2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Volume 2

Va ll ejo

Be ni c ia

H erc ul es

Pittsbu rg

Ma r tin ez

Pin ol e An tio c h

San Pablo

We st C oun ty

P lea sa nt Hil l

Ri ch m ond El Cerrito

Or i nd a

Alb a ny

Oakley

Co n c ord

C e ntr a l C ou nty

C lay ton

Ea s t C ounty

Wa lnu t C reek

La f ayette

Brentwood

L am or inda

Be rke ley

Em er y vil le

M o ra ga D a nv ille

Tr i -Va lley

Oa k la nd

San Fr anc i sc o Ala me da

Sa n R am on

S a n Le an d ro C a stro Va lley

D u blin

2017

L iver m ore

Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Volume 2

Adopted September 20, 2017

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board Members Tom Butt, Chair City of Richmond

Karen Mitchoff Board of Supervisors

Federal Glover, Vice Chair Chair for Board of Supervisors

Julie Pierce City of Clayton

Janet Abelson City of El Cerrito

Kevin Romick City of Oakley

Newell Arnerich Town of Danville

Robert Taylor City of Brentwood

Loella Haskew City of Walnut Creek

Dave Trotter Town of Moraga

David Hudson City of San Ramon

Ex-Officio Members Joel Keller BART District 2 Director

Don Tatzin Public Transit Bus Operators City of Lafayette Amy Worth MTC City of Orinda

2017

Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan

Volume 2 Adopted September 20, 2017

Table of Contents 1

The Transportation System ........................................................................... 1 Roadways ................................................................................................................................ 2 Transit, including Buses, Rail, Paratransit, and Ferries .............................................. 10 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ....................................................................................... 14 New Mobility Options through Technology ............................................................... 15 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities .......................................................................... 16 Facilities for Goods Movement ....................................................................................... 17

2

Action Plans ................................................................................................... 19 West County Action Plan (WCCTAC) ....................................................................... 22 Central County Action Plan (TRANSPAC) ................................................................. 23 East County Action Plan (TRANSPLAN) ..................................................................... 25 Lamorinda Action Plan (LPMC) ...................................................................................... 27 Tri-Valley Action Plan (Tri-Valley Transportation Council) .................................... 29 Integration of SB 743 into the Action Plans................................................................. 30

3

Performance and Equity Evaluation ............................................................ 39 Approach to Performance Evaluation ........................................................................... 40 Demographic Context ...................................................................................................... 46 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................... 49 Equity Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 53 Climate Protection and Air Quality............................................................................... 57 Other Performance Measures......................................................................................... 59 Summary Assessment ........................................................................................................ 62

Appendix A: Large Project Performance Assessment .................................... 63 An Evaluation of Large Projects using Targets Established by MTC for 2013 RTP .............................................................................................................................. 63 Appendix B: Listing of Action Plan Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives ................................................................................................ 83 Appendix C: 2017 10- and 20-Year Project Lists .............................................. 87 10-Year Project List ........................................................................................................... 87 20-Year Project List ......................................................................................................... 100

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Existing Transportation Facilities.................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-2: Contra Costa County Traffic Collisions by Type....................................................... 7 Figure 1-3: Pavement Condition Index of Contra Costa County Jurisdictions for 2014 ... 11 Figure 3-1: Single Occupant Vehicle Mode Share ......................................................................... 50 Figure 3-2: Transit Mode Share and Total Transit Trips ............................................................ 50 Figure 3-3: Average Trip Time .......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3-4: Funding Investments ....................................................................................................... 56

List of Tables Table 1-1 Collisions in Contra Costa County Jurisdictions for 2012 and 2015 ...................... 5 Table 1-2: Contra Costa Pavement Condition Index – 2014 Mileage by Category ............... 9 Table 1-3: Pavement Condition Index of Contra Costa County Jurisdictions ......................... 9 Table 2-1: West County Action Plan1 Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives ...... 23 Table 2-2: Central County Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives ... 24 Table 2-3: East County Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives .......... 26 Table 2-4: Lamorinda Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives ............. 28 Table 2-5: Tri-Valley Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives............... 30 Table 2-6: LOS and Delay-Based Action Plan MTSOs by Subregion ....................................... 34 Table 3-1: ABAG Projections 2013 for Contra Costa County 2010 and 2040................... 47 Table 3-2: Demographic Characteristics of Contra Costa Cities ............................................ 48 Table 3-3: Transportation System Performance........................................................................... 51 Table 3-4: Equity Criteria ................................................................................................................... 55 Table 3-5: Air Quality Impacts and Climate Protection ............................................................. 57 Table 3-6: Projected Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2 emitted/year, or MTCO2e/yr) ..................................................................................... 58 Table 3-7: Other Performance Measures....................................................................................... 60 Table A-1: MTC Performance Targets for Transportation Projects (from MTC’s 2013 RTP, Plan Bay Area) ......................................................................................................... 64 Table A-2: Performance Targets and Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects .............................................................................................................................. 65 Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP ............................................................. 69 Table C-1: Summary of 10-Year Projects and Programs ............................................................ 88 Table C-2: 10-Year Project List ........................................................................................................ 89 Table C-3: 20-Year Project List ...................................................................................................... 100 ii

1

The Transportation System

This section of Volume 2 of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) presents background information on Contra Costa County’s transportation system. It provides an overview of each component of the transportation system of the County — streets and highways; rail, bus, and ferry transit; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and goods movement facilities. Also included are maps of traffic collisions and pavement conditions to show where safety and roadway maintenance issues need to be addressed.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

The transportation system in Contra Costa County has evolved significantly since Measure C was passed and the Authority was created in 1989; it now includes a more complete and robust roadway system with the fourth Bore of the Caldecott tunnel, the Richmond Parkway, and East County highway improvements, among others; expanded transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and improved facilities for goods movement. Figure 1-1 shows the major existing transportation facilities in Contra Costa and their location in relation to Priority Development Areas, Communities of Concern, CARE Communities, Priority Conservation Areas, parks, and open space.

ROADWAYS The majority of trips people make each day — whether by car, bus, bicycle, or foot — are made on the streets, roads, and highways of Contra Costa and the Bay Area. This system comprises many different types of roads. In particular, Contra Costa has some of the most heavily traveled freeways in the Bay Area. For example, I-80 has been rated the most congested highway in the Bay Area for over a decade, and I-680 in Walnut Creek often has daily traffic volumes that are higher than the Bay Bridge.

The roadway system also includes major arterials like San Pablo Avenue, Ygnacio Valley Road, and Lone Tree Way. Unlike most freeways, these arterials often pass through the center of communities and are integral to serving local automobile, walking, and bicycling needs, in addition to serving through-travel and goods movement. The biggest share of lane-miles in the county, however, is made up of local streets and rural roads, which also serve cars, buses, and trucks, and walking and bicycling needs.

Traffic Collisions To provide a context for the Vision Zero strategy presented in Volume 1, Table 1-1 shows the amount and location of roadway traffic collisions including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, and truck collisions in Contra Costa in 2012 and 2015 according to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. Between 2012 and 2015, the total number of collisions, injuries by collision, and fatal collisions increased. This trend of increasing collisions is also being experienced nationally.

Figure 1-1: Existing Transportation Facilities 80

Gr i zzly B ay

Va l l ej o

S O L A N O San

C O U N T Y

Su i su n B ay

680

San Pabl o Bay

S

me

nt

o

Jo i a q ui n R

Hon k e r B ay

780

a acr

v Ri

er

ve

r

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

Ben i ci a

F ranks Trac t

160

80

Pi ttsbu rg

4 4

P in o l e

M a r tin e z

He rc u l e s

A n ti o c h

Co n c o rd

Oakley

242

San Pablo

W CCTAC

R i chm ond

San Pablo Reser voir

580

TRA NSPLA N

P l e a sa n t Hil l

4

Clayto n

Brentwood

Br iones Reser voir

El Cerrito

SWATL a f aye tte L AMO R INDA

Alb a ny

Wa lnu t Cre e k

4

TRA NSPAC

24

Mt Diablo

80

O r in d a

Be rkel ey

San F ra nci s co B ay

4

SAN J OA Q U I N COUNTY 680

24

CONTRA C O S TA COUNTY

M o ra g a

E m er y v i l l e

13

Da nv i lle

980

SWATTRI-VA LLE Y

Clift o n Co ur t F o r eb ay Lo s Vaq u e r o s R e s e r vo ir

Oa k l a n d

San F r an cis co

Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC)

Freeway A la m eda

Major Roadway

San Ra m o n

Priority Development Area (PDA) Existing HOV lane Community of Concern (COC)

A L A M E D A BART

CARE Communities

880

C O U N T Y

580

eBART City Limits

280

SWATTRI-VA LLE Y

Railroad Priority Conservation Areas (PCA)

Existing Class I Bike Path

S a n L ea n d ro

680

Park/Open Space

D u bl i n Ca s tro Va l l ey

580

580

L ive r m o re 0

2

4

6 MILES

8

10

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 1-1 Collisions in Contra Costa County Jurisdictions for 2012 and 2015 Collisions Jurisdiction

Injuries

Fatalities

2012

2015

% Change

2012

2015

% Change

2012

2015

% Change

Unincorporated County

730

847

16%

246

321

30%

13

17

31%

Antioch

527

607

15%

262

261

0%

8

8

0%

Clayton

27

41

52%

5

0

-100%

0

9

N/A

Concord

754

802

6%

369

432

17%

6

2

-67%

El Cerrito

83

56

-33%

15

13

-13%

1

0

-100%

Hercules

54

64

19%

6

21

250%

0

0

N/A

Martinez

162

162

0%

48

60

25%

0

1

N/A

Moraga

44

44

0%

10

11

10%

0

0

N/A

Pinole

73

91

25%

28

20

-29%

0

0

N/A

Pittsburg

598

690

15%

113

135

19%

1

5

400%

Pleasant Hill

305

307

1%

126

118

-6%

1

0

-100%

Richmond

536

456

-15%

241

241

0%

6

3

-50%

San Pablo

191

277

45%

61

88

44%

1

1

0%

San Ramon

315

335

6%

124

162

31%

1

2

100%

Walnut Creek

437

475

9%

184

230

25%

1

3

200%

4,836

5,254

9%

1,838

2,113

15%

39

51

31%

Note: Jurisdictions sorted by number of collisions. Totals do not include collisions on private property and state highways.

1. Data is unavailable for Brentwood, Danville, Lafayette, Oakley, and Orinda.

Figure 1-2 shows traffic collisions by type for 2012 in Contra Costa County. The percentage of collisions by mode varied between jurisdictions, but auto collisions comprised roughly 75 percent of the collisions throughout the county, and truck collisions were the least common. With the 2017 CTP update and a commitment to the Vision Zero concept, the Authority will endeavor to reduce these collision numbers significantly by improving traffic safety and facilitating greater use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and associated technology.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Pavement Conditions The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical index from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) indicating the condition of the surface of streets, roads, and highways. The PCI was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and is based on a manual or mechanized assessment of distresses in the pavement. Not only is the condition of the pavement important to the mobility of residents, workers, and goods, but greenhouse gas emissions increase and the cost of maintenance exponentially increases as the condition of pavement deteriorates.

Table 1-2 shows total mileage for Contra Costa County streets for each PCI category in 2014, and Figure 1-3 shows the Pavement Conditions of streets in Contra Costa County for 2014. In the regional context, the average PCI for Contra Costa County in 2014 was 70 (considered “Good”) compared to 68 in Alameda County and 70 in San Mateo County.

Nearly 80 percent of the county’s streets are considered “Excellent/Very Good” or “Good/Fair.” About eight percent of the streets are “At Risk” and about 14 percent are “Poor/Failed.” Using cost data from the 2013 Caltrans State of the Pavement Report, the total cost for reconstructing the 740 miles of roads classified as “At Risk” and “poor/failed” would be about $1.9 billion. This amount far exceeds the amount available through the Local Streets and Maintenance Program in Measure J, even with potential new funding that might be provided by a sales tax extension. If only roads rated as “poor/failed” are reconstructed, the cost would be on the order of $1.2 billion. These estimates are based on the Caltrans averages for the state highway system. The cost for local road reconstruction could be 50 to 100 percent higher to accommodate utilities relocation, equipment staging, traffic re-routing, maintaining grade, and ADA requirements (ADA is not as large a cost factor on the state highway system).

Additional funding for roadway reconstruction will be available as a result of the recent passage and enactment of SB 1, formally known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which is expected to generate $52.4 billion statewide for transportation investments over the next decade through gasoline tax and vehicle licensing fee increases. While significant, this State funding source will not be sufficient to cover all of the County’s needs for deferred road maintenance and the recent storm damage which affected many local streets. With this in mind, Volume 1 includes specific strategies designed to addressed the funding shortfall.

Figure 1-2: Contra Costa County Traffic Collisions for 2012 680

iv er

Vallejo

Grizzly Bay

S O L A N O C O U N T Y S

to

R

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y

Suisun Bay

Benicia 80

Sherman Lake

152

20 Hercules

71

en

Honker Bay

780 San Pablo Bay

ra m ac

434

Franks Tract

160

Pittsburg

4

Pinole

66

San Pablo 328 328

242

Martinez

Concord

Oakley

Antioch

46

WCCTAC Pleasant Hill

73

Richmond

150

San Pablo Reservoir

580

291

Clayton

Brianes Reservoir

Brentwood

3

4

84

26

Walnut Creek

El Cerrito

TRANSPLAN

TRANSPAC

Lafayette Albany

Collisions Per Square Mile High : 64 Low :1

24

San Francisco Bay

229

4

51

Berkeley

Orinda

80

43

SWAT Lamorinda

680

Collisions by Type

444 Emeryville

9

Truck Collisions Treasure

Moraga

Island

Motorcycle Collisions

13

Bike Collisions Pedestrian Collisions Auto Collisions I-80 E

580

Freeway Major I-80 WRoads

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

SWAT Tri-Valley

Danville 94

Oakland

C O N T R A C O S TA C O U N T Y

San Ramon

Alameda

121

Bay AreaSRapid Transit (BART) US-101 Railroads I-280 N

San

Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) Francisco Bay

City Limits

San Leandro

Contra Costa County

0

1.25

2.5

5

Lake Chabot

880

7.5

10 Miles

Source: 2012 Collision Data, SWITRS, MTC, 2012; Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

680

Castro Valley 238

580

Dublin 580

S A N J O A Q U I N C O U N T Y Clifton Court Forebay

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

8

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 1-2: Contra Costa Pavement Condition Index – 2014 Mileage by Category PCI Category Excellent/Very Good Good/Fair At Risk Poor/Failed TOTAL

Total Miles

Percent of Total

1,582.1 1,040.5 261.4 479.0 3,363.1

47.0% 30.9% 7.8% 14.2% 100.0%

Table 1-3 shows the PCI of jurisdictions in Contra Costa, sorted by ranking for the years 2001, 2006, 2013, 2014, and 2015 to show change over time. Of the 19 jurisdictions in Contra Costa, 17 had at least a “Fair” PCI. Since 2001, the PCI of seven jurisdictions have improved or stayed the same, and the PCI of ten jurisdictions have worsened.

Table 1-3: Pavement Condition Index of Contra Costa County Jurisdictions Jurisdiction 2001 Very Good in 2014 (PCI = 80-89) Brentwood 85 El Cerrito 54 Clayton 71 San Ramon Good in 2014 (PCI = 70-79) San Ramon 75 Lafayette 60 San Pablo 60 Oakley 84 Danville 79 Hercules 72 Walnut Creek n/a Pittsburg 69 Fair in 2014 (PCI = 60-69) Pittsburg Antioch 71 Pleasant Hill 79 Pinole 78 Moraga n/a Richmond 54 Concord 78 At-Risk in 2014 (PCI= 50-59) Martinez 70 Poor in 2014 (PCI = 25-49) Orinda 72

2006

2013

87 86 48 83 78 78 See “Good” rating below 74 70 71 79 72 75 72 65

80 76 77 74 73 70 71 61

See “Good” rating above 71 67 62 63 71 67 58 58 45 65 78 61

2014

2015

85 84 82

85 84 81 80

79 76 76 75 74 73 72 71

See San Ramon above 77 77 75 74 71 71 See Pittsburg below

66 66 65 65 62 62

67 66 65 67 64 66 61

59

58

50

52

44

48

48

49

9

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

TRANSIT, INCLUDING B USES, RAIL, PARATRAN SIT, AND FERRIES Within Contra Costa, BART, AC Transit, and other operators provide a full range of transit services for commuters and local riders, including both those services sharing roadways with other vehicles and those with their own rights-of-way. Increasingly, ridesharing services, such as offered by Uber and Lyft, also meet the needs of those with limited mobility who historically used fixed route bus services, taxis, or paratransit. All together, these transit services provide several important benefits:

10

▪

By carrying more people per vehicle, buses can make more efficient use of the capacity of existing roadways than automobiles. Express buses in particular can take advantage of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Contra Costa’s freeways and regional routes.

▪

Because they have their own right-of-way, heavy rail transit, bus rapid transit (BRT), and ferries are not affected by increases in congestion or incidents on roadways. On the other hand, street-running buses (without dedicated lanes), streetcars, and light-rail transit are affected by congestion.

▪

Shifts from automobile use to transit can improve air quality and safety and reduce congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and parking demand.

▪

Automobile ownership is costly and prohibitively expensive for some households. Transit increases mobility for travelers of all incomes and provides a diversity of options for a more resilient transportation system.

Figure 1-3: Contra Costa County Street Pavement Condition, 2014 Vallejo

Grizzly Bay

680

S O L A N O C O U N T Y

ive r

80

Sa Benicia State Park

Honker Bay

780 San Pablo Bay

Sherman Lake

80 Pinole (65)

Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline

Point Pinole Regional Park

Pittsburg (71)

Martinez (50)

to

R

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y

Suisun Bay

Benicia

m cra

en

Franks Tract

160

4

Hercules (73)

Oakley (75)

Concord (62)

242 Pinole Valley Park

San Pablo

(76)

Richmond

Wildcat Canyon Regional Park

(62)

580 Miller Knox Regional Shoreline

San Pablo Reservoir

Briones Regional Park

Brianes Reservoir

El Cerrito (84)

Eastshore State Park

San Francisco Bay

Lime Ridge Open Space

Tilden Regional Park

Albany

24

4

(72) Lafayette Reservoir Recreation Area

80

Clayton (82)

Marsh Creek State Park Diablo Foothills Regional Park

Orinda (48)

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y

444 Emeryville Moraga (65)

Treasure Island

Good/Fair

Oakland

Excellent/Very Good

Las Trampas Regional Park

Redwood Regional Park

13

Yerba Buena Island

Lakeside Park

4

Mount Diablo State Park

680

Poor/Failed

Brentwood (85)

Walnut Creek

Street Pavement Condition

At Risk

Antioch (66)

Lafayette (76)

Berkeley

Angel Island State Park

Black Diamond Mines Regional Park

Pleasant Hill (66)

Clifton Court Forebay

Morgan Territory Regional Preserve

Danville (74)

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Remington Loop Park

Freeway

I-80 E

580

Railroads

San Ramon (79)

Robert W. Crown (RTPC) Regional I-80 W Transportation Planning Committee Alameda Memorial SB

Bethany Reservoir SRA

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

County Boundary US-101 S Parks I-280 N

City Limits

[

]

City Name (Average PCI Score)

San Francisco Bay

San Leandro

PCI 80-89 = Very Good, PCI 70-79 = Good, PCI 60-69 = Fair, PCI 50-59 = At Risk, PCI 25-49 = Poor

Lake Chabot

880

0

1.25

2.5

5

7.5

10 Miles

Source: 2012 Collision Data, SWITRS, MTC, 2012; Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015

680 Castro Valley

580

Dublin 580

238 Livermore

S A N J O A Q U I N C O U N T Y

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

12

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Multiple transit operators serve Contra Costa: ▪

The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides rapid rail service on two lines that serve Contra Costa.

▪

The Capitol Corridor (managed by BART) and the San Joaquin rail line (Amtrak) provide rail service along the western and northern edges of Contra Costa with stations at Richmond, Martinez and Antioch. (An additional Capitol Corridor station is planned at Hercules.)

▪

AC Transit serves most of the urban areas west of the East Bay Hills, providing both local intercity bus service and Transbay service to San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal.

▪

The Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, or WestCAT, serves the northern parts of West County and provides express bus service to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station and service to Martinez along SR 4, as well as express bus service to San Francisco from the Hercules park-and-ride lot.

▪

County Connection (a service of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, or CCCTA) provides local and express bus service, including to the Bishop Ranch business park in San Ramon, the ACE commuter train in Pleasanton, and the BART stations in Dublin. County Connection also provides service from the Hillcrest park-and-ride lot in Antioch to the Walnut Creek BART Station.

▪

Tri Delta Transit (East Contra Costa Transit Authority) provides bus service in East County and includes express bus service to the Pittsburg-Bay Point BART station. Tri Delta also serves Bethel Island, Oakley, and Antioch and has commute service to Livermore along Vasco Road.

▪

Bus operators from outside Contra Costa — including Golden Gate Transit, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority/Wheels, Solano Express and SolTrans — provide inter-county service to BART stations in Contra Costa.

