HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.11 County Wide Transportation Plan CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: February 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Alameda County-Wide Transportation Plan Status Report
(Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Chart of A.M. Peak Hours Vehicle Miles Traveled
on Congested Highways vs. Capital Costs
2) Summary List of Study Transportation Alternatives
3) List of projects included in the alternative
studies
�,rV 4) Report on Congestion Management Program
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Accept this report.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Alameda County is paying for the majority of the Study
to develop the Plan. Dublin has contributed $2,000
plus Staff time to provide input and monitoring of
the Study. The total study cost is projected to be
$765,000.
DESCRIPTION: Alameda County, in conjunction with the cities within
the County, local transit agencies and representatives
from State and Regional agencies, is in the process of preparing a County-Wide
Transportation Plan. This plan will be used to develop transportation systems
for Alameda County to support the proposed land use for the year 2010. This
report is to provide the City Council with an update on the County-Wide
Transportation Plan.
This project began in August 1989. The schedule for completion of the County-
Wide Transportation Plan has been updated and it is now expected that the
County-Wide Plan will be completed in the Fall of 1991. At this time,
approximately 75% of the project has been completed.
The traffic consultant, Barton-Ashman, first divided the County into four
planning areas; the City of Dublin being in Planning Area #4 (the Tri-Valley) .
They have now completed seven different Year 2010 transportation alternatives,
each alternative having a different set of improvements. The total number of
alternatives to be developed and analyzed is eleven. From these alternatives,
a final Transportation Plan will be selected for Transportation Plan
Commission members' approval.
Of the seven study alternatives now completed (see attached A.M. Peak Hours
Vehicle Miles Traveled On Congested Highway/Capital Cost Chart) , no one
alternative tested is best for all planning areas. The results of the studies
show that in each alternative scenario for Planning Area #4, the congestion
was much worse than the existing conditions. This was not always the case for
the other three planning areas. There are several reasons for this: planning
area #4 is the least developed area; the amount of development projected to
take place during the forecast period is generally higher in area #4; and the
existing traffic conditions in area #4 have the least mileage of congested
streets.
A major portion of these studies are being done with the help of a new
county-wide computer model. This computer model also will be used for the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) (see the attached informational memo on CMP) .
However, because of the need to study major transportation routes, this model
will not give the local agencies information on more local streets and a more
detailed, local model is being worked on for the Tri-Valley Cities area as
part of the newly-approved Joint Powers Agreement. This local model will
allow Dublin and other Tri-Valley cities to calculate levels of service on
our arterial road system and test the traffic effects of proposed
developments.
Staff will continue to monitor and participate in the study and will report
back to Council as the study nears completion.
--------A------- --------------------------------------------------------
ITEM N0. COPIES TO:
A.M. PEAK HOUR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ON CONGESTED HIGHWAYS (LEVELS OF SERVICE E AND F)/CAPITAL COSTS
YEAR 1990 YEAR 2010 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE
AREA FACILITY TYPES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EXISTING COMMITTED KONG LIST POPULAR LRT EMPHASIS TRUNKLINE HOT SPOT
AM Peak Hr VMT on
Congested (a) Hwy
Planning Area #1 Freeway 121,035 191,220 141,115 142,780 207,305 140,550 164,560
