requested closure includes only the segment of Dougherty Road
between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, the
de facto closure would extend further north to Old Ranch Road. There is very
little development with access to Dougherty Road between Old Ranch Road and
the County line, so it would be practical to detour southbound traffic onto Old
Ranch Road. Otherwise, vehicles travelling south beyond the Old Ranch
Road/Dougherty Road intersection would meet the detour at the County line, and
would then be forced to execute a U-turn to return northbound on Dougherty
Road and ultimately back to Old Ranch Road.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Figure 1 shows daily traffic volumes on Dougherty Road and other road facilities
in the vicinity of the proposed temporary closure. The existing average daily
traffic on Dougherty Road varies from 1,200 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Old
Ranch Road to 3,200 vpd between Old Ranch Road and Amador Valley Boulevard
and 8,800 vpd south of Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed detour route, also
shown on Figure 1, experiences existing average daily traffic of 1,700 vpd on Old
Ranch Road, 8,000 vpd on Alcosta Boulevard between Old Ranch Road and
Mr. Lee Thompson -4- April 11, 1986
Stagecoach Road, 500 vpd on Stagecoach Road, and 6,500 vpd on Amador Valley
Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and Dougherty Road. Existing traffic
volumes listed above are taken from the traffic impact analysis for Alamo Creek
Villages, prepared by TJKM in July, 1985.
The existing average daily traffic figure for Stagecoach Road (500 vpd) appears
too low given the residential development that has occurred subsequent to the July,
1985 study. TJKM will update the 1985 data with 24-hour directional machine
counts to -be completed on Stagecoach Road near both Amador Valley Boulevard
and Alcosta Boulevard on Monday, April 14 and Tuesday, April 15.
The temporary closure of Dougherty Road would divert the existing 3,200 vpd that
presently utilize the segment of Dougherty Road between Old Ranch Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard. The likely trip purposes of these 3,200 vpd per day
includes:
* home-based work trips between residential developments (such as
Blackhawk) at the north end of Dougherty Road and employment
locations in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore;
* trips originating in San Ramon by San Ramon residents and employees
who shop in Dublin's commercial areas; and
* construction traffic travelling between Interstate 580 and development
projects located at the north end of Dougherty Road.
This is not an exhaustive list of trip purposes, but probably includes the majority
of trips using this segment of Dougherty Road. Emergency vehicles also use this
segment of Dougherty Road.
Preliminary Detour Plan
Figure 2 shows the preliminary detour plan that would be implemented in
conjunction with the temporary closure of Dougherty Road. Southbound
Dougherty Road traffic would follow the detour route by turning right onto Old
Ranch Road, left onto Alcosta Boulevard, left onto Stagecoach Road, left onto
Mr. Lee Thompson . -5- April 11, 1986
Amador Valley Boulevard, and right onto Dougherty Road. Northbound traffic
would follow the detour route by turning left onto Amador Valley Boulevard, right
onto Stagecoach Road, right onto Alcosta Boulevard, right onto Old Ranch Road,
and left onto Dougherty Road.
Impacts
Traffic impacts would be associated with both the temporary closure of Dougherty
Road and the implementation of the preliminary detour route. Closure of
Dougherty Road for a three- to four-month period would result in delay and
inconvenience for motorists presently utilizing the segment planned for closure.
Alternative routes would be slower than Dougherty Road travel, due to added
turning movements, existing traffic on alternative routes, and lower posted speed
limits on alternative routes.
A number of existing roadways would be impacted by the temporary closure.
Primary impacts would occur on the detour route, while secondary impacts would
occur on other impacted roadways. Secondary impacts would result from that
portion of the diverted traffic that followed routes other than the preliminary
detour plan. Vehicles crossing the north/south screenline on Dougherty Road (and
not using the detour route) would utilize I-680, Village Parkway, Camino
Tassa jara/Tassa jara Road, Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon Valley Boulevard/San
Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard for trips previously
dependent on Dougherty Road.
Secondary impacts would not be as significant as primary impacts for two reasons.
First, Stagecoach Road is likely to attract a majority of diverted traffic because of
detour signing and its close proximity to Dougherty Road. It would be possible to
attract 50 to 60 percent of the 3,200 vpd to the detour route, with the balance of
traffic using alternative routes. Second, because Stagecoach Road would capture
the majority of the diverted trips, the roadways listed above would each experience
some fraction of the secondary impacts.
