HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Route 580 Draft EIR r r
Boo- 3O
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: June 21 , 1982
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Operation of Route 580.
EXHIBITS .ATTACHED: Letter from County Public Works Agency re: Route 580 EIS:
Map of Project Area
RECOMMENDATION: Consider alternatives
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION: The County Public Works Agency is recommending that the Board
of Supervisors support Alternative C. Alternative C provides for 8 mixed flow
lanes. It is the only alternative that would provide unrestricted freeway access
and travel for Dublin motorists. '
If Council desires to express its support for Alternative C,or another alternative,
it would be appropriate to make such a recommendation to CALTRANS at this time.
Comments on the Draft EIS are due by June 25, 1982.
Note: The Draft EIS is on file in the City offices and the Dublin Library for
Council review.
Copies To:
ITEM NO. fi
0
000 84/47
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
•
;`. ate 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward, CA 94544-1395
x 4 9 (415) 881-6470
es
ources
June 10, 1982
Richard C. Ambrose
City Manager
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Before George Gaekle left the City, he requested that this Agency,
on behalf of the City, review the Draft EIS on the operation of Route 580.
This has been done, and I am enclosing herewith a copy of our summary
analysis of the EIS. As brought out in the summary, Alternate C, which
provides for 8 mixed-flow lanes, is the only alternate that would provide
unrestricted freeway access and travel for Dublin motorists. Alternate B,
which provides for 6 lanes of mixed-flow traffic and 2 HOV lanes, is less
acceptable in that freeway travel time is increased under certain conditions
and certain on-ramps will be congested for some homeward-bound Dublin
motorists. Alternatives A and D are both considered unacceptable due to the
inadequate capacity and the resultant high user costs associated with
increased travel time and accident costs.
I. am recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they support Alter-
nate C and that this information be transmitted to Caltrans for their
consideration in the preparation of the Final EIS. A similar resolution by
the Dublin City Council would also be beneficial . June 25 is the final date
set by Caltrans to receive written comments on the draft EIS.
If you would like to have someone from my staff brief you or the council
on the details of the EIS, or our analysis, please call .
Very truly yours,
H. A. FLE' IM, JR.
DIRECTO' IF PUBLIC WORK
HAF:RFS:jw
Enc.
0 COUNF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
ROUTE 580 - HOV LANES - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEW
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
•
•
Four separate. alternatives for the section of Route 580 from Dublin
to westerly of the 580/238 Interchange on Route 238 have been analyzed. (The
impact of this section is analyzed on Route 580 from Portola Avenue in Livermore
to Route 13 in Oakland.) The alternatives are:
Alternative A - This alternative provides four mixed flow lanes and two HOV
lanes. This type of facility presently exists easterly of Eden Canyon Road.
Alternative B - This alternative provides six mixed flow lanes and two HOY lanes.
There would be no separation between the mixed flow lanes and the HOY lanes.
Alternative C - This alternative provides eight mixed flow lanes with no HOY lanes.
Alternative D - This alternative provides a combination of Alternatives A and C.
The A section would be constructed between the San Ramon/Foothill Road Interchange •
and westerly of Eden Canyon Road, about one-half mile east of the Crow Canyon
Road off-ramp. The C alternative would be constructed westerly to the Route 238
Interchanges.
The Environmental Impact Statement is very well written and very easy
to read, unlike most Environmental Impact Statements we have reviewed in this
office.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS •
Alternative A does not provide adequate eastbound or westbound capacity
for the projected traffic.
Alternative B provides congestion free travel for westbound traffic
with a subalternate of two persons per vehicle in the HOV lane. With the
present requirement of 3 persons per vehicle in the Hov lane there will be
congestion without the BART extension. Alternative B provides congestion-free . •
travel for eastbound traffic with the sub-alternate of 2 persons per vehicle in
the HOV lane. However, the subalternate having 3 persons per vehicle in the HOV
lane does not have sufficient capacity and causes a great amount of congestion.
In addition, a large number of vehicles desiring to go easterly on Route 580
will not be able to enter the freeway at Grove Way and will be required to enter
it at Eden Canyon Road after using East Castro Valley Boulevard.
Page Two
Alternative C provides congestion-free travel in both directions
regardless of whether or not BART is extended to the Livermore Valley.
Alternative D does not provide adequate eastbound or westbound capacity
for the projected traffic.