Cities of: Arterial 681810 69,360 59,075 59,180 72,915 60,425 67,760
Albany, Alameda, TOTAL 189,845 260,580 200,190 201,960 280,220 200,975 232,320
Berkeley, Emeryville, Capital Costs
Piedmont & Oakland (1990 $ Millions)
Highway $ 0 $945 M $1,230 M $1,072 M $ 583 M $1,188 M $1,152 M
Transit 0 37 M 990 M 45 M 1,220 M 143 M 37 M
TOTAL 0 982 M T2,219 M $1,117 M $1,803 M $1,331 M $1,189 M
AM Peak Hr VMT on
Congested (a) Hwy
Planning Area #2 Freeway 148,625 209,230 98,395 119,570 213,190 116,885 130,840
Cities of: Hayward & Arterial 97,975 137,155 60,595 75,050 121,905 81,980 82,300
San Leandro; unincorporated TOTAL 246,600 346,385 158,990 194,620 335,095 198,865 213,140
communities of San Lorenzo Capital Costs
& Castro Valley (1990 $ Millions)
Highway $ 0 $492 M $ 944 M $ 934 M $652 M $ 802 M $ 861 M
Transit 0 320 M 389 M 320 M 391 M 320 M 320 M
TOTAL 0 812 M $1,333 M $1,254 M $1,043 M $1,122 M $1,181 M
AM Peak Hr VMT on
Congested (a) Hwy
Planning Area #3 Freeway 77,310 181,515 80,895 171,170 173,930 106,430 142,865
Cities of: Arterial 501075 56,575 23,320 34,595 53,430 24,850 36,465
Fremont, Newark TOTAL 127,385 238,090 104,215 205,765 227,360 131,280 179,330
& Union City Capital Costs
(1990 $ Millions)
Highway $ 0 $ 705 M $1,523 M $1,039 M $ 651 M $1,509 M $1,220 M
Transit 0 488 M 585 M 488 M 586 M 488 M 533 M
TOTAL 0 1,193 M $2,108 M $1,527 M $1,237 M $1,997 M $1,753 M
AM Peak Hr VMT on
Congested (a) Hwy
Planning Area #4 Freeway 28,070 184,625 72,795 91,610 81,410 70,660 67,275
Cities of: Arterial 38,150 87,545 37,090 39,090 86,015 28,735 26,375
Dublin, Livermore & TOTAL 66,220 272,170 109,885 130,700 167,425 99,395 93,550
Pleasanton; and Capital Costs
unincorporated area (1990 $Millions)
in the Livermore Valley Highway $ 0 $372 M $1,178 M $ 978 M $ 477 M $1,170 M $ 985 M
Transit 0 318 M 1,083 M 723 M 616 M 669 M 413 M
TOTAL 0 M
(a) Levels of Service "E" and "F"
TPC 1/31/91
SUMMARY OF
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES
1 . Existing Highway and transit facilities as of
Fall 1989 .
2 . Committed Includes those transportation
facilities, services, and programs
that have been funded or are likely
to be funded and implemented by the
year 2000.
3 . Long List Includes long list of candidate
projects and represents upper range
of transportation investments for
Alameda County.
4 . Popular Includes subset of candidate
projects receiving support from TPC,
ACTAC, and CAG members polled during
spring of 1990.
5 . LRT Emphasis Includes network of light rail
transit lines and a few other
highway projects .
6 . Complete Trunk-line Includes "two-loop" freeway system
Facilities featuring SR 238 extended as a
(Freeways/Transit) freeway to I-680 and BART
extensions to Livermore and
San Jose.
7 . "Hot Spot" Emphasis Includes those transportation
facilities responsive to the most
pressing congestion "hot spots" in
the system.
8 . TCM "Transportation Control Measures . "
Includes various pricing strategies
(such as bridge tolls and parking
charges) , mobility improvements
(HOVs, expanded rail, etc. ) , and
land use measures .
9 . (To be defined. )
10 . (To be defined. )
11 . (To be defined. ) A33102
TRANSPORTAT_ PROJECTS INCLUDED IN ALTERNATI STUDIES
Alternative
Candidate Project 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Projects included are designated
Planning Areas 3 and 4 with a solid box.
• Provide Commuter Rail Transit Service between:
• Redwood City CalTrain station and Union City BART ❑ N ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
on Dumbarton rail bridge
• Extend above service east to Livermore ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
• Extend above service east to San Joaquin County ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
• Widen 1-680 to 8 Lanes from Route 237(in
Santa Clara County)to:
• 1-580—Add 1 Mixed-Flow Lane in each direction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• I-580—Add 1 HOV Lane in each direction ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑
• Route 84—Add 1 HOV Lane in each direction ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e ❑
• Provide Express Bus Service between Pleasanton and ❑ O ❑ O ❑ ❑
Fremont BART Station.
