HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 089-98 T V T D Fee Attach ATRI-VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION PLAN/
ACTION PLAN
FOR
ROUTES OF
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Prepared for
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Prepared by
Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee
in conjunction with
Berton-Aschman Associates, inc.
July 1995
ATTACHMENT
.Contents
Chapters
Poge
2
4
5
~'~-ting Tranapo~ Conditions
Chapter
Tra~¢ Volumes and Capacity aa
Freeway Levels off Service
Intersection Levels of Service
Tri.Valley Bicycle Network
Trau~t
Trip Reduction
Trip Iteducti~a/Trav~ Demand Manasement Ordinance~
Exist/ag Mode Split
Existing ~ravel Patterns
Goals and Transportation Serv/c~ Object/yes
Baseline Forecasts
Chapter
Land Use Fm-ecasU~
Traff~ Forecasts
Intersect/on Levels of Service
Travel Pattern
Mode Split
Expected Forecasts
Chapter
Land Use Forecasts
Network A~ump~ions
Trm~6c Forecasts
Travel
Intersection Levels of Service
Transit R/deep
xiv
1
11
11
20
20
2~
29
~5
36
38
41
41
49
49
55
61
61
?1
gao
63
8"/
97
Contents
Chapters (Continued)
Page
7
8
10
Plan Alternatives
Chapter Summary
Maximum Highway Investment
Maximum Transit Investment
Land Use Opportunities
Plan Evolution
Recommended Improvement Plan
Plan Overview
Road Improvement Plan
Critical Regional Projects
The Tr~n.~it Plan
Freight Transportation
Financial Plan
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Private Funding
Potential Future Funding Sources
Potential Future Transportation Projects
Detailed Finance Plan
Action Plan
Actions of Regional Significance
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
Plan Adoption
Plan Financing
Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives
Development Applications
Amending the Plan
Future Role of TVTC
Appendices
Appendix A: Description of VCCC Program
Appendix B: Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to Net New Growth
Appendix C: Joint Powers Agreement
98
98
99
99
110
114
117
118
128
128
137
140
141
141
143
144
153
154
155
160
160
161
220
220
221
222
223
225
226
Contents (Continued)
Tables
ES-1
Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and
Available Funding
2-1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance
2-2 Level of Service Definitions
2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis
2-4 Bus Service in the Tri-Valley Area
2-5 Jobs-Housing Balance
4-1 Baseline Growth Forecasts
4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour
4-3 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts)
4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips
(Baseline Foreasts)
5-1 Tri-Valley Growth Forecasts
5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements--Expected System
5-3 Year 2010 PM Peak:Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spresding
5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour
5-5 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-I-580
(PM Peak Hour)
5-6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses--
1-680 (PM Peak Hour)
5-7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges--I-580
(PM Peak Hour)
5-8 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges--I-680
(PM Peak Hour)
5-9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership
6-1 Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network
6-2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network
6-3 Growth Management Options
6.4 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Potential Alternatives
6-5 Consensus Alternative for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements
8-1 Alameda County Tier i Projects in Tri-Valley
8-2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley
8-3 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and
Available Funding
8-4 Required Subregional Tr~.~portation ImPact Fee
8-5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects
8-6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee
8-? Cost Estimates for Second Priority Regional Projects
8-8 Finance Plan--Tri-Valley 2010 Planned Network
Page
21
25
26
34
36
43
54
58
60
63
64
71
84
93
94
95
96
97
102
107
111
115
116
131
142
143
147
150
151
152
154
156
Contents (Continued)
Figures
Page
E-1 Study Area
E-2 Plsnned Transportation Network
1-1 Tri-Valley Subareas Used in This Report
1-2 Routes of Regional Significance
1-3 Metropolitan Transportation System (1VITS) and
Congestion Management Progrsm (CMP) Routes
2-1 Existing Lane Configurations
2-2 Ex/sting Daily Traffic Vol-roes
2-3 Existing Congested Locations
2-4 Existing Bikeways
2-5 Proposed Bikeways
2-6 1990 Total Trips by Type PM Peak Hour
4-1 Baseline Assumed Road Network Changes
4-2 2010 Daffy Traffic Vol-roes--Baseline Forecast (ABAG '90)
4-3 Baseline Forecast Year 2010 Peak-Hour Overcapacity l.lnlr.~
4-4 2010 Total Trips by Typo PM Peak Hour
5-1 Expected Tr2n-~portation Network
5-2 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak Hour Traffic Demand
(No Gateway Constrnlnt)
5-3 Example of Gateway Peak Spreading
5-4 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand
(No Gateway Constrsint)
5-5 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand
(With Gateway Constrslnt)
5-6 Year 2010 Expected Forecast Peak-Hour Overcapacity Roadways
With Gateway Constraint
5-7 Expected NetworkmInterchange Configuration
6-1 Maximum Highway Network--Changes From Baseline Network
6-2 Congested Roadways With Maximum Highway Alternative
6-3 . Maximum Tr~n-~it Alternative--Priority Express Bus Network
6-4 Maximum Tr~n.~it Alternative--Intercity/Commuter Raft
6-5 Congested Roadways With Maximum Transit Alternative
6-6 Congested Roadways With Zero Growth Land Use Alternative
7-1 Planned Tr~n.~portation Network
7-2 Park-and-Ride Lots
vii
xi'
3
5-
9
12
18
23
30
32
37
48
50
52
59
69
72
74
76
81
88
100
103
105
106
108
112
129
138
Exhibits
Projections '92 Forecast for Year 2010 Households and EmploYment in
Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections '90
Forecasts
4*
394-TIP/651193.90100
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-I. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning
through 2010, this doc,,ment represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Siguifi-
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-¥alley work was overseen by the Tri-¥alley 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 findings:
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 vi
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
= Routes of Regional Significance
Danville
Figure E-la
STUDY AREA
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(Not
LEGEND
,,, = Routes of Regionol $ignificonce
Dublin
rOLA AY
SCHOOL RD
II I
,vermore
MST AY
CONCANNON ~L
Pleasanton
NILES CAN)ON RD
Figure E-lb
STUDY AREA
Executive Summary
1. .Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion.
2. Transit use is relatively Iow--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 out-commuting.
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,
staff used the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and
alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were f~rst 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 (I-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 w/thin the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided r_~mp
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 ix
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 Plan
The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were
the basis for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all
traffic congestion in Tri-Valley. Levels of service on some arterial segments and on
freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E.
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 ai1 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 initia-
tives may or 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.
The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. 'Gate- '
ways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri-Valley to adjoini_~ng 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 x
Barton-^schman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
= Number of Freeway Lanes
= 6-Lone or 8-Lane Arlerial
IIIIII1= 4-Lone Arterial - other streets
ore 2-Lanes
O Improved Interchange
(Not to
Danville
Figure E-2a
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~A~4Y SCHOOL RD
Dublin
8+HAY
AV
BL
LEGEND
= Number of Freeway Lanes
~ 6-Lone or 8-Lone Arterial
! ! I ! ! ! !- 4-Lone Arterial - other streets
ore 2-Lanes
O= Improved Interchange
N/LES CANYON RD
Pleasanton
6+HAY
PLANNED
Figure E-2b
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Executive Summary
Transportation 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
servide objectives on routes of regional significance or risk the loss of return-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 or 0.91) 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 1-650 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. 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 measur-
able improvements to TSOs on the Routes of Regional Significance network and contrib-
ute 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.
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:
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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 xiii
Executive Summary
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-l). Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about
82,800 per dwelling unit and 86 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space.
This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees
are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 xiv
Table ES-1
Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding
Estimated Cost
(millions of current
dollars at Major Funding Amount of Funding
Project time of construction) Sources Available (millions)
Unfunded
Amount (millions)
1-580/I-680 Interchange
Route 84
(includes interchanges at 1-580
and Stanley)
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes
(Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
BART Extension
(2 stations; East and West
DublirYPleasanton Station)
1-580 HOV Lanes (Tassajara to N.
Livermore)
1-680 HOV Lanes (Route 84 to
Sunol Grade)
Ramp Metering
1-580/Foothill Interchange
Alcosta Interchange
Crow Canyon Road
Safety Improvements
Vasco Road Realignment
Express Bus Service
Total
$94.9 Measure B $89.3
$200 Measure B, MTC $63
Livermore, Others
$37 Measure C $10
$537 $510
Measure B
State, Local
Caltrans
$37 -- 0
$14.4 -- 0
$2o,5 Caltrans
$2 --
$11.3 --
$10.32 Measure C
$25
$16.2
$1,005.6
$20.5
S0
$0
S1.7
SO
o
$694.5.
$5.6
S137
$27
$27
$37
$14.4
SO
S2
St~.3
S8.6
$25
$16.2
$311.1
This table is preliminary in nature. The project list is subject to further discussion at the TVTC.
Assumes that one-half the cost will be paid by Area 4 (Tri-Valley) and one-half the cost by Area 3.
Introduction
The purpose of the TrioValley Transportation Plan is to assess transportation issues
within the Tri-Valley 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 Measure 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 regula, tions that exist in each jurisdiction or between
jurisdictions.
The plan was overseen by the Tri-Valley 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 Tri-Valley Transportation Model (TVTM), which was
developed by Barton-Aschman and TJKM and approved by the TVTC for transportation
planning. The zone structure for the Tri-Valley 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. Alsmeda County does not have a similar
Action Plan requirement. Nevertheless, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda
Final Tri-ValleY Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 I
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 Progrsm. 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, Trafl3c Service Objectives 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.
o
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.
All localities will agree to the actions before the Plans are finalized 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.
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 TSMJTDM measures, or phasing of development
relative to infrastructure improvements.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 2
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Alamo
CCC
Other CCC
·Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville
San
Ramon
Dougherty
Valley
Other CCC
Tassajara Valley
co~TM-
Figure ! - ! a
TRI-VALLEY SUBAREAS
USED IN THIS REPORT
· Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Other AC
Dublin
East Dublin
N. Livermore
Livermore
Pleasanton
Other AC
Figure 1 - ! b
TRI-VALLEY
SUBAREAS USED
IN THIS REPORT
BartOn-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
= Routes of Regiono( Significonce
Danville
REGIONAL
(Not to
Figure 1-2a
ROUTES OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(~Vot to Scale)
LEGEND
= Routes of Regionol Significonce
SCHOOL RD
Dublin
LO~ON
AV
vermore
EAST AV
CONCANNON ~
pleasanton
NILES CANYON RD
Figure 1-2b
ROUTES OF
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Introduction
Two other regional systems have been designated in the Tri-Valley. These are described
briefly below.
Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes
These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the
state-mandated CMP. In the Tri-Valley,. they include only 1-680, 1-580, and Route 84. The
respective county CMP's are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri-Valley
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-Valley 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 major 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 o£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 (NITS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) 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 NItS 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 7
*gl
Introduction
Figure 1-3 shows the MTS and NHS routes in the Tri-Valley area.
Relationship to County Plans
The Tri-¥alley Action Plan will be combined ~vith 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 8
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
San
LEGEND
= MIS Route
m m m i I I i = MTS & CMP Route
(Not
Figure 1-3o
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (MTS) AND
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (CMP) ROUTES
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Dublin
BL
STONERiDGE OR
PKWY
JACK
E~T AY
LEGEND
-- UTS Route
Illllll= MTS & CUP Route
Pleasanton
AV
Figure 1-3b
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (MTS) AND
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (CMP) ROUTES
11
Existing Transportation Conditions
Chapter Summary
· Tri-¥alley is relatively tree of congestion. Some occasional congestion occurs on the
freeways, especially near the 1-580/I-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.
· 1-680 and 1-580 are major regional highways serving substantial regional demand.
Each has 15 to 20 percent through trafSc.
· This chapter describes the existing transportation systems within the Tri-¥alley 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 ¢I-580) is au eight-lane east/west freeway designated as a route of regional
significance through the Tri-¥alley 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 locations.
11
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
8 = Number of Lanes on
Routes of Regional Significance
Danville
4
2
\, San
'\ Ramon
2
4
EXISTING
LANE
Figure 2-1a
CONFIGURATIONS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
SCHOOL RD
I
Co~t?
~.. ~o$~° ~''
8
Dublin
BL
~ TONERIDG£
EASt
LEOEND
= Number of Lanes on
Routes of Regional Significance
Pleasanton
C~)NCANN()N Iff
NILES CANYON RD
Figure 2-1b
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS
Existing Transportation Conditions
1-680 is a six-lane north/south freeway through the Tri-Valley area. 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 Vallecitos 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 Portola Avenue, First Street is a six-lane road. From
Portola 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. Vallecitos Road is a two-
lane winding, rural road that passes through mostly undeveloped farm land and hills.
Routes of 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 Tesla 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 of 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 S~reet 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 14
Existing Transportation Conditions
residential land uses. South of Junipero Street. Sunol Boulevard narrows to two lanes
with no median.
Santa Pdta 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-lane 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 E1 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 P~mon 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 15
Existing Transportation Conditions
Boulevard, San Ramon Road has four lanes ~ith 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 off-ramps where it becomes four lanes; Land'use along Tassajara
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, D0ugherty 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-la.ne 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 ~lefined 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 Tassajara 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 Significance in San Rarnon 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,
defined 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 Valley, Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended east to intersect Dougherty
Road.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' 16
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 Significance in Danville Area
Camino Tassajara 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 VaI]ey 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 of Danville 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 nortbJsouth 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 south of Las
Trampas Road. At E1 Cerro, Danville Boulevard widens to four lanes with parking on both
sides and bike lanes.
San Ramon Va/~ey 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
Traffic 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 (Al)T)
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
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 17
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
k San
"x Ramon
\
300
EXISTING
DAILY
TRAFFIC
Figure 2-2a
VOLUMES
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(Not to
. ~'t~o ~-' Coo
,, L,u_...- - -
~ I MAt' SCHOOL RD
Dublin
146,000'
DUBJ. IN Bi. ~
POR~OLA AV
Li ~ ~,
vermore ~
CONCANNON BI.
AV
PleasanLon
NILES CANYON RD
12,500
Figure 2-2b
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
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 ADT 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/I-680 interchange and
the Santa Rita Road/Tassajara 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/I-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-/on-rsmps were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level o£Serv~ce 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 LOS F, or highly congested
conditions with long delays at the intersection (see Table 2-2).
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 20
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-1
Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance
Existing
Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT
Typical Capacity Range~
.(in thousands)
Livermore
Vasco Road 2 13,500 17-20
Stanley Boulevard 4 24,300 27-36
Pleasanton
First Street (north of Neal)
Sunol Boulevard (south of Bemal)
Santa Rita Road (north of Las
Positas)
Main Street (north of Rose)
Hopyard Road (north of Owens)
Division Street
Stoneridge Drive
west of 1-680
east of Santa Rita Road
Dublin
San Ramon Road
north of Amador Valley
south of Dublin Boulevard
Dougherty Road
north of Dublin Boulevard
south of Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
east of 1-680
west of 1-680
San Ramon
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
north of Alcosta Boulevard
north of Crow Canyon Road
Alcosta Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road
2 18,500 15-20
4 17,700 27-36
6 27,900 40-56
2 9,800 12-17
6 43,000 40-56
2 6,900 12-17
6 29,000 40-56
4 17,000 27-36
4 23,600 27-36
6 48,600 40-56
4 21,400 27-36
6~ 44,200 40-56
4 24,000 27-36
4 32,100 27-36
2 12,100 12-17
4 21,300 27-36
4 24,600 27-36
6 36,400 40-56
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 21
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance
Existing
Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT
Typical Capacity Range~
.(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
Danville
Camino Tassajara
Sycamore Valley Road
Hartz Avenue
Danville Boulevard
'San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Crow Canyon Road
State Route 84
First Street
north of Portola Avenue
north of Holmes Street
Holmes Street
Vallecitos Road
Niles Canyon Road
4 18,000 27-36
4 18,900 27-36
2 10,400 12-17
4 18,700 27-36
2 12-17
6 18,000 40-56
6 27,200 40-56
4 12,700 27-36
4 23,000 27-36
2 11,000 12-17
2 12,500 12-17
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 22
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
San
LEGEND
=='="=~=~ = Overcopacity Link
O =
LOS E of F Intersection
Figure 2-Sa
EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEOEND
~ = Overcapocity Link
(Not to Svol~)
= LOS [ of F Intersection
~MAy SCHOOL RD
Dublin
rOLA Av
S [ON[RIDGE
-- °' Livermore ~
EAST AV
pleasanton
CONCANNON Bt
Av ~
-- EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS
· Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-2
Level of Service
Definitions
Level of
Service Interpretation V/C Ratio
E
A Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single Less Than 0.60
signal cycle.
B Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is 0.60-0.70
fully utilized.
C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approach- 0.71-0.80
es.
D Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersec- 0.81-0.90
tion functional. Cars required to wait through more than
one cycle during short peaks· No longstanding queues
formed.
Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on
critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if
traffic signal does not provide for protected turning move-
ments. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections(s)
upstream of critical approach(es).
F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. 1.00 and Greater
0.91-0.99
A signalized intersection's level of service_ can be calculated with a number of methods.
For this study, a inethod based on critical movement analysis, called the VCCC method
was used. VCCC stands for Volume-to-Capacity Contra Costa County. See Appendix A for
a full description of the VCCC program. This method 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 V/C ratio of each critical movement at an intersection is
used to produce an overall intersection V/C ratio also taking into account signal phasing.
The overall V/C ratio is then correlated 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 Vasco/I-580 EB Off-Ramp (LOS F). During the PM peak hour three
intersections operate at Level of Service E or F: Vasco/I-580 WBOff, Vasco/I-580 EB Off,
and Danville/Stone Valley.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 25
'Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-3
Existing (1990) InterseCtion Level of Service Analysis
AM Peak
City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS
PM Peak
V/C LOS
Dublin
Livermore
Pieasanton
Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A
San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.49 A
San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.38 A
Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.51 A
Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A
Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A
Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.24 A
Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.46 A
Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.22 A
Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.26 A
Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.25 A
Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.53 A
North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.35 A
North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.44 A
Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.80 C
Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.89 D
Murrietta Blvd Jack London 0;37 A
First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.74 C
East Vailecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.75 C
Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.42 A
North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A
Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 1.09 F
Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.23 A
Vasco Road East Avenue 0.81 D
Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.54 A
North Mines East Street 0.47 A
First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.77 C
Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A
Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.53 A
Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.56 A
Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.36 A
Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.75 C
Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A
Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.67 B
Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.43 A
0.50
0.87
0.58
0.71
0.68
0.84
0.72
0.39
0.50
0.58
0.36
0.15
0.50
0.21
0.78
0.87
0.39
0.81
0.86
0.97
0.86
0.93
0.25
0.53
0.50
0.58
0.64
0.56
0,27
0.69
0.45
0.56
0.53
0.66
0.51
A
D
A
C
B
D
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
C
D
A
D
D
E
D
E
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 26
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-3
Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued)
AM Peak PM Peak
City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS
San Ramon
Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.41 A 0.49 A
Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.55 A -0.65 B
Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.24 A 0.40 A
First/Sunol Bemal Avenue 0.51 A 0.50 A
1-680 SB Off Bemal Avenue 0.36 A 0.40 A
1-680 NB Off Bemai 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
Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.60 A 0.70 B
First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.65 B 0.70 B
Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.23 A 0.34 A
Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.57 A
1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.34 A 0.36 A
1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.33 A 0.31 A
Foothill Road Dublin 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
San Ramon Valley Bollin.ger Canyon 0.46 A 0.50 A
Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.18 A 0.31 A
1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.52 A 0.40 A
San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.51 A 0.87 D
Atcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.46 A 0.61 B
AIcosta 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
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 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.42 A 0.76 C
1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.77 C 0.56 A
Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.20 A 0.24 A
1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.67 B 0.87 D
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 27
Existing Transportation Conditions
Table 2-3
Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued)
AM Peak PM Peak
City - N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS
Danville
Unincorporated
CCC
San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.37 A 0.77 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 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.53 A 0.45 A
Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.64 B 0.83 D
Diablo Road El Cerro Road 0.46 A 0.44 A
1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.53 A 0.47 A
1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.54 A 0.59 A
1-680 SB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.47 A 0.55 A
1-680 NB Off El 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
Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 0.77 C 1.08 F
1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.49 A 0.59 A
1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.53 A 0.46 A
1-680 NB Off' Livoma Road 0.41 A 0.31 A
1-680 SB Off Livoma 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 majority 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
proved by the TVTC in February 1992.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 28
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 Hayw'ard 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-Valley 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, fixed-route, and dial-a-
ride bus service in the suburban portions of Contra Costa County. Three routes serve the
Tri-Valley 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-Valley, 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 2-4 briefly describes the bus routes serving the Tri-Valley.
Trip Reduction Programs
The Tri-Valley 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 29
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
!
LE(;END
m I~==~ I=,~ = Class I
~=~11~11~ = Class II
~'=-I~" = Class III
(Not to
Danville
~a13.
)
JOHNS10?~J~''~
EXISTING
Figure 2-4a
BIKEWAYS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
iliili -- Class I
I~llI=~ll = Class II
(Not to Sea[e) ~ll==iIIli = Class III
DUblin
S TON£RIDG£
Pleasanton
JACK LONDON:
POR)OLA AV
vermore
F. AS! AV
,11-
AV
CONCANNON gL
NILES CAHYON RD
Figure 2-4b
EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., , ,
LEGEND
mmEmEm : Existing
aim mm = Class I
mllmllmm = CIoss II
mm=,mll"-- = Closs III
(Not
RI)
Danville
,1
! ! !