The secondary impacts on any one of those facilities, however, would be smaller
than detour route impacts. It should be noted, nonetheless, that secondary impacts
may include increased a.m. and p.m. peak hour congestion on Dublin streets.
Mr. Lee Thompson -6- April 11, 1986
Village Parkway, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard .would all
experience increases in peak hour congestion. In some cases, intersection levels of
service may worsen as a result of temporary Dougherty Road closure. For
example, if a significant quantity of the diverted peak hour traffic utilized the
Amador Valley Boulevard at Village Parkway or Village Parkway at Dublin
Boulevard intersections, measurable and noticeable increases in congestion could be
expected.
The Town of Danville (letter attached) has also pointed out secondary impacts
related to the construction traffic presently utilizing Dougherty Road. The
absence of a direct connection between Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty Road,
coupled with the temporary closure of Dougherty Road, would force Danville-area
construction traffic with origins south of Amador Valley Boulevard onto surface
streets.
Primary impacts would occur along the detour route, and these impacts would be
most noticeable along Stagecoach Road. The impacts are related more to
environmental considerations than the physical capacity of roadways along the
detour route. If it is assumed that 100 percent of the 3,200 vpd are diverted onto
the detour route, none of the detour route roadways would reach capacity. This is
mainly due to the existing light traffic levels on the detour route roadways (as
compared to capacity).
Stagecoach Road is a two-lane facility connecting Amador Valley Boulevard and
Alcosta Boulevard. The road was recently opened between the County line and
Amador Valley Boulevard. This segment provides access to the Amador Lakes
attached housing development as well as single-family detached units. Front yards
and individual unit driveways, however, do not have access to Stagecoach Road.
The single-family units on the west side of Stagecoach Road north of Amador
Valley Boulevard are separated by an island from through traffic.
North of the County line, portions of Stagecoach Road do not have the curbs and
gutters that were constructed in the City of Dublin. While dwelling units do not
front any portion of this road segment, the rear yards of a number of residences
back up to Stagecoach Road. In addition, the entrances to perhaps 5 to 15 Sunny
Mr. Lee Thompson -7- April 11, 1986
Glen Retirement Community residences face Stagecoach Road (all units are not
visible from the roadway). The distance from the front doors of these residences
to the edge of pavement on Stagecoach Road is approximately 50 feet.
In his April 2, 1986 letter (attached), Marc Goto (City of San Ramon Public Works
Director) mentions the current problems associated with Stagecoach Road. These
problems would be exacerbated by the preliminary detour plan. Even though
existing traffic levels on Stagecoach Road appear to be relatively light, the sound
of each passing vehicle is clearly audible from Sunny Glen. Residents have
previously complained about noise levels associated with both the volume of traffic
and the speed of passing vehicles. The absence of substantial cross traffic or other
impediments to through traffic along Stagecoach Road allows vehicles to travel at
relatively high speeds in the vicinity of Sunny Glen. The preliminary detour plan
would increase traffic volumes on Stagecoach Road, and the increased traffic noise
would be noticeable within Sunny Glen.
In addition to the primary and secondary impacts outlined above, impacts would
occur for emergency vehicles presently using Dougherty Road. Both the Dublin
San Ramon Services District and the City of Dublin Police have indicated that
emergency vehicles would need access to the temporarily closed segment of
roadway. Letters reflecting the concerns of these two agencies are attached.
Implementing the Preliminary Detour Plan
If temporary road closure is implemented, a number of steps must be taken to
facilitate safe travel. An adequate public information program would significantly
reduce the confusion surrounding temporary road closure. Such a program requires
the provision of reliable information prior to temporary closure, throughout the
duration of temporary closure, and after reopening of the closed facility.
Letters to all property owners along Dougherty Road as well as the preliminary
detour route should provide details on the length of closure, traffic control and
access, and names and telephone numbers of knowledgeable persons. Press releases
to local newspapers, radio stations, enforcement agencies, public transportation
operators, ambulance services, utilities and school districts should cover the same
information.
Mr. Lee Thompson -8- April 11, 1986
Figure 2 shows a signing plan for temporary road closure and the preliminary
detour route. It is the contractor's responsibility to inspect, maintain, and repair
the construction traffic signs. The contractor should keep an adequate inventory
of devices for emergency replacement and repairs. Construction/detour signs
should be inspected at least once a day, and the resident engineer should inspect
the signs once a month. Additional sheets have been attached, providing further
details on the establishment and maintenance of construction-related traffic
control zones.
