4 Transportaion - concordnws.com · These standards are described in Section 4.2.1. The . ......

4 Transportaion

4. Transportation

City of Concord Draft EIR – SCH# 2007052094

Concord Community Reuse ProjectChapter 4. Transportation

Page 4-1 Arup North America Ltd

4 Transportation This chapter describes the current transportation network and summarizes the effects on the transportation and circulation system that would result from the implementation of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts. The impact analysis examines the roadway, transit, and bike and pedestrian components of the overall transportation system.

4.1 Existing Conditions

4.1.1 Introduction

The site is located in the northeast area of the City of Concord, which is served by a network of roadways, transit services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities that comprise the transportation system. Note that parking is not addressed in this document since this is a program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a high-level planning document that does not specify the amount, pricing, type, or location of parking. As appropriate, parking will be analyzed and addressed in future detailed planning and evaluation documents with the recognition that parking is an important land use element that greatly influences transportation mode choice and vehicle ownership.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting

Existing transportation policies, plans, laws, and regulations that apply to the site are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion relevant to the seven alternative reuse concepts' consistency with applicable regulatory conditions.

4.1.2.1 State

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all State highways. Caltrans’ jurisdictional interest extends to improvements to these roadways at the interchange ramps serving area freeways. Several State and federal transportation funding programs require project review by Caltrans staff and funding allocation by the California Transportation Commission.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans, 2002) provides consistent guidance for Caltrans staff who review local development and land use change proposals as well as inform local agencies of the information needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to State highway facilities including freeway segments, on- or off-ramps, and signalized intersections. Caltrans facilities in the study area include Interstate Highway (I-) 680, State Route (SR) 4, and SR 242, as well as the on- and off-ramps from these State facilities.

Proposition 111 was passed in 1990 and included the requirement that each of California's urban counties prepare and update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is responsible for preparing and monitoring the preparation of the Contra Costa CMP. The CMP requires each jurisdiction to identify existing and future transportation facilities that would operate below an acceptable service level and provide mitigation where future growth would degrade that service level.




4.1.2.2 Regional

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional agency responsible for prioritizing transportation projects in a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for federal and State funding. The process is based on evaluating each project for need, feasibility, and adherence to federal transportation policies and the local CMP.

4.1.2.3 Local

Standards for roadway operations in Concord are defined on a countywide basis. In 1988, Contra Costa County voters passed Measure C, which raised the sales tax to provide funding for regional transportation improvements. Measure C included the Growth Management Program, which established a cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning process requiring participation of all cities and towns and the County in managing the impacts of growth in Contra Costa County. The transportation analysis in this document was prepared in accordance with the Technical Procedures (CCTA, 2006), which was developed to assist local agencies in implementing the Growth Management Program.

Measure J, approved by the voters in 2004, authorized the extension of Measure C and establishes the Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan that extends the transportation sales tax initially authorized by the passage of Measure C. It provides for $2 billion in funding for programs and projects. These expenditures are “for the construction and improvement of State highways, the construction, maintenance, improvement, and operation of local streets, roads, and highways, and the construction, improvement, and operation of public transit systems”, including paratransit services as required by the California Public Utilities Code §180205, and for specific efforts supporting such investments. Measure J’s Growth Management Program simplifies Measure C’s requirements; it also requires a binding Urban Limit Line (ULL) for the County and all of the cities within the County.

The CCTA was established to implement Measure C and its overall goals. Local jurisdictions work through their respective Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). As part of central county, the City of Concord worked with other central county jurisdictions through their RTPC—the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Committee (TRANSPAC)— to develop the Central Contra Costa Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. The Action Plan identifies traffic service objectives (TSOs) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS), which in Concord includes the freeways (SR 4, SR 242, I-680) and arterial streets (Clayton Road, Treat Boulevard, and Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road). The CCTA is in the process of updating the Action Plans. Similar to TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN is the RTPC that represents the interests of communities in east county, including the City of Pittsburg, located to the northeast of the site. TRANSPLAN developed its own Action Plan, which identifies its unique set of TSOs for RRS. The TSOs for central county include the delay index, average travel speed, and average vehicle occupancy, which are described under section 4.1.3.4.

The Measure C Growth Management Program sets standards for the regional and non-regional routes in Contra Costa County, which the City has incorporated into the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. These standards are tied to land use and provide for a tiered system of transportation systems in Concord, with different standards used for different types of streets. These standards are described in Section 4.2.1. The




county’s CMP’s provisions for Infill Opportunity Zones—as implemented through Policy T-1.1.4 of the City of Concord 2030 Urban Area General Plan (General Plan) (City of Concord, 2007)—allow for these standards to be exceeded within ½ mile of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District stations and within ¼ mile of transit corridors as a means of encouraging infill development at densities necessary to support public transportation, walking, and bicycling.

4.1.3 Transportation Network

Regional vehicular access to the site is provided primarily by major roadways and freeway corridors that serve central Contra Costa County. The roadway network in the site vicinity is comprised of RRS, including freeways and major arterial streets, and of local roads. The study area for the assessment of transportation impacts is illustrated on Figure 4-1.

4.1.3.1 Freeways and Ramps

I-680 is a north-south route on the west side of the City of Concord. I-680 is a major north-south freeway that serves the cities of Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Martinez. I-680 varies from a seven-lane highway (north of SR 4), to an eight-lane highway (north of Concord Avenue), to a twelve-lane highway (north of Monument Boulevard). The posted speed limit for I-680 is 65 miles per hour (mph).

SR 242 is the main north-south route through the center of the City of Concord. It is a six-lane highway north of I-680 and south of SR 4 with a posted speed limit of 65 mph.

SR 4 is the main east-west roadway located along the north side of the City of Concord. SR 4 varies from a four-lane divided highway (east of I-680) to a six-lane highway (east of Arnold Industrial Way), to a nine-lane highway (east of Willow Pass Road), then returns to a four-lane highway at Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg. SR 4 has a posted speed limit of 65 mph and is the primary connection to east county over Willow Pass. The site has access to SR 4 from Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road.

Analysis Freeway Segments

Sixteen mainline freeway segments along I-680, SR 242, and SR 4 in the site vicinity were selected for analysis. The segments span between north of SR 4 and south of Monument Boulevard on I-680, between north of Olivera Road to north of I-680 on SR 242, and between east of I-680 and east of Willow Pass Road on SR 4. The peak hour mainline traffic volumes were derived from Caltrans’ most recently available (Year 2006) estimate of average daily traffic by applying Caltrans’ peak (K) and directional (D) factors. A list of analysis freeway mainline segments and their corresponding AM and PM peak hour existing (2006) volumes is shown in Table 4-1.

Analysis Freeway Ramps

Freeway ramps that would most likely be affected by traffic generated by the alternative reuse concepts were selected for evaluation. The most recently available ramp volume data (Year 2006) were obtained from Caltrans. Table 4-2 shows the analysis ramp locations and existing peak hour volumes.




Table 4-1: Analysis Freeway Mainline Segments – Existing (2006) Volumes

Lanes

Existing (2006) Peak Hour Volume

Mainline Segment Direction Freeway Aux AM PM Interstate 680

I-680 s/o Monument Blvd NB 5 0 4,794 11,537 1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd SB 6 0 10,234 7,574

I-680 n/o Monument Blvd NB 6 0 4,716 11,350 2

I-680 n/o Monument Blvd SB 6 0 10,067 7,451 I-680 n/o SR 242 NB 3 0 4,713 11,360

3 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB 4 0 10,062 7,457 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB 3 1 2,884 6,734

4 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB 4 1 6,157 4,421 I-680 n/o Concord Av NB 4 0 2,845 6,847

5 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB 4 1 6,074 4,495 I-680 n/o SR 4 NB 4 0 2,475 5,956

6 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB 3 0 5,283 3,910

State Route 242 SR 242 n/o I-680 NB 3 0 2,078 5,817

7 SR 242 n/o I-680 SB 3 0 5,258 3,621 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB 3 0 1,567 4,388

8 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB 3 0 4,015 2,765 SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB 3 1 2,166 6,064

9 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB 3 1 5,879 4,049 SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB 3 1 2,042 5,719

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB 3 1 5,736 3,950 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB 4 0 1,814 5,078

11 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB 3 0 5,115 3,522

State Route 4 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB 2 0 3,380 3,859

12 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB 2 0 4,199 3,269 SR 4 e/o Arnold Industrial Way EB 2 1 3,301 3,768

13 SR 4 e/o Arnold Industrial Way WB 2 1 4,100 3,192 SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB 4 0 3,818 4,358

14 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB 2 0 4,742 3,692 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB 4 0 6,284 7,173

15 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB 4 0 7,805 6,076 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB 5 0 6,244 7,128

16 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB 4 0 7,756 6,038

Note: n/o = north of; s/o = south of; e/o = east of; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; Aux = auxiliary lanes

!!

!!

!!

!!

BuchananField

ProposedReuse SiteProposedReuse Site

680

Bancroft Rd

Clayton Rd

Marsh Creek Rd

424

2

Cowell Rd

Bailey Rd

Contra Costa Blvd

Oak Grove Rd

Concord Blvd

Clayton Rd

Arnold Industrial Wy

E Olivera Rd

Ayers Rd

Pine Hollow Rd

Kirker PassRd

Solano

Wy

Myrtle Dr

UV4

UV242

§̈¦680

Willo

wPa

ssRd

Ygnac io Valley Rd

Albert

a Wy

Tu rtle Creek Rd

Olive Dr

Monument Blvd

Bates Av

LandanaDr

Cr ys ty lR a nc hRd

Marke

t St

Concord Av

Detroit Av

WestSt

Denk

inger Rd

Meadow Ln

Salvio St

Olivera Rd

Treat Blvd

Willow Pass Rd

Babel Ln

GalindoSt

Grant St

Port Chicago HwyEast St

UV4

§̈¦680

PITTSBURGPITTSBURG

CONCORD

BAY POINTWi l low Cree k

Don nerC

reek

PachecoC reek

Mitch

ellCr

eek

Vine

Hill

C r eek

PachecoC reek

P ine C reek

Mt. DiabloCreek

GalindoCreek

WalnutCreek

Concord BART Station

North Concord BART Station

Pleasant Hill BART Station

Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station

N

0 0.4 0.8 1.20.2Miles

Base MapConcord City LimitSite AreaPark or Open SpaceSwamp or MarshRailroadMt. Diablo CreekCanalOther Creek or Stream

Figure 4-1Study Area

Revised April 30, 2008

Legend!! BART Station

BART AlignmentHighwaysMajor RoadsOther RoadsHighway Onramps




Table 4-2: Analysis Freeway Ramps – Existing (2006) Volumes

Lanes

Existing (2006) Peak Hour Volume

Upstream Downstream AM PM

Interstate 680 1 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB off-ramp 4 4 1,031 1,153 2 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB on-ramp 4 5 580 949 3 I-680: Concord Av NB off-ramp 5 4 898 738 4 I-680: Concord Av Burnett Av NB on-ramp 4 4 257 528 5 I-680: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 4 4 217 456 6 I-680: Concord Av SB off-ramp 4 4 965 810 7 I-680: Concord Av WB to SB on-ramp 4 4 497 799 8 I-680: Concord Av EB to SB on-ramp 4 5 325 294 9 I-680: Willow Pass Rd SB off-ramp 5 4 1,283 1,003 10 I-680: Willow Pass Rd WB to SB on-ramp 4 4 456 698 11 I-680: Willow Pass Rd EB to SB on-ramp 4 4 248 570 State Route 242 12 SR 242: Clayton Rd NB off-ramp 3 3 1,062 1,451 13 SR 242: Concord Av EB to NB on-ramp 3 3 215 647 14 SR 242: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 3 4 706 1,411 15 SR 242: Concord Av SB off-ramp 4 3 1,825 1,276 16 SR 242: Clayton Rd SB on-ramp 3 3 926 1,260 17 SR 242: Concord Avenue SB on-ramp 3 3 150 227 State Route 4 18 SR 4: Port Chicago EB off-ramp 2 2 717 471 19 SR 4: Port Chicago EB on-ramp 3 3 318 1,365 20 SR 4: Port Chicago WB on-ramp 2 2 277 478 21 SR 4: Port Chicago WB off-ramp 5 5 1,060 337 22 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB off-ramp 4 4 364 583 23 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB on-ramp 4 5 253 530 24 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB on-ramp 4 4 1,265 464 25 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB off-ramp 5 4 940 315

Note: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound




4.1.3.2 Other Routes of Regional Significance and Local Roadways

Kirker Pass Road lies to the southeast of the site. It connects Pittsburg, where it is named Railroad Avenue, runs southwest through Concord, where it becomes Ygnacio Valley Road at the Clayton Road junction, terminating in Walnut Creek near I-680 and the Walnut Creek BART Station. In the study area, the corridor varies between four- and six-lane roads.

Treat Boulevard runs almost parallel with Ygnacio Valley Road from Clayton Road to North Main Street west of I-680 where it becomes Geary Road to continue through Pleasant Hill. North of Clayton Road, it becomes Denkinger Road and terminates at the site boundary. The major roadway varies between four and six lanes in the study area.

Clayton Road between Treat Boulevard and Kirker Pass Road is a six-lane roadway. The roadway continues northwest to downtown Concord and southeast to become Marsh Creek Road in Clayton.

Concord’s local network is based on a traditional grid pattern in the downtown surrounded by a radial pattern of arterial roadways. It is comprised of a variety of street types.

Two local roads traverse the site: Willow Pass Road between downtown Concord and SR 4, and Bailey Road from Clayton Road north to Pittsburg. Other key local roadways that serve the site include Port Chicago Highway and East Olivera Road along the western boundary and Concord Boulevard and Myrtle Drive near the southern boundary.

Analysis Roadway Segments

Major corridors between the site and the freeway were identified and selected for analysis. These included arterial roads as well as the RRS identified in the Central County Action Plan and East County Action Plan. The CCTA Technical Procedures Update (CCTA, 2006) recommends that links in suburban and urban areas with volume to capacity (v/c) ratios greater than 0.80 should be identified for analysis. Analysis could include either or both intersection level of service (LOS) and/or select link analysis. The roadway segments selected for analysis focused on the RRS and major corridors serving the site.

The analysis roadway segments are shown on Figure 4-2. The existing peak hour traffic volumes on the roadway segments are listed in Table 4-3. The peak hour volumes were derived primarily from intersection turning movement volumes. Where intersection data are not adequate, machine counts on the roadway segments were collected between October 30 and November 8, 2007.

BuchananField


680

BancroftRd

Clayton Rd

Marsh Creek

424

2

Cowell Rd

Bailey Rd

Contra

Costa

Blvd

OakG

roveRd

Concord Blvd

Clayton Rd

Arnold Indu

strial Wy

E OliveraR

d

Ayers

Rd

Pine Hollow Rd

Kirker PassRd

Solano

Wy

Myrtle Dr

UV4

UV242

§̈¦680

Willo

wPa

ssR

d

Ygnac io Valley Rd

Albe

rtaW

y

Tu rtle Creek Rd

OliveDr

Monument Blvd

Bates Av

Landana

Dr

Cr ys ty l

Ra nc h

R

d

Mar

ket S

t

ConcordAv

Detroit Av

Wes

t St

Denk

inger

Rd

Meadow

Ln

Salvio

St

Olivera Rd

Treat Blvd

Willow Pass Rd

Babel Ln

Galindo

St

Grant

St

Port C

hicagoH

wy

East St

UV4

§̈¦680

PITTSPITTS

CONCORD


Do

nner

Cre

ek

Pacheco

Creek

Mit

chel

lC

reek

Vine

Hil

l

C r eek

Pacheco

Creek

P ineC

reek

Mt.Diablo

Creek

GalindoCreek

Walnut

Creek

N

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

Base MapConcord City Limit

Site Area

Park or Open Space

Railroad

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal

Other Creek or Stream

Swamp or Marsh

Figure X-XTitle

Items

Legend


Text 6 pt

Notes & Sources

Figure 4-2Analysis Roadway Segments


Segment Locations


Site Area

Railroad

Park or Open Space

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Routes of Regional Significance 1. Clayton Rd east of Treat Blvd 2. Kirker Pass Rd east of Concord Blvd 3. Kirker Pass Rd south of Myrtle Dr 4. Treat Blvd east of Oak Grove Rd 5. Ygnacio Valley Rd east of Cowell Rd Other Roadways 6. Bailey Rd east of Concord Blvd 7. Clayton Rd east of Market St 8. Concord Blvd west of Denkinger Rd 9. Denkinger Rd between Clayton Rd and Concord Blvd 10. Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd 11. Port of Chicago Hwy north of Olivera 12. Willow Pass Rd north of Landana Dr 13. Willow Pass Rd east of Farm Bureau Rd 14. Willow Pass Rd east of Galindo St 15. Willow Pass Rd between Diamond Blvd and SR242 16. Avila Rd east of Willow Pass Rd 17. Evora Rd east of Willow Pass Rd

Legend

R

157

10

13

12

11

17

16

8

9

1

5

4

6

32

14




Table 4-3: Analysis Roadway Segments – Existing (2007) Two-Way Peak Hour Volumes

Existing (2007) 2-way Peak Hour Vol.

Link Location # of

Lanes AM PM

Routes of Regional Significance

1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd 6 3,026 3,054

2 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd 6 1,998 2,410

3 Kirker Pass Rd South of Myrtle Dr 5 2,003 2,406

4 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd 6 3,229 3,871

5 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd 4 3,299 3,830

Other Roadways

6 Bailey Rd East of Concord Blvd 2 1,947 1,733

7 Clayton Rd East of Market St 6 1,972 2,556

8 Concord Blvd West of Denkinger Rd 4 2,425 1,916

9 Denkinger Rd Between Clayton Rd and Concord Blvd 2 863 612

10 Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd 6 2,601 2,960

11 Port Chicago Hwy North of Olivera Rd 2 1,664 1,562 12 Willow Pass Rd North of Landana Dr 2 1,924 1,991 13 Willow Pass Rd East of Farm Bureau Rd 4 1,895 1,964

14 Willow Pass Rd East of Galindo St 4 1,574 1,912 15 Willow Pass Rd Between Diamond Blvd and SR 242 6 2,372 3,410 16 Avila Rd East of Willow Pass Rd 2 108 62 17 Evora Rd East of Willow Pass Rd 2 1,069 662

4.1.3.3 Intersections

The intersections to be analyzed were selected based on guidance provided in the CCTA Technical Procedures Update (CCTA, 2006), which specifies that the “analysis should include any signalized intersection to which at least 50 project trips would be added.” The Technical Procedures allow for the use of engineering judgment to eliminate intersections that are not “controlling intersections or where critical movements are not affected [since] the project only adds through movements.” The analysis intersections include signalized and unsignalized intersections adjacent to the site where vehicular access to the site could occur. Assuming that the intersections affected by traffic that would result from any of the seven alternative reuse concepts would be located between the site and the freeway access, a list of potential analysis intersections was compiled and reviewed with City staff. In addition, the reporting intersections from the CMP were included. Table 4-4 lists the analysis intersections and they are shown on Figure 4-3.

In order to establish a basis for analysis, turning movement volumes for the analysis intersections were collected for the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak periods on




typical weekdays between October and November 2007. See Appendix 4A for intersection geometries and Appendix 4B for traffic volumes by turning movement.

Table 4-4: Analysis Intersections

Intersection Control 1 Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Hwy Signal

2 Port Chicago Hwy / Panoramic Dr Signal

3 Port Chicago Hwy / Olivera Rd Signal

4 Olivera Rd / Salvio St 1-way Stop

5 Clayton Way / Willow Pass Rd 1-way Stop

6 Farm Bureau Rd / Willow Pass Rd Signal

7 Diamond Blvd / Willow Pass Rd Signal

8 Market St / Concord Av Signal

9 Oakland Av / Clayton Rd Signal

10 Beechwood Dr / Landana Dr All-way Stop

11 West St / Concord Blvd Signal

12 West St./Clayton Rd Signal

13 Denkinger Rd / Concord Blvd Signal

14 Clayton Rd / Treat Blvd Signal

15 Cowell Rd / Treat Blvd Signal

16 Oak Grove Rd / Treat Blvd Signal

17 Oak Rd / Treat Blvd Signal

18 Bailey Rd/Myrtle Dr 1-way Stop

19 Bailey Rd / Concord Blvd Signal

20 Bailey Rd/Clayton Rd Signal

21 Kirker Pass Rd / Clearbrook Dr Signal

22 Kirker Pass Rd / Concord Blvd Signal

23 Clayton Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

24 Cowell Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

25 Oak Grove Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

26 Galindo St / Willow Pass Rd Signal

27 Market St / Willow Pass Rd Signal

28 I-680 NB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal

29 I-680 SB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal

30 Market St / Clayton Rd Signal

31 Commerce Av - SR242 SB/ Concord Av Signal




Intersection Control 32 Diamond Blvd / Concord Av Signal

33 Monument Blvd / Oak Grove Rd Signal

34 Walnut Blvd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

35 Bancroft Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

36 Alberta Way / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

37 Ayers Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

38 North Main St / Geary Rd Signal

39 Bates Avenue / Port Chicago Hwy Signal

40 Bancroft Rd / Treat Blvd Signal

41 Kirker Pass Rd / Myrtle Dr Signal

42 Buskirk Ave-NB I-680 Off Ramp / Treat Blvd Signal

43 North Main St / Sunnyvale Ave-SB I-680 Ramps Signal

44 NB I-680 Off Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

45 SB I-680 On Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal

4.1.3.4 Roadway Operations

LOS describes the operating conditions experienced by motorists. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, and convenience. LOS is designated "A" through "F" from best to worst, which covers the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS "A" through "E" generally represent traffic volumes at less-than-roadway capacity, while LOS "F" represents over capacity and/or forced flow conditions. These conditions are generally described in Table 4-5. The measures and thresholds for each LOS grade differ by facility type and are also described below.

Table 4-5: General Level of Service Definitions

LOS Description

A Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. For example, vehicles experience less than 10 second delays at unsignalized intersections.

B Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delay at signalized intersections are not significant. For example, vehicles experience between 10 and 15 second delays at unsignalized intersections.

C Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: The ability to maneuver and change lanes is somewhat restricted, and average travel speeds may be about 50 percent of the free flow speed. For example, vehicles experience between 15 and 25 second delays at unsignalized intersections.




D Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. For example, vehicles experience between 25 and 35 second delays at unsignalized intersections.

E Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Significant delays may occur and average travel speeds may be 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. For example, vehicles experience between 35 and 50 second delays at unsignalized intersections.

F Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Congestion, high delays, and extensive queuing occur at critical signalized intersections with urban street flow at extremely low speeds. For example, vehicles experience more than 50 second delays at unsignalized intersections.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2000.

Freeway Segments

As specified in the Caltrans guide, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures were used to calculate average daily capacities for each LOS threshold from A to F for the freeway segments. The LOS was determined using the (v/c)-ratio given an estimated free-flow speed of 70 mph for all the highway/freeway segments, which is the base free-flow speed for urban areas from the HCM. The v/c ratio is the ratio of flow rate to capacity for a transportation facility. Therefore, as the number of vehicles on a roadway increases to the point of maximum capacity of the roadway, the v/c ratio nears 1.0. Table 4-6 contains the v/c ratio thresholds for each level of service.

Table 4-6: LOS and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio for Free-Flow Speed at 70 mph

Level of Service Maximum v/c A 0.32 B 0.53 C 0.74 D 0.90 E 1.00 F Demand exceeds capacity

Note: v/c = volume to capacity ratio

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, 23-4.

The existing LOS on the analysis freeway segments is shown in Table 4-7. The LOS calculation is based on the existing volumes, as shown in Table 4-1, and the LOS threshold in Table 4-6.