Figure 2-5a
PROPOSED BIKEWAYS
Il
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
m[mm[m = Existing
mel~lem = Class I
~4lammflk~ = CIoss Ill
Dublin
CANYONS PKWY
STON6RIDGE DR
JACK LONDON
SI'ANL£Y
PleasanLon
CONCANNON 01
SCHOOL RD
AV
NILES CANYON RD
Figure 2-5b
PROPOSED BIKEWAYS
Table 2-4
Bus Service in the Tri-Valley Area
Operator/
Route # From
To
Approximate Headways
Monday-Friday' Saturday Sunday
CCTA-County Connection
121 Walnut Creek BART
122 Lafayette BART
NLNK
LAVTA-Wheels
I Hacienda Business Park
2 Pleasanton
3 Vintage Hills, Dublin
4 Pleasanton
5
6
10
Hacienda Business Park
Lawrence Livermore National Labs
11
12
14
16
Springtown
Las Positas College
Pine Street
BART-BART Express
U
UX
UL
UP
D
DX
Hacienda Park-n-Ride
Hacienda Park-n-Ride
Lawrence Livermore National Labs
Hacienda Business Park
Stoneridge Mall
Hacienda Business Park
Stoneridge Mall
Bishop Ranch
Stoneridge Mall
Dublin
Amador Lake, Pleasanton
Stoneridge Mall
Stoneridge Mall
Stoneridge Mall
Valley Memorial Hospital
Granada High School
Arroyo Road/Superior Drive
Hayward BART
Bayfair BART
Bayfair BART
Bayfair BART
Walnut Creek BART
Walnut Creek BART
30 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
30-minute peak
60-minute off-peak
30-minute peak
60-minute off-peak
30-minute peak
60-minute off-peak
30 minutes
20-minute peak
30-minute off-peak
60-minute evening
30 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
30 minutes
30 minutes
30 minutes
20 minutes
30-minute peak
60-minute off-peak
60 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
30 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
50-60 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
50-60 minutes
Existing Transportation Conditions
B~hop Ranch
The Bishop Ranch Business Park operates a shuttle that provides t~vo 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 (commercial/retail 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 carpool/vanpool
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 WHEELStthat 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 Dearer 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
CMP 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' $5
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-¥alley 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 major 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 major destinations are again other Alameda County cities and other Contra Costa.
County cities.
Table 2-5
Jobs-Housing Balance
Employed Residents 122,882
Jobs 111,651
Source: ABAG Projections '90.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 36
Source:
mmmm_
1990
~NT£RNAC TO EXTERNAL
(~o.~.) -x
Figure 2-6
TOTAL TRIPS BY
PM PEAK HOUR
r,~ER~ TO ,~rER,~ (2.2~)
TYPE
INTER/ON,. TR~P$
(57.a~.)
TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TO,
OTHER BAY*
CENTP~4.L VALLEY
CLARA CO
(a.sz)
OTHER CONT.~. COSTA CO.
(36.?Z)
(38.0%)
OTHER ALAMEDA CO.
TRIPS
CE~'~. VALLe'
TO TRI-VALLEY
FROM,
OTHER CONTRA COSTA CO.
S~NTA CLAR~ CO.
(~x.~:)
Tri-Volley
Tropsportation Model
OTHER ALMIEDA CO.
(42.8~.)
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 mobility
· Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use
· Provide adequate transportation systems to support land use plans
· Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, community
character and other environmental factors
· Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced
mobility.
According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the
specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are
quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating
transportation system effectiveness.
No one jurisdiction's actions can assure that traffic service objectives on Regional
Routes will be met. Compliance will be determined on the basis of participation and
implementation of Action Plans. The following are requirements for a jurisdiction to be
considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes:
· Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans.
· Local implementation of actions consistent with adopted Action Plans.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 38
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies
(e.g., requiring'payment of fees br participation in the TSNUTDM program).
Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans.
· Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA (for Contra
Costa County jurisdictions).
Preliminary TSOs were presented to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in
February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved
by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved TSOs. One or
more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs.
Link Levels o£Service (LOS). Maintain LOS no worse than E (V/C = 0.99) on freeways
and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy
condition, 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 o£ Congestion. 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 o£$ervice. Maintain LOS no worse than D (V/C = 0.90) for signal-
ized intersections during peak hours wh~re the standard is now being met. Achieve
LOS D by 2010 at locations not currently in compliance. The methodology is the VCCC
program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw
model output turning movements. Under current conditions, only three of the study
intersections violate this standard.
Tri-Valley Gateways. 1-580, 1-680, and Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San
Ramon) and rosco 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.)
Average Vehicle Ridership (AVl{). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for
commute trips by 2010. This 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 AVR = 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 AVR for all employers, large and small, by 10 percent.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 $9
Goals and Transportation Service Objectives
Transit Travel Times. Express transit options should be provided that equal or better
auto travel times in the major corridors (I-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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 40
Baseline Forecasts
Chapter Summary
· Baseline forecasts representing ABAG Projections '90 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 reflect discussions with
local staff. The overall total dwelling units and jobs projections for the Tri-Valley 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-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) believes that the "expected land use" scenario provides a better basis for the
development of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan recommendations. The TVTC
defined their expectations for land use and network projections, which are presented
in Chapter 5.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 41
Baseline 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-¥alley 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 I991 Regional Transportation Plan 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/I-680 interchange, and
widening of Route 84. Also in the catego~,y of regional improvements, the 2010 network
included the extension of BART service to East DublinfPleasanton.
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
42
Table 4-1
Baseline Growth Forecasts
Dwelling Units
Area 1990 2000 2010 Buildout
Employment
1990 2000 2010 Buildout
Alamo/Blackhawk 5,998 7,696 7,696 7,696
Danville 10,999 14,748 14,748 14,748
San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,884 15,884
Dougherty Valley 101 1,561 6,095 9;601
Tassajara Valley 119 745 2,688 4,869
Other Contra Costa County 474 474 474 474
Central Dublin 6,129 6,358 6,358 6,358
East Dublin 50 3,647 10,187 19,328
West Dublin 849 1,849 2,849 4,182
Pleasanton 19,724 24,392 28,333 28,542
Pleasanton Ridge 17 716' 2,524 2,524
Central Livermore 20,635 24,387 26,130 26,130
North Livermore 129 1,630 12,952 20,105
South Livermore 112 326 1,883 1,889
Other Alameda County 52 51 858 858
Total 78,554 104,464 139,659 163,188
1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613
6,005 8,012 8,012 8,012
27,679 36,314 44,179 45,309
0 0 1,000 1,500
31 31 31 31
90 90 90 90
12,451 12,759 12,759 12,759
455 5,227 11,406 40,841
291 446 446 446
28,363 47,264 .58,186 64,568
0 50 50 50
30,503 43,561 58,015 101,545
335 654 2,319 14,278
2,689 3,252 3,636 4,826
1,144 1,144 1,144 1,!4_4
111,649 160,417 202,886 297,012
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, based on ABAG Projections '90.
Table 1
ProjeCtionS 92 Forecast for Year 2010 Households end Employment In Trl-Valley Jurisdictions,
Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections §0 Forecasts
Exhibit 1
ABAG City or
Subregional Area/
Planning Area
1990 Base Estimates
From the CCTA LUIS
Households Employees
1990 Base Estimates
From Projections 62
Households Employees
Year 2010 Projection
From Projections O0 [1]
CCTA Final 2010 Forecast
(Projections 60 Constraint)
Houeeholdl Employees Householdl Employeel
Year 2010 Projection -
From Projections 92 [2]
Households Employees
Danville 10,999 6,006
11,477 7.610 16,635 13,061 14,746 6,012 17,070 9,130
San Ramon
· Central San Ramon 13,176 27,679
Do ugherly Valley 101 0
Sublolal 13,277 27,679
Alamo/Otackhawk 5,988 1,613
Not separately Not separately 15,664 44,179 Not separately
repay/ed mpo#ed 6,095 1.000 reported
12,592 29,470 21.566 42,662 21.979 45,179 17,500 52,950
6,559 2,790 6,295 6,318 7,696 1,613 9,340 3,510
Unlnc. Tfl-Velle¥ (CCC)
TessaJara Vallsy Not shown
Other Unlncolporated here
Subtolal
Not separately Not separately Not shown Not separately
repo~fed reported here reported
Dublin
Cenbal Dublin - 6,129 12.451
East Dublin 50 455
West Dublin 849 291
Sublolal 7,026 13,197
Not separately Not separately 6,356 12,759 Not separately
:epofled Mpofled 10,167 11,406 reported
2,849 446
6,904 13,380 15,265 22;655 19,394 24.611 24,060 44,990
Pleasanlon
central Plaasanlon 19,724 26,363
Pleasanlon Ridge 17 0
Subtotal 19,74 i 29,363
Not separately Not separately 26,333 66,186 Not separately
~epo~ted mpmfed 2,524 50 reported
19.111 31.030 34,670 56,866 30,667 56.236 30.090 58.360
Uvermore
Central Uvermore 20,635 30,503
South Llvarmoro 112 2,681)
North Uvem',ore 129 335
Sublotal 20,876 33,527
Unlnc. Trl-Valley (AC) Not shown here
Urbanized Td-Valley 77,90g 110,384
Not separately Not separately 26,130 56,015 Not separately
repo,/ed repealed 1,663 . 3,636 reported
12,652 2.319
20,975 23,770 41,105 59,610 40,966 63,670
Not separately Reported Not separately Repo~fed Not shown here
35,670 48,220
Not ~separately Report~l
77,618 100.150 137.536 201,592 135,639 201.621 135.730 217,150
(1l Data shown rsprasenb ABAG's revised unofficial Projectlm.J 90 data for 2010. Data for urdncerpomted areas which are parians of "Remainder' data are not shown hem.
12] Data shown represents ABAG's July 1062 release el Projections 92 forecasts for 2010. AOAG has made a recession update of Projections 92, currently In pre~.
Source: Projections 92. Projections 90, ABAG; Td-Valley ludsdlctJons; Eoonondc & Ptennlng Systems, Inc.
Economk4PJ~nni~Sysf~m&l~... I ~.,~2 H:IgI4TRIVAtDATAtFORECALCICOMPtONU. XL8
Table 2
Differences between Projections 92 Year 2010 Forecast for Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, and
CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts
ABACi City or
Subregional Area/
Planning Area
1990 Base Data
ProJ. ~ - CCTA LUIS
HoUseholds Employees
Danville 478 1,005
San Ramm
Central 8an Ramon Not separately
Oouoherly Valley reported
Sublolal -685 1,791
Alemo/Blacldmwk 571 1,177
Unlnc. Td-Valley (CCC)
Tas~aJam Valley Not shown
Other Unlncoq)orated here
Subtotal
Dublin
Central Duldin Not separately
Easl Dublin rep<xfed
Wesl Dublin
Subtotal -124 183
Pleasanlon
Cefllral Pleeeanton Not separately
Pleasenton Ridge reported
Subtotal .630 3,567
Uvem~ora
Genbal Uvofmmo Nol separately
South Llvermoro reported
No~t Uvermore
Subtotal 99 -9,757
Unlnc. Trl-Valley (AC) Not shown here
Urblnlzed Td-VMley -291 -1,234
Projections 92 Difference
From :CCTA LUIS for 1690
Households EmplOyees
Year 2010 Projection
Prol. 92 - Proj. 60.
Households Employees
4% 30%
Year 2010 Projection
ProJ. 92 - CCTA LUIS
Households Employees
Projections 92 Difference
From CCTA LUIS for 2010
Households Employees
Not separately
reported
435 -3.931
2,322 1.116
i4%
Not separately
reported
Not separately
reported
-5% 6% .4,066 10,068 -4,470 7,771
10% 73% 1,045 -2,808 1,644 1,897
Not shown
here
Nol separately
reported
-20% . 17%
21% 118%
Not separately
reported
Notshown
here
Not shown
here
Not shown
here.
-2%
Not separately
reported
-3%
Notsepa~te~
reported
8,795 22,335
Not separately
reported
4,666 20,379
Not separately
repo~ed
24% 83%
13%
Not separately
reported
0;/.
Not shown here
Not separately
reported
-4,580 1,464
Not separately
reported
-767 114
Not separately
repofled
*2% 0%
Not separately
reported
-5,435 -11,590
Not shown hera
0% '1% -3,806 15,558
Source: PfoJeclion~ 92, Prolectk~s 90. ABAG; Td-Valey jurisdictions; Economlo & Planning Systems, Inc.
ENmomlc ~ Plannk~ Systems, Inc.
Not separately
reported
-5,295 -15,750
Not shown here
-1,909 15,529
Not separately
reported
'-13% . -25%
Not shown here
-1% 8%
Table 3
Projections 92 Forecast for Year 2000 Households and Employment In Tri-Valley Jurisdictions,
Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts
ABAG City or
Subregional Area/
Planning Area
1990 Bass Estimates
From the CCTA LUIS
Households Employees
1990 Base Estimates
From Projections 92
Households Employees
Year 2000 Projection
From Projections 90 [1]
Households Employees
CCTA Final 2000 Forecast
(ProJ.e.otlone 90 Constraint)
Households Employees
Year 2000 ProJecllon
From Projections 92 [2]
Households Employees
Danville 10.996 6,005 11,477 7,910 16.073 tl.053 14,746 6,012
16,270 6.950
San Ramon
Central San Ramon 13,176 27.679 Not separately Not separately 15,664 36,314
Dougherty Valley 101 0 reported reported 1,561 0
Subtotal 13, 277 27,679 12,592 29,470 19,235 35,468 17,445 36,314
Alamo/Blackhawk 5,988 1,613 6,559 2,790 7.671 5,432 7,698 1,813
Uninc. Tri-Valley (CCC)
Tassalara Valley Not shown Nor separately Not separately Not shown
Other Unincorporated hera reported reported here
Sublolal
Dublin
Central Dublin 6,129 12,451 Not separately Not separately 6,356 12,759
East Dublin 50 455 reported reported 3.647 5,227
West Dublin 849 291 1.649 446
Subtotal 7.028 13,197 6.904 13,380 '" i0,935 17,875 11,864 18,432
Not separalely
reporfed
5.1 g0 40,040
8,290 3,070
Not separately
reporfed
Not separately
reporfed
12,230 26,520
Pleasanlon
Central Pleasanton 19,724 26,363 Not separately repelled Not separately 24,392 47,264
Pleasanton Ridge 17 0 reported 716 50
Sublolal 19,741 26,363 19,111 31,630 25,213 45,551 25,108 47,314
Not separately
reported
23,700 45,120
Llvefmora
Central Llvermora 20,635 30,503 Not separately Not separately 24,387 43,561
South Llvermore 112 2,669 reported reported 326 3,252
North Uven'nora 129 335 1,630. 654
Subtotal 20.676 33,527 20,975 23,770. 25,650 44,690 26,343 47,467
Uninc. Td-Valley (AC) Not shown here Not separately Reported Not separately Reported Not shown here
Uit)anlzed Td-Valley 77,909 110,384 77,616 109,150 103,777 160,269 103,194 159,162
Not separately
reported
· 26,410 35,200
Not separately Rapo~fed
101,170 166,903
[1] Date shown fa'present! AOAG'I revised unofficial Pmlectk)ns g0 data for 2000. Data for unincO;TX)rated areas which are podlons of 'Remalndeg, data ere not shown hem.
[2] Data shown represents ABAG'9 July 1962 releae,e of Projections 92 forecasts for 2000. ABAQ has made a recession update of Projections 92, CUfTently in praM.
h:t 1074~.DAFA t~cX~CAtCtFr~L ICO~/~OO~.XL~
II '11 n · · · · · - ·
I
I
]
Table 4
Differences between Projections 92 Year 2000 Forecast for Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, and
CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections 90 Forecasts
ABAG City or
Subreglof~al Ama/
Planning Area
1990 Base Data
.ProI. 9a- pro, l. 9o
Houllholdl Employeee
Projections.92 Difference
From Projections 90
Households Employeel
Year 2OOO Projection
ProI, 92 - Prol. 90
H°uaaholdl Employeel
Year 2000 Projection
ProJ. 92 - CCTA LUIS
Houleholde Employees
Projections 92 Difference
From CCTA LUIS for 2000
Households Employees
Danville 476 1.606 4% 30% 197 -2,103
San Ramm
Central San Ramo~ Not separately Not separately Not separately
Doughelty Valley reported reported __ reported_ .........
Sublolal -665 1,791 -5% 6% -4.045 4.572
AlamoA~lackhawk 571 1,177 10% 73% 6'19 -2,362
Unlnc. Td-Valley (CCC)
Tasealare Valley Not shown Not shown Not shown
Other Unincorporated here here here
Subtotal
Dublin
Cenl~al Dublin Not separately Not separately Not separately
Easl Dublin reported reported reported
Wesl Dublin
Subtotal .124 183 -2% I% 1,296 e,645
Pleesenton
Center Pleeeenton NOI separately Not separately Not separately
Pleesentm Ridge reported reported reported
Subtotal -630 3,567 -3% 13% -1,433 -431
Uvefmofe
Central I.Ivermore Not separately Not separately Not separately
Soolh Uvermore reported repoded reported
North Uvermore
Subtotal 99 -9.757 0% -29% 760 .9,690
Urdnc. Td-VallW (AC) Not shown hera Not shown hare Nol shown here
Urbanized Td-Valley .261 -1,~34 0% -1% .2,607 -1,369
522 936
Not separately
reported
-2.2,65 3,726
594 1,457
Not shown
hera
Not separately
reported
376 8,066
Nor separately
reported
-1.326 -2.194
Not separately
reported
67 -12.267
Notshown here
-2,024 '-252
4% 12%
Not separafely
~ eporfod
-13% 10%
8% 90%
Nolshown
here
Not separately
reported
3% 44%
Not separately '
reported
-5% -5%
Not separately
reported
0% -26%
Not shown here
-2% 0%
$ourcel 'Projections 92, Prolectlorm 90, AOAG; Td-Vdey Jurisdictions; Economic & Plamlng Systems, Ino.
Emnon~ & PMmi~ Sv~ter~. In~. 1~. ~
H 19f4TRIVA~P4T,41FORFC4! C1C(*)MPf~PT Xl S
,Aschman Associates, Inc.
~ 4
Danville
Dublin
2
(6)
Roman
2(6)
14(6)
(Not to Settle)
4 ~
LEGEND
O = Improvement
Interchoncje
eee#eeeeee = BART Extension
· = New Interchange
I IIIIIII I = Rood Widening 2000
.... Rood Widening 2010
~ = Rood Extension 2000
...... Rood Exlension 2010
X(X) = i~ of Lanes 2000(i~ of Lanes 2010)
2(4)
(6)
,.,,': 4
Pleasanton
(4)
4
(4)!
Figure 4-1
BASELINE
ASSUMED ROAD
NETWORK CHANGES
I I ~ I I i I I }, ,1[
Baseline 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).
If th~se 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 effects 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 ba~ed 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.
~ Fina/Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 49
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
t
San
43,100
~Not to Sonic)
Figure 4-2a
2010 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
BASELINE FORECAST (ABAG '90)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Dublin
203,000'
STONER~DGE DR
18,600
N. CANYONS PKWY
JACK LONDON
~.~oo
g
PORTOLA AV ~
Livermore
~ CONCANNON B[
AV
Pleasanton
N[ES CANYON RD
Figure 4-2b
2010 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES -
BASELINE FORECAST (ABAG '90)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
LOS E F Intersect. ion
0~'
~ = Overcapacity Link
(Not to Scale)
Danville
San
Ramo
Figure 4-3a
BASELINE FORECAST
YEAR 2010 PEAK HOUR
OVERCAPACITY LINKS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
= LOS E or F Intersection
~ ,- Overcopacity Link
~~Y SCHOOL RD
Dublin
PK~
POR~OLA AV
Livermore
F_.AS! AV
CONCANNON gL
Pleasanton
Figure 4-3b
BAGELINE FOFIEOAST
YEAR P-O10 PEAK HOUR
OVERGAPAGITY LINKS
Table 4-2
Baseline Intersection Level of Service AnalysismPM Peak Hour
Existing
2000
2010
City N/S Street E/W Street ViC LOS
V/C LOS
VIC LOS
Dublin
San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D
San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A
Village Parkway Amador Valley 0,71 C
Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B
Dougherty Road Dublin BoulevarD 0.84 D
Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C
Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A
Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A
Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0,58 A
Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A
1.06
0.66
0.80
0.74
0.99
0,91
0.60
0.72
0.97
0,39
F
B
C
C
E
E
A
C
E
A
0.98
0.69
0.95
0.51
1.63
1.28
0.95
0.97
0.56
0.36
E
B
E
A
F
F
E
E
A
A
Livermore
Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B
North Livermore Podola Avenue 0.50 A
North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A
Murrietla Bird Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C
Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 D
Murrietta Blvd Las Positas 0.39 A
First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D
Vasco Road .I-580 WB Off 0.97 E
North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A
Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E
Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A
Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A
Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.50 A
North Mines East Street 0.58 A
First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B
0.71
0.62
0.74
0,79
1.01
0.54
0.50
1.30
0.74
1.25
0.78
0.66
0.68
0.53
0.93
C
B
C
C
F
A
A
F
C
F
C
B
B
A
E
0.47
0.65
1.35
0.97
1.09
0.55
0.64
1.29
1.33
2.32
0.85
0.56
0.84
0.46
1.07
A
B
F
E
F
A
B
F
F
F
D
A
D
A
F
Table 4-2
Baseline Intersection Level of Service AnalysismPM Peak Hour (Continued)
Existing
2O00
2010
City N/S Street E/W Street VIC LOS VIC
LOS
V/C
LOS
Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.82
Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.86
D
D
0.84
0.74
D
C
Pleasanton
Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B 0,81
Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.86
Tassajara Road 1-580. WB Off 0.56 A (].73
Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A 0.74
Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0,66 B 0.75
Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.71
Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.63
Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.81
Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40 A 0.44
First/Sunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.62
1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40 A 0.36
1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.70
1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.46
1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.48 A 0;69
Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.88
First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.70 B 0.80
Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.38
Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57 A 0.83
1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.36 A 0.51
1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31 A 0.54
Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.70 B 0.90
East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86 D 1.07
Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.81
Stoneridge Drive West Les Positas 0.31 A 0.60
D
D
C
C
C
C
B
D
A
B
A
B
A
B
D
C
a
D
A
A
.D
F
D
A
0.98
0,97
0.95
0.67
0.87
1.09
0.76
0.91
0.45
1.03
0.34
0.74
0.44
1.41
1.09
0.85
0.43
1.04
0.59
0,52
0.98
1.12
1,05
1.08
E
E
E
B
D
F
C
E
A
F ,
A
C
A
F
F
D
A
F
A
A
E
.F
F
F
Table 4-2
Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour (Continued)
Existing
2000
2010
City N/S Street .E/W Street V/C LOS
V/C LOS
V/C LOS
San Ramon
San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0,50 A
1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0,40 A
Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0,61 B
Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0,55 A
Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0,71 C
San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0,49 A
1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0,65 B
1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0,57 A
1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0,76 C
1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0,56 A
Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0,24 A
San Ramon Valley 1-680 SB Off --
Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0,31 A
1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0,87 D
0.43
0,48
0,78
0,87
0,56
0,60
0,85
0.65
0,39
0,63
0,67
0,30
0,93
A 0.58 A
A 0.57 A
C 0.81 D
D 1.49 F
A 0.77 C
A 0.88 D
D 0.56 A
B 0,68 B
A 0.52 A
B 0.73 C
B 0.91 E
d.65 B
A 0,25 A
E O,78 C
Danville
San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0,77 C
1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.66 B
Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.35 A
Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0,45 A
1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0,45 A
Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0,83 D
Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0,37 A
Diablo Road El Cerro Road 0,44 A
1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0,47 A
1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0,59 A
1.04
0.54
0.69
0.50
1,13
0,84
0.62
0,63
0.74
F 1,15 ' F
A O.72 . C
B 0.73 C
A O.56 A
0,58 A
F 1.15 F
D 1.00 E
B 0.61 B
B 0,64 B
C 0.78 C
Table 4-2
Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour (Continued)
Existing 2000 2010
City N/S Street E/W Street VIC LOS
V/C LOS
VIC LOS
1-680 SB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A
1-680 NB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.50 A
1-680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A
1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A
San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A
Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajam 0.37 A
0.80
0.72
0.52
0,51
0.85
0.85
C
C
A
A
D
D
1.18 F
0.66 B
0.48 A
O.88 D
1.10 F
1.00 E
Uninc. CCC
Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 1.08 F
1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.59 A
1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.46 A
1-680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A
1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A
1.15 F 1.24 F
O.59 A 1 .O8 F
0.55 A O.56 A
0,52 A' 0.48 A
0.51 A O.88 A
Baseline 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-Valley~s existing Pattern of net out-
commuting.