Alternatives to Temporary Closure
The reconstruction of Dougherty Road, in conjunction with construction of Alamo
Creek Villages, involves both the horizontal and vertical realignment of the
existing facility. A similar roadway construction program is currently underway
along Dougherty Road south of Amador Valley Boulevard.
TJKM has reviewed the improvement plans for the segment of roadway planned
for closure, and conducted a site visit to compare the existing and proposed
roadway alignments. The concerns expressed by Rafanelli and Nahas are certainly
valid, but it does not appear absolutely necessary to temporarily close Dougherty
Road during the entire road reconstruction period. In some instances, for example,
Dougherty Road could be left open while the new roadway is under construction.
The question is whether or not there are numerous instances where there is no
practical alternative to temporary closure. Answering this question in a definitive
manner would require both detailed review of final improvement plans and
additional site investigation.
Conclusions
This letter has reviewed the pros and cons associated with the proposed temporary
closure of Dougherty Road. Temporary closure would have measurable and
noticeable primary and secondary impacts on (1) motorists presently using the
segment of roadway planned for closure; (2) emergency vehicles; and (3) residents
along the preliminary detour route. The absence of closure, however, could result
in (1) hazardous conditions for construction personnel; (2) hazardous conditions for
through traffic on Dougherty Road; and (3) an extended construction schedule.
Mr. Lee Thompson -9- April 11, 1986
These concerns must be balanced by the agencies directly and indirectly impacted
by temporary closure. TJKM recommends that a meeting between representatives
from the City of Dublin, City of San Ramon, Rafanelli and Nahas, Town of
Danville, Alameda County, and Contra Costa County be arranged to discuss the
concerns raised in this letter.
Very truly yours,
CYt/uw, k. 'n� BrW
Chris D. Kinzel
BTW/nlc
dub-030.lbw
Attachments
O
�1
Old ,p 1,700
CD � OVNtY
Rt)ivol Y RA ��SSA��UNSS
La
P
�p
• 0\,a o
DJ L>>Y 6,°
O
47
co CD
GD
o pa o
o
o,.
Dr
n DN '
Q/
vd_
M
0
-n
0 rL,FA.7AN7OIV Q
XXX = ADT
a °
TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF DOUGHERTY RD.',
FIGURE
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC !
TRAN9VOHTATION CONSULTANTS
C 1.
500'
TC I
�+ -W C 19 soo'
®� •-�'C 2
soo'
C5 (LEFT) �® C5 (RIGHT)
C7 TYPE III BARRICADES
Odd Ro R 16
R 16(A)
C5
.5r1lY (RIGHT)
fail Jyl roiv �•
Aid
o
m
C 5 17 C 5(RIGHT)
(LEFT)
0°s-T
coolkN A�AMEpP
PARK RESERVE
s � � < �� �<���; �� :��::� :..;.•.�:. FORCES
09 TRAINING AREA
C'o
SITE
o �
DJ.BJiY
p 1 :;::;: •:;:;::>:: >s_:• ::>::: C2 C5 (LEFT)
, :;;. :.:.•.::.:•...::::::.... 500 BARRICADES
(RIGHT)
0\�a R 17 �t C19
C 5 R17(A) soo'
(LEFT) D I
X
1500'
zEr
< C 18
DETOUR?
P� 10 ROUTE
ROAD
v
X x CLOSED
TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF DOUGHER Y RD.
DETOUR PLAN 2 *
FIGURE
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
TETRAD
-� QmonmQ(m)nmT9 nmoo g ID
LiEngineers Planners Surveyors ® � ' �`
Xlay 1. 1986 PUBLIC WORKS
Mr . Ron Nahas
Rafanelli d Nahas
20638 Patio Drive
Castro Valle} , CA 94546
Re: Alamo Creek Villazes
Dublin, California
Dear Mr . Navas:
At our reduest I have analyzed the number and sequence of construction,
OJe,'aL10n5 iPyC_.yeG in reconsrs action Of Dougherty Road from Amador Valley
30 leyarc t.r:_ P_lameda!Cop.tra Costa County lire.
ice _}:�zz tin� �CiL•�nE' r.oa: lS a narr ow wo lane rcaC twith tWC ratner sRc_'L.