BuchananField


680

BancroftRd

Clayton Rd

4

242

Cowell Rd

Bailey Rd

Contra

Costa

Blvd

Oak

GroveRd

Concord Blvd

Clayton Rd

Arnold Indu

strial Wy

E OliveraR

d

Ay

ers

Rd

Pine Hollow Rd

Kirker PassRd

Solano

Wy

Myrtle Dr

UV4

UV242

§̈¦680

Will

owP

ass

Rd

Ygnac io Valley Rd

Albe

rtaW

y

Tu rtle Creek Rd

OliveDr

Monument Blvd

Bates Av

Landana

Dr

Cr ys ty l

Ra nc h

Rd

Mar

ket S

t

ConcordAv

Detroit Av

Wes

t St

Den

kinge

r Rd

Meadow

Ln

Salvio

St

Olivera Rd

Treat Blvd

Willow Pass Rd

Babel Ln

Galindo

St

Grant

St

Port C

hicagoH

wy

East St

UV4

§̈¦680

WALNUT CREEKWALNUT CREEK

CONCORD

ZZ

Do

nner

Creek

Pacheco

Creek

Mit

chel

lC

reek

Vine

Hil

l

C r ee

Pac heco

Creek

Pine

Creek

Mt.Diablo

Creek

GalindoCreek

Walnut

Creek

N

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

PLEASANT HILL

CLAYTON

Figure 4-3Analysis Intersections


174338

35

4445

1

2

3

4 510

7

42

27

3132

28

39

92630

29

6811

13

14

18

21

22

23

41

12

15

16

20

19

363724

25

34

40

33

1. Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Hwy 2. Port Chicago Hwy / Panoramic Dr 3. Port Chicago Hwy / Olivera Rd 4. Olivera Rd / Salvio St 5. Clayton Wy / Willow Pass Rd 6. Farm Bureau Rd / Willow Pass Rd 7. Diamond Blvd / Willow Pass Rd 8. Market St / Concord Av 9. Oakland Av / Clayton Rd 10. Beechwood Dr / Landana Dr 11. West St / Concord Blvd 12. West St / Clayton Rd 13. Denkinger Rd / Concord Blvd 14. Clayton Rd / Treat Blvd 15. Cowell Rd / Treat Blvd 16. Oak Grove Rd / Treat Blvd 17. Oak Rd / Treat Blvd 18. Bailey Rd / Myrtle Dr 19. Bailey Rd / Concord Blvd 20. Bailey Rd / Clayton Rd 21. Kirker Pass Rd / Clearbrook Dr 22. Kirker Pass Rd / Concord Blvd 23. Clayton Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 24. Cowell Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 25. Oak Grove Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 26. Galindo St / Willow Pass Rd 27. Market St / Willow Pass Rd 28. I-680 NB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd 29. I-680 SB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd 30. Market St / Clayton Rd 31. Commerce Av - SR242 SB / Concord Av 32. Diamond Blvd / Concord Av 33. Monument Blvd / Oak Grove Rd 34. Walnut Blvd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 35. Bancroft Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 36. Alberta Wy / Ygnacio Valley Rd 37. Ayers Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd 38. North Main St / Geary Rd 39. Bates Av / Port Chicago Hwy 40. Bancroft Rd / Treat Blvd 41. Kirker Pass Rd / Myrtle Dr 42. Burskirk Ave-NB I-680 Off Ramp / Treat Blvd 43. North Main St / Sunnyvale Ave-SB I-680 Ramps 44. NB I-680 Off Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd 45. SB I-680 On Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd

LegendIntersection Locations


Site Area

Railroad

Park or Open Space

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal





Table 4-7: Existing (2006) Peak Hour Level of Service on Freeway Segments Existing Conditions Mainline Segment Direction AM PM v/c LOS v/c LOS Interstate 680

I-680 s/o Monument Blvd NB 0.46 B 1.1 F 1

I-680 s/o Monument Blvd SB 0.81 D 0.6 C I-680 n/o Monument Blvd NB 0.37 B 0.9 E

2 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd SB 0.8 D 0.59 C I-680 n/o SR 242 NB 0.75 D 1.8 F

3 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB 1.2 F 0.89 D I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB 0.41 B 0.95 E

4 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB 0.67 C 0.48 B I-680 n/o Concord Av NB 0.34 B 0.82 D

5 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB 0.66 C 0.49 B I-680 n/o SR 4 NB 0.29 A 0.71 C

6 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB 0.84 D 0.62 C State Route 242

SR 242 n/o I-680 NB 0.33 B 0.92 E 7

SR 242 n/o I-680 SB 0.83 D 0.57 C SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB 0.25 A 0.7 C

8 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB 0.64 C 0.44 B SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB 0.31 A 0.85 D

9 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB 0.83 D 0.57 C SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB 0.29 A 0.81 D

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB 0.81 D 0.56 C SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB 0.22 A 0.6 C

11 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB 0.81 D 0.56 C

State Route 4 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB 0.8 D 0.92 E

12 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB 1 E 0.78 D SR 4 e/o Arnold Industrial Way EB 0.66 C 0.75 D

13 SR 4 e/o Arnold Industrial Way WB 0.82 D 0.64 C SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB 0.45 B 0.52 B

14 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB 1.13 F 0.88 D SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB 0.75 D 0.85 D

15 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB 0.93 E 0.72 C SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB 0.59 C 0.68 C

16 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB 0.92 E 0.72 C

Note: n/o = north of; s/o = south of; e/o = east of; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = level of service




All analysis freeway segments currently operate at LOS E or better except for two segments along I-680 and one segment of SR 4. The I-680 freeway segment to the north of the SR 242 junction operates at LOS F with v/c ratios exceeding 1.0 in the southbound direction during the AM peak hour and in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. The I-680 segment to the south of Monument Boulevard also operates at LOS F in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. SR 4 east of SR 242 operates at LOS F in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour.

Freeway Ramps

For freeway ramps, HCM procedures, as specified by Caltrans, were used to calculate the density1 for each LOS threshold from A to F. First, the peak-hour demand flow rate immediately upstream of a merge influence area or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at the point of divergence was calculated. In addition, several capacity values were computed to determine the critical capacity. The determining capacities are: maximum total flow approaching a major diverge area on the freeway, maximum total vehicle flow departing from a merge or diverge area on the freeway, maximum total flow entering the ramp influence area, and maximum flow on a ramp. When demand flow is greater than the critical capacity, the LOS would be F. Otherwise, given a length of the acceleration lane or deceleration lane, the LOS was determined using the density of flow within the ramp influence area according to HCM procedures. Table 4-8 contains the LOS and density thresholds for merge and diverge areas.

Table 4-8: LOS and Density Thresholds for Merge and Diverge Areas

Level of Service Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10 B > 10-20 C > 20-28 D > 28-35 E > 35 F Demand exceeds capacity

Note: pc/mi/ln = passenger car per mile per lane

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, page 25-4.

For a single lane ramp with a dedicated freeway lane, a density calculation is not used. The LOS was determined using the same approach for the basic freeway segments methodology. Given a ramp design speed and its flow volume, HCM speed-flow curves were used to determine the LOS of the ramp (Highway Capacity Manual 2000, page 23-3). For single lane ramps with a dedicated freeway lane, the HCM does not allow for LOS better than C.

The existing LOS on the analysis freeway ramp locations is shown in Table 4-9. The calculation uses the existing volumes as shown in Table 4-2.

1 Density is the number of vehicles on a roadway segment averaged over space, usually expressed as

vehicles per mile or vehicles per mile per lane.




Table 4-9: Existing (2006) Peak Hour Level of Service on Freeway Ramps

Existing Conditions

AM PM

v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS

Interstate 680 1 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB off-ramp 0.67 23.21 C 1.42 51.64 F 2 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB on-ramp 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 3 I-680: Concord Av NB off-ramp 0.50 na C 0.41 na C 4 I-680: Concord Av Burnett Av NB on-ramp 0.28 9.26 A 0.74 25.56 C 5 I-680: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 0.31 10.07 B 0.79 27.48 C 6 I-680: Concord Av SB off-ramp 0.81 28.54 D 0.61 21.11 C 7 I-680: Concord Av WB to SB on-ramp 0.65 22.24 C 0.54 18.08 B 8 I-680: Concord Av EB to SB on-ramp 0.18 na C 0.16 na C 9 I-680: Willow Pass Rd SB off-ramp 0.38 14.95 B 0.29 10.74 B 10 I-680: Willow Pass Rd WB to SB on-ramp 0.61 20.81 C 0.48 16.26 B 11 I-680: Willow Pass Rd EB to SB on-ramp 0.65 22.21 C 0.55 18.75 B State Route 242 12 SR 242: Clayton Rd NB off-ramp 0.44 14.43 B 0.95 33.76 D 13 SR 242: Concord Av EB to NB on-ramp 0.28 9.20 A 0.80 27.58 C 14 SR 242: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 15 SR 242: Concord Av SB off-ramp 0.54 17.85 B 0.37 12.29 B 16 SR 242: Clayton Rd SB on-ramp 0.81 27.89 C 0.71 24.07 C 17 SR 242: Concord Avenue SB on-ramp 0.63 21.76 C 0.46 15.65 B State Route 4 18 SR 4: Port Chicago EB off-ramp 0.65 27.05 C 0.80 32.84 D 19 SR 4: Port Chicago EB on-ramp 0.62 25.10 C 0.95 36.42 E 20 SR 4: Port Chicago WB on-ramp 1.22 45.82 F 1.01 38.33 F 21 SR 4: Port Chicago WB off-ramp 0.86 35.29 E 0.63 26.60 C 22 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB off-ramp 0.75 30.67 D 0.88 35.57 E 23 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB on-ramp 0.14 na C 0.3 na C 24 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB on-ramp 0.70 28.45 C 0.40 22.2 C 25 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB off-ramp 0.52 na C 0.18 na C

Note: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = level of service

The results indicate that ramps are currently operating at LOS F at three locations. The northbound off-ramp from I-680 to Willow Pass Road operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour; the westbound on-ramp from Port Chicago Highway to SR 4 operates at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours; and the westbound on-ramp from Willow Pass Road to SR 4 is also operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Roadway Segments

LOS for roadway links was estimated using a planning methodology acceptable to the City that is based on the HCM. This methodology uses peak hour traffic volumes to determine


City of ConcoDraft EIR – S

rd CH# 2007052094

Concord Community Reuse ProjecChapter 4. Transportation

LOS for general planning applications, as shown in Table 4-10. The capacity of a roadway is based on the number of signalized intersections per mile, number of lanes, presence of left-turn lanes and medians, and other factors from the HCM method. The volumes shown are the upper limit for that service level, therefore a peak hour volume greater than what is shown in LOS E would be LOS F.

Table 4-10: Generalized Peak Hour Two-Way Volumes for Urban Areas

Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

Lanes Divided Level of Service A B C D E 1 2 Undivided ** 400 1,310 1,560 1,610 2 4 Divided 460 2,780 3,300 3,390 *** 3 6 Divided 700 4,240 4,950 5,080 *** 4 8 Divided 890 5,510 6,280 6,440 ***

Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile)

Lanes Divided Level of Service

A B C D E 5 2 Undivided ** 180 1,070 1,460 1,550 6 4 Divided ** 390 2,470 3,110 3,270 7 6 Divided ** 620 3,830 4,680 4,920 8 8 Divided ** 800 5,060 6,060 6,360

Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary City central business district)


A B C D E 9 2 Undivided ** ** 500 1,200 1,470 10 4 Divided ** ** 1,180 2,750 3,120 11 6 Divided ** ** 1,850 4,240 4,690 12 8 Divided ** ** 2,450 5,580 6,060

Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary City central business district)


A B C D E 13 2 Undivided ** ** 490 1,310 1,420 14 4 Divided ** ** 1,170 2,880 3,010 15 6 Divided ** ** 1,810 4,350 4,520 16 8 Divided ** ** 2,460 5,690 5,910

The existing LOS for the analysis roadway segment locations is shown in Table 4-11. The calculation uses the existing volumes as shown in Table 4-3 and the LOS threshold in Table 4-10.

Source: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/tables-051707.pdf.

t


rd CH# 2007052094

Concord Community Reuse ProjeChapter 4. Transportation

ct

Table 4-11: Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service

Link Location Number of Lanes

Class AM Peak

v/c LOS PM Peak

v/c LOS

Routes of Regional Significance 1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd 6 II 3,026 0.62 C 3,054 0.62 C 2 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd 6 II 1,998 0.41 C 2,410 0.49 C 3 Kirker Pass Rd South of Myrtle Dr 4 II 2,003 0.41 C 2,406 0.49 C 4 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd 6 II 3,229 0.66 C 3,871 0.79 D 5 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd 4 I 3,299 0.97 C 3,830 1.13 F Other Roadways 6 Bailey Rd East of Concord Blvd 2 I 1,947 1.21 F 1,733 1.08 F 7 Clayton Rd East of Market St 6 III 1,972 0.42 D 2,556 0.54 D 8 Concord Blvd West of Denkinger Rd 4 II 2,425 0.78 D 1,916 0.62 C 9 Denkinger Rd Btw. Concord Blvd and Clayton Rd 2 II 863 0.56 C 612 0.39 C 10 Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd 6 II 2,601 0.80 D 2,960 0.91 D 11 Port Chicago Hwy North of Olivera Rd 2 I 1,664 0.98 E 1,562 0.92 D 12 Willow Pass Rd North of Landana Dr 2 I 1,924 1.20 F 1,991 1.24 F 13 Willow Pass Rd East of Farm Bureau Rd 4 II 1,895 0.58 C 1,964 0.60 C 14 Willow Pass Rd East of Galindo St 4 IV 1,574 0.52 D 1,912 0.64 D 15 Willow Pass Rd Btw. Diamond Blvd and SR 242 6 IV 2,372 0.52 D 3,410 0.75 D 16 Avila Rd East of Willow Pass Rd 2 I 108 0.08 A 62 0.05 A 17 Evora Rd East of Willow Pass Rd 2 I 1,069 0.83 D 662 0.51 C

v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = level of service Note:





As shown in Table 4-11, four roadway segments currently have peak hour two-way volumes that exceed the capacity of the roadway and operate at LOS E or F, corresponding to the appropriate threshold:

• Ygnacio Valley Road east of Cowell Road (PM)

• Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard (AM and PM)

• Port Chicago Highway north of Olivera Road (AM)

• Willow Pass Road north of Landana Drive (AM and PM)

These roadways provide alternatives to the freeways through Concord. Ygnacio Valley Road with its continuation east as Kirker Pass Road provides regional connections from eastern Contra Costa to downtown Walnut Creek. Bailey Road connects Concord with Pittsburg to the east. Willow Pass Road east of Landana Drive is a two-lane roadway that provides access from SR 4 into downtown Concord.

Intersections

Intersections in the City of Concord were analyzed using the procedures developed for the CCTA (CCTA, 2006). The CCTA LOS concept measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay. LOS ranges are based on the v/c ratios for signalized intersections shown in Table 4-12. For unsignalized intersection analysis, the methodology outlined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 2000 was applied. The unsignalized intersection LOS was based on average vehicle delay. The LOS ranges for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12: Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Level of Service

Signalized Intersection Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

(v/c)

Unsignalized IntersectionAverage Vehicle Delay

(sec.) A 0.00 - 0.6 < 10

B 0.61 – 0.70 > 10 and < 15

C 0.71 – 0.80 > 15 and < 25

D 0.81 – 0.90 > 25 and < 35

E 0.91 – 1.00 > 35 and < 50

F Varies1 > 50

Note: 1 In general, volume-to-capacity ratios cannot be greater than 1.00, unless the lane capacity

assumptions are too low. Also, if future demand projections are considered for analytical purposes, a ratio greater than 1.00 might be obtained, indicating that the projected demand would exceed the capacity.

Sources: Technical Procedures Update, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, July 19, 2006; Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, DC, 2000




Table 4-13: Existing (2007) Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service

Existing Conditions

AM PM

Intersection Control LOS

v/c or Delay (sec) LOS

v/c or Delay (sec)

1 Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Hwy. Signal A 0.36 A 0.51

2 Port Chicago Hwy / Panoramic Dr Signal A 0.43 A 0.42

3 Port Chicago Hwy / Olivera Rd Signal B 0.69 D 0.82

4 Olivera Rd / Salvio St 1-way Stop1 B 1.6 C 2.7

5 Clayton Way / Willow Pass Rd 1-way Stop1 C 1.3 E 1.8

6 Farm Bureau Rd / Willow Pass Rd Signal A 0.58 B 0.7

7 Diamond Blvd / Willow Pass Rd Signal A 0.35 B 0.62

8 Market St / Concord Av Signal C 0.74 D 0.86

9 Oakland Av / Clayton Rd Signal A 0.52 B 0.67

10 Beechwood Dr / Landana Dr All-way Stop1 B 11.8 A 9.7

11 West St / Concord Blvd Signal A 0.53 A 0.45

12 West St./Clayton Rd Signal B 0.61 A 0.43

13 Denkinger Rd / Concord Blvd Signal A 0.58 A 0.54

14 Clayton Rd / Treat Blvd Signal B 0.64 C 0.71

15 Cowell Rd / Treat Blvd Signal D 0.86 C 0.75

16 Oak Grove Rd / Treat Blvd Signal F 1.33 E 0.93

17 Oak Rd / Treat Blvd Signal C 0.77 E 0.92

18 Bailey Rd /Myrtle Dr 1-way Stop1 C 1.7 B 1.5

19 Bailey Rd / Concord Blvd Signal F 1.05 D 0.82

20 Bailey Rd / Clayton Rd Signal B 0.63 A 0.45

21 Kirker Pass Rd / Clearbrook Dr Signal A 0.47 A 0.46

22 Kirker Pass Rd / Concord Blvd Signal B 0.65 B 0.69

23 Clayton Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal A 0.57 B 0.62

24 Cowell Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal D 0.83 E 0.95

25 Oak Grove Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal C 0.78 D 0.89

26 Galindo St / Willow Pass Rd Signal A 0.55 C 0.75

27 Market St / Willow Pass Rd Signal A 0.56 B 0.64

28 I-680 NB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal B 0.66 C 0.78

29 I-680 SB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal A 0.55 A 0.49




Existing Conditions

AM PM

v/c or Delay (sec)

v/c or Delay (sec) Intersection Control LOS LOS

30 Market St / Clayton Rd Signal B 0.63 B 0.65

31 Commerce Av - SR242 SB/ Concord Av Signal B 0.63 D 0.83

32 Diamond Blvd / Concord Av Signal A 0.53 C 0.71

33 Monument Blvd / Oak Grove Rd Signal A 0.51 A 0.57

34 Walnut Blvd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal C 0.78 E 1.0

35 Bancroft Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal D 0.9 C 0.7

36 Alberta Way / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal D 0.82 D 0.82

37 Ayers Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal E 0.92 D 0.81

38 North Main St / Geary Rd Signal C 0.8 E 0.93

39 Bates/Port Chicago Hwy. Signal C 23.8 C 29.6

40 Bancroft Rd / Treat Blvd Signal D 0.82 D 0.89

41 Kirker Pass Rd/ Myrtle Dr Signal A 0.37 A 0.56

42 Buskirk Avenue-NB I-680 Off Ramp / Treat Blvd

Signal F 1.32 F 1.57

43 North Main St / Sunnyvale Avenue-SB I-680 Ramps

Signal E 0.93 C 0.79

44 NB I-680 Off Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F 1.27 F 1.26

45 SB I-680 On Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal B 0.61 A 0.53

Note: 1 V/C denotes Volume-to-Capacity ratio and is used for signalized intersections; average vehicle delay in seconds are used for unsignalized intersections. LOS = level of service The v/c ratios in Table 4-13 were calculated using the data shown in Appendix 4B and the LOS thresholds in Table 4-12.

As the LOS results in Table 4-13 indicate, four analysis intersections currently operate at LOS F levels:

• Oak Grove Road and Treat Boulevard (AM peak hour)

• Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard (AM peak hour)

• Buskirk Avenue/ I-680 northbound off-ramp and Treat Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)

• I-680 northbound off-ramp and Ygnacio Valley Road (AM and PM peak hours)

Except for the intersection of Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard, these intersections are located on regional routes, two of which are at freeway access ramps. The intersection of




Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard is the first signalized intersection on Bailey Road from east county upon entering the City of Concord.

Traffic Service Objectives

In addition to LOS, TRANSPAC has selected several TSOs to measure the effectiveness of regional freeways, arterial routes, and transit use. Freeways and arterials that are designated RRS are measured by peak hour travel speeds, delay index (DI), and average vehicle occupancy (AVO). DI is used to measure travel congestion on a corridor. It compares the amount of time required to travel between two points during the peak hour and during non-congested, off-peak hours, which is assumed to be between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. TRANSPAC also has set an objective to increase transit mode share by 2 percent in 2010.

The TSOs set a target DI of 2.0 for the RRS, which means that the peak hour travel time is not more than twice the off-peak travel time. The target is meant to be applied to a corridor; while individual segments may violate the target DI. The TSOs also aim to maintain minimum average speeds of 15 mph on arterials during peak hour and to increase AVO to 1.2 persons per vehicle by 2010.

With the exception of SR 4 east of SR 242, the target DI on freeways is the same as arterials, 2.0, and the minimum average travel speed is 30 mph during peak hour. On the SR 4 segment east of SR 242, the target DI is 2.5 and the minimum average peak hour travel speed is 24 mph. An objective of increasing the AVO to 1.4 persons or more per vehicle by 2010 was also set in the TSOs for freeways.

The target TSOs are listed below in Table 4-14.

Table 4-14: Traffic Service Objectives for Routes of Regional Significance

Route of Regional Significance Delay Index

Average Speed (mph)

Average Vehicle Occupancy

(persons per vehicle)

1 I-680 2.0 30 1.4 2 SR 4 east of SR 242 <2.5 24 1.4 3 SR 4 west of SR 242 2.0 30 1.4 4 SR 242 2.0 30 1.4 5 Clayton Road from Treat Blvd to Ygnacio Valley Rd-Kirker Pass 2.0 15 1.2 6 Ygnacio Valley Road from I-680 to Clayton Rd 2.0 15 1.2 7 Treat Boulevard from I-680 to Clayton Road 2.0 15 1.2 8 Kirker Pass Road from Clayton Rd to TRANSPLAN boundary 2.0 15 1.2

Note: mph = miles per hour Source: CCTA, Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance

According to the 2004 Traffic Service Objective Monitoring Report (CCTA, 2004), I-680 northbound from Rudgear Road to the Solano County line does not meet the DI or the Average Speed TSOs during the PM peak hour, while SR 4 from I-680 to SR 242 exceeds the target DI during the PM peak hour in the eastbound direction, as shown in Table 4-15. In terms of the AVO, the freeways do not meet the target 1.4 persons per vehicle, while on




the arterials, Clayton Road during the AM peak hour and Ygnacio Valley Road during both AM and PM peak hours do not meet the target 1.2 persons per vehicle.

Table 4-15: Traffic Service Objectives Monitoring – 2004

Route of Regional Significance Dir. Delay Index AM

Peak

Delay Index PM

Peak

Average Speed (mph)

AM Peak

Average Speed (mph)

PM Peak

AVO AM

Peak

AVO PM

Peak

NB n/a 2.5 n/a 25.79 1.26 1.19 1 I-680 SB 2.0 n/a 33.02 n/a

EB n/a 2.1 n/a 30.61 1.37* 1.07* 2 SR 4 from I-680 to SR 242 WB 1.2 n/a 54.29 n/a

EB n/a 1.3 n/a 50.00 3 SR 4 from SR 242 to Willow Pass WB 1.5 n/a 43.75 n/a

EB n/a 2.2 n/a 39.51 4 SR 4 east of Willow Pass WB 3.0 n/a 41.38 n/a

NB n/a 1.0 n/a 65.29 1.31 1.34 5 SR 242 SB 1.2 n/a 55.38 n/a

EB 0.9 0.9 39.04 39.04 1.11 1.28 6 Clayton Road from Treat Blvd to

Ygnacio Valley Rd-Kirker Pass Rd WB 1.5 1.2 24.21 28.83 EB 1.2 1.4 37.7 31.81 1.15 1.18

7 Ygnacio Valley Road from Oak Grove Rd to Clayton Rd WB 1.8 1.4 25.7 32.90

EB 1.1 1.6 33.31 23.76 1.28 1.25 8 Treat Boulevard from I-680 to

Clayton Road WB 2.4 1.3 17.15 29.36 EB 1.3 1.0 31.66 42.04 1.21 1.25

9 Kirker Pass Road from Clayton Rd to TRANSPLAN boundary WB 2.1 1.4 19.11 28.32

Note: NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; Dir = direction; mph = miles per hour; AVO = average vehicle occupancy * The AVO for SR 4 is based on observations west of Alhambra Boulevard.

Source: CCTA, 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Traffic Service Objective Monitoring Report - Appendix, December 12, 2004, Table A-6: AM Peak Hour Roadway Travel Speeds and Delay Index, Table A-7: PM Peak Hour Roadway Travel Speeds and Delay Index, and Table A-9a: Vehicle Occupancy Rates.

4.1.4 Transit

The transit system serving Concord is well-developed in the urbanized area of the city. Transit services in Concord include BART and County Connection buses. Figure 4-4 shows the existing transit routes in the study area.

BART provides rail service from two locations in Concord. The Concord BART station is located on Oakland Avenue near the historic downtown. The North Concord/ Martinez BART station is (referred to as the North Concord BART Station in this document) located on Port Chicago Highway at the terminus of Panoramic Drive, abutting the site. Both stations are along the Pittsburg/Bay Point line with direct service to downtown Oakland and downtown San Francisco. Service to Richmond, Fremont, Dublin/Pleasanton, the San Francisco International Airport, and the Oakland International Airport is available by transfer.