Table 4-3
Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts)
Year Jobs Workers
1990 111,651 122,882
2000 160,420 167,826
2010 202,887 221,431
Figure 4-4 shows that the traffic 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 Ir580 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 58
2010
Figure 4-4
TOTAL TRIPS BY
PM PEAK HOUR
C,~--'~L ro ,~rr~~~_ (4.2%)
(17.6%)
TYPE
~ ~q*ERNAL TO E,.'FFERN, At
( ~ ~.~.) -~
~NTERI~a~. TRJP$
(62.oz)
TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TO,
OTHER CONTP~ COSTA CO.
CENT*R, ac VALI. E~'
2o.o~)
OTHER B,4Y AREA
(3.e%)
SANTA CLARA CO.
OT',-.E~ ALAMEDA CO.
(35.4%)
TRIPS TO
OTHER CONTP. A COSTA CO.
(:24.v~.)
TRI-VALLEY FROM,
CENTRAL VALLEY
OTHER B~¥ ,~F..A
('7.9z)
(48.6%)
OTHER ALAM/DA CO.
Source: Tri-Valley
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
Drive-Alone 76% 80% 80%
2-Person Carpool 15% 12% 12%
3+ Person Carpool 5% 4% 4%
Transit 4% 4% 4%
100% 100% 100%
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 60
m
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 minimize, but not elimi-
nate, in-commuting and out-commuting.
· Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north and south, 1-580 over Altamont Pass
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 no~ 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
61
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/md 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.
Final Tri- Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 62
2OOO 2010 Buildout
Alamo/Blackhawk 5,998 7,696 7,696 7,696
Danville 10,999 14,748 14,748 14,748
San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,884 15,884
Dougherty Valley 101 1,561 6,095 9;601
Tassajara Valley 119 745 2,688 4,869
Other Contra Costa County 474 474 474 474
Central Dublin 6,129 6,358 6,358 6,358
East Dublin 50 3,647 [0,187_ 19,328
West Dublin 849 1,849 2,849 4:'i"82
Pleasanton 19,724 24,392 28,333 28,542
Pleasanton Ridge 17 716' 2,524 2,524
Central Livermore 20,635 24,387 26,130 26,130
North Livermore 129 1,630 12,952 20,105
South Livermore 112 326 1,883 1,889
Other Alameda County 52 51 _ 858 _858
Total 78,554 104,464 139,659 163,188
1990 2000 2010 Buitdout
1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613
6,005 8,012 8,012 8,012
27,679 36,314 44,179 45,309
0 0 1,000 ~,500
31 31 31 31
90 90 90 90
12,451 12,759 12,759 12,759
455 5,227 11,_____406 40,841
291 446 446 446
28,363 47,264 58,186 64,568
0 50 50 50
30,503 43,561 58,015 10t.545
335 654 2,319 14,278
2,689 3,252 3,636 4,826
1.144 ~ ~ 1,144
111,649 160,417 202,886 297,012
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, based on ABAG Projections '90.
Table 5-1
Tri-Valley Growth Forecasts
DWelling Units Employed Residents Employment
2010 2010 2010 20t0 2010
Area 1990 Baseline' Expected2 Buildout~ 1990 Expected2 Buildout~ 1990 Baseline' Expected~
Buildou
Alamo/Blackhawk 5,988 7,696 6,123 6,123 9,605 9,831 9,83! 1,6t3 1,613 1,693 1,69.'~
Danville 10,999 14,748 14,684 14,684 17,069 23,069 23,069 6,007 8,012 8,315 8,31!.
San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,885 15,885 21,494 25,369 25,369 27,681 44,179 44,183 45,31 (',
Dougherty Valley 101 6,095 10,356 10,356 171 17,939 17,939 0 1,000 5,365 5,365
Tassajara Valley 119 2,688 6,224 6,224 217 9,972 9,972 31 31' 1,331 1,331
Olher Contra Cosla Counly 474 474 858 858 778 1,405 1,405 90 90 90 90
Dublin 6,978 9,207 7,579 7,579 10,719 10,802 10,802 12,752 13,205 14,307 14,307
East Dublin 49 10,187 13,245 17,547 92 21,326 28,253 445 11,406 23,046 25,714
Pleasanlon 19,762 30,857 30,276 30,276 31,651 44,675 44,675 28,363 58,236 58,360 72,969
Livermore 20,819 28,013 27,005 27,005 30,954 41,650 41,650 33,503 61,651 58,843 107,795
Norlh Livermore 38 12,952 11,253 22,013 55 17,429 34,094 75 2,319 13,072 13,072
Other Alameda Counly 50 858 858 8,,58 7__Z7 ._1 2~_~ 1_~26_~6 1.093 1_~14~4 _ !.4__17_ 1_~4 ! _7
Total 78,554 139,659 144,294 159,408 122,882 224,733 248,325 111,656 202,886 222,024 29'~,378
ABAG Projections '92 Totals (for comparison)
133,730 217, t50
Based on ABAG Projections '90.
Soume: TH-Valley Jurisdictions
Table 5-1
Tri-Valley Growth Forecasts
Area 1990
Dwelling Units
2010
Baseline~
2010
Expected2
Buildout2
Employed Residents.
1990
2010
Expected2 Buildout~
1990
Employment
2010 2010
Baseline~ Expected~ Buildout2
Alamo/Blackhawk 5,988 7,696 6,123
Danville 10,999 14,748 14,684
San Ramon 13,176 15,884 15,885
Dougherly Valley 101 6,095 10,356
Tassajara Valley 119 2.688 6,224
Other Contra Costa County 474 474 858
Dublin 8,978 9,207 7,579
East Dublin 49 10,187 13,245
Pleasanton 19,762 30.857 30,276
Livermore 20,819 28,913 27,005
Norlh Livermore 38 12,952 11,253
Other Alameda County 50 858 85.~
Total 78,554 139,659 144,294
ABAG Projections '92 Totals (for comparison)
133,730
6.123
14,684
15,985
10,356
6,224
858
7,579
17,547
30,276
27,005
22,013
858
159,408
9,605 9,831 9,831
17,069 23,069 23,069
21,494 25,369 25,369
171 17,939 17,939
217 9,972 9,972
778 1,405 i,405
10,719 10,802 10,802
92 21,326 28,253
31,651 44,675 44,675
30,954 41,650 41,650
55 17,429 34,094
77~ 1,266 1,266
122,882 224,733 248,325
1,613 1,613 1,693 1,69~
6,007 8,012 8,315 8,315
27,681 44,179 44,183 45,310
0 1,000 5,365 5,365
31 31 1,331 1,331
90 9O 9O 90
12,752 13,205 14,307 14,307
445 11,406 ~3,046 25,714
28,363 58,236 58,360 72,969
33,503 61,651 58,843 107,795
75 2,319 13,072 13,072
t,093 .._!~!~
111,656 202,886 222,024 297,378
217,150
Based on ABAG Projections '90.
Source: Tri-Valley Jurisdictions
Table 5-2
Year 1990, Year 2000, and 20'10 Network Improvements,,, Expected System
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1'990 2000 2010
Caltrans
1-680
1-680
1-680 at s/o Dublin Boulevard-New lC (hook ramps)
1-580 at 1-680---New SB 1-680 1o EB 1-580 flyover
Vallecitos Road (Highway 84)
Rudgear Road
Diablo Road
1-680
Alcosta Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road
Isabel Avenue
6 6+2HOV ·
6 6+2HOV 6+2HOV+2 Aux
Completed
lC Completed ·
2 UA · 4 DA
Dublin
Dougherty Road
Dougherly Road
Transit Spine
Transit Spine
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange
Schaefer Ranch Road
Hacienda Drive
-Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive
San Ramon Road
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road
~carlett Drive
N. City Limil/County Line
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard E. of Hacienda
Tassajara Road
Donlon Way
San Ramon Road
Village Parkway
Dougherty Road
Eden Canyon Road
1-580
1-580
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallen
Vomac Road
County Line
Gleason
Dublin Road
Dougherty Road
Dublin Boulevard
1-580
Tassajara Road
Gleason Road
San Ramon Road
Village Parkway
Dougherty Road
East City Limit
End of Existing Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard/Hollis Canyon Road
Dublin Boulevard
Gleason Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallen
Dublin Boulevard
Silvergate Drive
Gleason Drive
Dublin Boulevard
1-580
Dublin Boulevard
4UA · 6DA
6DA · 8DA
2 4DA
4DA
2DA 4DA ·
4DA 6DA ·
4DA · 6DA
2UA '6DA
- 2DA
Complele
4DA
4DA 6DA
4DA 4DA
-- 4DA 4DA
2UA 4DA
4DA
2DA 4DA ·
2UA 2UA 6DA
2UA 4DA 6DA
2UA 4DA 6DA
4DA
Table 5-2
Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements--Expected System (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 20O0 2010
LJvermore
Collier Canyon Road/Airway Boulevard link
Concannon Boulevard Extension
Concannon Boulevard Extension
Dalton Avenue Extension
Dalton Avenue Extension
First Street
Greenville Road
1-580 at First Street--Change interchange
1-580 at Isabel Avenue--New interchange
1-580 at Greenville Road--New interchange
1-580 at North Livermore Avenue--Change interchange
1-580 at Vasco Road-New interchange
1-580 at Portola Avenue-Remove interchange
Industrial Way
Isabel Avenue
Isabel Avenue
Isabel Avenue
Jack London Parkway
Las Positas Road
Las Positas Road Extension
Laughlin Road
North Canyon Parkway
North Canyon Parkway
North Mines Road
North Mines Road Extension
Portola Avenue
Portola Avenue
Scenic Avenue Extension
Collier Canyon Road
Arroyo Road
Murdell Lane
Vasco Road
Laughlin Road
Portola Avenue
1-580
Preston Avenue
1-580
Airway
Vallecitos
El Charro Road
North Livermore Avenue
Las Positas Road
Dalton Avenue
Doolan Road
Collier Canyon
First Street
Las Positas Road
Murrieta Boulevard
1-580
Laughlin
1-580
LivermoreAvenue
Isabel Avenue
Laughlin Road
1-580
1-580
Patterson Pass Road
Vasco Road
Airway
Vineyard
Vineyard Avenue
Kitty Hawk Road
First Streel
Vasco Road
Northfront Road
Collier Canyon Road
Isabel/Cayetano
North Mines Road
First Street
First Slreet
North Canyon
Dalton
4DA
2UA ·
4DA ·
4DA ·
4DA
2UA 6DA ·
2UA 6DA ·
lC Completed
Compleled
lC Padial Completed
lC · Completed
lC · Compleled
lC · Removed
2COL ·
· -/2UA 2UA 8DA
-- 2UA 6DA
2DA 4DA
-/2UA 4DA
2UA 4DA ·
4DA ·
2COL ·
-14 DA ° 6DA
4DA 6DA
4DA ·
2COL ·
2/4UA 4DA ·
4DA
.2UA · 4DA
Table 5-2
Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements--Expected System (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
North Livermore Avenue
North Livermore Avenue
Isabel/Cayetano
Isabel/Cayetano
Isabel/Cayelano
Isabel/Cayetano
Pleasanton
Bereal Avenue
Bemal Avenue E/B
Bernal Avenue FJB
Bernal Avenue E/B
Busch Road
Del Valle Parkway
Dublin Canyon Road W/B
El Charre Road
El Charro Road
Foothill Road N/B
Foothill Road
Hacienda Drive
Hopyard Road
1-580 at Foothill Road--Change interchange
1-580 at Hacienda Drive--New interchange
1-580 at Sanla Rila Road--Change interchange
1-680 at W, {.as Positas Boulevard--New interchange
Scenic
1-580
Scenic
Patterson Pass Road
1.5 miles N. o! 1-580
1.5 miles N. of 1-580
1-580
North Canyons Parkway
2 miles north o! 1-580
5 miles north of 1-580
Foothill Road
1-680
Koll Center Drive
First Street
Valley Avenue
Main Street
Stoneridge Mall Road
1-580
Stoneridge Drive
Deodar Way
Stoneddge Drive
1-580
Valley Avenue
1-580
Patterson Pass Road
Dalton
East Avenue
1-580
Isabel/Cayetano
North Canyons Parkway
2 miles north of 1-580
5 miles north of 1-580
1-680
Koll Center Drive
Valley Avenue
Stanley Boulevard
El Charro Avenue
Bernal Avenue
Foothill Road
Stoneridge Drive
Stanley
1-580
Muirwood Drive North
Owens Drive
Division Street
2UN2DA
4DA
2UA
2/4UA
2UA
2UA
4DA 6DA
· 6DA
· 4DA
4DA ·
4DA 6DA
· 4DA
4DA 8DA
2UA 6DA
2UA 4DA
2UA
2UA 4DA ·
2DA 6DA ·
2DA 6DA ·
2UA 4UA ·
4DA
4DA
2UA 3DA ·
2UA 4DA 6DA
- 2UA 4DA
4DA 6DA
2UA 4UA ·
6DA
~4UA 4DA °
lC · Completed
Completed ·
lC Completed
Completed
Table 5-2
Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements, ,Expected System (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number o! Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Rosewood Drive
Santa Rita Avenue
Stoneridge Drive
Stoneridge Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Sunol Boulevard
Valley Avenue
West Las Positas Boulevard
West Las Positas Boulevard
Old Santa Rita Road
1-580
Hopyard Road
Santa Rita Road
First Street
1-680
Bernal Avenue
Foothill Road
Hopyard Road
Santa Rita Road
Old Santa Rita Road
Santa Rita Road
El Charro Road
1-680
Castlewood Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Payne Road
Stoneridge Drive
-/2
4DA ·
4DA 6DA
4DA 6DA
DN4 DA 4DA
4UA ·
2UA ·
4DA
2UA ;
4DA ·
6DA
6DA
6DA
4DA
4DA
6DA
Danville
Diablo Road
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
1-680 at Sycamore Valley Boulevard--Change interchange
Diablo Road
Sycamore Valley Road
Green Valley Road
Crow canyon Road
2UA 4UA ·
2UA 4UA ·
lC · Completed
San Ramon
Crow Canyon Road
Deerwood Place
Fostoria Way Overcrossing
1-680 at Alcosta Boulevard--Remove SB off-ramp
1-680 at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Alcosta Boulevard)--New hook ramp
San Ramon Valley Boulevard Montevideo Drive
West Side Collector San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Old Ranch Road Dougherty Road
Bollingar Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard
St. George
Fostoria Way OvercrosSing
Camino Ramon
Tassajara Ranch Drive
Crow Canyon Road
Deerwood Place
Alcosta Boulevard
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Alcosta Boulevard
City Limits
4DA
Ramp
2DA
2UA
4DA
6DA
4UA
4DA
4DA
2COL
4DA
6DA
Removed
Completed
Alameda County
Dublin Boulevard East Extension
Fallon Road
1-580 at Fallon Road--Change interchang~
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road
Doolan Road
1-580
-/2UA
lC
2DA
4DA
6DA
6DA
Completed
Table 5-2
Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements--Expected System (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 20O0 2010
Contra Costa County
Bollinger Canyon Road Extension
Bollinger Canyon Road Extension
East Branch Road
Camino Tassajara
Dougherty Road
Windemere Parkway
San Ramon City Limits
Dougherty Road North
Bollinger Canyon Extension
Danville Town Limit
Cmw Canyon Road
Bollinger Canyon Extension
Dougherty Road
Doughedy Road South
Windemere Parkway
County Line
County Line
Camino Tassajara
2UA
2/4UA
6DA ·
4DA 6DA
4DA ·
2DA 4DA
4DA 6DA
4DA ·
· No change from previous network
DA Divided Arterial.
COL Collector
E/B Eastbound
Nonexistent
UA Undivided Arterial
lC Intemhange
W/B Westbound
-- Changes from previous list
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
Ramo:
LEGEND
= Number of Freeway Lanes
= 6-Lane or 8-Lane Arterial
I IIIII1= 4-Lone Arterial - other streets
are 2-Lanes
O= Improved Interchonge
EXPECTED
(Not to .Scale.)
Figure 5-1o
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
SCHOOL RD
Dublin
8+HOV
8+Aux.
AY
EASI AV
CONCANNON
LEGEND
Number of Freeway Lanes
6-Lone or 8-Lane Arterial
4-Lane Arterial - other streets
are 2-Lanes
Interchange
Improved
NILES CANYON RD
Pleasant. on
6+HOV
PLANNED
Figure 5-1b
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Expected Forecasts
The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub-
lin/Pleasanton 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 are also rerouted and augmented to serve
new development areas in the expected network: North Livermore, East Dublin, and
Tassajara 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 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 5-2 identifies the unconstrained 2010 link demand on the regional routes.
In many cases the demand-based V/C ratio would be greater than 1.0. This 'is particu-
laxly true at the gateways to the area, including 1-680 north of Alamo, 1-680 through
Sunol, the Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road. 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. 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 Livermore
Crow Canyon Road at the County Line
7
7
1
4
2
2
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 71
Barton-Aschman ^ssociates, Inc.
Danville
\, San
'\ Eamon
3.300
)
O
600
(Not to .Yc(~le)
Figure 5-2a
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND
(NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(Not to Scats)
MAY $CHOOt RD
,00
Dublin
800
DUBLIN
N. CANYONS PKWY
7,500
400 c~
JACK LONDON
STONERIDG£ DR
1,500
5,200
9,400
oo°
Livermore
600 c~sr Av
g
~ CONCANNON BL~
AV
8OO
Pleasant, on
NILES CANYON RD
Figure 5-2b
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIG DEMAND
(NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
9000
Figure 5-:~
EXAMPLE OF GATEWAY PEAK SPREADING
SB 1-680 AT LIVORNA-AM PEAK
8000'
7000---
6000-
5ooo-
4000
3000'
2000-
1000-
Freeway Capacily = 6,600 /...' "'"..... ~ .
O ' ' I
I I I I I--1' I ....
1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM 10 AM 1lAM 12AM 1PM 2PM
Hour Ending
Note: Does not include HOV lane volume or capacity.
~ Exisling Demand ................ 2010 Demand
~.Adj. 2010 Volume
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 differeht 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 major assumption.
TVTC has agreed to treat the Altamont Pass, Vasco Road, Crow Canyon Road to
Castro Valley, Dublin Grade, Sunol Grade, and 1-680 north as physical gateways.
It is unrealistic to plan local transportation facilities to accommodate all peak-hour
traffic projected to flow 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 Tri-Valley network. The constrained traffic volumes back
down the assigned traffic volumes in proportion to the origins and destinations of the
total gateway traffic. PM peak-hour, directional traffic volumes are shown in Fig-
ure 5-2 for "unconstrained" traffic volumes, Figure 5-4 for the subtracted traffic, and
on Figure 5-5 for the "gateway 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 traffic 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 current 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(Not to
Danville
\ San
"\ Ramon
3,300
g
600
Figure 5-4a
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND
(NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Dublin
DUBLIN BL
400
STONERIDGE DR
CANYONS PKWY
7,500
JACK LONDON
o C°°-O-~- '-~ '
c. oS'C'--- -- - 7,.~,~ x.~
SCHOOL RD
CONCANNON B£
'00
80°
Livermore ~
600 ~sr AV
800
PleasanLon
NIL~$
RD
Figure 5-4b
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND
.(NO GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
\ San
'\ Ramon
~32
(No~ fo Scale)
Figure 5-5o
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND
(WITH GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
x
Dublin
797
BLI
372
STONERIDG£ DR
,394
§§
CANYONS PKWY
7,486
JACK LONDON
§
CONCANNON BL~
AV
5,200
O
l.ivermore ~
600 £A';,T AV
775
Pleasant. on
N[ESCANYON RD
Figure 5-5b
YEAR 2010 EXPECTED FORECAST
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND
(WITH GATEWAY CONSTRAINT)
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-¥alley would continue to experience in-commuting
and out-commuting. This would occur even with a jobs/housing balance: 224,733
employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Tri~)s 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 ~vould be through trips, traffic
passing through Tri-Valley. This percentage is low overall but would be significant on
the freeway sys.tem. 1-680 would comprise 15 percent through traffic, and through
traffic on 1-580 would vary from 16 percent at Foothill Road to 40 percent over
Altamont Pass.
. Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 80
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
\, San
'\ Ramo
LEGEND
O= LOS E F Intersectior
OF
mmmmmm = Congested Rood
(Not to Scale)
Figure 5-60
YEAR 2010
EXPECTED FORECAST PEAK HOUR
OVERCAPACITY ROADWAYS WITH,
GATEWAY CONSTRAINT
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(~o~ ~o Scale)
LEGEND
= LOS E F )nteFsec[ion
OF
mmmm = Overcapacity Link
SCHOOL RD
Dublin
STONERIDC£ DR
CANYONS PKWY
JACK LONDON
AV
~ermore
EAST AV
NILES CANYON RD
Pleasanton
~ CONCANNON BL
Figure 5-6b
YEAR 2010
EXPECTED FORECAST PEAK HOUR
OVERCAPACITY ROADWAYS WITH
GATEWAY CONSTRAINT
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:
Black_hawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara
Crow Canyon and Dougherty
Alcosta and Bollinger Canyon
Dougherty and Bollinger Canyon
Dougherty and Dublin
Tassajara 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 83
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-4
Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour
Existing 2010
City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS
V/C LOS
Dublin
Livermore
Pleasanton
Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.50 A
San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D
San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A
Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 C
Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B
Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.84 D
Village Parkway · Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C
Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A
Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A
Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A
Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A
Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard. -- --
Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard ....
Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B
North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A
North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A
Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C
Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 D
Murrietta Bird Las Pos~tas 0.39 A
First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D
Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.97 E
North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0,39 A
Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E
Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A
Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0,50 A
North Mines East Street 0.58 A
First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B
Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A
Airway Boulevard I;580 WB Off 0.27 A
Isabel (Route 84) Jack London ....
Isabel North Canyons Pkwy ....
Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B
Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A
Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A
Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A
Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A
Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.66 B
0.47 A
0.90 D
0.45 A
0.71 C
0.77 C
0.93 E
0.82 D
O.78 C
0.85 D
0.56 A
0.33 A
1.05 F
1.12 F
0.59 A
0.66 B
0.74 C
0.74 C
0.87 D
0.45 A
0.59 A
0.69 B a~
0.58 A
0.70 B
0.55 A
0.71 C
0.41 A
0.61 B
0.66 B l
0.73 C
0.95 E
0.92 E ~
0.85 D
0.87 D m
0.75 C
0.84 D
0.58 A m
0.79 C
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 84
ExPected Forecasts
Table 5-4
Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis m PM Peak Hour
(Continued)
Existing 2010
City N/S Street E/W Street ViC LOS VIC LOS
San Ramon
Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51
Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49
Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65
Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40
First/Sunol Bemal Avenue 0.50
1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40
1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49
1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28
1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.48
Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70
FirSt Street RayNineyard 0.70
Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34
Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57
1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.36
1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31
Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.70
East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86
Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58
Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.31
San Ramon Valley
1-680 NB Off
San Ramon Valley
AIcosta Boulevard
Alcosta Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon
San Ramon Valley
1-680 SB Off
1-680 SB Off
1-680 SB Off
1-680 NB Off
Dougherty Road
San Ramon Valley
Village Parkway
1-680 NB Off
Dougherty Road
A 0.91 E
A 0.66 B
B 0.75 C
A 0.58 A
a 0.80 C
A 0.83 D
a 0.56 A
A 0.58 A
A 0.54 A
B 0.94 E
B 0.71 C
A 0.37 A
A 0.85 D
A 0.49 A
A 0.52 A
B 0.75 C
D 0.87 D
A 0.93 E
A 0.81 D
Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.46 A
Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.68 B
Norris Canyon 0.87 D 0.76 C
Crow Canyon Road 0.61 B 0.82 D
Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 1.06 F
Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0.63 B
Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A .0.60 A
AIcosta Boulevard 0.65 B
Crow Canyon Road 0.57 A 0.48 A
Bollinger Canyon 0.76 C 0.34 A
Bollinger Canyon 0.56 A 0.71 C
Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.98 E
1-680 SB Off -- 0.41 A
Alcosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.34 A
Alcosta Boulevard 0.87 D 0.84 D
Bollinger Canyon Rd .... 1.11 F
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 85
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-4
Expected Intersection 'Level of Service Analysis m PM Peak Hour
(Continued)
Existing 2010
City N/S Street F_AN Street V/C LOS V/C LOS
Danville
Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 1.08 F 1.08 F
1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.59 A 0.56 A
1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.46 A 0.40 A
San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.77 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
1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.45 A 0.79 C
Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.83 D 0.39 A
Diablo Road El Cerro Road 0.44 A 0.32 A
1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.47 A 0.42 A
1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.59 A 0.55 'A
1-680 SB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A 0.62 B
1-680 NB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.50 A 0.60 A
1-680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A 0.31 A
1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A 0.28 A
San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A 0.63 B
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 86
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:
· 1-580/Shaeffer Ranch Road
· 1-580/Isabel (Route 84)
· 1-680AVest Las Positas
The following 10 interchanges will be reconfigured or expanded:
· 1-580/Foothill. Conversion from full cloverleaf to partial cloverleaf design.
· 1-580/I-680. Addition of a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp, addition of hook
ramps to Dublin.
· 1-580/Fallon. Widening of overpass to six lanes. Conversion to partial cloverleaf
design.
· 1-580/Portola. Removal of the ramps, will become just an overcrossing.
· 1-580/North Livermore. Conversion from diamond to partial cloverleaf design,
widening of overcrossing.
· 1-580/First Street. Widening of overcrossing.
· 1-580/Vasco. Widening of overcrossing, reconstruction of ramps to a partial
cloverleaf design.
· 1-580/Greenville. Conversion from hook ramps to partial cloverleaf design.
· 1-680/Sycamore Valley. Elimination of the northbound-to-westbound off-loop.
· 1-680/Alcosta. Addition of hook ramps to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, removal of
southbound off-ramp.
· 1-680/Bernal. Conversion to standard partial cloverleaf design.
Tables 5-5 through 5-8 show the 2010 expected volume on the overcrossing 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 87
INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010
LOCATION
Palomares Road ~.~~-~
~ ~' SAME
@ 1-580
Schafer Ranch Road
1-680
~ 1-580
Doughe~ Ro=d/
~op~rd Ro~d
SAME
~ 1-580
Hacienda Dr
G 1-580
SAME
Santa Rlfa Road
~ 1-580
tit ~ttt
Fallon Road/El Charro
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010
LOCATION
Airway Blvd
@ 1-580 ~ ,-~o SAME
~TTT
Isabel Pkwy
@ 1-580
PaYola Ave
~ 1-580 ~ ~~.'.
N. Livermore Ave It ~tl tit
Firsf Sfreef _~tt
Vasco Road
~ 1-580
Greenville Road lift
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010
LOCATION
SR 84
@ 1-680
Sunol Blvd
@ 1-680
Bernal Ave
@ 1-680
W. Las Positas Blvd
@ 1-680
Sfo.neridge Dr
@ 1-680
SAME
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERCHANGE
LOCATION
EXISTING
2010
Alcosta Blvd
@ 1-680
Bollinger Canyon Road
1-680
Crow Canyon Road
@ 1-680
Sycamore Valley Road
@ 1-680
SAME
SAME
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERCHANGE
LOCATION
EXISTING
2010
Diablo Road
@ 1-680
El Cerro Blvd
@ 1-680
.El Pinfado Rd
@ 1-680
Sfone Valley Rd
@ 1-680
Livorna Road
@ 1-680
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
Figure 5-7
EXPECTED NETWORK-
INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-5
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-l-580
(PM Peak Hour)
SB NB
Required Required
Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes
Shaeffer Ranch 401 I 194 1
Palomares 92 1 63 1
San Ramon/Foothill 367 1 570 1
1-680/I-580 2,457 2 4,210 2
Dougherty/Hopyard 2,572 3 3,541 3
Hacienda 2,751' 3 3,390 3
Tassajara/Santa Rita 2,504 3 3,033 3
Fallon/EI Cerro 1,258 2 1,483 2
Airway 593 I 451 1
Isabel (Route 84) 2,264 2 3,302 3
North Livermore 1,044 1 3,301 3
First Street 587 1 1,386 2
Vasco 401 1 2,955 3
Greenville 416 I 707 I
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 93
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-6
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses
1-680 (PM Peak Hour)
Westbound Eastbound
Required Required
Location Volume Lanes Volume . Lanes
Livorna 46 1 534 1
Stone Valley 962 1 1,26 1
El Pintado 26 1 376 1
El Cerro 138 1 625 1
Diablo 582 1 837 1
Sycamore Valley 757 1 1,588 2
Crow Canyon 1,219 1 2,141 2
Bollinger Canyon - 2,307 2 1,617 2
Alcosta 740 1 531 1
1-680/I-580 5,407 3 8,067 4
Stoneridge 1,593 2 1,318 1
Las Positas 775 1 426 1
Bernal 480 1 1,593 2
Sunol 852 1 285 1
Route 84 1,537 2 490 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 94
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-7
2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges--l-580
(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
Palomares 92 130 - 1296
San Ramon/Foothill 388 627 875 769 3413 875
Dougherty/Hopyard 1,601 727 1,243 1574 - '
Hacienda 1,451 841 1,093 1768
Tassajara/Santa Rita 1,583 1,472 533 1231
Fallon/EI Cerro 1,558 1,507 1231
Airway 475 371 742
Isabel (Route 84) 1,244 924 1,353 2438 ~
North Livermore 793 805 1,186 2580 ~
First Street 667 167 610 1258
Vasco 40 93 1,295 1,622~ 1046 1549
Greenville 576 27 514 93
27O
468
1,441
775
1,287
1,439
969
2,000
150
958
518
663
336
1,156
671
515
529
578
192
37
59
~ Requires two-lane ramp.
Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp; 1,600 vph for loop ramp.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
Expected Forecasts
Table 5-8
2010 Expected, Forecast Analysis of Interchangesml-680
(PM Peak Hour)
SB SB SB SB NB NB NB NB
Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop
Livoma 625 14 46 386
Stone Valley 239 431 629 417 685 691
El Pintado 66 - 324
El Cerro 578 72 303 477
Diablo 458 652 737 303
Sycamore Valley 458 1,357 729 494 489 917
Crow Canyon. 2,196 ~ 521 316 1,345 1,591
Bollinger Canyon 1,396 309 1,212 1,270 1,749
Alcosta 432 146 233 1,761 - ' 377
Dublin Hook 359 613 138 -. 733
1-680/I-580 266 2,624 ~ 1,184 1,114 461 1,244 2,179
Stoneridge 585 650 557 625 791
Las Positas 476 64~ 706 617
Bernal 1,763 225 292 1,315
Sunol 510 703 994 185
Route 84 14 429 246 1,201 2,956 ~ 0 21
1,256
248
919
271
~ Requires two-lane ramp.
a Two-lane flyover.
Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp, 1,600 vph for loop ramp.
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 96
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 80 percent.
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 "expected" 2010 forecast is included in the Appendix.
Table 5-9
2010 Expected Transit Ridership
1990 2010
Carrier Daily Ridership~ Daily Ridership2
County Con~ection 3,097 13,404
WHEELS 16,698 41,433
BART 19,482 52,058
Express Buses -- 6,041
Total 39,277 112,935
For routes that serve the TH-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model validation run.
For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model expected run.
Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses.
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 97
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 improvements--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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 98
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 (I-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 major 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 81.136 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 (I-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road).
Figure 6-5 shows the congested routes with the maximum transit alternative.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation plan Adopted July 1995 99
I I I .J i 1 I I I t I I I ] I I I I t
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
8 = Road Widening and Number of Lanes
8
I I I Ill I = New Rood and Numbe[ of t.ones
(Not to
Danville
San
Figure 6-1a
MAXIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK -
CHANGES FROM BASELINE NETWORK
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Dublin
LEGEND
8
i = Rood Widening ond Number of Lones
8
m m m mm m m = New Rood ond Number of Lones
NILES CANYON RD
lllll
STONERIDGE DR
Pleasanton
PKWY
JACK LONDON
A
hi
[;ONCANNON t~!
AV
FAST AV
Figure 6-lb
MAXIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK -
CHANGES FROM BASELINE NETWORK
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
Clara County
HOV lanes on 1-580 Foothill to $112
Greenville
Route 84, upgrade to six-lane $50
freeway 1-680 to 1-580
1-580/I-680 Interchange $120
NB to WB ramp
1-680/Bernal interchange im- $15
provement
Bollinger Canyon Rd. widened S8
to six lanes
Dougherty Rd. widened to six $15
lanes
Hacienda Dr. extended $12
New road: East Branch to High- $6
land
Tassajara Rd. widened to 6 Sl0
Two new overpasses in Dublin Sl0
N. Livermore/Higt31and Drive S40
widened to four lanes
Vasco widened to six-lane ex- $120
pressway, 1-580 to Delta Ex-
pressway
Total $598
$8
$15
$12
S6
Sl0
S51
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
S80
$112
S50
S120
S15
$1O
S4O
$12o
$547
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, 1nc.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 . 102
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
~ = Congested Roodway
Danville
Note: Does not inclUde geteway constroints.
I!' I!
San
Ramo:
Figure 6-2a
CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH
MAXIMUM HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE
! ! ! ! ! ! m
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
m = Congested Roadway
(fret to Scale)
SCHOOL RD
Dublin
STONERIDG£ DR
JACK LONDON
PORTOLAAV
:rmore
EAST AV
CONCANNON ~L
Pleasant, on
Note;
_~ NILES CANYON RD
Does not include gateway constraints.
Figure 6-2b
CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH,
MAXIMUM HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ,,,
To
Pie
Hill BART
LEGEND
= Proposed
StoUon Locotion
= Stotion With
Roil Interfoce
(Not to Scale)
CO
~ ~k\Odleuu
Figure
6-3
MAXIMUM TRANSIT
ALTERNATIVE -
PRIORITY EXPRESS BUS NETWORK
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
To Bayfair Station
LEGEND
Proposed
Station Location
Potential Intermodol
Interface Location
To San Jose
(Not to Scale)
C9O~,6o Co~,
1o Sacramento
Figure 6-4
MAXIMUM TRANSIT
ALTERNATIVE -
INTERClTY/COMMUTER RAIL
Plan Alternatives
Table 6-2
Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network
Cost Potential
Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds
Source
Unfunded
Priority transit lines~ in 1-680 $56
and 1-580 corridors
BART extension to $900
Livermore with 2 stations
Altamont Pass Rail $136
(Alameda County portion)
Express Bus Service $26
11 lines
Enhanced local bus service $18
Subtotal $1,136
$56
SgO0
$136
$26
$18
$1,136
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~ These are super express bus lines that have signal-preemption capability.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
107
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
= Congested Roodwoy
(IVot to ,9c~1~)
Danville
'San
Ramo
Note: Does not include gotewoy constroints.
Figure 6-5(]
CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH
MAXIMUM TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
~ = Congested Roodwoy
Dublin
PKWY
JACK tONI)ON
Pleasant. on
Note:
N/LES CANYON RD
Does not include gotewoy constroints.
AV
SCHOOL RD
PORTOLA AV
CONCANNON
E~S~ AV
Figure 6-5b
CONGESTED ROADWAYS WITH
MAXIMUM TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
P/an 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.
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 (I-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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 110
Table 6-3
Growth Management Options
Planning Area
Area Description
Land Use Oppodunities and Constraints
Transportation Other
Proposed
Land Use Management Option
Alamo-Blackhawk
Danville
Dougherty Valley
Dublin
East Dublin
Livermore
North Livermore
Pleasanton
Pleasanton Ridge
San Ram0n
South Livermore
TV-CCC Remainder
Tassajara Valley
West Dublin
Estate communities east of San
Ramon Valley
Semi-rural and suburban residential
community on 1-580 corridor
Uninhabited area with large-scale
development proposal
Suburban community intersection of 1-
580 and 1-680
Rural/developable area with large-
scale development proposal
City with remaining residential and
commemial/industrial capacity
Rural area, near proposed BART ex-
tension, with large-scale development
proposal
City with remaining residential and
commercial/industrial capacity
Uninhabited area formerly subject to
large-scale development proposal
City with remaining residential and
commemial/industrial capacity
Rural area with medium-scale devel-
opment proposal
Rural area in Contra Costa County
outside of other subareas
Rural area with large-scale develop-
ment proposal
Rural area formerly subject to large-
scale development proposal
Limited access on arterial roads
with existing congestion levels
Existing congestion on arterials
and 1-680
Limited access potential
Lawsuits filed because of potential
traffic congestion
Existing congestion on arterials
and 1-680
Location near most congested
part of 1-580 corridor
Good transit potential
Generally good aderial capacity
Opportunities to increase residen-
tial densities
Potential for transit-oriented de-
velopment
Generally good arterial capacity
Opportunities to increase residen-
tial densities.
Limited access potential
Existing congestion on arterials
and 1-680
Good access g~ven density and
level of proposed development
Limited access potential
Limited access potential
Limited access potential
Nearly built-out
Nearly build-out
Lacks water, sewer, and other urban
infrastructure
Nearly built-out
City/County conflict
Large supply of commercial/industrial
land use
City/County conflict; wastewater
disposal
Significanl backbone infrastructure
exists
Rejected by Pleasanton's voters
Nearly built-out
Limited development potential
Lacks water, sewer, and other urban
infrastructure
Rejected by Dublin's voters
'None identified
Increase housing densities and
affordability in remaining vacant siles,
Reduce overall level of proposed resi-
dential development
Increase housing densities and
affordability in. remaining vacant sites
Reduce overall level of proposed red-
dential and commercial development
Reduce existing commercial/induslrial
land use designations
Reduce overall level of proposed resi-
dential development and design for
maximum transit orientation
Continue residential/mixed-use con-
versions with increased densities
None identified
Increase housing densities and
affordability in remaining vacant sites
None identified
None identified
Eliminate proposed residential devel-
opment
None identified
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., April 23, 1993.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
Sari
Note: Does not include gateway constraints.
LEGEND
= Congested Roadway
(Not to
ZERO
CONGESTED
GROWTH LAND
Figure 6-6a
ROADWAYS WITH
USE ALTERNATIVE
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
LEGEND
~ = Congested Roadway
(~Vot ~o Scale)
Dublin
STONER~DC, E DR
PKWY
JACK
SCHOOL RD
POR[OLA ~v
-more
E.~$T AV
Pleasant. on
AV
CONCANNON BL
._~ 'NILES CA,lYON RD
Note: Does not include gotewoy constrOints.
I
CONGESTED
ZERO GROWTH LAND
Figure 6-6b
ROADWAYS WITH
USE ALTERNATIVE
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered for the freeway system in
locations where through traffic made achievement of TSOs impossible for the
TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodated, ramp
metering would allow achievement of CMP-mandated levels of service on the
freeways. Reduced LOS standards were also considered for arterials as part of the
strategy for resolving TSO violations, as discussed on page 237 of the Plan.
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan AdoPted July 1995 114
Table 6-4
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Potential Alternatives
Road Transit -
Improvements Improvements Increased
Beyond 2010 Beyond 2010 Reduced Reduced Transpodation
Alternative/ Expected Expected Higher Growth Rates LOS Demand
Description Network Network Densities Through 2010 Standards Measures
Alt. 1: Emphasize Road Improvements A lot None None None Some Some
(2010 (freeways (1.35 AVR)
Expected) only)
Description: Ten lanes on 1-580, Route 84 as six-lane arterial, Vasco Road as four-lane expressway, interchange improvements, eight lanes on
1-680 south of Route 84, 1.35 AVR for large employers, some freeway segments at LOS F.
Alt. 2: Emphasize Transit Improvements None
A lot A lot Some Some Some
(15+du/within 1/4 (freeways (1.35 AVR)
mile of transit) only)
Description: Extensive express bus service, substantial land use density increases near transit nodes (at least 15 d.u. per acre), HOV lanes on 16~30
and 1-580, some reduced growth by 2010, relaxed LOS standards on freeways, 1.35 AVR for large employers.
Alt. 3: Emphasize Policy Options Some Some None None A lot
Description: Improved arterial system but not freeways, additional trunk-line transit service, relaxed LOS standards on all roads~ substantial
TDM measures including mandatory trip reductions.
A lot
Alt. 4: Emphasize Growth Management None
None Some A lot None None
(2000 levels)
Description:
Increase densities near transit nodes, overall decrease in rate of development in 2010 to 1/2 the "expected" level, growth control options
inClude: approved GPAs only, pro rate based on percentage of "expected," geographical based on available infrastructure. Total amount
of development would not be changed, only the quantity assumed for the year 2010.
Table 6-5
Consensus Alternative for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
Jurisdiction's Road Transit Higher
Preferences Improvements Improvements Densities
Reduced Land Use/
Growth Rate
Reduced LOS
Standard
Increased TDM
Measures
Alameda County Some Some A lot
None (include phas-
ing and concurrence
requirements)
Contra Costa County Some A lot Some A lot~
Danville Some Some Some A lot
Dublin Some Some Some Some~
Livermore Some Some Some Some
Pleasanton Some Some Some A lot
San Ramon Some Some Some A lot
Some (freeways
only)
Some (1.35 AVR)
Some? (Vasco, A lot
Highway 84, and
freeways)
None None
Some Some
None Some
None None
None None
ALT #5: Consensus Some
Alternative
Some Some Some
Some? (Try
everything else
first)
Some
Provided that all jurisdictions participate proportionately.