In addition to rail, bus, and ferry services, various paratransit services are available within Contra Costa, and their use has been growing. Paratransit, including dial-a-ride, carpooling, ridesharing, and similar services, is essential in meeting the mobility needs of the elderly and disabled, who are not as easily served by other transit services. The demand for these services will grow as our population ages. As discussed in Volume 1, technology can and will be used to improve efficiency and lower costs.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Measure J continued the support for transit operations, including paratransit services, and added new funding for express lanes. Measure J also continued the school bus program in Lamorinda and added support for a similar program in the San Ramon Valley. West County has also implemented a low-income student bus pass program. The CTP’s Long-Range Transportation Investment Program (LRTIP) envisions augmented funding for these services.

Although ferry service between Richmond and San Francisco was discontinued, it is expected to restart in 2018, based out of a new, planned ferry terminal in Richmond on the Ford Peninsula. In addition, new routes to San Francisco from Richmond, Hercules/Rodeo, Martinez and Antioch/Pittsburg are all being evaluated, but service remains unlikely unless new sources of funding become available. A recent study analyzed fare-box recovery requirements and the economic viability of ferries in Contra Costa. The study provides information on estimated costs and revenues for ferry service operations from Richmond, Hercules, Martinez, and Antioch.

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHIC LE LANES

Carpool Lane Facilities By providing faster and more reliable travel times to carpools and transit, carpool lanes, also known as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, can encourage a shift away from solo commuting and improve the capacity and reliability of the transportation system.

Park-and-ride facilities can encourage greater use of HOV lanes by providing pick-up areas for both carpools and transit. Where HOV lanes reduce congestion, they benefit regional air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. HOV lanes can also significantly benefit transit, as express bus routes can rely on HOV lanes to bypass congestion and reduce travel times.

Express Lanes A variation on HOV lanes, Express Lanes allow solo drivers to use HOV lanes by paying a toll. The price of the toll changes in response to demand, increasing as congestion increases (whether on the HOV lane or the adjoining “mixed-flow” lanes). This dynamic

1

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Financial Feasibility of Contra Costa County Ferry Service, 2015 – 2024, May 29, 2014.

14

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

tolling keeps the Express Lane operating at free-flow conditions so that the travel time advantage for carpools and buses is effectively maintained.

In its most recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MTC unveiled a plan to build 270 miles of Express Lanes in the Bay Area. The plan, which is not fully funded, would convert existing HOV lanes on I-80 and I-680 in Contra Costa to Express Lanes.

This conversion would help the region reduce single-occupant vehicle travel and congestion and help the region meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Discussions continue regarding treatment of revenues generated from Express Lane tolling.

One common criticism of Express Lanes is that they let the rich “buy their way out of the congestion,� while people who cannot afford the toll must endure the delays. A number of studies, however, have found that commuters with low incomes are just as inclined to pay tolls to save time as those with higher incomes. The equity concern remains that lower income commuters are proportionally more burdened than higher income commuters.

Express Lanes have been implemented in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and the first Express Lanes are expected to open in Contra Costa on I-680 in 2017. The lanes will run on southbound I-680 from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon, and on northbound I-680 from Alcosta to Livorna Road in Alamo. Express Lanes will remain free for carpoolers, motorcycles, and electric vehicles. Caltrans will monitor the operation of the Express lanes and the toll amount to ensure that the lanes continue to benefit carpools and buses.

NEW MOBILITY OPTIONS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Transportation network companies (TNC) and new technologies add mobility options to the existing transportation system in Contra Costa. TNCs, including Lyft and Uber, are defined by the California Public Utilities Commission as companies that use an onlineenabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal, noncommercial, vehicles. According to a survey of transportation mode share within San Francisco, 28 percent of San Francisco residents and 17 percent of other Bay Area residents say they use TNCs at least monthly.2 Other new mobility options include 2

Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research. SFMTA Travel Decisions Survey 2015 Summary Report.

15

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

rideshare, carshare, and bikeshare, all of which have become increasing popular. For example, in recent years, national car rental companies such as Avis Budget Group and Enterprise have invested in and provide carsharing services. All of these options are supported by the CTP Update; details on specific strategies are in Volume 1.

PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRAIL FACILITIES Walking and bicycling are increasingly recognized as critical components of the transportation system, and the CTP Update affirms their importance through support for alternative modes and Complete Streets. Among their many benefits, these forms of transportation can reduce traffic, air and noise pollution, energy consumption and the need to expand roads and build more automobile parking; they can also reduce household transportation costs and improve the health and quality of life of Contra Costa residents and local communities in the County. The CTP also recognizes that nonmotorized transportation enjoys a reciprocal relationship with transit: transit allows pedestrians and cyclists to extend their travel range, while pedestrians and cyclists provide the ridership that justifies increased service. Trails also provide important regional connections.

Recognizing the importance of walking and biking, CCTA adopted the first Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) in 2003. The CBPP was comprehensively updated in 2009 to reflect changes in existing conditions and policies that had taken place in the intervening years. More recently, the maps in the CBPP have been updated to reflect current proposals from local jurisdictions, and a CBPP update is proceeding concurrently with this CTP Update.

Interest in Safe Routes to School (SR2S) efforts is also growing in Contra Costa, thanks in part because of Measure J funding. SR2S activities have the basic objective of improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists around schools. When more children walk or bike to school, the benefits include reduced vehicular traffic around schools, improved public health outcomes through increased physical activity, and an enhanced sense of community for the neighborhood around the school. In a 2014 study, the Authority estimated that about $242 million is needed for future SR2S capital projects and $58 million is needed annually for SR2S programs. The LRTIP continues the Authority’s commitment to these programs with a $91 million allocation.

16

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Trails in Contra Costa of Countywide or Regional Importance ▪

Ohlone Greenway

▪

Contra Costa Canal Trail

▪

Richmond Greenway

▪

American Discovery Trail

▪

San Francisco Bay Trail

▪

Marsh Creek Regional Trail

▪

Iron Horse Trail

▪

Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail

▪

Delta de Anza Trail

▪

Great California Delta Trail (planned)

▪

Lafayette–Moraga Regional Trail

▪

Bay Area Ridge Trail

▪

EBMUD Aqueduct Trail

FACILITIES FOR GOODS MOVEMENT In Contra Costa, the movement of goods is critical to the local as well as the regional economy and represents a significant portion of travel on the highways and roads. More to the point, Caltrans’ San Francisco Bay Area Freight Mobility Study notes that in 2011, goods movement dependent industries, including manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, construction, transportation and utilities, and agriculture and natural resources, accounted for $490 billion of total output in the Bay Area, representing 51 percent of the total regional output. In addition, goods movement dependent industries provided about 1.1 million jobs, representing 32 percent of total regional employment. However, while it is essential to the region’s economic vitality, the movement of goods also adds to congestion, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety concerns. In Volume 1, strategies to address goods movement are presented, with the objective of capitalizing on the potential benefits, while minimizing these adverse effects.

Trucks are the primary carrier of goods within Contra Costa, the region, and the nation.

MTC’s 2004 Regional Goods Movement Study for the San Francisco Bay Area notes that trucking carries the largest share of the Bay Area’s domestic trade, by both weight (80 percent) and dollar value (82 percent). In the Bay Area, trucks primarily use the main multimodal interregional corridors – the Central Corridor (I-80) and the Altamont Corridor (I-580) – to reach destinations elsewhere in California and in other states.

In the future, the amount of goods movement in Contra Costa and the region is expected to grow. According to MTC, only about half of the forecast demand for land for goods Caltrans, San Francisco Bay Area Freight Mobility Study, 2014.

17

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

movement dependent industries in the Bay Area can be accommodated along the existing central corridors. This will likely result in outward dispersion of goods movement businesses, which will have transportation and air quality consequences, including longer travel distances for goods movement, more truck miles driven, and greater congestion on regional routes. In response, the Alameda County Transportation Commission is leading a Bay Area Goods Movement Collaborative to understand goods movement needs in the Bay Area, to identify and pursue short- and long-term strategies to address those needs, and to prepare a Goods Movement Plan. Further work on local initiatives for goods movement that the Authority could support is proposed in Volume 1.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Goods Movement/Land Use Project Final Summary Report for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008.

18

2

Action Plans

This section of Volume 2 of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) presents summary information on the subregional Action Plans, a key part of the cooperative process of transportation planning and growth management called for in Contra Costa’s Measure J. These plans focus on actions proposed for the Routes of Regional Significance, the projects and programs which were recommended by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees for inclusion in the Long-Range Investment Program.

The adopted Regional Transportation Planning Committee’s Action Plans are available on the Authority’s website. The CTP knits together the five Action Plans to create a comprehensive transportation plan and long range investment program from the ground up.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance are an essential component of the County’s Growth Management Program and help jurisdictions fulfill their requirement to participate in the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional transportation planning process.

The Action Plans also help carry out the Authority’s Congestion Management Program, which requires a program for evaluating the impacts of land use decisions on the regional transportation system and the establishment of performance measures. All jurisdictions in the county participate in the development, review, and implementation of the Action Plans through their membership in the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC). This ensures that the Action Plans contain reasonable actions that enjoy strong local support.

In the Action Plans, each RTPC designates Routes of Regional Significance, sets performance measures — known as Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) — for the Regional Routes, assesses the impacts of future growth on these routes, and identifies actions to achieve the MTSOs. The 2017 CTP builds on that performance-based analysis and incorporates recommendations of the Action Plans.

There are four RTPCs in Contra Costa: WCCTAC (West County), TRANSPAC (Central County), SWAT (covering the Lamorinda and Danville‒San Ramon areas), and TRANSPLAN (East County). Each RTPC prepares one Action Plan except SWAT, which oversees two plans. Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda participate in the Lamorinda Program Management Committee (LPMC), which prepared the Lamorinda Action Plan.

Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa County worked on a separate Action Plan with Alameda County jurisdictions through the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC).

That group, which includes Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore and Alameda County as well as the Contra Costa jurisdictions, has prepared and updated the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan.

The Action Plans that the RTPCs created in 1995 and updated in 2000 were incorporated into the 1995 CTP and the 2000 CTP Update. The RTPCs updated the Action Plans for the 2009 CTP, this time responding to the changes made by Measure J. Most recently, the RTPCs updated their Action Plans in 2013-2014 for the 2017 CTP, responding to local needs, opportunities for greater use of technology, and State and federal mandates.

20

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Components of the Action Plans The Action Plans contain the following components: ▪

Long-range assumptions of future land use based on local general plans and a 2040 forecast for household and job growth;

▪

Policy framework, which includes goals, sub-goals, objectives or other policytype statements;

▪

Designated Routes of Regional Significance;

▪

Multimodal transportation service objectives (MTSOs) that use a quantifiable measure of effectiveness and a date for achieving them;

▪

Specific actions to be implemented by each jurisdiction, including a financially unconstrained list of projects;

▪

A process for consultation on environmental documents among jurisdictions;

▪

A procedure for reviewing the impacts of proposed local general plan amendments (GPAs) that could affect the achievement of MTSOs; and

▪

A schedule for reviewing and updating the Action Plans.

Adopted 2013-2014 Action Plans The following Action Plans were prepared and adopted by the RTPCs in 2013-2014 and are summarized below. The full Action Plans can be found on the Authority’s website.

▪

West County (WCCTAC)

▪

Central County (TRANSPAC)

▪

East County (TRANSPLAN)

▪

Tri-Valley (TVTC)

▪

Lamorinda (LPMC)

21

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

WEST COUNTY AC TION PLAN (WCCTAC) West County includes the jurisdictions of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The population of the West County area is expected to grow by 24 percent between 2010 and 2040 to approximately 325,000 people. The number of jobs is expected to grow at a greater rate of 56 percent, resulting in a slight increase in the jobs-to-employed-residents ratio by 2040. To meet the growing demand for transportation, the West County Action Plan focuses on improving transportation options by enhancing local and regional transit services, expanding access to high-capacity transit, increasing the use of active transportation modes, pursuing transportation demand management (TDM) programs to reduce singleoccupant vehicle travel, and managing growth patterns, as well as improving and maintaining the efficiency of highway and arterial operations.

The Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSO’s) of the West County Action Plan and the Routes of Regional Significance to which they are applied are shown in Table 2-1. Appendix B includes a glossary of terms used in these Measures.

To achieve its Goals and MTSOs, the actions in West County Action Plan focus on partnering with transit service agencies, supporting transit-oriented development, studying and pursuing transit service improvements, improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and investigating and implementing operations improvements of major roads and highways.

Proposed major new actions in the West County Action Plan include:

22

▪

Partner with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and MTC to plan and fund ferry service in West County;

▪

Construct improvements identified in local Complete Streets studies, including along San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito and San Pablo, and along Appian Way in unincorporated Contra Costa County;

▪

Complete the reconstruction of the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange; and

▪

Enhance SR-4 to a full freeway between I-80 and Cummings Skyway.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 2-1: West County Action Plan1 Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives Measure

Objective

Application

Delay Index

2 or less

SR 4

2.5 or less

I-580

3 or less

I-80

LOS D

23rd Street; Appian Way; Carlson Blvd; Central Ave, Cummings Skyway, Richmond Parkway

LOS E

San Pablo Ave, San Pablo Dam Rd

Lane usage increase by 10% over 2013 levels

I-80

Signalized Intersection LOS

HOV Lane Usage

Notes: 1. Within Pedestrian-Bicycle-Transit Zones, which are within 1/2 mile of BART stations, local jurisdictions' performance standards govern.

CENTRAL COUNTY ACTIO N PLAN (TRANSPAC) The Central County area includes the jurisdictions of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, Concord, Martinez, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The population of Central County is expected to grow by 16 percent between 2013 and 2040 to a total of approximately 446,700 people in 2040, and the number of jobs is expected to grow by 30 percent to 232,000. The Central County Action Plan is based on two key assumptions: Central County is 85 to 90 percent “built out,” and most future development will be infill. Therefore, improvements to the transportation system will need to focus more on demand and efficiency, rather than solely on capacity improvements. TRANSPAC’s Action Plan outlines nine Goals focused on maintaining the existing transportation system, supporting transit improvements, encouraging smart land use patterns, supporting low emission technologies, supporting Complete Streets, increasing participation in TDM programs, and improving freeway flow with use of HOV and express lanes.

The MTSOs in the Central County Action Plan are shown in Table 2-2. For each measure of each Route of Regional Significance, the Action Plan outlines corresponding actions and proposed improvements. The actions focus on improving HOV lanes and interchanges, widening roadways, studying potential operations improvements, partnering with TRANSPLAN, and implementing active transportation improvements.

23

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table 2-2: Central County Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives Measure

Objective

Application

Delay Index

3 or less

SR 242

4 or less

I-680

5 or less

SR 4

Average Peak Hour Travel Speed

15 MPH

Contra Costa Blvd in all jurisdictions; Alhambra Ave in Martinez and Pleasant Hill; Clayton Rd in Clayton; Pleasant Hill Rd and Taylor Blvd in Pleasant Hill

Average Stopped Delay

3 Cycles

Bailey Rd at Concord Blvd and at Clayton Rd in Concord; Clayton Rd at Kirker Pass Rd/Ygnacio Valley Rd and at Treat Blvd/Denkinger Rd; Treat Blvd at Clayton Rd/Denkinger Rd in Concord; Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd at Clayton Rd/Kirker Pass Rd in Concord

4 Cycles

Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd at Alberta Way/Pine Hollow Drive in Concord; Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd at Cowell Rd in Concord

5 Cycles

Treat Blvd at Cowell Rd and at Oak Grove Rd

Signalized Intersection LOS

F

Geary Rd at North Main St; North Main St at Treat Blvd/Geary Rd; Treat Blvd at Bancroft Rd in Walnut Creek; Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd at Bancroft Rd and at Civic Dr in Walnut Creek

Volume-toCapacity Ratio

1.5 V/C

Pacheco Blvd at all intersections in County and Martinez; Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor Blvd, and Treat Blvd in County; Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd at all intersections in County

Proposed major new actions in the Central County Action Plan include:

24

▪

Complete the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and implement the Express Lanes on I-680 both northbound and southbound within Central County;

▪

Upgrade the I-680/SR-4 interchanges to eliminate tight-weaving sections, expand the size of the loops, and add a third lane in each direction on SR-4; and

▪

Improve freeway capacity and operations of SR-4 by extending the HOV lanes and by adding one new lane in the eastbound direction from east of the I-680 interchange to the San Marco Road interchange.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

EAST COUNTY ACTION P LAN (TRANSPLAN) East County includes the jurisdictions of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Of all the sub-regions of Contra Costa County, the East County population is projected to grow at the fastest rate—41 percent between 2010 and 2040. The number of jobs is expected to grow by 94 percent, although Central County is expected to continue to have the highest total number of jobs out of the subregions. The ratio of jobs-to-employed-residents is expected to slightly increase by 2040.

To accommodate the growth in travel demand, the East County Action Plan outlines five Goals focused on improving efficiency of freeway and arterial operations, supporting an effective transit system, improving multimodal mobility and decreasing single-occupant vehicle travel, maintaining the existing system, and managing growth and its fiscal effects on the transportation system.

The MTSOs of East County are shown in Table 2-3, and the East County Action Plan establishes a range of actions to achieve the Goals and MTSOs. The actions related to freeway and arterial operations include regional highway facility and operational improvements. To support an effective transit system, TRANSPLAN’s Action Plan aims to support rail transit operations and expand transit service, provide intermodal transit centers, and expand park-and-ride lots. Actions to improve multimodal mobility include supporting TDM programs and active transportation and continuing the growth mitigation and monitoring program. Actions also include encouraging adequate maintenance, monitoring the East County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee and pursuing other funding sources, and balanced growth in the area.

25

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table 2-3: East County Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives Measure

Objective

Application

Delay Index

2.5 or less

All freeways during AM/PM peak period

Signalized Intersection LOS1 (applied on suburban arterial routes)

LOS D

Auto Center Dr; Balfour Rd; Brentwood Blvd/Main St; Buchanan Rd; Deer Valley Rd, improved portion; East 10th St/Harbor St in Pittsburgh; East 18th St; Fairview Ave; Hillcrest Ave; James Donlon Blvd, including future extension; Laurel Rd; Leland Rd (both West and East)/Delta Fair Blvd; Lone Tree Way/A St; Oak St/Walnut Blvd in Brentwood; 9th St/10th St in Antioch; Pittsburg-Antioch Highway; Railroad Ave/Kirker Pass Rd; Sand Creek Rd/Dallas Ranch Rd; Somersville Rd; Standard Oil Ave (future route); Wilbur Ave; Willow Pass Rd;

LOS E

Bailey Rd

Roadway Segment LOS (applied on rural roads)

LOS D

Byron Highway; Camino Diablo; Cypress Rd/Bethel Island Rd; Deer Valley Rd, unimproved portion; Marsh Creek Rd; Sellers Ave; SR-4, non-freeway portion; Walnut Blvd south of Brentwood; Vasco Rd

HOV Lane Usage

Exceed 600 vehicles per Freeways with HOV lanes lane in the peak direction during peak hour

Bus Riders per Service Hour

optional

optional

BART Ridership

optional

optional

Notes: 1. Within Priority Development Areas, any physical improvement identified as a result of applying the above standard shall be evaluated for its effects on all intersection users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.

Proposed major new actions in the East County Action Plan include:

26

▪

Initiate SR 4 improvements, including with SR 160/SR 4 Connector Ramps, the Balfour Road interchange, and the widening of SR 4 from Balfour Road to Vasco Road;

▪

Work with CCTA and Caltrans on ongoing study of TriLink (SR 239) for feasibility of future corridor improvements;

▪

Maintain existing regional multipurpose trails and complete unbuilt segments such as Mokelumne Coast-to-Crest Trail, Delta de Anza Trail, and the Marsh Creek Trail; and

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

▪

Support further extension of eBART from the current BART terminus at Pittsburg/Bay Point to a new station at Hillcrest Avenue, and support on-going study of the next eBART segment to the future Mokelumne Trail station.

LAMORINDA ACTION PLA N (LPMC) The Lamorinda area includes Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The population is forecast to grow by 11 percent between 2013 and 2040 to a total of approximately 71,500 people by 2040, and the number of jobs is expected to grow by 15 percent to a total of 21,900. The Lamorinda Action Plan outlines a vision for the area, including preserving the semi-rural character of the area, supporting environmental goals, avoiding the addition of roadway capacity for single-occupant vehicles, and providing a safe, balanced transportation system.

The MTSOs in the Lamorinda Action Plan are shown in Table 2-4. The actions to achieve these MTSOs focus on demand management, traffic system management, and the support of transit and other modes of transportation. The transit-related actions focus on both improving regional rail, as well as local bus service, and partnering with transit agencies. Travel demand management actions focus on working with schools, employers, and jurisdictions to implement TDM programs. Actions related to pedestrian and bicycle mobility aim to improve connectivity between transit, major destinations, and trails, and to build new active transportation infrastructure to accommodate more use. Roadway and traffic management actions focus on investigating new strategies, partnerships, and funding sources to improve operations, as well as implementing operational management strategies. In addition, the Lamorinda Action Plan includes actions regarding regional coordination and implementation. Proposed major new actions in the Lamorinda Action Plan include: ▪

Support capacity and operational improvements of BART service and bus service to BART stations;

▪

Improve school bus service and implement travel demand management programs at schools; and

▪

Study options for connecting regional traffic to SR-24 without negatively affecting Lafayette and Orinda downtowns.

27

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table 2-4: Lamorinda Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives Measure

Objective

Application

Delay Index

1.5 or less

SR-24 for all but the 6 peak hours

2.0 or less (2.5 after 2030)

SR-24 between I-680 and the Caldecott Tunnel during peak hour in peak direction

2.0 or less

Pleasant Hill Road1; Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd; Moraga Way; Moraga Rd; Mount Diablo Blvd

Average Stopped Delay

1 Cycle

Side streets accessing Pleasant Hill Rd or Taylor Blvd, Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd, Moraga Rd between Herman Drive/St. Mary's Rd and Mount Diablo Blvd, and Mount Diablo Blvd

BART Average Loading Factor

1.5 or less

Approaching Lafayette Station westbound and Orinda Station eastbound

Average Vehicle Occupancy

1.3 or greater during commute hours by 2018

Pleasant Hill Rd/Taylor Blvd; Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd

Signalized Intersection LOS

LOS D

Pleasant Hill Rd intersections, not in downtown area except at gateways to Action Plan area; Moraga Rd intersections and Mount Diablo Blvd intersections in downtown Lafayette

Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities

Maintain an inventory

Pleasant Hill Rd; Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd; Moraga Way; Moraga Rd; Mount Diablo Blvd

Vehicle Crash Frequency

Monitor

Pleasant Hill Rd; Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd; Moraga Way; Moraga Rd; Mount Diablo Blvd

Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Frequency

Monitor

Pleasant Hill Rd; Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd; Moraga Way; Moraga Rd; Mount Diablo Blvd;

Monitor injury crash frequency

Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail

Frequency & Cause of Unplanned Lane Closures

Monitor

Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Rd; Moraga Way

Pedestrian & Bicycle Volumes

Monitor

Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail

Auto Volumes at Crossings

Monitor

Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail

Average Trail User Delay at Major Crossings

Monitor

Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail

Pavement Condition

Monitor

Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail

Notes: 1. Regarding Pleasant Hill Road, the listed MTSOs can potentially conflict with one another. In this case, the MTSO addressing maximum wait time for drivers on side streets takes precedence.

28

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

TRI-VALLEY ACTI ON PL AN (TRI-VALLEY TRANS PORTATION COUNCIL) The Tri-Valley area includes Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, unincorporated Alameda County, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The population of the area is expected to grow by 35 percent between 2013 and 2040 to a total of approximately 472,360 people. The number of jobs is expected to grow by 31 percent to a total of 239,660. The Tri-Valley Action Plan continues its existing approach to avoid expansion of the “gateways” (I-680, I-580, Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road) that enter and leave the Tri-Valley. Thus, the Action Plan aims to size the interior freeways and arterials to handle only what traffic can be accommodated by the gateways, which are constrained and experience congestion.

The MTSOs of the Tri-Valley Action Plan are shown in Table 2-5. These objectives are supported by various actions focused on corridor management congestion strategies, freeway HOV and express lanes, several roadway improvement and widening projects, and freight movement plans. In addition, the Tri-Valley Action Plan aims to enhance ACE commuter service, add park-and-ride lots, improve bus service, adopt local trip reduction ordinances, and encourage a balance of jobs and housing in the area.

Proposed major new actions in the Tri-Valley Action Plan include: ▪

Improve HOV and auxiliary lanes on I-580 and I-680;

▪

Widen segments of SR-84, Vasco Road, and Crow Canyon Road, including the segment of Vasco Road from Northfront Road to Las Positas Drive to eight lanes; and

▪

Improve segments of and complete the Iron Horse Trail in Alameda County.

29

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table 2-5: Tri-Valley Action Plan Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives Measure

Objective

Application

Average Peak Hour Travel Speed

30 MPH

I-580

31 MPH

I-680

2.0 or less

I-580; I-680

3.0 or less

SR 84

5 hours or less

I-680 south of SR 84

LOS E

Routes of Regional Significance

Transit Ridership

No specific goal and optional

optional

Average Vehicle Ridership

Increase by 10% from 1.1 to 1.2 (optional)

I-580 and I-680

Pedestrian & Bicycle Volumes

Monitor

Iron Horse Trail

Auto Volumes at Crossings

Monitor

Iron Horse Trail

Average Trail User Delay at Major Crossings

Monitor

Iron Horse Trail

Frequency of Pedestrian or Bicyclist Injury

Monitor

Iron Horse Trail

Pavement Condition

Monitor

Iron Horse Trail

Delay Index Duration of Congestion Signalized Intersection LOS

1

Notes: 1. In local jurisdictions where LOS standards for downtown areas have been established for Routes of Regional Significance, the LOS in the adopted General Plan shall govern.

INTEGRATION OF SB 74 3 INTO THE ACTION PL ANS Under Senate Bill (SB) 743 adopted in September 2013, vehicle delay-based impact measurements for projects located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are no longer considered a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The implications of this change in California environmental law had only a minimal impact on the Action Plans, which by and large already had level of service (LOS) exemptions for TPAs. SB 743, however, also gave OPR the latitude for across-theboard elimination of delay-based measurements, and all indications are that the new CEQA Guidelines, once they are approved, will altogether eliminate delay-based measures, which indeed will affect the Action Plans and how they will be administered through the development review process. The SB 743 legislation includes the following

30

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

provisions for eliminating the use of vehicle delay under CEQA, and for adoption of a new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold of significance: ▪

Within two years of the completion of the State’s formal rule making process being led by the Governor’s Office of Planning and research (OPR), measures of automobile delay will no longer be considered environmental impacts under CEQA, and alternative measures for project evaluation will be needed.

▪

VMT per capita is the recommended measure of environmental impact.

Thresholds of significance for land use projects would depend on existing VMT per capita in the project city or subarea. The recommended threshold is VMT per capita exceeding 85 percent of the existing (i.e. a 15 percent VMT per capita reduction), but local jurisdictions responsible for conducting the CEQA review will be given flexibility in setting the appropriate threshold values. Projects near major transit stops would be presumed to have a “less than significant” impact on the transportation system.

Transportation projects will also be subject to an environmental review based on how they would affect VMT. A wide range of transportation projects would be exempt from this test and presumed to have no VMT impact. They include transit projects, active transportation projects, turning lanes, short auxiliary lanes, and operational improvements. Only the addition of new through lanes would need to be analyzed for VMT impacts. Transportation projects subject to the VMT impact test would be limited to a prescribed number of new vehicle miles traveled induced by the project and the final SB 743 guidance will specify the procedure for estimating the amount of induced VMT. Land use plans may have a VMT impact if they are not in a Transit Priority Area and are inconsistent with a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that meets SB 375 greenhouse gas (GHG) targets.

The Contra Costa Growth Management Program (GMP) Implementation Guide states that “The MTSOs should be created to serve as thresholds of significance in a CEQA document.” This direction will be jeopardized by SB 743 for MTSOs that are vehicledelay based, so the Implementation Guide will need to be updated.

The GMP Implementation Guide also defines a process whereby General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and major development projects exceeding specified thresholds are reviewed for their effects on the local and regional transportation system. The final

31

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

guidelines for SB 743 may affect how this review is conducted and how the review is coordinated with the environmental review under CEQA. SB 743 is likely to change how the effects on MTSOs and the effects of any measures designed to mitigate MTSO exceedances are handled within the environmental review under CEQA. Proposed measures designed to mitigate the MTSO exceedance may trigger a significant environmental impact under CEQA if the measures result in an increase in VMT above a pre-specified threshold.

VMT thresholds may be established in conjunction with a land use and transportation plan such as a local jurisdiction’s General Plan, the Action Plans, the Countywide Transportation Plan or the Regional Transportation Plan. This could provide an option for the review of GPAs or major new developments under the GMP Implementation Guidelines in which the sponsoring jurisdiction is allowed to avoid having a significant environmental impact from a measure designed to mitigate an MTSO exceedance if it can be demonstrated that the mitigation is consistent with the transportation element of the plan that was used to establish the VMT threshold.

The Authority’s adopted policy for determining whether a GPA or major new development project adversely affects the RTPC’s ability to achieve its Action Plan MTSOs could continue. The timing of the review, which currently is sequential with CEQA review, also remains feasible.

Context: Evolution of Action Plans and MTSOs When the first Action Plans were developed in 1995, the primary concern of the RTPCs was the impact that rapid growth would have on the level of service and performance of the major roadways in Contra Costa. As a result, all of the original Routes of Regional Significance were either freeways or major arterials and many of the performance measures, (originally called Traffic Service Objectives), were vehicle-delay based measures. The Action Plans were developed to be consistent with the state-required Congestion Management Program which also had a significant focus on monitoring vehicle-delay based roadway LOS for the key roadways in the county.

With significant growth in the county over the twenty years that followed the first Action Plans, it became increasingly clear that maintaining reasonable levels of mobility, accessibility and safety for travelers within the county would require a multimodal

32

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

approach – one that reduced the growth of overall vehicle travel rather than accommodating it with capacity increases. Subsequent updates of the Actions Plans in 2000, 2009 and 2014 have shown this new orientation in a variety of ways. Although most of the Routes of Regional Significance are still roadways, BART was added in Lamorinda in 2009 and the Iron Horse Trail was added in the Tri-Valley in the 2014 draft. Measure J re-named the Traffic Service Objectives as Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs), and the 2009 Action Plans reflected this change by adding numerous new measures that were not vehicle-delay based. New multi-modal measures for BART and the Iron Horse Trail were also added.

There has also been significant progress in using the statements of goals, policies, and actions (project or programs) to make the Action Plans more multi-modal and more oriented to reducing vehicle trips and VMT. Examples of statements of goals and policies include: ▪

Maintain and actively pursue enhanced and expanded public transit service, ridesharing, and non-motorized mode options and trip reduction programs in order to increase accessibility. (Tri-Valley)

▪

Pursue actions to improve safety of travelers using any mode of travel.

(Lamorinda)

Examples of multi-modal actions include: ▪

Support expansion and use of park-and-ride facilities using express and local buses. (Central County)

▪

Encourage development of plans, programs and projects that support transitoriented development within all Priority Development Areas. (West County)

▪

Support construction of eBART from the current BART terminus at Pittsburg/Bay Point to a new station at Hillcrest Avenue and support on-going study of the next eBART segment to the future Mokelumne Trail station. (East County)

Applying an Action Plan MTSO as a Threshold of Significance for CEQA One criticism that arose during the first 15 years of the Measure C GMP process was that project approvals required two separate impact studies. Measure C introduced new

33

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

requirements for local jurisdictions to follow in order to receive their Local Streets and Maintenance funds. These requirements involved analysis of the impact of proposed major development projects and GPAs on local performance standards and MTSOs. Many of those standards did not lend themselves to use in an EIR. The successful passage of Measure J in 2004 streamlined the project-review process, first by eliminating the requirement for local performance measures, and later (through amendments to the GMP Implementation Documents) by aligning the Action Plan MTSOs with CEQA thresholds of significance. Measure J also added a requirement for Urban Limit Lines to promote compact development, which also will reduce trip lengths and the need for new roadways by controlling sprawl.

OPR’s proposed CEQA Guidelines do not “prohibit” project evaluation using these metrics, but would prohibit their use as a threshold of significance in CEQA analyses for evaluating traffic impacts. The RTPCs could therefore continue using LOS and delaybased metrics within the Action Plans. All five of the recently updated draft Action Plans include MTSOs of LOS and delay index standards. The Lamorinda Action Plan also includes “Side Street Signal Cycle Delay” on arterials. The TVTC Action Plan includes duration of congestion on I-680. If a project proponent’s traffic analysis found that a project resulted in an exceedance of any of the MTSOs shown in Table 2-6, however, that exceedance could not warrant a finding of significant traffic impact on the environment under CEQA. Table 2-6: LOS and Delay-Based Action Plan MTSOs by Subregion

Subregion

Intersection LOS or V/C

Arterial LOS or Delay Index

Freeway LOS or Delay Index

West





Central





East



Lamorinda Tri-Valley

34















Side Street Signal Cycle Wait

Hours of Congestion



 

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Response to the Initial SB 743 Briefings Issues related to incorporating the requirements of SB 743 into the Action Plans have been presented to the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) of the RTPCs. While all of the TACs have been open to making some adjustments, the greatest concern has been the ability of local jurisdictions to keep LOS or some other delay-based standard as part of the project-approval process. The TAC members from the more built-out subareas were more open to discussing how the spirit and intent of SB 743 could be incorporated into the Action Plans and how local jurisdictions could modify their procedures for development-impact review. Members from the subareas where more “greenfield development” is proposed thought that SB 743 might restrict development in their subarea because it would require a “finding of significance,” thus imposing a constraint for roadway projects that, in the past, had served as mitigation for transportation impacts.

A number of the TAC members suggested that removing LOS and other delay-based measures from the Action Plans would be problematic. They explained that local jurisdictions not only find them useful but also because they appear to be the best measure to use to reflect the impact of growth on the performance of the roadway system in Contra Costa and to guide design of capacity-enhancing improvements.

Other measures will be useful to monitor progress towards more multi-modal goals, such as increasing transit ridership or increasing the share of trips by walking or bicycling, but they rarely provide a true measure of how the transportation system is performing. A fresh-look at how land use and transportation is planned may prove helpful, and the options listed below could guide such an appraisal.

TAC members expressed significant interest in the possibility that the requirements of SB 743 could be met in a series of tiered plans that each demonstrated compliance with the State-recommended reduction in VMT per capita. This would begin with some overall guidance on SB 743 implementation from the State, continue with further updates to the Action Plan, followed with adoption into General Plans and Specific Plans for local jurisdictions. Each tier or level of planning would be developed consistent with the assumptions and VMT reduction strategies of the tier above. As long as plans at each tier could show a VMT reduction acceptable to the State and with the recommended fifteen percent reduction for the region as a whole, individual jurisdictions might then be required to simply make a legislative or administrative

35

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

finding of consistency of the development proposals with the plans at the tier above to avoid having to make a determination of adverse impact under CEQA due to a VMT change. The State might also require that new development stay within a VMT per capita threshold set at or under a level specified by the Action Plan or Countywide Plan for the subarea it is in. The Authority’s role would be to estimate existing and future year VMT per capita in future updates of the CTP. The Authority also could use the modeling done for the Action Plan MTSOs to prepare VMT per capita maps at a more detailed geographic level.

Options to Address SB 743 in the Action Plans As part of CTP implementation, the following options will be considered as potential elements of a process to address SB 743 requirements and recommendations in the Action Plans:

Routes of Regional Significance ▪

Add new Routes of Regional Significance that are not roadways. These could be major rail lines (BART, eBART, Capital Corridor, or ACE), major high-capacity bus lines (BRT, Rapid, Express, Etc.), ferry lines, or trunk-line multi-use trails.

Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives ▪

Add appropriate MTSOs for any new non-roadway Routes of Regional Significance;

▪

Transition to other MTSOs as measures of performance for the Routes of Regional Significance that are not vehicle-delay based measures; and

▪

Continue to use LOS and delay as MTSOs, and allow local jurisdictions to work out impacts and mitigations outside of the CEQA process. This would require modification of the GMP Implementation Guide.

Next Countywide Transportation Plan Update ▪

36

Use the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan to develop land use forecasts and transportation system proposals in those plans to establish a programmatic coverage for meeting VMT and GHG reduction goals within the RTPC subareas, the county, and the region.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Next Action Plans Update ▪

Use the Action Plans to develop forecasts and transportation system proposals in those plans to establish a programmatic coverage for meeting VMT and GHG reduction goals within the local RTPC subareas and the local jurisdictions;

▪

Establish new goals for reduction in VMT or VMT per capita in the Action Plans;

▪

Establish subarea-specific baseline estimates of daily VMT per capita and have as a threshold of significance under CEQA whether a project or action would increase VMT per capita above the baseline level; and

▪

Use the forthcoming Plan Bay Area 2040 (the 2017 RTP) and the 2017 CTP to establish baseline values for VMT per capita for future forecast years.

37

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

38

3

Performance and Equity Evaluation

The 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) will help improve Contra Costa’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation projects and programs. This section of the CTP evaluates the impacts of the Long-Range Transportation Improvement Program as a whole against a number of performance measures, including equity, using MTC’s adopted 2013 RTP as a point of reference. Appendix A includes a qualitative assessment of a selected set of “large projects” using the ten performance measures established by MTC in the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area).

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

APPROACH TO PERFORMA NCE EVAL UATION The following analysis focuses on how the Long-Range Transportation Investment Program (LRTIP), presented in Volume 1, will affect travel patterns and consequently whether those changes will benefit the movement of people and goods in Contra Costa, improve air quality, and reduce GHG emissions. It will also address “equity considerations,” that is, whether the LRTIP will provide low-income and minority residents with their fair share of benefits.

The evaluation of the LRTIP uses CCTA’s travel demand forecasting computer model and analysis conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) for the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for Plan Bay Area. It quantifies and compares the differences between the Authority’s LRTIP and what will happen if only the MTC RTP improvements are put in place. Because of the countywide nature of the LRTIP and the flexibility it allows in how revenues would be spent, this evaluation is general in nature and uses system-wide performance indicators to reflect the overall effects across the entire county. Geographic differences are evaluated only in terms of equity.

Large Project Assessment CCTA completed a qualitative assessment of large capital projects using MTC’s performance targets established for the RTP. A threshold of $25 million was used for identifying “large projects” from the universe of all projects in CCTA’s Comprehensive Transportation Project List (CTPL). The large project assessment shows whether a project supports, is neutral in relation to, or does not support each target. The purpose of this assessment was to provide stakeholders and decision-makers with a resource for considering projects that could be included in the CTP and what some of the tradeoffs are among them. The results of that performance assessment are in Appendix A.

Using the Countywide Model CCTA’s countywide transportation model reflects travel in all nine counties of the Bay Area, with extra detail in Contra Costa. It has been updated for consistency with the MTC RTP and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area region as adopted by MTC in July 2013. The horizon year for this evaluation is 2040. The “baseline” assumes Plan Bay Area land use and approved transportation improvements.

40

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

The LRTIP has 20 funding categories that will support a broad range of projects and programs, which taken together, will be transformative and provide significant support for CCTA’s goals and strategies, as well as regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

These include street and highway improvements and investments in other elements of the transportation system, such as extending rail services; improving bus or ferry service; building trails for bicycle and pedestrian use; providing funding for bus passes or paratransit services; disseminating information about commute alternatives to encourage use of modes other than single-occupant vehicles; supporting deployment of electric cars and autonomous vehicles; funding for innovative transportation technology; and so on. In undertaking the computer modeling for this effort, we note, as discussed below, that several funding categories required careful attention.

Transit Projects and Programs The LRTIP envisions potential funding for a range of projects related to transit service, such as expansion of BART through purchase of additional vehicles, system capacity and reliability projects, station access improvements, and station capacity improvements, as well as various non-rail transit enhancements (e.g., bus system improvements), including transit investment options along the I-680 and I-80 corridors and additional “park-and-ride” capacity for intercity rail and ferry service. The LRTIP also has funding for bus operations and bus passes for certain user groups (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities, and students). Where transit service will be improved, it was reflected in reduced headways, that is, the analysis assumed less waiting time for trains or buses.

Freeway Operations or Integrated Corridor Management Projects Projects to improve freeway traffic flow and operations, also known as Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) projects, are projects designed to optimize the operational performance of the freeway system through a combination of strategies such as ramp metering, variable speed limits, driver information systems, and other “Intelligent Transportation Systems” techniques such as transit prioritization at traffic signals. (An example of an Integrated Corridor Management project is the I-80 SMART Corridor project, which is currently operational along I-80 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties.) Based on the assumption that these types of projects result in a higher level of throughput, the effects of these types of projects are represented within the model by increasing the hourly capacity of the freeway.

41

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Programs Supporting Active Transportation Modes The LRTIP includes funding for pedestrian, bicycle, and trails projects; “complete streets” projects; programs to enhance safe transportation for children; and BART access improvements. Research has demonstrated a relationship between investments in facilities and programs for active transportation modes and the likelihood that travelers will shift from driving to those other modes. This analysis assumed very small, postprocessing adjustments to the model output to increase the countywide mode share for bicycling and walking and reduce the equivalent number of drive-alone trips. These adjustments were based upon before-and-after studies on changes in observed bicycle and pedestrian activity along corridors that have received Complete Streets-type improvements (such as additional bicycle facilities, high-visibility crosswalks, improved transit pull-outs, etc.).

Performance Measures For the evaluation, performance measures cover system performance, expected GHG reductions, equity considerations, and other targets set by MTC.

System Performance The measures related to system performance are reported for the county as a whole and include:

42

▪

Mode share and total transit trips;

▪

Total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and VMT per capita;

▪

Total vehicle hours of travel (VHT) and VHT per capita;

▪

Total vehicle hours of delay (VHD);

▪

Average speeds on freeways and on expressways/major arterials; and

▪

Percentage of funding designated for Local Streets and Roads maintenance.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Legislative Requirements and Executive Orders for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions The MTC RTP meets the 15 percent GHG reduction requirements for the nine-county Bay Area established by SB 375, which requires reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s Executive Order B-16-12 requires a reduction in GHG emissions from transportation sources to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To meet this 2050 target, an aggressive GHG reduction strategy will be needed.

At present, we do not know what specific strategies MTC will consider to meet the Governor’s targets, but we do know that achieving the 80 percent goal will require substantial increases in the share of zero emission vehicles as well as additional reductions in VMT. The San Diego Forward analysis found that to meet the 2050 target, 75 percent of vehicles would need to be zero emissions, and further per-capita VMT reductions would be required.

For the purposes of evaluating the LRTIP, we tested several combinations of strategies, including mixes of zero-emission vehicles in the overall fleet and reasonable VMT per capita reductions, building on targets MTC already has in place. To date, MTC’s transportation modeling has assumed limited fleet penetration of zero-emission vehicle based upon analysis conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and consistent with the targets established in AB 32. However, more recent work, as explained in Volume 1, has determined that zero emissions vehicles need to represent a greater percentage of the fleet in 2040 (58 percent of the total). Accelerated clean-vehicle deployment coupled with a 15 reduction in 2040 VMT per capita is needed to achieve the 2050 target. With these measures in place, additional gains beyond those modeled are expected in GHG emission reductions with the further influx of zero emissions vehicles in the fleet, as noted above. What these might be are discussed later in this volume.

Equity Analysis At the federal level, Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. A Title VI analysis is not required for the CTP; however, guidance for Title VI analyses can help “San Diego Forward” is the 2015 Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).

43

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

inform CCTA’s approach to the equity analysis. In order to meet Title VI requirements, Metropolitan Planning Organizations receiving Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding must present: ▪

“A description of the procedures by which the mobility needs of minority populations are identified and considered within the planning process”; and

▪

“An analysis of impacts …that identifies any disparate impact on the basis of race, color, or national origin…”6

In addition, the Title VI equity analysis should consider environmental justice. President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, in 1994. This Order directed each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations…”

For the purpose of this evaluation, the measures related to equity analysis focus on two sub-groups, minority and low-income residents within the county, and on travel benefits for residents in identified “Communities of Concern” (COC). These different

Federal Transit Administration of the United States (FTA) (2012a). Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. FTA, Washington, D.C. Minority residents are those residents that identify themselves as American Indian or Pacific Islander alone, Asian alone, Black or African-American alone, Hispanic or Latino of any race, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander alone on the 2013 American Community Survey.

Low-income households are defined as households with an annual income of less than $34,999.

The definition of Communities of Concern (COC) used in this report is the same used by MTC in the 2014 Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis Report. COCs are Census tracts having concentrations of four or more factors considered "Disadvantage Factors" such as limited English proficiency populations, zero-vehicle households, and seniors 75 years of age and over; or that have concentrations of both low-income and minority populations. However, for this analysis, updated data was used to describe current demographics in the COCs, but the 2017 COC boundaries were not used.

44

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

population groups and geographies are consistent with those used in the Equity Analysis Reports of Plan Bay Area 2035 and 2040.

The equity measures include: ▪

Vehicle travel time for low-income and minority households, as compared to the typical resident in the county as a whole.

▪

Mode shares for low-income and minority households and Communities of Concern, as compared to the typical resident in the county as a whole.

▪

Equity of funding distribution based on the percentage of funding expected to benefit minority and low-income households.

To identify potential disproportionate effects, we assessed equity in two ways. First, we compared the outcomes of the LRTIP to the outcomes of the MTC 2013 RTP to determine the proportional benefit of each for different demographic groups. Then, we examined the differences between travel benefits for minority, low-income and Communities of Concern residents and travel benefits for the typical county resident.

We also did a statistical analysis to determine whether the results for minority households, low-income households, and Communities of Concern were significantly different from the results for Contra Costa as a whole and the benefits for a typical household. Testing for statistical significance is important to distinguish meaningful differences between impacts on specific populations from the variability that is always present in transportation planning studies.

Other Performance Measures Additional performance measures were evaluated to understand how the investments support regional performance targets and provide transportation benefits equitably to

The California Environmental Protection Agency has identified “disadvantaged communities” pursuant to SB 535 (De León) for the purposes of allocating proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Disadvantaged communities are those census tracts that scored at or above the 75th percentile of most burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. This definition of “disadvantaged communities” per SB 535 is not used in the Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis Report.

45

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

all residents. Some of these measures are based on the ten performance targets established for the MTC 2013 RTP, and others were added to assess the relative equity of the distribution of funding as well as the expected outcomes from the investments.

The performance measures include: ▪

Equitable Access based on the percentage of total funding supporting transit and active transportation;

▪

Economic Vitality based on the number of jobs within a 30-minute trip by auto or a 45-minute trip by transit, both for the county as a whole and for the Communities of Concern;

▪

Adequate Housing and Displacement based on a qualitative policy assessment of the difference in outcomes between the MTC RTP and the Investment Program, as well as a major project assessment; and

▪

Land Preservation based on a qualitative policy assessment of the difference in outcomes between the MTC RTP and the Investment Program, as well as the major project assessment.

DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Table 3-1 shows key demographic indicators for Contra Costa County and how they are expected to change between 2010 and 2040, including the number of people, households, employed residents, and jobs in the county. Overall, while the rate of growth is expected to slow from the substantial growth of the post‐World War II period, Contra Costa is still expected to add another 279,000 residents between 2010 and 2040, a 27 percent increase in population. Also notable is that the number of households will grow by 24 percent, while jobs are expected to increase by 36 percent.

The California Natural Resources Agency recently published 'Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans' (March 8, 2016) to supplement the '2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy'. In order to prepare for climate change, the report recommends improving transportation system reliability by supporting transit and active transportation improvements, especially those that serve disadvantaged communities.

46

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 3-1: ABAG Projections 2013 for Contra Costa County 2010 and 2040 2010

2040

Change

% Change

1,049,000

1,328,000

279,000

27%

Households

375,000

464,000

89.000

24%

Employed Residents

442,000

580,000

138,000

31%

Jobs

345,000

468,000

123,000

36%

Population

In addition, the current demographics of Contra Costa provide a framework for measures of equity and the challenge that all residents receive their “fair share� of benefits under the CTP. As shown in Table 3-2, more than half of the County population is minority, and about 22 percent is low-income. The demographics of the county vary greatly between cities. For example, in San Pablo, the median income is just under $45,000, 45 percent of households are low-income households, and 88 percent of the population is minority. Meanwhile, in Orinda, the median income is almost $165,000, eight percent of households are low-income, and 25 percent of the population is minority.

There are seven Communities of Concern in Contra Costa, located in the cities of Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Martinez, Concord, Pittsburg, and Antioch; altogether, 17 percent of the population resides in these communities. Compared to the county as a whole, residents in these communities are predominantly minority (85 percent) and lowincome (41 percent). The percentage of households in Communities of Concern who do not own a car is three to four times higher than the county average.

47

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table 3-2: Demographic Characteristics of Contra Costa Cities Total Population

Seniors1

Non Minority2

Minority Population

104,035

9%

34%

66%

27%

65,254

Brentwood

52,494

12%

56%

44%

15%

91,475

Clayton

11,137

16%

80%

20%

9%

127,159

Concord

123,658

12%

50%

50%

25%

65,798

Danville El Cerrito (City)

42,476

15%

78%

22%

10%

136,116

23,862

19%

49%

51%

20%

85,481

Hercules

24,340

10%

17%

83%

15%

96,750

Lafayette

24,347

17%

79%

21%

11%

136,207

Martinez

36,471

13%

69%

31%

19%

83,112

Moraga

16,315

19%

70%

30%

12%

120,353

Oakley

36,443

8%

44%

56%

20%

77,043

Orinda

18,108

19%

75%

25%

8%

164,437

Pinole

18,587

16%

36%

64%

18%

77,315

Pittsburg

64,588

9%

19%

81%

30%

58,866

Pleasant Hill

33,513

15%

67%

33%

21%

77,326

Richmond

105,280

11%

18%

82%

32%

54,589

San Pablo

29,324

10%

12%

88%

41%

44,983

San Ramon

72,707

8%

44%

56%

9%

127,313

Walnut Creek

65,122

27%

73%

27%

21%

81,593

162,987

14%

55%

45%

22%

N/A

1,065,794

13%

47%

52.8%

21.6%

78,756

Name Antioch

Unincorporated Areas4 Total

Low-In- Median Income come3 Per Household

Notes: 1. Seniors over 65 years old.

2. Non-Minority does not include persons classifying themselves as Hispanic/Latino, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, meaning it is those who identify themselves as “white only�.

3. Lower than $34,999 per household.

4. Difference between Contra Costa County and sum of cities.

48

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

KEY FINDINGS This section compares the CTP’s LRTIP to 2013 existing conditions and to projected 2040 conditions under the MTC RTP. Project and program funding of the Final CTP will likely be similar, depending on local priorities and available resources.

Transportation System Performance Figure 3-1 and Table 3-3 present the transportation system performance measures in 2013 and as expected in 2040 under the MTC 2013 RTP. Compared to the MTC RTP, with the CTP’s LRTIP we will see a decrease in single occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share and greater use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, biking, and walking. As shown in Figure 3-2, transit usage is expected to increase marginally, by 0.7 percent, between 2013 and 2040. Implementation of the LRTIP results in a slightly higher percentage of transit mode share and a greater number of transit trips compared to the MTC RTP. The key findings are as follows: ▪

The CTP would result in higher average vehicle speeds and fewer vehicle hours of delay (VHD) compared to the MTC RTP. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita is expected to be slightly higher compared to the MTC RTP.

▪

The CTP’s LRTIP is expected to provide a substantial amount of funding for local streets and roads maintenance compared to the MTC RTP alone.

▪

Generally, the CTP will would improve transportation system performance, compared to the MTC RTP.

On a proportional basis, the increase from 2.7 percent in 2013 to 3.4 percent in 2040 is 26 percent, but in absolute terms, this increase in transit mode share does not meet MTC’s performance target for the region as expressed in Plan Bay Area, which is to increase transit mode share by 10 percentage points (to 26 percent of trips).

49

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Figure 3-1: Single Occupant Vehicle Mode Share 100% 90%

% of Total Mode Share

80% 70% 60%

59.0%

58.1%

57.9%

2013 (Existing)

MTC RTP (2040)

CTP (2040)

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 3-2: Transit Mode Share and Total Transit Trips

50

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 3-3: Transportation System Performance 2040 Comparison 2013

MTC RTP

CTP

Single Occupant Vehicle Mode Share

59.0%

58.1%

57.9%

Carpool Mode Share

33.1%

33.5%

33.5%

Transit Mode Share

2.7%

3.3%

3.4%

Combined Bike and Walk Mode Share

5.2%

5.1%

5.3%

101,033

150,520

157,391

22,000,000

27,800,000

28,100,000

21.0

20.9

21.2

n/a

20.0

20.2

71,648

221,166

190,685

44.9

42.8

43.8

n/a

20%

Healthy and Safe Communities

Transit Use (total transit trips) Vehicle Miles Traveled Total VMT/day VMT per Capita (all vehicles) VMT per Capita (passenger vehicles) VHD (total) Average Speeds (miles per hour) Maintenance Percentage of Funding Designated for Local Streets & Maintenance

Reduction in Injuries and Fatalities Although there is no quantitative analysis available on the direct impact of the CTP on injuries and fatalities, there is likely to be a positive correlation between increased congestion and collisions with increased VMT. On the other hand, there is likely to be a negative correlation between use of non-auto transportation alternatives and collisions, as viable non-auto transportation options encourage fewer people to drive, leading to fewer collisions. The CTP also will reduce delays and increase the use of transit and active transportation in contrast to the MTC 2013 RTP, thus likely reducing injuries and fatalities in the future.

In addition, large projects were assessed for their performance relative to the Plan Bay Area target to reduce injuries and fatalities (details are in Appendix A). Under that assessment, projects that will provide an alternative to driving and projects that will reduce congestion in areas prone to accidents were considered to support the target. All transit, bike, and pedestrian projects were expected to reduce VMT and therefore 51

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

supported the target. Roadway projects that will decrease congestion or improve safety in areas with a high level of traffic collision per capita also supported the target; however, projects that will increase VMT without safety improvements in an area prone to accidents did not support the target. Roadway projects located outside of areas prone to accidents were judged neutral relative to the target. Based on this major projects assessment, no major projects conflicted with the target to reduce injuries and fatalities.

In fact, with completion of some of these projects through funding with the LRTIP and subsequent reductions in congestion, it is expected that the injuries and fatalities would be further reduced beyond the MTC RTP results.

Technology to support vehicle automation is rapidly advancing, and future deployment of “self-driving cars” is expected to bring great benefits to the transportation system.

Self-driving cars, also known as connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles (CV/AVs), will incorporate vehicle-to-vehicle communications, cooperative adaptive cruise control, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, and sensors to map surroundings and navigation paths. These features will enable CV/AVs to take over drivers’ tasks and perform the transportation capabilities of conventional cars. The advanced technologies employed in CV/AVs will work in tandem with improvements in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects, such as electronic toll connection, ramp metering, and traffic signal coordination, to improve our transportation network. ITS has been part of CCTA’s ongoing projects and programs, as exemplified in West County’s I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility project, and the Authority will continue to deploy ITS improvements in the coming years to improve roadway operations and safety. The LRTIP, in fact, includes explicit support for this in the Innovative Transportation Technologies funding category.

As technology advances and the degree of automation in our vehicle fleet increases, we expect to see increased vehicle capacity on our roadways and gains in the efficiency and safety of our transportation system. Our preliminary modeling of the effects of CV/AVs

These results of CV/AVs’ transportation system benefits are confirmed by similar modeling undertaken in other metropolitan areas, including metropolitan Atlanta. See Atlanta Regional Commission’s Presentation of the 15th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, “The Travel Impact of Autonomous Vehicles in Metro Atlanta through Activity-Based Modeling,” May 2015.

52

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

in Contra Costa shows substantial reductions in the number of vehicle hours traveled and the vehicle hours of delay each day due to less congestion on the roadways. Traffic speeds are likely to be higher on both freeways and arterials. Other benefits of CV/AVs include reductions in total vehicle miles traveled and vehicle miles traveled per capita, as greater capacity on the freeways resulted in fewer drivers choosing to take surface streets and circuitous routes to avoid congestion. Increased fuel efficiency and reduced parking costs are other benefits that are anticipated with deployment of CV/AVs in Contra Costa. Drivers will benefit from less onerous trips and opportunities to maximize their in-vehicle productivity. Seniors and children also will benefit as these vehicles become more autonomous. Lastly, with increased penetration of CV/AVs, we expect the safety of our transportation system to improve substantially, with fewer injuries and fatalities.

Ultimately, the performance of the transportation system of the CTP, as improved by the LRTIP, is anticipated to continue to improve with increased levels of vehicle automation in Contra Costa’s fleet in the coming years. In addition, the benefits of CV/AVs – including reductions in vehicle hours of travel, vehicle hours of delay, and vehicle miles traveled – will benefit all Contra Costans. As noted above, the LRTIP includes substantial funding for innovation programs and projects, which will be used to support projects and partnerships like the CV/AV testing at the GoMentum Station (which is a CCTA partnership with the City of Concord, the Department of the Navy, U.S. DOT, and a number of automobile manufacturers). Further research on CV/AVs and ITS will continue to be undertaken as part of CTP implementation and CCTA’s ongoing planning for and implementation of ITS projects and programs.

EQUITY CRITERIA Table 3-4 presents several measures of the experience of the transportation system for minority residents and low-income residents, as well as for Communities of Concern, under MTC’s RTP, and the CTP. In sum, the CTP performs well for each of the equity metrics compared to the MTC RTP. As shown in Figure 3-3 and Table 3-4, the average vehicle trip time for minority and low-income households is slightly lower for the LRTIP than the MTC RTP. In addition, in Communities of Concern, single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode share is expected to be slightly lower under the LRTIP than under the MTC RTP. Carpool, 53

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

transit, and active transportation mode shares are expected to be greater compared to the MTC RTP. Figure 3-3: Average Trip Time

54

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table 3-4: Equity Criteria 2040 Comparison MTC RTP

LRTIP

Minority Household

48,883

50,885

Low-Income Household

44,880

46,932

Communities of Concern

53.6%

53.3%

Typical County Household

58.1%

57.9%

Communities of Concern

36.2%

36.2%

Typical County Household

33.5%

33.5%

Communities of Concern

4.1%

4.3%

Typical County Household

3.3%

3.4%

Communities of Concern

6.0%

6.2%

Typical County Household

5.1%

5.3%

44,209

46,304

Transit Use Transit Use (total transit trips)1

Mode Share Single Occupant Vehicle Mode Share

Carpool Mode Share

Transit Mode Share

Combined Bike and Walk Mode Share

Transit Use (total transit trips)

Notes: 1 The model did not project the expected per capita transit trips for minority households, low-income households, Communities of Concern and the typical county household. Instead, the model projected total transit trips, which is useful for comparing alternatives, but cannot be used for comparing outcomes between different communities. An estimate of per capita transit trips concludes that minority and low-income households and Communities of Concern have substantially more transit trips than the typical county household.

Overall, the CTP performs very well on all of the equity criteria compared to the MTC RTP and is expected to offer benefits for Communities of Concern, minorities, and lowincome households that are comparable to benefits for the average Contra Costa households. Most importantly these groups are expected to share equitably in the transportation system benefits – including reduced trip time, increased transit use, and greater diversity of mode share – under the CTP.

55

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Figure 3-4 presents an estimate of the percentage of funding invested in the transportation system with the CTP’s LRTIP that will benefit minority and low-income households, compared to the county as a whole. The figure represents a distribution of transportation investment funding to cities and the cities’ respective demographics, assuming that each jurisdiction would evenly distribute their transportation funding across all demographic groups. Thus, if 40 percent of a city’s households are lowincome, low-income households will benefit from 40 percent of the city’s funding.

According to this analysis, funding investments are generally distributed equitably, although minority households receive slightly less than a proportional amount under the CTP. Figure 3-4: Funding Investments

56

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

CLIMATE PROTECTION A ND AIR QUALITY Table 3-5 presents the emissions from the transportation system in 2013 and 2040 related to air quality and climate protection. How the LRTIP fare compared to the MTC RTP for exposure to particulate emissions varies depending on the type of particulate matter; importantly, however, the differences between the alternatives and the MTC RTP are not substantially different, and funding under the CTP’s Investment Program is expected to support a large reduction in particulate emissions from existing conditions in 2013.

Table 3-5: Air Quality Impacts and Climate Protection 2040 Comparison 2013

MTC RTP

LRTIP

8.71

2.20

2.21

NOx (tons/day)

16.49

2.63

2.59

CO (tons/day)

69.80

15.79

15.77

0.76

0.64

0.65

18.0

8.3

8.3

Air Quality Exposure to Emissions Reactive Organic Gases (tons/day)

PM 2.5 (tons/day) Climate Protection Passenger Vehicle Daily CO2 Emissions per Capita (lbs)

Table 3-5 also shows daily passenger vehicle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita under existing conditions in 2013 and the expected conditions in 2040 under the MTC RTP and the LRTIP. Substantial reductions in per capita emissions are expected by 2040 compared to 2013. The passenger vehicle daily CO2 emissions per capita are very similar between the MTC RTP and the LRTIP. The modeled passenger vehicle emissions per capita for the MTC RTP and the LRTIP do not account for MTC Policy Reductions, which are expected to result in additional reductions.

Although daily passenger vehicle CO2 emissions per capita are expected to decrease substantially between 2013 and 2040, total annual GHG emissions from the transportation sector as a whole would increase significantly without implementation of State regulations that will result in a cleaner vehicle fleet by 2040. Table 3-6 shows the projected total annual greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector for two modeling scenarios: business as usual without State regulations, and with

57

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

implementation of State regulations developed by the California ARB and known as Pavley and Advanced Clean Cars. These regulations are intended to achieve costeffective reductions of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles. The table shows the modeling results of the two scenarios, beginning with existing conditions in 2013, through 2040 under the MTC RTP and the LRTIP. With implementation of these State regulations, GHG emissions are expected to drop by over a million tons per year by 2040 for the MTC RTP and the LRTIP. The results for the LRTIP are substantially lower than the existing conditions in 2013, meaning the CTP, in combination with the RTP and Plan Bay Area’s strategies for climate protection, is forecast to significantly reduce the total annual GHG emissions in Contra Costa when compared with 2013.

Table 3-6: Projected Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2 emitted/year, or MTCO2e/yr) 2013

2040 Comparison MTC RTP

LRTIP

Annual Emissions without Advanced Clean Cars/Pavley Passenger Vehicles Light Trucks Heavy Trucks Bus2 Total

2,616,200 162,200 259,000 56,600 3,094,000

3,349,600 88,200 302,800 0 3,740,600

3,371,800 89,000 300,400 0 3,761,100

1,527,200 88,200 302,800 0 1,918,100

1,537,300 89,000 300,400 0 1,926,700

Annual Emissions with Advanced Clean Cars/Pavley Passenger Vehicles Light Trucks Heavy Trucks Bus2 Total

2,560,300 162,200 259,000 56,600 3,038,300

Percent Change from Existing (with Advanced Clean Cars and Pavley) Passenger Vehicles Light Trucks Heavy Trucks Bus2 Total

-40% -46% 17% -100% -37%

1. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

2. Totals assume the bus fleet has completely converted to zero emissions vehicles by 2040.

58

-40% -45% 16% -100% -37%

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

As noted in Volume 1, the LRTIP would provide funding for investments in transportation innovation in Contra Costa, which could be used for incremental additions to the clean car fleet in the county. With such accelerated clean vehicle deployment supported in part by LRTIP funds, GHG emissions would likely drop even faster to achieve the 2050 target.