Park and Ride facilities, bicycle lockers, and County Connection bus feeder services are provided at both stations.

Bus service in Concord is provided by the County Connection with 11 bus routes serving Concord. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) operates the County Connection buses. In addition to local service and BART feeder service, these lines link Concord with Walnut Creek, Martinez, Lafayette, Orinda, Clayton, Alamo, and San Ramon.

4.1.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network

Given the topography of Concord and the available transit services, bicycling and walking are viable alternatives to auto use for both recreational and non-recreational trips. Bicycling and pedestrian facilities are an important component of the transportation network in Concord.

Bicycle routes and paths are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities. Bicycle facilities are defined as the following three classes according to Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:

• Class I - Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

• Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

• Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

The City of Concord currently has several Class I trails, including the Contra Costa Canal Trail and the Iron Horse Trail as well as Class III facilities. The existing bicycle facilities are illustrated on Figure 4-5.

Sidewalks provide access and circulation in key pedestrian activity areas, such as the downtown area and around BART station areas. As reflected in the Concord Trails Master Plan, opportunities exist to improve the convenience and safety of existing facilities, and to increase the extent of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout developed areas. The Concord Trails Master Plan, which was adopted in 2002, provides a framework for planning trails in Concord with the purpose of promoting the use of trails for recreation as well as an alternative mode of transportation. The Trails Master Plan includes recommended trail alignments and design guidelines. Within the site, the Trails Master Plan identifies several potential trail routes, including a connection to the Delta De Anza Trail and Class I collector trails that follow either rail lines or creeks that run through the site.

4.2 Standards of Significance

Criteria for determining the significant impacts associated with transportation have been developed based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)




Guidelines and any relevant agency thresholds. For purposes of this EIR, may have a significant impact may occur where an alternative would:

• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a performance standard, as described below in Section 4.2.1.

• Not meet the transit ridership goals set by TRANSPAC in the 2000 Update to the Central County Action Plan, which is to increase transit trips by 2 percent per year by 2010.

• Conflict with existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities as identified on the Trails Master Plan.

4.2.1 Performance Standards

4.2.1.1 Congestion Management Program Network

The 2007 update to the CMP applies to all seven alternative concepts analysis freeway segments, corresponding ramps, and certain site analysis intersections. Adoption of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts may have a significant impact on the analysis location if the LOS is degraded below LOS E except locations with existing operations at LOS F established by the CCCMP update (CCTA, 2007). Specific CCCMP thresholds for the applicable locations are shown in Tables 4-16, 4-17, and 4-19.

4.2.1.2 Routes of Regional Significance

The Central Contra Costa Action Plan for RRS applies to all seven alternative concepts freeway analysis segment and certain analysis roadway segments. Adoption of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts may have a significant impact on an analysis location if the target TSOs established in the Central Contra Costa Action Plan for RRS, as shown in Table 4-6, is exceeded. Specific TSO thresholds for the applicable locations are shown in Tables 4-16 and 4-18.

Transportation Service Objectives are intended to be evaluated on a corridor basis. A corridor as a whole might meet the TSOs while an individual segment of that corridor may not. However, this analysis reports the TSOs for certain individual segments. The CCTA model forecasts provide congested speeds by link that can be used to estimate congested travel times for the delay index as well as average vehicle occupancy by link, which can be aggregated by corridor. However, the congested speeds from the model are based on roadway segment forecast volumes and roadway capacities that do not account for the delays at intersections due to signals on arterial roadways. As a result, the TSOs from the model are not necessarily comparable to those monitored in the field (and reported in Table 4-15). The segment based TSOs in this EIR provide the relative differences among the seven alternative reuse concepts and the 2030 "No Project" Alternative to determine the impacts and this approach was also used for developing the General Plan.

PITTSBURG

WALNUT CREEK

CONCORD

PLEASANT HILL

MARTINEZ

BENICIA

CLAYTON

BuchananField

Mount DiabloStatePark

EaRePa

PT EdithStateWildlife Area

CarquinezStrait RegionalPark

LafayetteReservoir

DiabloFoothills

ShellRidge OpenSpace

Lime RidgeOpenSpace

BrionesRegionalPark

Black DiaMines RePreser

ContLomReg

ProposedReuse Site

CowellRd

Alhambra

Ave

Willow

Pass

Rd

Contra

Costa

Blvd

Love

ridg

eR

d

Treat Blvd

Rai

lroad

Ave

ClaytonRd

Bancroft Rd

Taylor

Blv

d

Monument Blv

d

Denkin

ger R

d

E Leland Rd

Har

bor

St

Marsh Creek Rd

Mor

ello

Ave

Gregory Ln

RO S E DR

Waterfront Rd

AlhambraValley Rd

2N D ST

W 10TH St

E 3RD St

Oak Park Blvd

SM

A INS

SolanoW

ay

Port Chicago Hwy

Bailey Rd

RU DGEA R R D

Oak

Rd

Ygnaci o

Val

le

yRd

Arnold Industria

l W ay

W Leland Rd

Olympic Blvd

Kirk

e rPass Rd

NM

ain

St

Buchanan Rd

C hi lp ancingo P kwy

Concord Ave

E 14TH St

Geary Rd

anyon Rd

Pacheco Blvd

Walnut Ave

Pl e

a san

t Hill

Rd

Meadow

Ln

Olivera Rd

OakGrove

Rd

Baile

yR

d

Concord BlvdEastSt

MarinaVista

Ave

Taylor Blvd

C

e nt er Ave

Port

Ch

icag

oH

wy

§̈¦680

Willow Pass Rd

§̈¦680

§̈¦680

§̈¦780

UV24

UV4 UV4

UV4

UV4

UV242

Will

owPa

ssRd

Ba

ckCree

k

Goe

thels Can yon

Wal nut

Creek

Bypass

Pacheco

Creek

Sprin

gWa

t er

Cr

eek

Merle

C reek

PerkinsCany o

n

Cre

ek

Marsh

Cr eek

S u i s u n B a y

MallardReservoir

N

0 1 2 30.5Miles


Site Area

Park or Open Space

Airport

Railroad

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Figure X-XTitle


Text 6 pt

Notes & Sources

Legend

117

108

127

127

115

110 124

114

111

991

118

115

930

930

110

124

118

110

Mr a

VistaaAAA

¨̈̈̈̈̈̈̈̈̈§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

aaAvee

CC

Figure 4-4Existing Transit Routes



Site Area

Railroad

Park or Open Space

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Pittsburg / Bay PointBART Station

North ConcordBART Station

Concord BART Station

Pleasant HillBART Station

Walnut CreekBART Station

LafayetteBART Station

Legend108 Bus Transit Route

BART Line

BART Station

Amtrak - Capitol Corridor

Amtrak - San Joaquin

Martinez Intermodal Terminal

BuchananField


680

BancroftRd

Clayton Rd

Marsh Creek

424

2

Cowell Rd

Bailey Rd

Contra

Costa

Blvd

OakG

roveRd

Concord Blvd

Clayton Rd

Arnold Indu

strial Wy

E OliveraR

d

Ayers

Rd

Pine Hollow Rd

Kirker PassRd

Solano

Wy

Myrtle Dr

UV4

UV242

§̈¦680

Willo

wPa

ssR

d

Ygnac io Valley Rd

Albe

rtaW

y

Tu rtle Creek Rd

OliveDr

Monument Blvd

Bates Av

Landana

Dr

Cr ys ty l

Ra nc h

R

d

Mar

ket S

t

ConcordAv

Detroit Av

Wes

t St

Denk

inger

Rd

Meadow

Ln

Salvio

St

Olivera Rd

Treat Blvd

Willow Pass Rd

Babel Ln

Galindo

St

Grant

St

Port C

hicagoH

wy

East St

UV4

§̈¦680

PITTSPITTS

CONCORD


Do

nner

Cre

ek

Pacheco

Creek

Mit

chel

lC

reek

Vine

Hil

l

C r eek

Pacheco

Creek

P ineC

reek

Mt.Diablo

Creek

GalindoCreek

Walnut

Creek

N

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles


Site Area

Park or Open Space

Railroad

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Swamp or Marsh

Figure X-XTitle

Items

Legend


Text 6 pt

Notes & Sources

Figure 4-5Existing Bicycle Network


Legend


Site Area

Railroad

Park or Open Space

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


IRON HORSE TRAIL

C.C. CANAL TRAIL

DELTA DE ANZA TRAIL

CA RIDING & HIKING TRAIL

Existing Class 1 Trails

Existing Class 3 Bike Routes

Existing Over/Undercrossings

Available Over/Undercrossings

Existing Staging Area




4.2.1.3 Central Business District, North Concord BART Station Area, and Transit Routes

Concord's General Plan Policies GM-1.3.1 and T-1.1.4 apply to basic routes (non-CMP and non-RRS). Adoption of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts may have a significant impact on basic roadway segments and intersections (non-RRS and non-CMP) in the Central Business District, North Concord BART Station area, and on transit routes (i.e., locations serving two or more transit routes) if the LOS is degraded below LOS E. Specific General Plan thresholds for the applicable locations are shown in Tables 4-18 and 4-19.

4.2.1.4 Basic Routes

Concord's General Plan Policy GM-1.3.1 applies to basic routes (non-CMP and non-RRS). Adoption of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts may have a significant impact on basic roadway segments and intersections (non-RRS and non-CMP) outside the Central Business District, North Concord BART Station area, and not on transit routes if the LOS is degraded below LOS D. Specific General Plan thresholds for the applicable locations are shown in Tables 4-18 and 4-19.

Tables 4-16 through 4-19 list each site analysis location by facility type and show the specific impact thresholds that apply to each location. Tables 4-16 through 4-19 do not show analysis results. Analysis results are in Tables 4-22 through 4-27.

Table 4-16: Summary of Impact Thresholds for Freeways

Impact Thresholds for Freeways

RRS Traffic Service

Objective CMP

Mainline Segment Direction Speed DI AVO LOS

Interstate 680 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd. NB 30 2.0 1.4 F 1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd. SB 30 2.0 1.4 F I-680 n/o Monument Blvd. NB 30 2.0 1.4 F 2 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd. SB 30 2.0 1.4 F I-680 n/o SR 242 NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 3 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB 30 2.0 1.4 F I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 4 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB 30 2.0 1.4 F I-680 n/o Concord Av NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 5 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB 30 2.0 1.4 F I-680 n/o SR 4 NB 30 2.0 1.4 F 6 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB 30 2.0 1.4 F

State Route 242 SR 242 n/o I-680 NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 7 SR 242 n/o I-680 SB 30 2.0 1.4 F SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 8 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB 30 2.0 1.4 F




SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 9 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB 30 2.0 1.4 F SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB 30 2.0 1.4 F SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB 30 2.0 1.4 E 11 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB 30 2.0 1.4 F

State Route 4 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB 30 2.0 1.4 E 12 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB 30 2.0 1.4 E SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy EB 30 2.0 1.4 E 13 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy WB 30 2.0 1.4 E SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB 24 <2.5 1.4 F 14 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB 24 <2.5 1.4 F SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB 24 <2.5 1.4 F 15 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB 24 <2.5 1.4 F SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB 24 <2.5 1.4 F 16 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB 24 <2.5 1.4 F

Note: RRS = Routes of Regional Significance; CMP = Congestion Management Program; DI = delay index; AVO = average vehicle occupancy; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; n/o = north of; s/o = south of; e/o = east of.

Table 4-17: Impact Thresholds for Ramps

Mainline Segment CMP

LOS Interstate 680

1 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB off-ramp E 2 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB on-ramp E 3 I-680: Concord Av NB off-ramp E 4 I-680: Concord Av Burnett NB on-ramp E 5 I-680: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp E 6 I-680: Concord Av SB off-ramp F 7 I-680: Concord Av WB to SB on-ramp F 8 I-680: Concord Av EB to SB on-ramp F 9 I-680: Willow Pass Rd SB off-ramp F 10 I-680: Willow Pass Rd WB to SB on-ramp F 11 I-680: Willow Pass Rd EB to SB on-ramp F State Route 242 12 SR 242: Clayton Rd NB off-ramp E 13 SR 242: Concord Av EB to NB on-ramp E 14 SR 242: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp E 15 SR 242: Concord Av SB off-ramp F 16 SR 242: Clayton Rd SB on-ramp F 17 SR 242: Concord Avenue SB on-ramp F




State Route 4 18 SR 4: Port Chicago EB off-ramp F 19 SR 4: Port Chicago EB on-ramp F 20 SR 4: Port Chicago WB on-ramp F 21 SR 4: Port Chicago WB off-ramp F 22 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB off-ramp F 23 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB on-ramp F 24 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB on-ramp F 25 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB off-ramp F

Note: CMP = Congestion Management Program; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound

Table 4-18: Impact Thresholds for Roadway Segments

RRS Traffic Service

Objective

Link Location Speed DI AVO

CBD/ BART/ Transit route

Basic route Other

Routes of Regional Significance 1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd 15 2.0 1.2 E 2 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd 15 2.0 1.2 D 3 Kirker Pass Rd South of Myrtle Dr 15 2.0 1.2 D 4 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd 15 2.0 1.2 E 5 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd 15 2.0 1.2 E

Other Roadways 6 Bailey Rd East of Concord Blvd D 7 Clayton Rd East of Market St E 8 Concord Blvd West of Denkinger Rd E 9 Denkinger Rd Between Clayton Rd and Concord Blvd E 10 Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd E 11 Port Chicago Hwy North of Olivera Rd E 12 Willow Pass Rd North of Landana Dr D 13 Willow Pass Rd East of Farm Bureau Rd E 14 Willow Pass Rd East of Galindo St E 15 Willow Pass Rd Between Diamond Blvd and SR 242 E 16 Avila Rd. East of Willow Pass Rd D 17 Evora Rd. East of Willow Pass Rd D

Note: RRS = Routes of Regional Significance; CBD = central business district; DI = delay index; AVO = average vehicle occupancy.




Table 4-19: Impact Thresholds for Intersections

Intersection Control CMP


Basic route

1 Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Hwy. Signal E 2 Port Chicago Hwy / Panoramic Dr Signal E 3 Port Chicago Hwy / Olivera Rd Signal E 4 Olivera Rd / Salvio St 1-way

Stop D

5 Clayton Way / Willow Pass Rd 1-way Stop

E

6 Farm Bureau Rd / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 7 Diamond Blvd / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 8 Market St / Concord Av Signal E 9 Oakland Av / Clayton Rd Signal E 10 Beechwood Dr / Landana Dr All-way

Stop E

11 West St / Concord Blvd Signal E 12 West St./Clayton Rd Signal E 13 Denkinger Rd / Concord Blvd Signal E 14 Clayton Rd / Treat Blvd Signal E E 15 Cowell Rd / Treat Blvd Signal E E 16 Oak Grove Rd / Treat Blvd Signal F E 17 Oak Rd / Treat Blvd Signal E 18 Bailey/Myrtle 1-way

Stop D

19 Bailey Rd / Concord Blvd Signal E 20 Bailey Rd / Clayton Rd Signal E E 21 Kirker Pass Rd / Clearbrook Dr Signal E 22 Kirker Pass Rd / Concord Blvd Signal E E 23 Clayton Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal E E 24 Cowell Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F E 25 Oak Grove Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F 26 Galindo St / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 27 Market St / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 28 I-680 NB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 29 I-680 SB Ramp / Willow Pass Rd Signal E 30 Market St / Clayton Rd Signal E 31 Commerce Av - SR242 SB/ Concord Av Signal E 32 Diamond Blvd / Concord Av Signal E 33 Monument Blvd / Oak Grove Rd Signal E 34 Walnut Blvd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F 35 Bancroft Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F 36 Alberta Way / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal F E 37 Ayers Rd / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal E E 38 North Main St / Geary Rd Signal F




Intersection Control CMP


Basic route

39 Bates Avenue / Port Chicago Hwy. Signal E 40 Bancroft Rd / Treat Blvd Signal F 41 Kirker Pass Rd / Myrtle Dr Signal E 42 Buskirk Avenue-NB I-680 Off Ramp / Treat Blvd Signal E 43 North Main St / Sunnyvale Avenue-SB I-680 Ramps Signal F 44 NB I-680 Off Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal E 45 SB I-680 On Ramp / Ygnacio Valley Rd Signal E

Note: CMP = Congestion Management Program CBD = Central Business District

4.3 Potential Transportation Impacts

This section begins with a description of assumptions that have been incorporated in the analysis of potential transportation impacts. The transportation impacts are based on model runs for year 2030 using the approved CCTA model that was also used to develop the traffic analysis of the General Plan. The year 2030 was used because the forecast year for the CCTA Decennial Model is 2030. The model was run for the year 2030 without any of the seven alternative reuse concepts (2030 “No Project” Alternative) as well as with the seven alternatives. Because the year 2030 was used for the model runs, traffic related to other projects that will occur between now and 2030 are also incorporated so information about the cumulative impacts of all the traffic can be presented.

The section includes a description of the forecasting model methodology, the street network improvements incorporated into the 2030 "No Project" Alternative model forecast analysis, and the intersection improvements incorporated into the analysis of the seven alternative reuse concepts. The results of the operations analysis are presented in Tables 4-22 through 4-27. A list of all potential alternative reuse concepts impacts follows the Tables with the potential impacts organized in the following manner:

Transportation Impacts Common (C) to all Seven Alternative Reuse Concepts (as shown in Section 4.3.4)

• Common Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts. Impacts that are considered to be significant are presented first, accompanied by an explanation why the application of a standard resulted in a determination that the impact would be significant. Impacts that are considered to be significant are shaded in Tables 4-22 through 4-27.

– Of the common impacts that are considered significant impacts, the impacts of the alternative reuse concepts are presented first. These are impacts for which the 2030 “No Project” Alternative did not exceed the threshold, but the alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030 exceed the threshold as described in Section 4.2.




– Of the common impacts that are considered significant impacts, the cumulative impacts are presented second. These are impacts for which the 2030 “No Project” Alternative exceeds the threshold as described in Section 4.2 and the alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030 contribute to the already deficient conditions.

– When a significant impact of the alternative reuse concepts or the cumulative condition has been identified, mitigation measures to address that potential impact are also presented, along with a determination of whether the impact will continue to be significant after implementation of the mitigation measure.

• Common Transportation Impacts that are Less Than Significant. Impacts that are considered less than significant are identified in bold in Tables 4-22through 4-27. Impacts that are considered less than significant are impacts for which the alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030 contribute traffic to site analysis locations that do not exceed the thresholds described in Section 4.2 for either the 2030 "No Project" Alternative or for the alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030. Mitigation measures are not presented for impacts that are less than significant.

Transportation Impacts of a Specific Alternative Reuse Concept (as shown in Sections 4.3.5 through 4.3.11)

• Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts of a Specific Alternative Concept. As with the impacts common to all seven alternative reuse concepts, impacts that are considered to be significant for a specific alternative concept are presented first, accompanied by an explanation why the application of a standard resulted in a determination that the impact would be significant. Impacts that are considered to be significant are shaded in Tables 4-22 through 4-27.

– Of the impacts that are considered significant impacts, the impacts of the specific alternative reuse concept are presented first. These are impacts for which the 2030 “No Project” Alternative did not exceed the threshold, but the specific alternative reuse concept did exceed the threshold in the year 2030 as described in Section 4.2.

– Of the impacts that are considered significant impacts, the cumulative impacts are presented second. These are impacts for which the 2030 “No Project” Alternative exceeds the threshold as described in Section 4.2 and the specific alternative reuse concept contributes to the already deficient conditions.

– When a significant impact (alternative reuse concepts or cumulative) has been identified, mitigation measures to address that potential impact are also presented, along with a determination of whether the impact will continue to be significant after implementation of the mitigation measure.

• Transportation Impacts of a Specific Alternative that are Less Than Significant. Impacts that are considered less than significant are identified bold in Tables 4-22 through 4-27. Impacts that are considered less than significant are impacts for which the specific alternative reuse concept contributes traffic to site analysis locations that do not exceed the thresholds described in Section 4.2 for either the 2030 "No Project" Alternative or the specific alternative reuse concept in the year 2030. Mitigation measures are not presented for impacts that are less than significant.




The section concludes with a description of the potential impacts of the 2030 “No Project” (NP) Alternative (as shown in Section 4.3.12).

4.3.1 Model Forecast Methodology

The transportation analysis was prepared using the CCTA Decennial Model. The latest model databanks were modified to reflect the 2030 "No Project" Alternative and the alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030. The modifications included land use and socioeconomic inputs as well as roadway and transit networks for the site.

For the 2030 "No Project" Alternative, the land use assumptions and network improvements were modified to reflect the General Plan inside Concord, while maintaining Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2005 land use allocations for areas outside of Concord and the roadway and transit networks from the financially constrained CCTA scenario. This analysis is conservative because the land uses included in this model for the site (i.e., residential and employment uses) are in addition to the ABAG Projections 2005. That is, the employment and residences that could be developed at this site as a result of any of the seven alternative reuse concepts do not replace any forecasted employment and residential growth elsewhere in the County or the region.

The CCTA Model reflects the density of development, diversity of jobs and housing, and accessibility to other activity destinations. However, the model may not fully quantify the effects of the “smart growth” policies (e.g., mixed use, higher densities, compact development and pedestrian-oriented design) on trip generation rates and mode choice. Research conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2008) has shown that density (population and employment per square mile), diversity (ratio of jobs to housing), design (pedestrian environment variables, including street grid density, completeness of sidewalk system and route directness) and destinations (accessibility to other activity concentrations) can reduce per capita vehicle trip generation and total vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The following modifications were made to the CCTA Model to adjust the transit sensitivity to the transit-oriented development (TOD) proposed as a part of each of the seven alternative reuse concepts:

• The zones around the North Concord BART Station at the site were split into smaller dense zones to represent TOD. This change allows for a more sensitive analysis and helps capture a more reasonable distribution of trips within a pedestrian-oriented landscape.

• Edits were made to walk and drive access connectors for each zone to the North Concord BART Station and all the transit lines at the site.

• The transit/highway travel time weight variables were adjusted to reflect those used for the Walnut Creek BART Station.

Each Traffic Analysis Zone surrounding the North Concord BART Station reflects the demographic and travel patterns for similar TOD areas within central county (i.e., Pleasant Hill), as well as observed survey data such as the Journey-to-Work reports (FHWA, ND).

The on-site roadway and transit networks modeled for alternative reuse concepts 1 through 7 are shown below on Figures 4-6 through 4-12. The model forecasts include morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes on the roadway network as well as transit ridership.




Figure 4-6: Alternative 1 Onsite Roadway and Transit Network
















4.3.2 Assumptions about Potential Impacts with respect to Transportation

• Potential traffic impacts on the transportation system were analyzed based on the scenarios listed below, since this is a program level EIR that does not specify an implementation plan for any of the alternatives.

– 2030 "No Project" Alternative

– alternative reuse concepts 1 through 7 in the year 2030

• As individual projects are proposed for the site in the future, specific traffic impact studies will be conducted to determine individual projects’ traffic impacts and the trigger/timing of improvements and mitigation measures.

• Major street improvements planned or programmed for Concord and surrounding communities and included in the model assumptions for 2030 "No Project" Alternative and for the alternative reuse concepts 1 through 7 in the year 2030 are listed below and shown on Figure 4-13:

1. I-680 / Marina Vista Interchange modifications.

2. Bates Avenue – widen to four lanes from Arnold Industrial Way to Mason Circle.

3. Port Chicago Highway – widen to four lanes from Bates Avenue north to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing.

4. Evora Road - widen from Willow Pass to Pomo Street.




5. West Leland Road Extension and Avila widening.

6. Pacheco Boulevard – widen to four lanes north of SR 4.

7. SR 4 and I-680 connector ramps and HOV connection.

8. Marsh Drive – widen to four lanes from Center Avenue to Concord city limit.

9. Panoramic Drive – Four lane extension of Panoramic Drive from North Concord BART Station to Willow Pass Road.

10. Willow Pass Road – widen to four lanes between Landana Drive and SR 4.

11. Galaxy Way Gap Closure – construct a bridge over Walnut Creek to close the gap in Galaxy Way.

12. Commerce Avenue Extension – extend existing two lane arterial.

13. Waterworld Parkway bridge over Walnut Creek – Construct a two-lane bridge with bicycle lanes over Walnut Creek connecting Waterworld Parkway with Meridian Park Boulevard.