Via consideration of growth plan per page 232 of the Plan.
w
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 may or 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.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 117
Recommended Improvement P/an
Plan 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 financing 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 meteri, ng 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.
1-650 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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 118
Recommended Improvement Plan
1-550 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
current four lanes is infeasible
1-580 East (Altamont Pass): Alam~la 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 warranted. 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 (t° 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/~, 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-
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
119
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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 120
Recommended Improvement Plan
The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes ramp metering with HOV bypass with
the proviso that this. not seriously impact local s~reets 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 ;ravel 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 of HOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-lane 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 of HOV 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 I~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 E1 Charro/Falion and Airway would need to be rebuilt. The E1 Charro/
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/I-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.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 121
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 1-580fi-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 ha's 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
122
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 ServiceF 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-
lin/Pleasanton 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 123
Recommended Improvement Plan
11,000 dwelling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri-Valley 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.
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 t~e~ional Routes.
3. Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas.
4. Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service
objectives.
Capital Projects
Construction of new roads or transit facilities
· Street or freeway widening
· HOV lane construction
· Adding turn lanes
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 124
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
· Morestringent TDM requirements within corridor
· Focused ridesharing campaigns
· ParMng 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 Grov~h
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 mizst submit the amendment the Regional
Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives.
The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed ~mend-
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 Programf-
~GroWth Management Implementation Documents, CCTA, December 1992, p. IG,51.
~Ibid., p. IG-52.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 125
Recommended Improvement Plan
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 pl.anned 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 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 for each jurisdiction. Any development
reductions should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential
of the participating jurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop, and
if adopted, shall insure that jurisdictions with relatively greater development potential
do not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this
development reduction to traffic impact tees should be analyzed; other alternatives
such as a toll road may also 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. The growth management study and
any impact fees would each have to be approved unanimously. Violations or projected
violations of TSO standards remaining after a growth management strategy is adopted
shall be resolved as discussed on page 237 of the Plan.
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
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
126
Recommended Improvement Plan
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
of land 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
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 Tassaja~a Road and North Livermore Avenue. This would be
partially alleviated with high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp metering.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
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 (AVR) 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 AVR of 1.35 for all employers,
throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the "ambient" AVR 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 AVR 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 AVR were not achieved,
additional intersection improvements, beyond what are included in the plan, would
probably be necessary.
Fi/3al Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 127
Recommended Improvement Plan
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 ~vould provide
more money for transportation investments.
The plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in AVR
for all employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption and enforce-
ment of local trip reduction ordinances. The 10 percent increase in AVR Will bring
some of the intersections otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into
compliance with the TSOs.
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
define projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program:
1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined 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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 128
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Danville
LEGEND
8 = Number of Freewoy Lones
= 6-L<3ne or 8-Lone Arteriol
I IIIII1: 4-Lc]ne Aderiol - other streets
ore 2-L~3nes
O= Improved nterchonge
(Not to
Figure 7-1(]
PLANNED
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
MAY SCHOOL RD
Dublin
8+HOV
AY
:more
CONCANNON BL
LEGEND
J~ = Number of Freeway Lanes
~= 6-Lone or 8-Lane Arterial
I I I I I I I = 4-Lane Arterial - other streets
ore 2-Lanes
= Improved Interchange
NILES CANYON RD
Pleasanton
6+HOV
Figure 7-! b
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Table 7-1
Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements
From
To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Caltrans
1-680
1-680
1-680 at ~o Dublin Boulevard--New lC (hook ramps)
1-580 at 1-680--New SB 1-680 to EB 1-580 flyover
1-580 at 1-680--New NB to WB flyover
Vallecitos Road (Highway 84)
1-680 HOV Lanes
1-680 HOV Lanes
1-580 HOV Lanes
1-580 HOV Lanes
Dublin
Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road
Transit Spine
Transit Spine
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Intemhange
Schaefer Ranch Road
Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive
San Ramon Road
Rudgear Road
Diablo Road
1-680
Route 84
Alcosta
Tassajara
N. Livermore
N. City Limit/County Line
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard E. of Hacienda
Tassajara Road
Donlon Way
San Ramon Road
Village Parkway
Dougherty Road
Eden Canyon Road
1-580
1-580
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive
Tassajara Road
Fallon
Vomac Road
Alcosta Boulevard
B.ollinger Canyon Road
Isabel Avenue
Sunol Grade
Route 84
N. Livermore Avenue
County Line
6 6+2HOV °
6 6+2HOV 6+2HOV+2 Aux
Completed
lC Compleled ·
-- -- Planned
2 UA · 4 DA
-- -~' Compleled
-- -- Planned
-- -- Completed
-- -- Planned
Dublin Boulevard 4UA ° 6DA
1-580 6DA · 8DA
Tassajara Road 2 4DA
Gleason Road 4DA
San Ramon Road 2DA 4DA °
Village Parkway 4DA 6DA · '
Dougherty Road 4DA · 6DA
East City Limit 2UA 6DA
End of Existing Dublin Boulevard 2DA
Complele
Dublin Boulevard/Hollis Canyon Road 4DA
Dublin Boulevard 4DA 6DA
Gleason Drive 4DA 4DA
Tassajara Road -- 4DA 4DA
Fallon 2UA 4DA
Dublin Boulevard 4DA
Silvergate Drive 2DA 4DA
Table 7-1
Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued)
From TO
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Tassajara Road County Line Gleason Drive
Tassajara Road Gleason Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road Dublin Road 1-580
Scarlett Drive Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard
2UA 2UA 6DA
2UA 4DA 6DA
2UA 4DA 6DA
4DA
Livermore
Collier Canyon Road/Airway Boulevard link
Concannon Boulevard Extension
Concannon Boulevard Extension
Dalton Avenue Extension
Dalton Avenue Extension
First Street
Greenville Road
1-580 at First Street---Change interchange
1-580 at Isabel Avenue--New interchange
1-580 at Greenville Road--New interchange
1-580 at North Livermore Avenue--Change intemhange
1-580 al Vasco Road--New interchange
1-580 at Portola Avenue--Remove intemhange
Industrial Way
Isabel Avenue
Isabel Avenue
Isabel Avenue
Jack London Parkway
Las Positas Road
Las Positas Road Extension
Laughlin Road
North Canyon Parkway
North Canyon Parkway
Collier Canyon Road
Arroyo Road
Murdell Lane
Vasco Road
Laughlin Road
Portola Avenue
1-580
Preston Avenue
1-580
Airway
Vallecitos
El Charro Road
North Livermore Avenue
Las Positas Road
Dalton Avenue
Doolan Road
Collier Canyon
1-580
Livermore Avenue
Isabel Avenue
Laughlin Road
1-580
1-580
Patterson Pass Road
Vasco Road
Airway
Vineyard
Vineyard Avenue
Kitty Hawk Road
First Street
Vasco Road
Northfront Road
Collier Canyon Road
Isabel/Cayetano
2u ,
4DA
4DA
2UA 6DA
2UA 6DA
lC Completed
lC Partial
lC ·
lC ·
lC ·
2COL
-/2UA 2UA
-- 2UA
2DA
-/2UA 4DA
2UA 4DA
4DA
2COL
-/4 DA
4DA
4DA
4DA
ComPleled
Completed
Completed
Compleled
Removed
8DA
6DA
4DA
6DA
6DA
Table 7-1
Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
North Mines Road
North Mines Road Extension
Portola Avenue
Portola Avenue
Scenic Avenue Extension
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
Vasco Road
North Livermore Avenue
North Livermore Avenue
Isabel/Cayetano
Isabel/Cayetano
Isabel/Cayetano
Isabel/Cayetano
First Street
Las PositaS Road
Murrieta Boulevard
1-580
Laughlin
Scenic
1-580
Scenic
Patterson Pass Road
1.5 miles N. of 1-580
1.5 miles N. of 1-580
1-580
North Canyons Parkway
2 miles north of 1-580
5 miles north of 1-580
North Mines Road
First Street
First Street
North Canyon
Dalton
1-580
Patterson Pass Road
Dalton
East Avenue
1-580
Isabel/Cayetano
North Canyons Parkway
2 miles north of 1-580
5 miles north of 1-580
2/4UA
2UA
2UN2DA
4DA
2UA
2/4UA
2UA
2UA
4DA ·
2COL ·
4DA ·
4DA
' · 4DA
4DA 6DA
· 6DA
· 4DA
4DA ·
4DA 6DA
· 4DA
4DA 8DA
2UA 6DA
2UA 4DA
2UA
Pleasanton
Bernal Avenue
Bernal Avenue E/B
Bemal Avenue F_/B
Bernal Avenue E/B
Busch Road
Del Valle Parkway
Dublin Canyon Road W/B
El Charro Road
El Charm Road
Foothill Road N/B
Foothill Road
Hacienda Dr~ve
Foothill Road
1-680
Koll Center Drive
First Street
Valley Avenue
Main Street
Stoneridge Mall Road
1-580
Stoneridge Drive
Deodar Way
Stoneridge Drive
1-580
1-680
Koll Center Drive
Valley Avenue
Stanley Boulevard
El Charro Avenue
Bernal Avenue
Foothill Road
Stoneridge Drive
Stanley
1,580
Muirwood Drive North
Owens Drive
2UA 4DA ·
2DA 6DA °
2DA 6DA
2UA 4UA °
4DA °
4DA
2UA 3DA '
2UA 4DA 6DA
2UA 4DA
3DA 6DA °
2UA 4UA
6DA ·
Table 7-1
Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Hopyard Road
1-580 at Foothill Road--Change intemhange
1-580 at Hacienda Drive--New interchange
1-580 at Santa Rita Road--Change interchange
1-680 at W. Las Positas Boulevard--New interchange
Rosewood Drive
Santa Rita Avenue
Stoneridge Drive
Stoneridge Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Sunol Boulevard
Valley Avenue
West Las Positas Boulevard
West Las Positas Boulevard
Valley Avenue
Old Santa Rita Road
1-580
Hopyard Road
Santa Rita Road
First Street
1-680
Bernal Avenue
Foothill Road
Hopyard Road
Division Street
Santa Rita Road
Old Santa Rita Road
Santa Rita R(~ad
El Charro Road
1~680
Castlewood Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Payne Road
Stoneridge Drive
-/2
2/4UA 4DA
lC ·
Completed
lC Completed
4DA ·
4DA 6DA
4DA 6DA
DN4 DA 4DA
4UA ·
2UA ·
4DA
2UA
4DA ·
Completed
Compleled
6DA
6DA
6DA
4DA
4DA
6DA
Danville
Diablo Road
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
1-680 at Sycamore Valley Boulevard--Change interchange
Diablo Road
Sycamore Valley Road
Green Valley Road
Crow Canyon Road
2UA 4UA ·
2UA 4UA ·
lC · Completed
San Ramon
Crow Canyon Road
Deerwood Place
Fostoria Way Overcrossing
1-680 at Alcosta Boulevard--Remove SB off-ramp
1-680 at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Alcosta Boulevard)--New hook ramp
San Ramon Valley Boulevard Montevideo Drive
West Side Collector San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Old Ranch Road Dougherty Road
Bollinger Canyon Road Alcosta Boulevard
St. George
Fostoria Way Overcrossing
Camino Ramon
Tassajara Ranch Drive
Crow Canyon Road
Deerwood Place
Alcosta Boulevard
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Alcosta Boulevard
City Limits
4DA 6DA ·
4UA ·
4DA ·
Ramp · Removed
Completed
2DA 4DA ·
2COL
2UA 4DA
4DA 6DA ·
Table 7-1
Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements (Continued)
From To
Cross-Section (Number of Lanes)
1990 2000 2010
Alameda County
Dublin Boulevard East Extension
Fallon Road
1-580 at Fallon Road--Change intemhange
Vasco Road operational improvements
Crow Canyon Road operational improvements
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road
Isabel Avenue
Alameda County Line
Doolan Road
1-580
Alameda County Line
Castro Valley
-/2UA
lC
2DA 6DA
4DA 6DA
· Completed
Completed
Completed
Contra Costa County
Bolli~ger Canyon Road Extension
Bollinger Canyon Road Extension
East Branch Road
Camino Tassajara
Dougherty Road
Windemere Parkway
San Ramon City Limits
Dougherty Road North
Bollinger Canyon Extension
Danville To~vn Limit
Crow Canyon Road
Bollinger Canyon Extension
Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road South
Windemere Parkway
County Line
Counly Line
Camino Tassajara
2UA
2/4UA
6DA ·
4DA 6DA
4DA ·
2DA 4DA
4DA 6DA
4DA ·
· No change from previous network
DA Divided Arterial
COL Collector
E/B Eastbound
Nonexistent
UA Undivided Arterial
lC Intemhange
W/B Westbound
-- Changes from previous list
Recommended Improvement Plan
1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover.
2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including
interchange improvement at 1-580/Vallecitos and a new interchange at
1-580/Isabel.
3. 1-680 Auxi]iary 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. 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. 1-680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of
southbound off-ramp with hook ramp.
9. 1-580/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. 1-680 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. 1-580Fi-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/I-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate
all existing weaving sections.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 136
Recommended Improvement Plan
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
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-FJde 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
30ominute headways and five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would
serve Danville, San Ram. on, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley, and some would extend
down to the East Dublin BART station.
WI-I~ELS: Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines
with 30-60 minute headways to 21 lines, all with 30-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:
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 137
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
(l~ot to Scats)
Danville
Ramon
Figure 7-2a
PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Dublin
MAY SCHOOL RD
PORTOI, A AY
EAST AY
Pleasankon
Figure 7-2b
PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS'
Recommended improvement Plan
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
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.
o
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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 140
g
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 MTC/RTP 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-
por~ation 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
3293.6 million.
Interstate 580/680 Interchange. 889.3 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
PleasantonfDublin. Other sources will contribute $367 million to this project.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 141
Financial Plan
Refer to the Alameda County Transportation Authoritfs 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 t~vo-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 $1.1§ billion during this period. These sources are in addition to the Measure B
funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has gone through a similar
process for the whole Bay Area and identified what they call Track 1 projects. These
are projects that would be funded by the assumed continuation of existing state and
federal funding programs. Table 8-1 shows the Tier 1 projects in the Tri-Valley and
compares the Alameda County list to MTC's Track I.
Table 8-1
Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley
MTC Track I AC Tier 1 Comments/
Description (mil esc.$) (mil esc. S) Clarifications
Altamont Rail Service
Demonstration Project
Enhanced Bus Service
1-580/I-680 SB to EB flyover, hook
ramps, and complete ramp braid to
retain Hopyard Road access.
See Corn- 3.2
ments
0 S5.0
16.0 17.0
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station 19.0
New Route 84/I-580 30.0
interchange
1-580 truck/auto separation on WB
1-205 at 1-580.
12.0 0
27.5
20.0
Total $77.0 $72.7
Funding for initial stage planned by
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.
To serve Planning Area 4.
Pending review of 1-580/I-680 inter-
change funding program. Construction
scheduled to begin '97.
BART extension to be completed by
'95, will build shell for West Dublin
station.
Project Study Report being
developed.
Safety-operational improvements to
interchange. Dependent on San Joaq-
uin County provision of $5 million.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 142
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 Tri-Valley.
Table 8-2
Alameda County Tier 2 .Projects in Tri-Valley
AC Tier 2 Comments/
Description (mil esc S) Clarifications
Local Transit Operations-- 4.7
LAVTA
Altamont Pass Rail Servico ...
Demonstration Project
1-580/I-680 flyover, complete
hook ramps to Dublin, and
complete ramp braid to retain
Hopyard Road access
1-580 HOV lane
West Dublin BART Station
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
Route 84 Freeway/Expressway 180.0
and complete Route 84/I-580
Interchange
Enhanced Bus Service 23.0
Vasco Road Operational 16.0
Improvements
Total $229.7
CMA allOcation is for ADA shortfall,
Pending corridor study results. CMA recom-
mends funding Alameda County share of
demo service in Tier 1.
To be determined pending review of 1-580/I-
680 interchange funding program.
To be determined pending outcome of corri-
dor study.
CMA recommends project for Tier I and
Track I.
Reallocate S27.5 million of the S180 million to
West Dublin BART station if MTC adopts RTP
with BART station in Track I1.
To serve Planning Area 4.
Contra Costa County
On November 8, 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, which
bec~me 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 143
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. TrioValley
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-Val!ey. (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:
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 144
Financial Plan
l. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined 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 paxt of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TV~C
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 priorit~ for
funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the transportation service objec-
tives through 2010.
1. 1-580/l-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover.
2. Route 84. Four lanes on Yallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including a
new interchange at 1-580/[sabel.
3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road.
4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the
T~-¥alley.
5. I-$80 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue.
6. 1-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade.
7. ~mp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges
in the Tri-Valley.
8. l-6$O/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of
southbound off-ramp with hook ramp.
9. I-$$O/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 Read 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
145
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 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 San Joaquin County border.
r~-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.
1-580fi-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/I-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate
all existing weaving sections.
Funding for Regional 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.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 146
Table 8-3
Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding~
Project
Estimated Cost
(millions of current
dollars at
time of construction)
Major Funding
Sources
Amount of Funding
Available (millions)
Unfunded
Amount (millions)
1-580/I-680 Interchange
Route 84
(includes interchanges at 1-580
and Stanley)
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes
(Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
BART Extension
(2 stations; East and West
Dublin/Pleasanton Station)
1-580 HOV Lanes (Tassajara to N.
Livermore)
1-680 HOV Lanes (Route 84 to
Sunol Grade)
Ramp Metering
1-580/Foothill Interchange
Alcosta Interchange
Crow Canyon Road
Safety Improvements
Vasco Road Realignment
Express Bus Service
Total
$94.9
$200
$37
S537
$37
$14.4
$20.5
S2
$11.3
$10.32
$25
$16.2
Si ,005.6
Measure B
Measure B, MTC
Livermore, Others
Measure C
Measure B
State, Local
Caltrans
Caltrans
Measure C
$89.3
$63
$10
S51O
$28.5
SO
SO
$1.7
So-
o
$694.5
$5.6
$137
$27
$27
$37
$14.4
S0
$2
$11.3
$8.6
$25
S16.2
$311.1
This table is preliminary in nature, The project list is subject to further discussion at the TVTC.
Assumes that one-half the cost will be paid by Area 4 (Tri-Valley) and one-half the cost by Area 3.
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 major 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-Valley 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 ass-ming that .at the need for
new transportation facil-ities 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-Valley. 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
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 148
Financial Plan
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 hous{ng, 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?
Trans£er o£ 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-Valley to be expended on projects outside of the Tri-
Valley 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-Valley regional fee will need to be
addressed, especially with regard to crediting an in-place Tri-Valley fee toward a
countywide fee.
Impact o£ t~he 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 TVTC 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 Valley area.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 149
Table 8-4
Required Subregional Transportation Impact Fee
Td Valley Area Development Growth~ Required Funding2 Regional Fee
Housing 55,326 dwelling units 3 $155.55 million
Jobs 26,390,583 square feet ' $155.55 million
Total Funding Required
$311.1 million
$2,811 per dwelling unit
$5.89 per square foot
Represenls new approvals only. Excludes projects with vesled tentative map. See Appendix B for details.
Fees are assumed to be divided evenly between residential and commercial developmenls.
Based on full 2010 expected growth, no growlh-managemenl reduction.
Square foolage based on the assumption that each job requires 333 square feet on average.
Financial Plan
Protecrion 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 abiliW 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 Uninc.
Project Danville Rarnon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Liverrnore Through
1-580/I-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% 0% 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%
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 151
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 $18 to 20 million from Contra Costa County jurisdictions to Alameda
County jurisdictions. However, this calculation includes only the unfunded portion of
each project. If Measure C and Measure B monies are added to the analysis, then the
amount spent in each county is almost exactly equal to the money generated.
Table 8-6
Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee
Fees Spent ($ millions)
Fees Generated Based on Based on
Jurisdiction (S millions) Geography Usage
Danville 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
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 152
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 majority vote. Recent court decisions in other counties,
however, have shown that a two-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 e. nabling 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 monef for transportation related
projects.
Toll Financing
A toll road, the Mid-State Toll Road, has been proposed for the Route 84 corridor,
connecting between 1-680 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 EIR will study several options in the
Final Tri-Valley Transportation P/an Adopted July 1995 153
Financial 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 t6 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 8137 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 1-680 between Alcosta and Route 84, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on
1-580 between North Livermore Avenue and the San Joaquin County line, and the
addition of a northbound to westbound flyover ramp at the 1-580/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 8245 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/I-680 Interchange
NB to WB Flyover Ramp
Total
$85
40
120
S245
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 154
Financial Plan
Detailed Finance Plan'
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 percent ($491,720,000) of the
projected cost would be funded by direct developer exactions from localities. These
would be either local impact fees or required project mitigation improvements. The
remaining 20 percent (S294,900,000) of the program cost would be funded by the
subregional transportation impact fee.