OTHER PERFORMANCE ME ASURES Table 3-7 presents additional metrics of the transportation system, including equitable access, equitable distribution of funding to COCs, and economic vitality. Travel benefits for communities of concern are addressed in Volume 1, Chapter 4.

Equitable Access Equitable access is analyzed in terms of percentage of funding that supports alternative transportation modes to the single occupancy vehicle. This is founded on MTC’s equity analysis for Plan Bay Area, which states that “differences in transportation costs for lowincome households across the scenarios are due primarily to varying levels of auto ownership” and that transit, walking, and biking modes are less expensive than driving.

Therefore, investments in transit and active transportation options are expected to support transportation affordability. As shown in Table 3-7, the portion of funding designated for “alternative modes,” such as transit and active transportation projects, is slightly lower in the CTP than in the MTC RTP, but the dollar amounts are higher. This is because the LRTIP includes locally supported roadway projects that were identified by the RTPCs in the Action Plans.

Equitable Funding Distribution In addition, another equity measure is the geographic distribution of funding. This measure analyzes the percentage of total project costs going to projects in Communities of Concern for the CTP. As shown in Table 3-7, the CTP is expected to distribute less funding to projects in Communities of Concern than would be expected based on their share of population (17 percent).

Economic Vitality Economic vitality is strongly correlated with employment. In 2009, at the peak of the Great Recession, unemployment in the Bay Area was 10 percent. By 2016, with full Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

59

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

economic recovery, unemployment had gone down to 4.4 percent, which is essentially “full employment.” For the CTP, we analyzed this measure by looking at job accessibility, or the average number of jobs that are available within a 30-minute auto trip and a 45-minute transit trip under different scenarios. The number of jobs accessible by transit is greater under the CTP than under the MTC RTP, as shown in Table 3-7, which should contribute to economic vitality by expanding job choice both for those looking to hire, who will have more candidates within acceptable commute ranges, and for those looking for jobs, who will have more choice within a given commute time. The CTP is expected to result in a higher number of jobs accessible by transit than the MTC RTP. The average number of jobs accessible within 45 by transit is significantly larger for Communities of Concern than for the county as a whole. The difference between Communities of Concern and the county as a whole is larger for jobs accessible by transit than for jobs accessible by auto, which means those in greatest need – the transitdependent - are getting greater benefits, although there are still more jobs accessible by auto. Overall, the CTP is expected to provide increased access to jobs compared to the MTC RTP, enhancing economic vitality in Contra Costa County.

Table 3-7: Other Performance Measures 2040 Comparison MTC RTP

LRTIP

39%

36%

Funding for Alternative Modes % of Funding Supporting Alternative Modes Funding Distribution % of Total Cost of Projects in Communities of Concern

2.9%

% of Population in Communities of Concern

17%

Economic Vitality Average Number of Jobs within a 30-Minute Auto Trip Communities of Concern Typical County Household Average Number of Jobs within a 45-Minute Transit Trip Communities of Concern Typical County Household

Ibid.

60

430,727

428,026

355,657

356,727

361,087

379,759

223,931

241,670

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Adequate Housing and Displacement Providing housing for the entire projected population at every income level will help protect quality of life, reduce household costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to shorter commutes. The CTP supports the Plan Bay Area goal to house 100 percent of the region’s population without displacing minority and low-income residents.

California has various laws to ensure the availability and quality of housing at a local level, particularly for low-income households. Cities and counties are required to include a housing element as part of their general plan. This element is to be updated every eight years to reflect local changes in land use and to accommodate a new set of housing targets generated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State law requires that each jurisdiction’s Housing Element accommodate its “fair share” of local housing needs by income category.

In the Bay Area, the most recent update to the housing elements covered the planning period between 2015 and 2023 and was consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013. Each jurisdiction in Contra Costa has updated its housing element and each has been certified by HCD. This means that each local jurisdiction in the county has shown that it can accommodate its fair share of local housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low, very low, and low income households. Therefore, Contra Costa can accommodate 100 percent of its fair share of local housing needs.

The land use assumptions used to analyze the CTP do not conflict with these updated housing elements, and they support the goal of SB 375 to house 100 percent of the region’s population.

Land Preservation Population and job growth threaten the natural systems, open space, and agricultural land in the Bay Area. According to Measure J, each jurisdiction in Contra Costa County is required to have an Urban Limit Line as part of the Growth Management Program.

The CTP would not conflict with the Measure J Growth Management Program or the Urban Limit Line.

More specifically, each major project in the LRTIP was assessed against its impact on land preservation. If the project would require new right-of-way in previously 61

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

undeveloped open space or agricultural land identified in the County’s or a City’s General Plan as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland then the project was considered to be in conflict with land preservation.

Projects that increase capacity outside the urban limit line by linking transportation facilities and have limited access controls in the agricultural and open space areas would be rated as neutral, having no significant positive impact. Projects within the Urban Limit Line, particularly within PDAs, support the target. All of the projects included in the LRTIP either support or are neutral in regards to land preservation; therefore, the LRTIP supports the goal of land preservation.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT This assessment shows that the LRTIP would have positive performance outcomes benefiting all residents. From the transportation system performance metrics to the equity criteria to other performance measures, such as economic vitality and equitable access, the LRTIP performs well compared to MTC’s 2013 RTP. In summary, it is anticipated that the 2017 CTP will deliver significant improvements to the transportation system that will improve travel opportunities in Contra Costa, facilitate deployment of zero-emissions vehicles, and provide substantial benefits for the county’s diverse residents.

62

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Appendix A: Large Project Performance Assessment AN EVALUATION OF LAR GE PROJECTS USING TA RGETS ESTABLISHED BY MTC FOR 2013 RTP

Overview An important step in the development of the LRTIP was to perform a qualitative evaluation of capital projects with cost estimates equal-to-or-greater than $25 million.

This evaluation was conducted in consultation with the Authority’s Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), which is made of engineers and planners from local and regional government entities. The assessment was designed to determine the extent to which major candidate projects for the LRTIP support the ten targets adopted by MTC for the 2013 RTP. Authority staff worked with the TCC through an iterative process to complete the evaluation, which looked at 80 different projects totaling $9.4 billion. The outcome of this assessment was then made available to stakeholders and decision-makers for consideration in determining which projects could be included in the LRTIP. A brief overview of the evaluation approach and performance targets is presented below, followed by the final detailed project results of the evaluation in Table A-3.

63

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Evaluation Approach The Project Performance Assessment reflects whether a project supports each of MTC’s ten targets on a three-point scale, represented in the assessment by the following symbols:



Supports MTC’s Target

–

Neutral – No Significant Effect



Does not Support MTC’s Target

The simplified evaluation system was the preferred approach for conducting a qualitative assessment. A more detailed, quantitative analysis to assess the benefit/cost ratio, feasibility, and deliverability for each individual project was beyond the scope of this effort.

Performance Targets Major projects were evaluated and ranked using the ten performance targets that MTC established for transportation projects in the 2013 RTP, shown in Table A-1.

Table A-1: MTC Performance Targets for Transportation Projects (from MTC’s 2013 RTP, Plan Bay Area) Climate Protection

1

Reduce per capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent (%)

Adequate Housing

2

House 100% of the region’s projected growth by income level without displacing current low-income residents

3

Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions

4

Reduce by 50 percent the number of injuries and fatalities from collisions

5

Increase the average daily time walking and biking per person for transportation by 70%

Open Space and Agriculture Preservation

6

Direct all non-agricultural development within the urban footprint

Equitable Access

7

Decrease by 10% the share of low-income and lower-middle income residents’ household income consumed by transportation and housing

Economic Vitality

8

Increase gross regional product by 90%

Non-Auto Travel Time/ VMT Reduction

9

Decrease average non-auto per-trip travel time by 10%, decrease auto vehicles miles traveled (VMT) per capita by 10%

Maintenance

10

Maintain the system in a state of good repair

Healthy & Safe Communities

64

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-2 shows the specific criteria that were used to assign the project ratings.

The following acronyms are used in Table A-2 and the text that follows: COC: Communities of Concern HCD: State Housing and Community Development Department HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle PDA: Priority Development Area RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment SOV: Single Occupant Vehicle VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled Table A-2: Performance Targets and Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects Proposed Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects MTC Performance Target

Supports MTC’s Target

Neutral - No Significant Effect

Does not Support MTC’s Target

Climate Protection 1 Reduce per capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15%

• Transit, bike, and pedestrian projects

• Operations and maintenance projects

• Roadway projects to increase SOV capacity

• Roadway projects with bike and pedestrian elements

• Project/program has no anticipated effect on VMT compared to baseline

• Project likely results in an increase in VMT over the baseline

• For project’s jurisdiction: 46 – 66 percent of Total RHNA allocation met1

• For project’s jurisdiction: less than 46 percent of Total RHNA allocation met2

• Roadway projects to increase HOV capacity • Project likely results in a decrease in VMT compared to baseline Adequate Housing 2 House 100% of the region’s projected growth by income level without displacing current lowincome residents

• For project’s jurisdiction: 66+ percent of Total RHNA allocation met1

• Jurisdictions with an HCD1 approved Housing Element for the current revision cycle.

• Does not have an HCD-approved Housing Element for the current revision cycle.

Table continued on next page, footnotes are at the end of the table.

65

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-2: Performance Targets and Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects Proposed Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects MTC Performance Target

Supports MTC’s Target

Neutral - No Significant Effect

Does not Support MTC’s Target

Healthy & Safe Communities 3 Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions

• Project supports alternative mode in an area where particulate standards are violated

• Project is not in an area where particulate standards are violated

• Project likely results in an increase in traffic volumes in an area where particulate standards are violated

4 Reducing by 50 percent the number of injuries and fatalities from collisions

• Transit, bike, and pedestrian projects

• Operational and maintenance projects for roadways

• Project likely increases VMT without safety improvements in an area with a higher incidence of accidents

5 Increase the average daily time walking and biking per person for transportation by 70%

• Project increases the number of walking/biking trips

• Roadway projects that decrease congestion or improve safety in areas with a higher incidence of accidents

• Project provides recreational facilities and enhances public health

• Roadway projects in areas that are not prone to accidents • Projects that have no impact on or discernable relationship with mode choice

• Roadway projects that increase auto capacity

• Projects outside the urban limit line that link facilities and will have limited access controls in place

• Projects that are outside of the urban limit line and increase capacity in important agricultural lands and open space (including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland), without access controls planned or in place

• Project increases safety and improves mobility for non-motorized users Open Space and Agriculture Preservation 6 Direct all nonagricultural development within the urban footprint

66

• Projects within the urban limit line • Projects within PDAs

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-2: Performance Targets and Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects Proposed Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects MTC Performance Target

Supports MTC’s Target

Neutral - No Significant Effect

Does not Support MTC’s Target

• Projects that provide direct or indirect benefit to low- and lowermiddle income communities for transportation or housing costs (ex: active transportation, transit access, transit subsidy, Safe Routes to Schools)

• Projects that do not have a direct or indirect benefit for low- and lower-middle income communities for transportation or housing costs

• Projects that are detrimental to low- and lower-middle income communities for transportation or housing costs

• Project provides no capacity benefit that would support economic development

• Project likely increases delays and unreliability of system

Equitable Access 7 Decrease by 10% the share of lowincome and lower-middle income residents’ household income consumed by transportation and housing

• Projects that provide direct or indirect benefit to Communities of Concern (COCs) • Project that specifically identify a user group in low- and lower-middle income communities Economic Vitality 8 Increase gross regional product by 90%

• Project facilitates goods movement • Project maintains the system or replaces key infrastructure beyond useful life • Project increases reliability of travel to economic centers

67

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-2: Performance Targets and Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects Proposed Criteria for Assessing Contra Costa’s Large Projects MTC Performance Target

Supports MTC’s Target

Neutral - No Significant Effect

Does not Support MTC’s Target

Non-Auto Travel Time/VMT Reduction 9 Decrease average non-auto per-trip travel time by 10%, decrease auto vehicles miles traveled per capita by 10%3

• Transit, bike, and pedestrian projects • Roadway projects with bike and pedestrian safety elements • Project likely results in a decrease in VMT

• Project has no anticipated effect on non-auto travel time or VMT • Maintenance roadway projects

• Roadway projects that increase auto capacity • Project likely results in an increase in VMT

• Operational roadway improvements that maintain or improve alternative travel accessibility Maintenance 10 Maintain the system in a state of good repair

• Maintenance projects

• Operational or capital projects that include a maintenance component • Expansion projects that replace aging infrastructure with new and improved facilities that will require less future maintenance

• Projects that physically expand the system, increase future maintenance needs, and do not include a maintenance component

Notes: 1. HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development 2. Using data compiled from the “Bay Area Progress and Meeting 2007-2014 Housing Need Allocation (as of 3/27/2015),” criteria compares the jurisdiction’s performance in meeting its total RHNA (by percent) to the overall average for Contra Costa County (56 percent). Jurisdictions that met less than 46 percent of their total RHNA were considered weak; 46 to 66 percent was considered moderate; and above 66 percent was considered strong.

3. Changes in transit mode share were evaluated on a systemwide basis; see discussion on page 49 and Figure 3-2. For individual projects, the criterion was expressed as a non-auto travel time reduction, which would have a bearing on transit mode share by increasing the potential benefit of using transit – a travel time savings. This was judged appropriate for a qualitative assessment.

68

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Countywide Projects Bicycle/Pedestrian

4220

East Bay Green Transportation and Environmental Maintenance Project

Balance urbanization with East Bay Regional Parks in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Integrate Green Transportation network and parklands / resource areas. Provide critical linkages and resource protection at the urban/wildlands interface; promote sustainable communities, equitable access, transportation alternatives and open space preservation.

East Bay Regional Park District

$500,000,000



—











—



—

2491

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities within Contra Costa, including overcrossing locations to be determined.

MTC

$67,900,000



—















—

$75,000,000



—















—

Bus 2651

Bus Transit Double existing services and add new services Bus Transit Coordinating from Concord, Martinez. Additional service TBD Coordinating Council: Express Bus after assessment of needs Council Services

Freeway 4703

I-80 Express Lane Conversion (Bay Bridge to SR-4)

Convert I-80 HOV Lanes to Express Lanes from SR-4 to Bay Bridge bypass lane in each direction.

MTC

$37,100,000

—

—









—



—

—

Construct and improve intermodal and arterial connections between economic development centers along the Northern Waterfront.

Contra Costa County

$100,000,000

—





—





—



—

—

CCTA

$50,000,000

—

—

—







—





—

Goods Movement

4576

Northern Waterfront Goods Movement Infrastructure

Operations

4686

Design and construct infrastructure-to-vehicle Connected elements that support CV/AV technology.

Vehicle/Automated Includes traffic signal control upgrades, roadway Vehicle Infrastructure striping, automatic vehicle detection, roadway sensors and cameras.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population



—



Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Rail/Rapid Transit

2507

Amtrak Capitol Corridor: Expand Service (beyond committed)

Further expand service on the Capitol Corridor consistent with Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board Business Plan.

Capitol Corridor JPA

$73,100,000



—















—

4207

BART rail expansion vehicles

Purchase 225 additional vehicles to accommodate increased growth in BART ridership (Contra Costa share).

BART

$323,800,000



—















—

2479

Construct projects that facilitate access to BART stations, including new or expanded BART Station Access intermodal facilities, bicycle and pedestrian Improvements facilities, accessibility/ADA improvements, wayfinding signage, expanded parking and other access improvements.

BART

$400,000,000



—















—

4211

BART Station Capacity Improvements

Provides station capacity improvements such as additional vertical circulation and faregates, platform widening, train screens and doors, and paid area expansion.

BART

$400,000,000



—















—

4710

Martinez Rail Corridor Improvements

Improve the Martinez railroad corridor.

MTC

$25,200,000



—

—

—





—





—

BART

$300,000,000



—















—

3956

System capacity and reliability projects may include traction power, train control and communication systems, ventilation systems, local track improvements, earthquake safety, and System Capacity and increased security. The total project cost for Reliability Projects this request is the Contra Costa County share of the cost of the capacity increases to the three systems combined. It can be segmented by project type.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

4208

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population



—



Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Project Name

Description

Transit Safety and Security Improvements

BART Security Program includes projects necessary to improve or enhance BART security for patrons and system. Projects would be implemented at: 1) Emergency Communications; 2) Operations Control Center; 3) Locks & Alarms; 4) Public Safety Preparedness; 5) Structural Augmentation; 6) Surveillance; and 7) Weapons Detection Systems.

BART

$60,500,000



—











—



—

Fund the total countywide need for Safe Routes to Schools projects from the Contra Costa SR2S Needs Assessment (2014)

CCTA

$242,800,000



—











—



—

MTC

$102,200,000



—















—

MTC

$31,500,000



—



—





—





—

Richmond

$35,700,000



—















—

Safe Routes to School 4716

Contra Costa Safe Routes to Schools Needs Assessment

Transportation for Livable Communities

4701

Contra Costa County Fund and implement Transportation for Livable Transportation for Communities (TLC) and streetscape projects in Livable Communities/ Contra Costa County.

Streetcape Projects

West County (WCCTAC) Projects Arterial/Roadway 4693

West County Arterial and Interchange Improvements

Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges in west Contra Costa County

Bicycle/Pedestrian

4266

Project will close a gap in the Bay Trail between Castro Street in Point Richmond and the Bay Trail Gap Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. The Closure: Castro to purpose of the project is to provide a safe, Richmond-San Rafael convenient, and inviting route for non-motorized Bridge users to the Point San Pablo Peninsula and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

4194

Del Norte Area TOD Project Public Improvements

Description Parking facilities; bicycle, pedestrian, and/or bus transit access improvements; signage; lighting; improvements to station access or station waiting areas; ADA improvements; improvements to adjacent streets, street crossings, or signals; and/or Ohlone Greenway improvements.

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population



—



Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

El Cerrito

$25,000,000



















—

Bus 2745

AC Transit Information System

Information System: includes ADA hardware and software and upgrade and replacement of data processing equipment

AC Transit

$120,000,000



—















—

4068

AC Transit Purchase of Expansion Buses

Purchase 12 buses, 8 to be used to improve Express Bus service on I-80 and RAPID service on San Pablo Ave. and 4 for feeder service.

AC Transit

$118,000,000



—















—

4666

Upgrade existing local and Rapid Bus service to a San Pablo Avenue full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project linking the Phase 2 Transit Richmond Pkwy Transit Center with El Cerrito Enhancements - High del Norte BART Station, including similar Capacity Bus improvements along Macdonald Avenue.

AC Transit

$172,000,000



—















—

4667

San Pablo Avenue Upgrade the existing local and Rapid Bus service Phase 3 Transit to a full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) linking El Enhancements - High Cerrito del Norte BART Station with central El Capacity Bus Cerrito near Carlson Blvd.

AC Transit

$46,750,000



















—

Ferry 4069

Ferry Capital Improvements in West County

Capital improvements needed to provide ferry service within West County.

Water Transport Authority

$52,000,000



















—

2824

Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Service

Richmond-San Francisco ferry service

Richmond

$46,000,000



—















—

I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Improvements

Construct improvements listed in the I-80 Corridor System Management Plan

WCCTAC

$31,300,000

—

—









—





—

Freeway 4242

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

4233

Closes the eastbound HOV lane gap the I-80 eastbound HOV Carquinez Bridge and Cummings Skyway, will lane extension from provide a continuous eastbound HOV lane from Cummings Skwy to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to the the Carquinez Bridge Carquinez Bridge.

CCTA

$36,700,000



—

—

—





—



—

—

3194

State Route 4 West: Phase 2 (Full Freeway)

Construct full freeway

CCTA

$78,300,000



—

—

—





—





—

CCTA

$38,000,000

—

—

—











—

—

Interchange

2834

I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Phase 1

Upgrade and improve interchange. Phase 1 includes relocating El Portal Drive on-ramp to Westbound I-80 to the north, extending the auxiliary lane along Westbound I-80 between San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp and El Portal Drive on-ramp, and reconstructing the Riverside Ave pedestrian overcrossing.

4610

I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange: Reconstruct Phase 2

Upgrade and improve interchange. Phase 2 includes modifications to McBryde and El Portal ramps. Includes provisions for bicyclists on I-80 bikeway and pedestrians on San Pablo Dam Road.