14. Clayton Road/SR 242 Interchange – new northbound on-ramp and new southbound off-ramp.

15. Meadow Lane – widen to four lanes between Monument Boulevard and Clayton Road.

16. Monument Boulevard – widen to six lanes from Systron Drive to Cowell Road.

17. Concord Boulevard – widen to four lanes from 6th Street to Farm Bureau Road.

18. Farm Bureau Road – widen to four lanes between Willow Pass Road and Clayton Road.

19. Denkinger Road – widen to four lanes between Clayton Road and Concord Boulevard.

20. Cowell Road – widen to four lanes between Monument Boulevard and Treat Boulevard.

21. I-680 northbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from North Main Street to SR 242 and I-680 southbound HOV lane from North Main Street to Livorna Road.

22. Ygnacio Valley Road – widen to six lanes between Cowell Road and Michigan Boulevard.

23. Kirker Pass Road – climbing lane from Clearbrook Drive to Pittsburg city limit.

Improvements at the SR 4 / Willow Pass Road interchange are planned but they are not included in the model since the specific improvement is not yet determined. Additional studies will be needed to define the scope of improvements at this interchange.

BuchananField


680

BancroftRd

Clayton Rd

Marsh Creek

424

2

Cowell Rd

Bailey Rd

Contra

Costa

Blvd

OakG

roveRd

Concord Blvd

Clayton Rd

Arnold Indu

strial Wy

E OliveraR

d

Ayers

Rd

Pine Hollow Rd

Kirker PassRd

Solano

Wy

Myrtle Dr

UV4

UV242

§̈¦680

Willo

wPa

ssR

d

Ygnac io Valley Rd

Albe

rtaW

y

Tu rtle Creek Rd

OliveDr

Monument Blvd

Bates Av

Landana

Dr

Cr ys ty l

Ra nc h

R

d

Mar

ket S

t

ConcordAv

Detroit Av

Wes

t St

Denk

inger

Rd

Meadow

Ln

Salvio

St

Olivera Rd

Treat Blvd

Willow Pass Rd

Babel Ln

Galindo

St

Grant

St

Port C

hicagoH

wy

East St

UV4

§̈¦680

PITTSPITTS

CONCORD


Do

nner

Cre

ek

Pacheco

Creek

Mit

chel

lC

reek

Vine

Hil

l

C r eek

Pacheco

Creek

P ineC

reek

Mt.Diablo

Creek

GalindoCreek

Walnut

Creek

N

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles


Site Area

Park or Open Space

Railroad

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Swamp or Marsh

Figure X-XTitle

Items

Legend


Text 6 pt

Notes & Sources

Figure 4-13Future Roadway Improvements


Selected Roadway Improvements


Site Area

Railroad

Park or Open Space

Swamp or Marsh

Mt. Diablo Creek

Canal


Legend

R

1. I-680 / Marina Vista Interchange modifications 2. Bates Avenue – widen to four lanes from Arnold Industrial Way to Mason Circle 3. Port Chicago Highway – widen to four lanes from Bates Avenue north to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing 4. Evora Road - widen from Willow Pass to Pomo Street 5. West Leland Road Extension and Avila widening. 6. Pacheco Boulevard – widen to four lanes north of SR 4 7. SR 4 and I-680 connector ramps and HOV connection 8. Marsh Drive – widen to four lanes from Center Avenue to Concord city limit 9. Panoramic Drive – Four lane extension of Panoramic Drive from North Concord BART Station to Willow Pass Road 10. Willow Pass Road – widen to four lanes between Landana Drive and SR 4 11. Galaxy Way Gap Closure – construct a bridge over Walnut Creek to close the gap in Galaxy Way 12. Commerce Avenue Extension – extend existing two lane arterial 13. Waterworld Parkway bridge over Walnut Creek – Construct a two-lane bridge with bicycle lanes over Walnut Creek connecting Waterworld Parkway with Meridian Park Boulevard 14. Clayton Road/SR 242 Interchange – new north bound on-ramp and new southbound off-ramp 15. Meadow Lane – widen to four lanes between Monument Boulevard and Clayton Road 16. Monument Boulevard – widen to six lanes from Systron Drive to Cowell Road 17. Concord Boulevard – widen to four lanes from 6th Street to Farm Bureau Road 18. Farm Bureau Road – widen to four lanes between Willow Pass Road and Clayton Road 19. Denkinger Road – widen to four lanes between Clayton Road and Concord Boulevard 20. Cowell Road – widen to four lanes between Monument Boulevard and Treat Boulevard 21. I-680 northbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from North Main Street to SR 242 and I-680 southbound HOV lane from North Main Street to Livorna Road 22. Ygnacio Valley Road – widen to six lanes between Cowell Road and Michigan Boulevard 23. Kirker Pass Road – climbing lane from Clear brook Drive to Pittsburg city limit

2

8

3

45

18

17

20

19

23

15

21

10

9

12

1413

11

7

1

6

16

22




• In addition to the above improvements, the following intersections are assumed to have improvements in place for the 2030 "No Project" Alternative and for the seven alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030. Any development at this site would be required to contribute its fair share of the costs to construct these improvements. See Appendix 4A for intersection geometries reflecting these improvements.

– Clayton Road / Treat Boulevard

– Bailey Road / Concord Boulevard

– Bailey Road / Myrtle Drive

– Cowell Road / Ygnacio Valley Road

– Alberta Way / Ygnacio Valley Road

– Ayers Road / Ygnacio Valley Road

• The following intersections are assumed to have the necessary improvements to extend existing roadways into the site for the seven alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030. Any development at the site would be fully responsible for the costs to construct these improvements. See Appendix 4A for intersection geometrics reflecting these improvements.

– Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Highway (Alternative Concepts 1–7)

– Port Chicago Highway / Panoramic Drive (Alternative Concepts 1–7)

– East Olivera Road / Salvio Street (Alternative Concepts 1–7)

– Clayton Way / Willow Pass Road (Alternative Concepts 1–7)

– West Street / Concord Boulevard (Alternative Concepts 1–4 and 6)

– Denkinger Road / Concord Boulevard (Alternative Concepts 1–3)

– Bailey Road / Myrtle Drive (Alternative Concept 1)

See Appendix 4A for complete intersection geometries for existing, 2030 "No Project" Alternative, and for the seven alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030.

4.3.3 Model Results Summary

The results of the model runs were used to develop 2030 adjusted volumes for the impact analysis. For the TSOs, the average speeds and average vehicle occupancy (AVO) were extracted directly from the CCTA model forecasts for AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Summaries of daily trips, average vehicle trip lengths, and VMT for trips generated on the site from the model forecasts are presented in Table 4-20. The daily vehicle trips for alternatives 1 through 7 in the year 2030 represent those vehicle trips generated by the potential development of the site. The daily vehicle trips generated by the alternatives ranges from 91,911 trips with Alternative Concept 7 to 182,460 trips with Alternative Concept 2, corresponding to those alternatives with the lowest and highest increases in population and employment.




The VMT shown in Table 4-20 reflects site trips (i.e., those with at least one trip end on at the site) and does not reflect shifts in travel patterns throughout the region that would result from the development of the alternative reuse concepts. The VMT represents the travel on the roadway network of those site trips. It does not include regional trips that would pass through the site, but does include the travel to and from the site that is generated by the potential development. Alternative Concept 2 would generate the most daily vehicle trips; however, Alternative Concept 3 would generate the most VMT due to longer trips.

Since the amount of development, the roadway networks, and the transit networks vary among the alternatives, a better measure of the differences among the alternatives is the average trip length. The average trip length is calculated by dividing VMT by the number of vehicle trips. While Alternative Concept 2 would generate the most vehicle trips, the average trip length is lower than other alternatives. Alternative Concept 3 has the highest average trip length, which is due in part to a relatively large concentration of potential community/institutional facility use that is assumed to be a higher education campus adjacent to Bailey Road unique to this concept.

Table 4-20: Daily Vehicle Trip Summaries

Scenario Household Population

Employment Daily Vehicle Trips

Average Trip Length (miles)

VMT (vehicle-miles

traveled) 2000 Model Base 16 10.94 175

2030 "No Project" 16 10.80 173

2030 Alternative 1 21,497 18,263 130,124 10.90 1,417,746

2030 Alternative 2 30,573 29,774 182,460 10.74 1,959,155

2030 Alternative 3 26,956 23,657 175,772 13.24 2,326,487

2030 Alternative 4 21,964 21,479 136,886 10.81 1,479,390

2030 Alternative 5 22,327 23,980 131,125 9.84 1,289,757

2030 Alternative 6 18,073 21,245 139,464 10.49 1,463,544

2030 Alternative 7 14,724 18,449 91,911 9.45 868,853

4.3.3.1 Transit Ridership Forecasts

The seven alternative reuse concepts would have a beneficial effect on transit ridership.

The forecasts for transit ridership are summarized in Table 4-21 for the 2030 "No Project" Alternative and the seven alternative reuse concepts in the year 2030.The daily BART ridership for the North Concord BART Station would increase for all seven alternative concepts when compared to the 2030 "No Project" Alternative. The increased ridership can be attributed to the development on the site, particularly the TOD, as well as the assumed increase in bus service to the North Concord BART Station with the alternative concepts. The increase in BART ridership at the North Concord BART Station when compared to the 2000 base year model represents an annual growth rate of 30 to 40 percent. When looking at transit (BART and bus) ridership in central Contra Costa County, the growth is less pronounced. The annual growth in ridership is about 4 percent with development of any of the potential alternative reuse concepts.




Table 4-21: Daily Ridership 2030 Forecasts – Summary

North Concord BART Station Central Contra Costa County

Scenario Total

Ridership

Change in Total

Ridership from 2000

Total Ridership Growth (2000 to

2030)

Total Ridership

Annual Growth

Total Ridership

Change in Total

Ridership from 2000

Total Ridership Growth (2000 to

2030)

Total Ridership

Annual Growth

2000 Base Year Model 1,191 50,246 2003 No Project 3,173 1,982 166% 5.5% 86,044 35,798 71% 2.4% 2030 Alternative Concept 1 11,942 10,751 903% 30.1% 106,375 56,129 112% 3.7% 2030 Alternative Concept 2 14,101 12,910 1084% 36.1% 111,952 61,706 123% 4.1% 2030 Alternative Concept 3 14,346 13,155 1105% 36.8% 115,549 65,303 130% 4.3% 2030 Alternative Concept 4 12,125 10,934 918% 30.6% 106,418 56,172 112% 3.7% 2030 Alternative Concept 5 15,760 14,569 1223% 40.8% 113,601 63,355 126% 4.2% 2030 Alternative Concept 6 13,863 12,672 1064% 35.5% 112,173 61,927 123% 4.1% 2030 Alternative Concept 7 14,521 13,330 1119% 37.3% 109,781 59,535 118% 3.9%




4.3.3.2 Roadway Operations Analysis

Overall, traffic congestion will increase on the transportation system with or without development of one of the alternative reuse concepts. However, development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would make a significant contribution to congestion at certain analysis locations.

The results of the operations analysis are summarized in the following tables for:

• Freeway Mainline Segments – Tables 4-22 and 4-23.

• Freeway Ramps – Table 4-24

• Roadway Segments – Table 4-25

• Intersections – Table 4-26

• TSOs – Table 4-27

Potentially significant impacts as described in the Standards of Significance in Section 4.2 are indicated on these tables as shaded cells and are described in detail in the impact discussion in Section 4.3.4.

4.3.3.3 Summary of Transportation Impacts

The number of impacted locations associated with each alternative reuse concept are summarized below in Table 4-28. A detailed description of the impacts and possible mitigation follow the table. The analysis indicates traffic conditions degrade at many locations in the future, with or without the project.

All seven alternative concepts would result in potentially significant impacts on the transportation network. These include impacts in situations where a roadway facility operates within an established performance threshold in the 2030 "No Project" Alternative condition, and an alternative reuse concept would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns, causing the facility to exceed the threshold. Cumulative impacts would result in situations where a roadway facility fails to meet the performance threshold in the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition, and an alternative reuse concept would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns, causing the operation of the facility to degrade further. Thresholds for significance are described in detail in Section 4.2.

As shown in Table 4-28, the analysis indicates that, in general, the alternative reuse concepts result in similar amounts of locations with potentially significant impacts. Alternative Concept 3 is projected to impact considerably more locations than the other alternatives. This is a result primarily of the assumption for a relatively large educational institution located near Bailey Road, which would add more traffic than the other alternatives to existing roadways in the southeastern portion of the site.

Table 4-22:Capacity Analysis of Freeway Mainline Segments (northbound and eastbound)

Dir

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PMFreeway Traffic Volume

1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd NB 4,794 11,537 5,312 12,909 5,656 12,844 5,677 12,681 5,448 12,740 5,661 12,622 5,592 12,764 5,658 12,639 5,453 12,8122 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd NB 4,716 11,350 5,284 12,926 5,834 12,807 5,992 12,838 5,679 12,854 5,904 12,780 5,693 12,771 5,965 12,687 5,403 12,8833 I-680 n/o SR 242 NB 4,713 11,360 4,952 12,117 4,788 11,976 4,811 11,985 4,793 11,859 4,822 11,878 4,884 11,936 4,805 11,882 4,886 12,0854 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB 2,884 6,734 3,046 7,473 2,902 7,304 2,945 7,252 2,927 7,177 2,960 7,178 3,009 7,285 2,985 7,158 3,015 7,4565 I-680 n/o Concord Av NB 2,845 6,847 2,845 7,407 2,845 7,430 2,845 7,390 2,845 7,438 2,845 7,366 2,845 7,429 2,845 7,401 2,845 7,5036 I-680 n/o SR 4 NB 2,475 5,956 2,941 7,005 2,846 7,128 2,799 7,045 2,735 7,041 2,822 7,017 2,861 7,035 2,785 7,029 2,889 7,1277 SR 242 n/o I-680 NB 2,078 5,817 2,606 7,072 3,449 6,978 3,564 6,947 3,244 7,053 3,479 7,048 3,176 6,946 3,583 6,947 2,862 7,0098 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB 1,567 4,388 2,673 5,593 3,479 5,516 3,575 5,513 3,222 5,630 3,445 5,547 3,225 5,513 3,576 5,504 2,910 5,5669 SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB 2,166 6,064 3,315 7,141 4,107 6,986 4,158 7,061 3,882 7,097 4,088 7,009 3,864 6,992 4,206 6,974 3,570 7,084

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB 2,042 5,719 3,371 6,600 4,131 6,562 4,087 6,701 3,942 6,753 4,064 6,615 3,908 6,583 4,262 6,582 3,701 6,59911 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB 1,814 5,078 3,030 6,130 3,345 6,083 3,287 6,250 3,342 6,273 3,338 6,154 3,231 6,130 3,520 6,157 3,116 6,11812 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB 3,380 3,859 4,638 6,500 5,574 6,509 5,802 6,508 6,189 6,499 5,556 6,445 5,253 6,441 5,817 6,426 4,923 6,46513 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy EB 3,301 3,768 4,049 6,128 4,845 5,951 5,113 6,035 5,390 5,991 4,832 5,877 4,698 5,947 5,082 5,941 4,308 5,97914 SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB 3,818 4,358 4,742 6,393 4,880 5,987 4,828 6,267 4,956 6,254 4,886 6,058 4,869 6,068 5,294 6,084 4,714 6,04415 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB 6,284 7,173 7,173 9,208 7,432 8,383 7,508 8,903 7,598 8,953 7,506 8,581 7,574 8,775 7,955 8,871 7,472 8,66516 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB 6,244 7,128 7,388 8,523 8,297 9,009 8,645 9,693 8,720 9,642 8,309 9,309 8,671 9,281 8,556 9,419 8,280 8,879

Volume to Capacity (v/c)1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd NB 0.46 1.10 0.51 1.23 0.54 1.22 0.54 1.21 0.52 1.21 0.54 1.20 0.53 1.22 0.54 1.20 0.52 1.222 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd NB 0.37 0.90 0.42 1.03 0.46 1.02 0.48 1.02 0.45 1.02 0.47 1.01 0.45 1.01 0.47 1.01 0.43 1.023 I-680 n/o SR 242 NB 0.75 1.80 0.79 1.92 0.76 1.90 0.76 1.90 0.76 1.88 0.77 1.89 0.78 1.89 0.76 1.89 0.78 1.924 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB 0.41 0.95 0.39 0.95 0.37 0.92 0.37 0.92 0.37 0.91 0.37 0.91 0.38 0.92 0.38 0.91 0.38 0.945 I-680 n/o Concord Av NB 0.34 0.82 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.89 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.896 I-680 n/o SR 4 NB 0.29 0.71 0.35 0.83 0.34 0.85 0.33 0.84 0.33 0.84 0.34 0.84 0.34 0.84 0.33 0.84 0.34 0.857 SR 242 n/o I-680 NB 0.33 0.92 0.41 1.12 0.55 1.11 0.57 1.10 0.51 1.12 0.55 1.12 0.50 1.10 0.57 1.10 0.45 1.118 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB 0.25 0.70 0.42 0.89 0.55 0.88 0.57 0.88 0.51 0.89 0.55 0.88 0.51 0.88 0.57 0.87 0.46 0.889 SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB 0.31 0.85 0.42 0.90 0.52 0.88 0.53 0.89 0.49 0.90 0.52 0.89 0.49 0.89 0.53 0.88 0.45 0.90

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB 0.29 0.81 0.43 0.84 0.52 0.83 0.52 0.85 0.50 0.85 0.51 0.84 0.49 0.83 0.54 0.83 0.47 0.8411 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB 0.22 0.60 0.36 0.73 0.40 0.72 0.39 0.74 0.40 0.75 0.40 0.73 0.38 0.73 0.42 0.73 0.37 0.7312 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB 0.80 0.92 1.10 1.55 1.33 1.55 1.38 1.55 1.47 1.55 1.32 1.53 1.25 1.53 1.38 1.53 1.17 1.5413 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy EB 0.66 0.75 0.70 1.06 0.84 1.03 0.88 1.04 0.93 1.03 0.83 1.01 0.81 1.03 0.88 1.02 0.74 1.0314 SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB 0.45 0.52 0.56 0.76 0.58 0.71 0.57 0.75 0.59 0.74 0.58 0.72 0.58 0.72 0.63 0.72 0.56 0.7215 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB 0.75 0.85 0.85 1.10 0.88 1.00 0.89 1.06 0.90 1.07 0.89 1.02 0.90 1.04 0.95 1.06 0.89 1.0316 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB 0.59 0.68 0.70 0.81 0.79 0.86 0.82 0.92 0.83 0.92 0.79 0.89 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.90 0.79 0.85

Level of Service:1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd NB B F B F C F C F B F C F C F C F B F2 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd NB B E B F B F B F B F B F B F B F B F3 I-680 n/o SR 242 NB D F D F D F D F D F D F D F D F D F4 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd NB B E B E B E B E B E B E B E B E B E5 I-680 n/o Concord Av NB B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D6 I-680 n/o SR 4 NB A C B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D7 SR 242 n/o I-680 NB B E B F C F C F B F C F B F C F B F8 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd NB A C B D C D C D B D C D B D C D B D9 SR 242 n/o Concord Av NB A D B E B D B D B D B D B D C D B D

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av NB A D B D B D B D B D B D B D C D B D11 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd NB A C B C B C B D B D B C B C B C B C12 SR 4 e/o I-680 EB D E F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F13 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy EB C D C F D F D F E F D F D F D F D F14 SR 4 e/o SR 242 EB B B C D C C C D C D C C C C C C C C15 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy EB D D D F D E D F E F D F E F E F D F16 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd EB C C C D D D D E D E D D D D D D D D

Note:Capacity based on 2100 vphpl for freeway lanes, 1600 vphpl for auxiliary lanes; Dir = direction

Source (Freeway Capacity): 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

Alt Concept 5 Alt Concept 6 Alt Concept 7Mainline Segment Existing - 2006 Future - 2030

No Project Alt Concept 1 Alt Concept 2 Alt Concept 3 Alt Concept 4

Bold indicates a less than significant impact where the alternative reuse concept contributes traffic to a location that does not exceed the threshold described in Section 4.2 for either 2030 “No Project” Alternative or for the alternative reuse concept. Shaded cells indicate a significant impact where the alternative reuse concept exceeds a threshold that was not exceeded in 2030 “No Project” Alternative described in Section 4.2 or contributes to already deficient conditions where a threshold was exceeded in 2030 “No Project” Alternative.

Table 4-23:Capacity Analysis of Freeway Mainline Segments (southbound and westbound)

Dir

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PMFreeway Traffic Volume

1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd SB 10,234 7,574 11,359 8,333 11,277 8,774 11,179 8,887 11,226 8,856 11,384 8,777 11,308 8,627 11,294 8,807 11,258 8,3992 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd SB 10,067 7,451 11,497 8,407 11,434 8,844 11,266 9,030 11,360 9,080 11,451 8,900 11,502 8,760 11,480 8,949 11,478 8,5893 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB 10,062 7,457 11,210 7,932 11,358 8,111 11,071 8,169 11,212 8,169 11,134 8,099 11,280 8,080 11,170 8,127 11,145 7,9844 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB 6,157 4,421 7,070 4,546 7,062 4,682 6,821 4,636 6,785 4,661 6,986 4,633 6,943 4,623 6,899 4,718 7,049 4,5695 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB 6,074 4,495 6,524 4,571 6,587 4,512 6,384 4,495 6,318 4,495 6,464 4,500 6,528 4,588 6,374 4,561 6,503 4,6016 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB 5,283 3,910 6,072 4,474 6,216 4,360 6,255 4,344 6,246 4,193 6,181 4,375 6,209 4,387 6,264 4,291 6,185 4,4427 SR 242 n/o I-680 SB 5,258 3,621 6,105 4,547 5,877 4,987 5,933 5,097 5,881 5,156 5,925 4,992 5,867 4,796 5,904 5,012 5,952 4,6768 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB 4,015 2,765 5,197 4,376 4,960 4,548 5,031 4,634 4,966 4,581 4,980 4,591 5,000 4,441 5,015 4,587 5,088 4,4339 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB 5,879 4,049 7,104 4,890 6,852 5,094 6,938 5,210 6,909 5,189 6,916 5,144 6,977 5,090 6,963 5,529 7,035 5,146

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB 5,736 3,950 6,610 4,887 6,479 5,245 6,583 5,317 6,652 5,270 6,482 5,280 6,618 5,210 6,649 5,664 6,620 5,20411 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB 5,115 3,522 6,002 4,515 5,772 4,651 5,924 4,686 5,933 4,690 5,780 4,672 5,881 4,673 5,902 4,864 5,814 4,65712 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB 4,199 3,269 7,389 4,718 7,338 5,656 7,225 5,934 7,228 6,258 7,281 5,566 7,214 5,354 7,233 5,996 7,236 5,05413 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy WB 4,100 3,192 6,888 4,320 6,808 5,060 6,659 5,326 6,646 5,580 6,733 5,006 6,674 4,747 6,663 5,559 6,805 4,51914 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB 4,742 3,692 6,519 4,346 6,242 4,487 6,099 4,498 6,064 4,757 6,163 4,462 6,174 4,384 6,209 4,778 6,120 4,32615 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB 7,805 6,076 10,181 6,877 9,310 7,039 9,314 7,134 9,488 7,347 9,455 7,087 9,442 7,088 9,648 7,682 9,137 7,02116 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB 7,756 6,038 9,503 7,264 10,132 8,089 10,267 8,222 10,075 8,438 10,567 8,125 9,916 8,131 10,377 8,212 9,660 7,986

Volume to Capacity (v/c)1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd SB 0.81 0.60 0.90 0.66 0.90 0.70 0.89 0.71 0.89 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.90 0.68 0.90 0.70 0.89 0.672 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd SB 0.80 0.59 0.91 0.67 0.91 0.70 0.89 0.72 0.90 0.72 0.91 0.71 0.91 0.70 0.91 0.71 0.91 0.683 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB 1.20 0.89 1.33 0.94 1.35 0.97 1.32 0.97 1.33 0.97 1.33 0.96 1.34 0.96 1.33 0.97 1.33 0.954 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB 0.67 0.48 0.71 0.45 0.71 0.47 0.68 0.46 0.68 0.47 0.70 0.46 0.69 0.46 0.69 0.47 0.70 0.465 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB 0.72 0.54 0.78 0.54 0.78 0.54 0.76 0.54 0.75 0.54 0.77 0.54 0.78 0.55 0.76 0.54 0.77 0.556 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB 0.84 0.62 0.96 0.71 0.99 0.69 0.99 0.69 0.99 0.67 0.98 0.69 0.99 0.70 0.99 0.68 0.98 0.717 SR 242 n/o I-680 SB 0.83 0.57 0.97 0.72 0.93 0.79 0.94 0.81 0.93 0.82 0.94 0.79 0.93 0.76 0.94 0.80 0.94 0.748 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB 0.64 0.44 0.82 0.69 0.79 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.79 0.73 0.79 0.73 0.79 0.70 0.80 0.73 0.81 0.709 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB 0.83 0.57 0.90 0.62 0.87 0.64 0.88 0.66 0.87 0.66 0.88 0.65 0.88 0.64 0.88 0.70 0.89 0.65