Besides the subregional impact fee, the other aspect of the finance plan that needs to
be finalized is the cost sharing arrangement between jurisdictions that have responsi-
bility for a particular route of regional significance. One option is to adopt a policy that
each jurisdiction is responsible for the' routes within its boundaries. Another option is
to determine where traffic goes from each jurisdiction and assess funding responsibili-
ty based on proportional traffic shares. In any event, the cost sharing formulae need to
be developed through negotiation between affected jurisdictions.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 155
Table 8-8
Finance Plan--Tri-Valley 2010 Planned Network
Cost PUblicly
Element (in millions) Funded Source
Privately
Funded Source
Jurisdiction/
Method~
Subregional
Impacl Fee
Caltran$ and BART
1-580/I-680 interchange SB to EB ramp
Route 84 4-lane arterial
1-680 Auxiliary lanes (Diablo to B°llinger)
BART extension to Pleasanton DPX=
West Dublin BART Slation
1-580 HOV Lanes
1-680 HOV Lanes
Express Bus Service (capital cosl)
Ramp Metering
Sublolal
$94,9 89.30
220.00 53.0
37,00 10.00
510.00 510.00
27,00
37.0
14.4
16,2
20.5 .20.5
957.o 682.8
Measure B
Measure B/MTC
Measure C
Measure B/State/Local/Caltrans
Caltrans
10,0
DevelopedFees
PULI/Fee
56
137.0
27.00
27.00
37.0
14.4
!~.~
264,2
Dublin
Dougherty Road widening
Transit Spine
Dublin Blvd widening
Dublin Blvd. extension (to Schaeffer Ranch)
1-580/Schaefer Ranch Road Intemhange
New road: Schaefer Ranch Road
Hacienda Drive extension
New road: Gleason Drive
Tassajara Road widening
Scarlett Ddve
Fallon Road widening/extension
1-580/Fallon interchange
Subtolal
14.00
9.00
16.00
15.00
15.00
1.00
2.00
12.00
17.00
2.00
14.00
15.0Q
132.00
14.00
9,00
16.00
15.00
15.00
1,00
2.00
12.00
17,00
2.00
14.00
15.o
132.0
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer/Fee
DU/CC/Direct
DU/Direct
DU/CC/Direct
DU/Direct
DU/Direcl
DU/Direct
DU/Direct
DU/Direct
DU/CC/Direct
DU/Direcl
DU/CC/DirecI
DU/LI/Fee
Table 8-8
Finance Plan--Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued)
Cost Publicly
Element (in millions) Funded Source
Privately
Funded Source
Jurisdiction/
Method~
Subregional
Impact Fee
Livermore
Collier Canyon Road/Airway Blvd Connection 5.00
Concannon Blvd exlension 3.50
Dalton Avenue extension 2,50
Greenville Road widening 8.00
Intemhange improvemenls on 1-580 60.00
4 @$15
(Greenville, Vasco, First, North Livermore)
Jack London Pkwy widening 6.00
Las Positas Road extension 6.50
Laughlin Road 2.00
North Canyon Pkwy widening 3.00
North Mines Road extension 8.00
Portola Avenue widening 2.00
Scenic Avenue extension 0.50
Vasco Road widening 5.50
North Livermore Avenue widening 7.50
Isabel/Cayetano 20.00
Subtotal 140.00
5,00 Developer3
3.50 Fees
2.50 Fees
8.00 Fees
60.00 Fees
6,00 Fees
6,50 Fees
2,00 Developer
3.00 Fees
8.00 Fees
2,00 Fees
0.50 Developer
5,50 Fees/Developer
7,50 Developer
20.00 Developer
140.00
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Direct
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Fee
LI/Direct
LI/Direct(1.7)/Fee(3.8)
LI/Direct
Pleasanton
Bemal Avenue widening & other
improvements
Busch Road extension
Del Valle Pkwy extension
Dublin Canyon Road widening
El Charro Road widening
Foothill Road widening
Hopyard Road widening
10.59
4~00
3.32
0.09
13.50
4.30
2.80
1.80 City of Pleasanton
10.59 DevelopedFees
4.00 Developer.
3.32 Fees
0~09 Developer
13.50 Developer
4.30 Fees
1.00 Fees
PL/Direcl(2)/Fees(8 59)
PL/DirecI
PL/Fee
PL/Direcl
PUDirecl
PLJFee
PL/Fee
Table 8-8
Finance Plan--Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued)
Cost Publicly
Element (in millions) Funded Source
Privately
Funded Source
Jurisdiclion/
Method~
Subregional
Impact Fee
Inlerchange 1-680/W. Las Positas
Santa Rita Widening
Stanley Blvd Widening
Stoneridge Drive extension
Sunol Blvd widening
Valley Avenue extension
1-580/Foothill Rd. interchange
W, Las Posilas Blvd widening
Miscellaneous Street and
Intersection Improvemenls
Subtotal
9.90
1.58
1.00
1.80
2.03
6.00
2,0
10.39
3.41
76.71
0.09 City of Pleasanton
1.89
9.90 Fees PL/Fee
1,58 Developer PL/Direcl
1.00 Developer/Fees PL/Direct(.8)/Fee(.2)
1,71 Fees Pl_/Fee
2,03 Fees PL/Fee
6,00 Developer PL/Direct
10,39 Fees
3.41 Developer
72,82
PL/Fee
PL/Direct
2.0
2.o
Danville
San Ramon Valley Blvd
1-680/Sycamore Valley Road interchange
Sublolal
6.00
2.0
8.0
6.00 Measure C
2.__.~0Measure C
8.0
San Ramon
Bollinger Canyon Road widening
Crow Canyon Road widening
Deerwood Place extension
1-680/Alcosta Interchange
San Ramon Valley Blvd widening
West Side Collector
Subtotal
8.00
10.00
0.20
11,30
2,00
8,00
31.50
1,30
1.30
8,00 Developer
10.00 Fees
0.20 Developer
0.70 Developer
8.00 Developer
18.9
SR/CC/Direc!
SR/Fee
SR/Fee
SR/Direc!
11.30
11.3
Alameda Counly
Crow Canyon Rd Operational Improvement
Dublin Blvd East extension
Vasco Road Realignment
Subtotal
10.30
12.00
25.00
47.30
1.7
1,7
Measure C
12.00
12.00
Developer
AC/Direct
8.6
25.00
33.6
Table 8-8
Finance Plan--Tri Valley 2010 Planned Network (Continued)
Cost Publicly
Element (in millions) Funded Source
Privately Jurisdiction/ S~bregional
Funded Source. Method~ Impact Fee
Contra Costa County
Bollinger Canyon Road extension 26,00
Dougherty Road widening 17.00
New road: E. Branch Road 8.00
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road widening 46.00
New road: Windemere Parkway 9.0.0.
Subtotal 106.00
26.00 Developer CC/DU/Direct
17.00 Developer CC/DU/Direct
8.00 Developer CC/Direct
46.00 Developer CC/DU/Direct
9.00 Developer CC/Direct
106.00
Totals $1,506.51 $695.69 $499.72 S3 t 1. t 0
Jurisdiction = City/County responsible for implementation of devel,oper exactions; Melhod = either collection of impact fee or direct developer improvement.
Financing for other Iransit improvements not shown on this table. These will be specified by the Tri-Valley transit subcommittee.
Assumes lhat developer funding will become available.
AC = Alameda County
CC = Contra Costa Counly
PL = Pleasanton
SR = San Ramon
DU = Dublin
LI = Livermore
DN = Danville
Executive Summary
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.
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 'Planf
2. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans-
portation improvements.
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.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 160
Executive Summary
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.
Support growth that achieves an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley.
Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds
for needed transportation projects.
Support development of a seamless HOV 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.
Request that transit agencies conduct a study of the formation of a transit benefit
district to finance ongoing transit operating costs.
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 1988
Measure C Growth Management Program will be judged based upon its efforts to
implement agreed-upon actions.
The actions, programs, and measures identified in the Action Plan are intended to
mitigate congestion and achieve the Traffic Service Objectives assuming that future traffic
will be'constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley
Gateways (see Chapter 5, 'Gateway Constraints').
Final Tri- Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 161
Executive Summary
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.
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Responsibility for Implementation
Facility Responsible Agency
Page
Number
1-680 All 168
1-580 All 170
Sycamore Valley Road Danville 172
Danville Boulevard Danville. CCC 176
Camino Tassajara Danville, CCC 177
Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, AC, CCC, Danville 181
San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville. San Ramon 189
Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CCC 191
Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon 194
Dougherty Road CCC, Dublin, San Ramon 195
Tassajara Road CCC, Dublin, AC 197
Dublin Boulevard Dublin, AC 199
San Ramon Road Dublin 203
Hopyard Road Pleasanton 204
Santa Rita Road Pleasanton 206
Stanley Boulevard Pleasanton, Livermore 208
Stoneddge Drive Pieasanton 210
Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton 211
Route 84 All 212
First Street (Livermore) Livermore 215
Vasco Road Livermore, AC, CCC* 216
North Canyons Parkway Livermore. AC 221
Jack London Livermore 229
The following are not routes of regional significance
Stone Valley Road
Fallon Road
Isabel Extension (North of 1-580)
North Livermore Avenue
Las Positas (Pleasanton)
Bemal Avenue
Hacienda Drive
CCC 218
Dublin, AC 219
Livermore. AC 223
Livermore, AC 225
Pleasanton 226
Pleasanton 228
Pleasanton, Dublin 230
"All" if fee is implemented.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 162
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways
Facility: 1-680 North of Livoma at Bollinger
Key Locations
Soutt~ of 1-580 South of Route 84
Existing Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Existing Votume~ 7,100 5,000 4,800 6,000
Existing V/C 1.08 0.76 0.73 0.91
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: HOV lanes. SR 24 to Dublin--under construction; auxiliary lanes, Diablo to Bollinger; SB to EB flyover and
Dublin hook ramps at 1-680/I-580 interchange; improve interchange at Alcosta; aacl 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 dj- 10 36 24 30
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 365 203 13 0
V/C 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% Pleasanton 28% Pleasanton 30%
San Ramon 20% Pleasanton 18% Dublin 20% Livermore 27%
CCC 18% Livermore 11% Livermore 5% Dublin 13%
Dublin 17% Danville 6% CCC 9% CCC 5%
Pleasanton 6% San Ramon 38% Danville 8% Through 19%
Livermore 4% CCC 0% San Ramon 14% Danville 3%
Through 15% Through 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4%
TSO to be achieved
None--Not within V/C = 0.99 V/C = 0.99
TVTC control
No more than five
hours of congestion
Recommended Actions
1. Support major transit 1. Pursue funding for
investment (w/Central auxiliary lanes.
County).
1. Pursue funding
for 1-680/I-580
interchange.
2. Support commute 2. Pursue funding for 2. Advocate HOV
altematives Alcosta interchange lanes Atcosta to
(Bay Areawide). 'improvements. Route 84.
3. Oppose increases to
mixed-flow capacity.
1. Advocate HOV
lanes, Route 84 to
Sunol Grade.
2. Advocate express
bus service.
3. Support commute
altemativas
4. Oppose increases
to mixed-flow
capacity.
Note: A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation plan Adopted July 1995 163
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: 1-680
North of Livoma
Key Locations
at Bollinger
South of 1-580 South of Route 84
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen to 10 lanes +
HOV
Widen to 10 lanes.
Transit Solution
Would require an addi-
tional 50 buses per
hour (peak direction) or
LRT with 5-minute
headways or BART.
Would re~luire 80
buses per t~our or
LRT with 5-minute
headways or BART
or Altamont Pass
Rail with 15-minute
headways.
TDM Solution
Would require 20%
increase in AVR for all
trip types, or spread
commute over 16 hours
per day.
Would raquire 60%
increase in AVR for
all trips, or spread
commute over 16
hours per clay.
Land Use Solution
Reduce growth in CCC
portion of Tri-Valley by
33,850 units, similar
decrease in jobs.
Reduce growth by
63,000 units, similar
decrease in jobs,
similar clecrease in
Santa Clara County.
Policy Solution
Tolerate congestion,
will act as a valve to
promote shorter com-
mutes.
Tolerate congestion,
will reduce tnp
lengths.
TSO mat.
TSO met.
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 164
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: 1-580' West of Foothill at Tassaiara at Altamont
Existing Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes
Existing Volume1 7,000 8,000 5,100
Existing V/C 0.80 0.91 0.58
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: SB to EB flyover at 1-680/I-580 intemhange, improve interchanges to parclo design at FoothilVSan Ramon,
Fallon/EI Charro, Vasco Road. Greenville Road, North Livermore Avenue, and First Street, remove interchange at Portota;
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 dj- 18 + BART 20 None
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 3,914 168 0
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 1.00 (1.07) 1.00 (1.23) 1.00 (1.40)
(unconstrained)
(1-1/2 hours of congestion)
(4 hours of congestion)
(5 hours of con-
gestion)
Traffic Pattern
Dublin 23% Danville 0% Livermore
Pleasenton 24% San Ramon 6% Pleasanton
Livermore 24% Livermore 39% Danville
CCC 5% Dublin 15% San Ramon
Danville 1% Pleasanton 15% CCC
San Ramon 5% CCC 3% Dublin
Through 16% Through 28% Through
25%
14%
1%
8%
3%
9%
40%
TSO to be achieved
Los F no more than 2 LOS F no more than 2
hours hours
None--not within TVTC control
Recommended Actions
None.
1. Pursue HOV lanes
Tassajara to N. Livermore.
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan AdoPted July 1995 165
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: 1-580
Key Locations
West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen to 10 lanes 'or 8+
HOV
Widen to 10 lanes
.Widen to 12
lanes (would
cause major
problems
oownstream)
Transit Solution
Increase BART ridership by Add 40 buses per hour or
600 in peak hour LRT with 10-minute
headways or extend
BART.
Add bus service
(70 buses per
hour) or rail (10-
minute
headways would
be required).
TDM Solution
Increase AVR by 7% for all Increase AVR by 40% tor
trip types, or spread corn- all trip types, or spread
mute to 3 hours per day. commute to 8 hours per
day.
Increase AVR by
40% for all trip
types, or spread
commute to 10
hours per day.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development in AC Reduce development as
portion of TV by ~,500 follows:
units.
Livermore: 11,000 units
Dublin: 6,500 units
Pleasanton: 6,500 units
Similar rs(Suctions in em-
ployment.
Reduce TV jobs
by about 35,000,
must be accom-
panied by similar
decreases in TV
households, San
Joaquin house-
holds, and Bay
Area jobs.
Policy Solution
Tolerate moderate conges-
tion, revise TSO to LOS F
no more than two hours,
Tolerate congestion, revise Tolerate conges-
TSO to LOS F for no more tion, will encour-
than 4 hours, age job develop-
ment in San
Joaquin.
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 166
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Sycamore Valley Road
East of 1-680
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1,800
Existing V/C 0.50
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 2,360
Transit Service (buses/hour both 8
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 58
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.65
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 44%
San Ramon 2%
CCC 48%
Livermora 6%
Pleasanton 0%
Dublin 0%
TSO to be achieved VIC < 0.90 at intersection.
Recommended Actions2
1. Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left-turn pockets at all intersec-
tions, and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. The Town of Danville has sole
discretion to determine whether any improvements may occur that would modify the
design standards of Sycamore Valley Road.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC 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 D
0.63 B
0.79 C
0.37 A
0.47 A
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 167
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Key Locations
Facility: Danville Boulevard
At Stone Valley
Existing Configuration
Existing Volume~
Existing V/C
2 lanes
1,100
0.61
2010 Expected Network
Plannecl changes: None
2010 Configuration
Volume
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
Transit Rictership (peak hour)
V/C 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%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
None. This mute 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
VIC
LOS
Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley
Hartz Avenue and Diablo Road
Danville Boulevard and Livoma Road
0.82
0.38
0.76
D
A
C
I Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation plan Adopted July 1995 168
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Camino Tassajara
Key Locations
East of Sycamore East of
Valley Road Crow Canyon
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1,300 760
Existing V/C 0.36 0.21
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 iat3es
Volume 1,840 2,320
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 10
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 128
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.51 0.64
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 42% CCC 53%
CCC 49% San Ramon 20%
San Ramon 2% Danville 18%
Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1%
Dublin 0% ' Dublin 2%
Livermore 2% Livermora 6%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at intersec-
sections tions~
Recommended Actions=
None Required.
1. An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be con-
structed in the Dougherty Valley t~ased on the Settlement Agree-
ment. Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the com-
pletion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
~ V/C = 0.90 at the Crow Canyon intersection.
2 V/C = 0.90 at the Crow Canyon intersection.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 169
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
H i g hways (Co nti n u ed)'
Facility: Camino Tassajara
Key Locations
East of Sycamore
Valley Road
East of
Crow Canyon
2. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settle-
ment Agreement, control growth t(5 meet intersection level of
service standards.
3. Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010
capacity consisting of four through lanes, accelera-
tion/deceleration lanes at all intersections, leff-tum pockets at all
intersections, and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No
action shall be considered that would eliminate such accelera-
tion/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.
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-foot leff-tum lanes, one
12-foot through lane, one 12-foot through plus right-turn lane,
and one 12-foot right-tum lane. This requires reclu~ing 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
accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width. Any expansion
or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the ap-
proval of the Town of Danville.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS Unconstrained V/C
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
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 170
Tri-Vailey Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Executive Summary
Facility: Camino Tassajara
Key Locations
East of Sycamore
Valley Roacl
East of
Crow Canyon
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen Camino
Tassajara to 6 lanes
Transit Solution
Ada 40 buses per hour
service to Dougherty
Valley and Tassajara
Valley; must be full to
· aci3ieve TSO.
TDM Solution
Restrict DV and
TVPOA peak-hour ancl
peak-period tdp gener-
ation to DV - 77% of
normal, and TVPOA -
8% of normal.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV to 8,500
units by 2010, TVPOA
to 119 units.
Policy Solution
TSO Met
Accept LOS F at
Camino Tassajara/
Blackhawk intersection
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 171
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line
Key Locations
East of Dougherty South of Camino
East of 1-680 (San Ramon) Tassajara (Danville)
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1.200 1,900 1,800 1;800
Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33
2010 Expected Network
Plannecl 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 (buses/hour 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 Pattern
Danville 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon
San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Danville
CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC
Dublin 3% -Dublin 1% Dublin
Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton'
Livermore 1% Livermore 1% Livermore
Through 19% Through 0% Through
27% San Ramon 27%
25% Danville 25%
35% CCC 35%
5% Dublin 5%
5% Pleasanton 5%
3% Livermore 3%
0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
Maximum operating V/C = 0.91 at
speeds within 2- intersections.
lane cross-section.
V/C = 0.91 at intersec-
tions.
V/C = < 0.90 et intersec-
tions.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 172
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
at County Line East of 1-680
Key Locations
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino
TasSalara (Danville)
Recommended Actions~
1. Secure funding
for operational
improvements.
None.
1. Secure funding for
wiclening 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 as
set forth in the Settle-
ment Agreement.
1. An initial level of devel-
opment of 8,500 units may
be constructed in the
Dougherty Valley based
on the Settlement Agree-
ment. Up to 11,000 units
may be considered pend-
ing the completion of addi-
tional traffic studies as set
forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Consistent with the pro-
visions of the Dougherty
Valley Settlement Agree-
ment, control growth to
meet intersection level of
service standaras.
Further actions shall be identified bY the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 . 173
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Crow Canyon Road at County Line
Key Locations
East of 1-680
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino
Tassajara (Danville)
3. Improve Camino
Tassaiara intersection (see
Camino Tassajara.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Unconstrained V/C
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Crow Canyon
Roa(t and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68
Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48
Road and Camino Tassajara 1.15
Road and Dougrterty 0.98
Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68
Road and Camino Ramon 0.89
Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.79
Road and Alcosta 0.82
Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63
B
A
F
E
B
D
C
D
B
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 174
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Crow Canyon Road
at County Line East of t-680
Key Locations
East of Dougherty
(San Ramon)
South of Camino
Tassaiara (Danville)
Potential 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 ana service to DV and TVPOA;
TVPOA; buses must be buses must be full.
full.
TDM Solution
Restrict DV to 77% of
normal trip-making,
TVPOA to 8% of nor-
mal trip-making.
Restdct DV to 77% of nor-
mal trip-making, TVPOA to
8% of normal trip-making.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV 2010 to
8,500 units, TVPOA to
119 units in 2010.
Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500
units, TVPOA to 119 units
in 2010.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at
Crow Canyon/
Doughen'y.
Accept LOS F at Crow
Canyon/Camino Tassajara
(requires deficiency plan).
TSO met. TSO met.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 175
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: San Ramon Valley
Boulevard
At Bollinger
Key Locations
North of Sycamore
Valley ROad
Existing Configuration 5 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume~ 900 1,025
Existing V/C 0.25 0.57
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 4 lanes through Danville; Widening to 4 lanes thmugl~ San Ramon.
2010 Configuration 5 lanes 4 lanes
Volume 1,000 1,540
Transit Service (buses/hour both 10
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 84 437
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.28 0.43
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem
Danville 11% Danville 55%
San Ramon 69% San Ramon 43%
CCC 3% CCC 1%
Dublin 11% Dublin 0%
Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0%
Livermore 1% Livermore 0%
Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
VIC 0.91 at intersec- VlC< 0.90 at inter-
tions, sections.
Recommended Actions
1. Complete widening None.
project.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 176
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
v/C
LOS
San Ramon Valley Boulevarct .and Railroad Avenue 0.63
San Ramon Valley Boulevar0 ancl Sycamore Valley Boulevard 0.81
San Ramon Valley Boulevarcl ancl 1-680 SB Ramps (Alcosta) 0.41
San Ramon Valley Boulevar~i anti Bollinger Canyon Road 0.46
San Ramon Valley Boulevard anti Nords Canyon Road 0.76
San Ramon Valley Boulevarcl ancl Crow Canyon Road 0.79
San Ramon Valley Boulevarcl ancl Alcosta Boulevard 0.60
San Ramon Valley Boulevarct ancl Ama~or Valley Road 0.~5
B
D
a
A
C
C
A
A
Volumes ancl capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Executive Summary
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 177
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680
Key Locations
East of Alcosta
Existing Configuration 8 lanes 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 2,700 400
Existing V/C 0.38 0.11
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension east to Dougherty Road (4 lanes - 6 lanes),
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,200 2,820
Transit Service (buses/hour both (:Ii- 54 24
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 539 550
V/C constrainecl [before Action Plan] 0.44 0.52
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 6% Danville
San Ramon 44% CCC
CCC 42% San Ramon
Dublin 6% Dublin '
Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton
Livermore 1% Livermore
Through 0% Through
4%
49%
42%
4%
1%
0%
0%
TSO
VIC 0.91 at intersec- VIC 0.91 at intersec-
tions, tions.
Recommended Actions~
1. Improve intersec-
tion of Bollinger and
Sunset.