CCTA

$80,000,000

—

—

—













—

Project includes signal reconfiguration or timing; improved bus access; 700- to 800-space parking facility; and security improvements at Hilltop Drive park-and-ride lot

AC Transit

$31,000,000



—









—





—

Intermodal/Park-and-Ride

2841

Richmond Parkway Transit Center Parking and Access Improvements

Rail/Rapid Transit 4239

Hercules Rail Station Parking Structure

Add 450 space parking structure to serve the Hercules Rail Station and the Ferry Terminal

Hercules

$30,000,000



—

—







—





—

3267

Richmond Crossover

Construct a crossover track to reduce turn time for trains to improve operational efficiency

BART

$45,000,000



—

—













—

4240

Richmond Cyber Train

Construct Richmond Cyber Train

Richmond

$42,900,000



—











—



—

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

4621

West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study Improvements

Implement the recommended improvements from the West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

WCCTAC

500,000,000*



—















—

MTC

$30,000,000



—















—

Hercules

$37,739,000



—

—













—

Safe Routes to School

2868

Improved local and school bus service within West Contra Costa West Contra Costa including: capital and Local Bus and School operating costs for improved transit service; and Bus Service school bus service improvements

TLC

4528

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center / Hercules Bayfront Village

The Hercules Intermodal Transit Center (ITC) is a planned multi-modal traversed by the San Francisco Bay Trail with bus, train, and ferry service providing alternatives for access to employment, educational, and recreational destinations.

Central County (TRANSPAC) Projects Arterial/Roadway

4692

Central County Arterial and Interchange Improvements

Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges in central Contra Costa County

MTC

$27,300,000



—



—





—



—

—

2568

Pacheco Boulevard, Widen from Blum to Martinez City Limit

Widen Pacheco Boulevard from Blum Road to Morello Avenue, construct railroad overcrossing, and allow for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, median, turn lanes and landscaping, where appropriate.

Contra Costa County

$35,200,300

—

—

—

—











—

Implementation of the City of Concord's Trail Master Plan

Concord

$51,500,000



—















—

Bicycle/Pedestrian 3236

Concord: Implement Citywide Trail Master Plan

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population



—



Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Project Name

Description

Bus Rapid Transit Projects

Provide frequent, prioritized bus service in dense, congested corridors - potential corridors include Clayton Road, Treat Blvd, Ygnacio Valley Road, Contra Costa Blvd and 680 Corridor south of Walnut Creek. Cost is for one demonstration corridor.

County Connection

$90,000,000



—















—

Martinez Intermodal Project: Ferry Service

Ferry service from Martinez to San Francisco.

Martinez

$70,400,000



—















—

3362

This project provides an HOV lane in the I-680 Northbound northbound direction between Livorna and N. HOV Gap Closure Main through the I-680/SR-24 Interchange via a Between Livorna and flyover. This project will close an HOV gap on IN. Main 680 in Contra Costa County.

CCTA

$115,600,000



—

—







—





—

3364

Provide an HOV lane in the northbound I-680 Northbound direction between N. Main and SR-242, which HOV Gap Closure will significantly shorten a gap in the HOV between N. Main and network which currently exists between Livorna SR-242 and SR242.

CCTA

$45,000,000



—









—





—

4558

I-680 Northbound/ Lawrence Way HOV Direct Access Ramp

CCTA

$50,000,000





—







—





—

3363

I-680 Southbound Widen I-680 and/or restripe to add one HOV HOV Gap Closure lane through the I-680/SR-24 interchange Between N. Main and between N. Main and Livorna in the southbound Livorna direction.

CCTA

$84,000,000



—

—







—





—

Bus

4615

Ferry 3226 Freeway

Provide a direct access ramp from northbound Lawrence Way to the northbound I-680 HOV/HOT lane

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Project Name

Description

SR-4 Operational Improvements Phase 1

Add Eastbound HOV lane from Northbound I680 on-ramp to start of existing HOV lane just east of SR-242 (ICA Improvement #12); Extend third Eastbound mixed-flow lane (previously constructed on the Phase 3 I-680/SR-4 project) from lane drop at Solano Way to Willow Pass Rd (West) on-ramp (ICA Improvement #13); Extend Eastbound mixed-flow lane from lane drop at Port Chicago Hwy to Willow Pass Rd (West) off-ramp (ICA Improvement #14); Extend Westbound mixed-flow lane from Willow Pass Rd (West) off-ramp to lane addition east of Port Chicago Hwy off-ramp (ICA Improvement #15). Note: additional lanes will be considered for operation as HOV/Express Lanes.

CCTA

$157,000,000



—



—





—





—

SR-4 Operational Improvements Phase 2

Extend Eastbound mixed-flow lane from Willow Pass Rd (West) off-ramp to San Marco Blvd offramp (ICA Improvement #13); Extend Eastbound mixed-flow lane from San Marco Blvd off-ramp to lane addition east of San Marco Blvd on-ramp (ICA Improvement #17 & 18); Extend Westbound mixed-flow lane from lane drop east of San Marco Blvd off-ramp to Willow Pass Rd (West) off-ramp (ICA Improvement #16). Note: additional lanes will be considered for operation as HOV/Express Lanes.

CCTA

$102,000,000



—



—





—





—

3116

Construct Route 242/Clayton Road on and off-ramp

Construct new northbound on-ramp and associated accelerating/weaving lanes, and new southbound off-ramp at SR 242/Clayton Road interchange.

Concord

$50,000,000

—

—

—

—

—



—



—

—

2670

I-680 / SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 2

Construct eastbound State Route 4 to southbound I-680 connector and improvements to the State Route 4 interchange at Pacheco Boulevard

CCTA

$53,449,300



—









—



—

—

4331

4332

Interchange

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

3239

Construct two-lane direct connector ramps for the high-demand northbound to westbound movement as the first phase of the five-phase construction of a three-level interchange at the intersection of I-680 and State Route 4. The subsequent phases will provide two-lane direct I-680 / State Route 4 connector ramps for the eastbound to Interchange southbound (Phase 2) movement. Retain loop Improvements: ramp configuration for the westbound to Phase 1 southbound and eastbound to northbound movements. Provide all other ramp movements by diagonal ramps. Widen State Route 4 from four to six lanes, eliminating the current eastbound lane drop on State Route 4 west of the Pacheco Boulevard interchange

CCTA

$85,612,000



—









—



—

—

3483

I-680 / State Route 4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 3

Widen State Route 4 between Morello Avenue in Martinez and State Route 242 in Concord

CCTA

$70,000,000



—









—



—

—

3484

I-680 / State Route 4 Interchange Construct southbound I-680 to eastbound State Improvements: Route 4 connector Phase 4

CCTA

$51,329,000



—









—



—

—

3485

I-680 / State Route 4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 5

CCTA

$40,146,000



—









—



—

—

3217

Construct HOV connection between SR-4 HOV and I-680 HOV lanes. West bound SR-4 to SR 4 / I-680 HOV Southbound I-680 and northbound I-680 to Connection + ramps Eastbound SR-4. Project includes ramps to/from SR-4 to I-680.

CCTA

$123,000,000



—

—







—





—

Construct westbound State Route 4 to northbound I-680 connector

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Intermodal/Park-and-Ride

4221

Walnut Creek BART TOD Multimodal Improvements

Construct improvements at the Walnut Creek BART TOD such as additional parking, station access, capacity, safety and operational improvements.

Walnut Creek

$32,200,000



—









—





—

East County (TRANSPLAN) Projects Arterial/Roadway 3731

A Street Grade Separation

Construct railroad bridge over A Street

Antioch

$100,000,000

—

—

—







—



—

—

4691

East County Arterial and Interchange Improvements

Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges in east Contra Costa County

MTC

$31,500,000







—









—

—

3060

James Donlon Blvd.

Extension

Construct new two-lane roadway (four-lanes in developed areas), 2.2 miles in length, connecting James Donlon Blvd. in Antioch to Kirker Pass Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County.

Pittsburg

$55,000,000







—





—





—

Oakley

$25,900,000

—





—





—





—

$200,000,000



—

—

—



—

—





—

3046

Main Street Bypass in Construct Main Street Bypass in City of Oakley Oakley

4398

Route 84/Vasco Road Contra Costa Widening to County Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (2 lanes per direction).

County line

2977

State Route 239: Airport Connector

Replace/upgrade existing Armstrong Road. Add new road segments west of Armstrong Road to Vasco Road and east of Armstrong Road to Byron Highway, including pedestrian and bicycle Class 1 trail.

4664

State Route 239: South Link/Byron Highway

Upgrade existing Byron Highway to a 4 lane arterial with provisions for transit and bicycles.

Replace at-grade crossings with grade-separated crossings, and tie in to proposed I-205/Lammers Road interchange in Tracy.

CCTA

$74,419,900

—

—

—

—



—

—



—

—

CCTA

$174,243,200

—

—

—





—

—



—

—

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

3531

Widen SR-4 from 2 to 4 lanes, Marsh Creek Road to San Joaquin County Line

Widen State Route 4 as a continuous 4-lane arterial from Marsh Creek Road to the San Joaquin County Line

Contra Costa County

$150,000,000



—

—

—



—

—





—

California Delta Trail

California Delta Trail is new 22-mile multi-use trail project proposed for east-west trail in the communities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and Oakley under the Delta Protection Commission.

Eastbound RPD lead agency for East Contra Costa County.

East Bay Regional Park District

$35,000,000



















—

Express Bus Service

Express bus network feeding existing Pittsburg/Bay Point, Concord, Dublin & Walnut Creek BART stations as well as Lawrence Livermore Lab.

Tri Delta Transit

$50,000,000



—















—

Antioch/Pittsburg to Martinez to SF Ferry

New ferry service from Antioch or Pittsburg to San Francisco with a stop at Martinez. 10-Year Operating Costs.

Water Transport Authority

$79,680,000



















—

3120

Construct a diamond interchange at this location Range Road to ease congestion at the Bailey Rd. and Railroad Interchange at State Avenue freeway interchanges. This project Route 4 assumes a Range Rd. overcrossing is built first.

Pittsburg

$32,550,000

—

—

—



—



—



—

—

3117

SR-160/East 18th St.: Modify Interchange

Caltrans

$45,000,000

—

—

—



—



—



—

—

Bicycle/Pedestrian

3980

Bus 3211 Ferry 3514

Interchange

Interchange modification

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

Construct 4-lane freeway from SR-4 just south of Balfour Road to I-580/I-205 Interchange west of Tracy (0250c). Add new interchanges at State Route 239 and Marsh Creek Road, Walnut Blvd, the new Interchange at IAirport Connector Link at Armstrong Road 3103, 4663 580/I-205 (approximately 15 miles). Also includes Construction construction of the addition to existing I-580/I205 interchange, which would connect proposed SR-239 to Eastbound I-205 and both directions of I-580.

Primary Sponsor

CCTA

3456

State Route 4 Bypass: State Route 4 Construct a new interchange on the State Route Segment 3 - Marsh Bypass 4 Bypass at Marsh Creek Road Creek Interchange Authority

3457

State Route 4 Bypass: Segment 3 - Vasco Road Interchange

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population





—

Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

$813,987,912



—

—





—

—





—

$74,900,000

—

—

—







—



—

—

Construct a full interchange at Vasco Road/Walnut Blvd. Interchange would only include one bridge. A second bridge would be required when 4-lanes are constructed to the south.

State Route 4 Bypass Authority

$74,900,000

—

—

—







—



—

—

Construct Park & Ride facilities in Antioch and Oakley for use by Tri-Delta Transit buses.

Tri Delta Transit

$64,000,000



















—

Intermodal/Park-and-Ride 4720

Park and Ride Lots in Antioch and Oakley

Rail/Rapid Transit 3176

Commuter Transit Needs (Capital) in East County

Fund capital improvements including transit vehicle acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, or track rehabilitation

BART

$95,000,000



—















—

4061

East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 2

Extend BART using DMU technology from Hillcrest Ave to Brentwood.

BART

$500,000,000



















—

Contra Costa County

$47,800,000













—





—

Southwest County (SWAT) - Lamorinda and Tri-Valley Projects Arterial/Roadway 2606

Dougherty Rd.: Widen, Red Willow to Alameda County

Widen Dougherty road from 2 to 6 lanes from Red Willow Road to Alameda/Contra Costa border

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table A-3: Performance Assessment of Large Projects (≥ $25 Million), Using MTC's Performance Targets from MTC 2013 RTP Climate Protection:

Primary Sponsor

Adequate Housing:

1. Reduce 2. House 100% Total Project Per Capita of the Region’s Cost CO2 by 15% Population



—



Equitable Access:

Economic Vitality:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

Maintenance:

7. Reduce 4. Reduce Percentage of 3. Reduce Injuries and 5.

Housing and Exposure to Fatalities Increase Transportation Particulate from Walking 6. Maintain the Costs for LowEmissions Collisions and Biking Urban Limit Line Income Households

8. Increase Gross Regional Product

9. Decrease Travel Time for Transit; Reduce Auto VMT

10. Maintain the System in a State of Good Repair

Healthy and Safe Communities:

Land Preservation:

Project ID

Project Name

Description

4382

Highland Road Improvements Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Line

Safety and capacity Improvement project

Contra Costa County

$25,000,000



—









—





—

4658

Mt. Diablo Blvd and Moraga Road Congestion Mitigation Project

Construct bypass corridor for regional through traffic around downtown Lafayette CBD.

Lafayette

$100,000,000

—

—

—



—

—

—





—

I-680 (HOV) Direct Access Ramps

Includes reconstruction of overcrossing, widening of median, construction of new HOVonly on- and off-ramps in both the northbound and southbound directions in San Ramon, and modifications to the local street network. The ramps would be HOV only for the same hours of operation as the HOV lanes.

CCTA

$102,000,000





—



—









—

Implement the recommended improvements from the I-680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Study

CCTA

500,000,000*



















—

Freeway

3365

Rail/Rapid Transit 4721

I-680 Transit Investment Options Study Improvement

*Project cost may be higher or lower, subject to results of the I-680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Study

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Appendix B: Listing of Action Plan MultiModal Transportation Service Objectives The following measures are used as MTSOs by one or more sub-regions.

Auto Volumes at Crossings: A measure of the difficulty crossing roadways along the trail.

Average Peak Hour Travel Speed: A measure of the maintenance of a minimum average vehicle speed in miles per hour during morning and evening peak-hour travel times.

Average Stopped Delay: A measure expressed in signal cycles to clear the intersection in the peak direction of AM/PM commute travel.

Average Trail User Delay at Major Road Crossings: A measure of the delay to trail users caused by at-grade crossing of the trail.

Average Vehicle Ridership: The ratio of total person commute trips to vehicles used for commuting.

83

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

BART Average Loading Factor: The ratio of passengers to seats. An hourly average loading factor of 1.5 indicates that the number of passengers served during the hour is fifty percent greater than the number of seats available during that hour.

BART Ridership: A measure of the average number of weekday riders on all BART trains between Bay Point and North Concord Stations.

Bus Riders per Service Hour: A measure of the average number of riders boarding a fixed-route bus during an hour of scheduled bus service when persons may board with a fare or pass.

Delay Index: A measure of delay experienced by motorists on a roadway segment during a peak hour in a single direction. The Delay Index is calculated by measuring the time it takes to travel a segment of road during congested conditions, and comparing it to the time it takes to travel the same segment during uncongested, free-flow conditions.

A Delay Index of 2.0 indicates that the trip takes twice as long during the peak hour as during non-peak hours.

Duration of Congestion: A measure of congestion expressed in terms of hours of congestion per day and is measured with traffic counts or speed runs.

Frequency of Pedestrian or Bicyclist Injury: A measure of the relative safety of the trail for its pedestrian and bicycling users.

HOV Lane Usage: A measure of the efficient utilization of the HOV lane, based on the number of vehicles using the HOV lanes at the highest HOV volume section.

Pavement Conditions: A measure of the relative comfort of the trail for its users.

Peak Hour Travel Speed: A measure of the minimum average peak hour speed for the AM and PM peak hours.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume: A measure of the use of a facility and potential overcrowding or conflict.

Roadway Segment LOS: A measure of traffic efficiency and smoothness of flow along roadway segments that are not constrained by a nearby traffic signal.

84

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS): A measure of traffic conditions at a signalized intersection. LOS is expressed in ratings of “A” through “F,” with “A” meaning that all traffic clears the intersection on every cycle and “F” meaning that drivers must wait through multiple cycles to clear the intersection.

Transit Ridership: A measure of daily, monthly, and annual ridership on a variety of public transit options.

Vehicle Occupancy: The number of occupants traveling in a vehicle.

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C): The ratio of hourly traffic volume to capacity of a given roadway, which is a measure of the level of congestion on a given roadway.

85

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

This page intentionally left blank.

86

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Appendix C: 2017 10- and 20-Year Project Lists The tables on the following pages present the 10-year and 20-year priorities lists for the 2017 CTP. They have been prepared to respond to MTC’s CTP Guidelines using the following methodology and assumptions.

10-YEAR PROJECT LIST This list is comprised of projects included in the adopted 2013 Plan Bay Area, with adjustments to reflect 2017 escalated project costs. The total cost for this initial list equals $3.672 billion. The cost estimate in Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars is $4.223 billion.

Projects that have recently been complete are marked accordingly.

87

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-1: Summary of 10-Year Projects and Programs Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Projects Freeway/Roadway

$1,991

Arterial

$635

Freeway

$530

Goods Movement High Occupancy Vehicles Integrated Corridor Management Interchange Pedestrian, Bicycles, and Trails Transit

$19 $161 $85 $562 $51 $982

BART

$670

Bus

$81

Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit

$44

Ferry

$105

Park-and-Ride

$2

Regional Rail

$82

Total Projects

$3,024

1

Programs

Pedestrian, Bicycles, and Trails

$85

Safe Routes to Schools

$36

Transportation for Livable Communities

$117

Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities

$183

School Bus Pass

$26

School Bus Service

$200

Total Programs

$648

Total Projects & Programs

$3,672

Notes: 1. Does not include Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds (LSM) for Contra Costa, which are shown in the 2013 RTP as $4.3 billion. The Measure J share, based on 20% of actual annual Measure J revenues (FY 2015-16), is $451 million (0.02 x $83,468,000/year) x 27 years (2013-2040).

2. To convert to YOE dollars, apply a factor of 1.15, which corresponds with a uniform rate of expenditure over the ten year period.

88

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities within Contra Costa, including overcrossing locations to be determined.

Sponsor: CCTA

Bike/Ped

$85.2

Contra Costa County Safe Routes to Schools Program Fund and implement Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) programs in Contra Costa County Sponsor: CCTA

SR2S

$36.2

Contra Costa County TLC/Streetscape Projects Fund and implement Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) and streetscape projects in Contra Costa County.

Sponsor: CCTA

TLC

$117.4

BART Stations, Parking and Access Improvements Station Capacity Expansion -- includes vertical circulation, emergency stairs, platform expansion, add'l faregates, etc. BART Stations, Parking and Access (station modernization, TOD infrastructure, system capacity, access, parking, etc.)

Sponsor: BART

Transit

$119.0

Paratransit programs in Contra Costa Fund and implement paratransit programs in Contra Costa County.

Sponsor: CCTA

Transit

$182.6

Project Countywide

West County (WCCTAC) Regional Rail Station in Hercules - Phase 3: Bay Trail west segment Extend Bay Trail from Railroad Avenue to Bayfront Blvd connecting to a new rail station Sponsor: Hercules

Bike/Ped

$3.5

San Pablo Avenue Pedestrian Gap Closure Complete bicycle/pedestrian connection on San Pablo Avenue over Santa Fe Railroad tracks by upgrading the existing bridge or constructing new dedicated bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

Sponsor: Pinole

Bike/Ped

$1.1

23rd Street Streetscape Provide street enhancements and streetscape improvements to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use, including potential conversion of 22nd and 23rd Streets from one way to two-way operations.

Sponsor: Richmond

Bike/Ped

$14.0

Hercules Train Station - Phase 2 Regional Capitol Corridor Train Station in Hercules, Phase 2 "Path to

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.7

completed

89

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Modification - Phases 1 & 2 Phase 1 of the project will redirect I-80 westbound on-ramp traffic during weekend peak periods to I-580 through the use of multiple electronic variable message signs.

Phase 2 of the project will improve signalized intersections spacing along Central Avenue by connecting Pierce Street and San Mateo Street, modifying Pierce Street access at Central Avenue, and relocating the traffic signal at Pierce Street/Central Avenue to the San Mateo Street/Central Avenue intersection.

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$24.6

Reconstruct I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Upgrade and improve interchange. Phase 1 includes relocating El Portal Drive on-ramp to Westbound I-80 to the north, extending the auxiliary lane along Westbound I-80 between San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp and El Portal Drive on-ramp, and reconstructing the Riverside Ave pedestrian overcrossing. Phase 2 includes modifications to McBryde and SPDR ramps.

Includes provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians on San Pablo Dam Road.

Sponsor: San Pablo/CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$115.3

West County Arterial and Interchange Improvements Widen and, extend and improve major streets and bridges, grade separations/crossings, and improve and interchanges in west Contra Costa County Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$40.0

Marina Way Parkway Grade Separation Construct a railroad grade separation at the Richmond Waterfront on the Marina Bay Parkway.

Sponsor: Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$37.9

I-80 ICM - Freeway Portion Install new or upgraded corridor management and traveler information elements along the Interstate 80 corridor from the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza. (I-80 ICM - Freeway) Caltrans

Freeway/ Roadway

I-80 Eastbound Pinole Valley Road On-ramp Improvement Improve conditions for merging onto the I-80 mainline from the eastbound Pinole Valley Road on-ramp to address vehicles accelerating uphill after stopping at ramp meter.