Alternative C is the only alternative which provides adequate capacity
for the residents in the City of Dublin and Castro Valley and does not have
congestion or cause the use of local streets for a bypass. In essence the
freeway will function as a freeway and the local roads will not be needed as
auxiliary lanes.
It is therefore recommended that Alternative C be recommended to Caltran
• as the only alternative acceptable to the City of Dublin and the County of
Alameda
REPORT ANALYSIS •
Caltrans has analyzed the traffic from Portola Avenue westerly because
of the congestion which would exist on Route 580 easterly of Dublin caused by
HOV lanes in the westbound direction. (Presently there is congestion caused
by the HOV lane operation.)
•
Alternative A provides four mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes. There
will be a bottleneck easterly of Crow Canyon Road where traffic leaves the HOV
lane to exit at Crow Canyon Road. With the sub-alternate of an HOV lane handling
vehicles containing two or more persons, the mixed flow demand is 4160 vehicles
per hour in 1990 with a capacity of the two lanes being 3600 vehicles per hour.
This would mean that it would be almost impossible for Dublin residents to get
onto the freeway at the San Ramon/Foothill Road Interchange and be able to cross
the mixed-flow traffic to get into the HOV lanes. In effect, the Dublin traffic
would be confined to the mixed flow lanes whether it was HOV or not.
Alternative B provides six mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes. There
is sufficient capacity so there would be no congestion in the mixed-flow
lanes for the westbound traffic projections for 1990 and 2000 without a BART
extension. - As far as Dublin residents are concerned, it would be possible for an
HOV with 2 or 3 occupants to cross the three mixed flow lanes and get into
the HOV lane.
Alternative C provides eight mixed flow lanes and would have no
congestion anticipated in the year 2000 with or without the extension of BART to
Livermore.
Alternative D leaves the existing freeway section as it is constructed
over Boehmer Hill and extends it to easterly of Crow Canyon Road. . It provides
for eight lanes of mixed flow traffic westerly of that point. It would provide
no relief from the congestion anticipated under Alternative A in either 1990 or
2000 with either 2 or 3 persons per vehicle in the HOV lane.
Page Three
The estimated time of travel in the year 1990 for mixed flow traffic
from Portola Avenue to the Route 580/238 Interchange under Alternative A is 30
minutes; under Alternative B is 19 minutes; under Alternative C is 19 minutes
and under Alternative D is 40 minutes. It can be seen that Alternative D has
more congestion than Alternative A.
A savings in time for HOV users under Alternative A would be 11
minutes; under Alternatives B and C no savings in time would occur since there
is no congestion in the mixed flow lanes. The savings under Alterntive D would
be 7 minutes.
A similar traffic analysis was made for the eastbound flow for the same
section of freeway.
Under Alternative A the Environmental Impact Report states "Route 238
serves as a bottleneck which limits the traffic reaching Route 580". The
demands "give unreasonable congestion and delay on Route 238" and the "imbalance
could not be realistically expected to occur. To more equitably distribute the
congestion, it was assumed that some traffic would use city streets to divert to
Route 580." This would have an adverse impact on the County of Alameda in the
areas of San Lorenzo, Castro Valley and Cherryland.
Alternative A provides for two sub-alternates; i .e., (1) HOV lanes
extending through the Route 238 Interchange onto Route 580; (2) HOV lanes ter-
minating easterly of the Route 580/238 Interchange. The primary bottleneck for
both of these options is east of the Eden Canyon Road on-ramp due to the heavy
on-ramp traffic. Two mixed flow lanes will already be at their capacity of about
3600 vehicles per hour; so additional traffic entering Route 580 at Eden Canyon
Road will cause congestion westerly of the on-ramp which will vary from 3 to 10
miles in length. This alternative will have an adverse impact on Castro Valley in
that a good portion of the traffic desiring to be on Route 580 must use Castro
Valley Boulevard and East Castro Valley Boulevard to arrive at the Eden Canyon Road
on-ramp. "Some of the Eden Canyon Road on-ramp traffic will be diverted from the
Grove Way on-ramp since a congested freeway will not be able to accommodate all of
the Grove Way on-ramp traffic demand. Congestion will occur west of Eden Canyon
Road". Those using car pools will be able to bypass some of the congestion,
however, carpools originating in the Castro Valley/ Hayward area will be unable to
get onto the freeway at the Grove Way on-ramp.