1. Consistent with the
provisions o! the
Dougherty Valley Set-
tlement Agreement,
control growth to meet
intersection level of
service stanaards.
2. Improve Bollinger
Canyon Road/Alcosta
Boulevard Intersection.
3. Complete extension
project in conjunction
with Dougherty Valley
development.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its conception.
Final Tri-Vafley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 178
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Bollinger Canyon Road and Sunset Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (North)
Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps
Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps
Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road (South)
Bollinger Canyon Road and Winclemere 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
~.14
1.11
0.34
0.71
0.47
0.70
0.88
0.46
0.63
1.06
F
f
a
C
A
B
D
a
B
F
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Executive Summary
Final Tri - Valley Transportation plan Adopted July 1995' 179
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680
Key Locations
East of Alcosta
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Acid free right-turn
lane SB on Sunset~
Widen intersection at
Alcosta to 6 lanes on
Bollinger.
Transit Solution
16 aciditional peak- 16 additional peak-
hour buses; must be i~our buses: must be
full. full.
TDM Solution
Restrict DV peak-hour Restrict DY peak-hour
tdp generation to 77% trip generation to 77%
of normal of normal.
Land Use Solution
Reciuce DV 2010 Reduce DV 2010 de-
development by 3,600 velopment by 3,600
units, units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at .Bol-
linger/Sunset.
Accel3t LOS F at Bol-
linger Canyon/Alcosta
intersection.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 180
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Alcosta Boulevard
East of 1-680
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 600
Existing V/C 0.17
2010 Expected Network
Plannecl changes: Reconfiguration of AlcostaJl-680 interchange to improve intersection operation.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,600
Transit Service (buses/hour both 10
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 65
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.44
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem
Danville 3% '
San Ramon 38%
Dublin 28%
CCC 28%
Pleasanton 2%
Livermore 0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C 0,91 at intersections.
Recommended Actions2
1. Secure funding for interchange
improvements.
2. Complete improvements at Bollinger Canyon/Alcosta.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps
Alcosta Boulevard and Montevideo Road
Alcosta Boulevard and Village Parkway
Alcosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon
Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon
Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road
Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard
0.84 D
0.34 A
0.34 A
0.82 D
0.63 B
1.06 F
0,60 A
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995' 181
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
FacilitY: Dougherly Road
Key Locations
North of North of
North of t-580 Dublin Boulevard Old Ranch Road
NOrth of Bollinger
Existing Configuration 6 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume~ 2,700 1,300 300 300
Existing V/C 0.50 0.36 0.17 0.17
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes
Volume 4,200
Transit Service (buses/hour both 28
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 677
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.58
(unconstrained)
6 lanes 6 lanes
2,300 3,310
28
6 lanes
2,9g0
423 679 258
O.43 0.61 0.55
Traffic Pattern
Danville 11%
Pleasanton 27%
CCC 27%
Dublin 20%
Livermore 6%
Through 0%
San Ramon 9%
Danville 11% Danville 8% Danville
Pleasanton 27% San Ramon 6% San Ramon
CCC 27% Other CCC 46% CCC
Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin
Livermore 6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton
Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore
San Ramon 9%
22%
18%
39%
8%
9%
3%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter- VIC < 0.90 at inter- ViC 0.91 at inter-
sections, sections, sections.
V/C 0.91 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions1
1. Secure developer
funding for planned
widening.
1. Secure developer
funding for planned
widening.
1. Secure developer 1. Secure developer
funding lor planned funding tor planned
widening, widening.
2. Put in place 2. Put in place growth
growth controls to controls to Insure
insure achievement achievement of
of TSOs. TSOs.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 182
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Executive Summary
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation
V/C
LOS
Dougherty Roacl and Bollinger Canyon Road (North)
Dougherty Roacl and Crow Canyon Road
Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road
Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road (South)
Dougherty Road anti 1-580 WB Ramps
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevarcl
Dougl~erty Road and Amador Valley Road
F
E
a
a
C
E
C
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 183
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Dougherty Road
North of 1-580
Key Locations
North of North of Old Ranch
Dublin Boulevard Roacl North of Bollinger
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at
Dougherty/Dublin
Boulevarcl intersec-
tion, extension of
Hacienda Drive to
Windemere Parkway.
Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at
Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger
Canyon Road (N) Canyon Road (N) Canyon Road (N)
intersection, extension intersection, exten- intersection, exteri-
or Hacienda Drive to sion of Hacienda sion of Hacien(~a
Windemera 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.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by 5%.
Restrict DV to 77% of Restrict DV to 77% Restrict DV to 77% of
normal peak-hour tnp of normal peak-hour normal peak-hour tdp
rate. trip rate. rate.
Land Use Solution
Restrict DV develbp-
ment to 8.500 units in
2010.
Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV devel-
ment to 8.500 units in. op-ment to 8,500
2010. units in 2010.
Restrict DV develop-
ment to 8,500 units in
2010.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at
Dougherty/Dublin
intersection.
Accept LOS E at Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at
Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger
intersection. Canyon. Canyon.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 184
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Tassajara Road
Key Locations
North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume~ 200 200 200
Existing V/C 0.11 0.11 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 Line, 4 lanes
north of County Line.
2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,700 3,750 2.600
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 18 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 1,066 84 120
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.51 0.69 0.48
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 0% Danville 0% Danville 1%
San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6%
Dublin 35% Dublin1 35% Dublin 17%
CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14%
Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58%
Livermore 10% Livermore2 10% Livermore 4%
Through 0% Through 0%
TSO to be achievecl VIC < 0.913 at intersections. V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at intersections.
sections.
Recommended Actions2 1. Secure developer funding for 1. Secure developer fund- None.
widening, lng for widening.
2. Consider putting in place
mutually agreed and equitable
multijudsdictional growth man-
agement.
3. Consider widening or ex-
panding the highway network,
improving transit service, or
improving transportation de-
mand management.
PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
Tassajara Road and Highland Road
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard
Tassa)ara Road and Gleason Avenue
Tassajara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps
Volumes and capacity reter to PM peal(-hour, peal(-direction ot tlow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
0.76 C
0.65 B
1.05 F
0.70 B
0.84 D
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 185
Executive Summary
Tri-Vailey Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Tassajara Road
North of 1-580
Key Locations
North of Dublin
North of Fallon
Potential Actions
Higriway Solution
Grade separation at
Tassaiara/Dublin intersection,
or extension of Hacienda Ddve
to Winclemere Parkway
Grade seDaration at
TassajaraJDublin intersec-
tion, or extension of Haci-
enda Drive to Windemere
Parkway
Transit Solution
Increased ridership to TVPOA. increased ridership to
'FVPOA.
TDM Solution
Restrict TVPOA to 85% of its
normal trip generation, or
achieve 15% increase in over-
all AVR.
Restdct TVPOA to 85% of
its normal trip generation,
or acflieve 15% increase
in overall AVR.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development adjacent
to Tassajara Road by 900
units.
Reduce development adja- '
cent to Tassajara Road by
900 units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at Tassajara
and Dublin intersection.
Accept LOS F at
Tassajara and Dublin
intersection.
TSO met.
Final Tri- Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 186
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Dublin Boulevard
West of 1-680
Key Locations
East of 1-680 East of Dougnerty East of Tassaiara
Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes N/A N/A
Existing Volume~ 1100 1,030 N/A N/A
Existing V/C 0.31 0.29 N/A N/A
2010 Expected Network
Ptannecl changes: Widening to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tassajara; extension as 6 lanes to N. Canyon Parkway.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 2,000 2,035 2,765 2,520
Transit Service (buses/hour both dj- 14 16
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47
(unconstrainecl)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1% Danville 1%
San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5%
Dublin 58% CCC 2% CCC 5% Livermore 36%
CCC 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 57% Dublin 24%
Pleasanton 13~. Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 4% Pleasanton 13%'
Livermore 11% Livermore 21% Livermore 25% CCC 5%
Thmugl3 0% Through 6%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections, sections, intersections, sections.
Recommended Actions1
1. Secure cleveloper
funding for wiclening.
1. Secure funding 1. Secure funding 1. Secure funding
for widening/ for widening/ for widening/
extension, extension, extension.
2. Pursue HOV 2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580. lanes on 1-580.
Further actions shall t3e identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 187
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley ACtion Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
VIC
LOS
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza
Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive
Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road
Dublin Boulevard and Dougl~erty Roacl
Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway
o;85
0.56
0.73
1.12
1.o5
0.90
0.93
0.82
D
A
C
F
F
D
E
D
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-i3our, peal(-direction of flow.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 188
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)~
Facility: Dubl'in Boulevard
West of 1-680
Key Locations
East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassaiara
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen Dublin Bou- Widen Dublin B0u-
levan:l to 8 lanes levard to 8 lanes or
or provide graae provide grade sepa-
separations at rations at
Dougherty, Dougherty,
Tassajara, and Tassajara. and
Fallon. Add HOV Fallon. Add HOV
lanes to i-580, lanes to 1-580.
Transit Solution
Increase local bus Increase local bus
service, decrease service, decrease
headways to 5 headways to 5 rain-
minutes, utes.
TDM Solution
Achieve AVR in- Achieve AVR in-
crease of about crease of about
15%, or restrict E. 15%, or restrict E.
Dublin trip genera- Dublin trip genera-
tion to 85% of nor- tion to 85% of nor-
mal. mai.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995
189
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Dublin Boulevard
West of 1-680
Key Locations
East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara
Land Use Solution
Reduce E. Dublin Reduce E. Dublin
land use by about land use by about
20% overall, or 20% overall, or
combine with re- combine with re-
cluctions in DY and ductions in DV anti
TVPOA. TVPOA.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at
Tassajara and at Tassajara and at
Falion (requires Fallon (requires
deficiency plan) deficiency plan) and
and LOS E at LOS E at
Dougherty. Dougherty.
TSO met. TSO met.
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 190
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: San Ramon Road
North of Dublin
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1,200
Existing V/C 0.33
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: None.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,000
Transit Service (buses/rtour both directions) 4
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 7
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.28
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 5%
Dublin 55%
San Ramon 23%
Pleasanton 2%
Livermore 10%
CCC 5%
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at
intersections
Recommended Actionsz
None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard
San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road
0.90 D C
0.45 A C
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 l g I
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Hopyard Road
at Stoneridge
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 6 lanes
Existing Volume~ 2,400
Existing V/C 0.44
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 2,400
Transit Service (buses/hour both 20
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 78
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.44
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton
Dublin
Danville
San Ramon
CCC
Livermore
Through
64%
23%
1%
2%
4%
0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Enforce existing
growth controls in
Pieasanton to insure
achievement of TSOs.
2. Build adequate
Route 84 to reduce
cut-through traffic from
West Las Positas
Boulevard.
3. Install traffic signal
phase overlap at
Hopyard/W. Las
Positas.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 192
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Hopyard Road and Owens Ddve
Hopyard Road and Stonericlge Drive
Hopyard Roacl and 1-580 EB Ramps
Hopyard Road and West Las Positas
Hopyard Road and Valley Avenue
0.85
0.58
0.79
0.91
0.66
Volumes anti capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Key Locations
Facility: Hopyard Road
at Stoneridge
Potential Actions
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 ovedap at.
Hopyard/W. Las
Positas.
Transit Solution
Increase local bus
ddership.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by about 2%.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development
in Pleasanton by
about 2%, focused on
vicinity of Hopyard
Road.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E (0.91)
at intersection of
Hopyard/Las Positas.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 193
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Santa Rita Road
at Stoneridge
Key Locations
1-580 EB Off-Ramp
Existing Configuration 6 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1.300
Existing V/C 0,24
3 lanes
2010 Expected Network
Piannect changes: Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road ($1.6 million), developer funding.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes
Volume 2,700 1,231
Transit Service (buses/hour both 6
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 63 100
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.50 0.38
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton 59%
Dublin 25%
Livermore 10%
Danville 0%
San Ramon 2%
CCC
Through 0%
TSO to be achieved
VIC < 0.90 at inter- ViC < 0.90 at inter-
section, section.
Recommended Actions~
None.
1. Obtain agree-
ments with Dublin
and Contra Costa
County to widen EB
off-remp to provide
double left turn.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley TranSPortation Plan Adopted July 1995 194
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Santa Rita Road and West Las Positas
Santa Rita Roacl and Valley Avenue
Santa Rita Roacl and 1-580 EB Ramps
Santa Rita Roacl and Stonendge
0.75
0.75
0.94
0.85
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Key Locations
Facility: Santa Rita Road
at Stoneddge
1-580 EB Off-Ramp
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Widen EB off-ramp
from 1-580 to
Santa Rita Road for
second EB left-turn
lane.
Transit Solution
Increase local bus
ridership (how?).
TDM Solution
Increase overall
AVR by 4%.
Land Use Solution
Recluce (tevelop-
ment in Pleasanton,
Dublin, or TVPOA
by 4,600 units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E
(V/C = 0.94) at San-
ta Rita/I-580 EB
ramps intersection.
TSO met.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 195
· Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Stanley Boulevard
Key Locations
at Valley Avenue
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 800
Existing V/C 0.22
2010 Expected Network
Planne(J changes: Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project),
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,200
Transit Service (buses/hour both 4
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 41
ViC constrained [before Action Plan] 0.33
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Livermore
Pleasanton
Through
Danville
San Ramon
CCC
Dublin
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
' 0%
0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. At Valley/Stanley
intersection, widen for
EB double left-turn
lanes.
2. Reduce cut-through
traffic with adequate
Highway 84.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 196
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
E
A
Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue 0.93
Stanley Boulevard and Main Street 0.37
Stanley Boulevarcl and Isabel Extension Grade Separation
Stanley Boulevarcl and Murrieta Boulevard 0.74 C
' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-flour, peak-direction of flow.
Key Locations
Facility: Stanley Boulevard
at ValLey Avenue
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
at ValleY/Stanley wid-
en eastbound for
double left-turn lanes.
Transit Solution Increase local transit
ridership.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by 30% for all trip
purposes.
Land Use Solution
Reduce Livermore
and Pleasanton devel-
opment by about
13,400 units, similar to
recluction in jobs.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E (V/C =
0.93) at Stanley and
Valley.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 197
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: StoneHdge Drive
at Hopyard
Key Locations
at El Charm
Existing Configuration 6 lanes N/A
Existing Volume~ 1,200 N/A
Existing V/C 0.22 N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension as 6 lanes to El Charro to link with Jack London.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,200 700
Transit Service (buses/hour both 26 None
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 99 0
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.22 0.13
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattem
Danville 1% Danville 0%
San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 53% Livermore 51%
Uvermore 19% Pleasanton 44%
Dublin 15% CCC 0%
CCC ' 1% Dublin 1%
Through 2% Through 2%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.g0 at inter- V/C < 0,90 at inter-
sections, sections.
Recommended Actions;
None. None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas
Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 SB Ramps
Stoneddge 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 refer to PM peak-hour, peai(-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 198
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Sunol Boulevard
East of 1-680
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 800
Existing V/C 0.22
2010 Expected Network
Plannecl changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 1,320
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 4
rections) ·
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 23
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.24
(unconstrained)
Traffic PaEem
Danville
San Ramon
Pleasanton
Livermore
Dublin
CCC .
Through
0%
1%
46%
33%
1%
0%
14%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actionsz None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Sunol Boulevard and Bemal Avenue
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps
Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps
0.80 C
0.58 A
0.54 A
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the .TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 199
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Route 84
Key Locations
Isabel at West of 1-680
on Vallecitos · Jack London (Niles Canyon)
Existing Configuration 2 lanes N/A'
Existing Volume~ 900 N/A
Existing V/C 0.50 N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening anti upgra(~ing 'Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway, connecting ancl widening Isabel to 6-lane
arterial, new interchange at Isabel/I-580, grade separation at Isabel/Stanley.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 3,400 3,900
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 12 16
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 0 18
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.94 0.72
(unconstrained)
2 lanes
Traffic Pattern
CCC 0% Danville 0%
Livermore 80% San Ramon 2%
Pleasanton 3% Livermore 49%
Dublin 0% Pieasanton 10%
Through 17% Dublin 9%
Danville 0% CCC 2%
San' Ramon 0% Through 28%
TSO to be achieved
Link V/C < 0.99 (no inter- Intersection
sections) V/C < 0.90
None
Recommended Actions~
1. Secure tunding for
widening project.
2. Adopt recommenda-
tions of Tri-Valley Sub-
committee on Route 84.
3. Seek cooperative fund-
ing programs with Central
Valley and Fremont-South
Bay jurisdictions to miti-
gate the impact of addi-
tional commute traffic
through the TH-Valley.
1. Secure funding for
widening project.
2. Accept LOS E at Jack
London or widen Route
84 to 8 lanes at Jack
London or provide a
grade separation.
3. Adopt recommenda-
tions of TH-Valley Sub-
committee on Route 84.
1. Maintain existing historic high-
way designation and function.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 200
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
D
E
C
Isabel (Route 84) and Airway Boulevard
IsaDel (Route 84) and Jack London 0.95
Isabel (Route 84) and Vallecitos Road 0.76
Isabel (Route 84) and Stanley Boulevard Grade separation.
Vallecitos Road and Vineyard 0.87 D
~ Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 201
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley ActiOn Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Route 84
on Vallecitos
Key Locations
Isabel at
Jack London
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
IJpgracte to expressway,
grade separation at Jack
London
Transit Solution
Substantially increased
transit service---17 bus-
es per hour, must be
full.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR by
30% for all tnp types.
Land Use Solution
Reduce development in
Pleasanton and
Livermom by about
13,400 units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at Jack
London.
TSO met.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 202
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: First Street (Livermore)
Key Locations
East of
South Livermore
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1,100
Existing V/C 0.31
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Reconfiguration of 1-580/First Street !nterchange to Parclo design.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,200
Transit Service (buses/r~our both di- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 53
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0,33
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
CCC
Danville
San Ramon
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Through
0%
0%
0%
88%
¥%
0%
5%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding for
interchange improve-
ments.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
First Street and 1-580 WB Ramps
First Street and 1-580 EB Ramps
0,61
0.59
LOS
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation plan Adopted July 1995 203
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Vasco Road
Key Locations
N. of Isabel Extension N. of 1-580 S. of 1-580
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes
. Existing Volume~ 1,100 1,800 1,100
Existing V/C 0.61 1,00 0.31
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to four lanes from Isabel Extension to Scenic, widening to 6 lanes from Scenic to Patterson
Pass: realignment and upgrade in Contra Costa County due to reservoir, reconstruction of 1-580/Vasco intemhange.
2010 Configuration 2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes
Volume 1,500 (constrained) 2,580 3,150
Transit Service (buses/hour both cli- 18 40 28
reCtions)
Transit Ridership (peak- hour) 105 158 236
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 1.00 (1.23! 0.48 0.58
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville 2% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 8%
San Ramon 6% Livermore 73% Livermore 78%
Livermore 44% Dublin 5% Dublin 7%
Pleasanton 12% CCC 4% CCC 5%
CCC 4% San Ramon 3% San Ramon 1%
Dublin 9% Danville 0% Danville 1%
Through 23% Through 6%
TSO to be achieved
None---not within Tv'rc V/C < 0.90 at inter- V/C < 0.90 at
control, sections, intersections.
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding for 1. Secure develop-
safety improvements on er funding for wid-
two-lane segment in ening.
Alameda County.
2. Oppose increases to
mixed-flow capacity.
3. Support transit ser-
vice in corridor.
4. The safety 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.
1. Secure devel-
oper funding for
widening.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 204
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS.
Vasco Road and East Avenue
Vasco Road and isabel Extension
Vasco Road and 1-580 WB Ramps
Vasco Road and 1-580 EB Ramps
0.55
0.60
0.69
070
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Executive Summary
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 205
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Fallon Road2 N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes
Existing Volume~ 10 10
Existing V/C 0.01 0.01
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension at 6 lanes from 1-580 to Tassajara Roacl: reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro
and 1-580 interchange.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 2,900
Transit Service (buses/hour both dj- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 0.54
V/C constrained [before Action Plan]
(unconstrained)
6 lanes
2,450
0
Traffic Pattern
Danville
San Ramon
CCC
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livemlore
Through
10% Danville 11%
5% San Ramon 9%
O% CCC 1%
63% Dublin 55%
- 15% Pleasanton .12%
7% Livermore 13%
0%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
V/C < 0.90 at inter-~
sections.
Recommended Actions1
1. Secure funding for
widening/extensIon.
2. Pursue HOV lanes
on 1-580.
3. Secure funding for
1-580/Fallon
intemt~ange improve-
mertts.
1. Secure funding
for widening/
extension.
2. Pursue HOV
lanes on 1-580.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 206
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Fallon Road and Gleason Road
Fallon Road and 1-580 WB Ramps
El Charro Road and 1-580 EB Ramps
Fallon Road and Tassaiara Road
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard
0.62
0,72
0.63
0.76
1.12
B
C
B
C
F
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional significance.
Facility: Fallon Road N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin
Key Locations
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at Grade separation at
Fatlon Dr~ve/Dublin Fallon Drive/Dublin
Boulevard intersec- Boulevard intersec-
tion. Add HOV lane to tion. Add HOV lane
1-580. 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,
TDM 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 shift 1,000
units away from
Fallon/Dublin intersec-
tion.
Reduce East Dublin
development by
1,000 units or shift
1,000 units away
from Fallon/Dublin
intersection.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS F at Dub- Accept LOS F at
lin/Fallon intersection. Dublin/Fallon inter-
section.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 207
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: North Canyons Parkway
W. of Isabel
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ ?
Existing V/C ?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening and extension as 6 lanes from Doolan to Isabel Extension.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 3,090
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 20
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 229
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.57
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
L~vermore
Dublin
Pleasanton
CCC
Danville
San Ramon
Through
58%
21%
10%
3%
O%
- 3%
5%
TSO
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions~
1. Secure developer
funding for
widening/extension.