• Build light Rail Transit line between Redwood City ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
and Fremont
• Build light Rail Transit Line between Fremont and ❑ ❑ 0 Cl ❑ ❑
Pleasanton
• Extend BART from Bayfair Station to Pleasanton/Dublin. S
r
Planning Area 4
• Extend BART from Pleasanton/Dublin to East Livermore. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• Widen Arterial Streets by 1 Lane in Each Direction:
• Tassa}ara Road (1-580 to Contra Costa County) ❑ e ❑
• Sunol Road (Pleasanton to Sunol) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• Altamont Pass Road (1-580 to Mountain House Rd.) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• Tesla Road (S.Livermore Ave.to San Joaquin County) ❑ ❑ ❑ E 0 ❑
• Greenville Road (Brisa St.to Tesla Rd;widen by 2 lanes ❑ ® ® ❑ ® ❑
each direction to Altamont Pass Frontage Rd.)
Y .
Alternative
Candidate Project . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Planning Area 4 (Cont.)
• Extend and Widen Dublin Boulevard to ❑ ❑ e ❑
North Greenville Rd.
• Widen Foothill Road between Pleasanton and Sunol ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
as Freeway Reliever Route(by 1 Lane in each direction).
• Build new Route 84 Freeway from Sunol to Livermore:
• Two-Lane Expressway to I-580 ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑
• Four-Lane Freeway to Delta Expressway ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• Six-Lane Freeway to Delta Expressway 13 11 11 11 0 13 0
• Six-Lane Freeway to 1-580 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑
• Build Exclusive Truck Lanes on 1-580 from Livermore ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑
East to San Joaquin County.
• Build HOV Lanes on I-580 from Livermore East to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑
San Joaquin County
• Reconstruct I-580/1-680 Interchange:
• Build Measure'13"Funded Project • ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑
• Build Full-Interchange Improvement Project ❑ ® ® ❑ ® ® ❑
• Build Delta Expressway to Contra Costa County:
• Four-Lane Expressway ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
• Six-Lane Expressway ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑
• Four-Lane Freeway ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑
• Build Light Rail Transit Line between Dublin and ❑ S ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Livermore.
• Build Light Rail Transit Line between Pleasanton and ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Livermore.
• Build Light Rail Transit Line between Pleasanton and ❑ . ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑
San Ramon.
• Provide Light Rail Transit Service between Livermore ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑
and San Joaquin County.
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1, 1991
TO: Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
FROM: Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Congestion Management Program (CMP) Status Report
In June of 1990, voters approved legislation which increased funding for
California's transportation system. Approval of this legislation could increase
the City's gas tax revenues by approximately 300. These funds can be used for
street and highway improvements and maintenance, and also the administration
related to it. However, to receive these funds, a Congestion Management Agency
(CMA) must be established. The CMA is responsible for developing the programs i
and procedures that meet the requirements of the legislation. This includes
developing the Congestion Management Program (CMP) . The following major elements
are required for the development of the CMP:
- An element defining the CMP system and its Level of Service (LOS) standards.
- A transit standards element.
- A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) element (Trip Reduction) .
- A program for analyzing the impacts of the land use decisions.
- A seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) .
The City has a vested interest in implementing CMP's because the programs are
prerequisite for obtaining State and local monies.
In an effort to expedite matters, subcommittees for the five CMP elements were
created prior to the CMA being established. The subcommittees for Level of
Service (LOS) and Transit Standards have made their recommendations. The LOS
subcommittee recommended a Level of Service not worse than E, except where F is
already the LOS of the street. Also, the subcommittee recommended to monitor
LOS on an annual basis and the first study should be completed by June, 1991.
The subcommittee for Transit Standards made recommendations that only effect the 1
transit districts. The City's funds from this legislation cannot be used for
transit.
i
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) subcommittee made their preliminary
recommendation that each city adopt a Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) . If TRO is
implemented, the City could be responsible for monitoring the program.
j
j The Program for Analyzing the Impacts of the Land Use Decisions Subcommittee made
their first progress report available to the members. The subcommittee will be
recommending that any General Plan Amendment (GPA) which will generate over 100
p.m. Peak Hour Trips would be subject to CMA review. This subcommittee also may I
recommend once a year to update the land use and circulation data.
Extra part-time staff or consultant time may be needed for monitoring and data +
� collection of these elements.
I
1
I will keep you informed on final recommendations from the subcommittees as they
are made.
MS/mb