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB 0.81 0.56 0.84 0.62 0.82 0.66 0.83 0.67 0.84 0.67 0.82 0.67 0.84 0.66 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.6611 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB 0.81 0.56 0.95 0.72 0.92 0.74 0.94 0.74 0.94 0.74 0.92 0.74 0.93 0.74 0.94 0.77 0.92 0.7412 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB 1.00 0.78 1.76 1.12 1.75 1.35 1.72 1.41 1.72 1.49 1.73 1.33 1.72 1.27 1.72 1.43 1.72 1.2013 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy WB 0.82 0.64 1.19 0.74 1.17 0.87 1.15 0.92 1.15 0.96 1.16 0.86 1.15 0.82 1.15 0.96 1.17 0.7814 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB 1.13 0.88 1.55 1.03 1.49 1.07 1.45 1.07 1.44 1.13 1.47 1.06 1.47 1.04 1.48 1.14 1.46 1.0315 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB 0.93 0.72 1.21 0.82 1.11 0.84 1.11 0.85 1.13 0.87 1.13 0.84 1.12 0.84 1.15 0.91 1.09 0.8416 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB 0.92 0.72 1.13 0.86 1.21 0.96 1.22 0.98 1.20 1.00 1.26 0.97 1.18 0.97 1.24 0.98 1.15 0.95

Level of Service:1 I-680 s/o Monument Blvd SB D C E C D C D C D C E C D C D C D C2 I-680 n/o Monument Blvd SB D C E C E C D C E C E C E C E C E C3 I-680 n/o SR 242 SB F D F E F E F E F E F E F E F E F E4 I-680 n/o Willow Pass Rd SB C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B C B5 I-680 n/o Concord Av SB C C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C6 I-680 n/o SR 4 SB D C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C7 SR 242 n/o I-680 SB D C E C E D E D E D E D E D E D E D8 SR 242 n/o Clayton Rd SB C B D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C9 SR 242 n/o Concord Av SB D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C

10 SR 242 n/o Grant Av SB D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C11 SR 242 n/o Olivera Rd SB D C E C E C E D E D E D E D E D E C12 SR 4 e/o I-680 WB E D F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F13 SR 4 e/o Arnold Ind Wy WB D C F D F D F E F E F D F D F E F D14 SR 4 e/o SR 242 WB F D F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F15 SR 4 e/o Port Chicago Hwy WB E C F D F D F D F D F D F D F E F D16 SR 4 e/o Willow Pass Rd WB E C F D F E F E F F F E F E F E F E

Notes:Capacity based on 2100 vphpl for freeway lanes, 1600 vphpl for auxiliary lanes; Dir = direction

Source (Freeway Capacity): 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

Alt Concept 7Mainline Segment Existing - 2006 Future - 2030

Alt Concept 4 Alt Concept 5 Alt Concept 6No Project Alt Concept 1 Alt Concept 2 Alt Concept 3


Table 4-24:Capacity Analysis of Freeway Ramps

v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS v/c Density LOS

1 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB off-ramp 0.71 24.86 C 1.53 55.74 F 0.70 24.38 C 1.50 54.89 F 0.70 24.50 C 1.52 55.60 F 0.70 24.44 C 1.51 54.93 F 0.70 24.33 C 1.50 54.71 F 0.71 24.93 C 1.50 54.85 F 0.70 24.29 C 1.51 54.93 F 0.71 24.75 C 1.51 55.14 F

2 I-680: Willow Pass Rd NB on-ramp 0.32 na C 0.56 na C 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 0.32 na C 0.54 na C 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 0.32 na C 0.53 na C 0.32 na C 0.54 na C

3 I-680: Concord Av NB off-ramp 0.62 na C 0.59 na C 0.64 na C 0.54 na C 0.67 na C 0.65 na C 0.69 na C 0.55 na C 0.66 na C 0.50 na C 0.63 na C 0.50 na C 0.68 na C 0.57 na C 0.62 na C 0.64 na C

4 I-680: Concord Av Burnett NB on-ramp 0.34 11.14 B 0.79 27.22 C 0.32 10.31 B 0.79 27.00 C 0.32 10.37 B 0.78 26.42 C 0.31 9.88 A 0.78 26.70 C 0.33 10.57 B 0.78 26.83 C 0.32 10.52 B 0.79 27.11 C 0.32 10.44 B 0.78 26.49 C 0.34 10.99 B 0.79 26.93 C

5 I-680: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 0.34 11.31 B 0.87 30.03 D 0.32 10.46 B 0.87 30.10 D 0.32 10.49 B 0.87 30.15 D 0.31 10.08 B 0.88 30.48 D 0.32 10.67 B 0.86 29.95 D 0.33 10.79 B 0.87 29.96 D 0.32 10.58 B 0.87 30.06 D 0.34 11.14 B 0.87 29.93 D

6 I-680: Concord Av SB off-ramp 0.86 30.49 D 0.62 21.42 C 0.87 30.84 D 0.63 21.75 C 0.84 29.90 D 0.64 22.27 C 0.84 29.56 D 0.64 22.19 C 0.85 30.17 D 0.64 21.99 C 0.86 30.47 D 0.64 22.20 C 0.84 29.79 D 0.65 22.49 C 0.86 30.34 D 0.63 21.87 C

7 I-680: Concord Av WB to SB on-ramp 0.71 24.40 C 0.56 18.74 B 0.71 24.45 C 0.54 17.99 B 0.70 23.82 C 0.52 17.48 B 0.69 23.48 C 0.52 17.43 B 0.71 24.13 C 0.53 17.65 B 0.71 24.28 C 0.54 18.27 B 0.70 23.77 C 0.53 17.87 B 0.71 24.22 C 0.55 18.60 B

8 I-680: Concord Av EB to SB on-ramp 0.20 na C 0.16 na C 0.19 na C 0.34 na C 0.18 na C 0.38 na C 0.18 na C 0.46 na C 0.18 na C 0.35 na C 0.18 na C 0.26 na C 0.18 na C 0.35 na C 0.23 na C 0.18 na C

9 I-680: Willow Pass Rd SB off-ramp 0.38 17.17 B 0.29 11.04 B 0.48 17.15 B 0.29 11.37 B 0.47 16.57 B 0.29 11.26 B 0.43 16.48 B 0.29 11.32 B 0.46 16.97 B 0.29 11.25 B 0.43 16.86 B 0.29 11.23 B 0.45 16.76 B 0.29 11.46 B 0.43 17.12 B 0.29 11.10 B

10 I-680: Willow Pass Rd WB to SB on-ramp 0.72 24.66 C 0.51 17.04 B 0.69 23.52 C 0.54 18.08 B 0.66 22.59 C 0.55 18.53 B 0.66 22.75 C 0.56 18.86 B 0.68 23.21 C 0.54 18.11 B 0.68 23.30 C 0.52 17.63 B 0.67 23.04 C 0.55 18.40 B 0.69 23.75 C 0.51 17.22 B

11 I-680: Willow Pass Rd EB to SB on-ramp 0.81 27.28 C 0.58 19.53 B 0.80 26.99 C 0.61 20.73 C 0.79 26.45 C 0.62 21.08 C 0.80 26.66 C 0.63 21.43 C 0.79 26.62 C 0.61 20.74 C 0.80 26.73 C 0.60 20.25 C 0.80 26.68 C 0.62 20.98 C 0.79 26.72 C 0.59 19.83 B

12 SR 242: Clayton Rd NB off-ramp 0.52 17.58 B 1.08 38.70 F 0.64 22.16 C 1.07 38.34 F 0.66 22.80 C 1.07 38.36 F 0.62 21.25 C 1.07 38.59 F 0.65 22.40 C 1.07 38.59 F 0.60 20.73 C 1.06 38.22 F 0.66 22.85 C 1.06 38.23 F 0.56 19.04 B 1.07 38.48 F

12a SR 242: Clayton Rd NB on-ramp (proposed) 0.41 14.26 B 0.84 30.01 D 0.53 18.38 B 0.83 29.58 D 0.54 18.88 B 0.84 29.78 D 0.49 17.06 B 0.85 30.31 D 0.52 18.11 B 0.83 29.66 D 0.49 17.11 B 0.83 29.62 D 0.54 18.78 B 0.83 29.56 D 0.45 15.48 B 0.84 29.96 D

13 SR 242: Concord Av EB to NB on-ramp 0.47 15.78 B 0.99 34.43 D 0.59 20.05 C 0.97 33.61 D 0.60 20.51 C 0.98 34.15 D 0.55 18.66 B 0.99 34.22 D 0.58 19.86 B 0.97 33.73 D 0.55 18.73 B 0.98 34.09 D 0.60 20.57 C 0.97 33.58 D 0.50 17.11 B 0.98 33.93 D

14 SR 242: Concord Av WB to NB on-ramp 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D 0.39 na C 0.79 na D

15 SR 242: Concord Av SB off-ramp 0.72 21.57 C 0.37 14.85 B 0.69 20.80 C 0.37 15.46 B 0.69 21.06 C 0.39 15.82 B 0.70 20.97 C 0.40 15.75 B 0.67 21.00 C 0.37 15.62 B 0.69 21.18 C 0.38 15.45 B 0.69 21.14 C 0.39 16.79 B 0.70 21.36 C 0.37 15.62 B

15a SR 242: Clayton Rd SB off-ramp (proposed) 0.85 27.46 C 0.76 23.91 C 0.82 26.10 C 0.76 24.17 C 0.82 26.43 C 0.77 24.54 C 0.82 26.18 C 0.76 24.15 C 0.82 26.22 C 0.77 24.42 C 0.82 26.38 C 0.76 23.83 C 0.82 26.41 C 0.77 24.31 C 0.83 26.81 C 0.76 24.01 C

16 SR 242: Clayton Rd SB on-ramp 0.94 32.36 D 0.82 27.98 C 0.90 30.73 D 0.89 30.35 D 0.90 30.99 D 0.90 30.95 D 0.90 30.82 D 0.92 31.38 D 0.91 31.10 D 0.89 30.33 D 0.89 30.69 D 0.86 29.33 D 0.90 30.88 D 0.89 30.39 D 0.91 31.17 D 0.84 28.66 D

17 SR 242: Concord Ave SB on-ramp 0.86 29.67 D 0.71 24.34 C 0.82 28.15 D 0.79 27.00 C 0.83 28.53 D 0.81 27.69 C 0.82 28.14 D 0.80 27.43 C 0.81 28.00 C 0.80 27.29 C 0.81 28.13 D 0.77 26.39 C 0.82 28.30 D 0.77 26.36 C 0.83 28.83 D 0.74 25.23 C

18 SR 4: Port Chicago EB off-ramp 1.03 41.35 F 1.55 61.26 F 1.23 48.96 F 1.51 59.56 F 1.29 51.54 F 1.53 60.37 F 1.36 54.19 F 1.52 59.94 F 1.22 48.84 F 1.49 58.85 F 1.19 47.55 F 1.51 59.53 F 1.29 51.24 F 1.50 59.47 F 1.09 43.82 F 1.51 59.83 F

19 SR 4: Port Chicago EB on-ramp 0.76 30.00 D 1.26 47.42 F 0.78 30.61 D 1.19 44.86 F 0.77 30.31 D 1.25 46.89 F 0.79 30.97 D 1.22 46.12 F 0.78 30.63 D 1.19 45.12 F 0.77 30.48 D 1.20 45.17 F 0.83 32.69 D 1.20 45.40 F 0.75 29.72 D 1.20 45.44 F

20 SR 4: Port Chicago WB on-ramp 1.71 63.46 F 1.26 47.10 F 1.71 63.36 F 1.43 53.00 F 1.68 62.24 F 1.46 54.06 F 1.67 61.66 F 1.56 57.33 F 1.69 62.72 F 1.43 52.98 F 1.68 62.10 F 1.35 50.20 F 1.68 62.40 F 1.53 56.35 F 1.68 62.28 F 1.29 48.01 F

21 SR 4: Port Chicago WB off-ramp 1.22 48.99 F 0.72 30.09 D 1.04 42.29 F 0.74 30.64 D 1.05 42.41 F 0.77 31.79 D 1.10 44.52 F 0.78 32.17 D 1.08 43.84 F 0.76 31.48 D 1.08 43.53 F 0.77 31.80 D 1.10 44.54 F 0.83 34.19 D 1.02 41.28 F 0.75 31.11 D

22 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB off-ramp 0.84 34.38 D 1.19 47.30 F 0.87 35.46 E 1.01 40.62 F 0.88 35.78 E 1.07 42.79 F 0.89 36.16 E 1.07 43.00 F 0.88 35.77 E 1.03 41.45 F 0.89 36.06 E 1.07 42.98 F 0.98 39.56 E 1.08 43.23 F 0.88 35.63 E 1.09 43.79 F

23 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd EB on-ramp 0.22 na C 0.30 na C 0.62 na C 0.66 na C 0.80 na D 0.72 na D 0.77 na D 0.67 na C 0.60 na C 0.68 na C 0.74 na D 0.66 na C 0.65 na C 0.66 na C 0.54 na C 0.62 na C

24 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB on-ramp 0.76 27.43 F 0.67 24.78 C 0.81 29.44 F 0.68 25.28 C 0.81 29.38 F 0.69 25.56 C 0.79 28.86 F 0.71 26.32 C 0.81 29.67 F 0.68 25.40 C 0.80 28.98 F 0.68 25.36 C 0.82 29.73 F 0.70 25.56 C 0.78 28.46 F 0.67 25.02 C

25 SR 4: Willow Pass Rd WB off-ramp 0.52 na C 0.38 na C 0.77 na D 0.75 na D 0.86 na E 0.77 na D 0.89 na E 0.75 na D 0.95 na E 0.75 na D 0.77 na D 0.76 na D 0.83 na D 0.75 na D 0.77 na D 0.74 na D

Notes:

NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound, EB = eastbound; v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = level of serviceSource (Freeway Capacity): 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

PMPM AM PM AMPM AM PM AMAlternative Concept 7

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM

Future - 2030No Project Alternative Concept 1 Alternative Concept 2 Alternative Concept 3 Alternative Concept 4 Alternative Concept 5 Alternative Concept 6


Table 4-25:Capacity Analysis of Roadway Segments

LOS V/C AM Volume LOS V/C AM

Volume LOS V/C AM Volume LOS V/C AM



Volume LOS V/C AM Volume

Regional Arterials1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd C 0.62 3,026 C 0.67 3,321 C 0.68 3,347 C 0.67 3,294 C 0.73 3,611 C 0.68 3,331 C 0.67 3,276 C 0.67 3,278 C 0.68 3,3482 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd C 0.41 1,998 C 0.58 2,860 C 0.56 2,761 C 0.56 2,737 C 0.75 3,699 C 0.56 2,762 C 0.56 2,776 C 0.55 2,698 C 0.58 2,8453 Kirker Pass Rd South of Myrtle Dr C 0.61 2,003 D 0.88 2,869 D 0.86 2,797 D 0.84 2,743 F 1.14 3,733 D 0.86 2,804 D 0.86 2,806 D 0.83 2,699 D 0.88 2,8804 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd C 0.66 3,229 C 0.72 3,539 C 0.72 3,557 C 0.74 3,623 D 0.86 4,231 C 0.71 3,483 C 0.70 3,432 C 0.71 3,472 C 0.73 3,5855 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd C 0.97 3,299 F 1.01 5,146 F 1.00 5,069 F 1.02 5,176 F 1.12 5,672 F 1.00 5,095 F 1.00 5,105 F 1.01 5,143 F 1.02 5,192

Arterials6 Bailey Rd East of Concord Blvd F 1.21 1,947 F 1.38 2,220 F 1.35 2,168 F 1.28 2,057 F 1.59 2,555 F 1.36 2,193 F 1.34 2,162 F 1.50 2,421 F 1.51 2,4337 Clayton Rd East of Market St D 0.42 1,972 D 0.56 2,628 D 0.55 2,559 D 0.52 2,458 D 0.57 2,686 D 0.52 2,461 D 0.51 2,383 D 0.53 2,492 D 0.51 2,4008 Concord Blvd West of Denkinger Rd D 0.78 2,425 E 0.96 2,992 F 1.04 3,238 F 1.03 3,215 F 1.29 4,001 F 1.06 3,287 F 1.08 3,364 F 1.13 3,521 F 1.10 3,4279 Denkinger Rd Between Concord Blvd and Clayton Rd C 0.56 863 C 0.39 1,261 C 0.35 1,157 C 0.37 1,203 C 0.42 1,367 C 0.31 1,018 C 0.25 832 C 0.29 935 C 0.24 79810 Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd C 0.53 2,601 C 0.64 3,146 C 0.68 3,331 C 0.67 3,305 C 0.69 3,374 C 0.68 3,336 C 0.66 3,241 C 0.68 3,335 C 0.65 3,18611 Port Chicago Hwy North of Olivera Rd E 0.98 1,664 F 1.17 1,972 F 1.74 2,942 F 1.81 3,054 F 1.86 3,143 F 1.75 2,956 F 1.71 2,890 F 1.95 3,290 F 1.87 3,16912 Willow Pass Rd North of Landana Dr F 1.20 1,924 F 1.11 3,746 C 0.92 3,123 C 0.97 3,296 C 0.95 3,205 C 0.94 3,194 F 1.09 3,702 D 1.00 3,375 C 0.88 2,98813 Willow Pass Rd East of Farm Bureau Rd C 0.58 1,895 D 0.95 3,092 D 0.91 2,978 D 0.93 3,047 D 0.93 3,029 D 0.91 2,960 F 1.00 3,273 D 0.93 3,045 D 0.85 2,76914 Willow Pass Rd East of Galindo St D 0.52 1,574 D 0.63 1,901 D 0.67 2,006 D 0.68 2,032 D 0.71 2,125 D 0.65 1,962 D 0.69 2,085 D 0.66 1,974 D 0.63 1,89815 Willow Pass Rd Between Diamond Blvd and SR 242 D 0.52 2,372 D 0.69 3,131 D 0.68 3,056 D 0.71 3,189 D 0.70 3,172 D 0.70 3,153 D 0.67 3,037 D 0.68 3,085 D 0.67 3,00616 Avila Rd East of Willow Pass Rd A 0.08 108 B 0.51 1,730 B 0.65 2,187 B 0.73 2,467 B 0.57 1,948 B 0.61 2,066 B 0.58 1,966 B 0.56 1,900 B 0.64 2,15717 Evora Rd East of Willow Pass Rd D 0.83 1,069 B 0.62 2,106 C 0.84 2,839 B 0.81 2,752 C 0.87 2,932 B 0.77 2,614 C 0.90 3,056 B 0.75 2,528 B 0.73 2,460

LOS V/C PM Volume LOS V/C PM

Volume LOS V/C PM Volume LOS V/C PM



Volume LOS V/C PM Volume

Regional Arterials1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd C 0.62 3,054 D 0.80 3,917 C 0.77 3,767 D 0.80 3,916 D 0.88 4,328 C 0.78 3,826 C 0.78 3,820 C 0.78 3,818 C 0.77 3,7892 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd C 0.49 2,410 C 0.74 3,641 C 0.78 3,824 C 0.78 3,817 D 0.86 4,222 D 0.79 3,867 D 0.78 3,846 D 0.79 3,884 C 0.76 3,7343 Kirker Pass Rd South of Myrtle Dr C 0.74 2,406 F 1.12 3,659 F 1.18 3,872 F 1.18 3,856 F 1.30 4,239 F 1.20 3,911 F 1.19 3,875 F 1.20 3,915 F 1.15 3,7514 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd D 0.79 3,871 D 0.93 4,598 E 0.97 4,758 E 0.99 4,883 F 1.09 5,386 E 0.98 4,843 D 0.93 4,597 E 0.97 4,782 D 0.92 4,5135 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd F 1.13 3,830 F 1.05 5,346 F 1.07 5,459 F 1.07 5,456 F 1.15 5,856 F 1.08 5,485 F 1.06 5,409 F 1.08 5,503 F 1.05 5,324

Arterials6 Bailey Rd East of Concord Blvd F 1.08 1,733 F 1.47 2,362 F 1.38 2,220 F 1.32 2,120 F 1.50 2,413 F 1.41 2,264 F 1.44 2,323 F 1.41 2,271 F 1.51 2,4247 Clayton Rd East of Market St D 0.54 2,556 D 0.62 2,900 D 0.59 2,768 D 0.59 2,769 D 0.63 2,955 D 0.59 2,785 D 0.59 2,778 D 0.62 2,885 D 0.61 2,8618 Concord Blvd West of Denkinger Rd C 0.62 1,916 D 0.86 2,675 D 0.91 2,842 D 0.94 2,931 E 0.99 3,064 D 0.95 2,953 E 0.97 3,017 E 0.98 3,033 E 0.97 3,0159 Denkinger Rd Between Concord Blvd and Clayton Rd C 0.39 612 C 0.24 774 C 0.25 833 C 0.31 999 C 0.44 1,432 C 0.24 776 C 0.22 734 C 0.24 798 C 0.22 71110 Monument Blvd West of Oak Grove Rd C 0.60 2,960 C 0.69 3,402 C 0.70 3,456 C 0.71 3,478 C 0.70 3,458 C 0.70 3,449 C 0.70 3,427 C 0.70 3,458 C 0.70 3,43011 Port Chicago Hwy North of Olivera Rd D 0.92 1,562 F 1.15 1,938 F 1.80 3,041 F 1.96 3,321 F 2.04 3,444 F 1.78 3,004 F 1.71 2,894 F 2.01 3,394 F 1.72 2,90212 Willow Pass Rd North of Landana Dr F 1.24 1,991 F 1.10 3,737 F 1.02 3,462 F 1.07 3,642 F 1.19 4,037 F 1.05 3,570 F 1.09 3,696 F 1.12 3,805 F 1.07 3,62513 Willow Pass Rd East of Farm Bureau Rd C 0.60 1,964 F 1.06 3,476 D 0.92 3,009 D 0.94 3,059 F 1.07 3,504 D 0.91 2,981 D 0.92 3,003 E 1.00 3,254 E 0.96 3,12614 Willow Pass Rd East of Galindo St D 0.64 1,912 D 0.82 2,456 D 0.81 2,452 D 0.86 2,597 D 0.85 2,571 D 0.82 2,466 D 0.76 2,299 D 0.80 2,422 D 0.76 2,29215 Willow Pass Rd Between Diamond Blvd and SR 242 D 0.75 3,410 D 0.90 4,064 D 0.90 4,060 D 0.91 4,101 D 0.91 4,095 D 0.90 4,062 D 0.89 4,044 D 0.90 4,073 D 0.89 4,04216 Avila Rd East of Willow Pass Rd A 0.05 62 B 0.42 1,433 B 0.72 2,428 B 0.79 2,672 B 0.77 2,623 B 0.71 2,419 B 0.75 2,529 B 0.66 2,236 B 0.65 2,20817 Evora Rd East of Willow Pass Rd C 0.51 662 B 0.39 1,311 B 0.66 2,237 B 0.70 2,387 B 0.63 2,132 B 0.63 2,126 B 0.65 2,201 B 0.60 2,023 B 0.61 2,082

Notes:v/c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = level of service

AlternativeConcept 6


Existing Condition

Existing Condition









Street Name LocationNo Project Alternative

Concept 1

AM Roadway Segment Operations

PM Roadway Segment Operations

Future - 2030

Future - 2030

Street Name LocationNo Project Alternative

Concept 1AlternativeConcept 2



Tabl

e 4-

26:

Cap

acity

Ana

lysi

s of

Inte

rsec

tions

LOS

V/C

or

Del

ay

(sec

)2LO

SV

/C o

r D

elay

(s

ec)2

LOS

V/C

or

Del

ay

(sec

)2LO

SV

/C o

r D

elay

(s

ec)2

LOS

V/C

or

Del

ay

(sec

)2LO

SV

/C o

r D

elay

(s

ec)2

LOS

V/C

or

Del

ay

(sec

)2LO

SV

/C o

r D

elay

(s

ec)2

LOS

V/C

or

Del

ay

(sec

)2

1A

rnol

d In

dust

rial W

ay/P

ort C

hica

go H

wy.1

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

36D

0.81

C0.

76C

0.78

E0.

