HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.6 TriVlyTranspPlan
e
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13, 1995
SUBJECT:
Review and Adoption of the Tri- Valley
Transportation Plan! Action Plan
Report by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHmlTS ATTACHED:
1)
/2)
3)
/'
Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Report
Draft letter to the TVTC dated February 1, 1995
Letter to the TVTC dated January 10, 1994
RECOMMENDAT~ION: 1)
2)
3)
\
Receive Staff report
Take comments from the public
Continue item to February 27th meeting in order to obtain
further analysis from the City Attorney's office before
considering adoption.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan recommends
additional study for a Regional Traffic Impact Fee and Growth
Management. This additional study should not exceed $10,000 for
the Traffic Impact Fee Study and $5,000 for the Growth
Management Study for Dublin's share of the costs..
...
DESCRIPTION: The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) which consists of
representation from Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, San Ramon, Alameda County and Contra
Costa County, has been working for four years to develop a traffic model and an area-wide Transportation
Plan/Action Plan (plan). The Plan would establish major regional transportation facilities (roads and
transit) that are financially constrained to serve the planned growth in the Tri-Valley area. Each
jurisdiction provided final input into the Transportation Model for their own land use. These land uses
differed slightly from ABAG projections but were what each jurisdiction believes is most likely to occur by
the year 2010. The traffic generation for the expected land use was then assigned to the expected
transportation system, and it was determined that the traffic projections exceeded the capacity of adjacent
freeways and some of the arterial roadway links. To improve the roadway network, the Plan made some
recommendations which are addressed in this report. The Plan has now been released for circulation, and
the TVTC is seeking support and adoption of the Plan from the various member jurisdictions.
Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the TVTC Plan is to address transportation issues through the Year 20 I 0 within the Tri-
Valley area. More specifically, the Plan:
1) Establishes Routes of Regional Significance (major roadways common to more than one
jurisdiction);
2) Can be used for Congestion Management Agency purposes, such as a deficiency plan;
3) Identifies existing and future transportation deficiencies;
4) Identifies a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses transportation deficiencies;
5) Establishes acceptable Levels of Service for .the Routes of Regional Significance (LOS "D" on
arterials and LOS "E" on freeways);
6) Recommends traffic mitigat;on actions for roadway segments and intersections which fall below
the established Levels of Service;
i~~~-~~~-~~-~----------------~~~~~-;:~~-----------------------------
CITY CLERK
FILE II Lorblo",~k21
e
.
7) Recommends further study for the establishment of a regional traffic impact fee to fund regional
transportation improvements which are mitigation to growth impacts;
8) Recommends that a further growth management study be undertaken to better define the
distribution of growth reductions, if necessary, to maintain Levels of Service.
Obligations That Dublin Will Accept By Adoption of the Plan
Once the Plan has been adopted by the seven member jurisdictions, the Plan would need to be incorporated
into each jurisdiction's General Plan as a policy document. The member jurisdictions will use the Plan as a
guide for making transportation and land use decisions. In addition, Dublin would need to change the
City's intersection LOS standard in its General Plan to "D" (rather than just "D" as a goal) with the
understanding that under some conditions, this standard can be lowered. The conditions under which the
LOS could be reduced are (1) if the City implements other measures intended to result in measurable
improvements in TSO's on the Routes of Regional Significance network that will contribute to significant
improvements in air quality, or (2) a jurisdiction can refer the problem to the TVTC for joint resolution. In
the event the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction
may modifY TSO standards, but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted
This Plan requires the following actions by each Tri- Valley jurisdiction:
1) Monitor intersection Levels of Service on Routes of Regional Significance biannually and
report the result to the TVTC. .
2) Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds for
needed transportation projects.
"
3) Conduct a detailed subregional Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) and Growth Management Study. As a
result of this study, implement a subregional TIP to pay for the shortfall of planned but
unfunded transportation improvements.
4) Increase the Average Vehicle Ridership (A VR) for work (commute) trips. Achieve this
increase by requiring and enforcing a Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) Program such as the
City ofPleasanton's ordinance. (The BAAQMD is presently administering the TRO for
Dublin. )
5) Support growth that achieves an overalljob/hou~ing balance within the Tri-Valley.
6) Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided a study shows metering would be
equitable and effective. The TVTC should take the lead and seek grant funding for a study of
ramp metering.
7) Support development ofa seamless ROV network for freeways in the Tn-Valley to encourage
the use of carpools and bus transit.
8) Support the preparation by Caltrans of an incident management plan for the State highways in
the Tri- Valley area.
9) Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit district to
finance ongoing transit operating costs.
10) Implement recommended action plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Pages 195, 197,
199,203,219, and 230 of the Plan) and consider including these improvements as part of the
City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
11) Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for any new developments be circulated to all
jurisdictions within the Tri- Valley area. In addition to any other circulation analysis, the
cumulative analysis section of each EIR must consider the expected land use and transportation
scenario.
12) Update the TVTC model periodically. Also, the Plan will be reviewed and could be modified
periodically (every two to four years). Any amendments to the Plan will require a unanimous
vote of all member agencies in the TVTC. Any adoption of annual work programs and budgets
Page 2
e
.
will require a unanimous vote of the Tri- Valley jurisdictions. Applications for any grants,
expenditure of funds, execution of contracts and adoption of rules of procedure for the TVTC
will require five votes. Action on any other TVTC matter requires a majority vote.
Why Should The City Adopt the Plan?
It is still to Dublin's benefit to remain a member of the TVTC and to adopt the Plan. If Dublin wishes not
to adopt the Plan, or if other jurisdictions adopt the Plan without the City of Dublin, the Plan cannot be
used as an Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) deficiency plan for the City of
Dublin. Under this scenario, if Dublin's development-generated traffic impacts any CMA roadway (i.e. 1-
580, 1-680, and SR 84) to unacceptable levels of service, Dublin would be required to fund a separate
deficiency plan to mitigate roadway deficiencies. If Dublin's individual deficiency plan is not acceptable or
not prepared, Dublin could lose its State Proposition 111 Gas Tax subventions, presently estimated at
$145,500 per year. The TVTC Plan, if approved by Dublin, will serve as the City's deficiency plan.
In addition, the mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan state that the City must implement a plan to mitigate
regional transportation impacts, and Dublin must participate in a regional transportation and impact fee
study, such as the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan study. If Dublin does not participate in a regional traffic
impact fee with other agencies, then Dublin would be in violation of its own General Plan/Specific Plan for
Eastern Dublin.
Outstanding Issues
A detailed subregional TIP and growth management study are two outstanding issues.
"
The City Council has, in the past, been concerned that other cities and counties in the Tri- Valley area could
force Dublin to reduce its land use densities based upon the other agencies being allowed to use up
Dublin's traffic capacity on Dublin's own roadways and accessible freeways. The TVTC agreed that
Dublin's concerns were valid and due to this fact, the TVTC changed the Plan to state:
Jurisdictions in the Tri- Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Management strategy
once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The study should indicate the development
reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of growth management/control 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 percentages for each jurisdiction. Also, the
impact of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed. All jurisdictions will then
review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development or growth
management/control is needed to meet the TSO's." (See page 131 of the Plan.)
ABAG has offered to do a land use study for Tri- Valley jurisdictions which differs somewhat from the one
to be undertaken by the TVTC. At the January 25th meeting, in addition to ABAG's offer, the TVTC
agreed that a detailed growth management and land use study need to be done. The projected cost to each
jurisdiction for this study is approximately $5,000.
There has also been the concern that the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) could be too high, making it
difficult for Tri-Valley jurisdictions to compete with other jurisdictions outside of the Tri-Valley area. The
Plan recommends that more detailed study be undertaken to make the fee more comparable with other
areas outside theTri- Valley. The estimated cost of this study is $10,000.
Due to recent revisions to the growth related requirements in the Plan, the City Attorney's office would
like to review the revised Plan and will report back at the February 27th City Council meeting.
g: Ipw\michelle\021 3tvtc
Page 3
e
e
February 1, 1995
Ms. Millie Greenberg, Chairperson
Tri- Valley Transportation Council
c/o Mr. Bill van Gelder
Traffic Engineering Department
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton CA 94566
SUBJECT: Draft Tri- Valley Transportation Plan! Action Plan Comments
Dear Millie:
We would like to commend the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) and the Tri-Valley
Transportation Technical Advisory Committee for doing a good job preparing the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan! Action Plan.
The Plan shows that most of the Routes of Regional Significance meet the proposed Traffic Service
Objective (TSO) Standard, except for eleven intersections, of which three are in the City of Dublin (Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road, and Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road). The
Plan includes a growth management section and recommended actions for improving the level of service
that require growth management.
Dublin acknowledges that all jurisdictions will ultimately have to make the choice between growth, with
the related traffic impacts, and no growth. Before that decision, each jurisdiction must be able to say that
all reasonable mitigation alternatives have been exhausted. Before the most draconian of mitigation
measures is implemented, all other measures must have been tried.
In the past, the TVTC requested that the reduction of growth and land use be used to improve TSO's. On
January 10, 1994 (see attached letter), the Dublin City Council gave their reasons for why a reduction of
development or land use as one of the alternatives to improve TSO's is not acceptable to the City.
At this time, the City of Dublin strongly feels that implementing growth control measures for areas of our
city that have approved General Plan ltu1d use designations are inappropriate. Two of Dublin's three
deficient intersections are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The City recently adopted
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This project was finally completed and
approved after many years of study and after conducting many public hearings for the General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Reports.
We realize that three Contra Costa County jurisdictions must adopt the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
(plan). We also realize Contra Costa Measure C mandates that the Plan must address the growth
management issue when TSO's cannot be met. All references to growth management and recommended
EXHIBIT _ ~ I __
e
Millie Greenberg, Chairperson
Tri- Valley Transportation Council
February 1, 1995
e
action plans resulting in growth management/control for Contra Costa County jurisdictions can remain in
the draft Plan to meet the Measure C requirement.
The TVTC is not a growth management agency but was designed to study traffic impacts based on growth
positions adopted by local jurisdictions and then propose a variety of options available to resolve them.
Therefore, the City of Dublin would like the Tri-Valley Council to utilize ABAG grant funds to complete a
detailed growth and congestion management study to address anticipated TSO violations. Other Tri-
Valley jurisdictions are also contributing to the amount of traffic using roadways that do not meet TSO
standards. The City of Dublin is concerned that by the time the City is ready to develop, the level of
service at the above mentioned three intersections would not be acceptable and Dublin would suffer the
consequences of other jurisdictions approving development.
The City of Dublin is recommending the following changes to the draft Plan. First, we recommend that the
third paragraph on p. 126 of the draft Plan be modified to state: "The TVTC jurisdictions, except the City
of Dublin at this time, expect to implement a...to meet the TSO's." We also recommend that the following
be added to this paragraph: "At a later date, the City of Dublin may implement a proactive Growth and
Congestion Management strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted. The
study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of growth
management/control that would be required for Dublin and for each applicable Tri-Valley jurisdiction in
order to achieve TSO standards. Any development reduction should be proportional to the traffic
distribution percentages for each jurisdiction. Also, the impact of this development reduction to traffic
impact fees should be analyzed. The Dublin City Council and other jurisdictions will then review this
information and know exactly how much reduction in development or growth management/control is
needed to meet acceptable levels of service."
We also recommend that the recommended action for Tassajara Road north ofI-580, which states "Put in
place growth controls to insure achievement ofTSO's" be replaced with: "Widen or expand a highway
network, improve transit service, or improve transportation demand management."
We recommend that all known reasonable alternatives must actually be in the plan as a hierarchy for
implementation by all jurisdictions, and unknown future mitigations must be permitted because we cannot
possibly know today what opportunities may arise in the future. Jurisdictions should have the opportunity
to include additional roadway improvements in the road network. Additionally, the Dublin recommends
that the draft Plan include the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's deficiency language,
plus this additional item number c) for those intersections that violate TSO's. The draft Plan should state
that if there are TSO violations, the Tri-Valley jurisdictions can either: a) implement a specific plan (i.e.
road widening) to correct the LOS deficiency on that affected network segment; b) implement other
measures intended to result in measurable improvements in LOS on the Routes of Regional Significance
network and contribute to significant improvements in air quality, or c) modifY LOS standards, only if
other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
2
-
Millie Greenberg, Chairperson
Tri. Valley Transportation Council
February 1, 1995
e
With incorporation of these modifications, the Plan can be redistributed for comments and possibly
adopted as soon as possible to meet the deadline for the Contra Costa County Authority.
Again, we would like to thank you and the TVTC for doing a commendable job. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact our representative to the Technical Advisory Committee, Mehran
Sepehri, at 833-6630.
Sincerely,
Guy S. Houston
Mayor
GSH/mb
Attach.
cc: Bill van Gelder, City of Pleasant on
Roger Henderson, CMA
h:\planningll 7tvtc
3
-
CITY OF DUBLIN
'.
"Celebrating 10 Years Of Cityhood 1982-1992"
PO Box 2340. Dublin. Cahlornla 94568
City Offices. 100 CIVIC Plaza. Dublin. California 94568
Ms. Millie Greenberg, Chair
Tri-Valley TranBportation council
c/o Mr. Bill van Gelder
Traffic Engineering Department,
city of Pleasanton
200 old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton CA 94566
11
hrC 1-
.l1}t' ..t'/VeO
, l. 'I) .
'. 'f/~
\0..""" '1
January 10, 1994
. "
SUBJECT:
Dublin city Council's Preferred Transportation Alternatives
and Opposition to Reduced Land Use Growth Rate
Dear Ms. Greenberg:
In response to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council's (TVTC) request, on January
10, 1994, the Dublin city council analyzed' and ranked the transportation plan
alternatives for further study in the Dublin area as follows: Road Improvements (a
lot); Transit Improvements (some); Higher Densities (BOme); Reduced Land Use Growth
Rate (none); Reduced Level of Service Standards (BOme) i IncreaBe TDM Measures (a
lot) .
At the TVTC meeting of December 15, 1993, the TVTC directed its Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and consultant, Barton-Aschmann Associates, Inc., to run the Tri-
Valley Model using a slower growth rate for the whole Tri-Valley area (2.8%, instead
of the current 4\) for the Year 2010. EPS, a land use consulting firm, recommended
an absorption rate for development in the Tri-Valley area based on what they feel
the market will Bupport by the Year 2010. The members of the TVTC have not received
any tvpe of formal report from EPS that supports this concluBion. The TVTC is
hoping that network deficiencies will be improved or eliminated if jurisdictions
slow the rate of land use growth. The TVTC concluded that if the model results
still show network deficiencies, the rate of growth may be decreased more in some
areas.
The city of Dublin would like to go on record as opposing a reduced land use growth
rate for the following reasons. First, our Btaff and the City's land use
consultant, WRT, derived land use numbers after more than three years of
professional land use studies.
Second, Dublin' B Year 2010 land use numbers are consistent with ABAG's projected
land use numbers. This is significant to the extent that the congestion Management
Agency (CMA) and MTC will not accept a computer model that shows land uses
inconsistent with ABAG' s. If the model is not consistent with ABAG numbers, then
the model cannot be used for CHA Deficiency Plans, air quality studies, and/or other
environmental documentation. We do not believe that it is prudent to have two
models, one with numbers acceptable to the CHA, ABAG, and some Tri-Valley
jurisdictions, and another with TVTC's numbers that indicate a slower growth rate
with no traffic congestion that cannot be used for any official and legal purposes.
Administration (510) 833.6650 . City Council (5\01 833-6605 · Finance (5\
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 · Engineering (5\0) 83:
Police (510) 833.66iO · PubliC Works (510) 833-6630
eXHIBIT ~ .
.4 -: ~,.~
i,a
,,~
('.
\:J.
Third, we strongly believe that the Tri-Valley Transportation plan and Action Plan
should incorporate policies, objectives and implementation strategies for ultimate
Tri-valley growth for the 'fer,r 2010. Not planning for ,ultimate growth or faster
growth rate for 'fear 2010 may result in increased traffic deficiencies at the Year
2010 or beyond and costly right-of-way acquisition expenses to construct the needed
roadway network at that time.
Fourth, with a slower growth rate through land use regulations, the regional traffic
impact fee could be higher. If the amount' of development is reduced, a higher
traffic impact fee is needed to pay for the transportation network.
Fifth, there is no accepted evidence to support a slower market growth rate.
sixth, the JPA clearly states that its purpose is to provide for the joint
preparation of a Transportation Plan and to provide a forum for the review and
coordination of transportation facilities and must be approved by all jurisdictions.
The'refore, it is more appropriate for each jurisdiction to provide the TVTC and the
TVTC's consultant with land use data than having the land use data dictated to the
jurisdictions.
We realize that the Tri-Valley area is at a critical juncture in terms of
anticipated future development and future transportation plans. The TVTC has a
major responsibility and task to develop a transportation model and plan that ia
acceptable to all Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Therefore, we urge you to reconsider
your direction to run the medel with only the slower growth rate alternative. We
feel it is more appropriate to study a combination of alternatives. This will
present a more viable solution for future traffic congestion in line with the
original charge to the TVTC.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to continue working
with the TVTC to develop an effective and reliable transportation plan for the
future Tri-Valley area.
"
PS/CRC/mb
cc: Alameda County Board of supervisors
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Town of Danville Town council
San Ramon City Council
Pleasanton city Council
Livermore City Council
TVTC TAC
a:jan\05tvtc:
TRI- V ALLEY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN/
ACTION PLAN
FOR
ROUTES OF
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION
Prepared for
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Prepared by
Trl-Valley Technical Advisory Committee,.
In conjunction with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc..
January 1995
Note: Policy directions or Actions recommended in this draft report are subject to
change pending review, comment, and approval by TVTC and its member
jurisdictions.
)>,/' ",.,(
I -, ,:...,,/
!
8.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Chapters
Page
Executive Summary
Plan Implementation
1 Introduction
2 Existing Transportation Conditions
Chapter Summary
Traffic Volumes and Capacity on Arterials
Freeway'Levels of Service
Intersection Levels of Service
Tri-Valley Bicycle Network
Transi t
Trip Reduction Programs
Trip ReductionfI'ravel Demand Management Ordinances
Existing Mode Split
Existing Travel Patterns
3 Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
4 Baseline Forecasts
Chapter Summary
Land Use Forecasts
Network Assumptions
Traffic Forecasts
Intersection Levels of Service
Travel Pattern
Mode Split
5 Expected Forecasts
Chapter Summary
Land Use Forecasts
Network Assumptions
Traffic Forecasts
Travel Patterns
Intersection Levels of Service
Interchange Analysis
Transit Ridership
6 Plan Alternatives
Chapter Summary
Maximum Highway Investment
Maximum Transit Investment
Land Use Opportunities
Plan Evolution
vi
xiv
1
11
11
17
20
20
28
29
29
35
36
36
38
41
41
42
42
50
50
59
59
63
63
64
64
73
82
88
92
102
103
103
104
104
115
119
Contents (Continued)
Chapters (Continued)
Page
7 Recommended Improvement Plan
Plan Overview
Road Improvement Plan
Critical Regional Projects
The Transit Plan
Freight Transportation
8 Financial Plan
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Private Funding
Potential Future Funding Sources
Potential Future Transportation Projects
Detailed Finance Plan
9 Action Plan
10 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Plan Adoption
Plan Financing
Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives
Development Applications
Amending the Plan
Future Role of TVTC
122
123
133
133
141
145
148
148
148
149
168
159
160
165
233
233
234
235
236
238
239
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Contents (Continued)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables Page
2.1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance 21
2.2 Level of Service Definitions 25
2.8 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis 26
24 Bus Service in the Tri. Valley Area 34
2.5 Jobs-Housing Balance 36
4.1 Baseline Growth Forecasts 43
4.2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour 55
4.3 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts) 69
4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home.Based Work Trips
(Baseline Forecasts) 62
5.1 Tri.Valley Growth Forecasts 65
5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements-Expected System 66
5.3 Year 2010 PM Peak.Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading 73
5-4 F.xpected Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour 89
5.5 2010 Expected Forecast AnalysiS of Interchange Overpasses-I-580
(PM Peak Hour) 98
5-6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-
1-680 (PM Peak Hour) 99
6.7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I.580
(PM Peak Hour) 100
5.8 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I-680
(PM Peak Hour) 101
5.9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 102
6.1 Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network 107
6.2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network 112
6-3 Growth Management Options 116
6-4 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Potential Alternatives 120
6-5 Consensus Alternative for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan 121
7.1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements 136
8.1 Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley 147
8.2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tr~~ Valley 148
8.3 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and
Available Funding 152
8-4 Required Subregional Transportation Impact Fee 155
8.5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects 156
8-6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee 157
8.8 Finance Plan-Tn-Valley 2010 Planned Network 161
Contents (Continued)
Figures
2-1 Existing Lane Configurations
2-2 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
2-3 Existing Congested Locations
2-4 Existing Bikeways
2-5 Proposed Bikeways
2-6 Tri-Valley 1990 PM Peak-Hour Trip Characteristics
4.1 Baseline Assumed Road Network Changes
4.2 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes-Baseline Forecasts
4-3 Baseline Forecast Year 2010 Peak-Hour Overcapacity Links
4-4 2010 Total Trips by Type (PM Peak Hour)
5.1 Expected Transportation Network
5-2 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak Hour Traffic Demand
(No Gateway Constraint)
5.8 Example of Gateway Peak-Spreading
5-4 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand
(No Gateway Constraint)
5.5 Year 2010 Peak-Hour OVeTcapacity Roadways
with Gateway Constraint
5-6 Expected Network-Interchange Configurations
5.7 Expected Network-Interchange Configuration
6.1 Maximum Highway Network-Changes From Baseline Network
6.2 Congested Roadways With Maximum Highway Alternative
6.3 Maximum Transit Alternative-Priority Express Bus Network
6-4 Maximum Transit Alternative-Intercity/Commuter Rail
6.5 Congested Roadways With Maximum Transit Alternative
6.6 Congested Roadways With Zero Growth Land Use Alternative
7-1 Planned Transportation Network
Exhibits
1 Projections '92 Forecast for Year 2010 Households and Employment in
Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCTA LUIS and
ABAG Projections '90 Forecasts
2 Contra Costa County Resolution r.e. Tri-Valley Plan
394-TIP/661193.90100
Page
12
18
23
30
32
37
48
51
58
60
71
74
76
78
80
83
93
105
108
110
111
118
117
134
44
174
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
The purpose of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan is to address transportation issues
through the year 2010 within the Tri-Valley area including Danville, San Ramon, Dublin,
Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County.
This document is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and regulations that exist in
each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions. The study area and the primary roads are
shown in Figure E-1. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation plAnning
through 2010. this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Signifi-
cance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document
also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management
Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is
the culmination of a four-year work effort to identify existing and future transportation
deficiencies and identify a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses the
deficiencies.
The Tri-Valley work was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), an
advisory board of representatives from each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Funding
for this effort was shared equally by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the
Alameda County jurisdictions. The consulting firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.,
through a series of meetings with the TVTC, prepared the study.
Existing Transportation Issues
The study was initiated in 1991 with parallel efforts to develop the Tri-Valley Travel
Forecasting Demand Model and assess study issues and existing conditions. Discussions
with representatives from each community and preliminary technical analysis culminated
with the following fmdings:
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
vi
\
I
1:1 <
- I
I W
LLl
f a:
::J <
0) I
~
>-
C
::) I
?-
m
I
. I
1
\
.
1
\ I
\
\
I I
\
,
\ I
I
I
I
I
I
,
/
/ I
I
,
/
,
,
) I
I
I
I
:i'
~~
~~ oS
l
~
-p\
C.\-p
~\C.
O,~
0'0
~\o
01-0
0'(1)
O\~
~I--:;'
c:. ,_
0\
0,
1
Q)
u
c
0
u
~
c:
0'1
J)
"0
c
,Q
0'1
Q)
0:::
...
0
<IJ
III
..-
::>
0
0:::
au
Q I 3:)N3~ .111'1
Z
LLl
C>
L6J
....J
d
c
-
-
en
G)
...
as
.(3
0
en
en
<
c
as
E CU -
..c ...... /"
......
(,) ..... ,
~ ,
en I
< ItS ,
I j:::l I
C I
0
~
...
as
In
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ <
\ I
\.oJ W
\ a:
, CD
~\ ~
c:. ?':' ::I <
~'~ tn
o \~ t:i:
o 0 >
o ,0
~\ C
lJl \0 O/J :n1WD1/JD
o -0 :)
o I Q)
Ire t-
0\0 UJ
:::. .-.
c. ,4
0'
0\
.
,
\
\
,
'" \ II
0
c: ~
0 ,
~ ,
'c \
0'1 , g
Vi \
"'5 \ ~
c: ~
0 ,
"0- \ en
'" IS
Q:: Q)
"6 ......
'" ,:l..
'"
:5 \
0
Q::
, i
0 I \ ~
\
:z I
\.oJ
Cl ~
\.oJ
-I
'<t
IX)
ti
..E
0;
CD
...
cG
.0
C
o
tJ)
<
c
as
e
.c
u
tJ)
<
I
C
C
...
....
as
a:a
I
,
\
,
i
~~
~ oS
-
o
~
li1
~
i
1I'i 3/J0II/J~7 'H
\
\
)
,
,
!
,
j
Executive Summary
1. Tri.Valley is relatively free of congestion.
2. Transit use is relatively low-four percent of total trips.
3. Existing average vehicle occupancy is about 1.1 for commute trips.
4. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net outo.(X)mmuting.
5. 1.680 and 1.580 are major regional highways. Each has 15 to 20 percent through
traffic.
2010 Traffic Conditions
Once the study issues and existing transportation system characteristics were identified,
8tatrused the Tri.Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and .
alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were fll'St developed in
consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and MTC. When the
plan was started, ABAG's Projections '90 were the most current forecasts available.
Projections '90 did not include forecasts for the year 2010. These forecasts were extrapo.
lated from Projections '90 year 2005 forecasts in consultation with ABAG. Once developed,
the TVTC determined that the forecasts did not reflect current land use or network
planning.
The TVTC refined the land use forecasts and transportation networks to reflect current
general plans and Projections '92, which had significantly increased employment projec.
tions for some Alameda County jurisdictions. The "expected" land use forecasts were
evaluated along with an "expected" transportation system. The results of this evaluation
were as follows:
· Highway gateways to the area (1.680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84, 1-580
over Dublin Grade and Altamont Pass, Crow Canyon Road at the county line, and
Vasco Road) will have more demand than capacity. This would occur even without
growth in the Tri.Valley due to regional traffic demands.
· With some locally funded modifications, the majority of the arterial system within the
Tri.Valley will operate at LOS D or better.
· 1.680 and 1-580 within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided ramp
metering and HOV lanes are installed.
· Jobs and housing growth for year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent,
respectively. Jobs and housing would be in balance, that is, one job would exist for
every employed resident. Provided there is a match between housing prices and
salaries, this minimizes but does not eliminate in-commuting and out-commuting. The
1990 ratio of jobs to employed residents was 0.91. In 2010 the ratio is expected to
increase to 0.99.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
ix
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
. The transit mode share will increase slightly from existing conditions.
. Average vehicle occupancy will not change appreciably from existing conditions.
The Tri.. Valley Transportation Pion
The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were
the basis for the Tri-Yalley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all
traffic congestion in Tri.Yalley. Levels of service on some arterial segments and on
freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E.
Bfl$ed on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus
the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri.Yalley rather than the
Tri.Yalley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to
achieve the best level of service within the Tri.Yalley?
Three coutributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question.
· Financial constraints.
· Physica1limitations within corridors.
· Development pattern.
Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax
programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri.Yalley. Other projects
must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an
upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initia.
tives mayor may not be successful.
Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Yalley is limited due to existing development and
terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than
the existing 1-680 and 1.580 corridors.
Development patterns within Tri.Yalley have been geared toward relatively low housing
and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This
development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding
expecta tions.
The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. "Gate.
ways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri.Yalley to adjoining areas. This will help
to meter traffic in and out of the area. The plan balances the internal transportation
network with planned growth through the provision of several roadway and transit
improvements. Figure E.2 shows the transportation plan network.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
x
d
c
-
or
G)
...
as
"(3
o
en
en
<
c
as
E
..c
()
en
<
I
C
o
...
.....
ca
m
:i
II
--.~~
~\
c:.'
:,:)' ;7
o\c:.
(.) -;.
,0
0' (.)
~\O
0'-0
(.) , ~
O\~
;:.,9:
c:. ,4-- -
5\
,
\
" I
~ ~~ I
~ i= 0
if <;=1
1-1-
.0: W
~Zl
z
~I
l-
e I
w
~ I
<
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
o
~
"''''
t;~
~O
~ :g 1;;,
c: 4J ""- ~
.3 ~ 1!0Il
~ CV co ~
: 5 I <;
Q} ...J _ ,g
~ cb.g ~
_ ... t::0Il ~
00<( .E
t C!i Cl) "0
.0 <: <: OIl
E .3 0 ~
:::> I -' ...
Z CD J- E
l:i~6
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
,
\
\
\
\
Cki
,
,
/
Q)
~
s::
<<S
A
//
/"
,
,
,,/
)
,
-../'
~
I
I
I
I ..0 Z~
N
\ I Oa:
LaJ
I I e -0
, ~~
~\ :t
c ~ 0)
-:)IC c::
I o \-:) I-~
<.) 0 a:W
0,0
~'O OIJ 3TJW03lIO OZ
0\-0 0..
I .<.),0)
,~ (JJ
0\0
~'2.. Z
C,
01 <
I 0\
, a:
I I-
\
I , 0
I ~
\ ~ W
I
I Z
\ ~
I :I Z
I
, 1I'(~l'N <
\ ..J
I 0..
,
I
I \
,
,
\
,
I
I \ s:=
I 0
I
\ i
I I
I
\ fn
IS
CU
-
I Cl4
I . i
U i
c
-
.. i
I tn
Q) "''''
... -.,
"1:
as ~.3 '<t
"6 '0 "'I CXl
"
., 'I: ...N
I 0 c; ., :Sf
tn .s i .,
00 0\
tn ~ ., c:
c; 1 0
< . .3 .t::.
., '0 u
I ., I t
I .t 'C:
C I Q';I ., ....
.s:
as ) '0 5 ~ '0
e ... ., ., ~
";' .8 c; c:
.c , .s oS
! , s ...
I c:>-
O I I I S
tn --..... ~ oS z U) ..,.
< n II .
l Q m I -
I -
C ~ :z: - 0
I , LaJ -
0 ,
j Cl -
... ~ -
... -
as
I m
Executive Summary
Transportat/on Service Objectives
A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objectives. 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 retum-to-source
funds. In Alameda County once the plan is adopted, individual 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) on arterials, and measured at intersections.
· Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways.
· Maintain Level of Service E conditions on 1.580 for no more than four hours per day
(except on Altamont 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.
While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpret-
ed as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish
Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth
beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are 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 physical-
ly impacted.
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 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
. Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate
impacts associated with 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 Plan
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 Metropolitan 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
Plan identifies 11 regional transportation improvements that could be funded through the
impact fee (see Table E-1), Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about
$2.800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commerciallotlicelindustrial 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 nexus
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 following elements should be adopted:
· 2010 Planned Transportation Network
· Transportation Service Objectives
· Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Chapter 9)
· Financing Plan
· Subregional Transportation Impact Fee concept
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
xlv
...
C)
c
0-
"
c
at
G)
:is
S
Ocu
>
<
'C
C
CO
tI)
t3
G)
0-
e
c.
c
e
;:
CO
1:
8..
en
c
f!
t-
ea
c
02
C)
CD
ex:
~
0-
...
o
0-
...
a..
.
.s:.
o~
:t
T""'C
ch~
we
CDQ.
De
t!a..
W
'0.2
Q)=
'Es
:::J1:
C:;,
~~
<
~cn
.- c
~~
.r~
--
OQ)
1:D
:::J.m
~.~
<<
.S'
'E
.t:c
,... f:?
.20 :::J
2~
1: '2
liS Q) .2
8~_lS
uctlS
io~~
- ('118
ctI(/)=
EcO
~~'Oo
Wg ~
:;
CO"
'M
L()T""
w~
...
..,;
T""
CIt
gt}l2;
CIt
"
N
CIt
"
N
CIt
,....
ti
~~
~CIt
o
~aa~
~ CIt
o
-
L()
CIt
o
T""
CIt
o
~
f:?!
~5
COeD-
Q) Q) ~
~ ~ ~
~ m Q)
:E ::E :3
~~~
~Q)e
('llea=
Q)_ca
:Eenu
()
~
~
('II
Q)
:E
u
(/) ~
C :::J
e (/)
= ca
~ I I ~
O?g
"'N
m~
L() C') '"
. N . C')
O......T""O
N......-T""_
~ ~~
"
M
L()
CIt
,....
tl
...
..j
.-
~
,....
tl
N"'":
~ '.-
"'-
-tl
L()
-0 ..,;
~oO)
co
~
I I
co
N .
L() .~
N~o
CIt.,...--
.,.
c
g" g
o c ca g
~ 8 __.m. Cb
ea a; ~.6 ~ ~ 8, 1:~
(/) g>;> ea (/) c
Q) (/) ._ - ca 0 ('II (/)
g> ~ :a -g en t::. E5. ~ SIt 'C 1: ~.~
ca caCD cae(/) (/) Q) ~,('IIQ):"" ~
fi ~gj1~~ ~ g>~!~~~~
... c:- _ (/) W ca ca ~ ca - ._ _ u c: >
--ca~c (/)~-~Q)""=""o~-(/)
c:>-:=l'tlQ)'.('O ,... 'CQ).J::.Q) ~:::l
o -~-0~(I)Q)>2>ca--c~ caco_
$"'(I)C)(O: xC-OEO"" Q) 0_ caE 0 ca
~wQ)~~Ow~~Ia;I~:E~ca()-a:~o
2) .; ~ en 0:0 ~ S = o.~ 0 '2 ~ 2) Ui ~ -5 8 e ~
f8 (5 g -g $'~ c( (I) .g ::g ~ $ :::J ca f8 .B e m ~ e-
~a:~ca~SCD~o~z~ena:~<()en>w
Q)
g>
a:s
~
Q)
~
~
'2
Q..
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
c.;
a:s
.Q)
~~
,!Ui
-8
1&,!
c_
.2~
en!
;!
;;0
!~
'C_
,2>-
Q)
0=
-a:s
n~
a)'c
i;-
.!!? a:s
'!:e
:!!c(
t3~
Q)
'2 :2
a.g,
~!
==
e'i
..;!liS
~8
.5,!
~-
a:s~
c ('0
._ .J::.
E I
=~
Ko
.sa !
S;
j~
.!e ~
f=:tl.
... ...
xv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
Introduction
The purpose of the TriM Valley Transportation Plan is to asBeSS transportation issues
within the TriMValley area through the year 2010. The study area includes Danville, San
Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Contra Costa
County and Alameda County. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation
planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by MeuW'S C. This
document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Manage-
ment Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This document is in addition to
existing policies, agreements, and regulations that exist in each jurisdiction or between
jurisdictions.
The plan was overseen by the TriMValley Transportation Council (TVTC), which includes
elected officials from each of the seven member jurisdictions, under a joint powers
agreement. The TVTC was assisted by the Tri.Valley Technical Advisory Committee
(TVTAC), which includes staff transportation planners and engineers from each agency.
These groups met monthly throughout the plan process, which began in November 1991.
Funding for the Plan came from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the three
Alameda Tri-Valley cities.
The plan was prepared using the TrlMValley Transportation Model (TVTM), which was
developed by BartonMAschman and TJKM and approved by the TVTC for transportation
planning. The zone structure for the TriMValley Transportation Model is compatible with
the Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and MTC transportation models. The model
has been certified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency.
This transportation plan is intended to fulfill the requirement for preparation of Action
Plans under Measure C in Contra Costa County. Alameda County does not have a similar
Action ~lan requirement. Nevertheless, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
1
Introduction
County portion of Tri-Valley. The TVTC joint powers agreement states that member
jurisdictions are to consider the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or
amending the circulation elements of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or
capital improvement programs.
The consultant team began meeting with Tri Valley representatives in November, 1991.
Meetings were held once each month with the Tri- Valley Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC). This committee provided guidance to the consultant and reviewed all work
products prior to their submittal to the Tri Valley Technical Council (TVTC). The TVTC
acted as the final approval body for all work completed by the consultant. Meetings
between the TVTC, TVTAC, and the consultant also occurred on a monthly basis.
Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of planning areas used to summarize data in this report.
These boundaries have no planning status except within this report, although attempts
have been made to conform to city and sphere of influence boundaries.
Routes of Regional Significance have been adopted by each city in Contra Costa County,
as well as the County, as part of the Measure C Growth Management Program. Routes of
Regional Significance are those roads that serve regional mobility, or act as reliever
routes for the regional system, and serve more than one jurisdiction. The designated
routes are exempt from the Measure C basic route level of service standards. Other
measures, TrafflC Service ObjectirJeB are to be adopted for these routes. The plan also
includes Routes of Regional Significance for Alameda County, although these are not
mandated by county policy (see Figure 1-2).
Compliance Requirements on Regional Routes
Requirements for compliance with the provisions of the Growth Management Program
relating to Routes of Regional Significance are:
1. Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans: Action Plans will be
developed through the work of the Regional Committees.
2. Implementation of actions designed to attain traffic service objectives consistent with
adopted Action Plan: Action Plans will specify actions to be taken by each jurisdiction.
Alllocali ties will agree to the actions before the Plans are fmalized and adopted. After
adoption, cities and the county will have an obligation to implement specified actions
consistent with the time frame of the Action Plan.
3. Placing conditions on project approval consistent with Action Plan policies: Some
Action Plan policies may require implementation on an ongoing basis through the
imposition of conditions on development approvals. These might relate to payment of
mitigation fees, implementation of TSMtrDM measures, or phasing of development
relative to infrastructure improvements.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 0 (/)1-
-
I
- c([t
f wO
I :t a: a..
.~
L&.. <w
me:
I ::J(1)
(1)-
I >:t:
wI-
t) -IZ
t) -I-
I t) <0
J..
CI) >w
I :S ..Len
0 a:::J
l-
I
I
I tt'
CI) :;
I .=>
~
0
c::I
I d
c
- CI)
.. ::::I
I U) '>
CD ~
...
as c::I
,,-
I Co)
0
U)
U)
I <
c
as
e
I J::.
U
U)
<
I
I c
0
....
...
as
I III
d
c:
-
\ I
..c >C~
......
I WWa: I
......
CD ....1(1)0
a...
~ ....I:)Q..
0)
c: <ClJW I
~<a:
Cl) a:WCl) I
M I-a:-
0
8 <::I:
M m~
Cl) I
>- :)Z
~ CIJ-
Cl)
J.t I
0
S
M ()
~ < I
~ M
Cl)
.d
() ~
< 0 I
J.t
Cl)
:5 I
0
I:: I
0
,::= ~
..... ~ I
-
.0 rf.I
::s <<'
~ Cl)
-
~ ll.. I
rf.I
c:t1
r::.a
I
I
I:: I
.....
-
.0 I
::s
A
I
I
I
,,;
Q)
....
ca
"[)
o
tn
tn
<
c:
ca
e
.c
(,)
U)
<
I
c:
o
....
...
ca
lEI
I
r;\ c ILW
I N
I 00
~\~ -
i O\~ f (J)Z
0'0 :3
I ~~ 0'0 0>> w<
~\O r;: 1-2
........... oS 0,"'0
l 0' Go) ::)Y::
~ 0\%
I ;. , -:;i OZ
c' a:C!'
0\
0, -
I , UJ
\
, ..J
, <
I , Z
,
\ 0
, -
\ C!'
I \
Q) w
u ,
c , a:
0 \
u
;,::
I 'c \
0\ \
Vi \
-0 \
C ,
I 0 \
'0-.
Q)
a::
'0
I III
Q.l
"'5
0
a::
I 0 I
z
LoJ
C)
I ~
I "
()
..E
.. \
I U)
CD
... ,
lU /
.- ,
() I
I 0 /
0 ,
0 /
< ,
,
I c )
lU , ,
E /' ' ...,/'
.s:::. G) , ,
I - /'
() ~ ,
0 I
< d I
I tIS I
I c Q ,
0 I
...
...
as
I m
d
c
-
iii
CD
....
as
.0
o
t/)
t/)
<
c
as
E
~
u
t/)
<
I
C
o
....
...
as
tEl
\
,
I
~\
c "7:-
?,~
0''''
0\~
0.0
..... ,
1/1 \0
o -0
o ,Q)
o'€;.
~\~
C ,4-
0'
0\
..Q
N
I
011 7T1WI3311!i
LLW
00
~ Cl)Z
~ W<
...Q
:)!:!:
OZ
0:"
Ci5
..J
<
Z
o
C;
w
a:
-
OOSYII
Ie
\
...
~
!
M :R10nl/3N1 N
i:l
~
.
,
\
,
\
Q) \
u
l; lil
tl ,
U . ~
:.::: \
'2:
tl'>
(i)
"0 \ d
l; 0
0 , ~
'cr. \ d
Q) \ ctl
CI:::
rn
'0 ctl
en Q,)
-
2 \ Q..
:) I
0 \
CI:::
I
C I \
:z \
LI.J \
<.:) \
LI.J
.....J
,
\
.....
~
l!
----. ~ ~
'0
~
,
\
)
,
,
,J
,
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
'<l'
(lj
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
Two other regional systems have been designated in the Tri-Yalley. These are described
briefly below.
Congestion Management Program (eMP) Routes
These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the
state.mandated CMF. In the Tri.Yalley, they include only 1-680, 1.580, and Route 84. The
respective county CMP's are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri-Yalley
Transportation Plan.
Metropolitan TransportatIon System (MTS) and
National HIghway System (NHS) Routes
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defined a system, called the
Metropolitan Transportation System, in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan. and the
system has been updated for the 1994 RTP. The purpose of the MTS is to define those
facilities and services that are crucial to freight and passenger mobility in the Bay Area.
The MTS includes streets and highways, transit systems, seaports, airports, truck
terminals. rail yards, and transfer points. In addition to streets and highways. the MTS in
the Tri.Yalley includes transit corridors along 1.680,1-580, and Route 84; the Altamont
Pass railroad tracks. which continue to Fremont; and the Livermore airport.
The criteria for defining streets and highways in the MTS are as follows:
· Serves a mlijor Bay Area activity center
· Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections
· Serves as a reliever for a freeway
· Provides important connections in the MTS system
· Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion
· Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities.
Significance of MTS Designation. Roads that are part of the MTS may benefit from
funding available to regional facilities. Any road not in the MTS is considered as serving
primarily local travel.
The National Highway System (NHS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (lSTEA) calls for the U.S. Congress to designate a National Highway System by
December 1995. For the Bay Area, MTC has developed a recommended NHS, which is a
subset of the MTS. The purpose of the NHS is to provide an interconnected system of
principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border
crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transporta-
tion facilities and other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements,
and serve interstate and interregional travel. The NHS was proposed to focus federal
funds to improve a limited number of high priority routes.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
7
Introduction
Figure 1-3 shows the MTS and NHS routes in the Tri-Valley area.
Relationship to County Plans
The Tri.Valley Action Plan will be combined with action plans from the other four
subareas in Contra Costa County to create the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. In Alameda County, a countywide transportation plan was recently
completed. The Tri.Valley Transportation Plan is compatible with the Alameda County
Transportation Plan, although it is more detailed and focused in the Tri.Valley Area. If
adopted, the Tri.Valley Transportation Plan would be incorporated into future updates of
the Alameda County Plan.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I :z
LoJ
C)
~
I
I u
.5
I en
CD
..
as
.-
I u
0
0
0
I <
c
as
E
I .c
u
0
<
I
I c
0
..
"-
as
I III
:i'
~!
--.... .s
D
~
t>
"5
o
0:;
a.
t> :::li
:; U
o
0:: .I1l
~ ~
:::; :::;
i ~
Q)
~
d
as
A
-p\
c:.'
~\ -p
0\' c:.
(.)\~
,0
0'(.)
~\O
?"1 '''0
..... \ Q)
o\~
~\S
c. \::.i!.
3\
,
,
c
7 ZCI-C/J
_ OZzw
~ i=<WI-
t! <_~::J
I-CJ)WO
a::l-C!JD:
O:E<-
o..-Zo..
(/)~<::i
zw:EO
<I- -
D:CI)Z::e
I-->Q<
z CJ) 1---0:
< CJ)e"
I-- Wo
::i C!Ja:
o Zo-
o.. 0
o 0
a:
I--
W
:e
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
o~
3:)NJ~ MV!
~~
i:;
~ ~
~~\-l'l~
"
,/
,
)
,
~./'
~~
/'
/"
I
I
I
I
I
\ ..c I
\ ,." ZOl-0
,
~\ I OZZW I
-
~\~ CD t=c(WI-
O,e:. ~
0\~ =' <---.~:J
en
010 t=
.t;.i,1 I-CI)WO I
11\\0
o -0 a:l-~a:
o ,4) Oli m~331iO
O'rc. O::E<-
;:.\9, a..'-"ZQ. I
e:. .4-
0' Oli o:1SYiI CI):t<:e
0\
I Zw::EO
\ <I- '-" I
~ a:cnZ::e
~ I->Q-C
....
~ ;;l I
~ Z01-D:
VI < cn~
..
:!i I- Wo
lit' ~0fI1i3N' 'N - ~a: I
..J ZQ.
o 0
I Q. 0 I
I
\. 0
, a:
,
\ l- I
I III W
\ ~ ::E
\
, ~ I
\ d
\ 0
\ ~
I :t s::
\ Oli NOT1rJ <<S I
\ l'1.I
. <<S
CU
-
ll.. I
.
Co)
C
- I
...
t/)
CD
....
as I
.-
(.)
0
t/)
t/) '" I
< :;
0
Cl::
C a..
as , .!! 2
.
e ) ~ V I
0
..c Cl:: ~
u i ~ (Jl
, l-
t/) ~tl ! 2 2
< -...... .e II N I
I Cl H
c:: '0 :z
~ LoJ
0 Cl
.... , , LoJ
... f ....J
as I
m .
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
Existing Transportation Conditions
Chapter Summary
. Tri. Valley is relatively free of congestion. Some occasional congestion occurs on the
freeways, especially near the 1.5800-680 interchange.
· Transit usage is relatively low-four percent of total trips.
. Existing average vehicle ridership is about 1.1 for commute trips.
. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out-commuting.
. 1..fJ80 and 1.580 are major regional highways serving substantial reational demand.
Each haa 15 to 20 percent through traffic.
This chapter describes the existing transportation systems within the Tri.ValIey area,
including the routes of regional significance, the intersection levels of service at major
intersection locations, traffic volumes, transit systems, and bicycle routes serving the
area.
Figure 2.1 shows the number of lanes on the Routes of Regional Significance. Each is
described below.
State Highways
Interstate 580 U.580) is an eight-lane east/west freeway designated as a route of regional
significance through the Tri-Valley area Auxiliary lanes exist between Foothill Road and
Santa Rita Road. 1-580 is a critical freight route as designated by the Alameda County
CMA. A truck-climbing lane exists in the westbound direction from Foothill Road to the
top of the Dublin grade. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locatioDS.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
11
i -p\ I
c' 0
--..~ t; -=' I ~ - UJ
o\C ,
.e (.) ':) N Z I
10
! 0'(.) f 0
~\o ~
l:n -
0'-0 L:: ...
(.) I Q) I
O\~ <
...,0 a::
"'C.,2..
8\ -- ::::>
, " I
,
\ -
LL
Z I
\ 0
, 0
\
\ (IJ I
,
'" \ z
u
c: <
0 ,
~ \
.c \ ..J I
.2'
c:Vl (!J
0
.,15 \
'" c: Z
c: ,Q I
001 011 ,
-I'" 1 -
_0:: \ t-
o-
0 UJ
...
.. .,
.J::1", - I
E- X
::l ::l
zii W
0 II \
:z
...., I
C) GO all
...., \
....l J:JNJIi Mn
d I
c
- I
u)
CD
..-
CO I
..-
()
0
tI)
In I
< ,
,
c /
CO
E ,,\N .,/ I
..c
() t'" ,
tI) ? Q) )
< ...... I
......
I oi> ,/
c
0 = ,
..- ctl I
.... Q
CO I
m I
I
I
I .Q en
-
I Z
\ N
I ~ 0
\
, :J -
~\ en I-
c ~ r= -<
-="c
I o \-=' a:
o 0
0,0 all rnwGJH!) ::)
~' 0
0\-0 ~
I e,) ,G) -
0\% lL
:z:.~ Z
c,
0, 0
I 0\
\ 0
\
\ OJ
I , ~ z
\ ~ -<
I III ..J
I \ i
\ ^'1~:i'V1'H CJ
\ z
-
I l-
I CJ)
\ -
\ ><
I I UJ
\
\
I
I \ d
I 0
I d
\
IS
I , In
\ f>>I HOT7'lJ IS
CU
.....
Q..
I
, ~
\
I - i
u
c ,
- ,
... ., i
CI) <.>
c:
I Q) 0
... ~ 0:-
ca 'c cx;J
0\
-- "Vi
U 0_
I 0 0
III "
CI) II> 0
" .-
CI) o 0\
...J II>
< a::
I 0'0
I C I ...
) II> III
ca .0 .,
E'S
E ::I 0
i , za::
~ ,
I u r.:; ! 0
CI) --..:Z:; 3 CO :z
< I.&J
! CI CO
I I.&J
C , -J
I 0 ,
... j
...
ca
m
I
....
Existing Transportation Conditions
1-680 is a six-lane north/south freeway through the Tri-Valleyarea. Figure 2-1 shows
interchange locations. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction
between SR 24 in Walnut Creek and the county line at Alcosta Boulevard. 1-680 from
1-580 to Santa Clara County was widened a few years ago and includes sufficient right..of-
way for additional lanes. 1-680 is a designated major freight route by the Alameda County
CMA, and there are truck climbing lanes over the Sunol grade.
State Route 84 (SR 84) is an arterial street including First Street and Holmes Street
through Livermore and VaIlecitos Road south of Pleasanton. SR 84 diagonally connects
1-680 to 1-580. First Street has a varied lane configuration and varied land uses along the
length of its corridor. From 1-580 to Portala Avenue, First Street is a six-lane road From
Portala Avenue to Holmes Street, First Street is a four-lane road with sidewalks, bike
lanes, and a raised median. (In some locations the median becomes a two-way, left-turn
lane or disappears entirely.) Parking is permitted along some sections of First Street.
Holmes Street also has a varied lane configuration that changes from four lanes with
sidewalks and median, to two lanes with a wide painted median and sidewalk, to two
lanes with no median. The land use varies from light commercial to residential to rural.
Bike lanes are present where the street narrows to two lanes. VaUecitos Road is a two-
lane winding, rural road that passes through mostly undeveloped farm land and hills.
Route. 01 Regional Significance In Livermore Area
Vasco Road is a north/south arterial that is defined as a route of regional significance
through Contra Costa County and Alameda County to its termination at TeBla Road in
the City of Livermore. Vasco Road is a two-lane road along most of its length, except in
developed areas-near Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories where it widens to four
lanes with concrete curbs, bike lanes, and a raised landscaped median.
Stanley Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route or regional significance
from its intersection with First Street and Holmes Street in Livermore to its intersection
with First Street in Pleasanton. Stanley Boulevard is four lanes along its entire length.
Bike lanes are continuous along Stanley Boulevard except in the region near Shadow
Cliffs Regional Recreation Area where the bike lanes convert into a two-way bike path on
the south side of the road.
First Street and Holmes Street are part of Route 84 (see above).
Routes of Regional Significance In Pleasanton Area
First Street is a two-lane, north/south route defined as a route of regional significance
from Stanley Boulevard in the north, to Bernal Avenue in the south. North of downtown,
First Street has bike lanes on both sides. Through downtown Pleasanton, First Street has
a center turn lane, one lane each way, parking on both sides, and sidewalks.
Sunol Boulevard is a north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from
Bernal Avenue to its interchange with 1-680. South of Bernal Avenue, Sunol Boulevard is
four lanes with raised median, sidewalk, and bike lanes, with adjacent commercial and
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Transportation Conditions
residential land uses. South of Junipero Street, Sunol Boulevard narrows to two lanes
with no median.
Santa Rita Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance
from its intersection with 1.580 in the north, to its intersection with Stanley Boulevard
and Main Street near downtown Pleasanton. Santa Rita Road is a six.lane road with
sidewalks and raised medians south of 1.580. At Valley Avenue, Santa Rita Road narrows
to four lanes. A residential frontage road on the east side of Santa Rita Road exists in the
segment between Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard.
Main Street is the continuation of Santa Rita Road and is defined as a route of regional
significance to Bernal Avenue. Main Street is a two.lane road with left.turn lanes at Ray
Street/St. John Street, St. Mary, and Ray Street/Neal Street. Main Street has sidewalks
and parking along both sides in the downtown area.
Hopyard. Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance
from its intersection with 1.580 to its intersection with Del Valle Parkway and Division
Street. South of 1.580 to Valley Avenue, Hopyard Road is a six.lane road with wide lanes,
sidewalks, and a raised median. A right.turn lane exists between intersections at Owens
Drive and Las Positas Boulevard on the east side (northbound direction) of the road.
Between Valley Avenue and Division Street, Hopyard Road transitions from six lanes
with median sidewalks and bike lanes, to a three.1ane and then a two.lane road with an
asphalt concrete path on the west side.
Division Street is a continuation of Hopyard Road and is defined as a route of regional
significance to its intersection with St. Mary Street. Division Street is a two.lane road
with a sidewalk on the west side only.
St. Mary Street is a continuation of Division Street and is defined as a route of regional
significance to its intersection with Main Street in downtown Pleasanton. St. Mary Street
is a two.lane road with sidewalks and parking on both sides. St. Mary Street has a center
turn lane between Peters Avenue and Main Street.
Stoneridge Drive is an east/west route designated as a route of regional significance from
Foothill Road to east of Santa Rita Road. Stoneridge Drive is planned to connect to Jack
London Boulevard at EI Charro Road. Stoneridge Drive varies between four and six lanes
with raised median, sidewalks, and bike lanes from Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road.
East of Santa Rita Road, Stoneridge Drive narrows to a two-lane road with sidewalks and
bike lanes on the south side of the street. Stoneridge Drive is planned for six lanes for its
entire length.
Routes of Regional Significance In Dublin Area
San Ramon Road is the continuation of San Ramon Valley Boulevard into the City of
Dublin. San Ramon Road is designated as a route of regional significance from the
northern city limit to the southern city limit. From Alcosta Boulevard to Amador Valley
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
15
Existing Transportation Conditions
Boulevard, San Ramon Road has four lanes with a raised median, bike lanes and
sidewalks. South of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road widens to six lanes.
Tassajara Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance
from Camino Tassajara to 1.580. Tassajara Road is a two-lane road from Camino Tassaja.
ra to the 1.580 on. and ofT-ramps where it becomes four lanes. Land use along Tass!:\iara
Road is mainly rural.
Dougherty Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance
from Crow Canyon Road to 1.580. From Crow Canyon Road to the Dublin City Limit,
Dougherty Road is a winding two-lane road. From the city limit, Dougherty Road has four
travel lanes. Some sidewalks exist adjacent to completed housing developments. A bike
path (two-way bike lanes) exists on the east side of the street. South of Sierra Lane,
Dougherty Road becomes a five-lane road with the addition of a center left-turn lane. The
center left turn.lane is replaced by a northbound lane just north of 1-580 (three north-
bound lanes, two southbound lanes).
Dublin Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional significance
from San Ramon Road to Tassajara Road. Dublin Boulevard is a four-lane road with
sidewalks on both sides and a raised median from San Ramon Road to Dougherty Road
and a two-lane road from Dougherty Road to Tass!:\iara Road. West of 1-680, parking is
permitted along both sides of the road. Land use along Dublin Boulevard is mostly
commercial/retail.
Routes of Regional Slgnmcance In San Ramon Area
San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a north/south route that is designated as a route of
regional significance from Danville to the Dublin City Limit. San Ramon Valley Boulevard
is a two-lane road at the Danville Town Limits, and widens to a four. lane road with
raised median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Where land use is more rural, between
Montevideo and Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two-lane road with
bike lanes on both sides. Between Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon, San Ramon Valley
Boulevard is a six.lane road with heavy commercial use. The remaining segments of San
Ramon Valley Boulevard consist of four lanes.
Alcosta Boulevard is a four.lane, east/west route with a raised median and sidewalks,
defmed as a route of regional significance for only a short segment from 1.680 to Village
Parkway. Alcosta Boulevard extends from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Crow Canyon
Road, and includes a full interchange with 1.680.
Bollinger Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance
from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard. Bollinger Canyon is a four.lane
road with a raised median and sidewalks from Crow Canyon Road to 1-680 and widens to
six lanes from 1.680 to Alcosta Boulevard. In conjunction with development of the
Dougherty Vallley, Ballinger Canyon Road will be extended east to intersect Dougherty
Road.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Transportation Conditions
Crow Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from
the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border to Camino TassaJara. At the county line,
Crow Canyon is a rural two-lane road which widens to four-lanes and then six-lanes with
a raised median and sidewalks where land use is more commercial. Crow Canyon Road
remains six lanes until Alcosta Boulevard, where it narrows again to four lanes. A variety
of medians and roadside development exists depending on locations of existing land
development. At Indian Rice Road, Crow Canyon widens to six lanes and remains six
lanes to Camino TassaJara
Routes of Regional Slgnlflcance In Danvllle Area
Camino Tassojara is an east/west route of regional significance from Sycamore Valley
Road to Crow Canyon Road. Camino Tassajara is a four-lane road with a raised median,
curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes as it leaves the community of Blackhawk and narrows to
a two lane rural roadway south of Lawrence Road. Land uses in the vicinity of Blackhawk
are commercial and residential. Land uses for the southern portions of Camino Tassajara
are residential and rural.
Sycamore Valley Road is an east/west four-lane route of regional significance with a
raised median and sidewalks from 1-680 to Camino Tassajara.
Hartz Avenue is a two-lane route of regional significance from Danville Boulevard (it is a
continuation ofDanville Boulevard) to San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Hartz Avenue is a
main street in downtown Danville with sidewalks and parking on both sides.
Danville Boulevard is a north/south route of regional significance from the northern
boundary of the Tri-Valley area to Hartz Avenue. Danville Boulevard is two lanes north of
Las Trampas Road, with a center turn lane and narrows to two lanes BOuth of Las
Trampas Road. At EI Cerro, Danville Boulevard widens to four lanes with parking on both
sides and bike lanes.
San Ranwn Valley Boulevard is also a route of regional significance in Danville. It is the
continuation of Hartz Avenue south of Railroad Avenue. San Ramon Valley Boulevard has
two lanes to the Danville town limit.
Crow Canyon Road has a short segment that is within the Town of Danville. This
segment is between Tassajara Ranch Drive and Camino Tassajara and is six lanes wide.
Traffic Volumes and Capacity on Arterials
Traflic volumes for the routes of regional significance were compiled from individual
jurisdictions and Caltrans. These volumes are shown on Figure 2-2.
Volumes on the routes of regional significance are shown as average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes. These roadway volumes are largest near major development/job centers and
smallest on the fringes of the Tri-Valley area. Volumes are also high at certain major
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
17
I
?;\ 0 en
N I
I W
~'.?; N
O\~ Cl) ~
~ ...
o \ 0 ::lI :::)
" 0\0 0) I
~ti .o.u,\ 0 Li: ..J
-.... oS 0\"0 0
" o \ 0>
0 O\CC:. >
~ I
\.#,0
;"J. '2.-
c' 0
0\
0, -
\ lL I
\ lL
<
, ex: I
, I-
\
\ >-
\
\ ..J I
-
\ <
,
\ C
, I
\
\ CJ
.... \ Z
! \ - I
011 I-
'f/f'tf"(S$'tJ UJ
-
>< I
\ W
011 \ I
\
3:lN3111l1n \
I
d I
c
-
..
tn I
CD
....
ca ,
..- I
Co) / I
0
0) I
,
tn /
< ,
,
c ) I
ca / ,
E Q)
..c ..... /" I
Co) .....
'5= I
0) I
< ;:: I
I <<J I
C Q I I
0 I
....
...
ca
In I
I
I .D CIJ
N
I W
N
I 011 3TII,lH3311~ f ~
::J ::>
C)
.. t= ..J
'"
I 011 CXlS'i^ i 0
>
P.O
\ '1~O ,0Q 0
I ,,!>.
?I, -
LL
~\~ ~ of LL
o,~
I (,)\0 ~ c(
o 0 a:
~'
,0 >- ....
0\-0 i
I o ~ ^'" 3110f'll/3IV1 '/</
O't:. >-
'0
~\- ..J
Co :<:s:.
0, -
I (,), c(
c
I \ C)
\ z
-
l-
I \ el UJ
t. -
, t )(
\
\ J:: W
I , O,~
, 0
\ l'!D ~
~
IS
I \ ~
Q)
......
\ Q..
I ,
.. ,
(,) \
c
-
.. \
I en IE
CD
... i~
as
..-
I (,) f:J~
0 ~
en
en
< ..,.
co
I c
ca
e i ,
I ..c ,
(,) ~tl )
en
< -...... .s
1; , ,
I I
I c ~
0
...
...
ca
In , ,
I
Existing Transportation Conditions
freeway interchanges such as 1-680/Crow Canyon Road and 1-580/ Dougherty Road!
Hopyard Drive. Table 2-1 compares the volumes to typical capacity ranges. The roads that
are nearing capacity based on AnT are Vasco Road, Vallecitos Road (Highway 84), First
Street in Pleasanton, the two-lane section of San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon,
Crow Canyon Road near 1.680, Hopyard Road north of Owens, San Ramon Road near
1-580, Dougherty Road near 1-580, and Dublin Boulevard west of 1-680. First Street in
Pleasanton, however, is a downtown street, and congestion in this location is expected due
to the dense development.
Freeway Levels of Service
Level of service desCriptions for both 1-580 and 1-680 were obtained from the 1-680
Corridor Study Existing Conditions report prepared by TJKM for the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority and from freeway travel times studies prepared by Abrams
Associates for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. These values are
shown on Figure 2-3. The freeway lane capacity is assumed to be 2,200 vehicles per hour.
1-580 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout the Tri-Valley area during
peak hours with the exception of a short segment between the 1-580/1-680 interchange and
the Santa Rita Road!I'assejara Road interchange in Pleasanton. This section occasionally
becomes congested during peak hours. 1-680 operates at LOS C or better in both direc-
tions throughout most of the Tri-Valley area.
However, a section of northbound 1-680 between Stoneridge and the 1-680/1-580 inter-
change occasionally becomes congested during peak hours as does the southbound
segment between Alcosta and the 1-680/1.580 interchange. All these problems on 1-580
and 1-680 near the 1-680/1-580 interchange are caused by the interchange design with loop
ramps and weaving sections.
The other segments of 1.680 that occasionally become congested are from Crow Canyon
Road north to the 1.680/24 interchange.
Intersection Levels of Service
The operating conditions at intersections of routes of regional significance and at certain
freeway off-lon-ramps were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level of Service is
a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow
conditions with little or no delay time at the intersection, to WS F, or highly congested
conditions with long delays at the intersection (see Table 2-2).
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ExistifI{J Transportation Conditions
I Table 2-1
Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance
I Existing Typical Capacity Rangel
JurisdidlonIRoute Lanes ADT (In thousands)
I Llvennor.
Vasco Road 2 13,500 17-20
I Stanley Boulevard 4 24,300 27-36
I Plessanton
First Street (north of Neal) 2 18,500 15-20
Sunol Boulevard (south of Bernal) , 4 17,700 27-36
I Santa Rita Road (north of Las 6 27,900 40-56
Positas)
Main Street (north of Rose) 2 9,800 12-17
I Hopyard Road (north of Owens) 6 43,000 40456
Division Street 2 6,900 12-17
Stoneridge Drive
I west of 1-680 6 29,000 40-56
east of Santa Rita Road 4 17,000 27-36
I Dublin
San Ramon Road
north of Amador Valley 4 23,600 27-36
I south of Dublin Boulevard 6 48,600 40.56
Dougherty Road
north of Dublin Boulevard 4 21,400 27-36
I south of Dublin Boulevard 6 44,200 40456
Dublin Boulevard
east of 1-680 4 24,000 27-36
I west of 1-680 4 32,100 27-36
I San Ramon
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
north of Alcosta Boulevard 2 12,100 12-17
I north of Crow Canyon Road 4 21,300 27-36
Alcosta Boulevard 4 24,600 27-36
Bollinger Canyon Road 6 36,400 40-56
I
I
I Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 21
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance
. Existing Typical Capacity Range 1
JurisdidionlRoute Lanes ADT (In thousands)
Crow Canyon Road
west of San Ramon 2 20,000 17.20
west of 1.680 6 44,300 40-56
east of 1-680 6 48,200 40-56
west of Dougherty Road 4 13,000 27-36
Danvllle
Camino Tassajara 4. 18,000 27-36
Sycamore Valley Road 4 18,900 27-36
Hartz Avenue 2 10,400 12-17
Danville Boulevard 4 18,700 27-36
San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2 12-17
Crow Canyon Road 6 18,000 40-56
State Route 84
First Street
north of Portala Avenue 6 27,200 40-56
north of Holmes Street 4 12,700 27-36
Holmes Street 4 23,000 21-36
Vallecitos Road 2 11,000 12-17
Niles Canyon Road 2 12,500 12-17
1 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r;\
c.'
-=' \ ?;
8\~
,0
0'0
~O\O
'"'0
(.), II> .
O\~
~,g,
c. \ ;i(
5\
,
,
\
0/1
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
.
\
\
\
\
/
/
/)
,
,
)
~
-
.....
~
lIS
A
",./
//'
/
,
I
I
I '
~ C/)
~ Z
f 0
::s -
~ I-
<
o
o
..J
C
W
I-
C/)
W
CJ
Z
o
o
CJ
Z
-
I-
en
-
><
W
,
,
I
\ .0 en
....,
\ I Z I
,
?;'\ N
c. ?:'o ~ 0
-:>>I~
0' ::s -
O\~ en l- I
o ,0 ~ <
..... ,
\fl \0 0
o -0 a~ mWl33~D
o ,Q) ~ 0
o''C. I
.... \0 ~ ..oJ
.....':2..
c., a~ OOS'f'JI
01 0
0\ I
, \j,sc3. \,0 W
I I-
\
, UJ
I Ie III I
\
, ~ c:J
,
\ >- Z
I ! 0 I
, ,w :kIO"~3N7 'N
\ 0
c:J I
\ Z
,
\ -
l-
I UJ I
\
\ -
ill )(
I i \ w
\ a: I
, i d
I
\ 0
i:! ....,
:Ii ~ I
\ (U
~ NOT1y.j rn
I (U
c: \ Q>
0
:;:; -
u Q.. I
Q)
III
.:>:. .!l \
c:
:.J S
. b .....
U '(j \ I
c 0 '0 ff
Cl.
- 0
~ w , 2
,,; ,
Q.> Vl
> 0 ~
G) 0 --'
.. II ~ I
a:I Q 10
.6 z:
0 I.&J ~
<.:l co I
tn I.&J
CI) ....J
<
C I I
as ,
e )
..c: .....
..
U 'ii ..
..
UJ ........~ ~ J I
< .2
I 1;
C ~
0 .. .. I
... f
...
a:I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-2
Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service
Interpretation VlC Ratio
A
Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single Less Than 0.60
signal cycle.
Very Ught congestion; an occasional approach phase is 0.60-0.70
fully utilized.
Ught congestion; occasional backups on critical approach- 0.71-0.80
es.
Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersec- 0.81-0.90
tion functional. Cars required to walt through more than
one cycle during short peaks. No longstanding queues
formed.
Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on 0.91-0.99
critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if
traffic signal does not provide for protected turning move-
ments. Traffic queue may block nearby Intersectlons(s)
upstream of Critical approach(es).
Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. 1.00 and Greater
B
c
o
E
F
A signalized intersection's level of service can be calculated with a number of methods.
For this study, a method based on critical movement analysis, called the vcce method
was used. vecc stands for Volume-to-Capacity Contra Costa County. See Appendix A for
a full description of the voce program. This metbod.is identical to the Circular 212
method except that the saturation flow is increased from 1,500 to 1,800 vehicles per hour.
This adjustment was based on saturation-flow rate studies conducted by CCTA in Contra
Costa County. The volumes of cars on a critical movement are summed and divided by the
capacity of the movement. This VIC ratio of each critical movement at an intersection is
used to produce an overall intersection VIC ratio also taking into account signal phasing.
The overall VIC ratio is then colTelated to a level of service (see Table 2-2). AM peak-hour
and PM peak-hour levels of service are shown by city in Table 2-3.
Most intersections of routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valley area operate at
LOS D or better. LOS D is generally considered to be an acceptable operating condition
for major intersections. All but one intersection meet this criteria in the AM peak hour.
The exception is VascolI-580 EB Off-Ramp (WS F). During the PM peak hour three
intersections operate at Level of Service E or F: VascolI.580 WB Off, VascolI-580 EB Off,
and Danville/Stone Valley.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
25
I
Existing Transportation Conditions I
Table 2-3 I
Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis
AM Peak PM Peak I
City NlS Street EIW Street VlC LOS VlC LOS I
Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.50 A
San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.49 A 0.87 0 I
San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.38 A 0.58 A
Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.51 A 0.71 C
Dougherty Road 1.560 WB Off 0.56 A 0.68 B I
Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.64 0
Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.24 A 0.72 C
Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.46 A 0.39 A
Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.22 A 0.50 A I
Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.26 A 0.56 A
Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.25 A 0.36 A
Uverrnore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.53 A 0.15 B I
North Uvermore Portola Avenue 0.35 A 0.50 A
North Uvermore 1-580 EB Off 0.44 A 0.21 A I
Murrietta Blvd Stanley BOulevard 0.60 C 0.76 C
Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.69 0 0.87 0
.Murrietta Blvd Jack'London 0.37 A 0.39 A I
First Street 1.560 EB Off 0.74 C 0.81 D
East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.75 C 0.86 D
Vasco Road 1-560 WB Off 0.42 A 0.97 E I
North Uvennore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.86 0
Vasco Road 1-560 EB Off 1.09 F 0.93 E
Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.23 A 0.25 A I
Vasco Road East Avenue 0.81 D 0.53 A
Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.54 A 0.50 A
North Mines East Street 0.47 A 0.58 A I
First Street 1-560 WB Off O.n C 0.64 B
Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.56 A
Airway Boulevard 1-560 WB Off 0.53. A 0.27 A
Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.56 A 0.69 B I
Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.36 A 0.45 A
Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.75 C 0.56 A I
Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.53 A
Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.67 B 0.66 B
Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.43 A 0.51 A I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 26 I
I
I Existing Transportation Conditions
I Table 2-3
Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued)
I AM Peak PM Peak
I City NlS Street EJW Street VlC LOS VlC LOS
Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.41 A 0.49 A
I Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.55 A 0.65 B
Foothill Road 1.580 EB Off 0.24 A 0.40 A
FirsVSunol Bernal Avenue 0.51 A 0.50 A
I 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.36 A 0.40 A
1.680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A
1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.53 A 0.28 A
1.680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.44 A 0.48 A
I Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.60 A 0.70 B
First Street RayNineyard 0.65 B 0.70 8
Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.23 A 0.34 A
I Santa Rita Road Stone ridge Drive 0.43 A 0.57 A
1.680 S8 Off Stone ridge Drive 0.34 A 0.36 A
1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.33 A 0.31 A
I Foothill Road Dubtin Canyon 0.31 A 0.70 B
Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.56 A 0.58 A
Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.26 A 0.31 A
I San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.46 A 0.50 A
Village Parkway AJcosta Boulevard 0.18 A 0.31 A
I 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.52 A 0.40 A
San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.51 A 0.87 0
AJcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.46 A 0.61 B
I AJcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.53 A 0.55 A
Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.64 B 0.71 C
San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.49 A
I 1.680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.72 C 0.65 B
1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.65 B 0.57 A
1-680 S8 Off Bollinger Canyon 0.42 A 0.76 C
1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.77 C 0.56 A
I Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.20 A 0.24 A
1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.67 B 0.87 0
I
I
I
I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 27
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-3
Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued)
AM Peak PM Peak
City NlS Street EIW Street vie LOS VlC LOS
Oanville San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.37 A o.n C
1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.66 B
Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.35 A
Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.36 A 0.45 A
1-680 N8 On Sycamore Valley 0.53 A 0.45 A
Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.64 8 0.83 0
Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.46 A 0.44 A
1-680 S8 Off Diablo Road 0.53 A 0.47 A
1.680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.54 A 0.59 A
1-680 S8 Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.47 A 0.55 A
1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.73 C 0.50 A
San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.38 A 0.46 A
Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.36 A 0.37 A
Unincorporated DanYille Boulevard Stone Valley o.n C 1.08 F
CCC 1.680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.49 A 0.59 A
1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.53 A 0.46 A
J.680 NB Off Uvorna Road 0.41 A 0.31 A
1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A 0.34 A
Tri-Valley Bicycle Network
The bicycle network in Tri-Valley consists of three different types of bicycle facilities:
bicycle paths (Class I), bicycle lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III). A bicycle
path is an off-street bicycle facility for the exclusive use of bicycles. These facilities are
physically separate from streets or sidewalks. A bicycle lane is a one. way path on the side
of a roadway that is specifically signed and striped for bicycle travel. A bicycle route is a
shared, either with pedestrians on the sidewalk or with vehicles on the street, bicycle
facility on the roadway with no striped designation for bicycle travel.
The mf\iority of bicycle facilities in the Tri-Valley area are Class II and Class III bike-
ways. A few Class I bicycle facilities are available, including the Iron Horse Trail. The
Iron Horse Trail is a mixed.use path for pedestrians, bicycles and horses. This trail runs
along the Southern Pacific right.of.way between Walnut Creek and Dublin. Figure 2-4
shows the existing bicycle network for the Tri.Valley Area and Figure 2-5 shows the
future bicycle network. These networks were defined on the Tri.Valley Bike Plan ap..
proved by the TVTC in February 1992.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Transportation COnditions
Transit
'There are several transit options available in the Tri.Valley area. Areawide bus service is
provided by local carriers. Dial.a.ride service is also provided for those transit patrons
that are unable to utilize regular bus service. Transit services provided by larger Tri.
Valley employers augment areawide bus service by either providing special shuttles, as in
the case of Bishop Ranch, or by distributing free transit passes as in the case of Hacienda
Business Park. Connections to other locations in the Bay Area outside of Tri. Valley are
available through the BART Express bus service, which carries patrons to BART stations
in Hayward and Walnut Creek. Connections from Stockton to the Tri.Valley area are also
available through a bus service provided by the San Joaquin Regional Transit Authority.
Areawide Bus Service
Bus service in the Tri.Yalley area is provided by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
(CCTA), which operates County Connection; Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA). which operates WHEELS; and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which operates
the BART Express Buses. County Connection operates scheduled, 1ixed.route, and dial-a.
ride bus service in the suburban portions of Contra Costa County. Three routes serve the
Tri.Yalley cities of Danville and San Ramon. BART express buses are operated by BART
and provide feeder service between park.n.ride lots, business parks, and BART stations.
BART operates six routes in the Tri.Yalley, serving the Bayfair and Walnut Creek BART
stations. WHEELS bus routes, operated by the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit
Authority, provide scheduled, fixed-route, and dial-a-ride bus services to the Cities of
Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Pleasanton also provides its own dial.a.ride service.
Table 24 briefly describes the bus routes serving the Tri.Yalley.
Trip Reduction Programs
The Tri.Yalley area includes two major business parks: Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and
Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Both of these parks have implemented innovative
trip reduction programs intended to reduce the number of single-occupant automobiles on
commute routes to these major employment centers. The City of San Ramon oversees the
program in Bishop Ranch.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
29
c.5
oS
or
CD
...
as
.0
o
(/)
(/)
<
c
as
E
..c
()
(/)
<
I
C
o
...
....
as
r:D
:!'
g
---. 2;; ~
'0
~
en en en
en en en
000
V V U
II II II
~ I I J
~ I I =
w - - J
.....l IiI
= -
-p\
c;.'
-=' \ ~
o\c;.
() -='
,0
0'0
~\O
0'-0
0' tI)
O\€:.
~19,
c. 1 4!.
8\
1
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
Oll
J~N3l1 M\f1
\
\
N -
N l
~ /
:;'. /" .!
~
~
a:l
Q
1
1
~
OOUGI'IEP1"\_I-
1
,
I
/
/
,
)
~/'
/"
,
I
I
I
I
c
....
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
...
::I
l:r)
c:
UJ
>-
<
~
W
~
-
m
(!)
z
-
I-
UJ
-
><
W
I
I \
I
\
~\
-;) ,~ .a CJ)
I O,e. ....
O\~ I >
N
0,0
~\ f -<
o\~ ::3 ~
I .~
o,~ L....
O'~ tnI 3'TIWJ33/J!J W
::::.\9.
Co \ 4- ~
I 0' ~ -
0\ <,~\\/ OJ
\Jp';,O ~ ...~\\ (!J
\ ,,\~
I I~ Z
, "
I -
\ ~ .....
I ~ CJ)
I \
\ -
II> ><
!
\ "'" 3/JOI'I/J3Nl 'N W
I
I \
I \
\
I \ d
E C~ 0
\ 110 +'
011 NOl7l'J =
I as
rn
as
4)
-
I .. ~
(,) = -
.5 Ul Ul II>
Ul Ul
0 0 Ul
U 0
U u
I u) II II II
CD c I 1 J
... z ~
ca L..J I I I 2
-- e.,:)
(,) L..J ~
I 0 ....J I i i
tn ~
tn
<
I c
<<S
e
I ..c .....
(,) i
tn --..:Z:; .. , ,
< lil J
I 3
I c !
0
... . ,
..... ,
ca f
I ED
d
.5
u)
CD
..
a:I
.0
o
U)
U)
<
C
a:I
e
.c
()
U)
<
I
C
o
..
...
a:I
In
~\
c'
0;) I ~
o\C
() 0;)
'0
0'<.)
~\o
0'"0
<.)Il\')
O\tt:
~,9,
c:. \-4.-
8\
,
,
\
......
..!
l:I
.........:z:; ~
.!
~
-..;.
g>---
i;U)Q)-
'x ~ ~ ~
w U U .2
II II U
o II II
~!IIJ
8111'"
-' I I = J
I 1
/'
",//
,
,
I
I
\
.
,
\
,
.
\
,
.
\
,
,
\
"......
~
1/.....,1......
/I
.
,
~\\-
,
,
\
\
,
\
/
,
)
~ UJ
~ >-
~ <
~ !:
w
~
-
OJ
C
W
UJ
o
D-
O
a:
c..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I d
.s
I
I
I
I
I
I
0;
G)
~
as
.0
o
tJ)
tJ)
<
c
as
E
..c
Co)
tJ)
<
I
C
o
~
..,;.
as
OJ
\
\
~\
?,~
0'':-
O\~
0.0
~'
o\~
o ,~
o''C.
~\90
.:- ,A
0'
o \. 110 ~\~ -'I 1\.-11
-Jr1?co..,,\-" -
\ ,.\--.I.,iJ"J!'" I
\ it
\ ~ 81
~ ~1
\ ~t
\
\
'\
"I.
..0 UJ
U")
I
N >-
f <
::lI ~
0)
~
OM :J'T1WJ3JM~ W
Ii! ~
~ -
OM OOSVA m
C
W
UJ
0
D-
O
a:
D-
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
-1,\1
\
\
~
i
~
c:7' ~ - -
C - =
~ ~ U} en
';( ~ ~ U)
w <.> U 8
II II II II
c
zil1J
La.J11-=
8 <oJ _ I J
-Jlli'i
...r
0:>
--
..
"ii
-..~ ~
)
c;
~
J
j
co
!
c(
>-
CD
-
~
.
0-
~
~
CD
.c
-
c:
-
CD
(,.)
,. o~
N~
.!tIJ
.a::s
~m
o
t
!
Q)
1U
E
.~
~
't:
S-
eQ)
8~
i
~
>.
-E
:J
10
en
~
~
I
>.
B
i
00
Q)Q)
i~
EE
00
C')C')
~
~~
Q)C'O
.ga:
.~!
S.~
en CD
E
~
~
a:
ca~
ii~
C!a:l
00 Q)
iisi
!..6~
a~~
>-
-
C
::s
is
c( ::lie:
t).....C'IIZ
u~~~
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
o
Q)
2
's
g
o
~
's
g
16 ~ 16
.:.= 8,.:.= 8,.:.= 8-
C'O == C'O == C'O ==
08.08.08.00
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
22222222
's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's
00066600
CQC')(QC')(QC')(QC')
a;
;:E
Q)
.g
'C
~~
0.0
-::I
eno
-t:
C'O
c..
o
en
Q)
C
'US
::I
a:le:::
C'OO
jj
~oS?
:to..
o
Q)
.~
E
g
c
o
c
m
C'O
Q)
a::
!
'-
~
<C
.S
:0
::I
o
~
:f
Q)
0)
C'O
'E
:>
(I)
J
3:
C
5
-J.....C'II C') 'lit
Cii
::E
Q)
~
~
S
en
c
o
'E
C'O
lQ
oS?
c..
n;
::E
t
~
~
-t:
C'O
c..
en
en
~
'US
::I
a:l
C'O
-g
Q)
'g
:t
B
C'O
..J
Cii
C
o
Ta
z
!
~
Q)
2:
...J
Q)
g
!
~
o
1t)(Q.....
o
Q)
s
c
's
2
~
2
's
~
000
Q)Q)Q)
222
's's's
ggg
ii~
.:.= 8.'2
C'OoQ)
cp = >
Q.0Q)000
Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)
222222
's 's 's 's 's 's
660000
C'IIC')CCC')(W)(Q
Cii
:E
Q)
.g'
'C
!
s
en
Q)
.~
! 0
82'S
=b38.
'~.c ~
g .2>~
Q):to
;:EC'OC:
>.i ~
.wco
caet:
>C)<
Q)
0)
.S?
8
c0-
~C'OQ)
:eQ)
0'-
'&0-
C' CL. en
'C en ~
~,jii:
.....C'II'lItCQ
... .... ~ ......
o
CD
2
E
i
S
e
's
~
It)
=
2
's
g
(I)
i
2
6
It)
0000
CDQ)Q)CD
iiJj
EEEc
0000
t'?(w)C')C'II
i
ii$.
8.a
Q)Q)
22
'S's
~~
~~
a: a:
<<
~ a:la:l
~~~~iiii
a:l<<<ee
'El:DaJI:DOO
C'O.!::.!::.!:: S S
!i:C'Ocococc
>.>.>."1;;.--
co co C'O ii:l'.!J .!J
J:a:JaJCD>>
~
-J
~
o
la-t: -t:
Q).gz~ ~
~a:e~~ ~
cc Q) !
. I c: =
-E -E Q,) 'US co '0
CO C'O.l!: ::I::E :a
Q.Q....JI:DCDaJ
cuco~C'O.gco
'RB;B'cB
1.1.g? 5.m ~.!2
!~~ligs~
Q,:I:J:...J:tenJ:
M
w
....
a:
c(
m
.:.
a:
c( X...Jc.. X
11I:):):);:)00
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
Existing Transportation Conditions
Bishop Ranch
The Bishop Ranch Business Park operates a shuttle that provides two types of
service-a commuter service and a convenience/shopping service. The commuter
service runs from the Walnut Creek BART Station to Bishop Ranch. This service is
provided exclusively for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation.
(This service is not available to _Chevron, Pacific Bell, or AT&T employees.) This
service operates with 20-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 3:30
PM to 6:10 PM. Average weekday ridership is 250 patrons per day.
The convenience/shopping service runs from Bishop Ranch to Crow Canyon Commons,
Diablo Plaza, and Marketplace Plaza (cpmmerciallretail centers in the area). This
service is provided for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation and
employees of Pacific Bell. This service operates with 10.minute headways from 11:30
AM to 1:30 PM. Average weekday ridership is 40 patrons per day. Both shuttle
services are provided free of charge.
In addition to the shuttle service, Bishop Ranch provides other transportation services.
The transportation center is linked with the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter
network and two full-time employees are available to assist potential carpoollvanpool
riders get matched. Other services provided by Bishop Ranch include the sale of local
transit tickets, promotional events, a preferential parking program, and bicycle
facilities. Bishop Ranch has been offering transportation services for over eight years.
The Bishop Ranch shuttle has operated near or at capacity since it began. Other types
of commute modes are monitored by Bishop Ranch, and percentages of drive-alone
trips have decreased in the past year, while percentages of carpool, vanpool, and other
non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips have increased.
Hacienda Business Park
Hacienda Business Park maintains two transit contracts-one with BART and one
with WHEELS-that allow employees of Hacienda Business Park to ride free.
Participation in the BART program generates approximately 150 patrons per day.
Participation in the WHEELS program runs approximately 160 patrons per day and
has increased by more than 100 percent since 1990, according to John Deaver at the
Hacienda Business Park Owners' Association. Hacienda Business Park also provides to
its employees preferential parking for carpools and vanpools and connections on-site,
through FAX and phone, to the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network.
Trip Reduction/Travel Demand Management Ordinances
All Tri-Valley cities and counties have trip reduction ordinances in compliance with
eMP requirements and Regulation 13 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. These are targeted at major employers with the intention of reducing peak.-
hour trip.making. Many employers have employee commute coordinators, who monitor
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
35
Existing Transportation Conditions
trip-making and encourage alternatives to driving alone during peak hours. Typical
incentives include ridesharing~matching services, preferential parking for carpools, and
flexible or staggered work hours.
Existing Mode Split
The mode split for commute trips in the Tri-Valley area in 1990 was estimated using
the Tri.Valley Transportation Model. The existing estimated mode split is 79 percent
drive-alone trips, 17 percent carpools, and 4 percent transit trips. This calculates to an
average vehicle ridership of 1.15 persons per car for peak-hour commute trips.
Driveway counts done by the City of Pleasanton in the Hacienda Business Park
indicate an average vehicle occupancy of 1.12, which supports the calculations of the
model.
Existing Travel Patterns
The Tri-Valley presently has about 11,000 more employed residents than local jobs
(see Table 2-5). Hence, it is an area of net out-commuting. However, even areas with a
perfect job-housing balance experience out-commuting by some residents and in-
commuting by others.
Figure 2-6 shows that 58 percent of total PM peak-hour trips in Tri~Valley involve
internal trips, 20 percent are external to internal (out-commuters returning home), 20
percent are internal to external (in-commuters leaving their jobs), and 2 percent are
through trips. "Internal" trips are defined as those with both trip ends in the Tri-
Valley. For persons working in Tri-Valley but living elsewhere the m~or residence
locations are other Contra Costa County cities and other Alameda County cities. Also,
17 percent live in the Central Valley. For Tri-Valley residents that work elsewhere,
the mf\ior destinations are again other Alameda County cities and other Contra Costa
County cities.
Table 2-5
Jobs..Housing Balance
Employed Residents
Jobs
122,882
111,651
Source: ABAG Projections 'SO.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I u
c
-
...
I en
Q)
.....
cu
.-
Co)
I 0
en
en
<
I c
cu
E
I .c:
(,)
en
<
I
I c
0
.....
...
cu
I m
Source:
rigure 2-6
1990 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE
PM PEAK HOUR
(20.2">
INTtRNAL 7RlPS
(57.a,,>
TRIPS FROM TRI-V ALLEY TO.
(3.5%>
TRIPS TO TRI-VALLEY FROM.
OTH~ BAY ARf,A
SANTA CLARA CO.
(11.1">
Tri-Valley Transportation Model
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Consistent with the Contra Costa and Alameda countywide transportation plans, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council has adopted the following broad goals to guide this
planning effort.
. Improve safety
. Manage congestion
· Enhance mQbili ty
. 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 (1'80s). 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 designed to attain traffic service objectives consis-
tent with adopted Action Plans.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 38
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
· Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies
(e.g., requiring payment of fees or participation in the TSM/rDM program).
· Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans.
· Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to
mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General
Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans
may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be
revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCT A (for Contra
Costa County jurisdictions).
· Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA (for Contra
Costa County jurisdictions).
Preliminary 1'80s were presented to the Tri.Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in
February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the 1'80s were approved
by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved 1'80s. 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 (VIC = 0.99) on freeways
and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy
condition, with speeds about 35 mph on freeways. This standard is sometimes not met
under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP
standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject
to an intersection LOS standard.
Hours of Congeslion. Maintain LOS E conditions on 1.580 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,
this 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 acljustments to raw
model output turning movements. This is the standard to which all Tri-Valley
jurisdictions presently adhere. Under current conditions, only three of the study
intersections violate this standard.
Tn-Valley Gateways. 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.)
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Average Vehicle Ridership (A VB). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for
commute trips by 2010. Thii has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average
Vehicle Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Manage-
ment District. Their recommended goal is A VR = 1.35 for large employers in the Tri-
Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. The transportation service objective is
to increase the overall A VR for all employers, large and small, by 10 percent.
Transit Travel Times. Express transit options should be provided that equal or better
auto travel times in the major corridors (1-680 and 1-580) by 2010. Transit travel times
must be reasonably competitive with auto travel times in order to attract riders.
Transit travel time should be reduced through the provision of more frequent service,
more express service versus local service, with high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and with
ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.
Baseline Forecasts
Chapter Summary
. Baseline forecasts representing ABAG ProjectioM ~O land use data are required
for Action Plans.
. The baseline forecasts do not reflect current land use or network plAnning by the
TVTC.
. The planned, baseline transportation system would be inadequate to support the
2010 baseline growth levels.
The baseline traffic forecasts are for the years 2000 and 2010. They are based on land
use projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '90.
Land use adjustments between individual zones were made to retlect diBCUSSions with
local statr. The overall total dwelling units and jobs projections for the Tri.Yalley were
not altered. The assumed road network was based on input from the member jurisdic-
tions of the TVTC as of 1992. This chapter describes the model inputs and the traffic
forecasts and their impact on the road system.
Baseline forecasts presented in this chapter are mandated by CCTA and the Alameda
County CMA as part of their planning processes to insure consistency with ABAG
projections throughout the counties. However, the Tri.Yalley Transportation Council
(TVTC) believes that the "expected land use" scenario provides a better basis for the
development of the Tri.Yalley Transportation Plan recommendations. The TVTC
defined their expectations for land use and network projections, which are presented
in Chapter 5.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 41
Base'ne Forecasts
Land Use Forecasts
The land use forecasts used in the baseline traffic estimates are based on ABAG
Projections '90 (see Table 4-1). Minor modifications were made to the ABAG data to.
shift some future houses and jobs between jurisdictions, but the Tri-Valley land use
totals are within one percent of the ABAG forecasts. Note that ABAG forecasts are not
constrained by infrastructure availability or political viability. For comparison
purposes, Exhibit 1 shows a comparison to ABAG Projections '92.
The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as
specified by each jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, the forecasts represent likely
absorption rates for new houses and businesses between now and 2010.
Network Assumptions
Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions
as of 1992 (see Figure 4-1). The major criterion that was considered when including a
particular improvement in the future road network was whether that improvement
was likely to be constructed by 2000 or 2010. Not all of the future road network is
currently funded. This is discussed further in Chapter 7.
The improvements to state highways included in the future road networks were shown
in the MTC 1991 Regional Transportation P14n and are either fully or partially
funded. These include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-680, auXiliary lanes on
1-680, a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp at the 1-580/1-680 interchange, and
widening of Route 84. Also in the category of regional improvements, the 2010 network
included the extension of BART service to East DublinIPleasanton.
The local road widenings and extensions included in the future networks are all
included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010.
Many are anticipated to be funded with impact fees on new development or will be
built by developers to serve their development projects.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 'S (0) N gO..... 0 0) ..... CO f.8 f5 ~ ~ CO ~~ N
:S .......... O(O)O)Ll);:g~ N....
COO(O)Ll) ...... Ll) NCO....O
.S .,.:tlSlIi"': NO t .,.:."."....r-:
c:c .., ......, ~.... PJ
I
(0) N 0) 8 ..... ~ 0) co co co 0 Ll) 0) co ~~ co
0 ............... (0) leo~COLl)""""f2 ~
~ ..... coo.....o ..,.... 0(0) .....