Sponsor: Pinole

Freeway/ Roadway

$9.4

I-80 ICM - Arterial Portion Install new or upgraded corridor management and real-time traveler

Freeway/ Roadway

$25.9

Project Transit" - Extend John Muir Pkwy and Bayfront Blvd Sponsor: Hercules

completed $56.0

completed

90

completed

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

I-80 ICM Project Operations and Maintenance I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project Operations and Management - Local Portion - Maintenance in Contra Costa; This project will implement Adaptive Ramp Metering (ARM) and Active Traffic Management (ATM) strategies will be employed to reduction congestion and provide incident management capabilities.

Sponsor: WCCTAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.7

I-80 Eastbound HOV lane extension, Cummings Skwy to Carquinez Bridge Complete the eastbound HOV lane between the Cummings Skyway and Carquinez Bridge to provide a continuous eastbound HOV lane from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to the Carquinez Bridge.

Sponsor: Caltrans

Freeway/ Roadway

$28.2

Cutting/Carlson grade crossing improvements at UPRR grade crossing Sponsor: Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$8.4

San Pablo Avenue Phase 1 Transit Enhancements - Rapid Bus Upgrades Construct enhancements to San Pablo Rapid Bus Service, including real-time info, queue jump lanes, buses and on-board equipment, and passenger amenities.

Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$21.3

Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Service

Transit

$47.5

Transit

$26.3

Expand WestCAT maintenance facility Purchase land adjacent to current facility to increase available storage for transit vehicles.

Sponsor: WestCAT

Transit

$3.5

Expand WestCAT Service Expand WestCAT's bus service, including purchase of vehicles.

Sponsor: WestCAT

Transit

$31.6

Project information improvements along (1) Interstate 80 and (2) key arterial routes between the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza. (I-80 ICM - Arterials) Sponsor: WCCTAC

Implement ferry commute service between San Francisco Ferry Building and Ford Point in Richmond.

Sponsor: WETA West County Low-Income School Bus Program Continue funding school bus passes for low-income students in West Contra Costa.

Sponsor: WCCTAC

91

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project

Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Lynx Service Expansion Purchase vehicles to expand Transbay service Sponsor: WestCAT

Transit

$6.3

Transit Preferential Enhancements (TPM) in Contra Costa County Transit Preferential Enhancements (TPM) in CC County (includes SPDR, McDonald, Cutting, 23rd, other Arterials): Includes signal improvements, stop construction, and bulb construction Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$1.5

Bus Transit Preferential Measures Enhanced Operating Programs (More Service) Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$31.4

Del Norte Area Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Transportation Improvements - Phase 1 Construction of multimodal improvements within quarter mile of El Cerrito del Norte station.

Sponsor: El Cerrito

Transit

$10.7

Provide transportation improvements on the east side of the Richmond BART station to accommodate redevelopment for a transit village.

Reconstruct east entrance to Richmond BART station, provide access improvement to adjacent property for transit oriented development, construct pedestrian and bike streetscape improvement east to Richmond Civic Center on Nevin Avenue.

Sponsor: Richmond

Transit

$14.9

Regional Rail Station in Hercules - Phase 4: Fuel oil and fiber optic line relocations Relocate fuel and fiber optic lines out of the UPRR right of way to make room for the 3rd track.

Sponsor: Hercules

Transit

$17.9

Regional Rail Station in Hercules - Phase 5: Track/signal work Track/signal work including railroad bridge and station retaining walls, rail station Sponsor: Hercules

Transit

$36.8

Regional Rail Station in Hercules - Phase 6: transit loop, promenade and civic plaza Transit loop, promenade and civic plaza Sponsor: Hercules

Transit

$10.0

Regional Ferry Service in Hercules - Landside improvements Construct landside infrastructure improvements including wharf, docking facility, terminal building and expanding waterside of rail station building Sponsor: Hercules/WETA

Transit

$35.0

92

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project

Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Landside Improvements for Richmond Ferry Service Construct landside improvements for Richmond ferry service, including expanded parking.

Sponsor: Richmond

Transit

$22.4

Regional Rail Station in Hercules - Phase 7: Parking Structure Add 450-space parking structure to serve the Hercules Rail Station and the Ferry Terminal Sponsor: Hercules

Transit

$17.0

AC Transit Rolling Stock Expansion Buses to support improved transit service (CC County) Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$6.5

Martinez Intermodal Project: Phase 3 Construct pedestrian bridge over railroad tracks and vehicle bridge over creek, construct 425 parking spaces and complete connections along Bay Trail.

Sponsor: Martinez

Bike/Ped

$6.8

I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 1 Construct two-lane direct connector ramps for the northbound I-680 to westbound SR-4 movement.

Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$110.0

I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 2 Construct eastbound State Route 4 to southbound I-680 connector and improvements to the State Route 4 interchange at Pacheco Boulevard Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$69.0

I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 3 Widen SR-4 between Morello Avenue in Martinez and SR-242 in Concord Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$96.6

I-680 Northbound HOV lane extension between N. Main and SR-242 Provide an HOV lane in the northbound direction between N. Main and SR242, which will significantly shorten a gap in the HOV network which currently exists between Livorna and SR-242.

Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$51.2

I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Between N. Main and Livorna Construct HOV lane on I-680 southbound between North Main Street and Livorna Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$81.1

Construct SR-242/Clayton Road on and off-ramps Construct new northbound on-ramp and associated accelerating/weaving

Freeway/ Roadway

$53.3

Central County (TRANSPAC)

93

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Central County Arterial and Interchange Improvements Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges in central Contra Costa County Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$36.5

Widen Pacheco Boulevard from Blum Road to Morello Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Widen Pacheco Boulevard from Blum Road to Morello Avenue, construct railroad overcrossing, and allow for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, median, turn lanes and landscaping, where appropriate.

Sponsor: Martinez/County

Freeway/ Roadway

$54.2

Clayton Rd./Treat Blvd. Intersection Capacity Improvements Improve Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard intersection to improve operational efficiency and increase capacity (includes upgrading traffic signal and constructing geometric improvements) Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.1

Buskirk Avenue Widening Widen and improve Buskirk Avenue between Monument Boulevard and Hookston Road to provide 2 through-lanes in each direction (includes road realignment, new traffic signals, and bicycle/pedestrian streetscape improvements) Sponsor: Pleasant Hill

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.0

Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane, Clearbrook Drive to Crest of Kirker Pass Road Add a dedicated northbound 12-foot wide truck climbing lane and a Class II bike lane within an 8-foot paved shoulder from Clearbrook Drive in Concord to a point 1000 feet beyond the crest of the Kirker Pass Rd. Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$18.7

Alhambra Avenue-SR 4 Intersection Improvements Add a second southbound Alhambra Avenue lane from Walnut Avenue to the south side of SR-4, including signal modifications.

Sponsor: Martinez

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.2

Realign and improve safety and operations on Alhambra Valley Road Straighten curves to improve safety and operation of Alhambra Valley Road in Martinez and County limits.

Sponsor: Martinez/County

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.2

Project lanes, and new southbound off-ramp at SR-242/Clayton Road interchange.

Sponsor: Concord/CCTA

completed

94

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Project Pacheco Transit Hub Construct Pacheco Boulevard Transit Hub on Blum Road at the Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange, including 6 bus bays and 110 park-and-ride spaces.

Sponsor: County Connection

Transit

Cost (2017 $ in Millions) $1.6

completed

East County (TRANSPLAN) Bailey Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Bailey Road adjacent to SR-4.

Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$5.7

Mokelumne Coast-to-Crest Trail Overcrossing of SR-4

Bike/Ped

$5.6

Widen Wilbur Avenue over BNSF Railroad Widen Wilbur Avenue over Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$15.7

SR-239 Feasibility Study and Project Development Conduct a feasibility study and project development activity for the construction of State Route 239 from Brentwood to Tracy (TriLink) Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$31.4

Vasco Road Safety Improvements: Brentwood to Alameda County Vasco Road Safety & Operational Improvements from Brentwood to Ala Co. line; Phase 2 (includes potential realignment) Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$21.5

East County Arterial and Interchange Improvements Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges in east Contra Costa County Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$42.0

Construct bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of State Route 4.

completed

95

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

SR-4 to SR-160 Direct Connectors Construct new freeway-to-freeway connectors over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to connect WB SR-4 to NB SR-160 and SB SR-160 to EB SR4 north of the Laurel Road Interchange.

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$46.8

State Route 4: Widen, Somersville to Route 160 Widen from 2 lanes to 3 mixed-flow lanes and one HOV in each direction from Somersville to Hillcrest and from 2 lanes to 3 mixed flow lanes from Hillcrest to State Route 160 including auxiliary lanes between interchanges and wide median to accommodate future mass transit. Project also includes modification of interchanges at Somersville Road, Contra Loma/G Street, A Street and Hillcrest Avenue.

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

SR-4 Widening: Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road

Freeway/ Roadway

$16.9

Freeway/ Roadway

$30.0

State Route 4 Widening and Balfour Road IC Construction Construct new interchange at Balfour Road and widen SR-4 from 2 to 4 lanes between Sand Creek Road and Balfour Road

Freeway/ Roadway

$69.0

James Donlon Blvd. Extension Construct new two-lane roadway (four-lanes in developed areas), 2.2 miles in length, connecting James Donlon Blvd west of Somersville Road in Antioch to Kirker Pass Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County.

Sponsor: Pittsburg

Freeway/ Roadway

$51.2

Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Widening Widen Pittsburg-Antioch Highway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with turning lanes from Auto Center Dr to Loveridge Rd Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$15.1

West Leland Road Extension Extend and widen West Leland Road as a 4-lane arterial, including a raised median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks, from San Marco Boulevard to Willow Pass Road.

Sponsor: Pittsburg

Freeway/ Roadway

$15.5

Project

completed $380.6

completed

Widen State Route 4 from Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.

completed

Construct Route 4 Bypass interchange at Sand Creek Road

completed

96

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Widen California Ave from Loveridge to Harbor Widen California Avenue between Loveridge Road and Harbor Street from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Sponsor: Pittsburg

Freeway/ Roadway

$12.9

Lone Tree Way Widening Widen Lone Tree Way to 6 4 lanes: O'Hara Ave. to Brentwood Blvd. to match roadway west of O'Hara Ave. Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$15.0

Lone Tree Way - Union Pacific Undercrossing Construct a grade separation underpass consisting of six travel lanes under Union Pacific Railroad.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$19.8

Widen Brentwood Boulevard, Sunset Court to Lone Tree Way Add 2 lanes to existing 2-lane roadway between Sunset Court and Lone Tree Way, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike lanes.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.7

Widen Fitzuren Road and Connect to W. Tregallas Widen Fitzuren Road from 2 to 4 lanes (including new shoulders, sidewalks and bike lanes) and connect to West Tregallas Road east of G Street.

Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$10.0

Widen Main St , SR-160 to Big Break Rd Widen Main Street in Oakley from 4 to 6 lanes, including widening shoulders, constructing median islands with left turn pockets, and constructing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.8

Empire Avenue Extension North Widen Empire Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes between Lone Tree Way and Union Pacific Railroad right of way/Antioch city limits (including sidewalks and bike lanes).

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.1

Main Street Bypass Construct Main Street Downtown Bypass road between Vintage Parkway and 2nd Street.

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.1

Marsh Creek Road Curve Realignment Improve safety and operations on Marsh Creek Road by realigning certain curves on the segment between Aspara Drive and Deer Valley Road.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$21.5

Project

97

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Widen Brentwood Blvd. between Lone Tree Way and the north city limit Widen Brentwood Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes for approximately 2400 linear feet. It also includes bike lanes, median islands, curb, gutter, sidewalk street lights and landscaping.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.0

East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 1 Construction of rail extension eastward from the Pittsburg-Bay Point BART station with Phase 1 terminus at Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch.

Sponsor: BART

Transit

$525.0

Express Bus and eBART Support Service Establish Express Bus Service and eBART support network (park-and-ride lots and rolling stock) Sponsor: Tri Delta/BART

Transit

$22.5

Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Bollinger Canyon Rd. Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing at Bollinger Canyon Road Sponsor: San Ramon

Bike/Ped

$14.0

I-680 Auxiliary Lanes - Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road Construct I-680 auxiliary lanes in both directions from Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road Sponsor: CCTA/Danville

Freeway/ Roadway

$32.3

Southwest County Arterial and Interchange Improvements Widen and extend major streets, and improve interchanges and intersections in southwest Contra Costa County Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$37.0

Gateway/Lamorinda Traffic Program Gateway Lamorinda Traffic Program (including carpool lots, road improvements, pedestrian accommodation, signal coordination, safety improvements, guardrails, and slide repairs) Sponsor: SWAT

Freeway/ Roadway

$5.0

Widen Dougherty Road to 6 lanes from Red Willow to Contra Costa County line Widen Dougherty Road to 6 lanes from Red Willow to Contra Costa County line Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$72.0

Project

Southwest County (SWAT)

completed

completed

98

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-2: 10-Year Project List Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Eastbound SR-24: Construct Auxiliary Lane, Wilder Road to Camino Pablo Construct auxiliary lane along eastbound SR-24 from on-ramp at Wilder Road to downtown Orinda off-ramp at Moraga Way/Camino Pablo/Brookwood Road Sponsor: Orinda

Freeway/ Roadway

$6.9

Widen Camino Tassajara Road, Windermere to County Line Widen Camino Tassajara Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, including shoulders and bicycle lanes in both directions from Windemere Parkway to the Alameda/Contra Costa Countyline.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$16.0

Bollinger Canyon Road Widening from Alcosta to San Ramon Valley Boulevard Bollinger Canyon Road Widening from Alcosta to San Ramon Valley Boulevard Sponsor: San Ramon

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.3

TRAFFIX and Lamorinda School Bus Program Implement the San Ramon School Bus Program, and continue the Lamorinda School Bus Program Sponsor: SWAT

Transit

Project

completed

Total

$200.0

$3,672

99

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

20-YEAR PROJECT LIST The 20-year project list was developed through a comprehensive public outreach effort as described in Chapter 1 of Volume 1. It also carries forward the goals and strategies of the RTPC Action Plans and the CTP. The Authority has worked with its local and regional partners to develop project priorities that are feasibility, cost effectiveness, and offer systemwide benefits.

This list reflects the Authority’s priority projects should additional funding became available from local, regional, state, or federal sources. The total estimated costs of all of the projects is $6.447 billion. This corresponds with funding that could be generated by a new sales tax measure, and assumes a leverage factor of 2:1. The cost estimate in YOE dollars is $8.458 billion.

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Project

Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Countywide Countywide Bikeway/Pedestrian Network Completion Completion of the bikeways designated as part of the Countywide Bikeway Network Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$0.8

Upgrade infrastructure in PDA's to prepare for targeted growth.

Ready priority development areas for future growth by improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to provide connectivity and ADA compliance.

Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$0.8

Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Program Fund Contra Costa Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Program Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$697.0

Connected Vehicle/Automated Vehicle and Other Technology Infrastructure Design and construct infrastructure-to-vehicle elements that support Connected/Autonomous Vehicle technology. Includes ICM, traffic signal control upgrades, roadway striping, automatic vehicle detection, roadway sensors and cameras.

Sponsor: CCTA

Innovation

$65.0

Corrected

100

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements– Contra Costa BART station Improvements, may include station modernization, TOD infrastructure, system capacity, access, parking, etc.

Sponsor: BART

Transit

$300.0

New Technologies for Reducing Single Occupancy Vehicles Install new technologies to reduce SOV and increase existing capacity, including new technology enhancements for ridesharing and transit Sponsor: WCCTAC

Transit

$18.4

SR4 Integrated Corridor Mobility SR4 Integrated Corridor Mobility from I-80 to SR160, including adaptive ramp metering, advanced traveler information, arterial management system, freeway management system, connected vehicle applications Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$15.0

Ohlone Greenway Improvements Implement crossing, wayfinding, signing, lighting, safety and security, and landscaping improvements along Ohlone Greenway Sponsor: El Cerrito

Bike/Ped

$2.9

Macdonald Ave Streetscape Provide street enhancements and streetscape to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use Sponsor: Richmond

Bike/Ped

$19.0

Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Design and construct pedestrian and bike facilities as identified as near term/high priority projects in the Richmond Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Sponsor: Richmond

Bike/Ped

$23.9

Wildcat Creek Trail Construction Extend existing trail, including construction of paved pedestrian and bicycle path along the north bank of Wildcat Creek between Church Lane and Vale Road.

San Pablo

Bike/Ped

$4.1

Multimodal Streetscape Improvements, San Pablo Ave, Pinole Valley Rd., Appian Way Construct multimodal improvements on San Pablo Ave, Pinole Valley Rd, and Appian Way in Pinole.

Sponsor: Pinole

Bike/Ped

$5.5

West County (WCCTAC)

Corrected 101

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Bike/Ped improvements on San Pablo Avenue in West County Construct bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly improvements along San Pablo Avenue from El Cerrito to Crockett to support transit-oriented development.

Sponsor: WCCTAC

Bike/Ped

$6.7

San Pablo Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing at Sycamore Avenue Sponsor: Hercules

Bike/Ped

$3.5

Willow Avenue Sidewalk Install Pedestrian Sidewalk on Willow Avenue from Palm Avenue to the Hercules Transit Center Sponsor: Hercules

Bike/Ped

$0.4

Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile Connection Construct ADA compliant pedestrian path from Grove to Brookside Drive.

Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$4.9

El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan Improvements Active Transportation Plan Improvements (Bicycle & Ped) thru 2035 Sponsor: El Cerrito

Bike/Ped

$34.7

El Cerrito Citywide Accessibility Improvements Implement street accessibility improvements citywide as indicated in the City's ADA Transition Plan.

Sponsor: El Cerrito

Bike/Ped

$6.3

Richmond Parkway Bike Facility and Bay Trail Crossing at Wildcat Creek Study Fund study to identify feasibility of bike facilities on Richmond Parkway and for improving Bay Trail crossing at Wildcat Creek.

WCCTAC

Bike/Ped

$0.5

Complete San Francisco Bay Trail, Richmond Greenway and Ohlone Greenway Complete gaps in San Francisco Bay Trail, Richmond Greenway and Ohlone Greenway segments in West Contra Costa.

Sponsor: WCCTAC

Bike/Ped

$41.7

Sidewalk Installations at Miscellaneous Locations in Hercules Install Sidewalk on Sycamore Ave from Creekside Center Drive to Willow Avenue, San Pablo Avenue from John Muir Parkway to Sycamore Avenue, and on Palm Avenue from Willow to Sycamore Sponsor: Hercules

Bike/Ped

$3.0

Corrected

102

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

The Yellow Brick Road in Richmond's Iron Triangle Final design and construction of a comprehensive set of pedestrian and bicycle improvements as shown in the community-driven "Yellow Brick Road" plan.

Sponsor: Richmond

Bike/Ped

$18.7

I-80/SR4: new I-80 EB off-ramp at Sycamore Re-engineer Freeway Ramps at I-80/SR4: new I-80 EB off-ramp at Sycamore Sponsor: Hercules

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.8

SR-4 West: Phase 2 (Full Freeway) Upgrade State Route 4 to full freeway from I-80 to Cummings Skyway (Phase 2) Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$68.7

Cummings Skyway Truck Climbing Lane Extension Extend truck climbing lane on eastbound Cummings Skyway to allow faster moving vehicles to safely pass slow moving trucks climbing existing 10% grade.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$16.9

North Richmond Truck Route Extend North Richmond truck route from Market Avenue to Parr Boulevard, including 2 lanes, shoulders, and sidewalk on west side Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$20.8

Atlas Road Bridge Construct a grade separation at Atlas Road across the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way near Giant Highway to provide access to the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. The bridge will provide both vehicular and a separated pedestrian-bicycle trail connection to the shoreline.

Sponsor: Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$36.7

I-80/SR-4 Interchange Improvements - New Eastbound Willow Avenue Ramps Construct new SR4 eastbound on and off ramps at Willow north of Palm Avenue to eliminate hook ramps to willow on I-80 interchange to SR4 for safety enhancement and better service to the Hercules Transit Center Sponsor: Hercules

Freeway/ Roadway

$25.4

I-80 CSMP Improvements Construct improvements listed in the I-80 CSMP Sponsor: WCCTAC/Caltrans

Freeway/ Roadway

$34.2

Corrected

103

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets, Rivers to Lowell Construct complete streets improvements from River Street in San Pablo to Lowell Avenue in Richmond. Includes bike, pedestrian and transit improvements.

Sponsor: San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.1

San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements along San Pablo Avenue between Rivers Street and Hilltop Drive Sponsor: San Pablo/Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.1

Rumrill Boulevard Corridor Complete Streets, Sanford to San Pablo Avenue Construct Complete Streets Plan on Rumrill from Sanford to San Pablo Avenue Sponsor: San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.7

South Shoreline Connectivity Improvements South Shoreline Area Connectivity Improvements, including roadway and interchange reconfiguration, rail improvements, and freeway crossings Sponsor: Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$16.0

Complete Streets in West County Implement Complete Streets projects in West County Sponsor: WCCTAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.5

San Pablo Avenue Cycle Track, Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Implement Complete Streets improvements including directional Cycle Track and other bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements in El Cerrito Sponsor: El Cerrito

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.8

Appian Way Complete Streets Project Improve pedestrian and bike safety along Appian Way and create transportation corridor for all users.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$22.2

San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project Construct bike and pedestrian improvements from Rodeo to Crockett by reducing roadway from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.0

I-80/SR4: Replace SR4 WB to I-80 WB ramp I-80/SR4 Ramp Improvements including SR4 WB to I-80 WB ramp replacement Sponsor: Hercules

Freeway/ Roadway

$23.0

Corrected 104

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Multimodal Intelligent Transportation System/Signal Improvements System and signal improvements including but not limited to, signal interconnects, adaptive signal timing, addition of signal phases, and transit signal priority, in support of Richmond's complete streets policy.