91D

0.86

B0.

70C

0.78

B0.

701

PM

A0.

51B

0.65

D0.

86D

0.84

D0.

82D

0.81

C0.

75D

0.86

C0.

77

2P

ort C

hica

go H

wy

/ Pan

oram

ic D

r1S

igna

lA

MA

0.43

B0.

68E

0.99

F1.

12F

1.12

F1.

01F

1.06

F1.

19F

1.01

2P

MA

0.42

C0.

79E

0.92

F1.

04F

1.02

F1.

02E

0.98

E0.

99D

0.89

3P

ort C

hica

go H

wy

/ Oliv

era

Rd1

Sig

nal

AM

B0.

69E

0.92

F1.

34F

1.22

F1.

24F

1.33

F1.

12F

1.25

F1.

253

PM

D0.

82E

0.98

F1.

37F

1.38

F1.

40F

1.37

F1.

33F

1.32

F1.

344

Oliv

era

Rd

/ Sal

vio

St

AM

A1.

6A

2.3

A0.

55A

0.59

C0.

72A

0.55

A0.

57A

0.58

B0.

61

4P

MA

2.7

A4.

4B

0.68

C0.

77C

0.74

B0.

66B

0.60

A0.

55B

0.61

5C

layt

on W

y / W

illow

Pas

s R

d1A

MA

1.3

A6.

6C

0.79

D0.

84B

0.68

D0.

81C

0.80

B0.

64B

0.65

5P

MA

1.8

C18

.6D

0.81

D0.

81C

0.79

C0.

79C

0.75

C0.

75C

0.80

6Fa

rm B

urea

u R

d / W

illow

Pas

s R

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.58

F1.

08E

0.94

E0.

97D

0.90

D0.

89D

0.85

D0.

84D

0.85

6P

MB

0.7

F1.

25F

1.13

F1.

23F

1.22

F1.

14F

1.11

F1.

12F

1.12

7D

iam

ond

Blv

d / W

illow

Pas

s R

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.35

A0.

47A

0.45

A0.

45A

0.45

A0.

44A

0.44

A0.

44A

0.44

7P

MB

0.62

C0.

77D

0.81

D0.

81D

0.81

C0.

79C

0.79

D0.

80C

0.78

8 M

arke

t St /

Con

cord

Av1

Sig

nal

AM

C0.

74D

0.82

B0.

61C

0.76

D0.

81C

0.77

C0.

79D

0.81

C0.

798

PM

D0.

86E

0.93

E0.

94E

0.95

E0.

95E

0.93

E0.

93E

0.94

E0.

95

9O

akla

nd A

v / C

layt

on R

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.52

B0.

67C

0.74

C0.

74C

0.76

C0.

74C

0.72

C0.

74C

0.74

9P

MB

0.67

D0.

83D

0.81

C0.

80C

0.79

C0.

80D

0.81

D0.

80D

0.81

10B

eech

woo

d D

r / L

anda

na D

r1A

MB

11.8

C16

.2B

14.8

C19

.8C

17.5

C17

.5D

31.1

D27

.70

E45

.110

PM

A9.

7B

11.6

B14

.7C

20.5

C17

.7C

17.6

D25

.0C

20.8

0C

16.0

11W

est S

t / C

onco

rd B

lvd1

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

53B

0.65

E0.

91E

0.91

F1.

16E

0.98

C0.

76F

1.01

C0.

7811

PM

A0.

45B

0.64

B0.

67C

0.71

E0.

91B

0.69

B0.

69C

0.72

B0.

67

12W

est S

t./C

layt

on R

d.1

Sig

nal

AM

B0.

61D

0.81

C0.

72C

0.73

B0.

69C

0.71

C0.

7C

0.70

B0.

6812

PM

A0.

43A

0.57

A0.

57A

0.60

A0.

56A

0.58

A0.

56A

0.57

A0.

55

13D

enki

nger

Rd

/ Con

cord

Blv

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.58

C0.

70D

0.81

D0.

81F

1.05

C0.

74C

0.76

D0.

82C

0.80

13P

MA

0.54

B0.

69B

0.68

C0.

74D

0.89

C0.

74C

0.76

C0.

76C

0.75

14C

layt

on R

d / T

reat

Blv

d1, 3

Sig

nal

AM

B0.

64D

0.87

D0.

81D

0.84

D0.

83D

0.81

C0.

79D

0.81

C0.

7914

PM

C0.

71E

0.94

E0.

93E

0.98

F1.

13E

0.93

E0.

92E

0.93

D0.

90

15C

owel

l Rd

/ Tre

at B

lvd1,

3S

igna

lA

MD

0.86

E0.

99E

0.91

E0.

91E

1.00

E0.

93E

0.92

E0.

91E

0.90

15P

MC

0.75

E0.

92E

0.93

E0.

95E

0.98

E0.

93D

0.90

E0.

91D

0.89

16O

ak G

rove

Rd

/ Tre

at B

lvd1,

3S

igna

lA

MF

1.33

F1.

53F

1.54

F1.

54F

1.53

F1.

52F

1.54

F1.

55F

1.53

16P

ME

0.93

F1.

15F

1.14

F1.

18F

1.18

F1.

16F

1.11

F1.

14F

1.11

17O

ak R

d / T

reat

Blv

d3S

igna

lA

MC

0.77

F1.

09F

1.11

F1.

15F

1.09

F1.

12F

1.14

F1.

12F

1.12

17P

ME

0.92

F1.

22F

1.22

F1.

10F

1.30

F1.

24F

1.17

F1.

27F

1.05

18B

aile

y R

d /M

yrtle

Dr

AM

A1.

7A

0.56

A0.

49A

0.45

B0.

63A

0.47

A0.

47A

0.60

A0.

55

18P

MA

1.5

A0.

57A

0.53

A0.

45A

0.43

A0.

46A

0.50

A0.

47A

0.54

19B

aile

y R

d / C

onco

rd B

lvd1

Sig

nal

AM

F1.

05F

1.00

F1.

04F

1.08

F1.

38F

1.09

F1.

07F

1.12

F1.

1419

PM

D0.

82D

0.87

D0.

86D

0.88

F1.

10D

0.89

E0.

92E

0.90

E0.

90

20B

aile

y/C

layt

on1,

3S

igna

lA

MB

0.63

B0.

67B

0.70

B0.

66D

0.81

B0.

66B

0.67

B0.

66B

0.66

20P

MA

0.45

A0.

57A

0.58

A0.

57B

0.64

A0.

60A

0.60

A0.

56A

0.54

21K

irker

Pas

s R

d / C

lear

broo

k D

r3S

igna

lA

MA

0.47

B0.

64B

0.61

A0.

59D

0.83

B0.

62B

0.62

B0.

61B

0.63

21P

MA

0.46

B0.

66C

0.70

C0.

72B

0.69

B0.

69B

0.68

B0.

68B

0.66

22K

irker

Pas

s R

d / C

onco

rd B

lvd1,

3S

igna

lA

MB

0.65

D0.

87D

0.82

D0.

88D

0.84

D0.

82D

0.82

D0.

86D

0.82

22P

MB

0.69

E0.

93E

0.96

E0.

96E

0.93

E0.

97E

0.98

E0.

96E

0.96

23C

layt

on R

d / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d1, 3

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

57C

0.71

B0.

68B

0.70

B0.

70B

0.68

B0.

67B

0.68

B0.

6923

PM

B0.

62D

0.83

D0.

80D

0.81

C0.

80D

0.81

D0.

81D

0.80

D0.

80

24C

owel

l Rd

/ Ygn

acio

Val

ley

Rd1,

3S

igna

lA

MD

0.83

E0.

94D

0.89

D0.

88E

0.91

D0.

84D

0.84

D0.

88D

0.86

24P

ME

0.95

E0.

99E

0.96

E0.

95D

0.89

E0.

96E

0.95

E0.

95E

0.97

25O

ak G

rove

Rd

/ Ygn

acio

Val

ley

Rd3

Sig

nal

AM

C0.

78F

1.05

F1.

10F

1.06

F1.

10F

1.04

F1.

07F

1.10

F1.

0925

PM

D0.

89F

1.29

F1.

30F

1.31

F1.

35F

1.31

F1.

29F

1.31

F1.

27

26G

alin

do S

t / W

illow

Pas

s R

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.55

C0.

78B

0.69

C0.

73C

0.74

B0.

67B

0.68

B0.

67C

0.73

26P

MC

0.75

E0.

96D

0.87

E0.

90D

0.90

D0.

89D

0.89

D0.

90E

0.92

27M

arke

t St /

Will

ow P

ass

Rd1

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

56B

0.63

B0.

67B

0.67

B0.

69B

0.65

B0.

65B

0.65

B0.

6327

PM

B0.

64C

0.76

C0.

75C

0.78

C0.

75C

0.76

C0.

74C

0.75

C0.

75

28 I-

680

NB

Ram

p / W

illow

Pas

s R

d1S

igna

lA

MB

0.66

C0.

75C

0.74

C0.

74C

0.74

C0.

75C

0.74

C0.

74C

0.73

28P

MC

0.78

D0.

89D

0.86

D0.

88D

0.89

D0.

86D

0.87

D0.

87D

0.88

29I-6

80 S

B R

amp

/ Will

ow P

ass

Rd1

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

55C

0.72

D0.

85D

0.86

D0.

9D

0.82

D0.

85D

0.86

C0.

7129

PM

A0.

49A

0.54

A0.

53A

0.52

A0.

53A

0.53

A0.

53A

0.52

A0.

54

30M

arke

t St /

Cla

yton

Rd1

Sig

nal

AM

B0.

63E

1.00

E1.

00E

1.00

E1.

00F

1.01

F1.

02E

0.97

F1.

0230

PM

B0.

65C

0.74

C0.

72C

0.72

C0.

78C

0.74

C0.

72C

0.74

C0.

74

31C

omm

erce

Av

- SR

242

SB

/ Con

cord

Av1

Sig

nal

AM

B0.

63F

1.01

E1.

00F

1.01

F1.

03E

0.98

E0.

99F

1.01

E1.

0031

PM

D0.

83F

1.22

F1.

18F

1.19

F1.

17F

1.18

F1.

18F

1.10

F1.

18

32D

iam

ond

Blv

d / C

onco

rd A

v1S

igna

lA

MA

0.53

A0.

58A

0.59

A0.

59B

0.61

A0.

59A

0.59

A0.

59A

0.58

32P

MC

0.71

D0.

81D

0.84

D0.

83D

0.83

D0.

82D

0.83

C0.

79D

0.80

33M

onum

ent B

lvd

/ Oak

Gro

ve R

d1S

igna

lA

MA

0.51

C0.

78C

0.79

D0.

81C

0.79

D0.

81C

0.78

C0.

79C

0.78

33P

MA

0.57

C0.

78C

0.79

D0.

81D

0.81

C0.

78C

0.77

C0.

79C

0.77

34W

alnu

t Blv

d / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d3S

igna

lA

MC

0.78

D0.

89D

0.85

D0.

87E

0.91

D0.

86D

0.84

D0.

86E

0.91

34P

ME

1.00

F1.

12F

1.12

F1.

13F

1.20

F1.

15F

1.11

F1.

13F

1.10

35B

ancr

oft R

d / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d3S

igna

lA

MD

0.9

E0.

97E

0.97

E0.

98F

1.01

E0.

96E

0.97

E0.

97E

0.98

35P

MC

0.7

D0.

82D

0.83

D0.

84D

0.86

D0.

84D

0.82

D0.

84D

0.81

36A

lber

ta W

y / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d1, 3

Sig

nal

AM

D0.

82E

0.92

D0.

89E

0.92

E0.

91D

0.90

D0.

90E

0.92

E0.

9236

PM

D0.

82D

0.86

D0.

85D

0.84

D0.

82D

0.85

D0.

85D

0.84

D0.

85

37A

yers

Rd

/ Ygn

acio

Val

ley

Rd1,

3S

igna

lA

ME

0.92

F1.

15F

1.04

F1.

05F

1.04

F1.

05F

1.08

F1.

04F

1.08

37P

MD

0.81

C0.

75C

0.74

C0.

72C

0.79

C0.

74C

0.73

C0.

72C

0.73

38N

orth

Mai

n S

t / G

eary

Rd3

Sig

nal

AM

C0.

8F

1.17

F1.

15F

1.17

F1.

13F

1.15

F1.

07F

1.19

F1.

0738

PM

E0.

93F

1.27

F1.

29F

1.29

F1.

31F

1.29

F1.

27F

1.28

F1.

29

39B

ates

/Por

t Chi

cago

Hw

y.1S

igna

lA

MC

0.52

C0.

75C

0.75

C0.

76C

0.75

C0.

76C

0.76

C0.

75C

0.75

39P

MC

0.74

C0.

75C

0.77

C0.

78C

0.75

C0.

77C

0.80

C0.

75C

0.77

40B

ancr

oft R

d / T

reat

Blv

d3S

igna

lA

MD

0.82

E0.

95E

0.95

E0.

98F

1.10

E0.

95E

0.97

E0.

98E

0.98

40P

MD

0.89

F1.

14F

1.16

F1.

17F

1.18

F1.

16F

1.15

F1.

18F

1.14

41K

irker

Pas

s R

d/ M

yrtle

Dr3

Sig

nal

AM

A0.

37A

0.48

A0.

47A

0.46

A0.

51A

0.48

A0.

48A

0.46

A0.

4841

PM

A0.

56C

0.77

D0.

84C

0.76

C0.

71C

0.79

C0.

79D

0.81

C0.

78

42B

ursk

irk A

ve-N

B I-

680

Off

Ram

p / T

reat

Blv

d3S

igna

lA

MF

1.32

F1.

34F

1.33

F1.

33F

1.54

F1.

33F

1.33

F1.

33F

1.33

42P

MF

1.57

F2.

02F

1.95

F1.

57F

1.95

F1.

96F

1.95

F1.

95F

1.57

43N

orth

Mai

n S

t / S

unny

vale

Ave

-SB

I-68

0 R

amps

3S

igna

lA

ME

0.93

F1.

47F

1.31

F1.

40F

1.47

F1.

27F

1.41

F1.

39F

1.35

43P

MC

0.79

F1.

22F

1.21

F1.

25F

1.29

F1.

21F

1.23

F1.

22F

1.25

44N

B I-

680

Off

Ram

p / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d3S

igna

lA

MF

1.27

F1.

40F

1.48

F1.

60F

1.57

F1.

41F

1.41

F1.

44F

1.43

44P

MF

1.26

F1.

52F

1.41

F1.

48F

1.43

F1.

46F

1.54

F1.

51F

1.43

45S

B I-

680

On

Ram

p / Y

gnac

io V

alle

y R

d3S

igna

lA

MB

0.61

C0.

73C

0.73

C0.

74C

0.71

C0.

73C

0.72

C0.

73C

0.74

45P

MA

0.53

B0.

66A

0.54

B0.

67A

0.54

B0.

67C

0.71

B0.

66A

0.55

Not

es:

1 In

ters

ectio

ns lo

cate

d w

ithin

the

Cen

tral B

usin

ess

Dis

trict

, Nor

th C

onco

rd B

AR

T S

tatio

n, o

r on

a tra

nsit

rout

e w

here

LO

S E

is s

tand

ard.

2 V

/C d

enot

es V

olum

e-to

-Cap

acity

ratio

and

is u

sed

for s

igna

lized

inte

rsec

tions

; ave

rage

veh

icle

del

ay in

sec

onds

are

use

d fo

r uns

igna

lized

inte

rsec

tions

3 Inte

rsec

tions

in th

e C

onge

stio

n M

anag

emen

t Pro

gram

net

wor

k.v/

c =

volu

me

to c

apac

ity ra

tio; L

OS

= le

vel o

f ser

vice

1-w

ay S

top/

S

igna

l (F

utur

e)

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

cept

7

1-w

ay S

top/

S

igna

l (F

utur

e)

1-w

ay S

top/

S

igna

l (F

utur

e)

All-

way

Sto

p

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

cept

3A

ltern

ativ

e C

once

pt 4

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

cept

5A

ltern

ativ

e C

once

pt 6

No

Proj

ect

Inte

rsec

tion

Con

trol

Peak

H

our

Alte

rnat

ive

Con

cept

1

Futu

re -

2030

Exis

ting

Con

ditio

nA

ltern

ativ

e C

once

pt 2

Not

es:

Bol

d in

dica

tes

a le

ss th

an s

igni

fican

t im

pact

whe

re th

e al

tern

ativ

e re

use

conc

ept c

ontri

bute

s tra

ffic

to a

loca

tion

that

doe

s no

t exc

eed

the

thre

shol

d de

scrib

ed in

Sec

tion

4.2

for e

ither

203

0 “N

o P

roje

ct” A

ltern

ativ

e or

for t

he a

ltern

ativ

e re

use

conc

ept.

Sha

ded

cells

indi

cate

a s

igni

fican

t im

pact

whe

re th

e al

tern

ativ

e re

use

conc

ept e

xcee

ds a

thre

shol

d th

at w

as n

ot e

xcee

ded

in 2

030

“No

Pro

ject

” A

ltern

ativ

e de

scrib

ed in

Sec

tion

4.2

or c

ontri

bute

s to

alre

ady

defic

ient

con

ditio

ns w

here

a th

resh

old

was

exc

eede

d in

203

0 “N

o P

roje

ct” A

ltern

ativ

e.

Table 4-27Analysis of Traffic Service Objectives

Roadway Location DirAvg

SpeedDelay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

Avg Speed

Delay Index AVO

1 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd NB AM 34 1.0 1.09 34 1.0 1.09 34 1.0 1.09 34 1.0 1.10 35 1.0 1.11 34 1.0 1.10 34 1.0 1.10 34 1.0 1.10 34 1.0 1.10PM 35 1.0 1.18 35 1.0 1.24 35 1.0 1.23 35 1.0 1.25 35 1.0 1.17 35 1.0 1.24 35 1.0 1.22 35 1.0 1.23 35 1.0 1.21

2 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd EB AM 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.13 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.09 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.12 40 1.0 1.13PM 40 1.0 1.12 39 1.0 1.05 39 1.0 1.06 39 1.0 1.04 39 1.0 1.04 39 1.0 1.05 39 1.0 1.05 39 1.0 1.05 39 1.0 1.06

3 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd EB AM 30 1.0 1.16 30 1.0 1.16 30 1.0 1.14 30 1.0 1.12 30 1.0 1.06 30 1.0 1.15 30 1.0 1.17 30 1.0 1.15 30 1.0 1.16PM 30 1.0 1.12 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10 30 1.0 1.10

4 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd EB AM 35 1.0 1.12 35 1.1 1.11 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.11PM 29 1.2 1.11 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.07 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.06 35 1.1 1.06

5 Clayton Rd East of Treat Blvd SB AM 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.25 35 1.0 1.25 35 1.0 1.24 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.24 35 1.0 1.23 35 1.0 1.23 35 1.0 1.21PM 35 1.0 1.14 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.15 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.13 35 1.0 1.14

6 Kirker Pass Rd East of Concord Blvd WB AM 39 1.0 1.06 38 1.1 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 39 1.0 1.02 38 1.1 1.02PM 40 1.0 1.17 40 1.0 1.15 40 1.0 1.13 40 1.0 1.13 39 1.0 1.11 40 1.0 1.13 40 1.0 1.14 40 1.0 1.13 40 1.0 1.15

7 Treat Blvd East of Oak Grove Rd WB AM 30 1.0 1.08 29 1.0 1.06 29 1.0 1.06 29 1.0 1.06 29 1.0 1.07 29 1.0 1.07 29 1.0 1.06 29 1.0 1.07 29 1.0 1.06PM 30 1.0 1.21 30 1.0 1.21 30 1.0 1.19 30 1.0 1.19 30 1.0 1.09 30 1.0 1.19 30 1.0 1.20 30 1.0 1.19 30 1.0 1.21

8 Ygnacio Valley Rd East of Cowell Rd WB AM 25 1.4 1.07 34 1.2 1.05 35 1.2 1.05 35 1.2 1.04 35 1.2 1.05 35 1.2 1.05 35 1.2 1.05 35 1.2 1.04 34 1.2 1.04PM 35 1.0 1.18 35 1.1 1.17 35 1.1 1.15 35 1.1 1.14 35 1.1 1.10 35 1.1 1.14 35 1.1 1.15 35 1.1 1.14 35 1.1 1.16

9 I-680 South of Monument Blvd NB AM 43 1.4 1.15 40 1.5 1.02 37 1.6 1.01 37 1.6 1.01 39 1.5 1.02 37 1.6 1.02 38 1.6 1.02 37 1.6 1.02 39 1.5 1.02PM 37 1.6 1.15 27 2.2 1.02 28 2.2 1.03 28 2.1 1.03 28 2.2 1.03 29 2.1 1.03 28 2.1 1.03 28 2.1 1.02 28 2.1 1.03

10 I-680 North of Monument Blvd NB AM 57 1.1 1.16 49 1.2 1.03 45 1.3 1.02 44 1.4 1.02 46 1.3 1.03 45 1.3 1.02 46 1.3 1.03 44 1.4 1.02 48 1.3 1.03PM 46 1.4 1.14 28 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.04 28 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.03 29 2.0 1.03 28 2.1 1.03

11 I-680 North of SR 242 NB AM 41 1.5 1.17 38 1.6 1.01 40 1.5 1.01 40 1.5 1.01 40 1.5 1.01 40 1.5 1.01 39 1.5 1.01 40 1.5 1.01 39 1.5 1.01PM 49 1.2 1.14 39 1.5 1.01 41 1.5 1.02 41 1.5 1.02 43 1.4 1.02 42 1.4 1.02 42 1.4 1.01 42 1.4 1.01 39 1.5 1.01

12 I-680 North of Willow Pass Rd NB AM 56 1.1 1.18 56 1.1 1.06 57 1.1 1.07 56 1.1 1.08 57 1.1 1.07 56 1.1 1.07 56 1.1 1.07 56 1.1 1.08 56 1.1 1.07PM 55 1.1 1.14 50 1.2 1.09 51 1.2 1.10 51 1.2 1.10 52 1.2 1.11 52 1.2 1.10 51 1.2 1.10 52 1.2 1.10 50 1.2 1.09

13 I-680 North of Concord Av NB AM 43 1.5 1.15 41 1.5 1.05 42 1.4 1.05 42 1.4 1.05 43 1.4 1.05 41 1.5 1.04 41 1.5 1.05 42 1.4 1.05 41 1.5 1.05PM 41 1.6 1.14 28 2.2 1.02 27 2.2 1.03 28 2.2 1.03 27 2.2 1.05 28 2.1 1.03 27 2.2 1.02 27 2.2 1.03 26 2.3 1.02

14 I-680 North of SR 4 NB AM 43 1.4 1.15 41 1.6 1.06 43 1.5 1.07 43 1.5 1.06 44 1.5 1.07 43 1.5 1.06 42 1.5 1.06 44 1.5 1.06 42 1.6 1.06PM 50 1.2 1.13 39 1.6 1.03 38 1.7 1.03 39 1.7 1.03 39 1.7 1.03 39 1.7 1.03 39 1.7 1.03 39 1.7 1.03 38 1.7 1.03

15 I-680 North of SR 4 SB AM 45 1.3 1.11 40 1.6 1.01 37 1.8 1.01 36 1.8 1.01 36 1.8 1.01 37 1.7 1.01 37 1.8 1.01 36 1.8 1.01 37 1.7 1.01PM 43 1.4 1.15 38 1.7 1.02 40 1.6 1.02 40 1.6 1.02 43 1.5 1.02 40 1.6 1.02 40 1.6 1.02 41 1.6 1.02 39 1.7 1.02

16 I-680 North of Concord Av SB AM 32 2.0 1.12 22 2.7 1.02 21 2.8 1.02 24 2.5 1.03 25 2.4 1.03 23 2.7 1.02 22 2.7 1.02 24 2.5 1.03 23 2.7 1.03PM 43 1.5 1.18 38 1.6 1.11 39 1.5 1.10 40 1.5 1.09 41 1.5 1.10 39 1.5 1.10 38 1.6 1.10 38 1.6 1.09 38 1.6 1.10

17 I-680 North of Willow Pass Rd SB AM 52 1.2 1.14 43 1.4 1.04 43 1.4 1.05 45 1.3 1.05 46 1.3 1.05 44 1.4 1.05 44 1.4 1.04 45 1.3 1.05 43 1.4 1.06PM 52 1.2 1.17 52 1.2 1.06 51 1.2 1.06 51 1.2 1.07 51 1.2 1.07 51 1.2 1.06 51 1.2 1.06 51 1.2 1.07 52 1.2 1.06