T
turns and c profile which goes ir; thirteen feet it elevation and tr:e down
affair. Detween the limits descriDec aDOVE. The prODOSed seCtion .will have
an al__ with less severe curves and much less cnanaE-in elevation in the
sa.Ti° stretcn of road . In aecition t0 regradin`: and realigning the roar, an
underzro and utility system will be installed al=l- the west s-'°_
Tne urimary operations involved in the work are: undergrounding utilities,
roug:m: grading the right of wad" . installing storm drain crossings, and paying
the road . We have outlined two methods of construction programming showr
below as Alternate A and Alternate R::
ALTERNATE A - Construction without maintaining through traffic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Operation One: 45 working days
------------------------------
'Maintain. through traffic on existing pavement. Grade for construction
of curb, glitter , sidewalk, and underground utility construction on west
edge of proposed road. Install underground utilities. Remove overhead
lines.
Operation Two: 30 working da}'s
Close road to through traffic. Perform rough grading of entire right
of way. Install storm drain. crossings. Construct berm along east side
of road. Construct new road. Install- signing and striping. Open road
to through traffic .
1350 ARNOLD DRIVE, SUITE 101 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 • (415) 372-9255
Mr. Ron Nahas
May 1, 1986
Page Two
ALTERNATE E - Construction while maintaining through traffic
------------------------------------------------------------
Operation: One: 43 working days
------------------------------
Maintain through traffic on existing pavement. Grade for construction
of curb, gutter , sidewalk, and underground utilitti construction on west
edge of proposed roar. Install underground utilities. Remove overhead
lines.
Operation Two: 2-5 working days
------------------------------
Maintain through traffic on existing pavement. Perform rough grading for
temporary road widening on east side of roadway from stations 14 to 20
(new f_li zone) , stations 2= to 32 (new cut zone) , stations 32 to 42 (new
fill zone) , stations 42 to 47 (new cut zone) . Widen existing paying from
3 tG 2. ieee- to Permit sCift-n` -2 lanes of traffic to the east -cr enou_.r
t0 ri:ti- construction of 2 lanes ol" traffic on the west side o_ _~e new
road.
Operation Three: 23 working days
---------------------------------
Sniit traffic to east. Perform rough grading for 2 lanes of new road-
way on west side. Construct west portion of strom drain crossings.
Pave 2 lanes on west side of roadway. Shift traffic to west side.
Operation Four: 20 working days
--------------------------------
Perform demolition of temporary roadway on east side. Perform rough
grading for remainder of new roadway. Construct remainder of storm drain.
crossings. Pave remainder of new roadway. Install signing and striping.
I have listed below a summary of pros and cons for Alternates A 8 E:
ALTERNATE A
PRO Allows public to have a new roadway almost 2 months sooner than
--- Alternate A. Minimizes exposure to liability. Minimizes threat
of wet weather construction delays.
ERAD
M_,7 . Ron Nahas
May 1, 1955
Page Three
ALTERNATE A i.con 't)
CON Aflords potential inconvenience to public due to chances in
--- traffic patterns.
ALTERNATE L:
PRO Maintains present routing of traffic. Permit=. motorists to decide
--- whether or not they wish to travel through construction. Zone.
COIF Adds as much as ei€hr weeks to elapsed time from dezinrin_ to en,
--- o' road reconstruction. Would probably cause worf: to__xtend well
into rainy season. Causes severe exDOSure to liabi,ir-y wits:
tra=fic in construction zone with scarp drop-offs beside travelled
wa}' , and extreme prOXii?ilty of heavx eoul.Dmen- tC. t-afla Upsets
E dla_ iorTat lea\'ln'r '_S012teC -ear o? L'. ann fl!_ tC
-,e _ ::EG up a=ter ma for mass cradln- operation. iIlLO'r i�'t10n O
traffic flow from time to time, and possible one-wav-at-a-time
traffic flow fror:, time to time.
will. be available a-. you- convenience if you should have any ouestions o-
comments regardinc. the above.
Sincerely,
Wllllarn Web
Vice-President
WW/xvm
VOL: 1S
T E
^M crs'CMi3'nMoi.