Sponsor: Richmond

Freeway/ Roadway

$8.4

San Pablo Avenue Complete Street, Rivers Street to Lowell Avenue Construct bicycle/pedestrian and transit improvements Sponsor: WCCTAC/San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.4

San Pablo Avenue Intersection Realignment at 23rd Street and Road 20 Sponsor: San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.9

Replace San Pablo Avenue Bridge over San Pablo Creek Construct new San Pablo Creek bridge and replace existing bridge on San Pablo Avenue in San Pablo.

Sponsor: San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$8.8

Giant Highway Bridge Rehab at San Pablo Creek Rehabilitate existing bridge over San Pablo Creek on Giant Highway in San Pablo.

Sponsor: San Pablo

Freeway/ Roadway

$1.4

Pitt Way Extension Construct new collector roadway along Pitt Way from San Pablo Dam Road to Hillcrest Road Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$5.3

Implementation of CCTA's SRTS Assessment Sponsor: WCCTAC

SR2S

West County Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility New West County Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility Phase 1: Planning, remediation, land acquisition, and environmental for the Relocation of D3 bus facility and redevelopment of existing site as transit oriented development. Site acquisition, site prep, site planning, design Sponsor: AC Transit/ Richmond

Transit

$28.1

Ferry Capital Improvements in West County Purchase ferry for service between Hercules and San Francisco Sponsor: WETA

Transit

$52.9

$289.8

Corrected 105

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Del Norte Area Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Transportation Improvements - Phase 2 Construction of multimodal and parking improvements within half mile of El Cerrito del Norte station.

El Cerrito

Transit

$22.4

Construct Richmond CyberTran Sponsor: Richmond

Transit

$33.8

West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study Implementation - Phase 2 Implement the recommended improvements from the West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study Sponsor: WCCTAC

Transit

$366.1

West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study Implementation - Phase 1 Sponsor: WCCTAC

Transit

$13.6

Construct new satellite WestCAT maintenance facility (includes land purchase) Construct additional facility to house and maintain vehicles within Western Contra Costa County Sponsor: WestCAT

Transit

$9.4

Technology Upgrades for AC Transit Additional projected technology upgrades including off-board fare payment, upgrades to computer storage and scheduling system, and electronic fare media usage Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$2.8

El Cerrito Del Norte Modernization - Phase 1 Rehabilitate and modernize El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station in El Cerrito.

Sponsor: BART

Transit

$21.7

Bus shelters and transit stop improvements Design and construct bus shelters and other transit stop safety and comfort improvements, including lighting and landscaping improvements Sponsor: Richmond

Transit

$3.7

East Bay Paratransit Service Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$4.6

New and expanded park-n-ride lots Develop new and expanded park-n-ride lots at key locations.

Sponsor: WCCTAC

Transit

$27.5

Corrected 106

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

West County Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility Phase 2 New West County Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility Phase 2 Sponsor: AC Transit/Richmond

Transit

$55.3

San Pablo-Macdonald Transit Corridor Improvements Construct infrastructure improvements on San Pablo Ave and Macdonald Ave to improve transit service and provide customer amenities.

Sponsor: AC Transit

Transit

$226.8

Central County (TRANSPAC)

Olympic Boulevard Bicycle Project Olympic Corridor Trail Connector (from Olympic Blvd at Reliez Station Rd to Iron Horse Trail at Broadway in WC) Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$12.5

San Miguel Drive Pedestrian Improvements Construct ADA compliant pedestrian path from Rudgear Road to the vicinity of South Broadway and Mt. Diablo Blvd to connect to the Iron Horse Trail.

Sponsor: County

Bike/Ped

$6.5

Iron Horse Trail Connection to the north side of Willow Pass Road near I-680 Install ADA-compliant ramp connection from Iron Horse Trail to the north side of Willow Pass Road near I-680 Sponsor: CCTA/Concord

Bike/Ped

$1.0

Widen Alhambra Avenue, Franklin Canyon to Alhambra Valley Road Widen from two lanes to four lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks.

Sponsor: Martinez

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.6

Widen Ygnacio Valley Road-Kirker Pass Road, Cowell to Michigan Widen Ygnacio Valley Road from Michigan Blvd to Cowell Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes and implement Complete Streets improvements Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$19.0

SR-4/I-680 HOV Connection & Ramps Construct HOV connection between SR-4 HOV and I-680 HOV lanes. Westbound SR-4 to southbound I-680 and northbound I-680 to eastbound SR-4. Project includes ramps to/from SR-4 to I-680.

Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$103.5

Corrected

107

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 4 Construct southbound I-680 to eastbound State Route 4 connector Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$66.5

I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements: Phase 5 Construct westbound SR-4 to northbound I-680 connector Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$52.1

Complete Streets Improvements on Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor to Gregory Construct complete street enhancements along Pleasant Hill Road between Taylor Boulevard and Gregory Lane, including ADA curb ramps, sidewalk repair, bike lanes, signal replacement/upgrade, LED street lighting, pavement grinding/overlay, and landscaping.

Sponsor: Pleasant Hill

Freeway/ Roadway

$6.7

Complete Streets Improvements on Contra Costa Blvd, Harriet to Viking Construct complete street enhancements along Contra Costa Boulevard between Harriet Drive and Viking Drive, including sidewalk, ADA curb ramps, bike lanes, signal replacement (at Taylor Boulevard), intersection geometry modification (at Taylor Boulevard), new signal installation, LED street lighting, pavement grind/overlay, and landscaping.

Sponsor: Pleasant Hill

Freeway/

$5.9

Construct Court Street Overcrossing Construct Court Street Overcrossing over RR tracks in Martinez Sponsor: Martinez

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.7

SR-4 Operational Improvements - Initial Phases State Route 4 Operational Improvements - Eastbound: (a) Extend a lane from the lane drop at Port Chicago Interchange to the Willow Pass Rd off-ramp and end as a mandatory exit lane. (b)Construct a new general purpose lane between the Willow Pass Rd off-ramp and the Willow Pass Rd on-ramp. The new general purpose lane would eliminate the mandatory exit at Willow Pass Rd off-ramp from (a) and connect to the existing auxiliary lane between Willow Pass Rd onramp & San Marco Blvd off ramp. Construct a second exit lane at the EB SR4 off-ramp to San Marco Blvd to accommodate existing and future peak hour traffic volumes. (c) Construct auxiliary lane from the San Marco Blvd loop on ramp to the existing deceleration lane at Bailey Rd off-ramp. (d) Construct an auxiliary lane between the Port Chicago Highway on-ramp and the Willow Pass Road off-ramp.

Westbound: Construct a lane from Willow Pass Rd on-ramp connecting to the existing added lane, east of the Port Chicago Highway off-ramp and a second exit lane at Port Chicago Highway offramp. Modify one of the mandatory exit lanes to SR242 to an optional

Freeway/ Roadway

$147.0

Corrected 108

Roadway

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Project

Project Mode

Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

exit lane, allowing three lanes exit to SR242 and three lanes to continue on WB SR4.

Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC SR-4 Operational Improvements - Remaining Phases SR4 Operational Improvements - Eastbound: In between the SR242 off-ramp to the Port Chicago Highway off-ramp, construct a lane, extending the general purpose lane from the I-680 on-ramp to Port Chicago Highway off-ramp. Construct an auxiliary lane between the Willow Pass Road on-ramp and the San Marco Blvd off-ramp, and a general purpose lane from San Marco Blvd off-ramp to San Marco Blvd on-ramp.

Westbound: (a) Construct a general purpose lane between the Willow Pass Rd off-ramp and Willow Pass Rd on-ramp. The construction of this general purpose lane in combination of the westbound improvements done in the financially constrained list and the existing auxiliary lane between San Marco Blvd diagonal on-ramp and Willow Pass Road off-ramp would result in a new general purpose lane between the San Marco Blvd diagonal on-ramp and SR4 242 off-ramp. Construct a lane from Willow Pass Rd on-ramp to the second exit lane to Port Chicago Highway, providing an auxiliary lane between the Willow Pass Road on-ramp and the Port Chicago Highway off-ramp. (b) Construct an auxiliary lane between San Marco Blvd diagonal on-ramp to Willow Pass Road off-ramp. Construct an additional lane, extending the existing acceleration lane at Bailey Road on ramp to the existing auxiliary lane between San Marco Blvd. diagonal on-ramp and Willow Pass Road off-ramp.

Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC

Freeway/ Roadway

$146.2

Kirker Pass Road Southbound Truck Climbing Lane Add a southbound truck climbing lane from Nortonville Rd to a point beyond the crest of Kirker Pass. Project will include a 12-foot dedicated truck climbing lane and a Class II bike lane with 8-foot paved shoulders Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$25.3

Widen Willow Pass Road, Lynwood Drive to SR-4 Widen Willow Pass Road from Lynwood Drive to State Route 4 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes and implement Complete Streets improvements Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$18.7

Concord Boulevard Complete Streets, Kirker Pass Road to Ayers Road Widen Concord Boulevard from Kirker Pass Road to Ayers Road and implement Complete Streets improvements Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.4

Corrected 109

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Galindo Corridor Multi-modal Improvements Widen southbound Galindo Street from Concord Boulevard to Clayton Road to reconfigure travel lanes and signal design/operations from Harrison Street to Laguna Street for more efficient vehicle/pedestrian flows, and install bike lanes from Clayton Road to Laguna Street Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.3

Widen Farm Bureau Road, Walnut Avenue to Clayton Road Widen Farm Bureau Road from Walnut Avenue to Clayton Road and implement Complete Streets improvements Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.3

Downtown Concord Streetscape Improvements on Oak, Grant and Salvio Streets Complete Streets Upgrades on Oak Street, Grant Street & Salvio Street near downtown Concord BART station Sponsor: Concord

Freeway/ Roadway

$5.7

Widen Newell Avenue Bridge Newell Avenue Bridge widening over San Ramon Creek to add bike lanes and turning lanes Sponsor: Walnut Creek

Freeway/ Roadway

$3.2

South Main Street Bridge Replacement S. Main Street Bridge replacement and widening over Las Trampas Creek for wider sidewalks Sponsor: Walnut Creek

Freeway/ Roadway

$5.3

Gregory Lane Complete Street Gregory Lane Complete Street Enhancements between Pleasant Hill Road and Contra Costa Boulevard.

Sponsor: Pleasant Hill

Freeway/ Roadway

$11.7

I-680 NB Carpool Lane Completion thru 680/24 and Operational Improvements between N. Main and Treat Blvd Sponsor: CCTA/Walnut Creek

Freeway/ Roadway

$84.0

Interchange Improvements at 680/Concord Blvd/Contra Costa Blvd Sponsor: CCTA/Pleasant Hill

Freeway/ Roadway

$20.8

Express Bus Services Double existing services and add new services along I-680 from Concord, Martinez. Additional service TBD after assessment of needs Sponsor: CCTA/TRANSPAC/SWAT

Transit

$64.0

Corrected

110

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Martinez Ferry Terminal Construct ferry terminal for service between Martinez and San Francisco.

Sponsor: Martinez

Transit

$16.2

Increase bus service frequency to BART stations Increase service to BART stations in the County Connection service area.

Sponsor: County Connection

Transit

$40.2

East County (TRANSPLAN) John Muir Parkway - Phase 1, Ventura to Foothill Extend John Muir Parkway approx. 2000 ft. with 2 lanes, median island and street lights.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.4

San Jose Avenue Extension - Phase II Extend San Jose Ave approx. 2300 feet as 2-lane roadway with sidewalks and bike lanes.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.2

Widen Heidorn Ranch Road Add 2 lanes to existing 2-lane Heidorn Ranch Road from EBMUD aqueduct to the future Sand Creek Road extension, including bike lanes and sidewalks.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$8.1

Construct State Route 239 from Brentwood to Tracy (TriLink) Construct 4-lane freeway from SR-4 just south of Balfour Road to I580/I-205 Interchange west of Tracy. Add new interchanges at Marsh Creek Road, Walnut Blvd, and at the new Airport Connector.

Includes interchange improvements at the existing I-580/I-205 interchange to connect proposed SR-239 to eastbound I-205 and both directions of I-580.

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$728.0

SR-239: Airport Connector Replace/upgrade existing Armstrong Road. Add new road segments west of Armstrong Road to Vasco Road and east of Armstrong Road to Byron Highway. Part of the SR-239 Project Study Report (PSRPDS).

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$74.4

Corrected

111

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

SR-239: South Link/Byron Highway Upgrade existing Byron Highway to a 4 lane arterial with provisions for transit. Replace at-grade crossings with grade-separated crossings, and tie in to proposed I-205/Lammers Road interchange in Tracy.

Sponsor: CCTA

Freeway/ Roadway

$180.0

Widen Brentwood Boulevard, Havenwood Way to Sunset Road Widen the original 2-lane roadway to a 4-lane roadway from Havenwood Way to Sunset Road and upgrade bridge over Marsh Creek.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$6.5

Widen Brentwood Boulevard, Chestnut to Fir Widen Brentwood Boulevard from two to four lanes.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$4.8

Widen SR-4, Marsh Creek Road to San Joaquin Widen State Route 4 as continuous 4-lane arterial from Marsh Creek Road to San Joaquin County line Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$112.0

Sand Creek Road Extension - West of Bypass Extend Sand Creek Road approximately 2200 feet from SR-4 to city limit. Has 4 lane roadway with median island, sidewalk, bike lanes, 2 new traffic signals and pedestrian bridge over Sand Creek.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$6.1

Viera Avenue Realignment and Grade Separation Construct new collector street for access to the Hillcrest eBART station and transit oriented development area in Antioch, including grade separation over the UPRR tracks.

Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$20.0

Slatten Ranch Road extension (Phase II) Widen roadway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with bike lanes, median & sidewalks from stub at eBART station to Laurel Rd, and construct 4 lane roadway including bike lanes, sidewalks, and median from Laurel Rd to existing southern terminus of Slatten Ranch Road.

Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$58.8

Sand Creek Road Extension - West Construct 4-lane divided arterial as extension west from new interchange on State Route 4. Project will be funded by developer contributions.

Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$34.7

Corrected

112

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Extend John Muir Parkway Phase 2 - Foothill Drive to Briones Valley Road Extend John Muir Parkway from Foothill Drive to Briones Valley Road including two 12-ft lanes, 16-ft median and landscaping.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.5

Widen SR-4, Laurel to Sand Creek Widen SR4 from 4 to 6 lanes from Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road Sponsor: SR4 Bypass Authority

Freeway/ Roadway

$51.0

Hillcrest Avenue Extension: Prewett Ranch Rd to Sand Creek Construct new 4 lane divided arterial from Prewitt Ranch Rd to Sand Creek Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$37.0

Slatten Ranch Road - Phase 1 Construct 2-lane roadway from stub at Hillcrest eBart station to Laurel Road.

Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$18.7

Widen SR-4, Sand Creek Rd to Walnut Blvd Widen SR-4 (Sand Creek Rd - Balfour Rd) to 6 lanes and Segment 3 (Balfour Rd - Walnut Blvd) to 4 lanes

Freeway/ Roadway

$122.0

Byron Highway Improvements Byron Highway shoulder widenings and railroad grade separation County

Freeway/ Roadway

$21.5

Bridal Gate Dr. Improvements Construct new 4-lane roadway with sidewalk, bike lanes and a bridge over Sand Creek.

Sponsor: Brentwood

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.9

West Cypress Road Bridge Replacement over Contra Costa CanalReplace a structurally deficient bridge on West Cypress Road with a bridge that has standard lane widths, capacity, bike lanes, and pedestrian facilities.

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.3

Widen O'Hara Avenue, Brownstone Road to Laurel Road Add a lane in the NB direction to O'Hara Avenue, construct sidewalks, medians with landscaping and street lights.

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$13.0

Rose Avenue/Laurel Road Intersection Improvements Reconstruct the intersection, addition of travel lanes, construction of new traffic signal, and utility relocation.

Sponsor: Oakley

Freeway/ Roadway

$2.3

Corrected 113

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

L Street Pathway to Transit Widen L Street to 4 lanes with bike lanes, sidewalk, security lighting and bus stops Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$9.6

Widen Deer Valley Road, Sand Creek Rd to Chadbourne Rd Widening Deer Valley Road to 45 feet with shoulders Sponsor: Antioch

Freeway/ Roadway

$40.0

East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 2 eBART Phase 2: Extend BART 5 miles using DMU technology from Hillcrest Avenue to Brentwood.

Sponsor: CCTA

Transit

$342.0

eBART Shuttle Service Hillcrest eBART Shuttle (capital and operations, infrastructure) Sponsor: Antioch

Transit

$1.4

Antioch Ferry Landside Improvements Ferry Landside Improvements, parking garage, terminal bldg, warf improvements' Sponsor: Antioch

Transit

$21.6

Antioch Ferry Service Purchase Ferry Vessels (3) for Ferry Service from Antioch Sponsor: Antioch

Transit

$42.8

Southwest County (SWAT) Downtown Multipurpose Pathway Downtown Multipurpose Pathway -- construct a pedestrian and bicycle pathway along the EBMUD Aqueduct and Caltrans ROW between Risa Road and Brown Sponsor: Lafayette

Bike/Ped

$9.0

Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing at Sycamore Valley Road Sponsor: Danville

Bike/Ped

$7.7

Lamorinda Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Program Lamorinda Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Program (Including sidewalk gap closures, bicycle connection to transit locations) Sponsor: SWAT

Bike/Ped

$10.9

Construct Additional Auxiliary Lanes on I-680 South of I-680/SR24 Interchange Selected additional I-680 auxiliary lanes south of I-680/24 interchange Sponsor: CCTA/SWAT

Freeway/ Roadway

$19.6

Corrected 114

The Transportation System, Action Plans, and Performance and Equity Evaluation

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Camino Tassajara Bikeway Shoulders Widen Camino Tassajara to meet two lane rural road standards with sufficient shoulder width to provide bike lanes to improve safety, from Blackhawk Drive to Windemere Parkway.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$3.2

Lafayette Downtown Corridor/Intersection Improvements Combination of corridor and intersection improvements in Lafayette's downtown PDA core to address regional traffic congestion.

(Construction) Sponsor: Lafayette

Freeway/ Roadway

$171.8

Intersection improvements and traffic management along Mt. Diablo Blvd PDA Corridor Combination of lane configuration and intersection improvements along Mt. Diablo Blvd from Acalanes Road to Dolores Drive, including improvements to multimodal mobility Sponsor: Lafayette

Freeway/ Roadway

$5.5

Widen San Ramon Valley Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes - Jewel Terrace to Podva Rd San Ramon Valley Blvd Lane Additions (2 to 4 lanes) - Jewel Terrace to Podva Rd Sponsor: Danville

Freeway/ Roadway

$1.0

Lafayette Downtown Corridor/Intersection Improvements Combination of corridor and intersection improvements in Lafayette's downtown PDA core to address regional traffic congestion. (Project Development) Sponsor: Lafayette

Freeway/ Roadway

$17.2

St. Mary's Road Intersection Improvements and Roundabouts Improve intersections of St. Mary's Road with Rheem Blvd and Bollinger Canyon Road by installing single lane roundabouts and improved ped/bike facilities Sponsor: Moraga

Freeway/ Roadway

$7.0

SR24/Brookwood Ramp Modifications Orinda Downtown Intersection Operational Improvements at Hwy 24 on/offramps at Camino Pablo/Brookwood Road/Moraga Way. Sponsor: Orinda

Freeway/ Roadway

$41.2

Widen and Realign Camino Tassajara Rd, Blackhawk to Windemere Realign and widen Camino Tassajara Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, from Blackhawk Drive to Windemere Parkway.

Sponsor: County

Freeway/ Roadway

$33.1

Corrected 115

2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 2

Table C-3: 20-Year Project List Cost (2017 $ in Millions)

Project

Project Mode

Increase bus service frequency to BART stations Sponsor: County Connection

Transit

$57.5

Implement I-680 Transit Investment Options Study Implement the recommended improvements from the I-680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Options Study.

Sponsor: CCTA/SWAT/ TRANSPAC

Transit

$376.8

Total

Corrected

116

$6,447

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Executive Staff Randell H. Iwasaki Executive Director Martin R. Engelmann Deputy Executive Director, Planning Tim Haile Deputy Executive Director, Projects Randall O. Carlton Chief Financial Officer Peter Engel Director of Programs Linsey Willis Director of External Affairs Susan H. Miller Director, Projects

Management Staff Contributors Bradley D. Beck Senior Transportation Planner Hisham Noeimi Engineering Manager Mathew Kelly Associate Transportation Planner Stephanie Hu Associate Transportation Engineer