18 I-680 North of SR 242 SB AM 51 1.2 1.12 33 1.8 1.04 31 1.9 1.04 35 1.7 1.04 33 1.8 1.04 35 1.7 1.05 32 1.9 1.04 34 1.8 1.04 34 1.7 1.06PM 31 1.9 1.17 24 2.5 1.06 21 2.8 1.07 21 2.9 1.08 21 2.9 1.08 22 2.8 1.07 22 2.8 1.07 21 2.8 1.07 23 2.6 1.06

19 I-680 North of Monument Blvd SB AM 45 1.5 1.13 26 2.4 1.02 26 2.3 1.01 27 2.2 1.01 26 2.3 1.01 26 2.3 1.02 25 2.4 1.01 26 2.4 1.01 26 2.3 1.02PM 46 1.4 1.18 30 2.0 1.04 26 2.3 1.02 25 2.4 1.02 24 2.5 1.02 26 2.3 1.02 27 2.2 1.03 25 2.4 1.02 29 2.1 1.03

20 I-680 South of Monument Blvd SB AM 38 1.6 1.13 28 2.2 1.04 28 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.03 28 2.1 1.03 28 2.2 1.03 28 2.1 1.03 28 2.1 1.03 29 2.1 1.04PM 37 1.6 1.17 32 1.9 1.07 28 2.1 1.05 27 2.2 1.05 27 2.2 1.05 28 2.1 1.06 29 2.1 1.07 28 2.2 1.05 31 1.9 1.07

21 SR 242 North of I-680 NB AM 60 1.0 1.14 59 1.0 1.13 56 1.1 1.13 56 1.1 1.13 57 1.1 1.13 56 1.1 1.13 57 1.0 1.14 56 1.1 1.13 58 1.0 1.14PM 52 1.2 1.15 36 1.7 1.14 37 1.6 1.12 38 1.6 1.12 36 1.6 1.09 36 1.6 1.11 38 1.6 1.11 38 1.6 1.11 37 1.6 1.12

22 SR 242 North of Willow Pass Rd NB AM 60 1.0 1.15 58 1.0 1.17 53 1.1 1.14 53 1.1 1.15 55 1.1 1.16 54 1.1 1.15 55 1.1 1.16 53 1.1 1.14 57 1.0 1.17PM 52 1.2 1.15 32 1.9 1.14 33 1.8 1.11 33 1.8 1.11 31 1.9 1.08 32 1.9 1.11 33 1.8 1.10 33 1.8 1.11 32 1.9 1.12

23 SR 242 North of Concord Av NB AM 65 1.0 1.15 54 1.1 1.18 46 1.3 1.15 45 1.3 1.15 49 1.2 1.16 46 1.3 1.16 49 1.2 1.17 44 1.4 1.15 52 1.2 1.18PM 37 1.8 1.17 15 4.0 1.15 17 3.6 1.12 16 3.8 1.13 15 3.9 1.11 16 3.7 1.12 17 3.6 1.12 17 3.6 1.13 16 3.8 1.13

24 SR 242 North of Solano Way NB AM 65 1.0 1.15 59 1.0 1.18 56 1.1 1.16 57 1.1 1.16 57 1.0 1.17 57 1.1 1.16 57 1.0 1.17 56 1.1 1.16 58 1.0 1.18PM 59 1.1 1.16 44 1.4 1.15 45 1.3 1.13 43 1.4 1.13 43 1.4 1.11 44 1.4 1.12 45 1.3 1.12 45 1.3 1.13 44 1.4 1.13

25 SR 242 North of Olivera Rd NB AM 65 1.0 1.14 59 1.0 1.18 59 1.0 1.18 59 1.0 1.18 59 1.0 1.18 59 1.0 1.18 59 1.0 1.18 58 1.0 1.17 59 1.0 1.19PM 62 1.0 1.16 49 1.2 1.15 50 1.2 1.13 48 1.2 1.13 48 1.3 1.11 49 1.2 1.12 49 1.2 1.12 49 1.2 1.13 49 1.2 1.13

26 SR 242 North of Olivera Rd SB AM 53 1.2 1.15 31 1.9 1.11 35 1.7 1.09 32 1.9 1.09 32 1.9 1.10 35 1.7 1.10 33 1.8 1.09 33 1.8 1.08 34 1.8 1.08PM 64 1.0 1.18 51 1.2 1.13 49 1.2 1.11 49 1.2 1.11 49 1.2 1.11 49 1.2 1.11 49 1.2 1.12 47 1.3 1.10 49 1.2 1.12

27 SR 242 North of Solano Way SB AM 59 1.1 1.15 45 1.3 1.11 46 1.3 1.09 45 1.3 1.09 45 1.3 1.10 46 1.3 1.09 45 1.3 1.09 45 1.3 1.09 45 1.3 1.08PM 64 1.0 1.18 57 1.1 1.13 55 1.1 1.11 54 1.1 1.11 55 1.1 1.11 55 1.1 1.11 55 1.1 1.12 52 1.2 1.10 55 1.1 1.12

28 SR 242 North of Concord Av SB AM 39 1.7 1.15 14 4.2 1.10 17 3.6 1.09 16 3.8 1.09 16 3.7 1.09 16 3.7 1.09 15 3.9 1.08 16 3.8 1.08 15 4.0 1.08PM 61 1.1 1.19 47 1.3 1.13 44 1.4 1.10 42 1.4 1.10 42 1.4 1.10 43 1.4 1.11 44 1.4 1.11 37 1.6 1.09 43 1.4 1.11

29 SR 242 North of Willow Pass Rd SB AM 48 1.2 1.15 27 2.2 1.09 30 2.0 1.07 29 2.0 1.07 30 2.0 1.08 30 2.0 1.07 30 2.0 1.07 30 2.0 1.07 28 2.1 1.07PM 59 1.0 1.19 43 1.4 1.12 40 1.5 1.09 39 1.5 1.08 40 1.5 1.09 40 1.5 1.09 42 1.4 1.11 40 1.5 1.08 42 1.4 1.11

30 SR 242 North of I-680 SB AM 30 2.0 1.14 17 3.5 1.08 20 3.1 1.07 19 3.1 1.07 20 3.0 1.08 19 3.1 1.07 20 3.0 1.07 19 3.1 1.07 19 3.2 1.06PM 52 1.2 1.18 37 1.6 1.14 30 2.0 1.10 28 2.1 1.09 27 2.2 1.09 30 2.0 1.10 33 1.8 1.12 30 2.0 1.10 35 1.7 1.13

31 SR 4 East of I-680 EB AM 63 1.0 1.11 64 1.0 1.11 63 1.0 1.09 62 1.1 1.09 60 1.1 1.08 63 1.0 1.09 63 1.0 1.10 62 1.1 1.09 64 1.0 1.12PM 32 2.0 1.17 40 1.6 1.26 39 1.6 1.28 39 1.6 1.28 40 1.6 1.29 40 1.6 1.28 40 1.6 1.29 40 1.6 1.28 40 1.6 1.27

32 SR 4 East of SR 242 EB AM 65 1.0 1.13 64 1.0 1.15 64 1.0 1.14 64 1.0 1.15 64 1.0 1.14 64 1.0 1.14 64 1.0 1.15 63 1.0 1.13 64 1.0 1.15PM 54 1.2 1.18 25 2.6 1.22 30 2.2 1.23 26 2.5 1.23 27 2.4 1.23 29 2.3 1.23 29 2.3 1.23 29 2.3 1.24 29 2.2 1.23

33 SR 4 East of Port Chicago Hwy EB AM 64 1.0 1.09 61 1.1 1.07 59 1.1 1.03 59 1.1 1.03 58 1.1 1.03 59 1.1 1.04 58 1.1 1.03 54 1.2 1.01 59 1.1 1.04PM 27 2.4 1.00 6 10.8 1.01 9 7.1 1.01 7 8.7 1.01 7 8.8 1.01 8 7.8 1.01 8 8.0 1.01 8 8.5 1.01 8 7.8 1.01

34 SR 4 East of Willow Pass Rd EB AM 65 1.0 1.07 64 1.0 1.06 62 1.1 1.04 60 1.1 1.03 60 1.1 1.04 62 1.1 1.03 60 1.1 1.04 61 1.1 1.04 62 1.1 1.06PM 49 1.3 1.02 30 2.1 1.04 24 2.7 1.02 19 3.4 1.03 20 3.2 1.02 22 3.0 1.02 23 2.9 1.03 22 2.9 1.03 27 2.4 1.03

35 SR 4 East of Willow Pass Rd WB AM 43 1.5 1.00 20 3.2 1.03 14 4.7 1.01 13 5.1 1.01 14 4.8 1.01 14 4.8 1.01 15 4.4 1.01 13 4.9 1.01 17 3.9 1.01PM 64 1.0 1.10 61 1.1 1.01 56 1.2 1.01 54 1.2 1.01 52 1.2 1.01 55 1.2 1.00 55 1.2 1.01 54 1.2 1.01 56 1.2 1.01

36 SR 4 East of Port Chicago Hwy WB AM 19 3.5 1.01 3 22.7 1.01 5 12.4 1.01 5 12.9 1.01 5 12.6 1.01 5 12.6 1.01 5 12.5 1.01 5 13.8 1.01 6 11.6 1.01PM 61 1.1 1.20 51 1.3 1.06 49 1.3 1.04 47 1.4 1.03 44 1.5 1.01 48 1.4 1.03 48 1.4 1.04 38 1.7 1.01 49 1.3 1.06

37 SR 4 East of SR 242 WB AM 58 1.1 1.19 12 5.2 1.29 16 4.0 1.34 19 3.5 1.36 19 3.4 1.34 18 3.7 1.33 17 3.8 1.35 17 3.9 1.37 18 3.6 1.38PM 65 1.0 1.19 63 1.0 1.33 62 1.1 1.35 62 1.1 1.35 59 1.1 1.32 62 1.1 1.34 62 1.0 1.36 59 1.1 1.32 63 1.0 1.36

38 SR 4 East of I-680 WB AM 34 1.9 1.19 32 2.0 1.31 32 2.0 1.31 34 1.9 1.31 34 1.9 1.31 33 2.0 1.31 34 1.9 1.31 34 1.9 1.31 34 1.9 1.31PM 61 1.1 1.17 64 1.0 1.25 61 1.1 1.25 59 1.1 1.24 57 1.1 1.22 61 1.1 1.25 62 1.1 1.26 59 1.1 1.24 63 1.0 1.27

Notes:NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound, EB = eastbound; Dir = direction; Avg = average; AVO = average vehicle occupancy

Alternative Concept 2Future - 2030Peak

Hr Alternative Concept 7Alternative Concept 3 Alternative Concept 4 Alternative Concept 5 Alternative Concept 6Existing Condition No Project Alternative Concept 1





The impacts associated with the alternative reuse concepts occur throughout the study area, but are generally most concentrated in the following locations:

• Port Chicago Highway north of Olivera Road

• Ygnacio Valley Road east of Cowell Road

• SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road

• Concord Boulevard west of Denkinger Road

• Intersections on Treat Boulevard and Ygnacio Valley Road

The relative similarity of the findings between the different alternative reuse concepts, despite a range of development programs, is the result of several factors, including:

• Background traffic congestion which limits the amount of additional traffic that can be assigned to congested links, causing traffic to reassign to alternate routes.

• Alternative reuse concepts with larger development programs tend to cover larger land areas and have more roadway infrastructure, which tends to distribute traffic impacts.

• Alternative reuse concepts with larger development programs and higher densities tend to generate less automobile travel per capita as a result of higher densities, mixed land use, and more compact development.

• Similar assumptions for roadway networks among the alternative reuse concepts.

• Changes in regional demand patterns resulting from new roadway infrastructure and redistribution of trips.

In addition, the alternative reuse concepts were developed with inherent strategies to reduce the impacts associated with additional traffic generated on the site. The alternatives vary in the application of these strategies, as well as in the overall amount and arrangement of land use on the site. Common strategies to limit traffic impacts that have been incorporated into the seven alternative reuse concepts include:

• New roadway infrastructure, including new external connections to the site.

• Transit-oriented development adjacent to the North Concord BART Station.

• Concentration of development in the northern portion of the site where more dense roadway networks are available and more external connections are possible.

• Major employment-generating land uses which, given the location of the site, generate traffic in off-peak directions for many major roadway facilities.

• A relative balance of jobs and employed residents within the site.

• Provision of public bus service within the site.

As described previously in this section, the following discussion of transportation impacts includes impacts common to all seven alternative reuse concepts (listed as C- with the specific impact number) followed by impacts of a specific alternative reuse concept (listed as Alternative Concept 1 though 7 followed by the specific impact number). Within these groupings, impacts are further categorized as:



rd CH# 2007052094

Concord Community Reuse ProjecChapter 4. Transportation

Roadway widening would mitigate the impact of the alternative reuse concepts, but widening would potentially require acquisition of property and possible displacement of existing businesses and residents. Wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

As shown in Table 4-25 as shaded cells, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in a significant impact on Concord Boulevard west of Denkinger Road during the AM peak hour.

Impact Transportation C-1: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting roadway segment operations on Concord Boulevard west of Denkinger Road during the AM peak hour. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

4.3.4.1 Common Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts – Alternative Reuse Concepts

Potentially significant transportation impacts resulting from the development of the alternative reuse concepts are presented first, followed by potentially significant cumulative impacts, and then impacts that are less than significant are presented last.

• potentially significant cumulative impacts to which the development of the alternative reuse concept(s) contribute to already deficient transportation conditions.

• potentially significant impacts resulting from the development of the alternative reuse concept(s), or

As shown in Table 4-26, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in a significant impact on the Port Chicago Highway / Olivera Road and the Bailey Road / Concord Boulevard intersections. The operations of these intersections would degrade to LOS F with the development of any of the alternative reuse concepts.

Impact Transportation C-2: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting two intersections: (a) Port Chicago Highway / Olivera Road and (b) Bailey Road / Concord Boulevard during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

4.3.4 Transportation Impacts Common (C) to all Seven Alternative Reuse Concepts

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-1: None available.

t

rd CH# 2007052094

Concord Community Reuse ProjeChapter 4. Transportation

ct


Table 4-28: Impact Summary Table

Number of impacted locations

Facility Type Common to all Alt.

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt .6 Alt. 7

Significant impact 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 Freeway segments Impact that is less than

significant 21 2 3 4 3 3 3 3

Significant impact 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freeway ramps Impact that is less than

significant 14 2 4 4 3 3 4 0

Significant impact 4 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 Roadway segments Impact that is less than

significant 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 2

Significant impact 5 3 6 12 6 5 6 4 Intersections Impact that is less than

significant 6 15 15 11 15 11 12 10

Significant impact 17 12 11 14 11 7 12 1 Traffic service objectives Impact that is less than

significant 2 4 3 3 5 8 5 7

Total significant impacts 32 17 18 31 18 15 21 6

Total less than significant impacts 27 27 29 27 30 26 27 22

See Tables 4-22 through 4-27 for specific impact locations.


.




At the intersection of Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard, protected phasing and exclusive left-turn lanes on Bailey Road were assumed as part of the 2030 “No Project" Alternative mitigation. While these improvements would reduce the impact during the AM peak hour, the intersection would still operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour due to the dramatic increase in traffic forecast for Bailey Road.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-2a: None available.

Improvements to the intersection of Port Chicago Highway and Olivera Road would require widening of Port Chicago, which is constrained by the BART tracks to the east, or widening of Olivera Road through the existing residential neighborhood. These improvements were not considered to be feasible due to disruption to the existing residential neighborhood. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-2b: The City shall require an additional through lane northbound on Bailey Road at the Bailey Road / Concord Boulevard intersection. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this potentially significant impact will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

At the intersection of Bailey Road and Concord Boulevard, the additional through lane northbound on Bailey Road would result in LOS C during the AM peak hour for all seven alternative concepts, except for Alternative Concept 3, which would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this potentially significant impact at this location during the AM peak hour will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

4.3.4.2 Common Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts – Cumulative

Impact Transportation C-3: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would increase traffic volumes on three freeway segments: SR 4 east of I-680 eastbound during the AM peak hour and westbound during the PM peak hour and SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road westbound during the AM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Tables 4-22 and 4-23, the freeway segment of SR 4 east of I-680 and east of Willow Pass Road would be at LOS F with or without the traffic from the alternative reuse concepts. For SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road westbound, the CMP standard is LOS F. However, for SR 4 east of I-680 eastbound during the AM peak hour and westbound during the PM peak hour, the development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in an increased v/c when compared to the 2030 "No Project" Alternative and would be below the LOS E standard. Therefore, this is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




Mitigation Measure Transportation C-3: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with the implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.

Peak hour operations on these freeway segments are projected to be deficient in 2030 with or without traffic from the alternative reuse concepts. Development at the site would contribute to the already deficient conditions projected to occur on the freeway segments. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation C-4: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in increased traffic affecting three freeway ramps during the peak hours at freeway ramps on SR 4. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4-24, eight freeway ramps in the vicinity of the site would operate at LOS F due to overcapacity situations either on the ramp itself or on the downstream freeway mainline in the future under 2030 "No Project" Alternative conditions. Three of these ramps—I-680 / Willow Pass Road northbound off-ramp (PM), SR 4 / Port Chicago Highway westbound on-ramp (AM and PM peak hour), and SR 4 / Willow Pass Road westbound on-ramp (AM peak hour)—already operate at LOS F under existing conditions. With the development of any of the alternative reuse concepts, the added volumes at the following three ramp locations would further contribute to LOS F conditions, which would be considered significant:

• SR 4 / Port Chicago Highway eastbound off-ramp

• SR 4 / Port Chicago Highway westbound on-ramp

• SR 4 / Willow Pass Road westbound on-ramp

The low LOS at the ramp junctions with the freeway mainline at merge and diverge locations would largely be caused by congestion on the freeway mainline.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-4: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with the implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.




Improvements to the SR 4 / Willow Pass interchange are programmed in the RTP, however the model does not include this improvement because specific project-level details have not been determined. The interchange improvements will be defined in detail once a preferred alternative concept is developed. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Improvements to the SR 4 / Port Chicago Highway will be programmed as a Vision Project in the 2009 RTP. However, the model does not include this improvement because specific project-level details have not been determined. The interchange improvements will be defined in detail once a preferred alternative concept is developed. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation C-5: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three roadway segments during the peak hours on roadways in the site vicinity. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4-25 as shaded cells, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in a significant impact on the following roadways in the site vicinity:

• Kirker Pass Road south of Myrtle Drive



Congestion along roadway segments in Concord would be attributed to regional growth in Contra Costa County and adjacent counties to the north and east. As shown in Table 4-25, at each of these locations, the LOS would be “F” under 2030 "No Project" Alternative; however, the traffic generated under any of the alternative reuse concepts would contribute to cumulative LOS F conditions.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-5: None available.

Roadway widening would mitigate the impacts of the alternative reuse concepts, but widening would potentially require acquisition of property and possible displacement of existing businesses and residents. Wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during roadway crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation C-6: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




As shown in Table 4-26, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in a significant cumulative impact on the following intersections in the site vicinity:

• Oak Road / Treat Boulevard

• Oak Grove Road / Ygnacio Valley Road

• Northbound I-680 Off ramp / Ygnacio Valley Road

At these locations, the development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would contribute to unacceptable cumulative conditions during the AM peak hour.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-6: These intersections are outside the City of Concord and no changes are currently recommended for these intersections. Therefore, these impacts will remain significant.

The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the TRANSPAC Regional Transportation Mitigation Program (RTMP) requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation C-7: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on seventeen segments of four regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The seven alternative reuse concepts would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of any of the alternative reuse concepts, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with the alternative reuse concepts is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:

• Ygnacio Valley Road east of Cowell Road - westbound

• I-680 north of Concord Avenue - southbound

• I-680 north of SR 242 - southbound

• I-680 north of Monument Boulevard - southbound

• SR 242 north of I-680 - northbound

• SR 242 north of Willow Pass Road - northbound

• SR 242 north of Concord Avenue - northbound

• SR 242 north of Solano Way - northbound




• SR 242 north of Olivera Road - northbound

• SR 242 north of Olivera Road - southbound

• SR 242 north of Solano Way - southbound

• SR 242 north of Concord Avenue - southbound

• SR 242 north of Willow Pass Road - southbound

• SR 242 north of I-680 - southbound

• SR 4 east of Port Chicago Highway - eastbound

• SR 4 East of Willow Pass Road - eastbound

• SR 4 East of Willow Pass Road - westbound

See Table 4-27 for the specific affected target(s).

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-7: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.

The Action Plan identifies planned improvements to the regional system. Additional mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 will require consultation and coordination with other TRANSPAC members, other RTPC’s and CCTA. Future traffic studies for specific development projects on the site should update the TSO impact analysis to analyze the adopted Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Therefore, this cumulative impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.4.3 Common Transportation Impacts that are Less Than Significant

Impact Transportation C-8: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting twenty-one freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-22 and 4-23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for several locations under all seven alternative concepts when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure Transportation C-8: None required.




Impact Transportation C-9: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting fourteen freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic associated with the development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would represent an increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations at these fourteen locations. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation C-10: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting four roadways during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard; however, the traffic associated with all seven alternative concepts would represent an increase in traffic when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation C-11: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting six key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, the additional traffic would represent an increase under all seven alternative concepts when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation C-12: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on two segments of one regional route that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of the alternative reuse concepts. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type for each of the alternative reuse concepts, two locations are forecasted to degrade for all seven alternative concepts when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.





Impact Transportation C-13: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would result in increased transit ridership and increased transit service. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would increase ridership on BART and County Connection bus lines. The increases in ridership at the North Concord BART Station range from 30 to 40 percent per year, depending upon the alternative. The ridership increases system wide in Central Contra Costa County are less dramatic but amount to about 4 percent per year by 2030.

Depending upon the alternative reuse concept that is developed, transit service would increase by extending existing bus lines to serve the site as well as providing new bus service to support the new development by serving the North Concord BART Station. The concentrated development at the North Concord BART Station supports transit as an alternative mode of transportation. Increased transit use reduces use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation C-14: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would provide new bicycle facilities. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would provide new bicycle facilities and support the system proposed in the Concord Trails Master Plan. Because adequate bicycle facilities would be provided on the site consistent with City standards, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation C-15: The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would increase pedestrian activity and provide new pedestrian facilities. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

The development of any of the alternative reuse concepts would increase pedestrian activity, particularly in the TOD area around the North Concord BART Station. The level of pedestrian activity would vary by alternative. The “villages” in Alternative Concepts 2, 3, and 6 would provide mixed use development with density and design to encourage walking and create a pedestrian activity node within the site. A trail along the creek in support of the Concord Trails Master Plan could provide a new facility. With the increase in transit trips, attractive and well-maintained facilities will be needed to provide pedestrian access to transit stops and the BART station. Because adequate pedestrian facilities would be provided consistent with City standards, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


4.3.5 Transportation Impacts of Alternative Concept 1

In the following seven sections, potentially significant transportation impacts resulting from the development of each alternative reuse concept are presented first, followed by




potentially significant cumulative impacts, and then impacts that are less than significant are presented last.

4.3.5.1 Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts of Alternative Concept 1

Impact Transportation 1-1: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would reduce average vehicle occupancies on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road westbound in the AM peak hour below the Action Plan TSO. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 1-1: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.


4.3.5.2 Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts of Alternative Concept 1 – Cumulative

Impact Transportation 1-2: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would increase traffic volumes on two freeway segments: southbound I-680 north of SR 242 during the AM peak hour and westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 1 would increase traffic volumes on the segment of southbound I-680 north of SR 242 during the AM peak hour and westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. These segments are projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the potential development and the increased volumes would contribute to further degradation of the freeway operations on these segments.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 1-2: The City shall require developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.




Alternative Concept 1 would contribute to the already deficient conditions projected to occur on the freeway segments. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 1-3: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would contribute to increased traffic volumes at the three intersections of Oak Grove Road and Treat Boulevard, North Main Street and Geary Road, and Bancroft Road and Treat Boulevard. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4-26, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of Alternative Concept 1 could result in a significant impact on the following intersections in the site vicinity:

• Oak Grove Road / Treat Boulevard

• North Main Street / Geary Road

• Bancroft Road / Treat Boulevard

The development of Alternative Concept 1 would contribute to the LOS F conditions at these intersections.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 1-3: None available.

At the intersection of Oak Grove Road with Treat Boulevard, widening is not feasible. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

The following affected intersections are outside of the City of Concord and are located in the City of Walnut Creek.