PLEASANTON
SACRAMENTO
FRESNO
IM
_T1 IRA TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS CONCORD
May 21, 1986
Mr. Lee Thompson
City Engineer
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Thompson:
During your conversation with Ty Tekawa recently, you requested that TJKM
provide additional analysis on the proposed Dougherty Road closure and respond
to a letter prepared by Tetrad Engineering. The following discussion addresses
both of those requests.
We do not have substantial comment on the letter from Tetrad Engineering to
Mr. Ron Nahas dated May 1, 1986. The letter presents two potential Dougherty
Road reconstruction programs (with and without temporary closure). The primary
conclusions of the letter are that the reconstruction time period would be longer
and motorist safety would be reduced if-Dougherty was left open during
reconstruction. We agree with these conclusions, but are not able to, verify the
amount of time required for either of the reconstruction options. Perhaps the time
periods proposed in the letter should be reviewed by a civil engineer familiar with
road re-construction time requirements.
The additional analysis requested has to do with the amount of traffic that would
divert away from Dougherty Road simply because of the inconveniences related to
travel through a construction zone. In our April 11, 1986 letter report, we
indicated that approximately 50 to 60 percent of the 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd)
presently utilizing the segment of Dougherty Road planned for closure could be
diverted to our preliminary detour route. The balance of the 3,500 vpd would
divert to other routes.
Depending on the degree of inconvenience associated with travel through the
segment of Dougherty Road under construction but left open, a similar percentage
of traffic could potentially divert to the detour route. Observations of driver
behavior indicate that motorists will generally utilize a nearby parallel route, if
attractive, when construction activity creates considerable delay. The preliminary
detour plan, while less attractive to motorists than a direct trip on Dougherty, is
not intolerable in any sense. After navigating through a hazardous construction
zone or waiting for a flagman, motorists wanting to use Dougherty Road again will
in all likelihood look for a parallel route and discover that Stagecoach Road
parallels the segment of Dougherty Road proposed for reconstruction. Therefore,
the amount of traffic that would divert under the closure scenario and the
inconvenience scenario is similar.
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214/ Pleasanton, California 94566 • (415) 463-0611
Mr. Lee Thompson -2- May 21, 1986
Under either scenario, between 1,750 (50 percent of 3,500) and 2,100 (60 percent)
vpd would divert onto the preliminary detour route. If Dougherty Road were
closed, the balance of the 3,500 vpd would be forced to utilize other routes. If
Dougherty Road was open but subject to delay, the amount of traffic using other
routes would depend upon (1) the inconvenience realized by motorists using the
segment of roadway under construction; and (2) the level of effort undertaken to
attract motorists to the detour route. If Dougherty Road is left open but is subject
to considerable delay, and if Stagecoach Road is signed as a detour route, it is
likely that only 100 to 200 vpd would continue to use the segment of Dougherty
under construction.
In summary, in our opinion the amount of traffic that would divert away from
Dougherty even if it is left open could be similar to the amount of traffic that
would divert if Dougherty were closed. If reconstruction results in significant
delay for motorists, and a parallel route is available, only 100 to 200 vpd would
use the segment of Dougherty Road under construction but left open.
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions on this letter.
Very truly yours,
Chris D. Kinzel
BTW/nlc
157-030
DAI`�LEm =
April 3 , 1986
Mr. Ty Tekawa APR 41986
TJKM
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 T J KX4
Pleasanton, CA 94566
RE: Closure of Dougherty Road
Dear Mr. Tekawa:
The City of Danville is in receipt of your letter dated
March 28 , 1986 concerning the potential closing of Dougherty
Road. Your letter indicated that the potential closure may last
for up to 14 weeks, but does not specify when.
In considering this proposal a number of concerns arose. First,
when will the closure occur. As you are aware, the Crow Canyon
Road extension to Camino Tassajara is not yet completed, and
closure of Dougherty Road prior to completion of Crow Canyon
could generate significant traffic problems along Old Ranch
Rd./Alcosta Blvd. , and Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road.
Second, E.B.M.U.D. is currently in the process of constructing
their new water distribution line in Sycamore Valley Road,
Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk Road. This construction will be
followed by construction of Central Sanitary District' s new
sewer line later this year. In short, traffic travelling these
routes will already be experiencing moderate to major
inconvenience for the balance of 1986 . Closure of Dougherty
Road could potentially worsen the situation considerably.