I 0 "':rD~"': ~~ ~ ~Nt'i....S
i N
N
I ~ g (0) N .., Q .... 0 0) ...... co ~ 0 .... ~ N ~~......
w ............. (O)cnLl)N~ Ll):g Ll) ....
COO (0) ......N N N......,
N .,.:tIS~ ~&6 ~ ~ t'i....g
....
I m C? Ll) en Q .... 0 .... Ll) .... f2 Q ~ Ll) en. ~~ en
cog~ CW)0)!Q!Qg)(') ~f.8....(g
.... .,.: cD r-: 'N pj g N......,.:
N.... ....
I ....
I i l~i~~~~~~~~~~iml~ ~
~ ......~~cn.., co~...taNtt32- f2 !
.... t
I 0 l~l~I~~~!~~~~imll
~ .... l
0
I N ":'~~CON CO~NfeN~~" ~ !i
r~ .....
5!
I I ~ i:g ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Viii ~
"':";&6"': rD~"':";...,.: t I
.......... N N
....
.0
I en m co ~ co ..... 0) ;!. g: 0 en 'lit ...... &() 0) N NI ~ g
- en ......0.... Ll)~N....faN....&()
", ~ _...._........'lIt~ ......~ ~........ Ul i
as .... &()oC') co en 0 Ie
! .... .... .... N
en
I .~
.f ~ c
.c ~ ~ j
a..
I i CU :I olS
e 1 ~~8c j~e!8 .~
E
~ ,c CUcuCU'- a: ~~I s
I ...(1) is C>>"':Cc.5ccQ) ~
od-a 1=~~l~~~~~~~33: ~
cpQ) as .-a:om...... _cncn"",€,c...
I J5U1 ~ f;c8cn!'E1i5l3mm'E 'S'!s ~
as <~~ ~o~&f~~Q:~~~5~
{!m
I
I Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 43
-
..
:a
:c
l(
w
.; '.
c:
o
1;;
:0
.
't:
::2
.,
J'
ii
~
.5
-
Ii
E
.2~
a..
E D
w ..
'C 0
Cl4
CIllO
.~
Jii It
o c:::
.c 0
CIll=
!J g
00'
~ ..
OQ.
-cs
Oc(
Nm
~c(
G)
>"Cl
.. C
o CI
=!a
ell:;)
~-J
G)c(
.....
&fu
NU
0) 0
eIl-
c"Cl
o Gl
- ..
....-co
G)ga.
~ 2 g
~Q.U
cHi ~
tal ;;
ill ~
! I ...
u.
HI !
08
is
HI
8e:.!
iil ~
~~.5
if I
!jJ
; II I 1Il....~
J =
~t
If.
-ct:2
G2e,g
i 0 :
Gl.t:J
... ~
.
:!!!E. ~
.3.!! lei
E-cD.
0:: l- E
"ow
1&10
: . "
".c:2
m ... 0
ifii
Gl .. ..
...~g
::
';I
~ ! .
g <( !
2:'-00(
-"01
oc:c;
o.5!-
<( r ~
m .. ..
oC,Q-
::Ill.
en
lii !
t fi ri
n~ !
I ,.: Gi
...
!: ~ ~ ~
;..:~ ...
CD
~
'"
...
i 8; I
iii rtS..: ,.:
... N
fA
iii
-
~ CD
f ~ ;}
i I ~ !
ell
~
...
...
s ~
t Pi N
! I ell ~
~ ~ ~
~ 0 (I) t")
to to CD..
,..: ,..: ~
N ell
01
01
01
o
...
~o r:: :g
......... N CD
ri ri vi
... ...
h
I
I}
I
It
I
h
I
i
~j
I
I
h;
I I
~
~ ~! ;
".;..: ~
....... N
;} e i i
rtSo"'; vi
... ...
I
II ~
It)
-
I
t")
h~
I !
... V') ..... ~
~~~ 2?
N ri
... ...
re~Gl co
... ; s
rD .....
~ >-
....!!
a:~
c:>
c:~~-
g ~ t ~
CD Ii.::::.-
~ a:CDO.g
_ .:::(.)0(1)
IIIl IIIl
o (I)
- i
(.) iii
~.tJ
~ J'~~
~u ~l!_!:_
. J9.;:) IIIl
- j: ~ 5 S
i ~ ~ 5 ~
.!! -e
< ;:)
c
JSc.!<
6~~
'il00!
.= ... 0
~ ~ ~ i ~
o
l
~
l
h:h
I . I
i _ _ _
~I ~
m I
ft ~ ~
18 N ~
I
It:
I .
~
l
t C;;
Il-
I ~
Gl
~ 0 i
m rtS
C\l N
"'.... -
C\l... '"
.... ....
Q m
... ...
s CD
c~
!a:
.! 8
~-
Slim:!
... ... :I 0
liiCCDD
... CD _ ::s
:o~ en
Q:
on!_ 2
icoi~ a
!lll
N'" = ~
h
i
h
I
~! ~ ~
gN' R
lnWGlIO
CO)... W ,....
CD ...... ~ CD
g g
! I CD
~ ~
~ CD
. 'iI 3!
I ~ ] ~ J
:S
.
;.
i
I'
i i.
!( i I
titM I
il
I~
~I I
{15 I
.1
i II II I
~ f! Pi I
,. I - ii J I
! d .f
J i I
~ I i ij J" I
t1 .DJ I
5 · ~ =i i
I h i I
i I II ~ I
i ... i~ ~
2 ~~. I
i~ Hi-
I i ~ ]I I
Ii j I.
I! ~ f
~! ~ i I
::. ~ !fi
'"
I
, I ~
~ f.!
w, R
-I ...
~
J i
I I
i -
I
...
~ ~
~ ~
~ .c
> ~
~ 1
~ ~
l:: .e
::l :>
I
_0 . ~ CI'l
I U"" I: ..,. ..,. ..,. 'if!. ~ ~ s:t
c~ .... ~ II) (;) ...:
! .. ~ .... ~ ~
:!.2 a t .... t t II !
is!! E t! i I e i i ill ! I
13 w I
I ! I ~ II II
.C -8 ~!
ju ..,. ..,. ~ a ~ I~ 'fI. ....
C5 U) .... i ~ ~ I .... I
ljU z:. .... ~ ~ N ~ ' .
. I"
. ~ '"
t 0' ~
.. ~
a..u. :z::
9
I II) .... s; ell .. ~ ~ i
...
c-t .... J::: i - ~
0- "":. III -
=3 .... t ...: ..- t t ! 1ft
~ C E t ";" ..-
Ii !
I luw Hm II II ~ II I
ou.
.... . " ~ ~ I I 1ft .
~=J i ;: I I ~ I ~ ~
itl N 'f ..- ..; wi ":'
I >a..i
I " .-t &i I ; ~ ~ I I
C
CI ci t 5! r<j It f:t t - t - i 1ft
.... ..-
,. 11w 'j .
I C n~ U!! if j
.S! 0.. Ii ~
- 011
:6 i ~ l ~ ~ lit ! g
., )11 J - I I - I ~
.,. .... . '9 .
I 1: .,. 1
:::I
.,
>- i
.!!
I 'i
~ I.. ~ r: ~ ~ ti ~ ~
1: it - .... .
.... ~ .- . 1
... t t t t' J
t .2 Sf!! Ii il
.. Il~ il !I I
.. lei I w
! "af. ~ ~ ~ ~ ';/!. ~ g i
.., i '? i ~ ~ I I
. If.! iU1 -
o ., ll6
.... ('II
o U u.:Z:: .a.
. N ! i
... 0
:Bu. .
I 1ft ~ E: :3 IS ~ l ~
>0 en ~ "C
m .!3 I - ~
N II) ..- ..- ..- t c.; ~ oj I ":' i
. en c . t t
II) 0 ce j !
c- ii II !I ~ II I
o"G :u II 1ft i I
::: CD CD. . ~!
:de 1= " III ..- ~ ~ I ~
'0 .... j :; ~ j ~ I i ;
t o~ =""t 1 .., 1ft ":'
"'Co'
l:L~ Q: 6 ~ 1
Cm :z::
:~ - i
. !" .. I! ~fi j . IJI g t g I
! i :s ! ! a: . i hI! if ~ I.
lI)en 2:'~4 .1i~ t> Iii I f
cu-
. U:;) - .. ca !P ~
NC...J Ujc J _I 3 I I .. 1
CD ! ~ ~ca'2 - J ~ t:
-CD.... CDI~ , c ~ ~ A ~ c S!~ en 1(J~len ~ J ~
.a=o 4::125: .! c ~1- en ~ : (,) a.. en
ca- lli ~ ::I :3 5
. ....00 en en :;:l c a::
1=1 !
JII ~
HI ~
~81 !
It . ..
9 I -
-
j-I i
f8 ::
III ~
Ii nl ~
laf Jll r::
~: 111 ~
,g15 _&&.:1
:)
::1-
o 0
:z: A: . en i It)
o .-~ 8
gCJ .3-a vi
(lie( S..cE
~~ iuw
CD .u
>'0 : ,,:; 0.
...c m=o g
.2;; lEi d
-;:::: CJI e ~ -
.- -&&'0
~-' :z:
...~
afo "ill
(110 oS!
:.2 ~-..c
coo (j~J
.2! a.2c
:u~ =j:; .
- .!P.. E ..c ~ 0: ~
ieo en E
t-l1.U c!
!
0-
1$
:I
!i
.,
to
=
~
c
-
-0 0
!~ S
~ I~ ri
ill~ !
... 0'" t')
c:; r; ~
g g -
Ii; I
iii ~,..: ,.:
- -
l8 N
.., ~
t ~ Ili
iL ~
ii, ~ CD
:e ~,.:
-
~ ~
'1: ;
0. 0 0. t')
II; t; ~
,.: ,.: -
C'\l C'\l
:ec;r:: =:
......... N C7i
M M Ili
- -
t
II
I
II
I
t
n
I
II
~
i
~ ~
a,c
;e
!
~ g
II
I !
-
!q! 9
N 10 fIi
- -
!~! i
fli ri ~ ...:
-
It)
ro
,.:
II :
I ~
-
i
ri
h -
~ 8
vi
-Vl_""
It) VI 0. 0.
... ... C'\l -
C\i M
- -
Rl~o. co
- :i S
vi ,.:
! ~
a:~
c>
~~iii
· t-
... 0
[lC .g
c~~(I)
.
en
~
- .
8 !
o >- 0
1 ~ e-
1 .I::~
~ ~ l! c _
III ,:;1:: ~
~;s.!E
, ~~5~
~ :5
c
.., c
~c=
i~~ 1!
cue;; ~
~..:: :I
"5 ow> en
o
2
-
t ~
n~
i 13
~ fa ~
,..: ,..:
... ...
~ ~ 8
l!I!i "" _
t (f
.-
18
t ~
iL
I ~
1 ~
t ::
OIl ~
I .-
g 0 CO)
CO) ~
.s .s
N N
... "" -
N _ ...
,... ""
a: a;
- -
c
o .
if
.!Ii! 8
Q. - -
8 - a !!
C g !!! 0
.ci51'i
.",,_"3
. va.. U)
.!!
0...
~
II
i
I
i II e II
!! I ~ i - -II
~ I 5! I ! I.
~ ;f ~.
j 1'- Ii II
.{ i
~ i% I
- sl I
! I m il I
; i:l I
- I!!.
~ I f: 1,-1 I
~ I ~ II I
~I
~ I ~;~ I
t - ~I I
It) CD i=
~ ! ~ 11 I
Q.o
~ li- I
J = ~ i
I ~ n II
~ ~ U IJ!I
i c
g >- II 'I
f ~ 11 !
i ~ ~j II
:5 ~ EE
I
iRli,
ri ri ,.: I
... ....!
2iS~ ~ !
It
i
t
11
i
~ i R ~
g ci g
on ~ ~ ~
~-- CD
g g
.
.. ., .,
~ ... 2
... ~ E
1 t! lD
~ ::l:3 iii
I ~ ~ € ~
E ., 0 0 :I
.O(l)Z (I)
~
...J
, I~ I :-.e. ~ CI'J
~ '/!. '/!. ~ ~ 5
~o 8 ~
, Iii Ci - ,- .. I
t ~ ~ J
:- a. t . ~ . .! II
-., .fi i il n n~
0-
::3 , Ill'/!. .c: l! I
Ie . i !I
I I t: i :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ';
tsU I
. I I
e ~
1 Q,... :c ~
~
~
. ~ I~ .... l : ~ ,
gen_ ...
, ", i
c:D .... -
-St t In - CD t <i II N i
1.J! I) 1 ~
oC "II iI.
i~" I
, I I'" fl
51 ;;r; I ~ fa B
Iii I I;!J ", J ~ J I
~ . <i
, I
I " a 'N ~ .,., - I ~
c - II~ CO) ! q
as <i ci he It r:; j ...
II .
rn II
c: I
, 0 i
i1 III
:s :ii c:D I l ~ ~ J
... I J I
II) - CI I .:
"C ,. - .
, ::I
..,
J" j
1i
, ~ II i ~ .. c ~ 'If! ~ G 'II-
~ - - ..
... - , J
2 ! I !1 ~ tl t t j
- I l! I iI~ II I
. eft S
ca IJ I I! I
~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~
.. I I · i I
If.! -
, ~ R I
a. :z:
N ! .i
... 0
t :Bu.- . ~ f:: = i t; ~ ~
>Cl I ;;
en .!i "':. - - ...
N CI) - ... ... t ,,; t r:i I ":" i
en c . . a. i t
'" a cCi E i
. c- . ... w II", i l! "I 11 ~ II I - < I
au .Q, I
. . s
= lD CDS: .a _!
uO' :e ~ i ~ :
lD ... i-:. "0 I , I I I '=' Ii
0'l1. ..., -
c:D e i .
1 .to -Q,
='
cc( 0
ZID :c . I
.c( ! ~ 6' I I' lJ f
. 0" '''iI 8 >-"- In g f
.a Iii ~.l. _.~
"'en ~'I I f~i '~; t s i ·
lD_ ~-.1 c: > f ~
U:) - . H!
'ltC..J u'l ~ B >! ! HII I J 5 ~ I j J
. f::J iCC i I
. GI ! c( CJ at C 'C ...
< ! c . I- . .. = ~
-lit.... CD . i ~ 8 ~ 8 en ~ i z en
4=0 ...:.a- ~ ~ en
al- :lQ, ~ ~
....00 en 0 (f) ::J a.. :) ::J
.
I
I WO(/)
~
;;- f z<w I
;; ::i0<!J
..
~~~ ::J
0)
\ 4: wa:z
! CD CJ)c< I
<w::I:
,
-..:-' aJ:eO I
~\~
C". C". ::J~
? ':) ...
o 0 0D:
0,0 I
0'0 . 00 I
~\~ I <~
o II)
o cc. .
0,0 I I-
;. ,"2- \ N W I
8\ \ Z
, ~\
I
, I
,
\
\ s::l I
, 0
~
\ ~
Ill')
., I
Q)
-
... ll.
/ I
I
-
:::!. """ . "". I
......'
.. ,.'
u
c
-
u) I
Q) 0-
...
as 0
.- N I
Co) '"
0 <l>
C
tn .... .3
c
tn ( <I.>
E a
< <I.> 8 0 8 0 I
>
0 0 0 0 0 ...
c a. <l> N N N N 8
1; c C'
as 0 c Ql Ql C C 0
'iij " c c 0 0 N
E <I.> C ~ 'c 'c 'iij 'iij
Ql 1: u <I.> <l> C C '" I
.c: c 4i "0 <l> 2 <l>
0 >< i "0 ;( "
() ~ w S ~ " .3
u w w
UJ ... I- "0 "0 "0
<l> lr ~ " "0 a
< :E ~ <l> " g "
z 0 0 0
ll:: lr lr
I lr ...
II n II I
c II n II II II
0 1:::1 r; I_ j I I I
... z:
... ...... .. -
ca 8 I I ><
m ....J I . 'it I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SassUne Forecasts
Traffic Forecasts
The 2010 baseline forecasts show substantial growth in traffic volumes on Tri-Valley
roads. Figure 4.2 shows traffic forecasts for several critical roadways. Plots showing
traffic forecasts for all Tri- Valley roads are included in the Technical Appendix of the
Tri- Valley Transportation Model report (Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1993).
It these traffic increases occur as predicted, without road widenings and additions
beyond the baseline network, severe congestion will result (see Figure 4-3). Congested
locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than
1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume
equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 4.3 shows that by 2010 almost all
regional routes would be congested.
In many cases the predicted V/C ratio is greater than 1.0. In reality, the volume can
never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many
vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are
shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that
congested conditions would last longer than an hour. The eft'ecta of peak: spreading are
addressed more rigorously in the expected forecasts (Chapter 5).
Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection levels of service (LOS) were calculated using traffic model-generated
turning movements and the VCCC program (see Table 4-2).
Future year lane configurations were based on input from individual jurisdictions. The
intersection analysis included 85 locations. Only two or three intersections are
congested under existing conditions. Congestion is defined as LOS E or F. During the
PM peak hour, the number of congested intersections would rise to 14 by the year
2000 and 36 by the year 2010, according to the baseline forecasts.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
50
I
?;\ 0 I .-.
IN 0 I
I
~\?; ..". 0(>>
o\~ f! W.
'i' (.) I 0 :J ::e~
0'(.) Ch I
~ c:
-..~~ ~\o ::)<
01"0 ..Jm
~ (.) , G>
~ o\CC:. 0< I
\.0,,0
~I~- >......
0\
0, OI-
1
\ -0 I
u.<
LLO
\ <w I
I [[ex:
\
1-0
I
\ >-u. I
I ::::!W
I
\ <Z
I C::i I
\
oW
... I
! \ ....0 I
, 0<
I
l'WM$YJ Nm
I
o~ \ I
]:IN]~ oil.", I
0
0
I
.. I
Co)
c
-
t1f I
CD
...
as ,
I
.0 / I
c I
t/) ,
t/)
< I
c
as
e Q,) /"
..c - I
Co) ~ ,
,
II) d I
<
td I
I Q I I
c I
0
...
....
as
m I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I u
..E
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
r;\
CS\?l
o,e.
(,),-::1
s\8
\1'1,0
0\"0
(,) Q)
o''C.
~\~
0,
(,),
,n
Q)
......
.~
u
o
CI)
CI)
<
\
.
,
\
,
,
\
.
\
\
\
.
\
,
.
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
c
ca
e
..c
u
CI)
<
I
C
o
....
a-
m
m
-..
i
--..:Z; ~
.s
~
.....
Ot! nlINO;RI~
~ I......
..!,. (/J 0
~ w~
~ ::e~
::)<
6~
>-
Qt;
u.<
u.o
<w
D:a:
""0
>u.
dw
<z
c-
..J
OW
...0
0<
Nm
OOO'at
Ot! COSYA
oos'??
Q)
... ~
8 ~
...
Q)
~
~
~
~
~g.
1~
C>>I /oI()J.JoI'Q
t!3mo::J
'l
,
~.
~
d
o
~
s=
IS
en
IS
Q)
...-4
p...
,
\
,)
"I'
I
r;\ 0 I-a:CI)
I"')
I CI)::;)~ I
~
<5'.r; G) <oz
o,C- ... 0:X:::i
Q,!, :::J
t:n
i o'Q c: ~~> I
~ ~\o
........:t; .s 0,"0
Q' I\) O<t-
Ci O\~ u.We:; I
~ ~ '.'2.
'5\ D..<
Q, WOD..
, ~'P"'<
\ I
-100
WC\la:
, (1)a:W I
,
\ <<>
, IDWO
,
\ > I
,
,
\
\; \ I
~ \
<..>
4>
f! .:>L ,
Q) .5: \
~ -' I
~ ~~ ,
II- ,
... .u
0 0
0-
W 0
u
VI ... I
g 6
II H
~Ol C/f/ , I
,
]:;)NJij AlYl
~
I
- I
u
c I
-
...
t/'J
CD
...
as I
--
(.)
0
t/'J
en I
<
c
as CI) I
E ~
.c
U
tn ~
< I
I Q
c
0
...
... I
as
III
I
I \
, .Cl I-a:cn
,
~\ f"")
I CJ):)~
~,~ .....
I o,e:. ~ <oz
<.J\~
::t O::J:-
0,0 C) W ...J
""" , c:
I ~V6 a:~>
<.J ,Q) 011 :JTWG3IID
,~ 0<1-
0\0
~..-. u.W-
e:. , :d:-
O' II WD-~
I <.J\
, ZOD-
,
~ _P'<
I , ...JOC,)
, i WNa:
\
, ~ Cl)a:W
, <<>
I \ ...
, i mwo
\ ^I( 3lIOfIN31111 'N
\ >
I ,
\
,
,
I \
\
,
\
I \
\
\
,
\
I \ d
0
\ ~
,
\ ~
.:: , ~
I .2 I
<> Q)
QI -
III ~
... .:I;
.J!l c:
-= ::i
I . ...... &'
U 0 u
C 0
- a.
w 0;>
.- Vl e Ii!
I en g 3 i
CD
... II .
as
..- 101 i
I u
0
en v
en co
-<
I c
as ,
I
E )
I ..c i
U " "
en =e:tl !
-< ........ oS
I ~
I c
0 '"'"
... " "
... j
as
I a:a
...
::::J
o
X
JJJ:
as
CD
C.
:E
i
.!!
tn
>0-
m
c
C
CD
U
.~
~
.....
o
~
~
c
o
.-
....,
u
Q)
tn
...
S
e
-
NCD
Ie
..=
G)G)
-0
.a as
~m
~ W a:I W < LL. LL. W W < < < a:lLL.W LL. -< a:lLL. LL. LL. 0 -< C<LL.
0
-
~
~ ex) en an - ~ ex) an ,... CD CD ~ ~ an ,.... $ an cog ~ CO) N an CD ~ co ,....
en CD Ol &q ~ en (7) &q ~ ~ Ol an ~ CO) <<! an ... ~
c c 0 0 - - ci ci 0 0 ci ci - 0 - ci ci - - N 0 ci ci ci -
"~
'US
;Ii
9
O<Oa:lOO<<<<
~
tq:gr::f8~~~~:g~
0000000000
"2 '2"2 'E'E
jf!8jj!jj~
c ~ 0 ~ c e .g ceO
:g"'ioiSiS i5iS~
;t ~ E: f8 ::t ::t ~ ::t ::t "C
c<<...!..co<cCaJ
I
c;;
~
1)
!
c;;
~
i~
Ii. ~
c c
~ ~
co co
a: a:
e c
co co
U)U)
>. " " >."
co co co co co co
~ Ii. Ii. ~ Ii. ~
co~~co~c::
';!!';!....
j~O)jO).g
$8~$~~
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc"
~
o
c
~
Q) ~
~~
co
(60..
C Q)
.2 0)
iP:i
a: >
aJ<<OO<CW<W<<<<a:I
~~N~~~-~~~~~~:g~
oooc:ioo~ooooc:ic:ic:ic:i
i CD i
~ 2 .;
~~~ii
sswa;-i
.g.go'C"e
cfcf~~:i
18B88
"iffliim
0..0000
~~~~~
'E
o i
J! 5
P ~
.... CD ~ 1D 0
!3i~~i
1i5<gio
~~8w~
!! - !
j~~~~j "~i~iI0
';: j I ';: c;; ';: I ~ t Ii. c Ii. c;; .~ I
i-'....li:8iCi5 ::J 0 :82Ci5
"e€,c"eE"e ~€~i8E€-
:i~~:i~:i~~~~~~~~~
!
~
CD
.~
....J
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
"
Q)
::I
C
;:::
C
~
~
::I
o
:I:
.)fl.
as
Q)
a..
:E
1
u;
>-
as
c
<
~
~
~
....
o
l
~
c
o
~
~
.s
c
-
NCI)
-do.5
CDQ)
-0
.a as
~t:IJ
o
-
~
g
N
.~
Vi
~
9
co
~
~;!:
od
9
cc
~
NCD
cqcq
o 0
(/)
9
<<
~
co.....
~~
i
liS
~
l58
fB~
00
f8f8
.J.. ~
1)
S!!
liS
~
'E'E
~ ~
.1.1
~~
>->-
! !
<<
~
o
wwwmc~ow<~<O<~~c<~CCW~~~
~~~~~~~~~a~;!::~~~~q~~~~~~
dddoo_doo_odd__od_ddd___
ccoooomc<m<m<mco<cccc~c<
_ CD C") .. It) _ C") _ .. N CD 0 CD 0) CD 0 co C") - .. 0 ..... - 0
COcq....................CDcq~CDC")~.CDCOcq~cq~~~~co~
dodddddooddodddoooooo-do
m<<<m<cm<<<c<<mmccccmc<c
m~~~$~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~
ooooooooooooodoooodddooo
; ~ 0 ij ijjj Ii;
jlB~BJI~BI~I~ Bil~~d~l~~
~~~tffi~~~fB~~~i fBf~ttt~~~~
i0g~;1~i;EEE22~~~~~~~0~i
6~~liS~~~~~~~~~~~~liSliSli5li56~li5~
"2
"2~
ti. ~
'Elf
~ ~
f~
c:
o
1:
m
JI!
a.
i"C"Cii~ J
~~~~~~J2~8a8~
.!!!. 'E 'E 'E 'E a: = ,~ (/) ~ m ~ a:
m~~~~~5sooooi
~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ _$, ~ m, _
1-~J::t:tCl)~~~ 't' (/)
-JB8ii~~
!!!m~~~~f
w(IJas ._>~
-==soo=1i).!I?!
t:... ...fB$ 8 cocas
I!::ECI)~~Ll..W>cn
-
"
G)
::::J
C
;:
c
8
-
...
:I
o
%
~
ca
:.
:e
Q.
!
.;;;
>-
ii
c
cc
B
.~
~
Ill-
o
Gi
>
G)
..J
C
o
.-
i
J!!
c
-
(\riG)
~:E
CDG)
-0
~ca
~aJ
o
-
o
N
~
.~
11)
Ji
~
<<cu.occcocowm<o
~
~""o;~r:::~f8m~~Oi~~~
o~o_oooooooooo
~
<<OC<<CmCcoco,<w
~
~,~~~g~~~~to
00000000000
0(1')
~O'!
o 0
~
<<cccoccccocc
co
~
:5~a;~~~~lti~:g~
00000000000
-
(I') ,....
0<0
o
~~~cJl:!l:!Jc:c l:!l:!
r~i!~i~~!!i.liii
~ , ~ ~ m S ~ m ~ ~ i cc ~ ~
~Oo ~OS1!o ~&O(/)1!1!
~.~ ~a ~ 8.8 ~a:! ~o BB
~oomo<<omSo~cc
'5
!
CiS
~
'5
!
CiS
~
~ i
~ a;
c8~
~ccci5
m Z ~
a: 0 li)
i JB 8
(/)..i.<
~
o
c
~
m
a:
~
>. >.
l:!c~ Q)
~2ca i>ii~
CDE'> &c~8
i~ ~55ffl58m ~2~....
lmCDCD ept:........
1!i:a:(/)(/) z.t:~Q)z
Qiiicoooog'clio
~~~~~~~8~~~
u.oo<<u.wmmo
~~~:8f8~~U;~~
-0000__000
u.<CO<
u.QmmO
'It 'It m 0
~lt)COlt)
_000
~~~~~
-oooci
om<<<o<<<c
~m~~~&3~~t;m
0000000000
m
>. >. >. >. ftj
:J ~ ~ ~ .ar
~~~~~il~ii
eeea:l!?il-a:a:~
g g gR ~j).e ij2,i
N N m.c N15 E0151i1
!J;:.!J;:.~.m !J;:..m m_.m._
cncncnO(/)COWCC
>. fU III
~ a; ~i
> 'ar CD <V If
68~25It~85
~ffl2~~2~a:ffl~
s2.EggE~~00
ow 't' ow 'V co CIS J2 .m ~ ~
cn-OJ:..i.OCOC__
.!
.~
CIS
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
"
CI)
::::J
C
0-
-
c
~
...
::::J
o
%
..-:
&U
:.
:IE
1
oc;;
~
-
&U
C
C
CI)
()
o~
tX
~
o
J
CI)
.....
c
o
;=
()
CI)
en
...
S
c
-
NCI)
...to:
e'ii
-en
~&U
~ClJ
o
-
~
:5
~
.~
115
.n
~
LLm<OLLW
~
~$~18~~
_000__
~
00<<00
~
~~~v;~~
000000
en
9
:<<<<<<
~
tg~c;~~~
000000
1)
e
CiS
~
i ! e
JliiJ!
gg';~i
lPlPEEe.e
o(,)o~=E
_ _ CV a:l
ww:3:.Jet(,)
1)
!
CiS
~
~
o88oca:
mmmm~1
enzzena:.c::
0000 is
t?!!~~ffi
~
(,)
LLLL<<<
~~~~~
__000
u.<<<<
lOcnlON-
-UlUlUlUl
_0000
LL<<<<
~m~c;;~
_0000
iii'ii
a:l a:l to ~ ~
> > > m m
lP lP lP E E
g g goo
CiSCiSCiS:3:3
12
i
~oooo
lPmmmm
=enzzen
.~oooo
~!!~~
(,)
(,)
(,)
g
'2
::J
Saselne Forecasts
Travel Pattern
The results of the traffic model show that the Tri-Valley will continue to experience out-
commuting and in-commuting. Overall, the baseline forecasts show 18,000 more employed
residents than jobs, which would reinforce the Tri-Valleys existing pattern of net out-
commuting.
Table 4-3
Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts)
Year
Jobs
Workers
1990
2000
2010
111,651
160,420
202,887
122,882
167,826
221,431
Figure 4-4 shows that the traflic model predicts 63 percent of the trips will be internal in
2010, compared to 50 percent today. The other 37 percent of trips will be primarily in-
commuting (16 percent) and out-commuting (18 percent). Only four percent of trips during
commute hours will be through trips (traffic from other areas passing through the Tri-
Valley). However, this four percent looms large on some parts of the freeway
system. Using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, 2010 peak-hour through trips were
estimated to range from 15 percent on 1-680, to 20 percent on 1-580 through Tri-Valley, to
40 percent over the Altamont Pass.
For persons working in the Tri-Valley but living elsewhere, the major residence locations
will be other Contra Costa County cities, other Alameda County cities, and the Central
Valley. For persons living in the Tri-Valley but working elsewhere, the major job locations
will be in other Alameda County cities. To a lesser extent, some will work in other Contra
Costa County cities or in Santa Clara County.
Mode Split
The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour
commute trips, and that is not expected to change in the baseline 2010 forecasts. Ta-
ble 4-4 shows the mode split estimated by the traffic model. The model predicts the drive-
alone percentage to increase slightly. This conclusion is based on MTC-derived assump-
tions about the costs of driving, which are assumed to keep pace with inflation. Transit
and carpool usage are highly dependent on driving costs and travel times. Relative travel
costs and time between drive-alone and other modes are not expected to change through
2010. BART will attract substantial ridership but will not cause a significant mode shift.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ig
-
Figure 4-4
2010 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE
PM PEAK HOUR
DITtIlPW. 10 INTCRNAL
~ 10 00D'lNAL
(4.2">
TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TO.
S>>ITII CL.I\RI\ co
(4.5">
Ii
as
.6
I~
<
lfa
E
.c
I~
I
I~
as
1m
TRIPS TO TRI-V ALLEY FROM.
Source: Tri-Volley Transportation Model
Baseline Forecasts
Table 4-4
Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips
(Baseline Forecasts)
Percent Usage
Mode 1990 2000 2010
Drtve.Alone 76% 80% 80%
2.Person Carpool 15% 12% 12%
3+ Person Carpool 5% 4% 4%
Transit ~ ~ ~
100% 100% 100%
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1-
5.
Expected Forecasts
Chapter Summary
. Job and housing growth to the year 2010 is projected,to be 99 percent and 84
percent, respectively, which exceeds historical growth trends. Jobs and housing
would be in balance within the Tri.Valley. This would fnln;mize, but not elimi.
nate, in-commuting and out..eommuting.
. Highway gateways to the area (1.680 north and south, 1.580 over Altamont Pus
and Dublin -Grade, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road) would
have more demand than capacity.
. Unacceptable levels of service would also occur on 1.580 between Tassajara Road
and North Livermore Avenue and at 11 signalized intersections.
. Transit mode share would not change appreciably from existing conditions, despite
the BART extension.
. Average vehicle ridership would not change appreciably from existing conditions.
. Through traffic on the freeways would remain at 15 to 20 percent.
The baseline forecasts were prepared to satisfy CCTA guidelines, and they are
compatible with ABAG Projections '90. However, there were several jurisdictions
dissatisfied with the land use forecasts, which did not reflect general plan amend-
ments approved after 1992. Also, the 2010 transportation network assumed in the
baseline forecasts did not reflect current planning. This led to the development of the
"expected" scenario, which reflects each jurisdiction's most accurate prediction of 2010
land use totals and network expectations.
This chapter describes the results of expected traffic forecasts using the Tri-Valley
Traffic Model.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc. 63
Expected Forecasts
Land Use Forecasts
The land use forecasts used in the expected traffic projections are based on informa.
tion provided by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC (see Table 5.1). The 2010 land
use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri.Valley area, as specified by the
jurisdiction's general plan, nor do they represent ABAG projections. Rather, the
forecasts represent each jurisdiction's estimate of absorption rates for new houses and
businesses through 2010. Note that the estimates were based on a five percent
vacancy rate.
The "expected" forecasts show an increase in both housing and employment from that
assumed under "baseline" forecasts discussed in the previous chapter. The "baseline"
forecasts assume a 78 percent and 82 percent increase in housing and employment,
respectively, between 1990 and 2010. Under the "expected" forecast, the increase
would be 84 and 99 percent, respectively, which exceeds historic growth trends. The
reason for the increase is that Contra Costa County, Alameda County, Dublin, and
Livermore had passed general plan amendments that were not reflected in the
baseline forecasts.
.
Overall, "expected" forecasts balance employed residents to employment. 1990 land use
data shows a slight imbalance with 122,882 employed residents and 111,656 jobs. The
"expected" forecasts increase employment at a greater rate than housing resulting in
224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Note that no adjustments were made to
the forecasts to reflect changes in the absorption rate as a result of higher traffic
impact fees.
Network Assumptions
Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions.
These network assumptions are shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 5-1. The major
criterion that was considered when including a particular improvement in the future
road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2010.
Not all of the future road network is currently funded. See Chapter 7 for a further
discussion of the unfunded portions.
The local road widening and extension projects included in the future network are all
included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010.
Many are expected to be funded with impact fees on new development or will be built
by developers to serve their projects.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
...
en
~
If
s::.
i
e
CJ
>.
,..Q)
11>>=
I~
~~
I
~
i ~l
~
Q.
E -.
W 0.5
01
NftI
m
~
.
~ ..
c! 0 11
l~l
E
W i
~ ~l
::l
~
~
-.
0.5
E1
NftI
m
Sl~~lS""8~~m:g~~~~
CQ C') C') C') R C').... en .... 0 ..,. C')
':Gilrilri"': ...;lrinI,.:,,;....,.:
..,. ....Nf.;O.... en
.... N
~~f3m....g~!iR~~~~..,.
CQC')...."R C')C!rsmo..,.S!
.:Gi"';In"': ...;C'fGia:icof....~
..,. ....Nlnln.... N
~~~~Mg~~~~~~I_
.... co ; .... ~ ;: f8 co N ....1 S!
N
i
....
C') .... .... 0 ....
cosm C')
"':vi":
N
gN~f3aleS2~~
Ie ... M In ~ iQ
~ ~8f ....i
!i
j
:::I
m
....enen2!~lQNMInS!~~le
f38~men:of~l(3roiQo c.;
ocofu),.:o.,.:oGi...;.,.:...;....m
NN.... ....N..,....M...
N
.... en en en ~ lQ N fD In 0 CIl fD~~
f3 8 ~ Sl en :of ~ ~ ro lS ~ te ~
ocofu),.:o.,.:o.,.:...;.,.:,.:.......;
N N .... .... N ..,. ..,..... ~
....
~ 8! 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~II
o~~ 2 ~g ~
....
i ~~~~~~~~a~~~I!
CD ....
~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~
fD ..,. In 0 fD .... M 0 ........ ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~............ M N colen
fD .... co 0 fD ... ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~
":"';lriviN OOQmN a)
__ _MN.... M
....
i
~g:eo
en en ..... ....
Ilio,,;
.... ....
~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~
vi?ig ~
....
~
~
>0
C
~
! ftI
o i
.5 C ~ E
-OGlGl
.g~~:3;'l
:80=~.eGi
:::I -= .i .~ 5 i! ~
oWQ....JZu.--
ftI
!
0(
s
1 ii~
.e ftI ftI IV
C > > ~
i ~~eC
e .!! IV .! .!!. 8
~:sa: ~III ~
...SCO~.!
:<o~c~5
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
~
....
,.:
....
N
....
~
t:f
....
-
C
2
.C
!
E
8
g
Ja
~
~
I
Q..
!i
~
~Ul
.8
.~ :a
il
CL"")
>0
~ii
a:I~
0( .C
g,:":
i~
= :t
cac8
.. ..
65
E
!
"
s
u
CD
a.
M
W
!
-
c
~
~
e
a.
oS
of
!
CD
z
o
,...
o
C\I
"
C
ca
o
o
o
C\I
..
ca
~
o
(\10)
u\~
I)"
-ca
~Q)
~>
..... 0
I ~
! g
'15
f
l~
I
..
S g
~
~
. ~
2
N
J
> > II
~~tt.
J J 8 8
<
. C
"It
<
CQ CQ I !=2 :;)
N
~
~
l ~
Ai
il
E
~
i 11
~ ~
I~
I_
t! ~
~ Ii'
~ 0
o~
- ...
I ffi
lii
> ~ >.
~ CD I
tBU'Jj
~!f
o i ~
" 1J ..I. 01)
c 1ii 1ii 0
II 0 goo i
.D ~ i9 ~ ~ 18
a _ _ _ ..I. >
Bsrton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
.
<<<< <<<1<<<<<< <<<<
i~~~. .iii8iiiiii.iii~
. . N
< < <
, i fa · i
<< <<<
~~' '~!i~"
j
)
l!
E
i
1! i ~ i I
j ~JjlJ~lf
tofi,t i~
~~...3ci55 ww
J
~ '5
I w ~
ii~ 11;'1Ia:
. .i}~ 1;'~I~ ~
cS~;~EQ.!'i
B~~.f~c!it~o
. ;,:aoli~
z c...ecn....
o
~
<ccc c<<c
" 'iliii 'i~fii'
I " . I ·
c c < c
'ia~iil'
!
a:
i
hd I~d j
cB.lc; i.oJ cB
HJIHih,~
i t ~ 11
.io~ 'i l! i~
.1-1; ~:5 ~~
ooiITs~tl~i
~~~:f~~:e8~6~
.
ICJt
Iii
i
s
i
e.
i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . . i i i i
e.~!~~~~~i~~g~~~~~~~~J
!'~~ridS.BtBtBd5.fi ~Jooog.;;5
i1~~~~~~~~~I; ill~.TT
618~~da8da~~1 3~~j!~~J
66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
NO)
I ab~
CD'"
-ca
.0(1)
I ~>
I
- 0
! ia
'0
I
!~
f I
::::J ·
~ s ~
c
o
~
E
~
B;
'"
(I)
~
Q.
>C
W
!
-
c
(I)
E
~
e
Q.
E
-
~
o
!
(I)
z
o
~
o
C\I
'"
C
ca
o
o
o
C\I
...
ca
~
iiiil
-< -< .'&'& -<-<-< -<-< -<-<
eo - -eo - -J~}! oi~eo - 0 oQ~o ooee
8888.!
i
-<-<-< -<-<'& iI ...1-<-<-<-<-<-<5 -<-<R-<
, ~ e ~ ' ~ ~ ! ' . 0 - 0 8 ~ ~ ~ e e e ~ - e e ~ e ' 0
8 0.. (\l
...
-< -< -< -< -< -< -<-<
"" '~~Q 'QQQQ'~ I '~~"~., 'I'~
~
i
· tl.
i U ~
~lih~1
· J J J
J~ IIol111ul
IslluJI~IIHH
E
e.
].
ii~lJ I .
~e. !c:-<
II)Jij~
i
C J J I
j 1)IJiJ!p~ c
hlJmLdHdhi
i
...: ..s t
~ ~~~t.l
j ~~iyi.E
~ c: c ~ ~ c ! ~ ~
m ~ ~ - E i c: ~ ~
f!j~~ f!1!ji i I ~
,iili ~E~~~i it! E'it.li i
~il.li.n 'D!~f~!~ Ii.. illi .li
l~m ~! IlI(1)j c 8~ it.. !o..tl.tl.i ~tl. ~!.
5SJ8ii:;~J~~~~~~~~~ii~llff~!j
I. fi g g In i III m m III III III i < < < s ~ ~ z u u ~ ~ III III ~
!8 8~~~e~~~~~~j)ii~55Jiii~IIJ
'8"
CI)
~
c
.-
...
c
o
2-
E
CI)
...
U)
>-
(f)
"0
S
U
CI)
0..
)(
!
...
c
~
~
e
Co
E
-
~
!
CI)
z
o
,....
o
N
"0
C
ca
..
o
o
o
N
...
ca
~
o
NCD
ab~
CD'"
-ca
,gCl)
~>
..... 0
I ....
! ~
15
I
l~
t
CI)
.
S ~
....
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
ii'i. i'iii~'
-< <<"''''''''''
'i · · 'i 'i · 'i ~ ~ ~
<
sa<<~<",
~c::::>;;;::::>::::> I I I I
~ iiIt N N N N
~
=-
11 ~~~
J:! III . ,
~ '-;15;3
II III Si€J:
Q. i !'.~@
~IHLiH
E
~
>-
]~~ J~~
i '5 15 ! a 15
Q.~z ti~
~.I: ()1II111
~ ~ .~ j ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .... .... ~ ~ N ~
III III
:) :)
! !
III III i 0 0 i
uuU~!h
HHUHH
. . . .
-< '" '"
· 'i · i 'i ·
I i
· · · r · I
e~~i~ '~~~iii~.II,
88
'" '" '" '"
::::> c c::::> I
N N N N
-< -< '" '"
'~~ ''i~
-<
,::::>0
.... -
.N
, Q I
~
III i! j Z
~~j!!ilS ~~1
1!Ed5~~~J lC~
~~ifoili.l~~;t
_ :Ie > liS liJ ! L&. M j _ i ~ i5
~ ! ~ ~
J phi iff i
i~~ifiJ~ l~~f
III
r
III ~
if-Ii
illi"f
-' .f & i
t I Iii ~
mu J nil
!~!! ~[J!~ ~!ii!~
!!ljj]=~gg~JJa:L&.lc7J:i
Iilililililll~!!e= I....
Ej!ii~i~~~~1 f~!~J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 J i I ccl
I c ccc c< . . l. ... ~l:...
I ~ ~ · · i i ~ · ~ ~ E i i
B ! B B
'5
I f
i ~ <<c < < c ccc c~cc c c
.... .SS51. .~.. i i · ii51. '51~51s ~ 51 ·
I
I -
"
G) ~
:1 S
C 0 <<c....<< c< < c 0 < I c c< c
I ;; g 515151~iia 'iae ia ~ - 51" 'fa'iafi! '~Q
c ....
~ ~
I E
S
en I
I 8; ~
I J
J J a 11 I PI
I JiJI !h! ~ ~ I
Ii i!) J
1 UU~Jl!f > () I ~
II J ~ Ijl8
~ ~ ~
c
I ~ !' I
~ CIS
e J . I J J
I a. j;' rilJi
E i IiI ill i ~ lil J ]
-
.:.: il jHH III III
I ... to Iii
! ~ 1~linBJ .J i 1'1'
:I :I
:! .... ....
I CD
Q
0 i
..... ]
0 CD t
C\I .E .
I " CD ~ J
c f CD
as ~ 5}.... ~
.. II "fi
I 0
0 I
0 c I
C\I i '5 CD
... i ~ i~ ri~l ~ f
I as ~ ~
~ j i ~ 11 J!i!e J i
.. CD ~1 w
0 q~nliH ~ HJi
I NO) ~~ Ja:o_p.
u\~ .. J g ii i ~iB ~
CD'" lif~~~jc== I!~lllltiti JJ~ t~ ~
-as i ii ...J ...J - ~ ~ Tii .Iii I 1&
I .oG) ~~5~i~.fii '$ i ~A~J!!jl~1
~> ~05 ~~>j:j: ~ _ Iii ~ c~u.~
o U) _
I
I
i c < < <
~ · 0 · !i 0 · I
! CD CD
lS
I I
i ~ <<<<<<
I i!i!i~$j!!i
- I
"
CD en
:;, ..
.
c S 8 < <
~ I , . ~ ::J I
... ~
0
0
-
E I
s
=- I
U) j ~
"
.! i i I ;
u I
CD ~~c;CD~I
a.
>< rflifi
!
f!- JII ~ I
...
c
~ Hi j I
~
e
a. ppJi I
E
- ~io!j~
~
... ! r · I
! = 8'
E jl ~S~
~
CD
z I
0
~
0
N
" I
c
as
.:II:
.. b
0 i I
0 i ~
0 c: ::
N ~
... ! I .
as w w ~ ~ I
CD fJJ it Q. 1iI
> Eiil -c a.
.. ,g-c ~ E
0 ~ ~!J h J CD -<CD,g
("110) t~~~~~fj= I
ab~ 8 0 i = CD ii~i~~~~.~
lii~ ~!,l&
CD'" I:!'f~~ij i~8~i ~~6
-as
.a CD c - - . <5m < 12 I
~> B;S;B&1'l~ ~ .00 .:::di2~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
u
c
-
..
I en
CD
...
as
.-
I u
0
en
en
<
I c
as
e
I J::.
U
en
<
I
I c
0
....
...
as
I lEI
:i'
~~
------........ .e
!
'" '"
-'01
... l:
c ~.9
(l "'I
";: ...N
l: 01
.3 ~ ...
J:....
..., ...
>, 00
01
0 l: I
J: 0
01 ...J C
01 I
...
.... !Xl ";:
...
'6 ... i
0
... 01 ...