• North Main Street / Geary Road

• Bancroft Road / Treat Boulevard

The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 1-4: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on eleven segments of five regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




The development of Alternative Concept 1 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of Alternative Concept 1, as shown shaded in Table 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with the Alternative Concept 1 is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:

• Kirker Pass Road east of Concord Boulevard - eastbound

• Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road - eastbound

• Ygnacio Valley Road east of Cowell Road - eastbound

• Kirker Pass Road east of Concord Boulevard - westbound

• I-680 south of Monument Boulevard - northbound

• I-680 north of Monument Boulevard - northbound

• I-680 north of Concord Avenue - northbound

• I-680 south of Monument Boulevard - southbound

• SR 4 east of I-680 - eastbound

• SR 4 east of SR 242 - eastbound

• SR 4 east of Port Chicago Highway - westbound







4.3.5.3 Transportation Impacts of Alternative Concept 1 that are Less Than Significant

Impact Transportation 1-5: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting two freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-22 and 4-23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for one location under Alternative Concept 1 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 1-5: None required.

Impact Transportation 1-6: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting two freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic associated with the development of Alternative Concept 1 would represent an increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 1-7: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting four roadway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, traffic at several locations would represent an increase under Alternative Concept 1 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volumes. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, the impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 1-8: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting fifteen key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these fifteen intersections would represent an increase under Alternative Concept 1 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, the impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 1-9: The development of Alternative Concept 1 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on four segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan




TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 1. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, four locations are forecasted to degrade for Alternative Concept 1 when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.




Impact Transportation 2-1: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would increase traffic volumes at the intersection of Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

The impact at Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive is considered significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 2 would degrade the intersection to LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours.


At Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive, providing a third through lane northbound would reduce the impact to LOS E during AM and PM peak hours, but this would require widening Port Chicago Highway to accommodate an additional through lane. Port Chicago Highway is constrained by the BART tracks to the east and wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 2-2: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would reduce average vehicle occupancies on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road westbound in the AM below the Action Plan TSO. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 2-2: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the




finance plan is implemented. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.



Impact Transportation 2-3: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would increase traffic volumes on one freeway segment: westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 2 would increase traffic volumes on the segment of westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This segment is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development.


Peak hour operations on this freeway segment are projected to be deficient in 2030 with or without traffic from Alternative Concept 2. Alternative Concept 2 will contribute to the already deficient conditions projected to occur on the freeway segments. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 2-4: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would increase traffic volumes at five intersections. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 4-26 as shaded cells, the additional traffic and change in travel patterns associated with implementation of Alternative Concept 3 would result in a significant impact on the following intersections in the site vicinity:

• Oak Grove Road and Treat Boulevard

• Walnut Boulevard and Ygnacio Valley Road

• North Main Street and Geary Road

• Bancroft Road and Treat Boulevard




• North Main Street and Sunnyvale Avenue/SB I-680 Ramps

The development of Alternative Concept 2 would contribute to LOS F conditions at these intersections.


At the intersection of Oak Grove Road with Treat Boulevard, widening is not feasible. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

The following affected intersections are outside of the City of Concord and are located in the City of Walnut Creek:





The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 2-5: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on ten segments of five regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 2 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with the development of Alternative Concept 2, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with the alternative reuse concepts is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:













• SR 4 east of I-680 - westbound

See Table 4-27 for the specific affected target(s). This impact is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




Impact Transportation 2-6: The development Alternative Concept 2 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-22 and -23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for several locations under Alternative Concept 2 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 2-7: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting four freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic associated with the development of Alternative Concept 2 would represent an increase in volume when compared to the 2030




“No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant



As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard; however, traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 2 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. Because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.



As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these fifteen intersections would represent an increase under Alternative Concept 2 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 2-10: The development of Alternative Concept 2 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on three segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 2. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-27 by bold type for Alternative Concept 2, three locations are forecasted to degrade for Alternative Concept 2 when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.




Impact Transportation 3-1: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting two roadway segments: Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road and Willow Pass Road north of Landana Drive during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.




The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road and Willow Pass Road north of Landana Drive during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 4-25, on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road the LOS would degrade from LOS D under the 2030 "No Project" Alternative to LOS F, with traffic under Alternative Concept 3.


Roadway widening would mitigate the impacts of Alternative Concept 3, but widening would potentially require acquisition of property and possible displacement of existing businesses and residents. Wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 3-2: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes at five intersections. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.


• Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive

• West Street and Concord Boulevard

• Denkinger Road and Concord Boulevard

• Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard

• Bancroft Road and Ygnacio Valley Road

The impacts at these intersections are considered potentially significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 3 would degrade the intersection to below the acceptable LOS standard.


Roadway widening at the intersections of Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive; West Street and Concord Boulevard; and Denkinger Road and Concord Boulevard would be needed to accommodate an additional through lane of traffic to accommodate the forecasted volumes. Port Chicago Highway is constrained by the BART tracks to the east. Additionally, wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion,




and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

At Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard, provide protected phasing for Clayton Road and widen northbound Clayton to two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. This would reduce the impact to LOS F (1.13) during the PM peak hour. This impact would still be considered significant and unavoidable in the PM peak hours.

The following affected intersection is outside of the Concord and located in the City of Walnut Creek.

• Bancroft Road and Ygnacio Valley Road

No changes are recommended for this intersection. The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impact at this location will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 3-3: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would reduce average vehicle occupancies on three segments of two regional routes below the Action Plan TSOs; Clayton Road east of Treat Boulevard southbound in the AM peak hour, Clayton Road east of Treat Boulevard northbound in the PM peak hour, and Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road westbound in the PM peak hour. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.




Impact Transportation 3-4: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes on one freeway segment: westbound SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road




during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes on the segment of westbound SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road during the PM peak hour. The segment of SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road during the AM peak hour is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the development of Alternative Concept 3. The increased volumes on westbound SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road during the PM peak hour would result in LOS F on this segment.


Peak hour operations on this freeway segment are projected to be deficient in 2030 with or without traffic from Alternative Concept 3. Traffic from Alternative Concept 3 will contribute to the already deficient conditions projected to occur on the freeway segments. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 3-5: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes on the two roadway segments listed below in the site vicinity. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

• Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard

• Willow Pass Road east of Farm Bureau Road

These segments are projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The additional traffic from Alternative Concept 3 would contribute to further degrade the LOS F on these segments.






Impact Transportation 3-6: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would increase traffic volumes at seven intersections. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.



• Commerce Avenue – SR242 Southbound ramps and Concord Avenue


• North Main Street and Geary Boulevard


• Buskirk Avenue–NB I-680 off ramp and Treat Boulevard


The impacts at these intersections are considered significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 3 would further degrade the intersection LOS F.


Roadway widening at the intersections of Commerce Avenue – SR 242 southbound ramps and Concord Avenue; Oak Grove Road and Treat Boulevard; and Buskirk Avenue–NB I-680 off ramp and Treat Boulevard would be needed to accommodate an additional through lane of traffic to accommodate the forecasted volumes. Widening is not feasible. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.



• North Main Street and Geary Boulevard



The intersection of Oak Grove Road and Ygnacio Valley Road is used to meter traffic coming into Walnut Creek in the morning. The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.




No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 3-7: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on eleven segments of five regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 3 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of Alternative Concept 3, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with the Alternative Concept 3 is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:










• SR 4 east of SR 242 - westbound




The Action Plan identifies planned improvements to the regional system. Additional mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 will require consultation and coordination with other TRANSPAC members, other RTPC’s and CCTA. Future traffic studies for specific development projects on the site




should update the TSO impact analysis to analyze the adopted Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. Therefore, this cumulative impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.


Impact Transportation 3-8: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting four freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-22 and 4-23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for several locations under Alternative Concept 3 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.



As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic with the development of Alternative Concept 3 represents an increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. This impact is, therefore, considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 3-10: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting five roadway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard; however, traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 3 when compared to the 2030 "No Project" Alternative. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 3-11: The development of Alternative Concept 3 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting eleven intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these eleven intersections represents an increase under Alternative Concept 3 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.





Impact Transportation 3-12: The development of any of Alternative Concept 3 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on three segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 3. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, three locations are forecasted to degrade for all seven alternative concepts when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.




Impact Transportation 4-1: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would increase traffic volumes at two intersections. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.



• Market Street and Clayton Road

The impacts at these intersections are considered potentially significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 4 would degrade the intersections to LOS F.


Roadway widening at the intersections of Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive and at Market Street and Clayton Road would be needed to accommodate an additional through lane of traffic to accommodate the forecasted volumes. Port Chicago Highway is constrained by the BART tracks to the east. Additionally, wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.




Impact Transportation 4-2: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would reduce westbound average vehicle occupancies on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road in the PM peak hour below the Action Plan TSO. This impact is considered to be a potentially significant.




Impact Transportation 4-3: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would increase traffic volumes on westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 4 would increase traffic volumes on the segment of westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This segment is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The additional trips associated with Alternative Concept 4 would contribute to further degrade the LOS F on this segment.






Impact Transportation 4-4: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would increase traffic volumes at four intersections. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.






The impacts at these intersections are considered potentially significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 4 would further degrade the intersection LOS F.


At the intersection of Oak Grove Road / Treat Boulevard widening is not feasible. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

The remaining affected intersections are outside of the City of Concord and are located in the City of Walnut Creek. The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 4-5: The development of any of Alternative Concept 4 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on ten segments of five regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 4 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of Alternative Concept 4, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with Alternative Concept 4 is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:


















Impact Transportation 4-6: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.






Impact Transportation 4-7: The development of Alternative Concept 4 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic with the development of Alternative Concept 4 represents an increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. This impact is, therefore, considered less than significant.



As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard, however traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 4 when compared to the 2030 "No Project" Alternative. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.



As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these fifteen intersections would increase under Alternative Concept 4 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 4-10: The development of any of Alternative Concept 4 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on five segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 4. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, five locations are forecasted to degrade for Alternative Concept 4 when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.











The impacts at these intersections are considered significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 5 would degrade the intersection to LOS F.




Impact Transportation 5-2: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase traffic volumes on two freeway segments: southbound I-680 north of SR 242 during the AM peak hour and westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase traffic volumes on the segments of southbound I-680 north of SR 242 during the AM peak hour and westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. These segments are projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The increased volumes would contribute to further degradation of the freeway operations on these segments.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 5-2: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct




planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. The calculation of fair share contribution shall be included in the finance plan that will be prepared once a preferred Reuse Plan is selected. No development will occur until the finance plan is implemented. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.


Impact Transportation 5-3: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase traffic volumes on Willow Pass Road east of Farm Bureau Road during the AM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase traffic volumes on Willow Pass Road east of Farm Bureau Road during the AM peak hour. With the development and changes in travel patterns associated with Alternative Concept 5, the LOS would degrade to LOS F on Willow Pass Road east of Farm Bureau Road during the AM peak hour, which is considered significant.



Impact Transportation 5-4: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase traffic volumes at three intersections. This impact is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




• North Main Street and Sunnyvale Avenue – Southbound I-680 ramps







The remaining affected intersections are outside of the City of Concord and are located in the City of Walnut Creek. The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 5-5: The development of any of Alternative Concept 5 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on seven segments of four regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 5 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of Alternative Concept 5, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with Alternative Concept 5 is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:


















Impact Transportation 5-7: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic with the development of Alternative Concept 5 would increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. This impact is, therefore, considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 5-8: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting one roadway segment during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard, however traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 5 when compared to the 2030 "No Project" Alternative. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.





Impact Transportation 5-9: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting eleven key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these twelve intersections would increase under Alternative Concept 5 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 5-10: The development of Alternative Concept 5 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on eight segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 5. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type for Alternative Concept 5, eight locations are forecasted to degrade for all seven alternative concepts when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions; however, the standard is not exceeded in these locations. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.




Impact Transportation 6-1: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting Willow Pass Road north of Landana Drive during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.









• West Street and Concord Boulevard

The impact at these intersections is considered significant since the additional traffic and change in travel patterns from Alternative Concept 6 would degrade the intersection to below the acceptable LOS standard.


Roadway widening at the intersections of Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive and at West Street and Concord Boulevard would be needed to accommodate an additional through lane of traffic to accommodate the forecasted volumes. Port Chicago Highway is constrained by the BART tracks to the east. Additionally, wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. No other mitigation measures have been identified. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 6-3: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would reduce average vehicle occupancies on Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road westbound in the AM below the Action Plan TSO. This impact is considered to be potentially significant impact.


The Action Plan identifies planned improvements to the regional system. Additional mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements included in the assumptions listed in Section 4.3.2 will require consultation and coordination with other TRANSPAC members, other RTPC’s and CCTA. Future traffic studies for specific development projects on the site should update the TSO impact analysis to analyze the adopted Central County Action Plan




for Routes of Regional Significance. Therefore, this cumulative impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.


Impact Transportation 6-4: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would increase traffic volumes on westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 6 would increase traffic volumes on the segment of westbound SR 4 east of SR 242 during the PM peak hour. This segment is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The increased volumes contribute to further degrade the LOS F on this segment.


Peak hour operations on this freeway segment are projected to be deficient in 2030 with or without traffic from Alternative Concept 6. Alternative Concept 6 will contribute to the already deficient conditions projected to occur on the freeway segments.

No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the above listed planned improvements that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this will remain a potential impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 6-5: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would increase traffic volumes on Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The increased volumes with Alternative Concept 6 would further degrade the LOS F on these segments.


Roadway widening would mitigate the impacts of Alternative Concept 6, but widening would potentially require acquisition of property and possible displacement of existing businesses and residents. Wider roads in residential neighborhoods and in urban locations would encourage the use of automobile travel and discourage walking by increasing exposure of pedestrians during crossings. Widening roadways in Concord therefore would conflict with policies in the General Plan. TDM programs, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit promotion, carpool promotion, and parking management, that promote the use of alternative transportation modes will reduce the use of automobiles, thus lessening traffic. The effect of such programs is not able to be modeled; however, the City will monitor this




intersection periodically and will develop updated traffic volume forecasts as development occurs in the future. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation 6-6: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would increase traffic volumes at four intersections. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




• N. Main Street and Geary Road







• N. Main Street and Geary Road


The intersection of Oak Grove Road and Ygnacio Valley Road is used to meter traffic coming into Walnut Creek in the morning. The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 6-7: The development of any of Alternative Concept 6 would contribute to low average speeds, delays, and / or low average vehicle occupancies on eleven segments of five regional routes that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.




The development of Alternative Concept 6 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. Several freeway and roadway segments would not meet the target speeds, delay index, and / or the vehicle occupancy target under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with the development of Alternative Concept 6, as shown shaded in Tables 4-27. At most locations, the change in congested speeds with the alternative reuse concepts is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. The following locations would be affected:













Mitigation Measure Transportation 6-7: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the above listed planned improvements that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this will remain a potential impact that is considered to be significant. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.







As indicated on Tables 4-22 and 4-23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for several locations under Alternative Concept 6 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.



As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic with the development of Alternative Concept 6 would increase in volume when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. This impact is, therefore, considered less than significant.


Impact Transportation 6-10: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting three roadway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard, however traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 6 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 6-11: The development of Alternative Concept 6 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting twelve key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type traffic at these thirteen intersections would increase under Alternative Concept 6 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 6-12: The development of any of Alternative Concept 6 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on five segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the




Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 6. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, five locations are forecasted to degrade for Alternative Concept 6 when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.















Impact Transportation 7-2: The development of Alternative Concept 7 would increase traffic volumes on Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard during the AM and PM peak hours. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 7 would increase traffic volumes on Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard during AM and PM peak hours. This segment is projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with or without the proposed development. The additional traffic would further degrade the LOS F on this segment.



Impact Transportation 7-3: The development of Alternative Concept 7 would increase traffic volumes at two intersections. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.






The following affected intersections are outside of the City of Concord and are located in the City of Walnut Creek:



The City of Concord will coordinate with the impacted jurisdiction(s) on the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the RTMP requirements of the Central County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. No changes are currently recommended




for this intersection. Therefore, the impacts at these locations will remain a potential cumulative impact that is considered to be significant.

Impact Transportation 7-4: The development of Alternative Concept 7 would contribute to low average speeds and delays on I-680 north of Concord Avenue northbound in the PM peak hour that would already be below the Action Plan TSOs under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

The development of Alternative Concept 7 would affect speeds on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. I-680 north of Concord Avenue northbound in the PM peak hour would not meet the target speed and delay index under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would further degrade with development of Alternative Concept 7, as shown shaded in Table 4-27. The change in congested speed with Alternative Concept 7 is minimal and would be imperceptible when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions.

Mitigation Measure Transportation 7-4: The City shall require future developers at the site to contribute a fair share of the cost to construct planned improvements on the adjacent freeway system as determined in coordination with Caltrans and the CCTA. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified beyond the above listed planned improvements that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this will remain a potential impact that is considered to be significant. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact will remain significant.









Impact Transportation 7-6: The development of Alternative Concept 7 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting two roadway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard, however traffic would increase under Alternative Concept 7 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative condition. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 7-7: The development of Alternative Concept 7 would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting ten key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these ten intersections would increase under Alternative Concept 7 when compared to the 2030 “No Project” Alternative volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation 7-8: The development of any of Alternative Concept 7 would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on seven segments of regional routes that are not below the Action Plans under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of Alternative Concept 7. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, seven locations are forecasted to degrade for Alternative Concept 7 when compared to 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions. Because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.


4.3.12 Transportation Impacts of the 2030 “No Project” (NP) Alternative

4.3.12.1 Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative

Impact Transportation NP-1: The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would result in congestion on thirteen freeway segments in the site vicinity. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Several freeway segments would operate below the LOS standard under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions:


• I-680 north of SR 242 - northbound









• SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road - westbound

• SR 4 east of I-680 – westbound


• SR 4 east of Arnold Industrial Way - eastbound

• SR 4 east of Arnold Industrial Way - westbound


Several segments would operate at LOS F. However, the CMP standard is LOS F for several segments in the vicinity. Under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions, the growth in future traffic volumes on the freeways is due in part to regional growth to the east of Concord.

Mitigation Measure Transportation NP-1: None available.

No mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements have been identified that would reduce the freeway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation NP-2: The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would result in congestion on eight freeway ramps. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Eight freeway ramps in the vicinity would operate at LOS F due to overcapacity situations, either on the ramp itself or on the downstream freeway mainline in the future under 2030 "No Project" Alternative conditions:

• I-680 Willow Pass Road northbound off-ramp

• SR 242 Clayton Road northbound off-ramp

• SR 4 Port Chicago Highway eastbound off-ramp

• SR 4 Port Chicago Highway eastbound on-ramp

• SR 4 Willow Pass Road eastbound off-ramp

• SR 4 Port Chicago Highway westbound on-ramp

• SR 4 Port Chicago Highway westbound off-ramp

• SR 4 Willow Pass Road westbound on-ramp




Three of these ramps—I-680 Willow Pass Road northbound off-ramp (PM), SR 4 Port Chicago Highway westbound on-ramp (AM and PM), and SR 4 Willow Pass Road westbound on-ramp (AM)—already operate at LOS F under existing conditions.


No mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements have been identified that would reduce the freeway ramp impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation NP-3: The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would increase traffic volumes on five roadway segment operations in the site vicinity. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would increase traffic volumes on the following roadway segments:

• Kirker Pass Road south of Myrtle Drive


• Bailey Road east of Concord Boulevard


• Willow Pass Road east of Farm Bureau Road

These segments are projected to operate at LOS F under 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions.


No mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements have been identified that would reduce the roadway impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation NP-4: The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would increase traffic volumes at twelve key intersection operations. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would result in unacceptable operations at the following intersections:

• Farm Bureau Road and Willow Pass Road


• Oak Road and Treat Boulevard

• Oak Grove Road and Ygnacio Valley Road

• Commerce Avenue-SR 242 SB ramps and Concord Avenue


• Ayers Road and Ygnacio Valley Road






• Buskirk Avenue – NB I-680 off ramp and Treat Boulevard


• NB I-680 off-ramp and Ygnacio Valley Road

The impacts at these intersections are considered potentially significant since the traffic and change in travel patterns with 2030 “No Project” Alternative conditions would degrade the intersection to below acceptable standards.


No mitigation measures beyond the planned improvements have been identified that would reduce the intersection impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Transportation NP-5: The development of the 2030 "No Project" Alternative would result in 35 segments where average speeds, delays, and / or average vehicle occupancies on three regional routes that are below the Action Plan TSOs. This potential impact is considered to be significant.

The 2030 "No Project" Alternative would affect speeds, delays, and average vehicle occupancies on the regional routes by contributing traffic on congested corridors. In 2030, the peak hour speeds, delay index, and / or average vehicle occupancies on the following freeway segments would be below the TSO:





• Treat Boulevard east of Oak Grove Road - westbound

• Ygnacio Valley Road east of Cowell Road - westbound

• Clayton Road east of Treat Boulevard – southbound




• I-680 north of Monument Boulevard - southbound



• I-680 north of Willow Pass Road - northbound

• I-680 north of Willow Pass Road - southbound





• I-680 north of Concord Avenue - southbound




• SR 242 north of I-680 - southbound

• SR 242 north of Willow Pass Road - northbound

• SR 242 north of Willow Pass Road - southbound

• SR 242 north of Concord Avenue - northbound

• SR 242 north of Concord Avenue - southbound

• SR 242 north of Solano Way - northbound

• SR 242 north of Solano Way - southbound

• SR 242 north of Olivera Road - northbound

• SR 242 north of Olivera Road - southbound




• SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road - westbound

• SR 4 east of Willow Pass Road - eastbound




The 2030 “No Project” Alternative is consistent with the land use assumptions used to evaluate the adopted Action Plan and hence no additional impacts to the TSOs are identified beyond those assumed in the modeling performed to assess TSO performance in the adopted Action Plan. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

4.3.12.2 Transportation Impacts of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative that are Less Than Significant

Impact Transportation NP-6: The development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting eleven freeway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.




As indicated in Tables 4-22 and 4-23 by bold type, an increase in peak hour volumes is forecasted for several locations under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative when compared to the existing conditions during either or both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure Transportation NP-6: None required.

Impact Transportation NP-7: The development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting fifteen freeway ramps during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-24 by bold type, traffic with the development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would increase in volume when compared to the existing conditions. However, the additional traffic would not result in unacceptable ramp operations. This impact is, therefore, considered less than significant.


Impact Transportation NP-8: The development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting ten roadway segments during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-25 by bold type, several roadway locations are forecasted to operate above the applicable standard, however traffic would increase under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative when compared to the existing conditions. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation NP-9: The development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would result in additional traffic and change in travel patterns affecting 32 key intersections during the peak hours. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

As indicated in Table 4-26 by bold type, traffic at these 32 intersections would increase under the 2030 “No Project” Alternative when compared to the existing conditions volume. However, because the increase does not exceed the significance threshold, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


Impact Transportation NP-10: The development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative would result in lower average speeds, increased delays, and / or lower average vehicle occupancies on one segment of a regional route that is not below the Action Plan TSOs under existing conditions and would remain above the Action Plan TSOs with the development of the 2030 “No Project” Alternative. This impact is considered to be less than significant.




As indicated in Tables 4-27 by bold type, one location is forecasted to degrade for the 2030 “No Project” Alternative when compared to existing conditions. However, because the standard of significance will not be exceeded, this impact is considered less than significant.


4.4 References

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2005.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1970. Available online at: www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/.

Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 2006. Available online at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm. September.

City of Concord. 2007. City of Concord 2030 Urban Area General Plan.

Concord Trails Master Plan, which was adopted in 2002.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 1988. Measure C (1988) Transportation Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program, Pleasant Hill, California. November.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2004. 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Traffic Service Objective Monitoring Report, Contra Costa County, California. December.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2006. Technical Procedures Update: Final, Contra Costa County, California. July.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2007. 2007 Update: Contra Costa Congestion Management Program, Contra Costa County, California. November.

DKS Associates, 2008. Draft: East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, Contra Costa County, California. April.

Highway Capacity Manual. 2000. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Florida Department of Transportation Generalized Level of Service Tables. 2002. Available online at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/tables-051707.pdf.

State of California Department of Transportation. 2002. CalTrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Sacramento, California. December.

TRANSPAC. 2000. Central Contra Costa Adopted Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, Contra Costa County, California. July.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth Website: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/index.htm.

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No date. Census Transportation Planning Package 2000.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/tables-051707.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/index.htm

Date post:	08-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngominh
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

4 Transportaion - concordnws.com · These standards are described in Section 4.2.1. The . ......

Documents