It would seem appropriate to conduct a joint meeting attended by
staff representing the affected agencies (Dublin, San Ramon,
Danville and Contra Costa County) to jointly address this
issue. This approach has thus far proven very successful on the
Crow Canyon extension study which is being conducted by your
office and managed by Rick Mitchell and Brian Welsh.
510 La Gonda Way Danville, California 94526 (415) 820-6337
r
i
- r
r
We are looking forward to meeting with you to discuss this
matter in greater detail.
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF DANVILLE
Jo eph A. Cala go
ief of Planni g
cc: City Manager
Rich Bottarini - San Ramon
Larry Tong - Dublin
Jim Cutler - Contra Costa County
1
ty ®f San Ram o.
2222 Camino Ramon V
San Ramon, California 94583
(415) 866-1400 APR 7 1986.
April 2 , 1986 T J ��M
Mr. Ty Tekawa
TJKM Transportation Consultants
4637 Chabot Drive , Suite 214
Pleasanton , CA 94566 x ;
Dear Mr. Tekawa:
Reference is made to your letter dated March 28, 1986 regarding
the proposed street closure of Dougherty Road. Since the pro-
posed street closure greatly affects the City of San Ramon,
I have taken the liberty of calling your office to express my
concern. Since you were not in the office at the time of _my call
I discussed our concerns with Mr. Brian Welch.
The City of San Ramon cannot accept the proposal to close
Dougherty Road from 12 to 14 weeks . The City of San Ramon can-
not accept any closure of Dougherty Road . for the following
reasons :
1 ) Dougherty Road is a critical circulation link between
the south part of San Ramon and the northwest area of
Dublin.
2 ) Dougherty Road is a highly used street which connects
major areas of employment. ,and residential use between
both cities .
3 ) Alternative uses of streets such as Stagecoach Road is
unacceptable because traffic will conflict with the
residential nature of the Sunny Glen community in
San Ramon and new residential developments in Dublin.
4 ) The widening of Dougherty Road required of the Alamo
Creek development can be accommodated by utilizing
existing travel lanes of Dougherty Road and then
switching to new constructed lanes for the Dougherty
Road widening.
The use of one-way detour routes which include Old Ranch Road -
and Stagecoach Road is totally unacceptable to the City of
San Ramon. We are already experiencing problems with volumes
of traffic and speeds on Stagecoach Road. I am referring
Ty Tekawa 2 April 2 , 1986
your letter to Phil Agostini, our City Traffic Engineer, for any
further comments .
Very truly yours ,
Marc Goto
Public Works Director
MG: ss
CC: Jim Robinson, City Manager
Phil Agostini, Traffic Engineer
Rich Bottarini, Planning Director
DUBLIN SA RAMON SERVICES IS
�'RICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone:
9399 Fircrest Lane Dublin, California 94568 R E C 1 V E D 829-2333
San Ramon, California
APR 1 1986
March 31, 1986 T J K M
Mr. Ty Tekawa
TJKM Transportation Consultants
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Dear Mr. Tekawa:
I have reviewed your letter of March 31 regarding
the potential closing of Dougherty Road for a period of
12 to 14 weeks. Please be advised that the Fire Depart-
ment would have serious problems with the closing of
Dougherty Road.
During the summer months-we would be unable to reach
grass fires between Dougherty Ridge and the canal without
easy access via Dougherty Road. Quite often when we re-
ceive fire or medical emergency calls from the Dougherty
Road area, we find it necessary to start fire and emergency
apparatus from both ends (Amador Valley Boulevard and Old
Ranch Road) in order to locate the emergency.
If the road were closed to the public but guaranteed
access available to the Fire Department without delay, we
then would have no objection to the closing of Dougherty
Road.
Very tru yours,
hi A. P illips
Fire Chief
PAP:cb
z.
/e
Police
r 6500 Dublin Blvd.
4NR ( 19Q 8b
Dublin, CA 94568
!! (415) 829-0566
TJKM
April 2 , 1986
Mr. Ty Tekawa
TJKM Transporation Consultants
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Dear Mr. Tekawa:
In response to your letter of March 28, 1986, I have no problem
with the proposed closure, excepting that emergency vehicles
will need access to the construction area.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom Shores, Chief
Dublin Police Services
TS:mjg
..://,r�,ba./.'/rr,:.ir ,�'.;//.,.,,v,/n `/,:,.u,lj,J/'„•,�f'i !�r�,(r,o.rr.r