2. Improve the inter-
section of N. Canyons
Parkway and Collier
Canyon.
PM Peak-HoUr 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon
North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension
1.02
0.92
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 208
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: North Canyons Parkway
W. of Isabel
Key Locations
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Add 2nd LT lane NB
on Collier Canyon at
N. Canyons Parkway,
grade separation at
Isabel Extension.
Transit Solution
Increase in transit
ridership in N.
Livermore.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR
by 10% for ail tdp
types.
Land Use Solution
Decrease develop-
ment levels in N.
Livermore by 200
units.
Policy Solution
Accept poor intersec-
tion levels of service.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 209
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (COntinued)
Facility: Isabel Extension2
Key Locations
N. of North
Canyons Parkway
Existing Configuration N/A
Existing Volume~ N/A
Existing V/C N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension from 1-580 as a 6-1ane/4-1ane arterial to Vasco Road.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 3,330
Transit Service (buses/hour both 12
directions)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 98
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.62
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
I iverT~lOrG
Dublin
Pleasanton
COO
Danville
San Ramon
Through
61%
14%
13%
3%
_ 0%
3~/o
7%
TSO to be achieved.
ViC < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions3
1. Secure developer
funding for extension.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
LOS
Isabel Extension and Vasco Road
Isabel Extension and North Livermore Avenue
Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway
0.60
0.68
0.92
A
B
E
Volumes and Capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional significance
Further actions shall be identified by the TSO Management Study at its completion.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 210
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Isabel Extension
Key Locations
N. of North
Canyons Parkway
Potential Actions
Highway Solution
Grade separation at
N. Canyons Parkway.
Transit Solution
increase transit rider-
ship in N. Livermore.
TDM Solution
Increase overall AVR.
by 2% for all trip
types.
Land Use Solution
Decrease develop-
ment in N. Livermore
by 200 units.
Policy Solution
Accept LOS E at N.
Canyons Parkway
intersection.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 211
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: North Livermore2
N. of 1-580
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 2 lanes
Existing Volume~ 100
Existing V/C 0.06
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to 1-1/2 miles north, 4 lanes to Isabel Extension; modify and widen
~-580/N. Livermore interchange.
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 2,610
TransitService (buses/hour both dj- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 69
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.48
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Livermore 82%
Dublin 8%
Pleasanton 7%
CCC 2%
Danville 0%
san Ramon 1%
TSO to be achieved
Recommended Actions
V/C-< 0.90 at intersections.
1. Secure funding for
1-580/N. Livermore
interchange improve-
ments.
2. Secure developer
funding for widening
project.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
North Livermore 'Avenue and Isabel Extension
North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue
North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 EB Ramps
North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 WB Ramps
0,68
0.66
0.74
0.58
LOS
B
B
C
A
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional significance.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 212
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: W. Las Positas
(Pleasanton)~
E. of 1-680
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume' 480
Existing V/C 0.13
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Addition of interchange at 1-680/W. Las Positas; widening to 4 lanes Foothill to Payne, widening to 6
lanes Hopyard to Stoneddge.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,350
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 4
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 67
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.38
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Danville
San Ramon
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
CCC
Through
0%
0%
61%
15%
10%
3%
10%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter~
sections
Recommended Actions
1, Enforce existing
growth controls to
ensure achievement
of TSOs.
2. Reduce through
traffic by constructing
an adequate
Route 84.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 213
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
W. Las Positas and Stoneridge Drive
W. Las Positas and Haciencla 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
LOS
D
A
C
E
D
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow,
Not a route of regional significance.
Final Tri - Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 214
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Executive Summary
Facility: Bernal Avenue=
E. of 1-680
Key Locations
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ 1,300
Existing VIC 0,36
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to Valley, widening to 4 lanes Foothill to 1-680, widening to 4 lanes First Street
to Stanley,
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 1,700
Transit Service (buses/hour both di- 10
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour) 15
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.31
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Pleasanton
Dublin
Livermore
CCC
Danville
San Ramon
82%
1%
9%
6%
1%
1%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections.
Recommended Actions None.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Bemal Avenue and 1-680 SB Ramps
Bemal Avenue and i-680 NB Ramps
Bemal Avenue and First
0.83 D
0.56 A
0.80 C
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional significance.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 215
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
Facility: Jack London
at Isabel
Key Locations
Existing Configuration N/A
Existing Volume~ N/A
Existing V/C N/A
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension as 4 lanes to El Charro linking with Stoneridge.
2010 Configuration 4 lanes
Volume 1,860
Transit Service (buses/hour both cli- None
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak ~nour) N/A
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.52
(unconstrained)
Traffic Pattern
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
CCC
San Ramon
Danville
54%
40%
3%
O%
3%
O%
TSO to be achieved
V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
Secure developer
funding for extension.
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C LOS
Jack London and Isabel 0.95 E
~ Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 216
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)'
Facility: Hacienda Drive2
Key Locations
N. of 1-580 N. of Dublin Blvd.
Existing Configuration 4 lanes
Existing Volume~ ?
Existing .V/C ?
2010 Expected Network
Planned changes: Extension to Gleason Drive as 4 lanes, widening to 6 lanes 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard,
2010 Configuration 6 lanes
Volume 3,600
Transit Service (buses/hour both di-
rections)
Transit Ridership (peak hour)
V/C constrained [before Action Plan] 0.67
(unconstrained)
4 lanes
Traffic Pattern
Dublin
Pleasanton
Liverrnore
CCC
Danville
San Ramon
56%
25%
2%
15%
1%
1%
TSO V/C < 0.90 at inter-
sections
Recommended Actions
1. Secure funding for
widening and exten-
sion in Dublin,
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 217
Executive Summary
Tri-Valley Action Plan
Highways (Continued)
PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan
V/C
Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EB Ramps
Haciencla Drive and 1-580 WB Ramps
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive
Hacienda Drive and West Las Positas
0.79
0.79
0.73
0.81
0.42
LOS
C
C
C
D
A
Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow.
Not a route of regional-significance.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 218
Executive Summary
Even with implementation of the expected land use and network .assumptions set forth in
Chapter 5, the following and 'other TSO violations are forecast to occur:
Intersection V/C LOS
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard
Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard
Isabel 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
O.93 E
1.05 F
1.12 F
0.95 E
0.92 E
0.94 E
1 .O6 F
0.98 E
1.11 F
1.15 F
1.08 F
Jurisdictions in Tri-Valley may implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Manage-
ment strategy once a detailed growth management study has been 'conducted. The study
should indicate the development reductions, land use density reductions, or other types of
growth 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 for each jurisdiction. Any development reductions
should be considered for their equitable effect on the development potential of the
participating jurisdictions. Reductions should not create a "race" to develop, and if
adopted, shall insure that jurisdictions with relatively greater development potential do
not bear the full brunt of the development reductions. Also, the impact of this develop-
ment reduction to traffic impact fees should be analyzed; other alternatives such as toll
road may also 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. The growth management study and any impact fees would each have to
be approved unanimously. Violations or projected violations of TSO standards remaining
after a growth management strategy is adopted shall be resolved as discussed on page 237
of the Plan.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 219
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-
tires, 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-¥alley 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 unwill-
ingness of another locality to participate in the process.
sJPA agreement included in Appendix C.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 220
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.
Final Tri -Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 221
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Rewew
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.
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 process set forth on page 237 of the
Plan.
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 capacity 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.
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 '
Final Tri - Valley TransPortation Plan Adopted July 1995 222
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
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 (AVR) 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 ali 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. AVR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through
its trip reduction ordinance, or by the Bay Area Air Quality 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
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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 223
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
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.
If there are TSO violations, or projected TSO violations, in a Tri-Valley jurisdiction,
then that jurisdiction can either (a) implement transportation improvements (e.g., road
widening) to correct the TSO deficiency on that affected network segment, or (b)
implement other.measures intended to result in measurable improvements to TSOs on
the Routes of Regional Significance network and contribute to significant
improvements in air quality. Failing this, the jurisdiction can refer the problem to the
TVTC for joint resolution. In the event that the TVTC cannot resolve the violation to
the mutual satisfaction of all members, the jurisdiction may modify the TSO standard,
but only if other jurisdictions are not physically impacted.
The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates in Contra Costa County
and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in
preparing the Growth Management Elements as stated in the CCTA Growth Manage-
ment Implementation Documents, page IG-52. If the specific project or policy changes
are large enough 'to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action
Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to
the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action
Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPs to evaluate
proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and
consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment
to either:
1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the
ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or
2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend-
ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 224
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to
a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program.
Development Review Procedures for General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa
County. Any Tri-Valley area general plan amendment in Contra Costa County that
generates 500 or more peak-hour trips than is currently allowed by the applicable
General Plan, shall be deemed consistent with this Action Plan if preceded or accom-
panied by a multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning agreement that identifies the
responsibilities of the participating parties to ensure that the subsequent approvals
will not result in a violation of Traffic Service Objectives.
Demonstration of compliance with TSOs shall include, but not be limited to, computer
model runs that incorporate each jurisdiction's Five Year Capital Improvement
Program of transportation projects and the projects of federal, state, and regional
agencies such as Caltrans, transit operators, the Metropolitan Transportation Commis-
sion, etc. In addition, the computer model database will include each local
jurisdiction's anticipated land use development projects realistically expected to be
constructed within the next five years.
The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement fulfills this requirement for 'a multi-
jurisdictional cooperative planning agreement for development in the Dougherty
Valley area. The Contra Costa jurisdictions will consider entering into multi-jurisdic-
tional cooperative planning agreements with Alameda County jurisdictions in the Tri-
Valley area.
Amending the Plan
Amendments can be triggered by: periodic review of the plan (every two to four years);
identification of TSO violations; a jurisdiction's proposal to adopt a major general plan
amendment that was not considered in the existing plan; and/or a change in the major
assumptions underIying 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.
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 225
Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
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.
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-¥alley Model
· Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
· Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee
· Coordinated implementation of Actions requiring interjurisdictional cooperation
Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Adopted July 1995 226
Appendices
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 participating jurisdictions
must use the adopted Level of Service methodology in developing their General Plan Growth.
Management Element, monitoring of Level of Service at Reporting 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 increased 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 SATURATION FLOW 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,$00 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 d~.ign
capacities based on the 1,$00 vehicles per hour saturation flow rate are frequently achieved
within Contra Costa County.
!
I
l
i
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Technical Procedures
TABLE 8
Measured PM Peak Hour Saturation Flow Rates
Selected Intersections in Contra Costa County
Intersection
Movement
Number of
Samples
Treat/Clayton
Left
Left/Thru
Thru
Thru/Right
4
8
4
Buchanan/Somersville
Left
Thra
8
2
Aleosta/Crow Canyon
Left
Thru
Right
3
5
1
Blume/Hilltop
Left
Thru
4
4
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Left
Left/Thru
Thru
ThrufRight
Right
19
4
19
4
1
Source:
Panerson Associates 2~90
Highest
Meazured
1,752
2,054
2,487
1,793
2,048
2,014
2,152
2,261
2,531
2,084
' 1,$07
2,1.52
2,054
2,487
1,793
2,531
Technical Procedures
As indicated in Table 8, the saturation flow rates varied by movement type.
Exclusive left-mm 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 geometries 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 (1,500 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 mea.~ured
using the technique described in Chapter 9, Appendix IV of the 191~5 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 HCM:
Where (for lane group or approach i)
capacity in vehicles per hour;
saturation flow rate in vehicles per hour;
effective green time in seconds; and
intersection cycle length in seconds.
45
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
II
ii
II
!
II
II
II
!
II
II
Technical Procedures
7.3 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF DELAY
Because the CCTA Level of Service method applies fixed cri:ical lane volumes
uniformly throughout the county, the method may underestimate congestion at locations with
poor geometrics (older intersections with poor turning radii and small approach widths), or
overestimate congestion at locations with excellent geometrics (newer interse~ions 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 refle-~ ~ignificant
peaking and congestion within the peak hour.
To address these shortcomings, the following supplemental analyses may be
performed in addition to usine the QQTA'~ 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
(FICM). The measured delay should be compared with those
provided in Table 9-1 of the HCM.
The summary of intersection levels of service should be supplemented to reflect
the results of the delaY analyses when significant variations are found.
7.4
nine steps:
LEVEL. OF SERVICE CALCULATION METHOD
Signalized intersection levels of service should be calculated using the following
STEP I: Lane Geometry
Identify the number and type of lanes for each approach.
Intersection Volumes
Identify by counting (if analysis of existing conditions)'or estimating (if analysis
of future conditions) left-mm, through, and right-mm 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.
Technical Procedures
STEP 3: Phasing
Identify the type of phasing (protected lefts turns, shared, or split) to be used at
'the intersection.
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 actual 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 movemenm and left made during the
yellow change interval.
The capacity during the yellow change interval (Vc) -- 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 (Vt.) -- the maximum number
of left turns that can clear against opposing traffic volumes -- is estimated using the following
equation:
~tv'here:
left-mm volume, in vehicles per hour, that can clear during the green for
opposing through traffic.
maximum green plus yellow time.*
cycle time for opposing through traffic.*
sum of opposing through and right-turn volumes, in vehicles per hour.
47
Ii
!
!
!
II
!1
II
II
ii
II
II
!1
II
II
II
Technical Procedures
If either the maximum green time or the cyzie time is
not known, use the through and right-turn volumes for
the approach divided by the number of lanes.
Add the number of left-turns calculated in the change interval Vc to the number
calculated in the permitted left for a total number of left-turns which can clear without a
protected left Vt.. 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 PCS 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:
Right turn volumes from exclusive right mm 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-conflicting left turns go concurrently with the right
mm. For example, the non-conflicting left turn for the northbound right turn is
the westbound left turn.)
Determine the capacity of each movement and each combined movement from
Table 9.
48
Technical Procedures
Calculate the .volume-to-capacity ratio for each movement and combined
movement by dividing the adjusted volumes by the capacities. For combined
movements, use the combined volumes divided by the combined capacities.
TABLE 9
Lane Capacities~
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:'~ 1,636 1,564 1,500
Triple Turn Lanes:" 1,565 1,496 1,435
Capacities for single lane. If multiple lanes are provided, capacity in the table is.~
multiplied by number of lanes to obtain total capacity for movement group.
Can include one shared lane (e.g. one exclusive left, plus one shared through left is
considered dual turn lane).
Assumes 45%-55 % lane split.
Assumes lane use 15% higher in the most used lane.
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
right-mm or the through (or through plus right-mm if no exclusive right-mm lane exists) plus
the opposing left-mm 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
not 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 right, 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 part of the Level of Service
method adopted by the (2CTA, however, both approaches should be considered critical
movements.
49
Technical Procedures
STEP 8:
Sum the critical voiume-to-ca.~acity 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 Sum of Critical V/C
A _< 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70
C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.80 - 0.90
E 0.91 - 1.00
F > 1.00
5O
Appendix B
Comparison of Total Growth
Through 2010 to,
Net New Growth
Table B-1
Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to Net New Growth
Dwelling Units
Total~ Nel
Jurisdiction Growth Vested3 Growth
Jobs
Total~
Growth
Vesled3
Net
Growth
Danville 3,685 2,948 737
San Ramon 2,709 2,000 709
Unincorporated Contra Costa County 16,879 1,134 15,744
Dublin 13,797 172 13,625
Pleasanton 10,514 2,790 7,724
Livermore 17,401 1,422 15,979
Unincorporated Alameda County 808 0 808
Total 65,793 10,467 55,326
2,308
16,502
6,745
24,156
29,997
38,337
324
118,369
400
16,502
0
1,013
15,015
6,188
0
39,118
1,908
0
6,745
23,143
14,982
32,149
324
79,251
Expected land use growth from 1990 to 2010.
Translate Io 26,390,583 square feet.
As of Januanj 1994.
Source: Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
Appendix C
Joint Powers Agreement
JOINT POWERS AGREEMEN"I'
BY AND AMONG TIlE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, COUN'rY OF CONTRA COSTA,
TOWN OF DANVILLE AND CITIES OF DUBLIN, LIVERMORE
PLEASANTON AND SAN RAMON
1. P~rtics. This Joint Powers Agreement, dated March 1, 1991, for the purpose
of reference only, is entered into pursuant to Government Code s~ction 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. Recita, l~. Each Party to this Agreement is a public 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 situated within the boundaries of the County of
Contra Costa. The County of Almneda, the City of Dublin,'the City of Livermore and the
City of Pleasanton are situatcd within the boundaries of the County of Alameda.
The area commonly known as the "Tri-Vallcy Area" encompasses the Town of
Danville, the Cities of Dublin, Ijvermore, 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
Post-It" Fax Note 7671 Date
~JDeDL t Co.
Ph~e ~ Phone
Fax ~ Fax ~
Tile parties hereto recognize that adequate transportation planning is essential to the
orderly development of the Tri-.Valley Area anti that review and coordination of planning
and implementation of transportation facilities in tl~e Tri-Valley Area is to the' benefit of
alt 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 and to provide a forum for
the review and coordination of planning and implementation of transportation facilities itl
:he Tri-Valley 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 bc so construed.
4. Tr'-.TLk_-_-_-_-_-~X~y Transportation Council. The administration of the activities called
for in this Joint Powers Agreement is-delegate3 to and vested in the "rd-Valley
Transportation Council" ("Council"). The Council shall be comprised of one member 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 by the members of the
Council annually to serve as chairperson and one member shall be elected annually to serve
Page 2 of 11
as vice-chairperson. Each city or town council and board of supervisors may appoint an
alternate who may vote in the absence of the designamd voting member. The meetings of
the Council shall be held iT1 accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act,
Government Code sections 54950 et seq. A quorum 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 necessary 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 env/ronmemal 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, tile Tri-Valley Transp6rtation Councih
a. 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
or subregional significance to be located in the Tri-Vallev Area;
c. shall, upon .unanimous vote of 'all members, select and retain a
consultant to prepare a transportation plan (referred to herein as the "TN-Valley
Transportation .Plan") as specified in paragraph 5 below, and 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 are consismnt with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan; and
e. may serve as a forum for
disputes between the Parties.
the resolution
of transportation-related
5. Tri-Valley Transportation Plall. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and
related environmental documents shall be prepared 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 11
_ZOUN OF [~ANVILLE i2'5i0858Ci3i:,C~ ~" ....'":~ -
~ :-,, ~. :_ '~:5i I'.l~::.'.}O/ F .
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 adoption, the Parties agree ~o consider
the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or :~mending circulation elements of their
general plans and specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs.
6. Rescission of MOU. 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-Vallev Transportation Council created by that Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Aclminis~rative [~rvices. There shall be a technical advisory committee
("TAC"), marie up of one staff member from each Party, with one staff member serving as
chairperson. It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the TAC to provide
administrative services as necessary to the Council, such as preparation of agendas for
Council and TAC meetings. The chairperson shall rotate annually among the parties.
Page 5 of 11
8. Comract of Adminiswation. 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 reporls to the Council and the TAC on the
status of consultam services. Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Contract
Administrator shall be reimbursed equally by all other Parties.
9. Accounting 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 and ordinary expenses incurred by the Finance Director in providing accounting
services shall be reimbursed equally by alt other Parties.
10.
Payment for Expenses.
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 Party shall be an equal amount of all expenses.
Page 6 of 11
b. All bills and invoices for expenses incurred pursnant to this Agreement
shall be directed to the Finance Director, who shall calculate tim 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 Par~ upon demand.
c. The Finance Director shall demand advance payment by the Parties of
the estimated costs of preparation of the Tfi-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 Parties' contributions.
l 1. Vote Reo~uired.
a. A unanimous vote of all Parties shall be required for adoption of' the
annual work program and budget.
rcquired for:
bo
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, five votes shall be
ii)
Grant applications;
Expenditure of fi. rods;
Page 7 of 11
T,3UN OF COF-iN¥ILLF' r;:51085~:0560 ,.aN i'-' i'5 _._.. '..; .:i~;i~i ::
iii)
iv)
Execution of contracts; and
Adoption of policies, 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 Agreement may be amended at any time upon the written
approval of ali Parties to the Agreement.
13.
~otices. Except where this Agreement may specifically provide other~vise, any
notices to be sent m any Party shall be directed to the office of the city manager or county
administrator of ~he Party, with copies to all other city managers and county administrators.
14. T~rmination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate as to any or all
Parties upon the occurrence of any of thc following conditions:
Page 8 of 11
,,-.:,,3WN IOF 'r~Rh,IViLLE 1'":51085S0360 -.:-'..;.Z"_:'~ ''-_-'£ r,,,: . (, (. i :..:,
a. Nineb' (90) days' prior written notice of termination by any Party, given
to the chairperson of the Council; provided, however, that thc 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 Parry. to pay its appropriate share
of expenses within 60 days of date of invoice.
Mutual written agreement by all Parties hereto.
15. Disp0siIion _of Funds Upon Termination. Any flmds remaining with the
Finance director, including any interest earned on such funds, upon termination of this
Agreement by all Parties shall be returned to each Party in proportion to the contribution
of each Agency.
(Continued on next page.)
Page 9 of 11
16. Effccdve Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date
of execution of the last signatow hereto.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Dated: ~-~~
f. ,
Approved as to Form:
City Counsel
Attest:
Dated:
Approved as to Form:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
?om Powers, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
/
TOWN OF D~NVILLE
Dated:
Millie Greenberg, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Attt'~t:
O;ignatur¢.~ ¢ontlnue~! on ncxl
Page 10ofll
OF [.ANViLLr
ID'5i08580~60
Approved as to Form:
Dated: ~"~ / q, ./q q/
(/
Dated:
CITY OF DUBLIN
Attest:
CITY OF LIVERMORE
~athie Brown, Mayor
Attest:
CITY OF P/LEASANTON
Ken'-~ercer, Mayor
Attest:
V - O
Dated:
A d as to
01.23.91
jpaagrm
CITY OF SAN RAMON
ayne/~. Bennett, l(,Iayor
Page 11 of 11