1l l: c:
E .3 0
--'
:) I I
Z <D ..,.
II II II
Q I -
z: -
&.oJ -
C> ClO -
-
~ -
-
-p\
c.'
-;) , -p
O\~
u , 0
0\ U
~\o
0,"'0
U ' Q)
O\CC
~,g,
c:. ' :;:(
0\
U,
,
\
,
,
o
-
I
I,(')
e
::s
en
r;:
Cl>
C/'
l:
o
J:.
e
Cl>
S
\
,
\
,
,
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
\
"0
Cl>
~
...
Q.
.;
o
\
,
,/
I
/
,
/
,
,
)
,
~ ..,/" ,
Q)
~
d
<<S
Q
/'
,
,
I
,
,
I
Z~
00::
-0
~~
1-1-
a::W
OZ
Q.
UJ
Z
<
c::
l-
e
W
I-
o
W
Q.
)(
W
\
,
,
:?7\
~,:?7
o d::'
O\~
o ,0
~ ,
1fI \0
o -0
o ,Q)
O''C,
::;i\9,
c. ,4
0,
0\
,
,
\
,
,
\
,
,
\
\
cJ
..5
..
tn
CD
~
as
.6
o
tn
tn
<
C
as
E
.c
()
U)
<
I
C
o
~
...
as
m
:i'
2
-... ~ ~
"&
~
011 mwa31r.J
i
~
!
1I'i 3II(>>'11/3Nl 'N
,
,
)
,
Q)
C I
.3
I C
10 '~
'0 S :i
~ ~ ~
E .3 .3
::> I I
Z <0 'It
/I /I n
I ~H
,J
,
j
o
..c
.....
I
&()
f
~
Of
~
Z~
Oa:
i=O
<s:
1-1-
a:W
OZ
a..
en
z
<
a:
l-
e
w
z
z
<
..J
a..
~
I
~
'<t
(l)
'0
Q)
>
e
Q.
.€
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub-
lin/Pleasantonwith two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve
the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes.
WHEELS and County Connection routes are also rerouted and augmented to serve
new development areas in the expected network: North Livermore, East Dublin, and
Tasslijara Valley.
The expected network also includes nine new express bus routes to connect the Tri.
Valley with portions of Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara
County that are not served by BART. More details regarding the expected transit
network are included in the Appendix.
Traffic Forecasts
The 2010 expected forecasts show substantial growth in traffic demand on Tri-Valley
roads. If these traffic increases were to occur, severe congestion would result almost
everywhere on the freeway system. Congested locations are defined 81 freeways with a
volume.to.capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial
streets with vIe greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more).
Fiiure 5.2 identifies the unconstrained 2010 link demand on the recional routes.
In many cases the demand.based VIC ratio would be greater than 1.0. This is particu.
larly true at the gateways to the area, including 1.680 north of Alamo, I..e80 through
Sunol, the Altamont Pass, and Vuco Road. In reality, the volume can never exceed
capacity. However, the trafJie model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would
like to use the road in the peak). When vIe ratios greater than 1.0 are ahown, this
means that "peak spreading" would occur. -Peak spreading" means that congested
conditions would last longer than an hour. Based on model projections, many roads in
Tri-Valley would be congested for over three hours during the peak period (See
Table 5.3). Peak.spreading diagrams are included in the Appendix. Figure 5-3 shows
an example.
Table 5-3
Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading
Gateway
Hours of COngestion
1.680 north of Alamo
1.680 south of Route 84
1.580 west of Dublin
1.580 Altamont Pass
Vasco Road north of Uvermore
Crow Canyon Road at the County Une
7
7
1
4
2
2
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
73
I
-p\ c 1-0-
N
I Cl)Z~ I
~'.-p an
O\~ ! <<<
:!' <.),0 =' O~a:
tl 0' <.) Of
.. I
~~~ .-u,\O c: WW'"
0'-0 a:ei
... <.) , ()
..
.::. o\~ 0(,)0
~\'2 1.1. 0 I
c:.'
0\ -
elL>
<.),
, wlL<
\ I-<~ I
oO:W
wl-~ I
\ o..a:~
, ><::::)0
\
\ WO~ I
, o:I:
,
\ o~
,
, I
\ (\1<
, a:w
i ,
\ <0.. I
,
~l , w~
>0..
88 I
tl\l"":.
I
I
c.i
c
-
-
(f)
CD
...
as
0- ,
CJ I
0 /
(f) J
(f) ,
/
< , ,
c )
as , ,
E Q) /'
.c , ;
- /'
CJ ~ I
(f) I
< d I
I <<l I
c: ~ I
0 I
...
...
as
In
I
I
I
I
006" DOl"
I \ '1~OIlO 001' 006
\
?;. z
I ~\?; ~
O,e:. ~
0'';:)
s.\8 ~ 19
Ill, 0
I 0\"'0 i~
o Q) -
O'<t:
~' 0
I '"C:\2.
o.
(,).
I
I 1%
I .;c-i
I d
oS
d
as
rn
I as
U Q,)
-
.E Q..
I ur
Q)
...
I .~
u
0
tn
tn
I <
c
as
I e
.c -..
u ~~! \
,
tn )
<
I I ~
C ,
0 -- ,j'
..
...
I a:J
lEI
;
~ I- C -
.), Cf.) Z I-
~ <<~
~ O::E ~
WWI-
a:CC/)
0" ~
IL'-'O
-
Cu.>
WLL<
I-<~
OC:W
W"'~
a..a:"C!J
><:>0
WO~.
0:1:
....
O~
C\I<
a:W
<0..
~~
d
..5
..
U)
Q)
...
'"
-6
o
U)
U)
<
c
ca
E
.c
Co)
U)
-<
I
C
o
...
....
as
m
(!'
Z
-
C
<
w
a:
a. ~
(JJ <
w
~ Q..
< ~
W <
a.'
<
'7 >- ~
&t') < 0
~ ~ 2:
t! w ..J
.... I-
< <
CJ ~
co
LL ..!..
o CD
W C/)
-J
a.
~
<
X
W
: i
i
I
I
t
i
I
j "
I
I
I
j
!
I
,
I
...:......
.0" I
I
...
..
,.
l
,.'
...~.
.'
o
o
(0
(0
II
>.
-
'0
Ctl
c..
Ctl
c.J
>.
Ctl
~
OJ
OJ
....
U.
o
o
o
C7)
o
o
o
CD
o
o
o
,......
o
o
o
(0
o
o
o
LO
o
o
o
"l:t
o
o
o
M
o
o
o
N
PU'8wea O!UE.Jl
o
o
o
..-
~
a..
N
~
a..
......
~
<:
N
......
:E
<:
......
......
:E
<
o
......
:E
<
C')
::g>
< .-
"'0
CD c:
w
:E '-
< :J
""~
:E
<
c.c
::
<(
L!)
::
<(
"l:T
::
<(
M
::
<
N
::
<
......
o
.
E
::J
~
Q
-
o
N
j;.
"v
K
o
v
o
"
E
='
"5
;>
"
c:
..2
e;
::I:
"
"
:;:J
u
,S
7)
c:
III
"
o
o
li
"0
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Gateway Constraints
The TVTC recognizes that the gateways act as constraint points regulating flow into
and out of the area. Thus, the demand volumes will never actually be reached. Based
on their inability to get through the gateways, motorists will adjust their schedules to
travel outside the peak. hour or to carpool or use transit. This adjustment in travel
schedules, which could be reinforced with ramp metering, will be most obvious on the
freeways and at interchanges. At intersections farther from the freeway, we can be
less certain about adjustments to travel behavior. Motorists may adjust their sched.
ules, or they may continue to travel during the peak hour but to a different destina-
tion, or other peak.hour trips may occur to replace the trips displaced by freeway
congestion. Nevertheless, the plan is based on a Tri.Valley Model run in which the
overcapacity gateway trips have been removed from the assigned traffic volumes. This
is a m~or assumption.
TVTC has agreed to treat the Altamont Pass, Vasco Road, Crow Canyon Road to
Cutro Valley, Dublin Grade, Sunol Grade, and 1.680 north as physical gateways.
It is unrealistic to plan local transportation facilities to acc:ommodate all peak-hour
. traffic projected to now through state highway gateways if this traffic in actuality
cannot get through the gateways. Constrained as well as unconstrained traffic volumes
have been developed for the Tn-Valley network. The constrained traffic volumes back
down the assigned traffic volumes in proportion to the origins and destinations of the
total gateway tramc. PM peak.hour, directional traffic volumes are .hown in Fig-
ure 5-2 for -unconstrained" traffic volumes, Figure 5-4 for the subtracted traffic, and
on Figure 5.5 for the "pteway constrained" traffic volumes. The constrained volumes
are considered the baseline volumes. In order to develop rational action plans for local
arterials, both unconstrained and constrained traftic volumes are shown in the plan.
As actual capacities are more nearly reached monitoring of conditions may indicate the
need to reassess and amend the CUITent action plan.
Level of service (LOS) at gateways for the constrained system is viewed to be no more
than 1.0. Volume in excess of 1.0 which is projected is assumed to be spread over
multiple hours of the peak period. The Plan espouses a policy of cooperation with
adjacent jurisdictions to develop facilities management agreements in terms of ramp
metering and freeway surveillance and control, which would fairly apportion available
capacity in such a way that LOS F will be avoided except for unavoidable traffic
incidents which create intermittent blockages of capacity.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
77
d
oS
ur
CD
.....
as
.0
o
In
In
<
c:
as
E
.c
u
In
<
I
c:
o
.....
...
as
II>>
~\ ~ I-C- I
I Cl)Z~
~\~ U") I
i' o\c. ~ <<<
(.),~ ::J O~a:
~l:i 0'(.) l:n
~\O c:: WW""
--... .s I
... 01-0 a:cl
.. (.) 1 Q)
lit. O\CC:.
....... 000
~I.s. IL 0
c. 14 I
0\ -
0, CLL>-
\ WLL<
\
1 I-<:t I
, Oa:W
\ WI-~
,
\ O-a::-<!J I
\ )(:::)0
,
\ WO~
1 O:I: I
,
\ O~
,
,
\ N< I
... , a:W
! \
\ <0-
,
~l \ W::E I
>c..
I
Chi
]:lN3l/ "'Yl
~~
.....;
\
,
/
,
I
/
/
,
)
"
Q)
.....
.....
'>
d
~
Q
/'
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..0 ....0-
.
I cnz!z
It)
I l.! <<<
011 :JTllAN3JlJI) ~ o~a:
eft
~ ww'"
I 00 I 'z 011 005Y^ D:ci
000
006 LL ()
\ -
I elL>-
. wlL<
?J'
<S\?J 51 ....<:=
0'0;:. oD:W
I 0''';) ~
0\8 w""~
~'
0' 0 i c..c:-0
o\~
I o,'t; ^" 3tIOMI3N1 "N )(::)0
'0 wO~
~\-
0;:. ::.i(
0, o:r:
I 0'
o~
N<
I a:W
<0..
I ~~ w~
>c..
=
I oS
d
.,
C1J
I .,
cu
-
Q..
I .
(,)
oS
..
I Cf) IE
CD i
-
tU
.-
I u l:J
0 I
Cf)
Cf) ..,.
< co
I c
as
e :i ,
.c ,
I II )
(,) ~~
Cf)
< ---........ .2
~ "
, /
I c ....
0
....
~
as
m " "
I
d
c
-
ui
Q)
...
as
.6
o
o
o
<
c
as
E
.c
()
o
<
I
C
o
...
....
as
m
:!'
!::a.~
--.... ~ .s
!
~\
c.'
~ \:?7
O\~
0'0
0'0
~\O
0'-0
0' ~
O\~
;;'-'
c.' 4:
B\
,
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
....8
Itl_
ltl .
/
,
/
,
)
,
~../'
CI)
.-4
.-4
.....
~
a:l
Q
,./'
,
,
I
I
I
~ 1-0-
J, C/)Z~
e < <:( I
~ 0 ~ a:
l:: Ww t;
D:cz
000
U. 0
-
Cu.>-
WlL<
1-<3:
OD:W
WI-~
0.. a: -e I
X::)::J:
Wo!::
o:r:~
o~
C\I<
a:w
<0..
W::!
>c...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
()
c
-
..
I tI'J
Q)
....
as
.-
(,)
I 0
tJ)
tI'J
<
I c
as
E
.z::
I ()
tJ)
<
I
I c
0
...
...
as
I a:a
\
,
~,
c:;, \ ~
o'e.
0''''
0\5
~\ 0
0\"0
o 6>
o'~
'0
~\-;i
0,
(,),
\
i
!:::I.,cl;
............... --.. .s
~
"'"
a~ 311/N'GJII!I
~
U")
I
U")
e
::J
Ct
~
1-0-
C/)Z~
<<<
O::Ea:
WW"'"
a:O~
000
LL 0
-
Cu.>-
Wu.<
I-<:t
OO:W
Wl-~
0..a:-c!J
X::):J:
wo!::
:I: :t'
o -
o~
(\1<
a::W
<a..
W::E
> a..
Ol6'l a~ a.:lSY^
006
i
~
i
~
'"
i
^", JIIQrR/3N7 'N
(JlJ~
~
~
i
i
'<t
ex>
)
,
,
I
,
,
Expected Forecasts
Adjusted Forecasts
To plan for the true expected traffic flow, excess gateway trips, beyond design capaci.
ties, were removed from the system. Residual congestion would still occur in some
locations, as listed below (see Figure 5.6 ):
1.680 north of Danville (gateway)
1.680 south of Pleasanton (gateway)
1.580 over Altamont Pass (gateway)
1.580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue
Danville Boulevard (gateway)
Vasco Road north of Livermore (gateway)
Camino Tassajara east of Crow Canyon Road
Crow Canyon Road between Castro Valley and San Ramon (gateway)
Crow Canyon Road east of Dougherty
Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta
Tassajara Road near 1.580
Fallon Road near 1.580
Dublin Boulevard extension between Tassajara and Fallon
Route 84 between 1.580 and Jack London
Travel Patterns
With the expected forecasts, Tri-Valley would continue to experience in-commuting
and outoCQmmuting. This would occur even with a jobslhousing balance: 224,733
employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Trips within Tri-Valley would make up 63
percent of the total trips, compared to 50 percent under existing conditions. Out.
commuting and in..commuting would make up 18 percent and 16 percent of the total
trips, respectively. The remaining 4 percent of the trips would be through trips, traffic
passing through Tri.Valley. This percentage is low overall but would be significant on
the freeway system. 1-680 would comprise 15 percent through traffic, and through
traffic on 1.580 would vary from 16 percerit at Foothill Road to 40 percent over
Altamont Pass.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
B2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -p\ c oa::r:1-
U)
c::.' I ....:)I-Z
-::) \?l an
i B\~ f 00--
I 10 ::3 N:I:~~
;e;tl 0'0 t:n
~ oS ~\O c: a:~CJ)1-
'; 01"0
~ 0' G) L5<>CJ)
I. O\~
~I"", >W<Z
c;.,4(
0\ c..~O
0, cO
I I
\ 1-<>-
, ~o<
,
I \ Oa:~
,
\ W>W
\ 0:....1-
I \
\ 0-<
\ LLOe"
\
I t: \ c<
:8 , wc..
\
U \
~ 1-<
III
...
" "0 , 00
:5 0 I
I ... ti ll!/ \ UJD:
0 "0 , c..W
~ ,
III
I.l.l " X>
VI 0>
I t:
9 0 wO
(,)
II U
1 ~Ol 0lI
,
~ 3:INJbl AIV'! ,
1
I .
u
c:
-
..
I tI) \
CD
...
as ,
.- /
u ,
I 0 /
tI) /
tI) ,
,
-< /
I , ,
C )
as
E ~ ,
-...,/
.c CI)
I u - /'
tI) ~ /
-< /
fa I
I
c: ,
1 0 Q ,
... I
...
as
1 In
\ I
\ ~ OD::I:t-
\ CD
?:\ I .....::>t-z I
~,?;' II) g~i:;C
Ole:. ~
o \~ :::J
o ,0 en
~\ r;: a: a: I
o\~ <~CJ)""
O,Q) a~ Tr/WI33~a
O'~ W<>-CJ)
::::.\9. )-W<Z I
e:. ,A.
0, a~ roS'l'o\ 0.;:0
0\ t-CO
,
\ CJ)<>- I
\
<0<
IE ... Oa:~
~ , I
w>-W
~ 0:....1-
!
o\r ~"~3N1 'N 0-< I
ILO~
C<
\ Wo. I
I ....<
\ 00
\
, o\r 138tS1 wO:
\ o.W I
\ M
, \ X>
\ ~ wO
, I I
,
\ d
0
\ ~
\
\ =
c <<l I
,S! rn
u <<l
Q) G.>
Vl -
~ -" ~
E 0:; I
.:J
. I.... ~
(,) I.- 'u
0 0
C a.
- w 0
1Il ~ I
or Q) IE
g 6
CD II /I I
. ...
as c I
.- ~O ~ I
()
0 I.oJ
en ...J
en ~
!Xl I
<
c
as ,
,
e ) I
.s::. i'
(,) e ,
en :z:;tl !
< ........ .s I
I '0
C
0 ~
... , ,
... j
as I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Intersection Levels of Service
One hundred and thirty. five intersections were evaluated for the PM peak hour (see
Table 5-4). Lane configurations were based on the 2010 expected network and are
shown in the Technical Appendix. Figure 5-6 summarizes the intersections shown to
operate at LOS E or F in 2010. They are:
Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tass~ara
Crow Canyon and Dougherty
Alcosta and Bollinger Canyon
Dougherty and Bollinger Canyon
Dougherty and Dublin
Tass~ara and Dublin
Fallon and Dublin
Santa Rita and 1.580 EB Off.Ramp
Isabel and North Canyons Parkway
Isabel and Airway
Isabel and Jack London
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
88
I
Expected Forecasts I
Table 5-4 I
Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour
Existing 2010 I
City NlS Street E1W Street V/C LOS VlC LOS I
Dublin Foothill Road 1.580 WB Off 0.50 A 0.47 A
San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 0 0.90 0 I
San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A 0.45 A
Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 C 0.71 C
Dougherty Road 1.580 WB Off 0.68 B o.n C I
Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.84 0 0.93 E
Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C 0.82 0
Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A 0.78 C I
Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.85 0
Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.56 A
Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A 0.33 A I
Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F
Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F
Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B 0.59 A I
North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A 0.66 B
North Livennore 1.580 EB Off 0.21 A 0.74 C
Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C 0.74 C I
Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 0 0.87 0
Murrietta Blvd Las Positas 0.39 A 0.45 A
First Street 1.580 EB Off 0.81 0 0.59 A I
Vasco Road 1.580 we Off 0.97 E 0.69 B
North Livermore 1-580 we Off 0.39 A 0.58 A
Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E 0.70 B I
Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A 0.55 A
Holmes Street Concannon BOulevard 0.50 A 0.71 C
North Mines East Street 0.58 A 0.41 A I
First Street 1.580 WB Off 0.64 B 0.61 B
Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.66 B
Airway Boulevard 1.580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.73 C
Isabel (Route 84) Jack London 0.95 E I
Isabel North Canyons Pkwy 0.92 E
Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B 0.85 0 I
OWens Drive West Las Posit as 0.25 A 0.87 0
Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.75 C
Tassajara Road 1.580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.84 0 I
Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A 0.58 A
Hopyard Road 1.580 EB Off 0.66 B 0.79 C
I
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 89 I
I
I Expected Forecasts
I Table 54
Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour
I (Continued)
Existing 2010
I City NlS Street EIW Street VlC LOS VlC LOS
I Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.91 E
Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.66 B
Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.75 C
I Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40 A 0.58 A
FirsVSunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.80 C
1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40 A 0.83 D
I 1.680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.56 A
1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.58 A
I.saO NB Off Sunot Boulevard 0.48 A 0.54 A
I Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.94 E
First Street RayNlneyard 0.70 B 0.71 C
Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.37 A
I Santa Rita Road Stone ridge Drive 0.57 A 0.85 0
1.680 SB Off Stone ridge Drive 0.36 A 0.49 A
1.a80 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31 A 0.52 A
FoothUl Road DubUn Canyon 0.70 B 0.75 C
I East Vallecltos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86 0 0.87 D
Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.93 E
Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.31 A 0.81 D
I San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.46 A
1.sa0 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.68 B
I San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.87 D 0.76 C
Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.61 B 0.82 D
Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 1.06 F
I Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0.63 B
San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.60 A
1.680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.65 B
I 1.680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.57 A 0.48 A
1.680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.76 C 0.34 A
1.680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.56 A 0.71 C
I Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.98 E
San Ramon Valley 1.680 SB Off 0.41 A
Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.34 A
1.680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.87 0 0.84 D
I Dougherty Road Bollinger Cnyn Rd 1.11 F
I
I Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 90
Expected Foreca!lts
Table ~
Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour
(Continued)
Existing 2010
City N1S Street E/W Street VIe LOS VlC LOS
DanvlUe DanviUe Boulevard Stone VaUey 1.08 F 1.08 F
1.680 S8 Off Stone Valley 0.59 A 0.56 A
1-680 N8 Off Stone Valley 0.46 A 0.40 A
San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley o.n C 0.81 D
1.680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.66 B 0.63 B
Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.35 A 0.37 A
Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.45 A 0.38 A
Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.37 A 1.15 F
'-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.45 A 0.79 C
Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.83 D 0.39 A
Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.44 A 0.32 A
'.680 S8 Off Diablo Road 0.47 A 0.42 A
1.680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.59 A 0.55 A
1.680 sa Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A 0.62 B
'.680 NB Off EI Carro Boulevard 0.50 A 0.60 A
1.680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A 0.31 A
1.680 SB Off Uvorna Road 0.34 A 0.28 A
San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A 0.63 B
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Interchange Analysis
The 2010 expected network includes changes to several freeway interchanges.
Figure 5.7 shows the interchange configurations for existing and 2010 conditions. The
following three new interchanges will be added to the network:
. 1.580IShaefl'er Ranch Road
· 1.5801lsabel (Route 84)
· 1-6801West Las Positas
The following 10 interchanges will be reconfigured or expanded:
. 1.5801Foothill. Conversion from full cloverleaf to partial cloverleaf design.
. 1-58011.680. Addition of a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp, addition of hook
ramps to Dublin.
. 1-58O/Fallon. Widening of overpass to six lanes. Conversion to partial cloverleaf
design.
. 1.580IPortola. Removal of the ramps, will become just an overcrosaing.
. 1.5801North Livermore. Conversion from diamond to partial cloverleaf design,
widening of overcrossing.
· 1.5801First Street. Widening of overcrossing.
. 1-580Nasco. Widening of overcrossing, reconstruction of ramps to a partial
cloverleaf design.
. 1.580/Greenville. Conversion from hook ramps to partial cloverleaf design.
. 1~680lSycamore Valley. Elimination of the northbound-w.westbound off.loop.
. 1-680/Alcosta. Addition of hook ramps to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, removal of
southbound off.ramp.
. 1.680IBernal. Conversion to standard partial cloverleaf design.
Tables 5.5 through 5.8 show the 2010 expected volume on the oveI'C!'OSsing and ramps
at each interchange for the PM peak hour. The tables also show the number of lanes
required to accommodate the expected volume. In all cases, the existing or planned
interchange configuration will be adequate.
Barto~Aschman Associates, Inc.
92
I
INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010
LOCATION I
Palomares Road ..-
@ 1-580 SAME I
Schafer Ranch Road UU--.., I
o 1-580 I
Foothlll Road
@ 1-580 ..lID 1-1III I
I
1-680 I
@ 1-580 ,-
....-
Dougherty Roadl I
Hopyard Road I
IooSIO SAME
@ 1-580
I
Hacienda Dr
..- I
SAME
@ 1-580
. I
(.)
c
- ~ tftr_..,
0 Tassalara Roadl ~
Q) Santa Rita Road ..lID ...- I
...
.~
(.) @ 1-580
0 I
fI)
fI)
< Fallon Road/EI Charro
c: ..- I
as @ 1-580
e
.c
(.) U 111m I
fI)
< Figure 5-7
I
C EXPECTED NETWORK-
0 I
... INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
~
as
m
I
I
INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010
LOCATION I
..- ..-
SR 84
@ 1-680 I
.... I
--
WAY
I
Sunol Blvd
@ 1-680 I
I
Bernal Ave I
@ 1-680 I
I
W. Las Posttas Blvd I
@ 1-680 I
-
-
-
-
c.i I
.5 ........,
..
CJ) I
Q)
... Stoneridge Dr
(U
.0 @ 1-680
0 - I
CJ) ::::
-
CJ) - - SAME
- -
< - 'I :o"~
c I
as ....-
E
.c I
(,)
CJ) Figure 5-7
-<
I
c EXPECTED NETWORK- I
0
... INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
....
as
m I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ig
-
Ii
"'
"0
I~
<
I i
E
I~
<
I
I~
as
1m
INTERCHANGE
LOCA liON
EXISTING
2010
Alcosta Blvd
@ 1-680
-
SMt IAMOH WJD '"
_ _ \NaY IlD
BoJlfnger Canyon Road
@ 1-680
SAME
Crow Conyon Rood
@ 1-680
SAME
Sycamore Valley Road
@ 1-680
:::::
-
-
-
.-:
-
-
-
.-:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-5
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-I-S8D
(PM Peak Hour)
Location
NB
S8
Volume
Required
Lanes
Required
Lanes
Shaeffer Ranch
Palomares
San Ramon/Foothill
1.68011-580 -
Dougherty/Hopyard
Hacienda
TassajaralSanta Rita
FallonlEI Cerro
Airwt4y
Isabel (Route 84)
North Uvennore
First Street
Vasco
Greenville
Volume
401
92
367
2,457
2,572
2,751
2,504
1,258
593
2,264
1,044
587
401
416
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
194
63
570
4,210
3,541
3,390
3,033
1,483
451
3,302
3,301
1,386
2,955
707
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
1
Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be
overcapacity .
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
98
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-6
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-
1-680 (PM Peak Hour)
Location
Westbound
Required
Volume Lanes
Eastbound
Required
Volume Lanes
Uvoma
Stone Valley
EI Pintado
EICerro
Diablo
Sycamore Valley
Crow Canyon
Bollinger Canyon
Alcosta
1-680/1-580
Stone ridge
Las Posltas
Bernal
Sunol
Route 84
46
962
26
138
582
757
1,219
2,307
740
5,407
1,593
775
480
852
1,537
534
1,26
376
625
837
1,588
2,141
1,617
531
8,067
1,318
426
1,593
285
490
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be
overcapacity .
Source: Bar1on.Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-7
2D1 D Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I-SSD
(PM Peak Hour)
WB WB WB WB N N N N
Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop
Shaeffer Ranch 387 534 533 270
Palomares 92 130 1296 468
San RamonIFoothill 388 627 875 769 340 875 1,441 336
DoughertylHopyard 1,601 727 1,243 1574 n5 1,156
Hacienda 1.451 841 1,093 1768 1.287 671
TassajaralSanta Rita 1,583 1,472 533 1231 1.439 515
FallonlEl Cerra 1,558 1,507 1231 969
Airway 475 371 742 529
Isabel (Route 84) 1,244 924 1,353 2438 ' 2,000 ' 578
North Livermore 793 805 1,186 2580' 150 192
First Street 667 167 610 1258 958 37
Vasco 40 93 1,295 1,622' 1046 1549 518
Greenville 576 27 514 93 663 59
, Requires two-lane ramp.
Note: Assumes capachy of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp; 1,600 vph for loop ramp.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
100
I
Expected Forecasts I
Table 5--8 I
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-I-GSO
(PM Peak Hour) I
58 58 SB SB NB NB NB NB I
Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop
Llvorna 625 14 46 386 I
Stone Valley 239 431 629 417 685 691
EI Pintada 66 324 I
EI Cerro 578 72 303 477
Diablo 458 652 737 303 I
Sycamore Valley 458 1.357 729 494 489 917
Crow Canyon 2,196, 521 316 1,345 1,591 1,256 I
Bollinger Canyon 1,396 309 1,212 1,270 1,749 248
Alcosta 432 146 233 1,761 377
Dublin Hook 359 613 138 733 I
1-680/1-580 266 2.624 2 1,184 1.114 461 1,244 2,179 ' 919
Stoneridge 585 650 557 625 791 271 I
Las Positas 476 644 706 617
Bernal 1,763 225 292 1,315 I
Sunol 510 703 994 185
Route 84 14 429 246 1,201 2,956' 0 21 0
Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp, 1,600 vph for loop ramp.
, Requires two-lane ramp.
2 Two-lane flyover.
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Expected Forecasts
Transit Ridership
The -existing mode split in Tri.Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak.hour
commute trips, and this is expected to increase to 5 percent for the expected 2010
forecasts. Nevertheless, the drive.alone percentage is predicted to increase slightly
from 76 percent to SO perc~nt.
I
The traffic model estimates transit and carpool usage by taking into account travel
time, travel cost, and transit availability. The model does not include policy direction
that might lead to more carpooling or transit ridership-for example, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District goals to increase average vehicle ridership. Table 5-9
summarizes the transit ridership forecast for the expected transit network. Transit
ridership is predicted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to almost triple by 2010,
compared to a doubling of population and employment. The drive.alone percentage is
expected to remain high, however. This is a function of time and cost factors, which
will continue to favor driving alone. A complete breakdown of transit information for
the qexpected" 2010 forecast is included in the Appendix.
Table 5--9
2010 Expected Transit Ridership
Carrier
1990
Daily Ridership'
2010
Daily Ridership2
County Connection
WHEELS
BART
3,097
16,698
19,482
13,404
41 ,433
52,058 3
6,041
Express Buses
Total
39,277
112,935
1 For routes that serve the Tri.Valley, based on Trt-Valley Transportation Model validation run.
t For routes that serve the Tri.Valley, based on Trt-Valley Transportation Model expected run.
t Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses.
Source: Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
102
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.
Plan Alternatives
Chapter Summary
. The Transportation Service Objective of Level of Service E for the freeways cannot
be met at the gateways based on demand, without spending over $2 billion on
transportation improvments-far in excess of the funding that could reasonably be
available.
. Even if there were no further development in the Tri.Valley, the freeway system
would still become increasingly congested by long-distance commuters that neither
live nor work in the Tri-Valley. (This assumes that neighboring communities will
continue to grow as planned.)
. The plan should restrict increases in gateway capacity for single.occupant vehicles,
insure that the internal transportation system operates at acceptable levels of
service through selective network improvements and freeway ramp metering, and
achieve a jobs.housing balance. Ridesharing and transit usage should be particu-
larly emphasized at the gateways.
This chapter describes the alternatives tested to develop the Tri.Valley Transportation
Plan. Potential actions and strategies to address the projected transportation deficien-
cies were developed by the consultant, the TAC and the TVTC. These actions and
strategies can generally be divided into three groups: increase transportation supply
through highway investment, increase transportation system efficiency through more
reliance on transit, and decrease transportation demand through land use adjust-
ments. Note that the evaluation of transportation alternatives was conducted with the
baseline forecasts and did not include the gateway constraint concept.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 103
Plan Alternatives
Maximum Highway Investment
The purpose of testing an alternative that maximized highway investment was to see
if, regardless of cost, it would be possible for the Tri.Valley to build its way out of the
problem of traffic congestion. All physically and potentially politically acceptable road
improvements were included. The assumed maximum highway network changes are
shown on Figure 6-1. Expenditures for these improvements are summarized, by
improvement, in Table 6.1. Funding levels for the maximum highway investment
would require an additional $598 million beyond that required for the assumed
baseline improvements. Approximately $547 million of this amount would be
unfunded.
These changes included substantial capital expenditures on new roads and road
widening projects throughout the Tri Valley area. The additional road capacity would
alleviate, to some degree, congestion on arterial corridors in Tri Valley. The gateways
to Tri Valley (1.680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road) would continue to be congested
during peak conditions. Figure 6.2 shows the congested routes with the maximum
highway alternative.
Maximum Transit Investment
This alternative was to test the ability of transit systems to relieve highway conges.
tion. Transit systems offering travel times superior to automobiles were included in
the m~or corridors. Potential transit improvements are shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-4.
Cost estimates for the maximum transit investment is summarized in Table 6.2. The
maximum transit investment would require an additional $1.136 billion in capital and
operating costs through 2010 beyond the baseline improvements. None of this amount
is funded.
Potential projects include BART service extended to Eastern Livermore, Altamont
Pass Rail service from Stockton to San Jose, and north/south corridor priority express
bus transit. Extensive bus service feeding the proposed rail stations was also assumed.
The additional system capacity would not eliminate congestion on either arterial
corridors or the gateways to Tri.Valley (1.680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road).
Figure 6.5 shows the congested routes with the maximum transit alternative.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
104
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :i'
II
~t:
--..... s
~
I ~
I
I
III
I Q)
c
c
-' III
Q)
(; c
0
-'
I ~ (;
D
E t
::>
Z D
"0 E
c ::>
0 z
I Cl'I "0
C C
.~ 0
"0
"0 I:>
~ 0
I Q:;
"0 .
0
0 Q)
Q:; Z
II II
I Q I -
:z -
h: ClO ClO :
~ :
I
I .
()
C
-
I ..
f1)
CD
...
as
I .u
0
f1)
f1)
I -<
c
as
E
I .s:::.
u
f1)
<
I I
C
0
-
....
as
I In
r;\
c.'
':) , r;
5\~
'0
0'0
~\o
0,"'0
0\ l\>
0\% __
;:""';'
C. '......
0\
0,
,
\
j
,
,
\
,
\
\
,
\
,
\
,
\
,
,
YWlYSS'V.t :,0,.,1IF8
-
.
.
-
-
....-
.
-
-
.
.
,
,
~
...,....
.'
\
,
,
/
,
,
)
Q) , /"
,
- /'
~ I
I
= I
ttl I
Q I
I
0 I~
--
I ~o:
CD
CD 0:0
....
:I O~
0'1
~ ~I-
t-W
wZ
Zw
>~
<..J
;:W
::1:(1)
~<
_01
:I: .
:E
~O
::)0:
:ElL.
-
x (I)
<W
~CJ
Z
<
J:
0
,
,
,
I
/
I
\ ...0 I ~
, I ~o:: I
, <0
~\ e 0::0
c. 7'
?\~ :::. o~
0' .~
O\~ I..\.. 3:1- I
0,0
.... , ....W
III \0 01:1 :n1W133I:1D
o -0
o ,Q) ~ wZ I
,re.
0\0 ~ Zw
~.-.
Co ,:<!. 01:1 OOSYII >~
0'
0\ I
<-I
- ~ ;:UJ
-
, .. :r.:CI)
.. ~ I
, - ~ CJ<
- \oj
"IIlt- ~ a\
.. _m
, - ~
, - :I:~
- ,.
- ! I
, -
\ III' 31:10YfI:l3N7 N ~O
::)0::
~u. I
-
)(CI)
\ <w I
\ ~Cl
,
\ >0
.. Z
\ <:l
\ ~ i <
\ :I: I
, I 0 ~
\ 0
\ .- 0
....,J
\ ~ I
\ <<S
\ fIJ
<<S
Q,)
-
~ I
c5 f.l I
..5
.. III i
en Q}
t:
G) .3 III ~ I
... Q}
'0 t:
as .3
-6 Q; '0
.D '<t
0 E "- 00 I
en :J Q}
Z .D
tI) "0 E
< t: :J
0 Z
0> "0
C , t: t: I
, 'c 0
as ) Q} "0
E "0 0
j 0
..c ...... cr
oS , "0
() IS , 0 ~ I
:t:tl ! 0 Q}
tI) cr z
< --.. .g II
I c; ~ .,1 -
c ~ -
0 , -
, co: I
.... j
... ~ -
as -
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan Alternatives
Table 6-1
Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network
Cost Potential
Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded
HOV lanes on 1.680 to Santa $80 $80
Clara County
HOV lanes on 1.580 Foothill to $112 $112
Greenville
Route 84, upgrade to six-lane $50 $50
freeway 1-680 to 1-580
1-580/1-680 Interchange $120 $120
NB to WB ramp
1-680I8ernal interchange im. $15 $15
provement
Bollinger Canyon Rd. widened $8 $8 Developer
to six lanes
Dougherty Rd. widened to six $15 $15 Developer
lanes
Hacienda Dr. extended $12 $12 Developer
New road: East Branch to High- $6 $6 Developer
land
Tassajara Rd. widened to 6 $10 $10 Developer
Two new overpasses in Dublin $10 $10
N. LivermorelHighland Drive $40 $40
widened to four lanes
Vasco widened to six.lane ex- $120 $120
pressway, 1-580 to Delta Ex-
pressway
Total $598 $51 $547
Source: Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
107
i ~\ 0 I
(:.' N :I:W
~~~ -;:) \ Zi' I
0\(:. U) 1-> I
o -;:)
,0 CD ~i=
~ 0'0 ...
~\o ::J
'-' .2> <
0'-0 ~
0'(1) OOZ I
O\<i:.
;:.\9. >-0::
c.'A <w
8\ I
1 ~I-
,
\ C...J
<<
I
1 0>-
, 0::<
\ C~ I
\
,
\ WJ:
\ 1-c:J
>. ,
0 \ 00- I
!r> W::I:
"8
0
a:: \ CJ::E
"0
2 Z::) I
/J) Oi;
Q)
0> \ O::E
<;;
0
u Ox
11 I
CI I <
Z
L.a.I ~
(!)
W
....J I
0/)/
3JN3/)/ MVl
I
c.5
.5 I
..
tJ)
Q)
... I
as
.-
u
0
tJ)
tJ) I
-< .;
c
c ~
as /J)
c: I
e / 0
u
-'= , , >.
U ) 0
J
tJ) Q,) "
~/' , , ;;
< ....-4 I
~ 0>
I /' "
C I "0
d I ::;l
0 I "0
... <<S .!:
.... Q / <5 I
CO I
m I c:
/J)
8
0
jj I
0
z
I
I ..c :I:W
\ N
I 1->
I CD
, --
\ ~ ~I-
~\ ::J
c.. ~ Ol <
?'c..
I o \? ~ enz
<.) 0
010 )-a:
~'O all T/111W331I1) <W
I 0\-0 IE ~~
O\t ~
0\0
;:.~ all OIJSl'II 0<
c..,
0' <>
I 0\
0<
I a:~
OJ:
WCJ
1--
I \ en:!:
\ W::E
I CJ::>
Z::IE
\ 0_
, 0><
\
I \ <
,
\ III ::IE
\ ~ l
\
I \ III
I d
0
\ ~
d
I , ~
\
\ I'll
a:l
~ Q,)
-
I . Q..
"0
0
0
0::
"0
Ql
I <;)
. '" ti
CJ 0'
c: "
oS 0
U 1 E
1 ~
..
I tn Q I i
CD z: iii
... WJ i:
as ~ ~
.0 ~ '<t
00 ..
c:
I 0 0
u
tn >-
tn 0
.
< ~
0
I , 0'
C 1 Ql
as ) "0
:>
E u
";' .!"
.c ,
& , "0
I CJ J <:
tn --..:Z:; .! ..
< '"
0
I "0 0
C ~
I 0 , , 0;
... j 0
~ z
as
m
I
I
I
... 1-- ..J
I
i U) -
I B f Cl)W<
~~~ c Z>o:
<l> ;:]
E C)
1; 0 ~ <i=cc
..
I <.>
~ \ 0
(fl. a:<W
0 I-Zl-
7':-' t-
A-', -nl~ i! :eO:::::>
I c;f
o ~ a ::>W:e
o 0 :E~:E
00
I ~'
o'~ 5<<0
o~rc < 0
~ 9, :e ;;
I c. 4-
0'
0, I-
\ -
I 0
cc'
W
l-
I \ z
-
,
I ,
\
I ,
,
I \
,
,
I d \
oS <l>
<Il
0
...,
I ..
U) c
0
G) (fl
.... 0
as t-
.-
I u
0
U)
U)
< c:
I E
c 0
Vi
co '0
E '0 C
C o 0
I .s:::. .2 E:o:>
1; .. 0
U <l> <.>
I) .... 0
UJ 0 -=...J
'O...J
< Ql E~
'" c
o 0 .... 0
I Q. .- ct:
I C ~:B ~ Ql
o ~.fJ 0....
o.lJl 0.-=
t:: ?~
0
as :z
I m LoJ II~
<.=>
LoJ
....J
Plan Alternatives
Table 6-2
Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network
Element
Cost Potential
(in millions) Funded Source Funds
Source Unfunded
Priority transit lines 1 in 1.680 $56 $56
and 1.580 corridors
BART extension to $900 $900
Uverrnore with 2 stations
. Altamont Pass Rail $136 $136
(Alameda County portion)
Express Bus Service $26 $26
11 lines
Enhanced local bus service lli lli
Subtotal $1.136 $1.136
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
t These are super express bus lines that have signal-preemption capability.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
112
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :I:W
c
r;\ U")
I I t->
(D
c. '. ?J' --
~\C. f ~t-
o :~ :I <
Of
I :i 0'0 r;: C/JZ
~\o
~ 0'-0 > a.:
--.... ~ ~ 0\ Q) <W
0\%
I ! ;:. , -:a. ~~
c'
0\ c<
0,
, <l-
I \
0-
a.:CI)
I , Z
'\ C<
We:
\
I \ I-t-
C/J
\ W~
\
\ CJ=>
I \ Z~
\
>, 0-
0 \ O~
. \
I 'g
0 ,
Q: , ~
"0
~
'"
Q)
I 0>
c::
0
U
c I
I z: Oll
~ ~"IV'l
.....,
~
I
I .
()
c
I -
.. .;
en c
CD ~
... .,
as c:
I 0
.- I 0
() ,
>,
0 0
J
(/) III
(/) 15
I 0-
< "
"0
:l
C /' u
as , .=
Q.) ,
I E - /' 15
~ / c::
~ / .,
() I III
en d 0
0
< <<S /
I ~ I
I I v
C "0
0 z
...
...
I as
m
d
oS
-
tI)
CD
...
ca
.0
o
tI)
tI)
<
c
as
E
.c
()
tI)
<
I
C
o
...
"-
as
m
\
\
\
~\
C- 7:-
.-:;) ,.....
o,c-
L:> \~
0,0
~\ 0
8\~
\~
0\0
.?"2.
c-,
0'
0\
Oil 311/IIN33I1D
~
IE
~
G>,.
J..l"<
o ~
S
J..l
G>
~ #~
"
t
&l ';<
'"
~ ;;l
~
>-
!
\
, I\V 110"'<1
,
,
\
,
\
\
\
,
\
\
,
\
,..,
o
,
"0
o
o
0:::
"
l!
'"
'"
'"
i:::
o
U
II
~ I
i
~~
--.. ,g
'0
~
~
~
~
"
all N071Yj
all l'l:tVT\ISSVJ
\
,
)
,
,
J
o
to
LI)
/'
I
..c J:W I
10
I 1->
(0
--
f :=1- I
::J
0'1 <
L:: Cl)Z
)-1:1: I
<w
~~ I
c<
<I-
0- I
[[en
CZ
w< I
1-1:1:
(1)1-
UJ~ I
CJ::::>
Z::E
0- I
C)~
::E I
I
I
I
Ii
2 I
~
~ .,
c I
v ]
(() ..
0;:
0
\J
,.., I
0
.
'"
"
'"
Il
"0 I
::l
U
.S
"
'"
'" I
8
0
ij
0
z I
1
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan Alternatives
land Use Opportunities
Given the high cost, limited availability of funds, and lack of overall system improve-
ment for either a maximum highway or maximum transit network, the consultant was
instructed by the TVTC to test modifications to proposed land uses.
A real estate economics firm, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), was contracted to
prepare a study of how a reduced land use plan might be structured. Their complete
land use study is included in the Appendix. They prepared the following list of criteria
for structuring the reduced growth plan.
Criteria for Developing Managed Growth Land Use Scenario
1. Determine Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are the significant contributions to
traffic congestion (producing trips in excess of network link capacity).
2. Identify TAZs where residential and employment density could be increased where
access to transit is high (transit-oriented development).
3. Identify TAZs where infrastructure capacity (e.g., arterial roadways) exists that
can support higher density residential and employment mixed.use development.
4. Reduce proposed residential density in TAZs with limited or nonexistent network
and poor transit service potential.
5. Reduce employment land use designations and/or proposed capacity in areas with
limited road network and transit access, undeveloped or underdeveloped backbone
infrastructure, or weak market demand.
6. Construct a "Managed Growth Scenario" by redistributing and reducing 2010
Expected Growth to achieve a level of service policy on Baseline Network.
EPS used these criteria to develop specific reduced-growth recommendations (see
Table 6-3). These recommendations were considered but not adopted by the TVTC.
Several land use reduction treatments were tested with the traffic model. None
produced satisfactory results with respect to eliminating overcapacity demand on the
freeway system. As a worst-case test, the consultant tested an alternative with zero
growth through 2010 in the Tri-Valley while allowing growth to occur as predicted in
neighboring communities. Through this evaluation, it was determined that congestion
at the gateways (1-680, Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) would not be influenced by
Tri Valley growth but rather growth in neighboring communities. In other words,
there is no way to control the freeway system demand by only adjusting growth within
Tri Valley. Figure 6.6 shows the congested links with the zero growth alternative. The
lack of local control over freeway volumes at the gateways, as evidenced by the zero
growth alternatives, lead to the policy of gateway constraints. This is discussed further
in Chapter 7.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
115
-
c
G)
E
G)
C)
ca
c
ca
:E
C?.c
c.o _
CD ;:
-0
.Q~
~C!J
en
c
.2
-
c-
O
C
i
o
C
i~
8.~
o C
.t~
CD
(II
::J
"
~
n
C
~
~
l
(II
CD
~
i
CD
(II
=>
~
C
IU .~
CD"-
~j
~IU
C CD
li~
l[
~
i
:2
II
C
~
(IIc1;
S CD
'ili ...
i)l
II > e
EC)a..
(11.5 '0
i.i Qi-
"E>c
C)CD.!!!~
S......a..
!!S l!!5!
~j'~l
!i~J~
~~~~
Ii
~
I
"
li
I
CD
(II
. II
;~
~ ::l
~~
Ill-E
...J_
llii
.1:: !!!
(II
i~ It
Il~et
:!C)a.."
(II.E'ei8
i.1iE ~.O
,,~~~
~!!!~E
~.E~8
~!,CD"2
CD.-t)lIl
(IIi)CDi8
=~ g~
~~ ~~
!
]
f
~
ti
~
8
t
~
u
...
CD
5
~
::
'5
.J:J
>.
i
~
S
9
:2
]
.
'5
.~ t
i i~
.5 IU g.
>. !!!a.
.'1:: 1Il
C .i!C
E .J:J Ell
~~ i~
li..!.. ~ ~
.J:J" ~ ~
!5li1iJCD
~~~g
.5
:0
::l
o
c
is
::l
o
>.
i
ell
Z
i'il
~
~
~
i
~ :!!
8.2
lii
ClC
..5.21
(II (II
.- CD
lil"
~ ~
!]
]
~
C
S
1Il
l!
~.
E
8
'5
>.
i5..
g-CD
(II (II
CD ::l
!2l"
j.!
~s ~
i~ CD~
8. Vi (II (II
~! I i ~
'5lii~l
16 11 "C 1\; III
}E~.~~
- ~ (II Jll C
ili-c".-
... 51 1Il 'lIS .J::.
CD~~CD.'I::
>CD "'i:
o"EII
~~~..s.~
!~~8i
I
i
i:
ii
~
8
~
C
::l-
8Cll
~i
ill'; i.; i... "fj ~
O~.i 8.. i (II ll'l i
i~ i 16'5 5 ~ B"i 51
ioS .~CD S 8 iijlll._
i"!c II!! c _.g~';g ~
8~.g 8Jc-B l!l.~!iS'~
0g0 (II.J:J~ll'l Ea8."2S :
=~~ =iCll~ ~0.'I::&&l00
~ j 8 0 ~ lE r ~ 0 c ~ i ~:e:j - C
i "Ii! g ~ i .~ y g ~ .j :e ~ ; i ~ ~ ~
~i~i~3g~i~I]~~!~l
s
',;0
!
o
i'
Ii
~
i8
"=
i ~
~ ~... ~
'5 !!!.g:g,
1ii C"t: iii
:g ,g8~iij
o '&0.'1::(11
~ iil ~ : R
c -CDe
Eto"816~
E-li ~C
8~,!.~.J!l~
1I~2~~j
liiEtE'2CD
.Yl~&'l~~.g
I
~
lil
iii
~
IU
:cz
..!
1
o
>.
.!!
~
f
.s::.
g>
c3
...
'"
III
W
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~
~.~
; lil
:gft
VI I)
!iil
~~
.f: ::l
"- ~
E<<::
Clliij
....0
:BCii
~ E
~~
!
~
~
::J
CD
~
2
1ii
g
S
II
~
..><:
~
.J:J
1:
rJ
!E VI
Oc 1i5
.21';(
Cl)CD
.fj
a..~
B: i8
~: ;;!
II b lEi
5.E 8-
1.;: I
fih
C) !.J ::J
>ci
CDE "
Ii: g. Ii
~j ~'f
"2~ CDa..
In_ :2nr
2 iij VI I)
0&1 !!!iij
.... C)"C
a.. ell .~ 1ii
~~ "~c-6
CD - 5ii
c oS 50
cri .j ! .Ill
CD .iij.se
;.~ ~~~
cf![u8
ell
~
~
::J
€
~
5
1:
!Q
CD
i5:
!
i
:2
CD
c
~
J
'ii
~1:
(II ;
CDCl
:e c
0_
i .5
" III
E
~!"
! "5ii :
.,g .~ ..
CD :g :I
!i~CD
~'6i~
"
!!
j
ell
~
..
,!
i8
-.;:;
c
-!
'ii
l!!
i
i "
... ~
a.. -
II i
ii~
m s- i
f
~
'"
.c
1
CD
ii:
>.
.J:J
i
i
"iij'
ex:
~
z::.
:E
>.
i
~
~
:j
c
i
1:
~
a..
o
16
.g
i
.~
::J
...
CD
!
i
f!
CD
~
~I
ts-_
i1ii~
" ~ c
c c"s
"~ .~ i 8.
CD & '" '"
C) (118.g:
~~ B ~ !
i: -] ell
';(" l!
wi _::J
o
'iii
"i
5
8
;i .~
i: i5
CD ::l
VI 0
i! >.
16ti.J:J
~ 5 i
"''''i
~~ "iii'
j _ ex:
i8
t!
CD
8-
o
g:
~
i
.~
:::J
16
'i
8-
I
I
::J
S i 0. cb
~i8~ t f ~ ~
fi~"~i 8 I ~_
>.Q.CDlilll! S CD y:
iEilB"e l!l:~ :zr8-
EilCD ::l O!.ol? ::le
~E"'iiji IllIllCD (11",-
J2g.0l"S e'!l ~ >.-
.~.~!! iliO"'..!! ii
;,!.~~j8.~~j ji
ill!~ =G.:~ =1:1
i~:Bii ~E iii.!! lila..lil"
'2cb~EliI~1lI:2iij-1iICD
5.!~~~S-~~~~~g
CD
~
a:
~
III
lid
CD
i5:
c
e
III
ex:
~
!
e
.1
...J
~
~
l
CD
ex:
<..>
<..>
<..>
~
to
iii
>
~
l'
'"
~
.s
:g
o
~
m
to>
1.'1I
i
u
.s
fIi
I
2>
c
i
Q:
.0
~
~
W
~
~
116
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
.5
\
\
"J;'\
c. 7:-
-;) ,~
0'.....
O\~
0,0
~,
'" \0
o -0
(.) ,~
O'~
:::;\90
c. ,A
0,
0\
Oli 3T1W133/10
Ii!
~
Oli O:JSVII
~
~
...
cl .
~
~
\
.
~
'"
!
11'1/ 31iOYlIi3N1 N
\
,
\
.
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
11'1/ 138\1S1
i\
~
~
~
~
~
>.
o
~
1:>
o
o
0:::
1:>
.."J
VI
'"
0\
C
o
u
\
\
en
! ml
-0 -'
o
t/)
In
-<
C
as
E
.s::.
u
In
-<
I
C
o
....
"-
aI
In
\
\
...... )
i , ,
~~ f
.......... .2
'0
~ 0
,
, 00
j lO
I
..Q J:W
(0
I 1-> I
(0
--
~ ~I-
:s
C) <
G: Cl)Z I
)-0:
<W
~!:i I
c<
<w I
000
1:1::> I
Cc
wz
1-< I
ffi..J
~J: I
ZI-
0;:
00 I
a:
c:1
0 I
0:
W I
N
I
li1 I
i
~ vi I
c
'<t ~
C1J VI
C
0 I
u
>.
0
J:
'"
0
0\ I
'"
1:>
:J
0
.S;
i5 I
c
VI
'"
0
0
Q; I
i5
z
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan Alternatives
The reduced growth 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 specific 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 only 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 CMP-mandated levels of service on the
freeways.
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
tn
CD
>
~
c
~
S
:;:
ca
0-
-
c
CD
-
o
c.
c
as
ii:
c
o
~
!
o
Q.
UJ
c
!
I-
>-
,..!e
coca
41>>
-,
.c._
ca~
t-I-
c:
"C .2 CI)
~ca'2e
cutm~
Q)8.E-
~~Q)a;
~eC:::E
t-
CI)
i(l)'E
~g~
0: ~
Cl)0
Q).....
i(U~
uO:J:
:::l J: 0
ii:::l
o:~e
C!)~
CI)
!~ ,~
:c
CI)
,2> I:
:I:Q)
o
Cl)o
'E.....
=~~i~
~Q)'O~~
e>c:o.-
t- ~ ~~ ~
_<<:I
Cl)o
'E.....
iE~~~
Ii ~le-~
~~WZ
-c:
~.2
;ti
co.C::
E u
Q)CI)
~Q)
<0
Cf
E~
Ol.n
cncq
~
c:
o
CI)
Q)
c:
.s9
:E
o
.a;
~
~co>; u)
oE'2 'E
(I)~O Q)
:c E
Q)
e
.~
Q) 0 ~
I: ..... cD
~ ~ 0.
-x
W
Q)
c:
o
Z
~
~
~
<
en
C
Q)
I
Q.
S
"0
8
a:
~
7ij
as
.c
Q.
E
w
..
.....
==
ct
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
CI)
o
c:
co
J:
e
~~
.(1)
~g
~1O
e(/)
0.1:
~Q)
Cl)E
cO
co :g
'Z>.
5 I'll
-E
Cl)CI)
I'll...
~i
Ii~
~~
co~
>12
:mg-
Q.;Q)
ie,
~.!2
co ~
"TO
x-
.u; 0:
~~
'ltl.n
lXIcq
Q).....
S .
o'lt
0:Q)
Q)
oS
mo
,e::
~o
OJ:
!g
('(l (/)
-0
~fB
I-~
C
,2
ti
'I:
u
~
o
-
II:
Q)>
E<
Ol.n
cncq
o
~
c:
o
!
om
>
~ ~
~ ;b
OQ)C
cn~o
:c
Q)
E
o
(I)
::t
.....:e-
,5 ~
_J:co
.2=...
~-
<-:;0
~~
LOE
.....
-
:2
<
Q)
I:
~
t1I
-
c:
Q)
E
~
e
Q.
.5
::
t1I
c:
~
~
is
as
.c
Q.
E
w
CIoI
:::
ct
~
!
u
I'll .
...~
Q)Q)
0.>.
::!~
't:lE
LOCI)
-Q)
USE>
caco
Q)-
- ...
(US
-0:
CI)>
Q)<
g~
~...:
c .
coCl)
.t:~
... =:
coQ)
Q)Q)
c ...
(/)';;
:go
co(/)
e12
gco
.- "2
~~
CI)CI)
~(I)
'0 o.
Q)...J
~i
'2';
COQ)
- ...
cu.
._ 0
'E.....
coO
_N
~~
:::l
(/)J:
~f~
.- e
~o
Q)'t:l
:g
B-o
~e
e~
~~
Q)o
.~~
C:~
Q)
Jj.~
C
.2
ti
'5
(/)
Q)
o
~
<
cu
~
co
US
.c
:::l
en
R .
< i
e
cu
c:
o
en
'E
Q) ('(l
c 'E
o co
Z US
(I)
o
...J
i
~
e
Q)
c oi
~ .Q
~
Q)
CI)
.~
(/)
c:
cu
...
-
Q)
.5
~ ~
~ 2
-
c;;.
C en
2C
:t: .2
~~
~ ~...
~ iE"
.e ~
_0
-10
g-g
-co
EE
~.~
~ i~
o en~
1; c;;.-
g" .C CI)
o Q) e
t' 16 m
_ '0 co
~ ~ ~
Q) e:e
~ ~~
as
.c
Q. C
E 0
w a.
M .5
== ~
ct 0
Q)
c
o
Z
~'E
.26
tiE
Oco
ec;;
'E~
8 .
J:e
~:::l
o~
.1ii
-co
~ ...
.9:!~
i~
i~
x co
.Q) C
Q)O
J:'O
-Q)
~~
......r;J
0-
-~
0._
o aci
NCO.....
'-0
.5 g'N
'EQ)to
~ ,0 ~
a. -0 Q)
.2Q)=
~2...
Q) Q. S
-ox"
-JUQ)
0- E
,!om
coQ)en
... Cl co
CCU
.- 'E >.
Q)Q)=
Cl)U-
co"'c
e8.g.
.!5!
=i-
eenb
Q) Cl:l C
>.c 0
o .
.Q)'O
en-CI)
gQ)e~
eco
Q.J:
= .u
(/)bQ)
c:c.c
gOg
toe.. .:2 '0
Q) -
C C!) :::J
.;'2 i
=>'E
~eQ)
.g8:[
~~.2
Cl:lQ)~
CI)~Q)
~g~
-.- 0
C
.2
t
~
Q)
C
o
Z
(i)
Q)
->
.2.9:!
<0
o
&
~
~
!
o
Z
CI)
c
~
c
Q)
E
Q)
Cl)
as
c:
~
.c
I
CJ
!
!
a..
E
W
.
=
ct
120
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i?
:!E ~
I c
~ U')
'C(/) ~
~e ....
-
C'CS~ ~ Q) ~ ~ Q) Q) CD
I eC'CS R e::: e::: e::: E
g<l) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0
_2 < z z r.n
(/) ."2 81
I ~ ~ ~~ ~'ii
i
..J ~ti!;_ !::.~
i"E e _ >. (/)
:e ('0. C'CS ~ ('00':
uC'CS CD~_
I ::1'2 ~- ~~ ~ <I) <I) ~ Q) Q)
iC'CS ~~ 0lQ) e::: E e::: e::: EQ)!
0.- <I) ~ 0 0 0 0
a: CiS (I):I:.::: (I) z z z ~t;:
I Gl ~~
(/)
~ ':Q)
a.t::
'2Q) ~aU)
I C'CS_ ::Ie:::1:
...JClI (30<1)
8~ e:::uE
.- 'C
~~ -e:::e Q) ~ CD
~ ClI'S - ~ E ~ ~ E
.2
I og'g 0 ~ 0
c::CJ Z ._ ... < < (I) 0:( 0:( (fJ
I c
CO
a: :g
.... .-
Q):t=! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD
I e .J;;.~ ~ E
0 .2' Q) 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0
~ :I: 0 < (I) (I) (I) (fJ
~
I 0
c.. (/)
en
c 1:
Q)
t! E :i:-
I Q)
t- :l::!>
(/) e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) <I)
>- e:::~ ~ E ~
~ f! 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~- (I) < (I) (/) .2
1U 1::
I 0
> a.
, e
.- a.
a-
t- (/) Q)
I 'E n;
a- Q) a.
0 E :52
.... Q) 1::
CD > Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ CD !
> ie E E ~ ~ ~ ~
I ':;:: ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CO (I) .2
c .t!
a- i
I s >. (/) .;::
< C ii .3-
::I 1i
~ 8 e:::
en lK !
::::J .(/) (/) ::I ClI c
I It) en 8 (;) e::: e::: 8~ -
.~ B 0 ~ 'i
Ie ClI 0 e 0 "j
(gel) :tl&i 'C ~ 0 c ClI 'C
Q)en iCii Q) f! .:; .s E :g a: lie::: .:;
-c .e::: l) E 'E e::: :0 Q) m e::: ~... e
I ,go ClI 8 ClI ::I :3 ClI .J~ a..
::I .... <: c 0 c:: cc
~o ..,a.. (I)
I Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 121
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.
Recommended Improvement Plan
Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to
focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri.Valley rather
than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can
we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri.Valley?
Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question.
· Financial constraints.
. Physical limitations within corridors.
. Development pattern.
Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales
tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other
projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees,
which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or
gasoline tax initiatives mayor may not be successful.
Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development
and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors
other than the existing 1-680 and 1-580 corridors.
Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low
housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the
future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given
realistic funding expectations.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 122
Recommended Improvement Plan
Pion Overview
The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrat.
ed plan. The transportation plan comprises enhancement to roadway capacity coupled
with increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and TDM), and
acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financial-
ly constrained in that it includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be
funded given extension of federal and state programs, or fundable by new development
at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the fmancing plan.
The following sections provide an overview of the plan.
Road Improvements
The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials,
and intersections. These are all based on the reality of gateway constraints.
Gateway Constraints. Analysis of alternatives through the planning process showed
that the TVTC's best interests would not be served by widening any of the gateways
for single.occupant vehicles leading into the area. The gateways include 1.680 north
and south, 1.580 east and west, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road.
Widening of these gateways would still leave the freeways congested, would lead to
more through traffic, and would increase traffic volumes on other Tri.Valley roads.
This is true because of the Tri.Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin County
and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and
Santa Clara County.
The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior
freeways and arterials should be sized to handle only what traffic can get through the
gateways. Thus, the plan recognizes that congestion will occur for several hours each
weekday at the gateways, but this will have the positive effect of metering single.
occupant vehicle travel to and from the area. Within the Tri.Valley area, the road
system is designed to minimize congestion. While not ideal (the ideal would be to have
no congestion anywhere), the roadway plan when combined with a balance between
jobs and housing, produces the best conditions to be reasonably expected.
The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gate-
ways, as discussed below:
1.680 North. The section north of Diablo Road cannot practically be widened
beyond the HOV lanes under construction. The gateway constraint assumption
recognizes this reality. .
1.680 South. The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited
widening would support the investment in Route 84 capacity. Accordingly, the
plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes (see Chapter 7). Gateway constraints
would still apply for single-occupant vehicles.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
123
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Improvement Plan
1.580 West. This section between Tri.Valley and Castro Valley has a projected
demand of 10,300 vehicles eastbound in the PM peak hour. Widening beyond the
CUJTent four lanes is infeasible.
1-580 East (Altamont Pass): Alameda County policy, in recognition of the need to
encourage shorter commuter and not overload Tri-Valley roads with regional
traffic, opposes increases to capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Therefore,
gateway constraint is waITanted. The plan includes HOV lanes, as a second
priority project, in recognition of the importance of 1-580 as a regional facility (see
Chapter 7). The gateway constraint policy also applies to Patterson Road, Tesla
Road, and Old Altamont Road.
Crow Canyon Road (to Castro Valley). Safety improvements are planned for this
section of Crow Canyon Road. However, the TVTC supports maintaining the two.
lane cross-section.
Vasco Road. Vasco Road is planned for implementation as a two-lane road.
However, the two-lane road project should be done in such a manner to not
preclude future accommodation of public transit or other improvements as subse.
quently determined appropriate.
The Plan is based upon the following set of assumptions regarding gateway capacity
on the freeways and major arterials which access the Tri.Valley:
· 1.680 to the north. Six lanes plus HOV lanes.
· 1-580. Eight lanes.
· 1.680 to the south. Six lanes plus HOV lanes.
· Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley. Two lanes.
· Vasco Road north of 1-580. Two lanes.
Any departure from these assumptions would required amending the Plan.
The TVTP/AP, by incorporating a gateway constraint methodology, is breaking new
ground. Action Plans being prepared for adjacent subareas in Contra Costa County
have not employed this methodology. Consequently, the use of the gateway constraint
methodology could raise a consistency issue between the TVTP/AP and adjacent Action
Plans in Central, East, and Southwest Contra Costa County. Furthermore, no formal.
ized approach for conducting the gateway constraint method of analysis has been
adopted by either the Alameda or Contra Costa CMAs. The Contra Costa Transporta-
tion Authority's Technical Procedures is reticent on the gateway constraint
methodology.
Current gateways are established by two factors: geographic constraints and financial
constraints. To some degree the geographic constraints can be overcome through
significant capital investments in new highway projects. However, the Tri.Valley
Transportation Plan is based upon the assumption that significant capacity enhance-
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
124
Recommended Improvement Plan
ments to the gateways serving Tri-Valley are financially infeasible. The Policy of the
Tri.Valley Transportation Council is to work closely with neighboring jurisdictions,
Congestion Management Agencies, Caltrans, and MTC to resolve capacity problems at
the gateways and as needed through the partnership activities and to subsequently
adjust our Transportation Plan should funding of mutual acceptable facilities become
possible.
Freeway Ramp Metering. Ramp metering is a way of controlling the volume of traffic
entering a freeway so the system is as efficient as possible. A survey made for the
Federal Highway Administration of seven ramp metering systems in the United States
and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after
installing ramp metering and travel times decreased 16.5 percent. At the same time
reductions of freeway congestion averaged approximately 60 percent. An analysis of
the FLOW system in Seattle (ramp metering and HOV lanes) revealed that in addition
to similar improvements in speed and travel time, highway throughput increased from
12 to 40 percent as a result of ramp metering. An additional benefit from ramp
metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions from 20 to 58 percent have
been achieved through improved merging operations.
Without ramp metering, bottlenecks will develop on the freeway that decrease
throughput and lead to longer delays than motorists face at the meters themselves.
Ramp meters also encourage the peak spreading that needs to occur to keep the
gateways flowing. This happens because motorists are willing to accept only up to
about a 10.minute wait at the meters. Beyond that, they will adjust their trip-making
(i.e., choose to travel at a different time or choose a different mode). This peak
spreading helps to get the most out of the system when gateway constraints are a
reality.
Without ramp metering it is projected that the freeway flow will break down and be
congested for long periods of time with the on-ramps not being able to flow at their
designed flow rates. The on-ramps will be metered by freeway congestion rather than
planned rates. Staff believes a metered system will move more people more effectively
and equitably than an unmanaged system. The unmetered system is also more prone
to be blocked by congestion-induced accidents than a metered system.
An additional major benefit of ramp metering is that it can be combined with HOV
bypass to provide an additional powerful incentive for carpooling and can help buses
increase average speeds. When combined with HOV lanes on the freeways, the ramp
metering-with-bypass system allows carpools and buses to travel unimpeded through.
out the system.
Ramp metering has two potential drawbacks: backups on the local street system, and
rewarding long-distance commuters. The potential for backups on local streets can be
minimized through ramp widening and strategic placement of the meters. The risk of
rewarding long.distance commutes can be minimized by instituting a system of ramp
metering for the entire length of a freeway, rather than in isolated locations.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
125
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Improvement Plan
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes ramp metering with HOV bypass with
the proviso that this not seriously impact local streets and that local implementation
be tied with implementation along all of 1~680 and 1-580 in neighboring communities.
Freeway HOV Lanes. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction
along 1.680 between Rudgear Road and 1-580. HOV lanes provide the advantage of
reducing travel times for ridesharers and transit patrons. They also enhance mobility
during off~peak hours by being available for all vehicles. This is especially important
when considering truck traffic, which increasingly relies on off-peak hours to reach
destinations without undue delays.
The TVTC recognizes the benefits ofHOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-Iane pro.
grams do not work. Such an ill.fated attempt at providing HOV lanes on 1.580
resulted in federal legislation prohibiting their use on that freeway in unincorporated
areas. Thus, HOV lanes must be added to the freeways.
HOV lanes on both 1-680 and 1.580 are included in the plan. Due to the expense of the
projects, however, some segments are included as lower priority projects. 1.680 south
of 1-580 has been designed to accommodate the addition ofHOV lanes, but pavement
widening would be required. Top funding priority should be given to the section south
of Route 84 to the top of the Sunol Grade, which is the border of Area 4 in the
Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This section will experience significant
traffic increases due to the planned capacity increases to Route 84. The section of
1.680 between Alcosta Boulevard and Route 84 should also be planned to include HOV
lanes but with a lower funding priority.
On 1-580, HOV lanes would be more difficult and costly to build because the inter.
changes have not been built to accommodate them. However, the Caltrans Route
Concept calls for 10 lanes plus BART in the median for 1.580. The most important
segment for funding priority on 1-580 is the segment between Tassajara Road and
North Livermore Avenue. This segment is predicted to experience the highest traffic
demand along 1-580 in the Tri.Valley. To accommodate the extra freeway width, the
interchanges at EI Charro/Fallon and Airway would need to be rebuilt. The EI Charrol
Fallon interchange is planned to be rebuilt anyway. In addition, the planned new
interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) would need to be built to accommodate the
width. As a lower funding priority, the plan also includes extending the 1-580 HOV
lanes east to the Alameda County border. This would require widening four
interchanges in Livermore (N. Livermore, First, Vasco, and Greenville), and three
interchanges/crossings east of Livermore.
Extending HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road is more problematic. With the
BART extension and the 1-580/1.680 interchange project, this section will be built out
to its full Route Concept width of 10 lanes plus BART, The section will have four
through lanes, as it does today, plus auxiliary lanes between interchanges. Thus, HOV
lanes on 1.580 west of Santa Rita are not included in the plan.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
126
Recommended Improvement Plan
Arterial Issues: The planned arterial system has been designed to provide smooth
circulation in and between the Tri.Valley cities and to provide access to the
freeway system. Intersections and freeway interchanges are the focal points of the
arterial system. All of the widenings and extensions are necessary to serve new
development, so the plan calls for direct developer construction or at least funding.
The primary issue is how to share costs between jurisdictions having joint respon-
sibility for a particular road. This is discussed further in the Financing Plan
chapter.
There are two major arterials in the Tri-Valley that do not provide direct access to
planned development but rather serve interregional traffic between Alameda
County and Contra Costa County. These two arterials are Crow Canyon Road and
Vasco Road.
Crow Canyon Road. The portion of Crow Canyon Road west of Bollinger Canyon
Road is a two. lane rural road that lies within the jurisdiction of Alameda County
and Contra Costa County. While once used by its adjacent residents to bring goods
to the market, today, Crow Canyon Road is being used by commuters as an
alternate route to the 1-580/I.680 freeways. Development in the vicinity of Crow
Canyon Road, especially in the fast~growing San Ramon Valley area, has generat~
ed a significant increase in traffic on this roadway. The expected forecast for this
roadway is LOS F.
The roadway, which is a narrow and winding road, was not designed to handle
commuter traffic and does not have adequate width and alignment. The Alameda
County, in collaboration with Contra Costa County and the City of San Ramon
prepared and developed a project study report, pursuant to California Senate
Bill 1149. The report recommended the construction of eight. foot shoulders,
climbing lanes and road realignment eliminating short-radii curves.
Contra Costa County has in its Measure C program the improvement of Crow
Canyon Road within Contra Costa County. Alameda County, however, is seeking
for funds to improve the two-lane section of the roadway. Unfortunately, improve.
ment of this portion of Crow Canyon Road cannot be directed to a particular
developer construction. But since the traffic forecast clearly indicates that traffic
increase on this roadway is development related, it is recommended that
subregional transportation impact fees be used to improve the section of Crow
Canyon Road within the Tri.Valley area.
Vasco Road. Vasco Road is a narrow and winding rural road that is a major
commuter and truck route linking the Tri-Valley with eastern Contra Costa
County. Approximately 17 miles of Vasco Road, starting at a point on Vasco Road
approximately one-half mile south of the County Line to the intersection of
Camino Diablo in Contra Costa County, will be relocated as a result of the
construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This portion of Vasco Road is designed
as a two-lane highway based on state and county standards for new roads with
comfortable speeds of up to 65 mph. Meanwhile, the remaining section of the
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
127
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Improvement .Plan
roadway in Alameda County (approximately three miles in length) has tight
curves and narrow shoulders with advisory speeds along curves of less than 35
mph. Vasco Road is expected to have a Level of Service F in the year 2010.
As much as the Plan calls for a policy limiting the capacity of Vasco Road to two
lanes, it is necessary that this roadway be realigned to improve traffic flow and
safety. Alameda County is currently seeking funds to improve the section of the
roadway from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City Limit. This proposed
improvement includes realignment of the roadway, widening of shoulders,a nd
installing passing lanes without increasing its capacity, consistent with the
standards being used in the Los Vaqueros-Vasco Road project.
Projected congestion on this roadway cannot be directed to a particular develop-
ment but its future congestion is truly the result of developments in the region. It
is also recommended that subregional traffic mitigation fees be used to improve
this facility.
Transit Improvements
The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub.
linIPleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve
the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes.
WHEELS and County Connection routes will also need to be rerouted and augmented
to serve new development areas: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Dougherty Valley.
In addition, nine new express bus routes are included in the plan to serve the follow.
ing corridors not served by BART: 1-680 north to Walnut Creek, Vasco Road to East
County, and 1-680 south to Fremont.
The Tri-Valley Transit Plan has been developed to correspond to expected funding
levels. Since the area is expected to almost double in population, the assumption is
that transit funding will also double. It is important to note that this assumption may
not be realized. Transit funding may not keep pace with population increase. Never-
theless, the plan includes the provision for significant new services plus greater use of
existing routes that have available capacity. Additional riders can be served without
additional investment.
Note, however, that the development pattern in the Tri-Valley is one of overall low
density, and the new areas proposed for development will generally reinforce the low-
density pattern. The low-density pattern does not support the extensive use of transit
or cost-effective transit operations. If transit is to serve a much greater role than it
does today, development densities will need to increase.
Growth Management
The TVTC recognizes that its mission is not to plan land use. Land use inputs to the
plan came from the planning department of each member jurisdiction. Projections are
also available from ABAG, and the "expected" land use on which the plan is based is
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
128
Recommended Improvement Plan
11,000 d:welling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri.Yalley as a whole. Action
Plans in Contra Costa County 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 following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered
in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
· Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to
mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General
Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans
may lead to a determination of non. compliance if the Action Plan cannot be
revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA.
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
· HOY lane construction
· Adding turn lanes
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
129
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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
. More 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 adjacent counties.
General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates and analyzing proposed
General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth
Management Elements. If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to
meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdic-
tion 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 RTP.Cs to evaluate proposed amend-
ments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will
be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan 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.
General Plan Consistency with Contra Costa County Action Plans
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted
General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the
network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the
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 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.
Jurisdictions in Tri.Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion
Management strategy once a detailed growth management study has been conducted.
The study should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or
other types of growth management/control 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 percentages for each jurisdiction.
Also, the impact of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be
analyzed. All jurisdictions will then review this information and know exactly how
much reduction in development or growth management/control is needed to meet the
TSOs.
Jobs-Housing Balance
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 minimize the need for residents to leave the
area for work. This will minimize 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 achieve the desired result of minimizing travel.
The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level.
Reduced Level of Service Standards
The TVTC has seen that the originally intended transportation service objective of
LOS E on the freeways based on demand cannot be met in many locations regardless
ofland use assumptions. In fact, this standard cannot even be met with today's
volumes. This is true because growth in San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
131
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Improvement Plan
Central and East Contra Costa County will fill up the Tri-Valley freeways even if Tri-
Valley jurisdictions do not grow. Therefore, the TVTC will accept congestion at the
gateways recognizing that while it is not ideal, at least it will minimize through
traffic. The focus then shifts to maintaining adequate levels of service, and providing
transit options, for trips within the Tri-Valley.
The transportation plan succeeds in avoiding congestion on the arterial system. Also,
1-680 between Alamo and Route 84 is expected to flow smoothly. Level of Service F
conditions, however, are expected on 1-580 westbound in the morning and eastbound
in the evening between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This would be
partially alleviated with high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp metering.
Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
The TVTC supports TDM measures; however, TVTC does not want to base the
Transportation Plan on unrealistic TDM goals without supporting programs. Through
the plan process, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-mandat-
ed average vehicle ridership (A VR) of 1.35 was tested. This applies to employers with
100 or more employees. The TVTC estimated that such large employers make up only
about 10 percent of all employment. This, coupled with the fact that commute trips
make up about 35 percent to 40 percent of the PM peak.hour traffic stream, means
that the BAAQMD mandate will have negligible impact on traffic levels.
The TVTC also investigated the impact of achieving an A VR of 1.35 for all employers,
throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the "ambient" A VR of 1.10.
1.15, this would be a 20 percent improvement. Given the commute trip proportion of
total PM peak.hour traffic. a 20 percent increase in A VR would translate into 7
percent to 8 percent less traffic on the roads. While this would create a significant
improvement in operations, it would not significantly reduce the need for road
building. Nevertheless, if at least a 10 percent increase in A VR were not achieved,
additional intersection improvements, beyond what are included in the plan, would
probably be necessary.
The achievement of a 20 percent increase in AVR would not be easy. The TVTC
believes that this would require a significant increase in the cost of solo commuting.
However, the TVTC is not in favor of parking charges. Gasoline tax increases would be
more acceptable, provided they were levied regionwide (including San Joaquin
County). Gas tax increases would encourage commute alternatives and would provide
more money for transportation investments.
The plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in A VR
for all employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption and enforce.
ment of local trip reduction ordinances. The 10 percent increase in A VR will bring
some of the intersections otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into
compliance with the TSOs.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
132
Recommended Improvement Plan
Road Improvement Plan
The Tri.Valley Transportation Plan includes many road improvement projects. These
projects were developed by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC. Projects range from
intersection modifications to freeway improvements and new roads. The resulting
system would provide good circulation within the Tri-Valley area. Figure 7.1 shows the
planned roadway system. Figure 5~2 in Chapter 5 shows the planned changes to
freeway interchanges. Details on planned intersection lane configurations are included
in the Technical Appendix. A detailed listing of the planned roadway improvements is
shown in Table 7.1.
Critical Regional Projects
Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for
by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger
projects with regional significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to
derme projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program:
1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as dermed by the TVTC
for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1).
2. Transit projects can be included.
3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan.
4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement.
While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC
is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction.
By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally
significant. These have been preliminarily determined to be of highest priority for
funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the TSOs through 2010. This list
may be modified in subsequent studies.
1. 1-580/].680 Interchange. Southbound-to.eastbound flyover.
2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including
interchange improvement at I-580Nallecitos and a new interchange at
1.580/Isabel.
3. ].680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road.
4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the
Tri.Valley.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
133
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -p\ 0 z:x:::
i c.' ..-
:;) , :?J I 00:
~t; o\c. ,.....
<.),~ Cl) -0
I ~ .e 0'<.) .... ~~
::s
~ ~\O .~
~ 0,"'0 I.&..
<.) 1 G) 1-1-
I O\<C. O:W
;:"9, OZ
, c. ,4-
5\ 0..
I , UJ
,
\ Z
<
I , a:
\ I-
\
, c
I \
VlVl \ W
~<II Z
~ c
'" '0 .:=.3 \ Z
I <II ';:: VlI <
c <II I-N ,
.3 ~ <II
J:.<II ,
~I- \ ...J
~ o " g.
<II a..
~ c I <:
t " "
-' :g J:.
I ~ I ~ \
OJ .,
a <II :.s
Q :i
I- <II "'0
1: <II ~
<: <:
I E " .3
-' I-
:J I I Cl.
% \IJ .... ~
" " II
0 m I -
:z -
I L.lJ - 0 O~
C) -
~ - 3:lN::llI~'"
-
-
I
.
()
I c
-
u)
CD
....
I as
.-
()
0 , ,
(/)
I (/)
< /
c I
/ ,
I as
e , ,
.c )
() Q.) /' ,-
(/) .-4 - .../
"
I < ::l /'
~ I
I ,
c I
0 ro
.... Q ,
I ... ,
as I
m
\
,
,
~\
c. 7.'
'::),~
0'....
<.) \~
0,0
~.
o\~
o .(1)
O'E.
~\S
c. .4::(.
o ,
0\
,
,
\
,
,
\
,
.
\
\
d
.s
ur
CD
...
ca
.6
o
f/)
tJ)
-<
c
as
E
.c
(.)
tJ)
-<
I
C
o
...
....
ca
OJ
:;
.~ ~
--.. .El
0#1 3T1IIW33#10
~
i
'"
..
!
II." ~01n/3N1 "N
,
\
\
,
.
\
.
,
\
,
,
\
,
\
\
.
.
\
\
.
.
\
,
\
~
I
"'Ill i
1)4)
II>C::
:g .b.3 "<t-
III fill IX)
4)
(; ~ ....N
.3 II>
.c;1I>
........
~ 00 4)
4) 01
I: I I:
J: 0 0
4) ..J .c:
II I :g 0
It IX) ~
.... .... ~ .5
0 0
.... 4) "
4) II> ~
.0 I: I:
E .3 .3 :s.
:) I I
z <D '<t ~
os
~
,
\
)
,j/
j;
o
m :H
..0
-
I
......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cb
...
::J
OJ
~
z~
00:
-0
~~
1-1-
o:w
OZ
a..
Cf)
z
<
a:
l-
e
w
z
z
<
...J
a..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f;'
~
~
<<I
o
a:
~
Q)
c
C
<<I
Ii:
'0
-
U)
:::i
....~
IQ)
,...-
(1)'-
-<<I
.a1i)
t!c
i~
~ fJ
'15
CD
-g
I~
A ~
,...
en
-
c
~
~
e
c..
E
-
)(
~
N
+
. >
~
N
~
i i
l<1ii!Gi!
cOiS.ciS.c
ell ..,. ElliE <lI
i5: 8 fi: 8 is:
> > j l
~ ~ ! is. I · I I I I
N NEE
cbcb88
~~.S2 ~IIII
N
{to
"
"E &
III C
} i
:) 0
~ ~
J I
!
c
CD
>
! <
!~~i~
Il~~!
~
J 11
. a.
)~
~ (5
~ !II ~ i
.! "Iii 'f 3
~ ~ ~.~ z
~ l&
l! ~
8 ~
.e.~
(,,) . ...
- ,... Ql
l ffi ~
4f 0 ;;::
ii~i
> ~ s i;'
~ 1tI 1tI ~
S CI.l Z ~
it :I .2>
.s:;~!e.= = l!l =
~ J J ~ ~ ~ j ~
o ~ ~ a: > > > >
" ~--I/'Ioooo
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 ~ 0
~~!!~~~!!~~
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
< < < <
000 0
ii5 co ..,. ..,.
. .
.!
<<<-t<<<<<<
oooeoooooo
~ ~ N 8 ..,. ~ ..,. ~ ..,. ..,.
. . N .
< < <
e ~ . ~
< <
~ @
< < <
000
N ~ ..,.
I
'5
S
c
15
i " 11 11 a
~ ~ii fa..i.i
.~ r;~g-;~::I,~
dS .~!o..l&~W
!~!m~'}~i
~
I
~ '15
fi~ J 1
qp qPi
~.& J; i~i c! tl~
.:a~ lid 5$ -8
ZOOl- en,;:> W
. . I
< < < <
~e~ia
<
'0
..,.
<
. . t I . I ~
i
~
I
(,,)
!
Hn H
.Gi~t~:il&
~d~~.f8~
i Ql 11
~ ~ ~ 11
i 0 l! a.
oo~ii~~
~~c5~~~~
Ql
~
J
J
)1
~
11"2 iiii~ -6 Ql Ql . 1
a. a. ~~} a;} a;}~ li~~.~j~~
if~!j~~ijell~IlI~~~O~
~~~~~s.Gs.Gs~11i~g~~
~~~CCDD~DD~~'n~-~=5
8 c3 8 ~ ~ 8 cS ;3 ,3 cS :2 cJ5 ! ~ ~ 3 6 en
136
-
'C
G>
::s
c:
-.;::
c:
o
o
-
(I)
-
C
G>
E
~
e
Q.
E
-
>-
co
3:
"
co
o
a:
"
G>
C
c
.!!!
c..
'0
-
(I)
:J
....."C
,.:..!!
G)O-
_CO
.0-
~!
.-. 0
j ~
'5
I
~o
g ~
~
(/)
.
In
S m
< < < <
o 0 0 0
CO CO CO ..,.
~ ~ ~ .
C\I ..,. ...
< < <
::J ::J ::J .
C\I C\I (\j
~
"
~ a
.C }
o i
g ~
III .t::/
a 6
i
~
o .S;
~ ~
e
~
i
! i tl
::J c: tl f
t~:i-g,
8<588
i i i
~~tl.E
III III III 0
"" ~ ~
<1l III III =
TT.!f,!
In In In l'l
~~~U5
< <
e-. .f;i!
< < <
, ::Joo
C\I ..,. ..,.
, ,
III
:J
~ ~
! j
o ~ CD
~ ~ ~
i
tl
c:
~ i III i
~tl3tl
=
.! ~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~ ~
.w:
c:
i
~ c: c
m .~ .~
>- i i
! x )( c:
_ W W 0
~ ~ ~ .~
iIi > > .!
~ ..l!! ..l!! ~
c ~ ~ ~
~cc:i
~ ~ ~ 0 >
~ ~ g ~ i
:S888~
1!lli~
lLlLlLlL
E E E E III
8888a:
< <
'00
co co
~ i8
lL."f
E III
8 ll.
o 0 .
~:52' 22S:'!2
C\I C\I
i
o
a:
:i
-&0
:J f8
.s ~
i
tl
In
13
0-
c:
o
o ~
~ ~
i III
o 2
a: ~
.s: III
i~o
.s &. ~
III
C)
~
i
c
III -;
III III C) C)
C) C) Ii Ii
~ ~ ~ Q
~ III .s !
- li :t :J
C t ~ P
.~ ~i~ ~
~ ii ~ ..l!! III
W ii<'5:3
~ 0 Gi i €
jll~~~~~
.I:l 'S 1ii ta 10 1i
i~~oooo
0~C)~~~~
< < <
o ~ ~ e
< <
. . . · 0 c
co ut
~~~~eee~
<
. ::J
~
<
. 0
..,.
I ' ~ :5
~ C\I
~
~
! i
i 0
" >a:
III < i ii
ti. "E"E III g
~ it ~~:I: (/)
i!!!~"
>:;fSS!i2~
"
III
" ti. g
"i ~ [ !
1l1:~it
! Iii ~
B ); .- ~
>;;!8_
III
i
~
i 1! ! i
; a~ti.!,,[
> a: ~ l3 i III C
~ lni:s-lil~Il~
~ rlcS€&. 15~~
.t~~~w~!3~88
III
~
III
III ~
ii
.c III
i ~
- III
~ 1
~ :J
Il !
III
~~j;'!!
~&.~ !<!
1i 1i III <
ooi"ii"ii
~~j~~
c:
.2
In
c: >- >-
j;' ~ ;;
~ii ~~
g:.flllliSiiSii
c: ~ 1/1 1II ti. J,. J,.
~~.i~s~~
)*lflfi€€
~~3j.s~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
"C
CD
:s
I c
.-
-
c
0
0
I -
U)
-
c
CD
I E
~
e
I a..
E
-
>-
I tU
3:
"0
tU
0
I a:
"0
CD
c
I c
tU
n:
I "5
u;
.-
..J
I 9"""0
,:...!!
(1)'-
_tU
I .Q'Q)
~c
I
__ 0
I ....
~ ~
'0
1D
-g
~ ~
l
'"
'"
S 8!
....
. . .
< < < < < < < < < <
eeilil!i' Qe~il!i'
< ...J <
000
'It ~ 'it
< <
· · 0 0
"It "It
< < < <
. 0 ::::l ::::l ::::l
'It N N l\I
<
. , e
. .
<
::::l .
~
<
<0<<<<<
=>S!0::::l~::::l::::l
N~"ltN(;JNN
. , . a
{!.
i J h ~
ipt ~ i !lH
2 ~ ~ U g < u ~ j '"
1~~il~II~~II!!
~
i;"
ii J~~ ~~~
~ = 5ili "'00
ijJ a.~Z ~~~
~-,,! ~ i.!!j ~"''''
..';.~~ g>>.~~~ ;~~~€~t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ _ ~ N ~
c
o
.~ IS CD CD
~.~ i i
w CD > >
11 ~ <<
o 0 CD CD CD ! ! 0 000
~ ~ 2 i i i i i i ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~
~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € € I I I i
z ~ If i. ~ > > > > ~ ~ - - - -
. . . . .
< < <
e'~e
. . .
<<<<< <<<<<<
eilil~e' ~eia~ii
<<<< <<<<
JOO::::l' '::::l::::l' oJN'
NNNN NN CO')
€
CD i! CD ~
.e; ~CtD ~ ~
~iIJi]~ (3~
O~{tHiffmn
~ ~ > ~ w ~ ~ m M ~ :I ~
~ J ~ CD
i 1i .e;
i :IE >00
~ ~1<lf t~f
o ii'i 0 cO
i~~~~:I !2!i~~
~
i
mmm {;~ ~
!l !l !l CD! , '3 ! z ~
~ m m c i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i (3
~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ .!! ~ g 2 ~ ! ~
11II1II1iI"lII~iil.. ca lil=~ i
· E E E e ~ > Z G G = 8
lal.!l!c!l~~aww~~i
-
"C
Q)
::J
C
.-
-
c
o
o
-
en
-
c
CD
E
~
e
0..
E
-
>-
C'CI
3:
"C
C'CI
o
a:
"C
CI>
C
C
C'CI
a::
~
o
-
en
::i
,.."C
,.:.,S!
4).-
_C'CI
.a-
,!t!
i~
c 0
S C\l
'0
lD
~
io
8 ~
J
ell
& $
-
i
ii
.l
8
i
ii <
l~
8
<<< <<
~~!ii. 51~
. .
i i
< CIl CIl
51.~~
8 8
< < <
000
U) U) ..,.
<
:::l Sl
~
<
o
< < < ..,.
5151!ii~
~
< <
:::l :::l
..,. C\l
· Sl .
r=.
~
w
c
o
'Ill
.S:
i:5
a:
'C If 'C
~ ~ ~ ]
I'll I'll 0:
_~ S .~ 0
0: c: a::: :::
~ c2l 19 1!
liiJ;!~oo
U)oU)w~
E
~
.
::I
c:
~
~
=
I'll
>
i
If 'C
I'll 'C I'll
if ~ ~
~ "E i!
~o;ts
'C~Q.C:
o~~c21
~
us
_ 0
f! CIO
u: ~
.
g'
I'll
CIl -fi
& CIl i j
Iii i i !
i ~ ~ 1
.E c g'
. -
o ~ I'll ili
Iii i ~ ~
~ 'f; If .~
o 0 I'll l3 .
0: ~ if ~ . 2 CIl . 'C "E
'C~,i s :;,~ .,f;.~ ~ ~
III .~ 111 5 -' 0 ~ e e CIl CIl
i~~~~~~tt~~
>-Q.ooools~~oo
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<
e..
..,.
< <
':::le
C\l 'Of
~ 'C .
.1:: iiI -f:
o > 'C C
1 j ~ t
~ g ~ ~
~~a.w
! 1 ~
~lto:
< - "E
111 := I'll
E ~ ~
~ u. ~
-g ~
ili ili
"8 "8
m m
Xl Xl
. .!::: .!:::
::I l3 l3
c: ~ ~
~ <II <II
< S s
!' ti ti
~ ~ ~
i
ii
· · i"
8
< <
:::l :::l .
..,. ..,.
~ ~ Sl
! 1
II: It
.!e.
~ fa
i ()
~ A
]
t-
al ~
If l!!
~ ~
-- >-
e en
.
o
Iii
..c
E:!
.
.E
.
i
1
11
.J! ~
~ ~
fl.
'C c:
~ ~
.!! 0: ca 1i'l
=s:~o:o
~ a ~ ~
. . .
11
~ 8
. . . .
< < <
e :::l e
U) 'Of 'Of
<-'0<<
51 ~ 51 ~
. .
~ e-.~.~~
..,. ~ C\l C\l""
.
of:
e 1
~ It ~
II: e. l5:
s i ~
Y()t
:; ~ CIl
~ () e
)
::I
~
i ,I i
ili ~ ili
I ~ I 11
I'll I'll I'll E
1ii II: 1ii :J
~ ~ ~ B
o
.i
~
~ ~
8. ~ ~
2 -~ 0
CJ ~ '~
. 0 .1\'1
WU.()
"E
ca
ili
'5
~
>-
· CIl i
f~~i}
... Ii! I:: If ::I
.K'fi~~~
~--ca.1'lI
~t~~~
r .:J L.
ili
'S
f~
~l
U) ~
i }
CIl ~
g'Ef .!J
"Ill i 'iil ::I
i B:Bi~b ]
lf~61'l11'l1:!ii~
~~ii:=-8~~8lf~
~ liil~~c?l ~~ii()
. () I'll 1i'l 1i'l ca 0 5 lD
a:: !I: "8ooa:-oc2'
C:2.ti~CI05=!Z=
~o~.f_~w~o~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
"
CI)
::J
C
~
C
o
o
-
!!
c
~
~
e
c..
E
-
lU'
~
"
co
o
a:
"
cu
c
c
CO
a:
~
o
~
o
:J
,.."
~.!!
(1)0-
_CO
.0-
~~
I~
'l5
I
~~
.~
li
VJ
ell
III
S ~
'i 'i 'i
< < 1i 1i 1i
ilZ}}i"
888
< <
~ !i 0 I I
<
. :) 0 I I
~ -
{!.
CD
c:
::i
1i II
~ -! ~
Iii ~ ~ g
~ ~ ~ ~
E
~
~
H iN
ti ti < III
"f"f ! 1
~ ~ ~ ~
CD I
~ III ~
~ i G. '
s ~ E
Ji ~ -
CD 0 i1i
~!~
~ := ;
III Q.
~ .g i
i~ ~ i~
B~~~~~
.:I.Ba:~~8
I~~o~~
::c:8.f~>o
c:
o
1
Jj
< < <
. ~ . ~ ~ .
<<<<<<
000000
CD ..., ..., (\I ... ...,
. . ,
< <
::l ::l
C\l ~
.r.
~ i;" I!
"g1i1 "[
~ ~ '; CD CD III
'HiH
.i "i
.~ € i I
::i~W"~1iW
~j~::i~i
i ~ ~ j i 0
lIIiCDCDOai
~~:~itr
(l)8S~S;B
f5 f5
";;; ";;;
i lii
)( )(
w W
l;o't)'t)
c: ~ ~ >-
:Ja:a: III
8c:c:1i~'t)~
g,o O-III1i
sc:~a:lll~n.
~881i l(l !
Oai..li~~~
ca2'~~gt
,~ ;:; '= tii "~ jii! ~
8S~~~C5~
~
~
~ :1
~ a
l5. 111 l
E- 'c: Q.
g III CD E
I -~CD 0
&~15l!~i2'l!-;
~~jRi:c~~~i ~
.!>_;;~ CD CD III
~c8~;! :S:t6
...J 12
o (!j 8 ffi , ~ s,n!: I
Recommended Improvement Plan
5. 1.580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue.
6. 1.680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade.
7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges
in the Tri-Valley.
8. I-680lAlcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of
southbound off.ramp with hook ramp.
9. 1.580 I Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design.
10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of realigning the
roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at
improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon
Road and MM 4.45 (located one mile north of Norris Canyon Road).
11. Vasco Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of the realignment of Vasco
Road from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City limit. without increasing the
capacity of the gateway. This is consistent with the standards used in the Vasco
Road relocation project by the Contra Costa Water District in conjunction with the
Los Vaqueros reservoir project.
The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are
preliminarily considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning
horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the
Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through
2010.
1. 1-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on 1-580 from Livermore Avenue
to the Alameda County border.
2. I~680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV Lane project from 1.580 to
Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on 1-680 through
the Tri -Valley.
3. 1.58011.680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover
ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in
improving the 1.580/1-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate
all existing weaving sections.
The Transit Plan
The Tri.Valley Transportation Plan includes several transit improvements. These were
developed by a transit subcommittee of the TVTAC. The subcommittee included
representatives from BART, CCCTA (County Connection), LAVTA (WHEELS), and
Contra Costa County. The plan includes the following major components: BART
extension to east Dublin (two stations). park.and-ride lots, express bus service in
heavily traveled corridors. local bus service to new development areas, reoriented local
bus service to serve BART and park.and-ride lots. and decreased headways on existing
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
141
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Improvement Plan
routes. For modeling purposes, specific bus routes were developed and tested. Howev.
er, the TVTP is not intended to be a detailed long.range plan for transit provision.
Therefore, the specific routes, which are described in the Appendix, should not be
interpreted literally, but as representative of the type of service (headways and
corridors served) that should be provided.
The following are descriptions of the planned transit service.
BART Extension: The plan includes the BART extension to East Dublin with two
stations in the Tri.Valley. The extension is currently under construction and is
projected to open in 1996. The planned BART headways are nine minutes. Both
stations are assumed to have parking lots. The patronage forecasts from the traffic
model indicate demand for at least 6,000 parking spaces combined for the two stations.
Two BART feeder bus lines would be operated: one to Bishop Ranch and Danville, and
one to Livermore. Both would have 30.minute headways.
Park.n.Ride Lots: The plan includes 11 new park.n-ride lots (See Figure 7.2). These
would be served by various bus lines and could also serve as staging locations for
carpools.
County Connection: The plan calls for the expansion of service from the current three
lines serving Tri.Valley (30.minute headways) to eight lines. Three lines would have
30.minute headways and five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would
serve Danville, San Ramon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley, and some would extend
down to the East Dublin BART station.
WHEELS: Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines
with 30-60 minute headways to 21 lines, all with 3D-minute headways. The route
system would be extensively revised to serve the two BART stations, park.n-ride lots,
and the newly developed areas of East Dublin and North Livermore. Some routes
would also extend into San Ramon and Danville.
Express Bus Service: The plan calls for the provision of nine new express bus routes
operating in the 1-680, 1-580, and Vasco Road corridors. The following areas are
served:
1. Santa Clara County to Pleasanton
2. Hayward to San Ramon
3. Santa Clara County to San Ramon
4. Fremont to San Ramon
5. Brentwood to Pleasanton
6. Brentwood to Livermore
7. Fremont to Livermore
8. Hayward to Pleasanton
9. Hayward to Livermore
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
142
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
,
\
?l\
c:. 7J-
':) '""c:.
5\1>
o \ <..>
~\\O
o "() .
t.J"t
0\0
~4i
c:.,
0'
0\
(>>I 3/IlIIH33W
(>>I o.?SVII
i
a
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
!
~
IIV ~H3oV1 ON
\
\
\
\
\ ~
\
\
\ ~
I 0
\ ~
\
\ ;
\ C7J
\ IS
G)
.....
fl,.
\
\
.
()
.s
\
\
..
f1)
CD
....
as
.0
o
f1)
f1)
-<
c
as
.2 f
~ ~~~
I i
c .....
o
....
....
as
In
\
\
)
,
,
!
,
j
~ en
I I-
,... 0
f
::J ...J
IC)
c::: W
o
-
a:
I
c
Z
<
I
~
a:
<
tl.
i!
I
~
.
co
Recommended Improvement Plan
These routes each have 20.minute headways. The plan does not specify what agency
would operate the express routes. To serve the Altamont Pass commute, it is anticipat.
ed that the San Joaquin Regional Transit District will offer express bus service to
various locations in the Bay Area.
Freight Transportation
Freight transportation provides an important contribution to the economy. As such, it
is both necessary and appropriate that the Plan give strategic priority to the move.
ment of freight. To highlight the strategic importance of freight transportation, this
plan designates 1-580 as a Critical Freight Route and 1.680 as a Major Freight Route.
These designations are consistent with the Alameda County Long.Range Transporta-
tion Plan. Truck volume studies show that 1.580 at the Altamont Pass carries more
than 20,000 trucks each weekday while 1.680 at the Sunol Pass carries more than
15,000 trucks per day.
As a Critical Freight Route, 1.580 should be accorded priority for intermodal funding
under ISTEA. Also, 1.580 should be operated in a manner which ensures that freight
can be moved with maximum efficiency. To this end. expenditure priority should be
given to those operational improvements necessary to prevent the encroachment of
commute traffic from congesting Critical Freight Routes during midday hours (midday
hours are defined from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). As a Major Freight Route, 1-680 should
be given consideration for intermodal funding under ISTEA.
One transportation management strategy to be evaluated further and considered later
is to implement ramp metering during midday hours, as necessary, to maintain
acceptable speeds on 1.580 and 1-680. At such time as environmental review is
conducted for a systemwide ramp metering plan for the Tri.Valley, ramp metering
during midday hours to maintain smooth freight movements should also be considered.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
145
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.
Financial Plan
Implementation of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be financed through a
combination of public and private sources. The primary existing funding sources
include the Measure C program in Contra Costa County and the Alameda County
Measure B program. Funds are also available through various federal, state and local
programs. These are administered through MTC via the Regional Transportation Plan.
All assumptions for state and federal funding are taken from MTCIRTP estimates.
Alameda County
Measure B
Alameda County voters approved Measure B,a 15-year one-half percent sales tax, in
November, 1986. Measure B was based on the August, 1986 Alameda County Trans-
portation Expenditure Plan. Approximately two.thirds of the total Measure B revenue
is to be spent on 10 capital improvement projects. Three of the 10 projects are located
in the Tri.Valley area. The total Measure B funding programmed to Tri-Valley is
$293.6 million.
. Interstate 580/680 Interchange. $89.3 million to provide a southbound-to-
eastbound direct connector.
. Route 84. $19.9 million to construct a two-lane road on the Isabel Avenue align.
ment between Jack London and Concannon. Other sources (MTC, Livermore
impact fees, Ruby Hills development) will contribute $43.0 million to overall Route
84 improvements.
. BART Extension. $170 million to extend BART from San Leandro to
PleasantonlDublin. Other sources will contribute $367 million to this project.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 146
Financial Plan
Refer to the Alameda County Transportation Authority's Strategic Plan, Fiscal year
1993/94, for project and funding specifics. The remaining money is being distributed
directly to local entities for current transportation needs.
Alameda County Plan
The Alameda County Long.Range Transportation Plan identifies a two.phased, Tier 1
and Tier 2, investment program to maintain and enhance the county transportation
network. The Tier 1 program is based on reasonable expectations of available revenue
sources over the next 20 years to 2014. The County is expecting to receive a total
of $1.15 billion during this period. These sources are in addition to the Measure B
funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has gone through a similar
process for the whole Bay Area and identified what they call Track 1 projects. These
are projects that would be funded by the assumed continuation of existing state and
federal funding programs. Table 8.1 shows the Tier 1 projects in the Tri.Valley and
compares the Alameda County list to MTC's Track I.
Table 8-1
Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley
MTC Track I AC Tier 1 Comments/
Description (mil esc.$) (mil esc. $) Clarifications
Altamont Rail Service- See Com- 3.2 Funding for initial stage planned by
Demonstration Project ments San Joaquin County. MTC staff stated
they will include a footnote in the RTP
stating support, if San Joaquin County
allocates funds to the project.
Enhanced Bus Service 0 $5.0 To serve Planning Area 4.
1.580/1-680 SB to EB flyover. hook 16.0 17.0 Pending review of 1-58011-680 inter-
ramps. and complete ramp braid to change funding program. Construction
retain Hopyard Road access. scheduled to begin '97.
West DublinlPleasanton BART station 19.0 27.5 BART extension to be completed by
'95. will build shell for West Dublin
station.
New Route 84/1-580 30.0 20.0 Project Study Report being
interchange developed.
1-580 truck/auto separation on WB 12.0 Q Safety-operational improvements to
1-205 at 1-580. interchange. Dependent on San Joaq-
uin County provision of $5 million.
Total $77.0 $72.7
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
147
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
The Alameda County Tier 2 program is essentially unfunded, being based on assump.
tions about new revenue sources, such as the continuation of Measure B and a
regional gas tax. Table 8.2 shows the Tier 2 project list for Tn-Valley.
Table 8.2
Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley
AC Tier 2 Comments!
Description (mil esc $) Clarifications
Local Transit Operations- 4.7 CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall.
LAVTA
Altamont Pass Rail Service- 0.0 Pending corridor study results. CMA recom.
Demonstration Project mends funding Alameda County share of
demo service In Tier 1.
1-560/1.660 f1yover, complete 6.0 To be determined pending review of 1.580/1.
hook ramps to Dublin, and 680 Interchange funding program.
complete ramp braid to retain
Hopyard Road access
1.580 HOV lane 0.0 To be determined pending outcome of corri.
dor study.
West Dublin BART Station 0.0 CMA recommends project for Tier 1 and
Track I.
Route 64 Freeway/Expressway 180.0 Reallocate $27.5 million of the $180 million to
and complete Route 84/1-580 West Dublin BART station if MTC adopts RTP
Interchange with BART station in Track II.
Enhanced Bus Service 23.0 To serve Planning Area 4.
Vasco Road Operational ~
Improvements
Total $229.7
Contra Costa County
On November 8, 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, which
became effective in April 1989. The Measure C "Expenditure Plan" directs funds
generated through Measure C to a wide variety of planning, operational and capital
improvements, collectively designed to improve transportation service in Contra Costa
County. The "Expenditure Plan" includes Capital Improvement projects that fall into
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
148
Financial Plan
three categories: (1) Highways and Arterials, (2) Transit, and (3) Trails. In addition
there are five programs included within Measure C: (1) Elderly and Handicapped
Transit Service, (2) Local Street Maintenance and Improvements, (3) Carpools,
Vanpools and Park.and.Ride Lots, (4) Bus Transit Improvements and Coordination,
and (5) Regional Transportation Planning and Growth Management. Approximately 70
percent of the revenues are allocated to capital improvement projects and 30 percent
to programs. The seven-year "Strategic Plan" provides detailed specific commitments
for specific projects. The balance of the program is represented as lump sum amounts
shown by year. The current "Strategic Plan" is detailed through fiscal year 1997. It is
updated every two years and is currently undergoing its first update. Tri.Valley
projects identified by CCTA for Measure C funding to date include the following. The
total Measure C funding in Tri.Valley is $27.4 million.
· 1.680 Auxiliary Lanes: $10 million to construct auxiliary lanes between Diablo
Road and Bollinger Canyon Road interchanges. Other sources must contribute $27
million. (Source: Regional Transportation Plan, MTC.)
· Construct Fostoria Parkway Overcrossing: $11.5 million to construct the 1-680
overcrossing. Other funding sources amount to $1.8 million. (Source: CCTA, 1993
Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.)
· Arterial Street Improvements: $5.9 million to modify/improve the arterial road
network in Tri.Valley. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program,
Appendix E.)
Private Funding
The majority of the arterial system and interchange improvements in the Tri~Valley
will be built or funded by new development. This is reflective of the fact that the
arterial extensions and widenings are to build additional capacity to serve new
development. The new roads and widenings will either be built directly by the
developers or will be paid for through local traffic impact fees. Livermore, Pleasanton,
Danville, and San Ramon all have development fees. These fees will in a large
measure fund the needed arterial infrastructure for the expected year 2010 transporta.
tion system. However, there are 11 critical regional projects that either lack funding
entirely or are not completely funded. The need for these projects cannot be tied to any
single development or even any single city. These are described below.
Critical Regional Projects
Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local.serving and will be paid for
by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger
projects with regional significance. If the developer. funded, assumed local arterial
improvements are not built, changes to the financing plan would be necessary. The
TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in a
potential regional impact fee program:
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
149
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as derIDed by the TVTC
for the transportation plan (see Figure 1~1).
2. Transit projects can be included.
3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan.
4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement.
While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC
is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction.
By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally
significant. These have been preliminarily determined to be of highest priority for
funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the transportation service objec.
tives through 2010.
1. ]-5801].680 Interchange. Southbound-to.eastbound flyover.
2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including a
new interchange at 1-580!1sabel.
3. ].680 AuxUiary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road.
4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the
Tri-Valley.
5. ].580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue.
6. ]-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade.
7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges
in the Tri-Valley.
8. I.680lAlcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of
southbound off-ramp with hook ramp.
9. ].5801 Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design.
10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. Realigning the roadway, construction of
shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and
safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and one mile north
of Norris Canyon Road.
11. Vasco Road Operational Improvements. Realignment and upgrading of Vasco Road
from the Alameda County line to the Livermore City limit, while retaining the
two-lane cross-section.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
150
Financial Plan
12. Express Bus Service. Providing the capital cost of adding nine express bus routes
connecting the Tri.Valley with surrounding communities and taking advantage of
the freeway HOV lanes.
The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are
preliminarily considered by the TVTC to be oflower priority for the 2010 planning
horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the
Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through
2010.
1. [-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on 1-580 from Livermore Avenue
to the San Joaquin County border.
2. [-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV Lane project from Alcosta Boule.
vard to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on 1-680
through the Tri.Valley.
3. [.580/[.680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover
ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in
improving the 1.580/1.680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate
all existing weaving sections.
Funding for Reg/onal Projects
Most of the regional projects have some funding already committed (see Table 8-3).
Additional funds are needed to make up the shortfall. This plan does not rely on
Alameda County Tier 2 funding becoming available. The total shortfall is $311.1
million.
The regional improvements are all necessary to serve new development. Because
Tier 2 funding is uncertain and because the regional projects are vital to safe and
efficient transportation in the Tri-Valley, a subregional impact fee should be adopted
to cover the shortfall.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
151
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
C)
c
:c
c
Lt
CD
:0
!:!
.~
c::C
"C
C
CO
(I)
1:)
f
a.
c
o
.-
-
CO
1:
8-
(I)
c
!
t-
ea
c
.2
C)
CD
a:
~
.C
o
.-
...
a.
,
.c
C)
:E
"C
C')CD
.(1)
COo
CDQ.
:De
r:.o..
en
I:
i~
"2.s
;::'E
~g
<
~en
.- I:
"2,g
;::,:=
LLE
--
00)
E:O
;::,.,m
~.~
<<
,
l.tu)
d
E C
US Q) i
8Bij~
i'Ol!?~
'RiU)~8
E I: 0
.- .2 '0 '0
Ji g ~
;:;
co"
.M
Lt)....
Ww
'o:t
...t
....
w
ONC1ft!
ww::m
w
" "
N N
W W
.....
~
cia
mw
~oo"':
oww-
~ w
o
m
o
....
w
o
o
(,)l!?
I-!
::E(5
mma) (,)
Q) 0) ~ !l)
"- "- E -
m ~ Q) m
O)Q)'" Q)
::E::E:5 ::E
mea
~~~
U) (I) ...
coii=
Q)_co
::!(I)O
(,)
~ e
~ ~
l3 I I :I
0'10
.0
'o:tN
mw
''It
...t
....
w
Lt) ('f) ...
'N .('f)
ow-a
N T""....
W Ww
"
~
"
~
"
~
N~
Lt) '....
C'\ICD....
w~~
Lt)
aol
I I
co
N .
Lt) ,Lt)
N~g
ww...:
w
c
g, g
~ I: co 0
Ll? co t;; ''It
16 <2 ii '2 'if: i, c
.i, U) ~ ~~~"5 1::' E
~. !It ~= 'gU5~ ~ ~(I)'O~I:~
~ 1::' I:S co I: e2'co~.2>.
~ ~ ~g51i5~! ! o~co~im(l)(I)
E ~ ~ -COcoco co I:-~ >~
- ~~~i~~~~~~ii~~iei~
~"lt~~~~;~~~~~e~~~(~omea
~wQ)$~owg~~Q)~~::E~$(,)-~m~
25 ~~(I) o~ E:~= 0:3 02 ~o U) ~$ ~ e ~
m og'EfBi5< .gm ,fB;::, comB e'CO co 9-
~~~co~_m~o~z~(I)~~<(,)(I)>W
u
.~
e
a.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
M
co
.(1)
~i
~~
ti!
1:_
02:
U
"-'0
€Ia
;::,-
-~
Sea
9.~
:5-t;:.,
m.
.!e C'G
e
i<
~~
.e:2
0.[
(1),8
~=
e'i
.aC;;
~8
I: 0)
._~
~-
co:!::
I: co
.~ .IT
=(1)
0)1:
15.0
U)ii
._~
0);
~e
U) ;::,
~~
.. ...
152
Financial Plan
Subregional Impact Fees
There is general consensus at TVTC that unbuilt development should pay its fair
share to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by that development. Construction of
the ml\ior regional improvement projects listed in Table 8.3 is estimated to cost close
to $1 billion, and constitutes the regional improvement program needed to serve
existing and planned development in the Tri.Yalley and surrounding region. Roughly
70 percent of the total project cost is expected to be funded through local, state, and
federal sources over the next 20 years. The remaining 30 percent is unfunded. TVTC
wishes to explore the possibility of generating revenues for this unfunded portion
through implementation of a subregional transportation impact fee.
For illustrative purposes, a fee amount was estimated assuming that at the need for
new transportation facilities will be generated equally by residential and commercial
growth, and that funding responsibility would be equally divided among these two
types of development. Furthermore, the fee calculation uses a trip.based methodology,
which means that the amount of the fee would depend upon the number of peak-hour
trips generated by each new development project. Finally, it was assumed that the
total unfunded amount shown in Table 8.3 would be paid for through the subregional
transportation impact fee. This final assumption is subject to change, given that the
estimates for future public funding of $694 million is tenuous at best, and that the
nexus relationship between traffic impacts generated by new development, and project
needs, would need to be fully evaluated before a fee could be adopted. Also a number
of procedural and administrative hurdles would need to be cleared in order to adopt
such a fee.
The results of the trip-based fee calculation was translated into equivalent dwelling
units for residential development, and square footage for non-residential development.
The fee amount for new residential development would be approximately $2,800 per
dwelling unit. The amount for office, commercial, or industrial use would be approxi-
mately $6 per square foot.
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 nexus relationship between new development and its impact on traffic.
TVTC recognizes that imposition of $6 per square foot fee on non-residential develop.
ment could have a negative impact on the economic development of the Tri-Valley
area. Accordingly, TVTC will explore in greater detail the fee calculation methodology,
and approaches to reducing the fee burden on projects that could significantly support
continued economic growth in Tri.Yalley. At a minimum, further study will be needed
to determine the following: .
1. The extent to which traffic generated by commercial development uses the freeway
facilities identified in Table 8.3; and
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
153
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
2. The extent to which commercial.generated traffic contributes to peak-hour conges-
tion. For example, AM peak-hour traffic generated by retail development generally
occurs after the work.trip commute peak hour.
These fees are illustrative of the level of impact fees required but are not meant to be
final calculations. The TVTC must go beyond this plan to develop an impact fee
program that would establish a legal nexus between development levels and fees
charged and also clarify many ancillary issues. At a minimum, the program needs to
consider the following issues:
. Land Use Categories. Will there be one fee for all residential development or will
it vary with density? Similarly, how many commercial categories will be used?
Jurisdictions typically use three categories: retail, industrial, and office. Would
even more categories be useful?
. Credits. Should certain projects that have already contributed regional improve.
ments, such as Hacienda Business Park, be entitled to a fee credit?
. Exemptions. Should certain project with significant social value, such as low.
income housing, be exempt from fees? What about projects that significantly
enhance the area's economic development?
. Fee Collection. How and by whom should the fees be collected? Who will bank. the
funds and contract for transportation projects?
. Transfer of Funds Between Jurisdictions. A subregional fee collected among the
seven jurisdictions of Tri.Valley could potentially result in a situation where funds
collected in one jurisdiction were expended on the construction of regional projects
in another jurisdiction. The concept of a subregional fee for the Tri-Valley will
need to address the acceptability and magnitude of cross-jurisdictional transfers of
fee revenues. TVTC has established that it does not wish for any regional fee
revenues collected in Tri-Yalley to be expended on projects outside of the Tri-
Yalley subarea.
. Relationship to Future Countywide or Regionwide Fee Programs. If in the future, a
countywide or regionwide (nine.county Bay Area) fee program is established, the
relationship of those programs to the Tri.Yalley regional fee will need to be
addressed, especially with regard to crediting an in-place Tri.Yalley fee toward a
countywide fee.
. Impact of the Fee on Growth. Fee levels that are too high for either residential or
nonresidential development may adversely affect the efforts of TVTC jurisdictions
to promote economic growth or affordable housing opportunities. To address the
concerns, the TYTC will seek the assistance of the Association of Bay Area
Governments to evaluate the economic impacts of a regional transportation impact
fee on economic and residential growth in the Tri Yalley area.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
154
c
o
;:
a:s
t:
o
c.
en
c
f!
l-
e;;
c
.Q
C)
~
.c
::J
(/)
'l:t"C
.~
CO._
G);:'
-C'"
.cQ)
~a:
G>
Lf
'0
<<S
c..
E
-
CIl
CIl
LI..
1il
c:
.2
~
a:
,'I::
gg
~....
=CIl
Qj'"
~~
... III
l!....
_l!.
_ 0"1
a) a)
N'ui
~~
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
'b
c:
~
:::I
LI..
i
"3
I
c: c:
~~
'e T~
:8:8
:glR
;;;;
'J::
~
C,!)
.
... Cii
.f.! .!
c: CIl
:::I Iii
~g.
;:11I
;~
~ln
(00
N 0"1
MM
16 cD
lnN
c
CIl
8-
.2
~
o
tll
l!!
<
>0-
S
~
.C
~
2'
'w III
:::I,D
~~
c
~
.e
.!!i
'jij
.g
.2
""':
-
a
i
.!::
g-
o:
,~
-g
~
1il
~
CD
)( ". cD
~~ ~
}CIl ~
QlI 5
~~ Cii
. .g .!
li-~ !
E ai ~
~ ~ ,~ ~[
.!!1st)
c: :::I
.s!"'Cilll
~C:"'O>
.s! ~ 1: 'S
~q'l 0> i
:;: c: E ...
0> 0>
j~ ~i
iO>IIl..c:
~ ~ ~
0> ..c: 0>
.e g: ~ 10
c..co..c:
0> .... -
8l,D Q) c:
~ 2:0 0 ,2
.i! c: C li
(J CIl . E
)( > ..c: 5
WCIl'i1ll
~"i ~ l'J
5:2 ~ CIl
.~ o>..c:
Ja~'ti-;;
~1l KO
eo)(~
&:_ 0> QI
lIl~o13
O>.....,D
~E2Q1
CIl :::I .., Of
C III = III
.ft III :::I_
.. Ill.... 8
cQlc
0>....0....
III III 1 QI
t! U) n;
a. Q) :::I
~&f&l~
_ iN .., ...
155
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
. Protection of the Fee's Revenue-Generating Potential. During the development of
the Plan, major development proposals in the Tri Valley have been approved and
their ability to generate revenues for regional transportation projects has been
lost. Further erosion of the revenue.generating potential of the fee program. may
continue as details on the fee program are resolved. TVTC encourages local
jurisdictions to condition any development approval with participation in a
regional transportation impact fee program, contingent on the eventual agreement
by Tri Valley jurisdictions on a fee program. Following adoption of this plan,
TVTC will consider the fee study as it highest priority. TVTC will pursue comple.
tion of the fee study within 12 months.
Spatial Distribution of Fees and Benefits
Elected officials are concerned about where impact fees are collected and where they
are spent. Table 8.5 shows the 2010 estimated peak.hour usage pattern for each of the
high.priority projects. Each jurisdiction would benefit from two or more of the regional
projects.
Table 8..5
Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects
2010 Traffic Origin
San Un inc.
Project Danville Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Through
1-580/1-680 Interchange 6% 6% 6% 20% 34% 14% 14%
Route 84 1% 1% 2% 9% 10% 49% 28%
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes 23% 22% 16% 10% 10% 4% 15%
BART Extension 2% 5% 6% 14% 16% 22% 34%
1.580 HOV Lanes 0% 6% 3% 15% 15% 39% 28%
1-680 HOV Lanes 3% 4% 5% 13% 30% 27% 19%
1.680/ Alcosta 0% 38% 28% 28% 2% 0010 0%
1.580!Foothill 2% 6% 12% 43% 31% 6% 0%
Crow Canyon Safety 36% 31% 9% 3% 2% 0% 19%
Vasco Safety 1% 1% 10% 9% 12% 44% 23%
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
156
Financial Plan
Table 8-6 compares payment to expenditures by jurisdiction. Expenditures are summa-
rized based on the physical location of improvements and based on the amount of new
development trips using the new facilities. Based on usage, Livermore is the primary
beneficiary of impact fees because of two factors: (1) Livermore has more planned
growth than any other jurisdiction; and (2) Livermore will be the primary user of
Route 84, which is the largest unfunded component of the plan. Whether considering
benefit by facility location or by usage pattern, the impact fees would result in a
transfer of $18 to 20 million from Contra Costa County jurisdictions to Alameda
County jurisdictions. However, this calculation includes only the unfunded portion of
each project. If Measure C and Measure B monies are added to the analysis, then the
amount spent in each county is almost exactly equal to the money generated.
Table 8-6
Equity Analysis of Regio"nal Impact Fee
Fees Spent ($ millions)
Fees Generated Based on Based on
Jurisdiction ($ millions) Geography Usage
DanviUe 2 17 5
San Ramon 2 17 16
Contra Costa County 50 0 15
Contra Costa County Subtotal 54 34 36
Dublin 74 24 47
Pleasanton 75 95 48
Livermore 105 95 179
Alameda County 2 63 0
Alameda Subtotal 257 277 275
Total 311 311 311
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
157
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
Potential Future Funding Sources
Other future funding sources have been discussed for the Tri~Valley. Alameda County
has discussed a Tier 2 funding program, which includes a 10~cent regional gas tax and
a continuation of Measure B. There is also the State and Local Transportation
Partnership Program (SLTPP), which could provide up to 50 percent reimbursement of
construction costs. The Mid~State Toll Road has also been proposed to provide trans~
portation capacity in the Route 84 corridor without public investment. The major
potential future sources are discussed briefly below, although because of their uncer~
tainty, the Tri~Valley Transportation Plan does not rely on their provision.
County Sales Tax Measures
The county sales tax measures, currently funding several transportation improve~
ments, have a limited life span. Measure B in Alameda County will expire in 2002.
Measure C in Contra Costa County will expire in 2008. There is a chance that these
sales tax programs, through a successful election, could be extended. They were
originally passed with a simple miVority vote. Recent court decisions in other counties,
however, have shown that a tw~thirds vote may be required to enact future tax
initiatives. Achieving a super majority at the polls is considered nearly impossible for
a proposed tax increase ballot measure.
County Gas Tax/Regional Gas Tax
A county tax or regional tax may be imposed on motor vehicle fuels for the purposes of
transportation investment according to enabling state legislation which was adopted in
1981. The tax would be imposed in increments of one cent per gallon per year with no
state~imposed lifetime limit. Prior to imposition and collection of a tax, a proposition
granting authority to the county to impose the tax must be submitted and approved by
the voters at an election. A proposition may be submitted to the voters only if a
written agreement is made with respect to allocation of the revenues between the
county and the cities.
Additional gas taxes would provide several benefits. Drivers will look for alternatives
to the private automobile as driving costs (e.g., increased fuel prices) increase,
reducing systemwide demands. Demand may be reduced by telecommuting, ride~
sharing, transit, or linking trip purposes. The additional revenue obtained as a result
of the higher tax would create a larger "pot of money" for transportation related
projects.
Toll Financing
A toll road, the Mid~State Toll Road, has been proposed for the Route 84 corridor,
connecting between I~680 in Sunol and the Antioch area. The toll road is now in the
planning stages, with an environmental impact report (EIR) under development. At
the request of MTC and Tri~Valley agencies, the Em will study several options in the
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
158
Rnanclal Plan
corridor, including transit. The City of Livermore and the Alameda County CMA have
adopted resolutions opposing a private toll road in the Route 84 corridor. A public toll
road has also been discussed, although no official positions have been taken. Because
of the uncertain nature of the Mid-State Toll Road, either public or private, it is not
included as a funding source for the Tri~Valley Transportation Plan. Nevertheless, it
must be recognized that $137 million of the unfunded portion of the plan is attribut-
able to Route 84. If the decision were made to adopt and build a toll road within the
2010 horizon of this plan, the proposed regional impact fee could be reduced, or the
$137 million could be applied to one of the second priority regional projects discussed
in the next section. This assumes that none of the $137 million would be needed to
provide the required free roadway in the toll road corridor.
Potential Future Transportation Projects
The plan identifies three regional transportation projects that would be desirable for
the area but are not required to meet transportation service objectives: high-occupancy
vehicle lanes on I~680 between Alcosta and Route 84, high~occupancy vehicle lanes on
I~580 between North Livermore Avenue and the San Joaquin County line, and the
addition of a northbound to westbound flyover ramp at the I~580/I~680 interchange. If
more transportation funds become available than were assumed in this plan, the
TVTC would like them to be allocated to these projects.
Table 8~7 provides preliminary cost estimates for these projects. In current dollars the
total cost would be $245 million.
Table 8-7
Cost Estimates for Second Priority Regional Projects
Project
Cost
(millions of
current dollars)
1-580 HOV Lanes
(N. Livermore Avenue to San Joaquin County Line)
1-680 HOV Lanes
(Alcosta to Route 84)
1-580/1-680 Interchange-
NB to WB Flyover Ramp
Total
$85
40
120
$245
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
159
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financial Plan
Detailed Finance Pion
Table 8-8 provides the detailed financing plan for the 2010 planned network. Note that
the cost estimates are preliminary and ultimately need to be refined by the responsible
jurisdiction. The overall program cost is projected to be $1,482,310,000. Approximately
47 percent of the projected cost ($695,690,000) is publicly funded, primarily through
Measure B and Measure C programs. Thirty~three pe~cent ($491,720,000) of the
projected cost would be funded by direct developer exactions from localities. These
would be either local impact fees or required project mitigation improvements. The
remaining 20 percent ($294,900,000) of the program cost would be funded by the
subregional transportation impact fee.
Besides the subregional impact fee, the other aspect of the finance plan that needs to
be finalized is the cost sharing arrangement between jurisdictions that have responsi-
bility for a particular route of regional significance. One option is to adopt a policy that
each jurisdiction is responsible for the routes within its boundaries. Another option is
to determine where traffic goes from each jurisdiction and assess funding responsibili~
ty based on proportional traffic shares. In any event, the cost sharing formulae need to
be developed through negotiation between affected jurisdictions.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
160
.:.:
...
!
CD
z
'g
CD
C
c:
cu
c:
o
,...
o
C\I
>-
.S!
c;
>
.
0':
7
c:
cu
a:
cpCD
cot.)
Q)C
_cu
~c:
(Q.-
I-LL.
Iii a:
.~ ...
~"Q
150.
:I E
U)-
~
0-
.- "8
:~~
~~
:I
..,
~"C
Gl Gl
~"B
'C :I
0....
~
:I
o
U)
2:-1
'Y"B
~:I
0.....
Iii'
c
1;i,g
8'E
w08
Iti{:i~
...
Q)
E
:I
~
:g
~
1ij
~
!
~ i
!Xl co Oco
! ! ! !
~ ~ ~ ~
:!:I:J~
o 00
MOOO
aicoioo
CDII).....~
ll)
8 0 . ~....I N
~ ~ "Ii - .N'
NM'" W
Gl
Gl
!S
S
0.
C/l
Gl
Gl
'S
}
~
c
o
o
C/l
C
<<I
oS
J
1l!1~
ON
C\l CXl
W
0l88880..,.N
"d. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ "Ii cO ~I ~
~NMLtjNM C\l~
:S.
'E
Gl
E
.9l
w
!Xl
W
.s
!Xl
en
Q) C'Cl
g>> 'C
~ C'Cl ~
c 15 C'Cl
m ... Gl
Gl C
-a'E.!!l
C'- ,
1lI O.
"CO..,.
C~CO
! :::: Gl
~ 0 s
B~~
a.
E
C'Cl
....
'C"
Gl
g>>",
:::X
(50.
coC ~
o c: 8
- 0
J:! 'E S
.J:l C'Cl C .~
.!l! ~ .2 ~
e.'!!S
C/lo.U) Q)
Gl 0 ~ .Y
c-a:U)U)~
.S! C c:( Gl Gl Gl OJ
~ .~ CD C C en C _
1ft jjU).CC'Cl
.'" c: c: :I Gl -0
::Gli5>>cc-lS
~~:lOOC/l~::J
c:( C:I::I:C/l U)
~~li~~~~
~CD;:~~~a:
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
y
8.i81.ill
~~~~~~~
ccccccc
t)
Gl
~ ~
~QliQ:
Q~Q~~
:::l::::l::::l::::l::::l
ccccc
Q)
Q)
I&!::
!ll!l!!!l!!l
~ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
cccccccccccc
OOOOOOqOOOOO I
00000 0000000
"IiaicOltilti...NN~NoriItiN
~..- ........- .......-M
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~
... ... M
...
~
g Gl
~ g>>
... C'Cl
Gl.t:.
~~i
C'Cl'Efi.
~i-5
.~ gfi. lij.6.~.~
Gl c.t:.a::go Ii
"C Cl.2o...Gl ~
.;; .6 C/l C Gl 1< c .
~ cC:C'ClQjGlg
"C GlQ)a:C'Cl l\lOO
C'Cl :2'S(....t:.~GlIll
o Gl:= Gl.!~.c- 0 Gl
a: .6 "C ,; Gl C (!) a: .j!:
>-o.~~Ill.. .. ...
't:enccCDfi"illli~c
,E.!.1:l c c~ e"B e'.j
:0 g' ~ :g :g ~ := .~ := l:l la
:I Q l!!:I:lll) Gl III Gl III 0
cc~cc..!.Z::I:Z~u)
c
o
'in
c
Gl
i Gl
'Qg>>
C III
.~ ~
:2 ~
il: .- Iii
"i c 0
0.215
a: ~i1i :I
C en
.2
Iii
.....!.
161
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
"C
G)
:I
C
.-
-
c
o
o
-
~
...
!
G)
Z
"C
G)
C
C
CO
n:
o
....
o
C'<.I
>-
.S!
c;
>
'C
~
c
CO
ii:
~~
C1)C
-CO
.&Jc
lV--
~u.
~~
.2
~i
~E
0-
Il
"t)_
~"CD
'::2 ::!
..,
~
::2
~
~"i
1a"2
.l: ;:,
a.LL.
~
~
Il
.f~
-
'"
c
'tll,g
S'E
c
-
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
!S!S!S!S
...J...J...J...J
..
I
! :3 :3 '" III
OlD CD CD 81 CD
l.I-LLl.I-LL
g~~g8
IlicoiC'liaid
<0
8~f588
IlicoiC'liaid
<0
CD
CO;
CD
(
t-:
...
lIl$jlll$81jj.i
!S!S~!S!S!Sg~g
...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J..J
~
Ill!!!
LLLLOLLLLLL
!
.2
'- CD '- II-.
l~~~
1)11
OLLOO
8 f5 g g 8 g ~ f5 ~ ~I ~
cQcQNcoiaiN olli.....o 0
N'<t
...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~
.....
.~
i I
c E
8 0 CD
-g ~:3 ~
as c ~ ~ c .i
>- 0 z g' C "c-.2 :'2
III C Dl fl .- 2 3t
! .2 C C C ~ c:: .", CD ~ Dl c:: CD
< '" .2 .- CD j;j CD c:: :2 CD .5 .2 ::t
_ c:: '" c:: E .~:'2 $ 3t ~ c:: '" Dl c::
-g~i~~ l.I-3tx ~CDCDC:.s~
~CDi~[ ~~~ ~"t)iii<
c::jCDIllE lllif12 o..~CDCD:2!_~
Oal::tO > ~'gc::a::::t::t3t0,..~
>-c: c:a::.; ~5 CIl 0 g.lll 5; 5j'g E CD '5
l!!M o CD> GlDl ..!!!"t)Illa::c: >> CD>-
Oc.> c:c:<p- C:1t)= oc':= III c:<< 0 ~ IlllS
~~B5~1;~..J!~~~I~~~~i
1= c:= 8llii@1!~ 16 ~t=t=t= B ~t=.o
...J88~&s'<t~..,..J...J~~~U'J~~~
c
CD
E
CD
W
m
ai
iJ)
CD
~
~
~ ~~U~~
a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
'"
CD
CD
1 i Ii
111111i
o OLLOOl.l-LL
m 8~gf5ga
o ..tMocoi..t
...
~
!
1
a.
"6
>-
t5
~
....
en
It)
o
8~gf5gg
..tcoidM..tN
...
...
CD
a 2'
'c
oG c: CD
.~ c:.~ ~.r 2'.~
Ii .2 Ii "t) CD .- c:
:2 ~)(~:2Ii~
3t CD CD ~ ik :5! '3t
CD fl i I c: 'i '3t "t)
c ~c:"t) g.e.'g l!l
OGlCD~ li oa:
e~ia::..!!!oea::"t)
III 10 6 ~ 1iI .s ~ :E lij
lEes. :::oc.>'5~
it ~.~ m ~ ~ w .f ~
-
"
G)
::J
c:
"-
....
c:
o
o
-
.::tIt.
...
!
G)
z
"
G)
c:
c
co
is:
c
,...
C
<"I
~
co
>
"t:
7
c
co
is:
~B
CDC
-co
.ac
ca.-
.....LL
liCD
clf
.2
Ii
~ E
en-
~~
li.c
"E-m
.~ ::E
...,
~
~
bl
i'"i
.!~
c..u.
~
o
en
~~
~~
c..u.
0'
C
1ii,i
<3'E
~
l
co
...;..
u U 11
CD l!! l!! CD CD !
CD .- .- CD CD .-
~g~~~g
c..c..c..c..c..c..
=
~
II I
= ! ! = = !
Ifoolflfo
OClOO_MO
O>~~I"-;oo
oi___NcD
C
o
c
III
co
CD
a:::
'0
>.
.'=
<.>
g
o
o
N
u
CD l!!
CD .-
~g
c..c..
"-
CD
j
= !
Ifo
~ :1
o ex) 80M 0 Ql M=.I -
O>ll'! .Cl:!OOOM.... ,.....
oi---NcDN~ ~
g
1II
co
.'=
~ CD C))
c.. C ~.2 1II
1II .2 cl!CIl"CC
CIl C 2u:2CCD
~ l!': .", lii i' CIl E
~ C)._)( C)C -"C '$~
<:: .6 ; CD .6 .! .6 ~ _l!! e
2;:2 CD 5i ;,;menC.
<9 :2 :: .f: :2 CD a: rd '" E _
-;~"Co ~ ~=.'li5 5- s
OlCll.2: CD"C CD;: 0 QlC 0
C .-= m 91 ~ > 8 c.. c.2 15
1!a: >.:gm<~ ",JgY ~
~ CIl.J! Ql"O ~oj llll!!en
Ql'ECCc-co UQl
- CIl S .9 ~ Cii It) .,: .!!! -
Senen en en>..:.;>:::ES
'E
Ql
E
.J!
w
o
N
N
(0
N
,.....
<.><.>
Ql Ql
:; :s
lid rd
Ql CD
::E::E
Ql
~
o
~ ;]I~
o
~ ;]I~
Ql
C)
C
CIl
~
Ql
.~
-g
o
"Ca:
~ >.
cc.J!
~~
1ii l!!
> 2 m
g ~ i5
:! ~ ~.g
>a:~en
c C g
III CIl (0
oen..:.
~
~~
en en
~ ~
.2 0-
g! = 1
gafo
000
00('\,/
cx)oo
o
~
...-
-
Ql ~
CII .-
~~
en en
~l
11
00
R ~I~
O'aJ ~
('-
o 0
~ ~
- -
8 8 ~ ~ 8 ~I ~
cx)dd-NaJ.....
- - M
01 f?
.~ .2
CII ~ .g
~ .~ .~ CIl .i
"C:2~F"9
CIl i' CII CIl .2:
~-gi~~15
CoJ:,gy
~a: <:CIl-
C C -;>81U
~J~c..11i6CD~
EliiJ ~E:2~
&! ~ ~~enen
;'E~lllmla!
cnmoo..:.en;>
~
...
-
: ~I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I
g!
g
o 0
o 0
~ I~
o
l!!
:.
'"
CIl
~
I"-; I"-;
..... -
g 8 ~I~
dNIt)"""
..- N"<t
'E
CD
E
CD
K
.5
iiI
C c
.2 " _
i! .", ;
! C E
CD c
i .rIP
l:-"C_li
ca::GCD
~cWa:-
<3 ~jal
.gJma:~
Ql cRU)
E~:5~
..!!! e ~ CIl
<00>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
"
G)
:s
C
-
...
C
o
o
-
~
...
!
:!
"
G)
C
C
as
is:
e
0r-
e
N
>-
.!!
~
.-
...
~
C
as
is:
ClOG)
o)CJ
(1)C
_as
.oc
as.-
....u.
I
I
I
iiiQl
elf
.2
~~
.Dc.
:::t E
0-
~1l
:gl;;
~!
:::t
..,
~
:::t
c8
-1'1
~"g
,- :::t
ci:u.
QI
~
:::t
c8
~1
.5.!~
~:::t
a..u.
o
e
1I'ig
8'E
:S.
C
QI
E
.JIl
w
i i i
QQ-gQ~
::l ::l .~ ::l .-
SSS@@
II!!!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CD CD QI Q) CD
00000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~
N ..,. 0
g 8 g g gig
cO....:aicOaicO
N... ..,. 0
...
.~
e
CD
:2
~
e ~
.~ ~ i;-
e lIS ~
~ "P:O ~
QI ~ 18 'iij" lIS
._ 1/1 a..
~~eCI:I/ICD
e 0 QI .&:: lIS ...
:JCI:~ (.)~ ~
8 6i~.!i.g
I ~~w ~a:~
8 <: ~ .. {!. .. ~
QlQI~oi:::t
; ~ ~ e .Ii:: e 0
C::=:::ti:E~
8S8~J~
o
...
...
...
M
tit
~
ai
01
~
of
QI
E
i
.5
I
1
"P
~ .
.!: CD
"pQI
... .:C=
o E
QI E
;~
lIS :::t
0.1/1
.!H;i
~e
u e
e-
,Q >-
y~
=~
8.-=
........
~Q)
'ijl ..s
H~
]~
_ll::
~!.
j,jl/l
ell
.2
~'i
QI QI
... fIl
i~
~ oi
QI:i5
"PS
a.S!!
e.&::
.2 ~ oi
!o:D
e e lIS
CDi:=
E 0 ~
.!!~IIS
0._ CD
.S g E
S~8
QlQllI
:DES:
'iij Q) ~
c>e>
8. [.5
fIlE"P
~.- 5
>-.'1::::: --
-1/1...
5:6g.
Q:ii
>-Ql>
.~.&:: CD
O'E"P
. ... 'iii
eS..s
.2 ~ 1/1
1":._ QI
.:!of (.) E
"ie:::t
.;::: lIS 1/1
:::t.e II}
..,u..q;
.. N ..
m
iii
m
tit
...
In
cO
o
1ft
;;
JQ
lIS
~
i:-
e
:::t
~8
:::t lIS
811'iC:6
1IS8SE QlCD
"P C:IIS ...-
Q)IIS...I\SCI:C:~=
E-cn = >
_CIISC.D e
'''8SIIS:::tQllIS
< a.. 0 0 .~ 0
.......J.
OO..JCI:::l.!Z
<Oa..00..J0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.
Action Plan
The Action Plan lists each route of regional significance along with the 2010 planned
improvements and resulting traffic volume and levels of service. The Transportation Plan
recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route of regional
significance. Potential actions are also listed.. These were considered by the TVTC and
serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of
responsible agencies to implement the actions for each route of regional significance.
Actions of Regional Significance
Listed below are regional actions which are intended to reduce congestion and improve
efficiency on the regional transportation system. These actions are broader in nature than
the route~specific actions identified in the following subsection. Implementation of regional
actions requires a coordinated effort among local jurisdictions and regional agencies. The
TVTC jurisdictions, while not able to directly implement all of these actions, agree to use
every opportunity to work cooperatively with responsible agencies, including Caltrans,
BART, and MTC, toward their successful implementation.
1. Conduct a subregional traffic impact fee study to address the funding issues described
in Chapter 8, "Financial Plan," and to address the list of priority transportation
projects described in Chapter 7, "Recommended Improvement Plan."
2. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans-
portation improvements.
3. Increase AVR for work (commute) trips from 1.1 to 1.2. Achieve this increase by
requiring and enforcing employer-based TDM programs. Pleasanton's TSM ordinance
is an example of how to implement a program.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
165
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 seamlessHOV network in the Tri~Valley to encourage the
use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall work cooperatively with Caltrans, MTC,
and affected jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system,
especially on I~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 1998
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 individual jurisdiction may also
elect to implement more stringent actions, measures, or programs, in addition to those
identified below, on facilities within its jurisdiction. For example, a jurisdiction's individu-
al mitigation program could respond to higher future traffic levels, assuming no gateway
constraints (see Figure 5~4).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
166
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
The following table shows jurisdiction responsibility by route. However, agencies in one
county should not be required to pursue public funding for projects in another county.
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Responsibility for Implementation
Facility
Responsible Agency
Page
Number
1-680
1-580
Sycamore Valley Road
Danville Boulevard
Camino Tassajara
Crow Canyon Road
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road
Alcosta Boulevard
Dougherty Road
TassaJara Road
Dublin Boulevard
San Ramon Road
Hopyard Road
Santa Rita Road
Stanley Boulevard
Stoneridge Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Route 84
First Street (Livermore)
Vasco Road
North Canyons Parkway
Jack London
All
All
Danville
Danville, CCC
Danville, CCC
San Ramon, AC, CCC. Danville
Oanville, San Ramon
San Ramon, CCC
San Ramon
CCC, Dublin, San Ramon
CCC, Dublin, AC
Dublin. AC
Dublin
Pleasanton
Pleasanton
Pleasanton. Livermore
Pleasanton
Pleasanton
All
Livermore
Livermore, AC, CCC.
Livermore, AC
Livermore
168
170
172
176
1n
181
189
191
194
195
197
199
203
204
206
208
210
211
212
215
216
221
229
The following are not routes of regional significance
Stone Valley Road CCC
Fallon Road Dublin, AC
Isabel Extension (North of 1-580) Livermore, AC
North Livermore Avenue Livermore, AC
Las Positas (Pleasanton) Pleasanton
Bernal Avenue Pleasanton
Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, Dublin
218
219
223
225
226
228
230
· -All- if fee is implemented.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
167
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways
Key Locations
Facility: 1-680
North of Uvorna
at Bollinger
South of 1-580
South of Route 84
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
6 lanes
7,100
1.08
6 Janes
5,000
0.76
6 lanes
4,800
0.73
6 Janes
6,000
0.91
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: HOV Janes, SR 24 to Dublin-under construction; auxiliary lanes, Diablo 10 Bollinger; SB 10 EB flyover and
Dublin hook ramps at 1-680/1-580 interchange; improve interchange at Alcosta: add interchange at West Las Positas
2010 Configuration 6 + HOV 6 + HOV + Aux. 6 6
Volume 7,800 (constrained) 6,300 5,800 6,600 (constrained)
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 10 36 24 30
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 365 203 13 0
VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 1.00 (1.39) 0.70 0.87 1.00 (1.47)
(unconstrained)
8 hours of congestion 7 hours of congestion
TraffIC Pattern
Danville 31% Dublin 12% Pleasanlon 28% Pleasanton 30%
San Ramon 20% Pleasanton 18% Dublin 20% Livermore 27%
CCC 18% Livermore 11% Livermore 5% Dublin 13%
Dublin 17% Oanville 6% CCC 9% CCC 5%
Pleasanton 6% San Ramon 38% Oanville' 8% Through 19%
Livermore 4% CCC 0% San Ramon 14% Danville 3%
Through 15% Through 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4%
TOO 10 be achieved
None-Not within
TVTC control
VlC .. 0.99
VlC .. 0.99
No more than five
hours of congestion
Recommended Actions
1. Support major transit 1. Pursue funding for 1. Pursue funding 1. Advocate HOV
investment (w/Central auxiliary lanes. for 1-68011-580 lanes, Route 84 10
County). interchange. Suno! Grade.
2. Support commute
alternatives
(Bay Areawide).
3. Oppose increases to
mixed-flow capacity.
2. Pursue funding for 2. Advocate HOV 2. Advocate express
A1costa interchange lanes A1costa 10 bus service.
improvements. Route 84.
3. Support commute
alternatives
4. Oppose increases
to mixed-flow capaci-
ty.
Note: A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
168
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: 1.680 North of Livoma at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84
Potential Actions
Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes + Widen to 10 lanes.
HOV
Transit Solution Would require an adO.. Would require 80
tional 50 buses per buses per hour or
hour (peak direction) or LRT with 5-minute
LRT with 5-minute heaclways or BART
headways or BART. or Altamont Pass
Rail with 15-minute
heaclways.
TOM SoIutinn Would require 20% Would require 60%
increase in A VR for all increase in AVR for
trip types, or spread aU trips. or spread
commute over 16 hours commute over 16
per day. hours per day.
Land Use Solution Reduce growth in cee Reduce growth by
portion 01 Tri-Valley by 63.000 units. similar
33,850 units. simaar decrease in jobs,
decrease in jobs. sim~ar decrease in
Santa Clara County.
Policy Solution Tolerate congestion. Tolerate congestion,
will act as a valve to will reduce trip
promote shorter com- lengths.
mutes.
TOO met. TOO met.
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of now.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
169
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: 1.580
West of Foothill
at Tassajara
at A1tamont
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
8 lanes
7,000
0.80
8 lanes
8,000
0.91
8 lanes
5,100
0.58
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: SB to EB flyover at 1-680/1.580 interchange, improve interchanges to parclo design at FoothilllSan Ramon,
FallonlEl Charro, Vasco Road, Greenville Road, North Livermore Avenue, and First Stroot, remove interchange at Portola;
addition of new interchange at Isabel extension (part of the Route 84 project).
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes
Volume 8,800 (constrained) 8,800 (constrained) 8,800
(constrained)
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 18 + BART 20 None
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 3,914 168 0
VlC constrained (before Action Plan) 1.00 (1.07) 1.00 (1.23) 1.00 (1.40)
(unconstrained)
(1-112 hours of congestion) (4 hours of congestion) (5 hours of con-
gestion)
TraffIC Pattem
Dublin 23%
Pleasanton 24%
Livermore 24%
CCC 5%
Danville 1 %
San Ramon 5%
Through 16%
DanvUIe 0% Livermore 25%
San Ramon 6% Pleasanton 14%
Livermore 39% Danville 1%
Dublin 15% San Ramon 8%
Pleasanton 15% CCC 3%
CCC 3% Dublin 9%
Through 28% Through 40'%
TOO to be achieved
Los F no more than 2
hours
LOS F no more than 2
hours
None-not within TVTC control
Recommended Actions
None.
,. Pursue HOV lanes
Tassajara to N. Uvermore.
2. Pursue removal of the
restriction on HOV lanes.
1. Support major transit invest-
ment in corridor.
2. Oppose Increases in mixed-
flow capacity.
3. Advocate HOV lanes, N.
Livermore to county line.
4. Pursue removal of the re-
striction on HOV lanes.
Note: A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
170
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tri..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facility: 1.580
West of Foothill
at A1tamont
at Tassajara
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen to 10 lanes or 8+
HOV
Widen to 10 Iam:ls
Widen to 12 lanes
(would cause major
problems
downstream)
Transit Solution
Increase BAAT ridership by Add 40 buses per
600 in peak hour hour or LAT with 10-
minute heaclways or
extend BAAT.
Add bus s8/Vice (70
buses per hour) or rail
(1o-minute headways
would be required).
TOM Solution
Increase AVA by 7% for all
trip types, or spread com-
mute to 3 hours per day.
Increase AVR by 40% Increase AVR by 40%
for aU trip types, or for all trip types, or
spread commute to 8 spread commute to
hours per day. 10 hours per day.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development in AC Reduce development
portion of TV by 9,500 as follows:
units.
Livennore: 11,000
units
Dublin: 6,500 units
Pleasanton: 6,500
units
Similar reductions in
employment.
Reduce TV jobs by
about 35.000, must
be accompanied by
simPar decreases in
TV households, San
Joaquin households,
and Bay Area jobs.
POlicy Solution
Tolerate moderate conges-
. tion, revise TOO to LOS F
no more than two hours.
Tolerate congestion,
revise TOO to LOS F
for no more than 4
hours.
Tolerate congestion.
will encourage job
development in San
Joaquin.
t Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
171
Action Plan
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version
Facility: Sycamore Valley Road
Key Locations
East of 1-680
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1,800
0.50
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
2,360
8
58
0.65
Traffic Pattern
Danville 44%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 48%
Livermore 6%
Pleasanlon 0%
Dublin 0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter-
section.
Recommended Actions
1. Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Sycamore Valley
Road. Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes al all intersections, left-turn pockets at all intersec-
tions, and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered
thaI would eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Interaectlon LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps
Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara
Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive
0.81
0.63
0.79
0.37
0.47
o
B
C
A
A
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
172
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version
Facility: Sycamore Valley Road
Key Locations
East of 1-680
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume1
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1,800
0.50
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration
, Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
Tl'8Osit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
2,360
8
68
0.65 (0.65)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 44%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 48%
Livermore 6%
Pleasanton 0%
Dublin 0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter.
section.
Recommended Actions
In order to meet the T$O requirements, the level of development that may be
approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation
improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other
jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within
their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without
violating the TSO.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 S8 Ramps
Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps
Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara
Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive
0.81
0.63
0.79
0.37
0.47
o
B
C
A
A
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
173
Exhibit 2
-re I
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: In the Metter of the Evaluation I
of the Trl Valley Transportation I
PlanlActlon Plan. 2nd Draft I
RESOLUTION NO. 94n87
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
WHEREAS. the Mellure C.1988 Growth Manegement Program (Measure C-198BI compliance
"Quirements for Regional Routes require. IIch jurisdiction to Implement specified local actions designed to
attlin Traffic Service Objectivls erSO',' in e timely manner. consistent with Idopted Action Plans;
WHEREAS. the Drift Trj Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Oraft (Dratt Action Plan).
proposes local Ictions thlt include growth controls and prohibits certain transportation improvements that.
coupled with thl Level of Service TSO's. would pl8empt locllland use decisions on proposals that Ire
currantly under review by the Board of Supervisors;
WHEREAS Measure C.1eSS compliance requirements cannot preempt local land use decisions or
require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes a lSO for Bollinger Canyon Road that is not consistent with
the minimum Level of Service standard required for development in the Dougherty Valley;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes stetements interpreting the Dougherty Valley Settlement
Agreement that are inconsistent with the interpretltion of the Board of Supervisors;
WHEREAS the Dralt Action Plan does not substantiate at thiS time that the actions it recommends
or potential Ictions. will reasonably enlure compliance with the lSD's in 2010;
WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not provide an adequate nell:us between the recommended
regional fees to be paid by new development in Contra Costa with the benefit these fees provide such
development;
WHEREAS various other actions in the Draft Action Plan do not reflect thl Board's concerns in
menaging regional traffic impacts from future growth in the lri Valley area;
WHEREAS all affected jurisdictions must agree to the actions before the Action Plans are finalized
and adopted; and
WHEREAS thil resolution does not conflict with the condition included in the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority's July 20.1994 approval on tha County's Measure C.19SS Annual Compliance
Checklist regarding the application of eena!n traffic level of service standards for intersection in Oanville and
Sin Ramon.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to support
tha following modifications JO the Dratt Action Plan;
Recommended actions for growth limits outside the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area shall be
deleted from the Action Plan:
Recommended prohibitions to roed improvements in Oanville shell be deleted from the Action PI;,n
end replaced with a process for meeting TSO's that will not impose an unwanted construction project
in Denville or preempt I::calland use decisions on proposals that ar. currently under review b~' the
Board of Supervisorl. This process for meeting TSO's should be defined u follOWS:
In order to meet the TSO requirements, the IlvII of development thllt may be
IIpproved by II 10cIII juriSdiction .hllll be consistent with the identified
transporrlltion improvements and programs for which funding is reasonllbly
assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such impr"vemenrs
and programs wirhin rheir jurisdicrion. and rhe minimum Level of Service may
then be exceeded without violating the 150.
RESOLUTION NO. 94/381.
II
II
'I
,
,
II
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
.
.
--
i~
.--
--
--
.
--
.
"
"
--
--
~
"
.
.
II
Exhibit 2
Evaluation of tha Trj ValllV Transportation
Plan/Action Plen. 2nd Dreft
Continued - Page Two
Tha T50 for Bollingar Canyon Road .hall ba consistant with tha minimum Level of Service required
for the Board of 5uper'vilors for futurl developmant in thl Ooughertv V.lleV.
Statament. in tha Action PI.n that interpret consistancy of potentiai ,citions with iha Dougherty
V.llay Settlament Agreement w" be dalatad.
Tha Action Plan Ih.1I spacify th.t tha racommandad projactl and programs In the Action ptan.re not
IJl:clusiY. action. intlndad to limit tha Icopa or nature of otner projacts or programs that do not conflict with
thl Action Plln.
Th. Action Plan Ihall lpecify whare .ppropriate that the ability of potential actions describld for
Ragional Routllto realonably meet tha TSO', hll not beln Iplcifically lubstantiated through the Tri Vall.v
Trenaport.tion Model.
Tha Action Plan ,hall provida an adlquata nexus batween .ny regionll or sub-rlgional trlnsportation
Impact fee p.id by nlw dayalopment in Contra Costa and tha benafits thesa fees provide to such
davalopmant.
The Action Plen Ihall ravise tha recommandad action No.2 for Vasco Roed as shown in th. following
Italicizad t.xt:
Oppose incranes to mlx.d.flow c.pacity or. V..co fIIo.d in A/.m,d. County.
The Action PI.n shallsp.cify th.t tha actions to ba u..d for compliance with Manur. Co, 918 shall
be only tho.. actions impl.mantld in Cant" COlt. jurisdiction. for tha purpo" to IItilfying Tflffic Service
Objectivel for Ragional Rout.. in Contra Co.ta jurisdictions.
The Action P1.n Ihall axtend the Routll of Ragional Signlflcanca dllignatlon to includa Bollinger
Canyon Road a..t of Alcol" loutaYlfd and ita futura utanlion "It of Its pr..ant terminus.
The Action Plan 1".11 .xtand the Routll of R.gional Significanca dlllgn.tion to includa the antire
Mgm.nt of Dougherty Road north of tha Alam.d. County line.
The Action P1.n Ihllladdra.. potanti.1 conflictl whir. an .ction to Sltllfy a Traffic Servlca Objlctive
causI violations In other Traffic Service Objactivel.
'ASSED by tha following vota of thelo.rd of Suplrvilors on t..... 26th day of July. 1994:
AYES: Supervisors &nith, DeSaulnjer. TodaksOtl and Pavers
NOES: Superv1sor B1shop
AlSENT: None
...IST AlN: None
I hereby cartify that tha for.golng II . trua .nd correct copy of .n order entered on tha minuta. of the Board
of Suparvilorl on tha data afor..aid.
Contact: Stlvan L. Goetz (',0/146.2134)
cc: Community Devalopm.nt Capartmant CeDO)
Trl.v.lley Trenapo".tion Council .... ceDI
Wltne,1 my hand and the Saal of tha
Doard of Sup.rvilora affi.cl)d on thil
..!!!h d.y of Julv , 1894.
Phil B.tchalor. Clark of the BOlrd of
Supervilors and County Administrator
BY' 0 ~'
Daputy C
.'_"
RESOLUTION NO. 94/.ill
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Danvllle Boulevard
Key Locations
At Stone Valley
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
2 lanes
1,100
0.61
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di.
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
2 lanes
1,100 (constrained)
20
157
0.61 (1.10)
Traffic Pattern
Danville
San Ramon
CCC
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
Through
44%
17%
16%
4%
5%
4%
10%
TOO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Action.
None. This route is directly affected by the bottleneck on 1-680. Any capacity
increases would lead to cut-through traffic.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley
Hartz Avenue and Diablo Road
Oanville Boulevard and Llvoma Road
0.82
0.38
0.76
D
A
C
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-clirection of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
176
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version
Action Plan
Facility: Camino Ta...Jara
Key Locations
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1,300
0.36
4 lanes
760
0.21
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Une.
2010 Connguratlori
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di.
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIC c:onsU'ained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,840
10
128
0.51
4 lanes
2,320
Traffic Pattern
0.64
Danville 42"10
CCC 4Q%
San . Ramon 2"10
Pleasanton 6%
Oublin 0%
Livermore 2%
CCC
San Ramon
Danville
P1easanton
Dublin
Livermore
53%
20%
18%
1%
2%
6%
TOO to be achieved
VIC < 0.90 at intersec-
tions
VlC < 0.90 at inter.
sections
Recommended Actlona
None Required.
1. An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be oon-
structed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agree-
ment Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the com-
pletion of acklitional U'affic sbJdies.This action is based on the
Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley
General Plan Amendment Specific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report. This action was agreed to by Danville, San
Ramon, and Contra Costa County in the Settlement Agreement
2. The plan should be based on land use assumptions for
TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation
service Objectives. This action is based on the Agreement to
Senle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
This action was agreed to by Danville. San Ramon, and Contra
Costa County in the Settlement Agreement.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
177
Action Plan
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Camino Ta...Jara
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
3. Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on
Camino Tasssjara. Camino Tassajara within the Town of
Oanville has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes at all Intersections, Ieft.turn
pockets at all intersections, and Caltrans standard Class II
bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate
such acceleratiOn/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes. This action
is based on the Agreement to Settle Utigation Relating to the
Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and
Environmentallmpacl Report. This action was $greed to by
Danville, San Ramon, and Contra Costa County in the Settle.
ment Agreement.
The northbound approach at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk
Road/Crow Canyon Road Intersection may be reconfigured to
consist of a 4.foot median island, two 12-1oot Ieft-tum lanes, one
12.foot through lane, one 12.foot through plus right.tum lane,
and one 12-foot right-turn lane. This requires reducing the exist.
ing median island from 12 feet to 4 feet. and reducing the exist.
ing 16.foot right.turn lane to a 12.foot right.tum lane. This can be
aocomplished within existing curb-to-curb wid\h. Atly expansion
or modifications at \his intersection shall be subject to the ap.
proval of the Town of Danville. The ToWn of Danville has sole
discretion to determine whether any widening of \his intersection
may occur to a configuration with outside curb-tlH:urb widths that
are greater than currently exist.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
Unconstrained VlC
Camino Tasssjara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon
Camino Tasssjara and Sycamore Valley Road
Camino Tassajara and Diablo
1.15
0.37
0.39
F
A
A
1.35
· Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
178
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: C.mlno T....).r.
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
"Widen Camino
T assajara to 6 lanes
Transit Solution
Add 40 buses per hour
service to Dougherty
Valley and Tassajara
Valley; must be full to
achieve TSO.
TOM Solution
Restrict DV and
TVPOA peak-hour and
peak-period trip gener-
ation to DV . n% of
normal, and TVPOA .
8% of normal.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV to 8,500
units by 2010, TVPOA
to 119 units.
POlicy Solution
. Accept LOS F at
Camino T assajaral
Blackhawk intersection
(deficiency plan re-
quired)
TSO Met
" These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between
Contra Costa County, Danville, and San Ramon, dated May 11, 1994.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
179
Action Plan
Trl.Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version
Facility: Camino Tass8j8ra
Key Locations
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East 01
Crow Canyon
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1.300
0.36
4 lanes
760
0.21
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Une.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC CX)nstrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,840
10
128
0.51 ( )
4 lanes
2,320
Traffic Pattern
0.64 ( )
Danville 42%
CCC 49%
San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 6%
Dublin 0%
Livermore 2%
CCC 53%
San Ramon 20%
Danville 18%
Pleasanton 1 %
Dublin 2%
Livermore 6%
TOO to be achieved
VIC < 0.90 at Inter- VIC < 0.90 at intersec.
sections tions
Recommended Actions
None Required. In order to meet the T80 requirements, the level of development
that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent
with the identified transportation Improvements and programs for
which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may
elect not to implement such improvements and programs within
their jurisdiction, and the minimum level 01 service may then be
exceeded without violating the TSO.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Inter.ectlon LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
Unconstrained VlC
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
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Tri.Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
at County Une
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino T assajara
(Danville)
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vIe
2 lanes
1,200
0.80
8 lanes
1,900
0.26
4 lanes
1,800
0.50
6 lanes
1,800
0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Operational improvements on two-lane section; widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road.
2010 Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,400 2,560 3,690 3,810
Transit Service (buseslhour both 4 56 12 12
directions )
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5 204 170 170
V/C constrained (before Action 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71
Plan) (unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem
Oanville 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27%
San Ramon 31 % Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25%
CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC 35% CCC 35%
Dublin 3% Dublin 1% Dublin 5% Dublin 5%
Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5%
livermore 1 % Livermore 1 % Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
Through 19% Through 0% Through 0% Through 0%
TOO to be achieved
Maximum operating V/C = < 0.90 at VlC = < 0.90 at inter- VlC . < 0.90 at intersec.
speeds within 2- intersections. sections. lions.
lane cross-section.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
181
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
at County Une
East of 1-680
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danville)
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding
for operational
improvements.
None.
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
1. Secure funding for
widening to 6 lanes.
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 pending
the completion of addi-
tional traffic studies.
1. An initial level of devel-
opment of 8,500 units may
be constructed in the
Dougherty Valley based on
the Settlement Agreement
Up to 11,000 units may be
considered pending the
completion of additional
traffic studies. This action is
based on the Agreement to
Settle Litigation Relating to
the Dougherty Valley Gen-
eral Plan Amendment, Spe-
cific Plan and Environmen-
tal Impact Report. This
action was agreed to by
Damille, San Ramon, and
Contra Costa County in the
Settlement Agreement.
2. The plan should be
based on land use assump-
tions for TVPOA that would
not result in a violation of
transportation service objec-
tives. This action was de-
veloped by the Town of
Danville. Contra Costa
County may support differ-
ent actions. This action is
based on the Agreement to
Settle Utigation Relating to
the Dougherty Valley Gen-
eral Plan Amendment, 'Spe-
cific Plan and Environmen-
tal Impact Report. This
action was agreed to by
Damille, San Ramon, and
Contra Costa County in the
Settlement Agreement.
3. Improve Camino
Tassajara Intersection (see
Camino Tassajara)
4. Oppose additional wielen-
Ing of Crow Canyon Road
within Danville.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
182
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Danville Version (Continued)
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Interaectlon LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
Unconstrained VlC
Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 5B Ramps 0.48
Crow Canyon Road and Camino T assajara 1.15
Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty 0.98
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68
Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.89
Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.79
Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta 0.82
Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63
B
A
F
E
B
D
C
D
B
1.35
I Volumes and capacity r.fer to PM peak-hour. peak-direc:tion of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
183
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Pian
Highways-Danville Version (Continued)
Key Locations
East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Une East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville)
Pot.ntlal Actions
Highway Solution 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino
Crow Canyon. Tassajara..
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 triJ>making, TVPOA to
TVPOA to 8% of nor- 8% of nonnal triJ>maklng.
mal trip-making.
Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500
8,500 units, TVPOA to units, TVPOA to 119 units
119 units in 2010. in 2010.
Policy Solution Accept LOS E at · Accept LOS F at Crow
Crow Canyonl Canyon/Camino Tassajara
Dougherty . (requires deficiency plan).
TSO mel. TSO mel.
· These potential actions violate the Town of Oanville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between
Contra C,?sta County, Danvifle, and San Ramon, dated May 11, 1994.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
184
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Hlghways-Contra Costa County Version
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Une
East of 1.-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danville)
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
2 lanes
1,200
0.80
8 lanes
1,900
0.26
4 lanes
1,800
0.50
6 lanes
1,800
0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned dlanges: Operational Improvements on two-lane section; widening to 6lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Randl Road.
2010 Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1 ,400 2.560 3,690 3,810
Tl1lnsit SelVice (buseslhour 4 56 12 12
both directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 5 204 170 170
VIe constrained (before Action 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71
Plan) (unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem
Oanvilla 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 27'% San Ramon 27%
San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Oanville 2$% Oanv~1e 25%
CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC 35% cec 35%
Dublin 3% Dublin 1 % Dublin 5% Dublin 5%
Pleasanton 10/0 Pleasenton, 0% Pieasanton 5% Pleasanton 5%
Livermore 1 % Livermore 1 % Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
Through 1Q% Through 0% Through 0% Through 0%
TOO 10 be achieved
Maximum operating V/C = < 0.90 at
speeds within 2- intersections.
lane cross-section.
V/C . < 0.90 at intersec- VlC = < 0.90 at intersec-
tions. lions.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
185
Action Plan
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Una
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danvilla)
East of 1-680
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding
for operational
Improvements.
None.
1. Secure funding for
widening to 6 lanes.
1. An Initi8llevel of devel-
opment of 8,500 units may
be constructed in the
2. An initial level of de- Dougherty Valley based on
velopment 01 8,500 units the Settlement Agreement
may be constructed in Up to 11,000 units may be
the Dougherty Valley considered pending the
based on the Settlement completion 01 additional
Agreement. Up to 11 ,000 traffic studies.
units may be considered
pending the completion
01 al;lditional traffic
studies.
In order to meet the TSO
requirements, the level of
development that may be
approved by a local jurisdio-
In order to meet the TSO tion shall be consistent with
requirements, the level the identilied transportation
of development that may Improvements and
be approved by a IocaJ programs for which funding
jurisdiction shall be con- is reasonably assured.
aislent with the identified Other jurisdictions may
transportation improve- elect not to implement such
ments and programs lor improvements and
which funding is reason- programs within their juris-
ably assured. Other diction, and the minimum
jurisdictions may elect level of service may then be
not to implement such exceeded without Violating
improvements and pro- the TOO.
grams within their juris-
diction, and the minimum
level of service may then
be exceeded without
violating the TSO.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
186
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC LOS
Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI.
Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB 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 Boule-
vard
Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta
Crow Cenyon Road and Bollinger Canyon
0.68
0.48
1.15
0.98
0.68
0.89
0.79
B
A
F
E
B
D
C
0.82
0.63
D
B
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of Ilow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
187
Tri..Valley Action Plan
Highways-Contra Costa County Version (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Une
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino Tassajara
(Danville)
East of 1-680
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
8 lanes on
Crow Canyon.
6 lanes on Camino
Tassajara.
Transit Solution
Add 40 buses per hour
service to DV and
TVPOA; buses must be
full.
Add 40 buses per hour
service to DV and TVPOA;
buses must be full.
TOM Solution
Restrict DV to 77% of
normal trip-making.
Restrict DV to 77% of nor.
mal \lip-making.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV 2010 to .
8,500 units.
Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500
units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at Crow
Canyon/Dougherty .
Accept LOS F at Crow
Canyon/Camino Tassajara
TSO met.
TSO met.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
188
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tri..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: San Ramon Valley
Boulevard
Key Locations
At Bollinger
North of Sycamore
Valley Road
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
5 lanes
900
0.25
2 lanes
1.025
0.57
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 4 lanes through Oanville; Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di.
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
5 lanes
1,000
10
84
0.28
4 lanes
1,540
437
0.43
TraffIC Pattem
Danville 11%
San Ramon 69%
CCC 3%
Dublin 11%
Pleasanton 1 %
livermore 1 %
Through 0%
Danville 55%
San Ramon 43%
CCC 1%
Dublin 0%
Pleasanton 0%
Livermore 0%
Through 0%
T50 to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at Inter- V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions
None.
1. Complete widening
, project.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
189
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Railroad Avenue 0.63
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Boulevard 0.81
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and I~O SB Ramps (Alcosta) 0.41
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 0.46
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road 0.76
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Crow Canyon Road 0.79
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard 0.60
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Road 0.45
B
o
A
A
C
C
A
A
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
190
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Action Plan
I Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
I Key Locations
Facll1ty: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta
I Existing Configuration 8 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 2,700 400
I Existing VlC 0.38 0.11
2010 Expected Network
I Planned changes: Extension east to Dougherty Road (4 lanes - 6 lanes).
I 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,200 2,820
Transit $elVice (buses/hour both di- 54 24
rections)
II Transit Ridership (peak hour) 539 550
VlC constrained [before Action Plan] 0.44 0.52
(unconstrainecl)
I Traffic Pattem Oanville 6% Daoville 4%
San Ramon 44% CCC 49%
CCC 42% San Ramon 42%
I Oublin 6% Oublin 4%
Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1%
Livermore 1% Livennore 0%
Through 0% Through 0%
I
TOO VIC < 0.90 at inter- VlC < 0.90 at inter-
I sections. sections.
Recommended Action. 1. Improve intersec- 1. Control growth
I tion of Bollinger and to meet intersec-
Sunset. tion level of selVice
standards.
2. Improve Bolling-
I ar Canyon
RoadlAlcosta Bou-
levard Intersection.
3. Complete exten-
I sion project in
conjunction with
Dougherty Valley
development.
I
I
I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 191
Bollinger Canyon Road and Sunset Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (North)
Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 sa Ramps
Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps
Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (South)
Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway
Bollinger Canyon Road and Camino Ramon
Bollinger Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon
Bollinger Canyon Road and Alcosta
1.14
1.11
0.34
0.71
0.47
0.70
0.88
0.46
0.63
1.06
I
Action Plan I
I
LOS I
F I
F
A
C I
A
B
D
A I
B
F
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
I Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
192
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road
East of 1-680
East of Alcosta
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Add free righHum
lane S8 on Sunset.
Widen intersection.
at A1costa to 6
lanes on Bollinger.
Transit Solution
16 additional peak-
hour buses; must be
full.
16 additional peak-
hour buses; must
be full.
TOM Solution
Restrict OV peak-hour Restrict DV peak-
trip generation to 77% hour trip generation
of normal. to 77% of normal.
Land Use Solution
Reduce OV 2010 Reduce DV 2010
development by 3,600 development by
units. 3.600 units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at BoI-
lingerlSunsel.
Accept LOS F at
Bollinger
CanyonlAlcosta
intersection.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
193
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
'~
Facility: Alcoslll Boulavard
Key Locations
East of 1-680
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
600
0.17
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Reconfiguration of Alcoslall-680 interchange to improve intersection operation.
2010 Connguratlon
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,600
10
65
0.44
Traffic Pattern
Danville 3%
San Ramon 38%
Dublin 28%
CCC 28%
Pleasanton 2%
Livermore 0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at intersections.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding for interchange
improvements.
2. Complete improvements at Bollinger CanyonlAlcosta.
PM Peak.Hour ~010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
A1costa Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps
A1costa Boulevard and Montevideo Road
A1cosla Boulevard and Village Parkway
A1costa Boulevard and Crow Canyon
A1cosla Boulevard and Norris Canyon
A1cosla Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road
Alcosla Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard
0.84
0.34
0.34
0.82
0.63
1.06
0.60
D
A
A
D
B
F
A
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
194
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Conti nued)
Key Locations
Facility: Dougherty Road
North of 1.580
North of
Dublin Boulevard
North of
Old Ranch Road
North of Bollinger
EXisting Configuration
EXisting Volume'
Existing VlC
6 lanes
2,700
0.50
4 lanes
1,300
0.36
2 lanes
300
0.17
2 lanes
300
0.17
2010 Expacted Natwork
Planned changes: Widening to 8 lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 4.200 2,300 3,310 2,990
Transit Service (buseslhour both 28 28
directions )
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 6n 423 679 258
VlC constrained (before Action Plan) 0.58 0.43 0.61 0.55
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 11% Danville 11 % Danville 8% Danville 22%
Pleasanton 27% Pleasanton 27"1D San Ramon 6% San Ramon 18%
CCC 27% CCC 27% Other CCC 46% CCC 39%
Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8%
Livermore 6% Livermora 6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton 9%
Through 0"10 Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3%
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter.
sections.
V/C < 0.90 at inter.
sections.
V/C < 0.90 at inter. vie < 0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure developer
funding for planned
widening.
1. Secure developer
funding for planned
widening.
1.$ecure developer 1. Secure developer
funding for planned funding for planned
widening. widening.
2. Put in place
growth controls to
insure achievement
of TSOs.
2. Put in place growth
controls to insure
achievement of
TSOs.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
195
Tri..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
PM P.ak-Hour 2010 Expected Inter.ectlon LOS Without MItigation
VlC
LOS
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road (North)
Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road
Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road (South)
Dougherty Road and 1-580 WB Ramps
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
F
E
A
A
C
E
C
Key Locations
Facfllty: Dougherty Road
North of 1-580
North of Old Ranch
Road North of Bollinger
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at
Dougherty/Dublin
Boulevard intersec-
tion, extension of
Hacienda Drive to
Windemere Parkway.
North of
Dublin Boulevard
Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade aeparation at
DoughertylBollinger DoughertytBollinger DoughertylBollinger
Canyon Road (N) Canyon Road (N) Canyon Road (N)
intersection, extension intersection. exten- intersection, exten-
of Hacienda Drive to sion of Hacienda lion of Hacienda
Windemere Parkway. Drive to Windemere Drive to Windemere
Parkway. Parkway.
Transit Solution
Increase ridership on
local route.
16 additional peak-
hour buses on Bol-
linger Canyon Road.
16 additional peak-
hour buses on Bol-
linger Canyon
Road.
16 additional peak-
hour buses on Bol-
linger Canyon Road.
TOM Solution
Increase overall A VR Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% Restrict DV to 77% of
by 5%. normal peak-hour trip of normal peak-hour normal peak-hour trip
rate. trip rate. rate.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV devel-
mont to 8,500 units in ment to 8,500 units in op-ment to 8,500
2010. 2010. units in 2010.
Restrict DV develop-
ment to 8,500 units in
2010.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at
DoughertylDublin
intersection.
Accept LOS E at
DoughertylDublin
intersection.
Accept LOS F at Ac:c:ept LOS F at
Dougherty/Bollinger DoughertylBoIlinger
Canyon. Canyon.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
196
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
I
Key Locations
I
I
Facility: TallaJara Road
North of 1-580
North of Dublin
North of Fallon
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
2 lanes
200
0.11
2 lanes
200
0.11
2 lanes
200
0.11
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard to County Une, 4 lanes
north of County Una.
I
I
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,700 3,750 2,600
Transit SelVice (buseSlhour both di- 18 20
recrions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 1.066 84 120
VlC conslralned (before Action Plan) 0.51 0.69 0.48
(unconstrained)
I
Traffic Pattem
Danville 0% Oanville 0% Oanvitle 1%
San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6%
Dublin 35% Dublin 1 35% Dublin 17%
CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleuanton 14%
Plea.santon 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58%
Livermore 10% Uvermore2 10% Uvennont 4%
Through 0% Through 0%
I
I
I
I
T$O to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter8ections.
VlC < 0.10 at inter-
sections.
VlC < 0.90 at inl8rl&Ctions.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure developer funding for 1. Secure developer fund.
widening. Ing for widening.
2. Put in place mutually agreed
and equitable multijurisdictional
growth management to insure
achievement of TS05.
3. Consider widening or ex-
panding the highway network,
improving lransit selVice, or
Improving transportation de.
mand management.
None.
I
I
I
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VlC LOS
0.76 C
0.65 B
1.05 F
0.70 B
0.84 0
I
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 WB Ramps
I Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
197
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
F.clllty: T....Jafll Road
North of 1-580
North of Dublin
North of Fallon
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at
Tussjara/Dublin intersection,
or extension of Hacienda Drive
to Windemere Parkway
Grade separation at
TassajaralOublin intersec-
tion, or extension of Haci-
enda Drive to Windemere
Parkway
Transit Solution
Increased ridership to TVPOA. Increased ridership to
TVPOA.
TOM Solution
Restrict TVPOA to 85% of its
normal trip generation, or
achieve 15% increase in aver-
aU AVA.
Restrict TVPOA to 8S% of
its normal trip generation,
or achieve 15% increase
In overan A VA.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development adjacent Reduce dtweIopment adja-
to Tassajara Road by 900 cent to Tassajara Road by
units. 900 units.
Polley Solution
Accept LOS F at Tassajara and Accept LOS F at
Dublin intersection. Tassajar. and Dublin
intersection.
TOO met
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
198
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Dublin Boulevard
West of 1-680
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1100
0.31
4 lanes
1,030
0.29
N/A
NlA
NlA
NlA
NlA
NlA
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tassajara; extension as 6 lanes to N. Canyon Parkway.
2010 Conflguratlon 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
rectiol'l$ )
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042
V/C constrained (before Action Plan) 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47
(unconatralned)
Traffic Pattem
DanvilJe
San Ramon
Dublin
CCC
Pleasanton
Uvennore
Through
2%
2%
58%
14%
13%
11%
0%
DanvUIe
San Ramon
CCC
Dublin
PIe.santon
Livermore
2% Canville
10% San Ramon
2% CCC
5'1% Dublin
9% Pleasanton
21% Uvennore
1% Danvllle
9% San Ramon
5% Uvennore
57% Dublin
4% P......ton
25% CCC
Through
1%
5%
36%
24%
13%
5%
6%
TOO 10 be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter- VlC < 0.90 at inter- VlC < 0.90 at
sections. sections. Intersections.
VlC < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Action.
1. Secure developer
funding for widening.
1. Secure funding
for wldeningl
extension.
1. Secure funding
for widening!
extension.
2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580.
1. Secure funding
'or widening!
extension.
2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
199
Action Plan
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM P..k-Hour 2010 Expected Inter.ectlon LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza
Dublin Boulevard and Regional Slreet
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive
Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway
0.85
0.56
0.73
1.12
1.05
0.90
0.93
0.82
D
A
C
F
F
D
E
o
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direclion of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
200
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Tri..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Dublin Boulevard
West of 1-680
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen Dublin Bou- Widen Dublin Bou-
levard to 8 lanes levard to 8 lanes or
or provide grade provide grade sepa-
separations at rations at
Dougherty, Dougherty,
Tassajara, and Tassajara, and
Fallon. Add HOV Fallon. Add HOV
lanes to 1-580. lanes to 1-580.
Transit Solution
Increase local bus IncreaH IoQI bus
HtVica, decrease aervice. decnNlse
headways to 5 headways to 5 min-
minutes. utn.
TOM Solution
Achieve AVR in- Achieve AVR in-
crease of about ere._ of about
15%, or ....trlct E. 15%. or Nl8tr1ct E.
Dublin trip genera- Dublin trip genera-
tion to 85% of nor- lion to 85% of nor-
mal. mal.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
201
Tri-Valley Action Pian
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Facility: Dublin Boulevard
West of 1-680
East of 1-680
Reduce E. Dublin Reduce E. Dublin
land use by about land use by about
20% overall, or 20% overall, or
combine with ra- combine with re-
ductions In DV and ductions In DV and
TVPOA. TVPOA.
Land Use Solution
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at
Tassajara and at
Fallon (requires
deficiency plan)
and LOS E at
Dougherty.
Accept LOS F at
T assajara and at
Fallon (requires
deficiency plan) and
LOS E at
Dougherty .
TOO met.
TOO met.
1 Volumes and capac:ity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-clirection of flow.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
202
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facllltv: San Ramon Road
Key locations
North 01 Dublin
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
1,200
0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VlC constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,000
4
7
0.28
Traffic Pattem
Oanville
Dublin
San Ramon
Pleasanton
livermore
CCC
Thrcwgh
5%
55%
23%
2%
10%
5%
0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 al
intersections
Recommended Actions
None.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Inter.ectlon LOS Without Action Plan
Vie LOS
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.90
San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0.45
D C
A C
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
203
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Hopyard Road
Key Locations
at Stoneridge
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
6 lanes
2,400
0.44
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening 10 4 lanes between Valley and Division.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di.
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2,400
20
78
0.44
Traffic Pattem
Pleasanton
Dublin
Oanville
San Ramon
ecc
Livermore
Through
64%
23%
1%
2%
6%
4%
0"/0
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inler-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Enforce existing
growth controls in
Pleasanton to insure
achievement 01 T80s.
2. Build adequate
Route 84 to reduce
cut.through traffic lrem
West Las Positss
Boulevard.
3. Install traffic signal
phase overlap at
HopyardIW. Las
Positss.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
204
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
vie
LOS
Hopyard Road and OWens Drive
Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive
Hopyard Road and 1-580 Ee Ramps
Hopyard Road and West Las Positas
Hopyard Road and Valley Avenue
0.85
0.58
0.79
0.91
0.66
D
A
e
E
B
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
Key Locations
Facility: Hopvard Road
at Stoneridge
Potentlaf Action.
Highway Solution
Widen Hopyard Road
to 8 lanes. Build ade-
quate Route 84 to
reduce cut-through
traffIC from West Las,
Positas Boulevard.
Install traffic signal
phase overlap at
Hopyard'W. Las
Positas.
Transit Solution
Increase local bus
ridership.
TOM Solution
Increase overall A VR
by about 2"10.
Land Use Sclution
Reduce development
in Pleasanton by
about 2%, locused on
vicinity of Hopyard
Road.
Policy Sclution
Accept LOS E (0.91)
at intersection 01
HopyardlLas Positas.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
205
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facllltv: Santa Rita Road
Key Locations
at Stoneridge
1.580 EB Off-Ramp
3 lanes
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
6 lanes
1,300
0.24
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes Irom 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road ($1.6 million), developer funding.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both direc-
tions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan) (un-
constrained)
6 lanes
2,700
6
63
0.50
3 lanes
1,231
100
0.38
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
Danville
SanRamon
CCC
Through
59%
25%
10%
0%
2%
4%
0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter. VlC < 0.90 at inter-
section. section.
Recommended Actions
None.
1. Obtain agree-
ments with Dublin
and Contra Costa
County to widen EB
off-ramp to provide
double left turn.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
206
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Action Plan
I Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
I PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VlC LOS
I Santa Rita Road and West Las Positas 0.75 e
Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue 0.75 e
Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.94 E
I Santa Rita Road and Stoneridge 0.85 D
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
I
Key Locations
I Facllltv: lanta Rfta Road al Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off.Ramp
Potential Actions
I Highway Solution Widen EB off-ramp
from 1-580 to
Santa Rita Road for
I second EB left-tum
lane.
I Transit Solution Increase local bus
ridership (how?).
I TDM Solution Increase overall
AVR by 4%.
I Land Use Solution Reduce develop-
ment in Pleasanton,
Dublin, or TVPOA
I by 4,600 units.
Policy Solution Accept LOS E
I (Vie", 0.94) at San.
ta Rita/l.saO EB
ramps intersection.
I TOO met.
I
I
I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 207
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facllltv: Stanlev Boufevard
Key Locations
at Valley Avenue
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIe
4 lanes
800
0.22
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Grade separalion at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 projecl).
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,200
4
41
0.33
Traffic Pattem
livermore 50%
Pleasanton 25%
Through 25%
oanville 0%
San Ramon 0%
cee 0%
Dublin 0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. At Valley/Stanley
intersection, widen for
Ee double Ieft.tum
lanes.
2. Reduce cut-through
traffic with adequate
Highway 84.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
208
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Wlthoul Acllon Plan
Vie
LOS
Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue
Stanley Boulevard and Main Street
Stanley Boulevard and Isabel Extension
Stanley Boulevard and Murrieta Boulevard
0.93 E
0.37 A
Grade Separation
0.74 e
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
Key locations
FeclfltV: Slanfey Boulevard
at Valley Avenue
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
at ValleylStanley wid-
en eastbound for
double left'lUm lanes.
Transit Solution
Increase local transit
ridership.
TOM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by 30% lor all trip
purposes.
Land Use Solution
Reduce Livermore
and PleasantCin devel-
opment by about
13,400 units, similar to
reduction in jobs.
PODcy Solution
Accept LOS E (VlC .
0.93) at Stanley and
Valley.
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
209
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
FaclJlty: Stonerldge Drive
Key Locations
at Hopyard
atEleharro
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
6 lanes
1,200
0.22
N1A
NlA
NlA
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension as 6 lanes to EI Charro to link with Jack London.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buse$lhour both di-
rectiOns)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
1,200
26
6 lanes
700
None
lillil
0.22
o
0.13
Traffic Pattem
Danville
San Ramon
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
ece
Through
1% Danville 0%
9% San Ramon 2%
53% Livermore 51 %
19% Pleasanton 44%
15% ecc 0%
1% Dublin 1%
2% Through 2%
TOO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter- VlC < 0.90 81 inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actions
None.
None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
vIe
LOS
$toneridge Drive and W. Las Positas
Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 SB Ramps
Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 NB Ramps
Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road
Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road
0.81
0.49
0.52
0.58
0.85
D
A
A
A
D
, Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak.hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
210
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facllltv: Sunol 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 (buseslhour both di-
rections )
Transil Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
1,320
4
23
0.24
Traffic Pattem
DanvUIe
San Ramon
PI"santon
Livermore
Dublin
ece
Through
00/.
1%
46%
33%
1%
0%
14%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions
None.
I
II
I
I
I
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Actfon Plan
VIe
LOS
Sunol Boulevard and Bemal Avenue
Sunof Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps
0.80
0.58
0.54
e
A
A
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
211
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Route 84
Key Locations
on VaDecitos
Isabel at
Jack London
West 01 1-680
(Niles eanyon)
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing vie
2 lanes
900
0.50
NIA
N1A
N1A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and upgrading Vallecilos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting and widening Isabel to 6-lane
arterial, new interchange atlsabeVI-5SO, grad~ separation atlsabellStanley.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
3,400
12
o
0.94
2 lanes
6 lanes
3,900
16
18
0.72
Traffic Pattem
eee
Livennore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Through
Oamille
San Ramon
0% Camille
80% San Ramon
3% livermore
0% Pleasanton
17% Dublin
0% eec
0% Through
0%
:!'Yo
49%
10%
9%
2%
28%
TOO to be achieved
None
Link VlC < 0.99 (no
intersections)
Intersection
vie < 0.90
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding for
widening project.
2. Adopt recommen-
dations of Tri-Valley
Subcommittee on
Route 84.
3. Seek cooperative
funding programs with
eentral Valley and
Fremont-South Bay
jurisdictions to mitigate
the impact of additional
commute traffic through
the Tri.Valley.
1. Secure funding 1. Maintain existing historic highway
for widening project. designation and function.
2. Accept LOS Eat
Jack London or
widen Route 84 to 8
lanes at Jack Lon-
don or provide a
grade separation.
3. Adopt recommen.
dations 01 Tri.Valley
Subcommittee on
Route 84.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
212
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
Vie
LOS
Isabel (Route 84) and Airway Boulevard
Isabel (Route 84) and Jack London
Isabel (Route 84) and Vallecitos Road
Isabel (Route 84) and Stanley Boulevard
Vallecltos Road and Vineyard
D
E
e
0.95
0.76
Grade separation
0.87
D
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow.
213
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
I
Action Plan I
Tri-Valley Action Plan I
Highways (Continued) I
Key Locations
Isabel at I
Facility: Route 84 on Vallecitos Jack London
Potential Actions I
Highway Solution Upgrade to I
expressway, grade
separation at Jack
London
Transit Solution Substantially in. I
creased transit ser.
vice--17 buses per I
hour, must be full.
TOM Solution Increase overall I
A VR by 30% for all
trip types.
Land Use Solution Reduce develop. I
ment in Pleasanton
and Uvermore by
about 13,400 units. I
Policy Solution Accept LOS E at
Jack London. I
TSOmel.
I
I
I
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 214 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl..Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key locations
Facllltv: Flr.t Street (Uvermore)
East of
South Livermore
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
4 lanes
1,100
0.31
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: R&C?nfiguration 01 1-580/First Street interchange to Parclo design.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (bus8$lhour both di.
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
vIe constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,200
4
53
0.33
TraffIC Pattern
eec
Daoville
San Remon
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Through
0%
0%
0%
88%
7%
0%
5%
TOO to be achieved
vIe < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding lor
Interchange improve.
ments.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIe
LOS
First Street and 1-580 we Ramps
First Street and 1-580 eB Ramps
B
A
0.61
0.59
I Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak.hour, peak-direction of Row.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
215
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
FacllltV: Va.co Road
Key Locations
N. 01 Isabel Extension
N. of 1.580
S. of 1.580
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
2 lanes
1,100
0.61
2 lanes
1,800
1.00
4 lanes
1,100
0.31
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Isabel Extension to Scenic, widening to 6 lanes lrom Scenic to Patterson
Pass: realignment and upgrade in Contra eosta eounty due to reservoir, reconstruction 01 1-5SONasco interchange.
2010 Connguratlon
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
1,500 (constrained) 2,580 3,150
18 40 28
105 158 236
1.00 (1.23) 0.48 0.58
TraffIC Pattem
Oanville 2% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 8%
San Ramon 6% livermore 73% livermore 78%
livermore 44% Dublin 5% Dublin 7%
Pleasanton 120/0 ece 4% ece 5%
cee 4% San Ramon 3% San Ramon 1%
Dublin 9% Oanville 0% DanvMIe 1%
Through 23'1ft Through 6%
TOO to be achieved None-not within TVTe VIe < 0.90 at inter. VlC < 0.90 at
control. sections. intersections.
Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for 1. Secure develop- 1. Secure devel.
safety improvements on er funding for wid- oper funding for
two-lane segment in ening. widening.
Alameda County.
2. Oppose increases to
mixed-flow capacity.
3. Support transit ser.
vice in corridor.
4. The salety Improve-
ments to Vasco Road.
while maintaining the
two-lane gateway in
Alameda County, shall
be done in a manner to
not preclude future
transit, HOV, or other
mutually agreed to
transportation
Improvements.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 216
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Interaectlon LOS Without Action Plan
vie
LOS
Vasco Road and East Avenue
Vasco Road and Isabel Extension
Vasco Road and 1-580 we Ramps
Vasco Road and 1.580 eB Ramps
0.55
0.60
0.69
070
A
A
B
B
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
217
I
Action Plan I
Tri-Valley Action Pian
Highways (Continued)
I
Key Locations
I
FacllltV: Stone Valley Road2
East 01 1-680
I
I
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
2 lanes
940
0.52
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None.
I
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
2 lanes
1,400
8
I
5
0.78
I
Traffic Pattem
Danville
San Ramon
CCC
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
Alameda Co.
44%
11Wo
24%
4%
5%
4%
I
I
I
TOO to be achieved
VIe < 0.90 at inler-
sections
I
Recommended Action.
None.
I
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected fnteraectlon LOS Without Action Plan
Vie
LOS
I
Stone Valley Road and Danville BoLllevard
Stone Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps
Stone Valley Road and 1-680 NB Ramps
0.82
0.56
0.40
D
A
A
I
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direclion 01 flow.
I Not a route 01 regional significance.
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
218
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facllltv: Fallon Road.
N. of 1-580
N. 01 Dublin
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
2 lanes
10
0.01
2 lanes
10
0.01
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension at 6 lanes from 1-580 to Tassajara Road; reconslnJctlon 01 the FallonIEl eharro
ancll-580 interchange.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes 6 lanes
2,900 2.450
4
0.54 0
0.45
Traffic Pattem
Oanville
San Ramon
cee
Dublin
Pleasanton
livermore
Through
10% Daoville 11%
5% San Ramon 9%
0% ece 1%
63"1. Dublin 55%
15% Pleasanton 12%
7% livermore 13%
0%
TOO to be achieved
VlC < 0.90 at inter. vie < 0.90 at inter-
sections. sections.
Recommended Actfons
1. Secure funding lor 1. Secure funding
widening/extension. for widening/
extension.
2. Pursue HOV lanes 2. Pursue HOV
on 1.580. lanes on 1-580.
3. Secure funding for
1-5801Fallon
Interchange improve-
ments.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
219
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected fntersectlon LOS Without Action Pfan
v/c
LOS
Fallon Road and Gleason Road
Fallon Road and 1-580 we Ramps
EI eharro Road and 1.580 EB Ramps
Fallon Road and Tassajara Road
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard
0.62
0.72
0.63
0.76
1.12
e
e
e
e
F
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
I Not a route of regional significance.
Faclllty: Fallon Road
Key Locations
N. 01 1.580
N. of Dublin
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at
Fallon Drive/Dublin
Boulevard intersec-
tion. Add HOV lane to
1.580.
Grade separation at
Fallon Drive/Dublin
Boulevard intersec-
tion. Add HOV lane
to 1.580.
Transit Solution
Add 20 buses per
hour to Fallon Road;
local service to East
Dublin.
Add 20 buses per
hour to Fallon Road;
local service to east
Dublin.
TOM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by about 25% for all
trip types.
Increase overall
AVR by about 25%
for all trip types.
Land Use Solution
Reduce East Dublin
development by 1 ,000
units or shill 1,000
units away from
Fallon/Dublin intersec-
tion.
Reduce East Dublin
development by
1,000 units or shift
1 ,000 units away
lrom FallonlDublin
intersection.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at Dub- Accept LOS F at
IinlFallon intersection. Dublin/Fallon inter-
section.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
220
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
FacllltV: North Canyons Parkway
W. of Isabel
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
4 lanes
?
?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension as 6 lanes Irom Doolan to Isabel Extension.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [belore Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
3,090
20
229
0.57
TraffIC Pattern
Livermore
Dublin
Pleasanton
eee
Danville
San Ramon
Through
58%
21"0
10%
3%
0%
3%
5%
TOO
VlC < 0.90 at inter.
sections.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure developer
funding lor
widening/extension.
2. Improve the inter-
section of N. eanyons
. Parkway and Collier
eanyon.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
vIe
LOS
1.02
0.92
F
E
North Canyons Parkway and Collier eanyon
North eanyons Parkway and Isabel Extension
1 Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
221
I
Action Plan I
Trl-Valley Action Plan I
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations I
Facility: North Canyons Parkway W. of Isabel
Potential Actions I
Highway Solution Add 2nd L T lane NB I
on Collier Canyon at
N. Canyons Parkway,
grade separation at
Isabel Extension. I
Transit Solution Increase in transit
ridership in N. I
Livermore.
TDM Solution Increase overall AVR I
by 10% for all trip
types.
Land Use Solution Decrease develop- I
mentlevels in N.
Livermore by 200
units. I
Policy Solution Accept poor intersec-
tion levels 01 service. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 222 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key Locations
Facility: I.abel extension'
N. of North
eanyons Parkway
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIC
N1A
NlA
N1A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension from 1.580 as a 6-lane/4-lane arterial to Vasco Road.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (busesltlour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
3,330
12
98
0.62
Traffic Pattem
Livermore
Dublin
Pleasanton
eec
Oanville
SanRamon
Through
61%
14%
13%
3%
0%
3%
7%
TOO to be achieved.
Vie < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actfons
.1. Secure developer
lunding lor extension.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without ActIon Plan
Vie
LOS
Isabel Extension and Vasco Road
Isabel Extension and North Uvermore Avenue
Isabel Extension and North eanyon Parkway
0.60
0.68
0.92
A
B
E
, Volumes and capacity reler to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
I Not a route 01 regional significance
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
223
I
Action Plan I
Trl-Valley Action Plan I
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations I
N.ofNorth
Facility: Isabel extension eanyons Parkway I
Potential Actions
Highway Solution Grade separation at I
N. eanyons Parkway.
Transit Solution Increase transil rider- I
ship in N. Uvermore.
TOM Solution Increase overall AVR I
by 2% for all trip
types.
Land Use Solution Decrease develop- I
menl in N. Uvermore
by 200 units. I
Policy Solution Accept LOS E at N.
eanyons Parkway I
intersection.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 224 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways
Action Plan
Key locations. -
Facility: North Uvermore'
N. 01 1-580
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
EXisting vIe
2 lanes
100
0.06
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Wiclening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to 1-1/2 miles north, 4 lanes to Isabel Extension; modify and widen
l-saD/N. Uvennore interchange.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (busesJhour both di.
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIe constrained [before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2,610
4
69
0.48
TraffIC Pattem
Livermore
Dublin
Pleasanlon
ecc
Danville
SanRamon
82%
8%
7%
2%
0%
1%
TOO to be achieved
V/c < 0.90 at intersections.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding lor
l-saO/N. Uvermore
interchange improve-
ments.
2. Secure developer
lunding for wiclening
project.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected fnteraectlon LOS Without Action Ptan
VlC
LOS
North Uvennore Avenue and Isabel Extension 0.68
North Uvennore Avenue and Portola Avenue 0.66
North Uvennore Avenue and I-saD EB Ramps 0.74
North Uvennore Avenue and 1-580 we Ramps 0.58
B
B
e
A
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direclion of flow.
I Not a route 01 regional significance.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
225
Tri-Valley Action Plan
. Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: W. Las Posit..
(PI..santon)1
Key Locations
E. of 1-680
Existing eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing Vie
4 lanes
480
0.13
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Addition of interchange at 1-8801W. Las Positas; widening to 4 lanes Foothill to Payne, widening to 6
lanes Hopyard to Stoneridge.
2010 Conflgur.tlon
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di.
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIe constrained (before Action Plan)
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,350
4
67
0.38
Traffic Pattern
TOO to be achieved
Danville
San Ramon
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
CCC
Through
0%
0%
61%
15%
10%
3%
10%
VIe < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Enforce existing
growth controls to
ensure achievement
01 TSOs.
2. Reduce through
traffic by constructing
an adequate
Route 84.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
226
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action Plan
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Pe.k.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
vie
LOS
W. Las positas and Stoneridge Drive
W. Las Positas and Hacienda Drive
W. Las Positas and Santa Rita Road
W. Las Positas and Hopyard Road
W. Las Positas and OWens Drive
0.81
0.42
0.75
0.91
0.87
D
A
e
E
D
, Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak-direction of flow.
· Not a route 01 regional significance.
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
227
I
Action Plan I
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways
I
Key Locations
I
Facility: Bernal Avenue'
E. of I..saO
I
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume'
Existing VIe
4 lanes
1,300
0.36
I
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to Valley, widening to 4 lanes Foothill to I..saO, widening to 4 lanes First Street
to Stanley.
I
2010 Connguratlon
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour bolh di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [belore Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
1,700
10
I
15
0.31
I
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
ecc
Danville
San Ramon
82%
1%
9%
6%
10/0
1%
I
I
I
TOO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
I
Recommended Actions
None.
I
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected fnteraectlon LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
Bemal Avenue and 1-680 SB Ramps
Bema! Avenue and 1-680 NB Ramps
Bema! Avenue and First
0.83
0.56
0.80
D
A
C
I
I
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
I Not a route of regional significance.
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
228
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Key locations
Facility: .lack London
at Isabel
Existing Configuration
existing Volume'
Existing VIe
NlA
NlA
N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension as 4 lanes to EI Charro linking with Stoneridge.
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseslhour both di-
rections )
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
VIe constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
1,860
None
N/A
0.52
Traffic Pattem
livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
ecc
San Ramon
Danville
54%
40%
3%
0%
. 3%
0%
TOO to be achieved
Vie < 0.90 at inter.
sections
Recommended Actions
Secure developer
funding lor extension.
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VlC
LOS
.lack London and Isabel
0.95
E
1 Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction 01 flow.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
229
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
Facility: Hacienda Drive'
Key Locations
N. of 1-580
N. 01 Dublin Blvd.
EXisting eonfiguration
Existing Volume'
Existing VlC
4 lanes
?
?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension to Gleason Drive as 4 lanes, widening to 6 lanes 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard.
201.0 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buseSlhour both di-
rections) ,
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
Vie constrained [bslore Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
3,600
4 lanes
Traffic Pattern
0.67
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
cce
Danville
San Ramon
56"10
25%
2"10
15"10
1%
1%
TOO
VlC < 0.90 at inter-
sections
R~omm.nded Actions
1. Secure funding lor
widening and exten-
sion in Dublin.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
230
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trl-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Action Plan
PM Peak.Hour 2010 Expected Inter..ctlon LOS Without Action Plan
Vie
LOS
Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EB Ramps
Hacienda Drive and 1.580 WB Ramps
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive and (Mens Drive
Hacienda Drive and West Las Positas
0.79
0.79
0.73
0.81
0.42
e
e
e
D
A
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour. peak.ctirection of flow.
I Not a route 01 regional significance.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
231
Action Plan
Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in
Chapter 5, the following TSD violations are forecast to occur:
Intersection
vie
LOS
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard
)sabel and Jack London
Isabel and North Canyons Parkway
Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp
Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road
Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road
Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road
E
F
F
E
E
E
F
E
F
F
F
0.93
1.05
1.12
0.95
0.92
0.94
1.06
0.98
1.11
1.15
1.08
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 management/control that would be required for each applicable Tri-Valley
jurisdiction in order to achieve TSD standards. Any development reduction should be
proportional to the traffic distribution percentages for each jurisdiction. Also, the impact
of this development reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed. All jurisdictions
will then review this information and know exactly how much reduction in development
or growth management/control is needed to meet the TSOs.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
232
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
This chapter describes how the Tri~Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented.
Specific topics include plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the
subregional traffic impact fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objec~
tives, and procedures for handling development applications.
Plan Adoption
As specified in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that created the TVTC, adoption of
the Tri.Valley Transportation Plan shall require the unanimous vote of all members of
the TVTC. Following plan adoption, all TVTC member jurisdictions agree to consider
the Plan when adopting or amending circulation elements of their general plans and
specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs!
While compliance with the Tri~Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) is essentially volun~
tary among the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP
become part of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program, the Contra
Costa County jurisdictions have a mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the
Action Plan for the Contra Costa Tri~Valley jurisdictions, as required by Measure C.
Thus, to maintain compliance with Measure C, the Contra Costa County Tri.Valley
jurisdictions must make a good~faith effort to implement the planned actions, or risk
losing their return~to~source funds. Compliance is tied to local implementation of
action policies as set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan.... One locality cannot be judged
ineligible for local street maintenance and improvement funds because of the unwi11~
ingness of another locality to participate in the process.
IJPA agreement included in Appendix C.
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 233
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
The TVTC has not addressed the issue of whether an environmental impact report will
be required for plan adoption. If an EIR is necessary, it should be jointly prepared by
all jurisdictions, rather than prepared individually.
Plan Financing
Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions: the subregional
transportation impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that
benefit multiple jurisdictions.
Subregional Transportation Impact Fee. The TVTP lists the full range of projects that
could be included in an impact fee program. First, the list needs to be finalized and
adopted. Next, the details of the impact fee program need to be worked out. The
following issues should be considered.
1. How many development categories and what fee for each?
2. How would the fee affect growth?
3. Are there any exempted areas or land use types?
4. When will the fees be collected?
5. When will they be spent?
6. Who will act as banker?
7. What is the priority for constructing impact fee projects?
8. Are interim fee measures needed while the above issues are resolved?
After these issues have been resolved and the program specified, each jurisdiction
needs to adopt the program.
Shared Facilities. Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the
direct responsibility of new development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared
among jurisdictions. Table 8-8 shows the jurisdictions sharing responsibility for each
of the planned improvements that will be paid for directly by developers.
For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about
cost sharing between jurisdictions. The cost. sharing approach could be based on which
jurisdiction's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the
boundaries within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should
be negotiated in advance so that when development takes place, the responsibility for
road improvements is clear.
Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
234
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives
The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While
certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to gUide the
specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP
does not control growth directly but indirectly through the TSOs. -
Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of
service are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road 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, following good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a
TSO is not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of
TVTC and SWAT. Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of TSOs, a
strengthening of actions. or a combination of these approaches. In Alameda County,
the jurisdiction with the TSO violation can elect to modify growth rates, improve the
facility. or seek a lower TSO standard through the amendment process set fort;h in
this chapter.
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 runs and should apply to mixed-flow
lanes only. The plan uses a c~pacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles
capacity for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of
congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA.
Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using
the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts.
Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the 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
Mode Split. Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through
extensive home interview and work place surveys. These data are available every
decade from the U.S. Census and periodically from MTC. In between times, transit
ridership should be monitored as a surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the
TVTP can only be met if transit ridership increases annually. The transit operators
routinely collect and report annual ridership.
Average Vehicle Ridership. This TSO relates directly to commute trips. The Bay Area
Air Quality Management District has defined average vehicle ridership (A VR) and how
it can be calculated. To calculate AVR, annual employee surveys, conducted by
employers, will be necessary. In many places these are already being done, and due to
air quality regulations, AVR will soon be annually' reported by all employers with over
100 employees. All Tri.Valley jurisdictions have trip reduction ordinances, so AVR
should be increasing in the future. Employers can take credit for shifting trips out of
the peak hour, shorter work weeks, and telecommuting in addition to promoting
ridesharing and transit usage. A VR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through
its trip reduction ordinance, or by the Bay Area Air Q~ality Management District.
Development Applications
Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis
required of new development and does not relieve the jurisdiction of meeting CEQA
and CMA requirements. This will affect both environmental impact reports and
general plan amendments. Transportation studies for development applications in the
Tri-Valley area shall assume gateway constraints described in this plan. The Contra
Costa Transportation Authority should acknowledge the use of gateway constraints in
their Technical Procedures Manual.
Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that
make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact
more than one jurisdiction. In addition to any other cumulative analysis, the cumula-
tive analysis section of each EIR should consider the Expected Land Use and trans-
portation scenario on which the TVTP is based. The CMAs are required to use ABAG
projections. The Expected Land Use scenario is greater than ABAG so it is more
conservative and should be considered consistent. Transportation impacts should be
stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transpor-
tation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent
with the TVTP network.
General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network.
which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on information supplied by the TVTC
member jurisdictions on their expected 2010 developments as of June 1994. Any
general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or
the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should
evaluate its impact on the TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
236
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the
General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the
Traffic Service Objectives. The Regional Committee will be responsible for establishing
the type and size of amendment that will require review by the Regional Committee
and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment
found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction
ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA.
Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed 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. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not
be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does
establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth
rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are 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. If the specific project or policy changes
are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action
Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to
the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action
Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate
proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and
consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment
to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
Barton-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.
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. Any 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
sections 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.
Conflict Resolution
Because of the importance of support for the Plan by all members of the TVTC, the
Council should act on a consensus basis. However, some cases may arise in which
consensus cannot be reached. In cases where conflict exists between jurisdictions
within one county, resolution should be negotiated through the forum of the Conges-
tion Management Agency for the respective county. In cases where conflict exists
between jurisdictions in different counties, resolution should be negotiated through the
TVTC with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement applying. These provisions
state the following:
1. Unanimous vote of all members required for plan adoption and amendment.
2. Unanimous vote of all members required for adoption of annual work program and
budget.
3. Five votes required for grant applications, expenditure of funds, execution of
contracts, adoption of rules of procedure.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
238
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
4. Majority vote of all members present required for action on any other matter.
Future Role of TVTC
It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Plan will rest primarily with the
individual jurisdictions. However, the plan has identified some continuing functions for
the TVTC, as follows:
. Housing and future updates of the Tri-Valley Model
e Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
e Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee
. Coordinated implementation of Actions requiring inteIjurisdictional cooperation
Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc.
239
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Description of VCCC Program
Technical Procedures
7 LEVEL OF SERVICE :METHODOLOGY FOR
INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service is the primary measure of effectiveness to be used in
evaluating traffic operations at intersections on Basic Routes. All panicipating jurisdictions
must use the adopted Level of Service methodology in developing their General Plan Growth
Management Element, monitoring of Level of Service at Reponing Intersections, and preparing
Traffic Impact Studies. If a jurisdiction elects to use another method for calculating Level of
Service. it must be used in addition to the adopted methodology described in this section.
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance may also include Level of
Service as a quantifiable measure of effectiveness for Regional Routes. In these cases. the
adopted Level of Service methodology shall also be used.
The Level of Service methodology will be used to evaluate actual signalized
intersection levels of service given traffic count data. It will also be used to evaluate future
levels of service given traffic projections. The adopted method is similar to the Circular 212
Planning Method except that through movement capacity has been incroued from 1,500
vehicles per hour to 1,800 vehicles per hour. Level of Service is calculated by critical
movement with lower capacities assumed for turning movements.
7.1 SATURATIONF1..0W RATES
The saturation flow rate is the basis for determining the capacity of an
intersection. It represents the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an
intersection under prevailing traffic conditions. The CCTA has modified the Circular 212
Operations and Design Method by assuming a saturation flow rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour.
(rather than 1.500 vehicles per hour).
Saturation flow rates were measured at four intersections in Contra Costa
County in February. 1990 to verify the appropriateness of this saturation flow rate. The
method for collecting saturation flow rate data described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
was used. The results are summarized in Table 8. Considerable variation in saturation flow
rates were observed at each intersection. The data suggested that the operations and design
capacities based on the 1,800 vehicles per hour saturation flow rate are frequently achieved
within Contra Costa County.
.:'-llp...IO
43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
t
I Technical Procedures
I
TABLE 8
I Measured PM Peak Hour Suturation Flow Rates
. Selected Intersections in Contra Costa County
t Number of Highest
Intersection Movement Samples Measured
t Treat/Clayton Left 4 1,752
LeftlThru 4 2,054
I Thru 8 2,487
ThrulRight 4 1,793
I Buchanan/Somersville Left 8 2,048
it Thru 2 2,014
I AlcostalCrow Canyon ' Left 3 2,152
Thru S 2,261
I Right 1 2,531
I BlumeIHilItop Left 4 2,084
Thru 4 1,807
I
I WEIGIITED AVERAGE Left 19 2,152
LeftfThru 4 2,054
. Thru 19 2,487
ThrulRight 4 1,793
I Right 1 2,531
Source: Patterson Associates 2190
I
I -=......10 44-
I
Technical Procedures
As indicated in Table 8. the saturation flow rates varied by movement type.
Exclusive left-turn saturation flow rates were approximately 10 percent less than those for
through lanes. Saturation flow rates for shared left and through lanes were 18 percent lower
than for through lanes. Sufficient data was not collected to provide statistical accuracy for
these averages. They were consistent. however. with the passenger car equivalent (PCE)
values adjustments provided in Circular 212.
7.2 OPTIONAL CAPACITY REDUCTION
The effect of vehicle mix. intersection geometrics and other factors on
intersection capacity is well documented. These factors. however. are not considered directly
in the Circular 212 Planning Methodology. This was why a lower capacity 0.500 vph} was
originally selected for use in Circular 212.
The CCTA methodology. which uses a higher capacity (1.800 vph). may
underestimate existing or future congestion at some locations. The reductions in the capacities
provided in Table 9 are therefore optional. provided that measurement of saturation flow rates
justify the lower capacities. Once an intersection's capacity is reduced. it cannot be increased
unless intersection geometrics are improved and higher saturation flow rates have been
measured in the field. Under no circumstances can a signalized intersection capacity above
1,800 vph be used under the CCTA methodology. Saturation flow rates must be measured
using the technique described in Chapter 9, Appendix IV of the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual. (A copy is provided in Appendix A of these Technical Procedures).
The saturation flow rates must be adjusted to establish the capacity for the
traffic movement considered. Adjustment of the saturation flow rates should be performed as
described in equation 9-1 of the 1985 HeM:
c, · $, x (~),
Where (for lane group or approach i)
c, -= capacity in vehicles per hour;
I, a: saturation flow rate in vehicles per hour;
g = effective green time in seconds; and
C = intersection cycle length in seconds.
.......10
45
,
,
I
II
I
,
,
,
.
I
I
I
~
.
t
t
f
t
f
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
Technical Procedures
7.3 SUPPLEl\1ENTALANALYSIS OF DELAY
Because the CCT A Level of Service method applies fixed critical lane volumes
unifonnly throughout the county. the method may underestimate congestion at locations with
poor geometries (older intersections with poor turning radii and small approach widths), or
overestimate congestion at locations with excellent geometries (newer intersections with ideal
conditions) and aggressive drivers. The selected method may not identify locations where
severe congestion is limited to a single intersection approach, nor does it reflect significant
peaking and congestion within the peak hour.
To address these shoncomings, the following supplemental analyses may be
performed in addition to usim~ the CCT A's method to identify congested locations:
Field measurement of delay on the congested approach or full
intersection can be collected using the methodology described in
Chapter 9, Appendix III of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
(HeM). The measured delay should be compared with those
provided in Table 9-1 of the HeM.
The summary of intersection levels of service should be supplemented to reflect
the results of the delay analyses when sig.nificant variations are found.
7.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION METHOD
Signalized intersection levels of service should be ealculated using the following
nine steps:
SfEP 1:
Lane Geometry
Identify the number and type of lanes for each approach.
STEP 2:
Intersection Volumes
Identify by counting (if analysis of existing conditions) or estimating (if analysis
of future conditions) left-turn, through, and right-turn volumes for each approach for the peak
(design) hour volumes in vehicles per hour for each peak hour. to be analyzed. In most cases,
the analysis will assess both the AM and PM weekday peak hour. For projects with peak
periods that occur during midday or on weekends, additional time periods should be analyzed.
-=1IIdifnt.IO
46
Technical Procedures
SI'EP 3:
Phasing
Identify the type of phasing (protected lefts turns, shared, or split) to be used at
the intersection.
STEP 4:
Left-Turn Check
The left turn check will apply to Level of Service calculations for future
conditions where the demand is estimated. Determination of the need for left turn phasing for
existing conditions should be made based on aeNal traffic count, left turn delay, observed
queuing and accident history data. If permissive left turn phasing is provided, a check must be
made to determine if sufficient left turn capacity if provided. The left turn capacity is the
combination of left turn made against opposing through movements and left made during the
yellow change interval.
The capacity during the yellow change interval (Ve) - the maximum numbers
of left turns that can clean in this period - equals two times the number of signal cycles per
hour. If the number of cycles per hour is not known, assume that the maximum number of left
turns that can clear the intersection in one hour equals 90.
The capacity for left turns during the green cycle (VJ - the maximum number
of left turns that can clear against opposing tnffic volumeS - is estimated using the following
equation:
VL = 1,200(~) - Yo
Where:
VL - left-turn volume, in vehicles per hour, that can clear during the green for
opposing through traffic.
G = maximum green plus yellow time. ·
C - cycle time for opposing through traffic..
Vo = sum of opposing through and right-turn volumes, in vehicles per hour.
.,~.lO
47
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
f
I
f
f
f
f
.
.
.
t
.
II
j
t
j
.
.
t
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
Technical Procedures
.
If either the maximum green time or the cycle time is
not known. use the through and righHurn volumes for
the approach divided by the number of lanes.
Add the number of left-turns calculated in the chanle interval Vc to the number
calculated in the permitted left for a total number of left.turns which can clear without a
protected left VL. If the number of left.tums calculated above (Left turn capacity) is more than
those estimated for the project. no protected left.turn phase is needed. If the number of left
turns calculated above is less than the left turn demand, operating difficulties and increasing
delays will be experienced.
STEP 5:
Adjust Turning Volumes
Two situations may require adjustment of observed turning volumes:
1. Right turns where no separate right turn lane is provided and significant
pedestrian activity exists.
2. . Left turns where no separate left turn lane is provided.
The PCE adjustments recommended in Circular 212 (see Appendix A of the
Technical Procedures) should be used. If the VCCC model is used. adjustments to the turn
volumes should be made prior to entering into the program.
STEP 6.
Calculate Volume.to.capacity Ratio by Movement
The volume.to.capacity ratio of each of the 12 individual movements and any
combined movements of the intersection are calculated as follows:
to
Right turn volumes from exclusive right turn lanes are adjusted for right turns
on red by the non--conflicting left turn volumes with a minimum reduction of 90
vehicles per hour. (Non--contlicting left turns go concurrently with the right
turn. For example. the nonooeontlicting left turn for the northbound right turn is
the westbound left turn.)
to
Determine the capacity of each movement and eact. combined movement from
Table 9.
-=......'0
48
Technical Procedures
.. Calculate the volume.to.capacity ratio for each movement and combined
movement by dividin, the adjusted volumes by the capacities. For combined
movements, use the combined volumes divided by the combined capacities.
TABLE 9
Lane Capacitiesl
Lane Type 2.Phase 3.Phase 4 + .Phase
Exclusive Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650
Shared Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650
Dual Turn Lanes:.3 1,636 1,564 1,500
Triple Turn Lanes2.. 1,565 1,496 1,435
2
Capacities for sin,le lane. If multiple lanes are provided, capacity in the table is
multiplied by number' of lanes to obtain total capacity for movement ,roup.
Can include one shared lane (e.g. one exclusive left, plus one shared throu,h left is
considered dual turn lane).
Assumes 45%-55% lane split.
Assumes lane use 159'0 hi,her in the most used lane.
,
.
STEP 7:
Determine Critical Volume.to."Capacity Ratios
Determine the highest total conflicting vOlume.to.capacity ratios for both the
north.south and east.west directions. For a non.split phased direction, the highest total of the
righHurn or the through (or through plus righHurn if no exclusive righHum lane exists) plus
the opposing left.turn volume.to.capacity ratios are chosen. For a split phased direction, the
highest volume.to--capacity ratio from each of the approachs is chosen. Free right turns are
Dot included in the calculation since they are not under signal control.
Circular 212 does not clearly indicate how the critical movements are to be
selected for single lane approaches (that is, when all rilht, left and thru movements are made
from single approach lane). Under the Circular either the approach with the highest volume or
both approaches could be designated as the critical movement. As p~ of the Level of Service
method adopted by the CCTA, however, both approaches should be considered critical
movements.
.,~.IO
49
.
,
,
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
III
III
II
III
-'
-'
'-
III
III
III
'-
Technical Procedures
STEP 8:
Sum the critical volume.to.capacity ratios for each approach.
STEP 9: Compare the sum of the critical volume-to-capacity ratio with
the ranges in Table 10 to determine the intersection Level of Service.
TABLE 10
LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
f
Sum of Critical V IC
S 0.60
0.61 .0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.80 .. 0.90
0.91 .. 1.00
> 1.00
a:~.IO
so
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B I
Comparison of Total Growth I
Through 2010 to I
Net New Growth
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--..-
I
I J: N
~~ 8 0 Lt) ~ N ~ ~ .....
~ co Lt)
O!. ..... Q) ..... M N
C) ..... uS g <It[ sf ~
I .....
'"
I ~ ~ 0 N 0 M Lt) co 0 co
~ & ..... ..... co .....
~ ~ 0 ..... .....
G.l co ..... t.ri' uS gf
> ..... .....
~ ... J:
~l ~ N ~ co ,.... ~ ~ m
0 Lt) m
I C1. Lt) ..... M (")
N uS uS <It[ Fj ~ as
..... N .....
.....
I .c
-
~
e
I CJ
.
:! J:
~~ ,.... R ~ &i 'It re i ~
I ! ~ ~ at
t.ri' cwi ,.... &t') ~
..... - .....
.e en
I ~
0 1
,... ~ ~ 8 ~ N ~ N 0 ~
,.... N
~ J 0 ...... - ~
N N ..... N ..... 0
I .c -
C)
::a
E ... J:.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ,.... .... - 2 ~ 0
I ~ ~ - i
&t') -
~ C') N uS cwi 0 ,..: ~ 0
- - ..... - N
.c g
I i 0,
~ 0)-
e 0)G.l
~ -.!!
CJ 0 ~ E!
<.> g~ !
- ~ s
I tV 0
~ 8 <.> t~ , ~
-! 'C
f!:! ~ en
'0 'I:
I C ~g~ .i2.
8 cu
c <( :::)C')Q) >.
uS"- Ji
0 -g -g 'E N ~ ~
0 e e cuocu
0- c: c: E: --2 I
I ,... ... ~ 'C
.tV .2 ~ ~ ! ~ -g,Scu I-
me.. :g :g ~ cu ~ ~ 11.!S!~ ~
.!!E ~ .~ a: E: ~ .n-!o
E: :5 G.l Cij ~~ ~
.t:Io :::J cu cu 'S :::) ..w .~ '2: ~
I ~o ~ 0 (J) ::> 0 a.. ...J ::> ... N '"
I
I Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. B-1
I
I
I
I
,
I
Appendix C I
Joint Powers Agreement I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF
I ..,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRNVILLE
ID:5108380360
JRN 12'95
9: 4 9 t~o. (lel 1 F'. (11
- rL
/---' .- -, -"', "'f
(_ ''>/ ~L:~/)
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BY AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, COUNTY OF CON'rnA COSTA,
TOWN OF DANVILLR AND CITIES OF DUBLIN, LIVERMORE
PLEASANTON AND SAN RAMON
1. Parties. This Joint Powers Agreement, dated March 1, 1991, for the purpose
of reference only, is entered into pursuant to Government Code section 6502 by and among
the following public agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the
Town of Danville, the City of Dublin, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton and the
City of San Ramon (hereafter referred to as "Parties" or "Party").
2. Recitals. Each Pany to this Agreement is a puhlic agency duly authorized and
existing under the law of the State of California. The County of Contra Costa, the Town
of Danville and the City of San Ramon are sitllnted within the houndaries of the County of
Contra Costa. The County of Alameda, the City of Dublin, the City of Livermore and the
City of Pleaganton are situated within the boundaries of the County of Alameda.
The area commonly known as the "Tri. Valley Area" encompasses the Town of
Danville, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon and portions of the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa immediately adjacent to the cities and town.
Page 1 of 11
Phlll1" /I
FSK'
FOK /I
/. ~.'l/) . /
TO~N..OF DRNVILLE
ID:5108380360
JRN 12'95
9:49 NO.001 P.02
The parties hereto recognize that (Idequate transportation planning is essential to the
orderly development of the Tri. Valley Area and that review and coordination of planning
and implementation of transportution facilities in the Tri- Valley Area is to the benefit of
all parties hereto and their constituents.
3. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint
preparation, including sharing of costs, of a transportation plan nnd to provide a forum for
the review and coordination of planning and implementation of transportation facilities in
the Tri. Val1ey Area. By entering into this Agreement. the parties do not intend to create
an agency or entity separate from the Parties to the Agreement and no provision of this
Agreement should be so construed.
4. Tri- Valle~ 1:ransportation Council. The administration of the activities calIed
for in this Joint Powers Agreement is delegated to and vested in the "Tri.Valley
Transportation Council" ("Council"). The Council shal1 he comprised of one memher of the
board of supervisors and city or town council of the respective Parties to this Agreement,
to be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the respective board or council. Each member
of the Council shall have one vote. One member shall be elected hy the members of the
Council annually to serve as chairperson and one memher shall be elected annually to serve
Page 2 of 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN ,OF DRNV 1 LLI:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lU:::>lU~j~UjbU
JHN 1.::' ;1:>
:1.:>1...1 l~lI.I...IUl r.'.':'
as vice~chairperson. Each city or town council and board of supervisors may appoint an
alternate who may vote in the nbsence of the designated voting member. The meetings of
the Council shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act,
Government Code sections 54950 et seq, A quomm of four members shall be required to
transact any business hereunder.
The Tri- Valley Transportation Council is authorized and directed, on behalf of all
Parties, to perform all acts nccessnry or desirable to execute and administer this Joint
Powers Agreement including, but not limited to; selecting and retaining a consultant to
prepare a transportation plan and related environmental documents; authorizing, evaluating
and monitoring the expense of preparation of the transportation plan; and other actions
consistent with those specified in this Agreement.
In particular, the Tri- Valley Transportation Council:
3. may review and provide comments to any Party's proposed general plan
amendment or specific plan, when regional or subregional transportation issues are involved;
b. shall review and provide comments regarding any proposed new
freeway, expressway, arterial, transit project or major intersection improvement of regional
Page 3 of 11
TOWN ,OF DANV I LLE
ID:5108380360
JAN 12'95
9 : 5 0 ~~ 0 . 0 0 1 F'. CJ 4
or subregional significance to be located in the Tri- Valley Area;
c. shall, upon 'unanimous vote of all members, select nnd retain a
consultant to prepare a transportation plan (referred to herein a5 the "Tn-Valley
Transportation Plan") 35 specified in paragraph 5 helow, nnd assess the costs of the
consultant among the Parties;
d. may seek, on behalf of the Council, a Party or Parties, funding from
Federal, State or local sources for transportation planning, facilities, improvements, projects
and/or operations which nre consi5tem with the Tri. Valley Transportation Plan; and
e. may serve as a forum for the resolution of transportation-related
disputes between the Parties.
5. Trl.Val1~y TransportCltion Plan. The Tri.Valley Transportation Plan and
related environmental documents shall be prepnred by a consultant selected by the Council.
At a minimum, the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan shall identify current and future needs
for transportation facilities and programs in the Tri~ Valley Area and current and anticipated
future deficiencies in such transportation facilities and programs. "Transportation facilities
and programs" include freeways and freeway interchanges, expressways, arterials, major
Page 4 of ]]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF ,DANVILLE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ID:5108380360
. JAN 12'95
9:51 No.G01 P.OS
intersections of regional or subregional significance and public transit such as light rail.
Adoption or amendment of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan shall require the unanimous
vote of all members of the Council. Following its ndoption, the Parties agree to consider
the Tri. Valley Transportation Plan, when adopting or amending circulation elements of their
general plans and specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs.
6. Rescission 01 MOO. The Parties hereto are parties to a Memorandum of
Understanding, effective May 23, 1989, entitled "Tri-Valley Transportation Planning
Program," which established a Tri-Valley Transportation Council. By entering into this Joint
Powers Agreement. the Parties hereto agree to rescind and terminate the Memorandum of
Understanding and the Tri- Valley Transportation Council created by that Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Administrative Services. There shall be a technical adviSOry committee
("TAC"), made up 01 one staff member from each Party, with one staff member serving as
chairperson. It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the T AC to provide
administrative services as necessary to the Council, such as preparation of agendas for
Council nnd TAC meetings. The chairperson shall rotate annually among the parties.
Page 5 of 11
TOWN OF DANVILLE
ID:5108380360
JAN 12'95
9:51 NO.OOI P.OG
8. Contract of Administration. The Council shall select one Party as Contract
Administrator. The Contract Administrator, who shall be a TAC representative, shall be
responsible for payment of consultant services required by the Council. The Contract
Administrator shall prepare regular written reports to the Council and the T AC on the
status of consultant services. Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Contract
Administrator shall be reimbursed equally by all other Parties.
9. Accountin2 Services. The finance Director of one of the Cities, as designated
annually by vote of the Council, ("Finance Director") shall provide accounting services for
all payments and receipts required by the terms of this Agreement, and shall be responsible
for the safekeeping of all funds paid by or to the Parties to this Agreement. The Finance
Director and the Contract Administrator shall be staff members from the same Party.
Reasonable nnd ordinary expenses inclIrred by the Finance Director in providing accounting
services shaH be reimbursed equally by all other Parties.
10. f..ayment for Expen~es. Each Party to this Agreement shall:
a. Pay, upon demand of the Finance Director. its "appropriate share" of
all expenses incurred in the performance of activities called for by this Agreement. The
"appropriate share" of each Parly shall be an equal amount of all expenses.
Page 6 of 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OFDRNV1LLE
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1D:5108380360
JRN 12'95
9:52 NO.001 P.O?
b. All bills and invoices for expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement
shall be directed to the Finance Director, who shall calculate the amount owed hy each
Party under the formula set forth in subparagraph a. above, and shall bill each Party
accordingly. All bills shall be paid by each Party upon demand.
c, . The Finance Director shall demand advance payment by the Parties of
the estimated costs of preparation of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan. All such advance
payments will be retained in a separate account by the Finance Director and interest earned
on such funds shall be used to reduce proportionately the Partie~' contrihutions.
11,
Vote ReQuired.
a. A unanimous vote of all Parties shall be required for adoption of the
annual work program and budget.
b.
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, five votes shall be
required for:
i)
ii)
Grant applications;
Expenditure of funds;
Page 7 of 11
TOWN .OF DRNV1LLE
JRN 12'95
9:52 NO.OOI P.08
1D:5108380360
iii) Execution of contracts; and
iv) Adoption of policie!;, rules of procedure and other operational
matters of the Council and staff.
c. Any abstention from voting by any member shall be construed as a "yes"
vote on a particular matter.
d. A majority vote of those present and voting shall be required for any
other action not specified above.
12. Amendment. This Agreenlenl may be amended at Rny time upon the written
approval of all Parties to the Agreement.
13. ~j)tices. Except where this Agreement may specifically provide otherwise, any
notices to be sent to any Party shall be directed to the office of the city manager or county
administr~tor of the Party, with copies to all other city managers and county administrators.
14. )'crmination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate as to nny or all
Parties upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions:
Page 8 of 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.OWN OF DRNVILLE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1D:5108380360
JAN 12'95
9 :52 No .001 F' .(I~i
a. Ninety (90) days' prior written notice of termination by any Party given
to the chairperson of the Council; provided. however, that the terminating Party shall be
liable for its appropriate share of any expenses incurred up to the date of termination.
b. Automatically, upon the failure of any Party to pay its appropriate share
of expenses within 60 days of date of invoice.
c. Mutual written agreement by all Parties hereto.
15. Di!\position of Funds Unnn Termination. Any funds remaining with the
Finance director, including any interest earned on such funds, upon termination of this
Agreement by all Parties shull be returned to each Party in proportion'to the contrihution
of each Agency.
(Continued on next page.)
Page 9 of 11
TOWN OF DANVILLE
ID:5108380360
JAN 12'95
9 : 53 No. (I Ci 1 F'. 1(1
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall hecome effective upon the date
of execution of the last signatory hereto.
Dated; J~d~ /"/9'
Approved as to Form:
yzZP
City Counsel
Dated: /)1/Jl2t'~/ 1/ /9 ()(---
/
Dated: S-1-1..d~ / / / '1 (II
Approved as to Form:
.4-~~ ~
./
Attest:
)h~~.~~.~
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
~~-
'rom Powers, Chairmnn
Board of Supervisors
TOWN OF DANVILLE
(--; ~c..;U0~'./""'J-
Millie Greenberg, Mayor
Aut ,/ .
- L f.;J{Utt A'Y)~
I
(~ill'l"l"r~s rOlllin..erl nn ne~l pille.)
Page 10 of 11
TOWN OF
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
^ll~
7Y1M,aJ~
Page ] 1 of 11 .
DRNVILLE
ID:5108380360
Dated:
3/I/q/
.
Approved as to Form:
1}p~/( ?/~}; l~ 0'
Dated: ~~ /'1, /11/
Dated:
~ II fq I
Approved as to F~~m~ 0
'/VvJJuuJ !f(~
Dated: 3 - I ..-: /' I
d as to Form:
~0.
01.23.91
jpaagrm
JRN 12'95
9:53 NO.OOI P.II
,.,.-
A12{orcJ( [cL
CITY OF LIVERMORE
&~c> (~~"J
Cathie Brown, Mayor
Attest:
~~~
CITY OF P EASANTON
eM )JU./lA~
Ken Mercer, Mayor
@~d1/
CITY OF SAN RAMON