While the Alternative B traffic with its 6 lanes of mixed flow traffic
and two HOV lanes has a capacity for the mixed flow traffic of approximately
5400 vehicles per hour, the traffic demand is still greater than that which can
be accommodated and, as a result, traffic in Castro Valley will periodically be
required to use East Castro Valley Boulevard and enter the freeway at the Eden
Canyon Road on-ramp.
Alternative C will provide sufficient capacity for all eastbound traffic
demands. In addition, Alternative C serves Castro Valley and Hayward better since
the traffic desiring to get onto the freeway at either Strobridge Avenue or Grove
Way will be able to get onto the freeway and not have to use local streets to the
Eden Canyon Road Interchange.
r
Page Four
For Alternative D, congestion would occur near Eden Canyon Rod where
the four mixed flow lanes would then be merged into two mixed flow lanes and
one HOV lane. It is estimated by Caltrans that the length of congestion in
this area will be from 2 to 7 miles.
The report further analyzed traffic delays and traffic safety.
Alternatives B and C have a reduced traffic delay over Alternative A and a
greatly reduced accident rate per million vehicle miles travelled.
The report further evaluated the accident costs and the traffic
enforcement costs. It stated that both of these are greater for the alter-
_ natives with the HOV lanes.
The report states that there is no significant difference in the
noise caused by the operation of the freeway under any of the alternatives.
The air quality under Alternatives B and C will be slightly better
than under Alternatives A and D since there will be no traffic congestion for
the years 1990 and 2000. Alternatives A and D have severe congestion in the
mxied flow lanes.
The report specifically addresses the growth inducement potential for
the Livermore Valley. It indicates that because of the present housing shortage,
the crime rate in certain areas west hills and the
• land in the Bay plain, growth wi ll occur
or not the freeway is built. A congested freeway, it is stated, might act as a
deterent to growth if there were developable lands elsewhere, but since there is
relatively little developable land west of the foothills the growth must occur in
the Valley area if it is to occur at all . The only deterent for growth would be
sewer capacity.
gg
0 ., .
to .0
i • H C._ A co C Y
• d NL' O C O C 0 C C
Poo 'S 0 C/) °CO 0 0C m 0 0� °
T 0 I- L0 LL) tC) o to 0 �gT T pp •v,, cc
� Y 03 =03 _c0 -C7 UN co
,.° y J .-C-Cn tM sCh L X
io > aEi O� ON O� O ac) aa))C
C O Y O •+ 04-; 04 0-0 -00 F—
2 to LL cc LL Cr LX LL W 11/ Y CC
CD
as it N m
IN o +. a 2 cy d cd } M
\I■ dc. o� O oC to 7 gC 01 °
Zmss_ c �_ c «— U ••-
�Ti � F' tea' ° � Q � °—' o ' .a)
CO 4 co co o t �. co c 3 t�
o �, o .
' �, LL Y C p r �' C co C U
Ike Y C 1:3 O flfl40j1L .:tj v c� .z a' O. c;= •p z o- ) a)
E is ... Z .°_' 0 3 - a, w.,orn to i''2 Z 4,.O vt v •o v 13 t 11.../..3.
in - - 52• c CC E3 .x a, E > EY E >
EC�� W
Ly E YU ,_ C Y v
o. O C C
a, O) a
0 9, ties ° � i ° X iup iL o i7) 4. co. LL o un c
d
rrl '5
D� :+ °v 5 y
ON "' E co
-0 tLa •' • Lai— O
t2 > F—Q Q m V 0 — ai
1-to,a) QZ Q
Y∎t=r•
ti
EC.
2•a3 PP'-0M
O-fN P:I Y= O
W
1Sa _1N30 Y '—' `�►.• °�' 'C Td Rtii 0Ui y 0
•7 6 ....0 d H.� A.--a)CV L . E
f'
J Qa O��j N v. TM toi ?�,Eo a) .�
Q QoonnQ3a - =d ,:
C L �'
C> _.— Y Y —O 0 1.'
C�'t�
Y N E� t
... . • � ' :1)::::a a�0 U s•Q.' '..:.Fr,�o E Yp.Ow9 r mU's o� �c Ci a)• e t y E 0y iw• �Q Q 03 Q C3Q>/ �Q v _ - E 3ai c a 0• c 7 v -1, „W
1 Et
-w:xa q3\ // a'l, *� °
tl .*ric!". s+:, <Z.,, , d• -. t . ` tO O P to
\1 Q .4IH _ 4- / ; . ! • 2 -Y x Eo - c: