Final Report for: I-580 Interregional Multi-Modal Corridor Study

IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO

Submitted by: Prepared For: Dowling Associates, Inc. San Joaquin Transportation Engineering Planning Research Education Council of Governments 428 J Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 266-2190 x 304 Fax: (916) 266-2195 www.dowlinginc.com Contact: Jim Damkowitch

In Association with:

August 12, 2011

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I...... I-1 Interregional Transportation Demand Management ...... i-2 Interregional Transit...... i-2 Interregional Goods Movement...... i-3 Policy Considerations ...... i-5 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 Interregional Transportation Partnership (ITP) ...... 1-1 I-580 Multi-Modal Interregional Corridor Study...... 1-1 Analysis Approach...... 1-3 Analysis Years ...... 1-5 County Level of Analysis ...... 1-5 Unit of Analysis (Segmentation)...... 1-5 Existing Conditions ...... 1-5 Travel Demand Forecasts ...... 1-8 Tools...... 1-8 Procedures ...... 1-8 Corridor Freight Trucks Forecast: Truck Traffic Volumes...... 1-10 Report Organization...... 1-11 CHAPTER 2 : TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ...... 2-1 Approach ...... 2-1 Background...... 2-1 What is TDM? ...... 2-1 Why TDM?...... 2-1 Potential TDM Strategies...... 2-2 Limitations to Implementing TDM ...... 2-4 Existing Conditions for TDM...... 2-5 Regulations...... 2-5 Traveler Information...... 2-7 Advisory Committee...... 2-8 Case Studies ...... 2-9 Interregional TDM Scenarios ...... 2-12 SJVAPCD e-TRIP (Rule 9410) and Commuter Benefits Ordinances (CBOs)...... 2-12 TDM: California Environmental Quality Act Condition of Approval ...... 2-14 Parking Pricing...... 2-14 TDM Affected Employees Forecasts ...... 2-15 TDM Scenario 1...... 2-17 TDM Scenario 2...... 2-19 TDM Scenario 3...... 2-21 TRIMMS TDM Toolbox ...... 2-23 Work Trip Characteristics...... 2-24 Interregional Trip Reduction Analysis ...... 2-28 Trip Reduction Analysis Results ...... 2-28 iv

Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 1 ...... 2-28 Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 2 ...... 2-30 Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 3 ...... 2-32 Interregional TDM I-580 Trip Reduction Results ...... 2-36 I-580 Freeway Operational Performance Analysis...... 2-39 HOV Lanes ...... 2-39 Truck Climbing Lanes ...... 2-39 Auxiliary Lanes ...... 2-39 I-580 Operational Results ...... 2-40 I-580 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Analysis...... 2-46 GHG Components ...... 2-46 Composite Emission Rates...... 2-47 On-Road Mobile Source Activity Data ...... 2-47 GHG Analysis Results ...... 2-55 CHAPTER 3 : GOODS MOVEMENT ...... 3-1 Approach ...... 3-1 Interregional Goods Movement Objectives ...... 3-1 Existing Conditions ...... 3-2 Alternative Routing Comparisons ...... 3-2 Interregional Goods Movement: Future I-580 TRUCK Demand ...... 3-8 2011 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ...... 3-8 American Trucking Associations (ATA) 2021 Forecast ...... 3-11 Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Container Trade Forecast 2009...... 3-13 Growth Rate Comparison ...... 3-13 Truck Volume Growth Rates...... 3-15 Truck Volume Growth by Segment...... 3-18 Comparison with Alameda CTC Truck Model...... 3-18 Short- and Long-Term Goods MOvement Projects...... 3-23 Information Sources...... 3-23 Highway Truck Projects ...... 3-24 Rail Projects...... 3-26 Marine Projects...... 3-29 Long/Short Term Projects...... 3-29 Demand Reduction Analysis...... 3-30 Interregional Truck Reduction Benefits...... 3-33 Operational Results ...... 3-34 Interregional Goods Movement Findings ...... 3-39 CHAPTER 4 : INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL BENEFITS...... 4-1 Approach ...... 4-1 Background...... 4-1 Interregional Transit Improvements ...... 4-1 Interregional Transit Benefits ...... 4-3 Summary of Interregional Multi-modal Benefits ...... 4-5

v

Policy Considerations ...... 4-8

Technical Appendix (provided under separate cover)

APPENDIX A TRIMMS 2.0 TDM Trip Reduction Analysis Results

APPENDIX B Freeway Operational Analysis Results

APPENDIX C EMFAC/BURDEN GHG Analysis Results

vi

List of Tables Table 1-1: Comparison of I-580 Baseline PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 1-7 Table 1-2: Comparison of I-580 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2009 vs. 2006)...... 1-7 Table 1-3: Peak-Hour Traffic Conditions (Average Approach) ...... 1-12 Table 1-4: Peak-Hour Traffic Conditions (Maximum Approach) ...... 1-13 Table 1-5: Percentage Contributions by County for 2020 (AM/PM Peak Period)...... 1-14 Table 1-6: Percentage Contributions by County for 2035 (AM/PM Peak Period)...... 1-14 Table 1-7: Percentage Contributions by Trip Purpose (AM/PM Peak Period)...... 1-15 Table 2-1: Comparison of Strategies and Objectives ...... 2-2 Table 2-2: Bishop Ranch Estimated Commute Mode Share ...... 2-10 Table 2-3: Employee Commute Mode - Hacienda Business Park Compared to City at Large...... 2-11 Table 2-4: EDD’s Employment Data for 2009...... 2-13 Table 2-5: Employment Data Projections ...... 2-13 Table 2-6: Summary for Employer Base TDM Scenarios...... 2-16 Table 2-7: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (e-TRIP and CBO#1) for Scenario 1 ...... 2-18 Table 2-8: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (COA) for Scenario 1...... 2-18 Table 2-9: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (e-TRIP and CBO#2) for Scenario 2 ...... 2-20 Table 2-10: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (COA) for Scenario 2...... 2-20 Table 2-11: Summary for Affected Number of Employees for Scenario 3...... 2-22 Table 2-12: Parking Pricing Scenarios...... 2-22 Table 2-13: Mode Share for Work Trips by County ...... 2-24 Table 2-14: Auto Mode Share for Work Trips by County...... 2-25 Table 2-15: Type and Percent of Carpool by County...... 2-25 Table 2-16: County-to-County Home Base Work Trip Matrix for I-580 Corridor...... 2-26 Table 2-17: County-to-County Average Trip Length (mi.) for I-580 Corridor ...... 2-26 Table 2-18: Average Commute Trip Cost ...... 2-27 Table 2-19: Percent of Work Trips during Peak Period ...... 2-27 Table 2-20: Metropolitan Statistical Areas Representing the Analysis County...... 2-28 Table 2-21: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 1) ...... 2-29 Table 2-22: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 1 ...... 2-29 Table 2-23: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 2) ...... 2-31 Table 2-24: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 2 ...... 2-31 Table 2-25: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 3.1) ...... 2-33 Table 2-26: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 3.1 ...... 2-33 Table 2-27: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 3.2) ...... 2-35 Table 2-28: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 3.2 ...... 2-35 Table 2-30: Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria...... 2-40 Table 2-31: Freeway LOS Results for 2010 East Bound...... 2-41 Table 2-32: Freeway LOS Results for 2010 West Bound...... 2-41 Table 2-33: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 East Bound AM Peak ...... 2-42 Table 2-34: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 East Bound PM Peak ...... 2-42 Table 2-35: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 West Bound AM Peak ...... 2-43 Table 2-36: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 West Bound PM Peak ...... 2-43 Table 2-37: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 East Bound AM Peak ...... 2-44 Table 2-38: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 East Bound PM Peak ...... 2-44 Table 2-39: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 West Bound AM Peak ...... 2-45 Table 2-40: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 West Bound PM Peak ...... 2-45 Table 2-41: VMT Estimate for Baseline Scenario...... 2-48 Table 2-42: VMT Estimate for 2020 Baseline and TDM Scenarios ...... 2-48 Table 2-43: VMT Estimate for 2035 Baseline and TDM Scenarios ...... 2-49 Table 2-45: VMT Estimate by Speed Class for 2035 Baseline and TDM Scenarios ...... 2-51 Table 2-46: Weighted Average Trip Length Estimate for I-580/205 Corridor for 2020 ...... 2-51 Table 2-47: Weighted Average Trip Length Estimate for I-580/205 Corridor for 2035 ...... 2-52 vii

Table 2-48: Average Vehicle Trips Estimate during Peak Periods ...... 2-53 Table 2-49: GHG Analysis Results Summary for 2020...... 2-56 Table 2-50: GHG Analysis Results Summary for 2035...... 2-58 Table 3-2: Impact of Speed Differential on I-580/I-80 Travel Times ...... 3-4 Table 3-3: SJCOG Employment Projections...... 3-9 Table 3-4: SJCOG Population Projections...... 3-9 Table 3-5: Employment by Industry – San Joaquin Valley Compared to State ...... 3-10 Table 3-6: Regional Employment Projections...... 3-11 Table 3-7: ATA Truck Volume Forecast – For-Hire and Private Motor Carriers ...... 3-12 Table 3-8: ATA 2021 Rail Forecast...... 3-12 Table 3-9: BCDC SF Bay/ Port of Oakland Container Forecast ...... 3-13 Table 3-10: Growth Factors for Domestic Goods Movement...... 3-15 Table 3-11: Weighted Average Truck Traffic Growth Factors...... 3-18 Table 3-12: Forecast Truck Volumes - Average Approach...... 3-19 Table 3-13: Forecast Truck Volumes - Maximum Approach...... 3-20 Table 3-14: Forecast AM/PM Directional Peak Hour Percent of 3+ Axle Truck on I-580 ...... 3-22 Table 3-15: Forecast AM/PM Directional Peak Hour Percent of 3+ Axle Truck on I-580 (both directions)...... 3-22 Table 3-16: Projects and Truck Trip Impacts...... 3-32 Table 3-17: I-580 Peak Hour Truck Reduction Estimates...... 3-33 Table 3-18: Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria...... 3-34 Table 3-19: LOS Results - 2020 Eastbound AM Peak-Hour...... 3-35 Table 3-20: LOS Results - 2020 Eastbound PM Peak-Hour...... 3-35 Table 3-21: LOS Results - 2020 Westbound AM Peak-Hour...... 3-36 Table 3-22: LOS Results - 2020 Westbound PM Peak-Hour...... 3-36 Table 3-23: LOS Results - 2035 Eastbound AM Peak-Hour...... 3-37 Table 3-24: LOS Results - 2035 Eastbound PM Peak-Hour...... 3-37 Table 3-25: LOS Results - 2035 Westbound AM Peak-Hour...... 3-38 Table 3-26: LOS Results - 2035 Westbound PM Peak-Hour...... 3-38 Table 4-1: TRIMMS Percent Change in Mode Split...... 4-4 Table 4-2: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Eastbound AM Peak Hour...... 4-6 Table 4-3: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Westbound AM Peak Hour...... 4-6 Table 4-4: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Eastbound PM Peak Hour...... 4-6 Table 4-5: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Westbound PM Peak Hour...... 4-7

viii

List of Figures Figure i-1: Multi-Modal Peak Hour Trip Reductions...... i-4 Figure i-2: I-580 Peak Direction Percent of Lane Miles Projected to Experience Unstable Flow Conditions (2035 Baseline vs. Combined Interregional Multi-Modal Scenarios)...... i-4 Figure 1-1: Location Maps of Regions and Altamont Pass Corridor...... 1-2 Figure 1-2: Trip Component Considered in TDM Analysis ...... 1-3 Figure 1-3: Detailed Analysis Work Plan and Inputs / Outputs...... 1-4 Figure 1-4: Interregional Multimodal Corridor Segmentation...... 1-6 Figure 1-5: 2020 AM Peak Period Trip Share by County...... 1-16 Figure 1-6: 2020 PM Peak Period Trip Share by County...... 1-16 Figure 1-7: 2035 AM Peak Period Trip Share by County...... 1-17 Figure 1-8: 2035 PM Peak Period Trip Share by County...... 1-17 Figure 1-9: 2020 AM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose ...... 1-18 Figure 1-10: 2020 PM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose ...... 1-18 Figure 1-11: 2035 AM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose ...... 1-19 Figure 1-12: 2035 PM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose ...... 1-19 Figure 2-1: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 1 ...... 2-17 Figure 2-2: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 2 ...... 2-19 Figure 2-3: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 3 ...... 2-21 Figure 2-4: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 1 ...... 2-30 Figure 2-5: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 2 ...... 2-32 Figure 2-6: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 3.1 ...... 2-34 Figure 2-7: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 3.2 ...... 2-36 Figure 2-8: 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction...... 2-37 Figure 2-9: 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction...... 2-37 Figure 2-10: 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction...... 2-38 Figure 2-11: 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction...... 2-38 Figure 2-12: VMT by Speed Class Distribution...... 2-50 Figure 2-13: TDM Daily VMT Reduction Summary...... 2-53 Figure 2-14: TDM Daily Trip Reduction Summary...... 2-54 Figure 2-15: TDM Daily Fuel Consumption Reduction Summary...... 2-54 Figure 2-16: TDM Daily GHG Reduction Summary...... 2-59 Figure 2-17: TDM Annual GHG Reduction Summary...... 2-59 Figure 3-1: I-580/ I-205 Corridor and Alternatives ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2: I-80 vs. I-580/ I-205 Corridors - Interstate Trip ...... 3-3 Figure 3-3: I-580/ I-205 vs. SR-4 & Delta Routes - Lodi Export to Port of Oakland...... 3-4 Figure 3-4: I-580 vs. SR-152 Corridors – San Joaquin Valley Trip...... 3-5 Figure 3-5: I-580 vs. SR-152 Corridors – Southern California Trips...... 3-6 Figure 3-6: SR-4 “Gap” ...... 3-7 Figure 3-7: Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates – Factors for Truck Volumes...... 3-14 Figure 3-8: 1999 Average Daily Traffic and Truck Totals ...... 3-16 Figure 3-9: Estimated Port Truck Traffic Volumes...... 3-17 Figure 3-10: I-580 AM Truck Forecast Comparison (Growth Factor vs. Alameda CTC Model) ...... 3-21 Figure 3-11: I-580 PM Truck Forecast Comparison (Growth Factor vs. Alameda CTC Model) ...... 3-21 Figure 3-12: Portion of I-580 Corridor Rail Routes ...... 3-27 Figure 4-1: Interregional Multi-Modal Peak Hour Trip Reductions...... 4-5 Figure 4-2: I-580 Peak Direction Percent of Lane Miles Projected to Experience Unstable Flow Conditions (2035 Baseline vs. Combined Interregional Multi-Modal Scenarios)...... 4-7

ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS

The following is a list of acronyms used throughout this report.

Acronym Description ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACE Altamont Commuter Express ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission ATA American Trucking Association BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe (railroad) BTWD Bike to Work Day Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIRIS California Inter-Regional Intermodal Service CSMP Corridor System Management Plan EDD Employment Development Department EMFAC EMission FACtors (model) GHG Greenhouse Gas HCS Highway Capacity Software HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle I-# Interstate ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITP Interregional Transportation Partnership LTL Less-Than-Truckload MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program PCE Passenger Car Equivalencies PeMS Performance Measurement Systems (Caltrans data) ROW Right Of Way RTP Regional Transportation Plan

x

Acronym Description SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SIP State Implementation Plan SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SP Southern Pacific (railroad) SR-# State Route STAA Surface Transportation Assistance Act StanCOG Stanislaus Council of Governments STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund TCM Transportation Control Measure TDM Transportation Demand Management TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Units TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TRIMMS Trip Reduction Impacts of Mobility Management Strategies (software) UPRR Union Pacific Railroad VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled WP Western Pacific (railroad)

xi

Executive Summary: i

BACKGROUND The imbalance between affordable homes in the Central Valley and a thriving job market in the San Francisco Bay Area provides a recipe for a geographically protracted commuter shed, and consequently, the need for long distance commuting. Concurrently, the movement of freight between the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area - specifically between the ports of Oakland and Stockton - is governed to a large degree by transport and intermodal terminal/transfer costs which heavily favor the use of trucks for transporting freight. This relationship and economic dependency between these two diverse regions has and will continue to strain the I-580 corridor that links them. In recognition of the importance of the I-580 corridor, Caltrans developed the I-580 Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans, May 2010). The CSMP focused on the supply side of the existing and projected congestion problem by identifying future capacity needs of the corridor. In 2010, the San Joaquin Council of Governments secured a Caltrans Interregional Transportation Partnership grant to analyze various measures that aim to improve the productivity and efficient utilization of corridor transportation facilities by commuters and commercial trucking. This I-580 Multi-Modal Interregional Corridor Study analyzes the contribution to I-580 traffic from the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus and how multi-modal strategies applied in these counties can help preserve and improve the operational integrity of the Interstate-580/ Interstate-205 Altamont Pass. Among the many options for improving corridor productivity, this study focused on Employer Based Demand Management, Parking Pricing, Goods Movement, and Regional Transit, which are considered to be among the most cost effective strategies for improving productivity in this corridor. It is important to note that aspects of these scenarios should be considered “what if” scenarios and should not be construed as regulatory requirements or planning mandates. Descriptions of these strategies, how they were applied, and analysis findings are discussed below and in greater detail in the chapters that follow. None of the strategies analyzed in this study are new. What is unique is the assessment of potential benefits of interregional cooperation in implementing the strategies. Recognizing that more can be accomplished working inter- regionally than each region working on its’ own, the study findings can serve to support development of local and regional agency multi-modal action plans and/or policy formation. At a minimum, technical information from this study that can be considered to supplement future updates to the I-580 CSMP. INTERREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP (ITP) Given the need for greater regional transportation and land use planning coordination among the regional planning agencies with jurisdiction over the I-580 corridor, the Interregional Transportation Partnership (ITP) was formed. The ITP is an ad-hoc group of regional planning agencies in the Bay Area and Central Valley committed to interregional transportation planning. The ITP participating agencies include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). These participating agencies provided technical support, data, and guidance during the development of this study.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page i‐1 Executive Summary August 2011

ANALYSIS STRUCTURE

This interregional multi-modal corridor analysis examines the individual and combined effect of the following three multi-modal strategies to increase the efficiency of the I-580/I-205 corridor:

1. Enhanced employer based interregional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs; 2. Implementation of programmed/planned short- and long-term interregional goods movement strategies; and, 3. Enhanced interregional transit services.

Future implementation assumptions of each of these interregional multi-modal strategies and how they were analyzed is described below. Analysis results including operational and air quality benefits are also summarized followed by policy considerations that support the study findings. Interregional Transportation Demand Management Several plausible interregional TDM scenarios (1, 2, 3.1, and, 3.2) were developed based on empirical case studies of existing TDM programs, existing and potential employer based TDM programs, and transportation pricing mechanisms. Each scenario was developed based on varying degrees of implementation assumed for the following regional TDM initiatives: TDM Scenarios TDM Initiatives 1 2 3.1 3.2 1) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District eTRIP Rule1     2) Bay Area Implementation of Commuter Benefit Ordinances2   3) TDM Programs/Strategies as a CEQA Condition of Approval     4) Bay Area Parking Pricing  

Future year vehicle trip and vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction benefits were calculated using the TRIMMS software package on TDM Initiatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. TRIMMS software includes a built-in database for travel behavior and socioeconomic data by region throughout the United States and includes specific adjustments for a number of metropolitan areas. TRIMMS allows an assessment of employer based TDM benefits including benefits from pricing/cost incentives as well as TDM support activities (referred to as support or “soft” programs). Interregional Transit To avoid double counting regional trip reduction benefits, only the significant regional transit improvements that go beyond the provision of future system capacity to accommodate population growth and the projected mode shifts resulting from the aforementioned TDM scenario analysis were addressed. The analysis of regional transit benefits was limited to the following three passenger rail infrastructure improvements: 1) High Speed Rail spur connecting the Cities of Stockton and San Jose; 2) ACE rail enhancements; and 3) the BART extension to Livermore with

1 The eTRIP Rule (Rule 9410), Employer Based Trip Reduction), was adopted by the District Governing Board on December 17, 2009. The eTRIP Rule requires larger employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) to encourage employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. 2 TDM Initiative based on proposed SB 582, Yee. Commute benefit policies. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0551- 0600/sb_582_bill_20110715_enrolled.pdf

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page i‐2 Executive Summary August 2011

connecting stations either at Vasco or Livermore. All other I-580 applicable regional transit improvements were assumed to accommodate new demand resulting from: 1) projected population and employment growth; and, 2) projected mode shifts from private vehicles to regional transit as a result of the TDM scenarios described above. Interregional Goods Movement Future freight truck volume projections were developed for 2020 and 2035. Short- and long-term goods movement strategies were identified that evaluated their potential to reduce truck traffic on the I-580/I-205 corridor. Only those goods movement strategies or improvements that have transportation federal/state/regional planning/programming traction or strong likelihood of implementation were considered.

RESULTS The TDM trip reduction benefits were first analyzed at the county level specifically targeting the employee market share and the portion of home-based work market trips that utilize the I-580/I-205 corridor. The regional trip and VMT reduction benefits were then synthesized down to a facility-specific corridor scale appropriate for analysis of I-580/I- 205 freeway operations. Freeway level of service was analyzed under future year 2020 and 2035 conditions based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. On-road mobile source greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions were estimated using the California Air Resources regional emissions model EMFAC2007/BURDEN. Results indicate that employer based TDM strategies (TDM Scenarios 1 and 2) can reduce region-wide commute trips by up to 13 percent. This translates to an overall volume reduction of up to 3 percent specifically on the I-580 (results vary slightly by I-580 segment). By supplementing employer based TDM strategies in the Central Valley with parking pricing in the San Francisco Bay Area (TDM Scenarios 3.1 and 3.2), region-wide commute trips can be reduced by up to 17 percent. This translates to an overall volume reduction of up to 6 percent specifically on the I- 580 (results vary slightly by I-580 segment). Results also indicate that by 2035 employer based TDM strategies (TDM Scenarios 1 and 2) can reduce on a daily basis approximately 8,000 vehicle trips, 200,000 vehicle miles of travel, 95 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and save 10,000 gallons of fuel consumption. If parking pricing in the San Francisco Bay Area is included (TDM Scenarios 3.1 and 3.2), approximately 13,000 vehicle trips, 310,000 vehicle miles of travel, 155 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and saving of 15,000 gallons of fuel consumption is projected to occur on the I-580 on a daily basis. Based on all currently programmed/planned highway, rail, or marine infrastructure improvements including plausible economic shifts of freight transport economics, the anticipated reduction of large trucks on the I-580/ I-205 corridor is projected to be limited. The following are the findings of the short- and long-term goods movement strategies:  In the short term, the new marine highway service to/from the Port of Stockton is the only project that can reduce demand for truck freight in the corridor. In the long term, projects involving short haul rail intermodal service have the greatest potential to divert heavy duty truck trips off of I-580.  A truck climbing lanes are expected to improve LOS of I-580 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Flynn Road in both directions for the 2020 analysis year. By 2035 – the operational benefits of removing truck traffic from the mixed flow lanes will not be sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service in the mixed flow lanes.  The estimated goods movement truck reductions from both short- and long-term improvement strategies will not be sufficient in of themselves to exact a noticeable operational improvement on the I-580.  Construction of passenger rail that is separated from freight rail lines would provide benefits to both passenger rail and long-haul freight rail both in terms of system capacity and reducing schedule conflicts between passenger and freight rail. However, given that most freight that moves by rail along the Altamont Pass corridor is long-haul, a significant reduction in short-haul truck freight between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley on the I-580 is not anticipated.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page i‐3 Executive Summary August 2011

Assuming the combined effect of the following services by 2035 1) High Speed Rail spur connecting the Cities of Stockton and San Jose; 2) ACE rail enhancements; and 3) the BART extension to Livermore with connecting stations either at Vasco or Livermore, regional transit improvements are collectively estimated to result in diversion of approximately 700 new peak hour riders who would otherwise be driving on the I-580.

INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL BENEFITS Combining all peak hour trip reduction estimates from interregional TDM programs, goods movement and interregional transit yields the AM/PM peak hour trip reduction estimates shown in Figure i-1. These combined multi- modal operational benefits to the I-580/I-205 corridor were analyzed based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The operational benefit to the I-580 can be best expressed by the percent reduction of lane miles projected to experience unstable flow conditions. Unstable flow (i.e., stop and go) conditions on controlled access mixed flow freeway lanes occur when vehicle densities exceed 45 passenger cars per lane per mile. As shown in Figure i-2, the combined interregional multi-modal effect of TDM, goods movement and regional transit is projected to reduce the number of lane miles experiencing unstable flow conditions in the peak directions of travel by almost half relative to the future 2035 baseline conditions. Figure i-1: Multi-Modal Peak Hour Trip Reductions

Figure i-2: I-580 Peak Direction Percent of Lane Miles Projected to Experience Unstable Flow Conditions (2035 Baseline vs. Combined Interregional Multi-Modal Scenarios)

*Peak direction of travel is westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound in the PM peak hour. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page i‐4 Executive Summary August 2011

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Based on the study findings, the following supporting policy directives are provided as examples for future consideration by local and regional agencies within the I-580/I-205 corridor. They are intended for policy direction only and can used or modified as applicable during normal updates to local general plan circulation elements and regional transportation and air quality plans.

TDM & Air Quality  Support TDM Programs as a CEQA mitigation or as a condition of approval for large developments, such as business parks, office parks, multi-tenant office buildings, and single large employers.  Support implementation of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s e-TRIP (Rule 9410).  Support local, regional, and statewide commute benefit ordinance initiatives.  Support greater coordination with and between regional transportation and air quality planning agencies in the development of commute benefit ordinances.  Support employer based pricing incentives as a potential employee benefit.  Support implementation of parking pricing where feasible.  Develop a toolbox of interregional TDM strategies with guidelines for small, medium, and large employers.  Continue supporting regional traveler information websites (511, 511 Contra Costa, and Commute Connections) and enhance services, where possible.

Regional Transit  Support development of the BART extension to Livermore with ACE/HSR connections at either Vasco or downtown Livermore station locations.  Support enhancements to ACE passenger rail right-of-way over the Altamont Pass.  Support the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, which will connect the City of Stockton to the City of San Jose and serve as passenger rail feeder service to the future California High Speed Rail Project.  Support the expansion and enhancement of regional transit services.

Freeway System Planning  Support sponsoring and programming state and federal discretionary transportation funds to implement capacity and transportation system management improvements identified in the I-580 CSMP.

Goods Movement  Support projects/programs that improve the efficiencies of short-haul rail between the Port of Oakland and the Port of Stockton.  Support projects that serve to develop or enhance short-haul intermodal service in San Joaquin Valley.  Support intermodal container manufacturing in Northern San Joaquin County.  Support, where applicable, upgrades to sections of the State Route system (SR-12/ SR-160/ SR-4/ SR-242/ SR-24) and I-880 between the San Joaquin Valley and the Port of Oakland to STAA Standards.  Renew support for sponsoring and programming state and federal discretionary transportation funds to provide truck climbing lanes and exclusive truck right-of-way, where feasible, on I-580.  Consider supporting dredging operations to facilitate larger container ship services between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Port of Stockton.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page i‐5 Executive Summary August 2011

Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION

In May 2010, the California Department of Transportation (i.e., Caltrans) developed the I-580 Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP). The I-580 CSMP focused on the “supply side” of the congestion problem and identified existing and future operational and capacity needs in the corridor. As an adjunct to the I-580 CSMP, this study examines the “demand side” of the I-580 congestion problem. Various measures that aim to reduce travel demand by commuters and commercial trucking in the corridor were analyzed for their operational and air quality benefits. Study findings and policy directives are presented for consideration by local and regional agencies during future general plan and regional transportation plan updates respectively. For purposes of this study, I-580 Altamont Pass roadway corridor is defined as beginning in Alameda County at the juncture of I-238 and I-880 on the west end of the corridor traversing east on the I-580 and terminating at the juncture of the I-580 and I-205 system interchange in San Joaquin County. This study of potential multi-modal and goods movement benefits on the Altamont Pass roadway corridor is the result of an effort by the Interregional Transportation Partnership. INTERREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP (ITP) Given the growing imbalance of San Francisco Bay Area high paying jobs and affordable housing supply in San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties, vehicle commuter traffic on Altamont Pass roadways has greatly increased over the years. Between 1990 and 2000, daily work-related travel between these two regions increased at a rate of 5% per year. Between the years 2000 and 2006, overall daily traffic on the Altamont Pass increased from 117,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) to 152,000 AADT, an annual rate of 4.5%3. Of the total AADT, approximately 9% are truck traffic. Much of this truck traffic transports freight and/or intermodal containers for transporting freight between the Port of Oakland and the Port of Stockton. Given that the I-580/I-205 corridor serves as the most direct route between these two commercial ports – competition for limited roadway capacity between private and heavy duty commercial vehicles occurs daily. With this increase in traffic, there are undesirable consequences of long commutes, high infrastructure costs, increased emissions of health-based criteria pollutants, and increased climate-based greenhouse gas emissions. In recognition of these issues and need for greater regional transportation and land use planning coordination among the regional planning agencies served by the I-580 corridor, the Interregional Transportation Partnership (ITP) was formed. The ITP is an ad-hoc group of regional planning agencies in the Bay Area and Central Valley committed to interregional transportation planning. The ITP participating agencies include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). I-580 MULTI-MODAL INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR STUDY This I-580 Multi-Modal Interregional Corridor Study is funded through an ITP Grant to Caltrans and is administered on behalf of the ITP by the San Joaquin Council of Governments. On behalf of the ITP, SJCOG led an effort to perform a variety of academic and technical exercises to develop and analyze multi-modal strategies that aim to preserve and improve the operational integrity of the Interstate-580/Interstate-205 Altamont Pass and the regions that

3 The annual average growth rate of traffic on the I-580 is 2.5% between 1992 and 2009. This latter rate reflects the 2007 housing bubble collapse and recession. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐1 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

rely on this corridor from both the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. This examination of a combination of multi-modal strategies was focused specifically on facilitating future development of TDM Action Plans and Goods Movement Projects among ITP regional agencies and ITP member agencies. The Altamont Pass Corridor and the studied counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus) are shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1: Location Maps of Regions and Altamont Pass Corridor

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐2 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

ANALYSIS APPROACH This section details the technical approach and analysis framework to estimate vehicle trip and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction benefits anticipated from regional employer-based TDM strategies and short- and long-term truck freight reduction strategies and infrastructure improvements. The resulting freeway operating conditions and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction benefits were quantified. Various measures of cost effectiveness were examined to allow easy and direct input into discretionary funding call-for-project applications. Results were examined in conjunction with proposed transportation and land use activities of the Interregional Transportation Partnership (ITP) member regional agencies. A range of policy directives and/or next-steps aimed at facilitating greater planning or institutional coordination relating to TDM activities and goods movement were developed. The technical analysis and forecast elements that provided existing and future year conditions along the I-580/ I-205 corridor involved the following steps:  Travel demand forecast (including goods movement)  TDM market share analysis  TDM trip reduction analysis  Short- and long-term goods movement strategies  Corridor operation analysis  Greenhouse gas reduction analysis Travel forecasts were used to estimate future year traffic operations and goods movement activities. A corridor operation analysis was performed for existing and future conditions using available data and forecast traffic. To indicate changes of travel behavior associated with TDM strategies a trip reduction analysis was performed using a socioeconomics model TRIMMS 2.0 developed for the Federal Highway Administration. The TRIMMS trip reductions results provided inputs to the 2000 Highway Capacity Software and the EMFAC2007/BURDEN regional emissions model developed by the California Air Resources Board. These software packages were used to determine the freeway operational benefits and associated on-road mobile source greenhouse gas emission reductions respectively. Figure 1-2 illustrates the trip component that is the focus of the trip reduction analysis. Depending on the assumed TDM strategy, the home-base-work trip must be deconstructed based on worksite characteristics such as existing or new worksites and a size of worksites. Figure 1-3 provides an input/output flow chart of the analysis approach that includes travel demand, TDM trip reduction, and goods movement analyses.

Figure 1-2: Trip Component Considered in TDM Analysis

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐3 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Figure 1-3: Detailed Analysis Work Plan and Inputs / Outputs

Trip Share Analysis TDM Impacts Analysis CIP Impacts Analysis

I‐580/205 Corridor Employment TDM Strategies List of Improvement Segments / Frieght Projects: ‐ Programmed Optional when these ‐ Planned Travel Demand Model TRIMMS project types are identified TDM/TSM Projects Trip Reduction by County Analysis: Impact Analaysis ‐ Select link Select zone

Impacts of each TDM/TSM Project

Summary Tables

Deficient Trip Share on I-580/205 (%) Impact on Truck Demand (Yes or No) CIP Projects Segments County 1 County 2 County 3 County 4 County 5 County 6 County 7 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6 … Segment 1 Project 1 Segment 2 Project 2 Segment 3 Project 3 Segment 4 Project 4 Segment 5 Project 5 Segment 6 Trip Share by CountyProject 6 Truck Frieght Impacts Segment 7 Project 7 Segment 8 Project 8 … …

Deficient Trip Share on I-580/205 (%) Deficient Impact on I-580/205 (based on Market Share) Segments HBW HBS HBO OBW OBO … … Segments Segment 1 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 5 Segment 6 Trip Share by Trip Purpose Segment 6 TDM Impacts Segment 7 Segment 7 Segment 8 Segment 8 … …

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Analysis Years The following two forecast analysis years were analyzed: 2020 (near-term); and, 2035 (long-term). These analysis years were selected given that they match the SB-375 GHG target milestone years. County Level of Analysis The primary analysis counties include: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. These counties can be grouped as: San Francisco Bay Area counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa); and, Central Valley counties (San Joaquin and Stanislaus). Unit of Analysis (Segmentation) The I-580/I-205/I-238 corridor encompasses approximately 32 miles of freeway traversing through Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. It begins at I-205 on the east (Post mile 0.00-0.447), continues on I-580 (Post mile 0.092-30.80) and terminates to I-238 (Post mile 14.7-16.2) on the west. Given the varying geometrical features and travel conditions associated with the study corridor, the entire study area was divided into ten (10) sections. These sections are consistent with the I-580 CSMP study. Each segment is defined below and illustrated in Figure 1-4.  Section I. I-205 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Patterson Pass Road (Post mile 0.213 – 0.447)  Section A. I-580 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Flynn Road (Post mile 0.39 – 5.98)  Section B. I-580 from North Flynn Road to Vasco Road (Post mile 5.98 – 9.68)  Section C. I-580 from Vasco Road to Isabel Interchange – new SR 84 (Post mile 9.68 – 14.2)  Section D. I-580 from Isabel Interchange – new SR 84 to I-680/Foothill Road (Post mile 14.2 – 21.43)  Section E. I-580 from I-680/Foothill Road to Dublin Grade Summit (Post mile 21.43 – 23.72)  Section F. I-580 from Dublin Grade Summit to Central Street (Post mile 23.72 – 28.75)  Section G. I-580 from Central Street to Junction I-580/I-238 (Post mile 28.75 – 30.80)  Section H. I-238 from I-580 to I-880 (Post mile 14.70 – 16.70) Critical locations within each section or sub-section were identified for traffic operations evaluation. Within each section or sub-section, a critical location was identified based on capacity (i.e. number of mixed-flow lanes, presence of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, etc.) relative to traffic volume. The critical location represents the most representative traffic conditions along the particular section or sub-section. Existing Conditions Peak hour traffic volumes were developed to perform existing conditions operations analysis. These volumes were also used to adjust forecast results based on NCHRP Report 255, 1982. The following data sources were used to establish 2010 baseline conditions on I-580/I-205/I-238:  Performance Measurement Systems (PeMS): October 2010 data were downloaded and compared with the PeMS network flow information. The AM period time is defined as the maximum one hour over a period between 7:30 and 9:30 AM and the PM is defined between 4:30 and 6:30 PM. Since the PeMS data represents true baseline conditions within the peak period, it was used whenever available.  Caltrans: In absence of PeMS data, 2010 peak hour volumes were developed from Caltrans published ADT volumes, K factor and D factor information. This method is limited to segment A and H along I-580 corridor.  Traffic Counts: For segment I (I-205 corridor), actual traffic counts were obtained from SJCOG. These counts were collected in May 2010.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐5 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Figure 1-4: Interregional Multimodal Corridor Segmentation

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐6 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

These data sources were used to yield the 2010 I-580 AM/PM peak hour baseline traffic volumes. To gauge the reasonableness of the baseline estimates, traffic volumes were compared to the I-580/I-205/I-238 peak hour traffic volumes published by Caltrans. Volumes were averaged across post mile locations within each analysis segment to provide valid comparisons. Based on the comparison, the 2010 baseline peak hour volumes on average were approximately 6 percent lower than the Caltrans published 2006 traffic volumes and 5 percent lower than the published 2009 peak hour volumes (Table 1-1). Published annual average daily traffic volume data from Caltrans indicates an 8 percent drop in I-580 annual average daily traffic and peak hour traffic volumes published by Caltrans between 2006 and 2009 (Table 1-2). The downward trend in traffic growth experienced on the I-580 is a reflection of the recession and post housing market bubble collapse in 2007. Based on the continuing recession through 2010, the slightly lower baseline volumes were considered reasonable. Table 1-1: Comparison of I-580 Baseline PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Post Mile PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Study Section Freeway From To 2010 Baseline Caltans 2009 Caltrans 2006 I I-205 0.213 0.447 6,795 8,100 7,900 A I-580 0.39 5.98 9,572 9,300 10,200 B I-580 5.98 9.68 9,689 10,050 11,450 C I-580 9.68 14.2 10,265 11,375 12,200 D I-580 14.2 21.43 11,077 12,900 11,250 E I-580 21.43 23.72 12,169 13,100 12,400 F I-580 23.72 28.75 12,543 12,900 12,350 G I-580 28.75 30.8 12,283 13,000 12,850 H I-238 14.7 16.2 7,936 7,700 6,550 Average 10,259 10,936 10,794

Table 1-2: Comparison of I-580 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2009 vs. 2006) Post Mile Average Daily Traffic Volumes Study Section Freeway From To Caltans 2009 Caltrans 2006 I I-205 0.213 0.447 112,000 112,000 A I-580 0.39 5.98 101,500 114,000 B I-580 5.98 9.68 133,500 169,500 C I-580 9.68 14.2 165,500 182,600 D I-580 14.2 21.43 183,500 196,500 E I-580 21.43 23.72 176,000 177,000 F I-580 23.72 28.75 169,000 175,500 G I-580 28.75 30.8 171,000 182,000 H I-238 14.7 16.2 124,000 131,000 Average 148,444 160,011

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐7 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS This section details tools and procedures used to develop traffic volume forecasts and TDM market shares. Tools The following describes the travel demand models used to help develop traffic volume forecasts. San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Travel Demand Model The most recently updated travel demand model developed by SJCOG was used. This study also used SJCOG’s master network files (which includes inputs for land use and programmed/planned network improvements for years 2020 and 2035) and loaded network files (2010, 2020 and 2035 which denote baseline, near-term and long-term analysis years, respectively). Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Travel Demand & Truck Model The most recent travel demand model and commercial truck module developed by the Alameda CTC was used, which was last updated in January 2010. The Alameda CTC model includes 2005, 2015 and 2035 forecasts. In order to reflect a 2010 baseline, the Alameda CTC model results for 2005 and 2015 were interpolated. Similarly, raw model volumes for 2015 and 2035 were interpolated to estimate near-term (2020) forecasts. Additionally, utilization of HOV lanes was provided by the Alameda CTC model. The Alameda CTC truck model consists of the first two steps of traditional four step model. It estimates truck trip generation by type based on socio-economic data and then creates an origin-destination table using a gravity model. The truck OD table is then assigned to the highway network based on traditional multi-class equilibrium assignment. Mode choice (rail versus truck versus air) is performed at the trip generation stage, and as such, is not sensitive to forecasted highway congestion. Trip distribution and route choice are sensitive to congestion in this model in that network congestion will affect OD travel times and the routes chosen during equilibrium assignment. The 2010 updated truck model trip tables provide future year intra- and interregional truck flows. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Travel Demand & Truck Model The traffic projections developed using the SJCOG and Alameda CTC models were compared for consistency with the most recently updated travel demand model forecasts developed by MTC. The MTC model provides both peak period and peak hour forecasts for 2020 and 2035. Peak hour forecasts for both analysis years were deemed reasonably consistent. Per MTC’s guidance, analysis of commercial truck projections were deferred to the Alameda CTC model (described above). Procedures The following procedures were performed to develop the traffic volume forecasts:  NCHRP-255 Post Processing Adjustments  Select Link Analysis How these procedures were applied is described on the following pages.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐8 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Post-Processing Adjustments To address for systematic modeling error specific in each model, post-processing adjustments were performed. The recommended procedure is based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, published in 1982. NCHRP-255 adjustments entail measuring the difference between the baseline volume forecasts and traffic counts to adjust model forecasts. The generalized formula for NCHRP-255 adjustment is:

Vfa = Vbc – Vbm + Vfm Where:

Vfa is Future year adjusted link traffic volumes

Vbc is Base year link traffic count volumes (Year 2010 in this case)

Vbm is Base year link traffic model volumes (Year 2010 in this case)

Vfm is Future year link traffic model volumes This process was performed for near-term and long-term analysis years for both Alameda CTC and SJCOG models. Differences between the two models were reconciled by averaging link volumes. This process established unified volume sets for the near-term and long-term analyses. These traffic projections were found to be generally consistent with the most recently updated travel demand model forecasts developed by MTC. Table 1-3 provides unified volume sets for three analysis years using “average volumes” approach. It reports the average traffic volume of all sub-segments within the pre-determined segment. Table 1-4 provides the unified volume sets for three analysis years using “maximum volumes” approach. It shows highest traffic volumes recorded within the pre-determined segment. Table 1-3 and Table 1-4 also present utilization of the HOV lane, as provided by the Alameda CTC model. Select Link (Market Share) Analysis Employer-based TDM programs specifically aim to provide commuters incentives for using alternative forms of transportation to work or options to driving alone. Given that the structure and level of application of these programs will likely vary by jurisdiction, a key element to accurately estimating the trip reduction benefits of employer based TDM programs is to isolate the amount of travel demand projected to use the I-580/I-205 corridor by county as well as by trip type i.e., home based work trips. The latter market share information was developed using the regional travel demand models previously described. Select link analyses are specifically pertinent to accurately determining the market share of trips that are potentially affected by employer-based TDM programs within those counties that contribute trips on the I-580/ I-205 corridor. Select link analyses were performed for both the AM peak period and the PM peak periods and the results presented are consistent with the I-580/ I-205 CSMP corridor segmentation described earlier. For both the SJCOG and Alameda CTC models, scripts were developed to group peak period origin and destination (OD) matrices by county of interest i.e., San Joaquin, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus. All other counties represented within either model (including external boundary conditions which can represent trip generation from as far as out of state) were grouped as “Other”. Select link analysis was used to track trip assignment to identify the trip origin and destination by county for all trips utilizing the I-580/I-205 corridor. This information was used to yield the trip contribution by county as a percentage of total trips traveling each segment of the I-580/I-205 corridor for each model. County shares sum up to 1 (i.e., 100%) for each corridor segment.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐9 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Select link analysis was also performed to track trip assignment to identify the trip purpose for all trips utilizing the I- 580/I-205 corridor. This information yielded the trip contribution by trip purpose as a percentage of total trips traveling each I-580/I-205 corridor segment for each model. All trip purpose contributions must sum up to 1 (i.e., 100%) for each corridor segment. Since 2020 is not an analysis year in the Alameda CTC model, the 2015 model was used as a surrogate for 2020. Given that the desired model output information is expressed as percentages (i.e., percent of trips by origin and trip type), it was reasonable to assume that the 2015 model output would approximate those for 2020. The SJCOG model and the Alameda CTC model are presumed to be more accurate for the area that they were calibrated/validated to, namely: SJCOG model for San Joaquin County and the Alameda CTC model for Alameda County. Given the over-lap between the respective modeling domains i.e., each model includes portions of the other, results from both models were merged. Two ways of merging the results were examined. One approach was to average the respective model results across all I-580/I-205 corridor study segments; another was to average only those I-580/I-205 corridor segments that “bridge” the counties. It was determined that simply averaging both model results yielded the most reasonable and stable results. These select link results were used to determine the TDM market share of trips that are potentially affected by employer-based TDM programs. Results were generated for both the AM and PM peak periods consistent with the I- 580/I-205 CSMP corridor segmentation. These results are presented in Table 1-5 through Table 1-7 and graphically shown in Figure 1-5 through Figure 1-12. As shown in the tables and figures, the percent contribution by county varies by analysis segment with San Joaquin County contributing the most trips on the east end of the corridor (Segment I) and Alameda County the west end (Segment H). On average the greatest percentage of AM and PM peak period trips on the I-580/I-205 in 2020 and 2035 are from Alameda County followed by San Joaquin County and Contra Costa County. The percent of Home Based Work (HBW) trips is significant in the AM/PM peak periods ranging from 63 percent to 85 percent of total traffic depending on analysis segment and peak period. Corridor Freight Trucks Forecast: Truck Traffic Volumes The growth of truck traffic in the I-580/I-205 corridor will be driven by a handful of major factors:  Increased demand for goods movement to and from the SJCOG region, which is primarily a function of population growth and economic development.  Overall demand for goods movement within the nation, the state, and the region.  Specific growth of containerized trade through the Port of Oakland. Projected growth rates for each of these factors were derived from available forecasts. Population and employment forecasts were based on the MTC and SJCOG most recently approved regional growth forecasts. These are documented in the respective MPO regional transportation plans. For overall demand for goods movement within the corridor, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) commission annual freight transportation forecasts for both the truck and rail sectors was used. Given that growth of containerized international trade through the Port of Oakland will be a major driver of truck traffic in the I-580/I-205 corridor and of rail intermodal traffic on adjacent rail routes, andof potential barge traffic between Oakland and the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento, cargo forecasts from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) were used. These forecasts were developed by applying long-term trade growth rates developed by IHS Global Insights to recent Port of Oakland actual loaded TEU counts, and then forecasting empties as a percentage of loaded movements. Based on these various sources, future baseline growth rates for truck traffic in the I-580/I-205 corridor were developed for 2020 and 2035. As a reasonableness check, the growth rates were compared with the Alameda CTC truck model forecasts along the I-580/I-205 corridor. The future baseline I-580/I-205 corridor truck traffic volume projections were then used to determine the percent of heavy duty trucks relative to AM/PM peak hour volumes for I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐10 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

2020 and 2035. The latter is a requisite input for converting trucks to passenger car equivalencies in order to determine operational performance for freeways. Reasonably anticipated short and long-term highway, rail and marine infrastructure improvements that could have an impact on reducing truck freight in the I-580 corridor were identified by reviewing relevant goods movement projects and proposals as well as regional programming/planning documents. There are relatively few projects and proposals aimed strictly at goods movement. Truck climbing lanes, barge services, and new rail facilities or services are among the prominent examples. System capacity additions of all kinds, however, tend to affect the movement of goods as well as passengers, even if the main objective, such as reducing congestion during commute hours, is passenger- focused. The identified future improvements/ programs were used to determine the incremental operational benefits attributable to truck freight activity reductions along the I-580/I-205 corridor. REPORT ORGANIZATION The remainder of this report is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 2 (Travel Demand Management) – describes travel demand management (TDM) and how TDM is currently implemented in the study area. Four future TDM scenarios are developed and analyzed for trip and VMT reduction benefits. These benefits are then translated into operational and air quality benefits within the I-580/I-205 corridor under future year 2020 and 2035 conditions. Chapter 3 (Goods Movement) – describes relevant goods movement projects and proposals and describes the impact each has on reducing truck volumes in the corridor. Chapter 4 (Multi-Modal Benefits and Policy Considerations) – describes regional transit improvements and estimates the combined multi-modal trip reduction benefit of TDM, goods movement strategies and regional transit improvements is estimated and translated into operational benefits under 2035 conditions. It also presents various policy considerations that can support the realization of the multi-modal benefits described this and previous report chapters. Technical Appendix (Provided under separate cover) – provides all TRIMMS, HCS, and EMFAC2007/BURDEN analysis inputs and worksheets.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐11 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Table 1-3: Peak-Hour Traffic Conditions (Average Approach) Traffic Volumes HOV Lane Utilization % Study Post Mile 2010 2020 2035 2010 2020 2035 Section Freeway

From ToDirection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 1,807 4,453 2,791 5,589 3,404 7,002 I WB 4,255 2,342 5,732 3,333 7,170 3,629 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 1,325 6,372 2,379 8,045 3,687 10,812 A WB 6,883 3,200 8,666 4,371 12,035 5,648 Not Applicable B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 2,602 6,662 3,615 8,391 4,859 11,023 B WB 5,195 3,027 6,949 4,098 9,894 5,108 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 3,817 5,877 4,598 7,954 4,805 9,803 7.0% 16.5% 16.2% 19.9% C WB 5,314 4,388 7,500 5,412 9,796 5,712 18.9% 3.8% 20.3% 11.3% D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 4,740 4,898 5,488 6,321 5,648 7,164 N/A N/A N/A N/A D WB 6,763 6,179 8,841 7,031 10,706 7,286 18.8% 8.5% 17.8% 11.4% Not Applicable E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,291 5,873 7,006 6,653 7,006 7,179 E WB 6,124 6,296 7,504 7,043 8,662 7,206 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,223 6,037 6,965 6,929 6,965 7,668 F WB 6,552 6,506 7,758 7,307 8,955 7,399 Not Applicable G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 5,934 7,194 6,886 8,508 7,555 10,426 G WB 5,715 5,089 7,307 6,228 9,479 7,426 H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 4,776 5,621 5,213 6,296 5,421 7,672 H WB 9,546 2,315 10,156 2,784 11,387 2,943 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; N/A = Data N ot Av ailable; HOV = High-Occupancy Vehicle Freeway segments shown in Figure 1-3 Dowling Associates, Inc

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐12 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Table 1-4: Peak-Hour Traffic Conditions (Maximum Approach) Traffic Volumes HOV Lane Utilization % Study Post Mile 2010 2020 2035 2010 2020 2035 Section Freeway

From ToDirection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 1,807 4,453 2,791 5,589 3,404 7,002 I WB 4,255 2,342 5,732 3,333 7,170 3,629 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 1,325 6,372 2,379 8,045 3,687 10,812 A WB 6,883 3,200 8,666 4,371 12,035 5,648 Not Applicable B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 2,559 6,760 3,567 8,421 4,836 11,160 B WB 5,634 3,130 7,438 4,261 10,717 5,413 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 4,061 6,850 4,781 8,919 5,027 10,799 5.9% 18.4% 17.7% 21.1% C WB 5,786 4,860 7,894 5,828 10,236 6,197 20.0% 4.4% 20.7% 12.5% D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 6,214 6,115 7,065 7,320 7,427 7,939 N/A N/A N/A N/A D WB 7,107 5,965 8,890 6,979 10,223 7,324 19.0% 8.8% 17.4% 11.9% Not Applicable E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,692 6,299 7,431 7,184 7,431 7,907 E WB 6,569 6,987 7,765 7,795 8,962 7,910 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,813 6,752 7,552 7,637 7,552 8,360 F WB 7,062 7,074 8,258 7,881 9,455 7,996 Not Applicable G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 5,934 7,194 6,886 8,508 7,555 10,426 G WB 6,753 6,071 8,203 7,083 10,384 8,331 H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 4,815 5,666 5,249 6,471 5,478 8,233 H WB 9,623 2,334 10,479 2,876 11,945 3,224 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; N/A = Data N ot Av ailable; HOV = High-Occupancy Vehicle Freeway segments shown in Figure 1-3 Dowling Associates, Inc

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐13 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Table 1-5: Percentage Contributions by County for 2020 (AM/PM Peak Period) 2020 AM PM I-580 Segment San Joaquin Alameda San Francisco San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Stanislaus Other San Joaquin Alameda San Francisco San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Stanislaus Other H 3.08% 69.56% 1.76% 6.74% 11.86% 6.35% 0.37% 0.28% 2.11% 67.90% 1.76% 9.11% 6.95% 11.51% 0.39% 0.28% G 2.94% 67.59% 8.87% 5.08% 9.30% 3.04% 0.63% 2.55% 2.37% 63.37% 14.63% 5.83% 7.30% 4.41% 0.64% 1.45% F 9.81% 59.19% 5.11% 4.34% 18.80% 0.41% 0.87% 1.47% 6.36% 60.96% 4.84% 4.94% 18.86% 1.54% 0.92% 1.58% E 9.40% 59.96% 5.96% 5.36% 16.02% 0.95% 0.81% 1.54% 5.92% 61.54% 5.99% 5.95% 16.02% 2.08% 0.85% 1.65% D 18.77% 48.38% 4.59% 3.92% 16.87% 2.27% 2.42% 2.79% 14.99% 52.14% 4.36% 4.07% 17.01% 2.88% 2.41% 2.13% C 29.69% 39.39% 3.15% 3.26% 14.65% 3.61% 4.45% 1.80% 28.52% 40.07% 3.16% 3.31% 14.97% 3.89% 4.34% 1.74% B 36.01% 32.24% 3.67% 3.60% 7.48% 4.56% 10.32% 2.12% 35.53% 32.13% 3.66% 3.62% 7.77% 4.69% 10.37% 2.23% A 33.61% 28.69% 3.84% 4.15% 7.17% 6.87% 13.09% 2.58% 34.07% 28.71% 3.73% 4.21% 6.93% 7.33% 12.39% 2.63% I 43.19% 22.61% 1.23% 1.55% 6.15% 6.35% 11.31% 7.61% 31.53% 27.51% 3.52% 3.21% 7.69% 8.13% 8.42% 9.99% Source: SJCOG, MTC, and Alameda CTC travel demand models Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 1-6: Percentage Contributions by County for 2035 (AM/PM Peak Period) 2035 AM PM I-580 Segment San Joaquin Alameda San Francisco San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Stanislaus Other San Joaquin Alameda San Francisco San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Stanislaus Other H 3.10% 69.54% 1.76% 6.74% 11.86% 6.35% 0.38% 0.28% 2.11% 67.90% 1.76% 9.11% 6.95% 11.51% 0.39% 0.28% G 2.94% 67.59% 8.87% 5.08% 9.30% 3.04% 0.63% 2.55% 2.37% 63.37% 14.63% 5.83% 7.30% 4.41% 0.64% 1.45% F 9.82% 59.29% 4.95% 4.34% 18.83% 0.41% 0.87% 1.47% 6.36% 60.95% 4.85% 4.94% 18.86% 1.54% 0.92% 1.58% E 9.40% 59.94% 5.96% 5.35% 16.02% 0.95% 0.84% 1.54% 5.92% 61.54% 5.99% 5.95% 16.02% 2.08% 0.85% 1.65% D 18.76% 48.37% 4.59% 3.92% 16.87% 2.28% 2.42% 2.79% 14.99% 52.15% 4.36% 4.07% 17.01% 2.88% 2.41% 2.13% C 29.69% 39.39% 3.15% 3.26% 14.65% 3.61% 4.45% 1.80% 28.52% 40.07% 3.16% 3.31% 14.97% 3.89% 4.34% 1.74% B 36.01% 32.23% 3.66% 3.60% 7.48% 4.57% 10.33% 2.12% 35.59% 32.14% 3.66% 3.61% 7.77% 4.63% 10.38% 2.23% A 37.60% 31.55% 3.38% 3.42% 7.38% 4.80% 9.83% 2.02% 37.53% 31.63% 3.39% 3.43% 7.55% 4.80% 9.57% 2.10% I 58.38% 18.69% 0.58% 0.79% 5.64% 2.54% 7.07% 6.31% 51.34% 21.47% 2.23% 2.22% 7.87% 3.51% 4.40% 6.96% Source: SJCOG, MTC, and Alameda CTC travel demand models Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐14 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) July 2011

Table 1-7: Percentage Contributions by Trip Purpose (AM/PM Peak Period) 2020 2035 AM PM AM PM I-580 SEGMENT HBW HBS HBO NHB HBW HBS HBO NHB HBW HBS HBO NHB HBW HBS HBO NHB H 82.0% 4.9% 11.3% 1.8% 73.7% 6.2% 11.0% 9.0% 84.8% 4.0% 9.6% 1.6% 75.8% 5.2% 10.2% 8.7% G 83.0% 3.5% 11.4% 2.0% 68.4% 5.3% 12.8% 13.5% 85.7% 2.8% 10.0% 1.5% 72.3% 4.7% 12.3% 10.8% F 78.0% 3.9% 13.8% 4.4% 67.5% 4.9% 14.0% 13.5% 81.9% 3.0% 11.1% 4.0% 72.7% 3.7% 12.1% 11.5% E 77.5% 4.4% 13.7% 4.4% 69.5% 5.6% 13.1% 11.7% 81.4% 3.5% 11.1% 4.1% 74.2% 3.9% 11.5% 10.4% D 74.8% 6.4% 12.7% 6.1% 71.4% 6.8% 12.8% 9.0% 76.6% 5.5% 11.8% 6.1% 74.9% 5.7% 11.4% 8.0% C 72.5% 7.6% 12.5% 7.5% 71.7% 8.4% 12.2% 7.7% 75.0% 6.4% 11.6% 7.0% 76.4% 6.5% 10.5% 6.6% B 70.9% 8.7% 12.8% 7.7% 75.0% 9.3% 11.0% 4.7% 73.3% 8.4% 11.4% 6.8% 79.5% 7.5% 8.8% 4.2% A 70.9% 8.7% 12.7% 7.7% 75.2% 9.3% 11.0% 4.5% 72.6% 9.2% 11.4% 6.8% 78.5% 8.6% 8.8% 4.1% I 63.4% 10.8% 15.1% 10.7% 69.6% 11.2% 12.1% 7.1% 63.5% 12.0% 15.0% 9.5% 69.0% 12.4% 12.2% 6.5% Source: SJCOG, MTC, and Alameda CTC travel demand models Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐15 Chapter 1: Introduction July 2011

Figure 1-5: 2020 AM Peak Period Trip Share by County

2020 AM Peak Hour Distribution by County (Averaging Two Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Other Stanislaus Traffic

of Santa Clara 50% Contra Costa San Mateo

Percentage 40% San Francisco Alameda 30% San Joaquin

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBAI

I‐580 Segments

Figure 1-6: 2020 PM Peak Period Trip Share by County

2020 PM Peak Hour Distribution by County (Averaging Two Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Other Stanislaus Traffic

of Santa Clara 50% Contra Costa San Mateo

Percentage 40% San Francisco Alameda 30% San Joaquin

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBAI

I‐580 Segments

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐16 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Figure 1-7: 2035 AM Peak Period Trip Share by County

2035 AM Peak Hour Distribution by County (Averaging Two Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

Other 60% Stanislaus Traffic

of Santa Clara 50% Contra Costa San Mateo 40% Percentage San Francisco Al ameda 30% San Joaquin

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Segment

Figure 1-8: 2035 PM Peak Period Trip Share by County

2035 PM Peak Hour Distribution by County (Averaging Two Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

Other 60% Stanislaus Traffic

of Santa Clara 50% Contra Costa San Mateo 40% Percentage San Francisco Al ameda 30% San Joaquin

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Segment

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐17 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Figure 1-9: 2020 AM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose

2020 AM Peak Hour Trip Dist'n by Purpose (Averaging Both Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

Trips 60%

Total

NHB

of 50% HBO HBS 40% HBW Percentage

30%

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Corridor Segments

Figure 1-10: 2020 PM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose

2020 PM Peak Hour Trip Dist'n by Purpose (Averaging Both Models) 100%

90%

80%

70%

Trips 60%

Total NHB of

50% HBO HBS 40%

Percentage HBW

30%

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Corridor Segments

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐18 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Figure 1-11: 2035 AM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose

2035 AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution by Purpose 100%

90%

80%

70%

Trips 60%

Total NHB of

50% HBO HBS 40%

Percentage HBW

30%

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Corridor Segments

Figure 1-12: 2035 PM Peak Period Trip Share by Trip Purpose

2035 PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution by Purpose 100%

90%

80%

70%

Trips 60%

Total NHB of

50% HBO HBS 40%

Percentage HBW

30%

20%

10%

0% HGF EDCBA I

I‐580 Corridor Segments

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 1‐19 Chapter 1: Introduction August 2011

Chapter 2 : TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

This chapter provides background information describing transportation demand management and highlights how it is currently implemented in the study area. It also describes the various interregional TDM scenarios developed in coordination with SJCOG and the Interregional Transportation Partnership (ITP). The future TDM scenarios reflect plausible “what if” TDM implementation strategies for future consideration by ITP counties and should not be construed as regulatory mandates. Each future TDM scenario was analyzed for quantifiable I-580 trip/VMT reductions which were then tested for operational and greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits. APPROACH Based on a review of current employer based TDM implementation relative to existing and proposed TDM legislative directives and pricing mechanisms, several future TDM scenarios were developed for detailed analysis. For each TDM scenario, the affected employee market share was determined. The TRIMMS 2.0 software4 was used to estimate the trip and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction benefits resulting from the assumed future year TDM scenarios. TRIMMS is a visual basic spreadsheet application for evaluating benefits of a wide range of transportation demand management (TDM). The vehicle trip/VMT results from TRIMMS provided inputs to the 2000 Highway Capacity Software (HCS) to determine the extent of AM/PM peak hour operational benefits to the I-580 corridor under future year 2020 and 2035 conditions. The trip/VMT reduction results also provided inputs to the EMFAC2007/BURDEN regional emissions model to determine the resulting greenhouse gas emission reductions5. BACKGROUND What is TDM? Many jurisdictions are in the process of adjusting priorities with regard to their transportation systems. Rather than automatically accommodating unconstrained peak-hour vehicle demands by roadway capacity expansion, they are first looking at strategies that make more efficient use of their existing transportation system. This toolbox of strategies falls generally under the rubric of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) or Mobility Management program. TDM programs emphasize the movement of people and freight as opposed to the traditional objectives of prioritizing motor vehicle travel. Strategies that encourage walking, biking, using public transit, carpooling, flexible work schedules, and tele-work are often incorporated into TDM plans. This shift in priorities is attributable to limited right- of-way for additional roadway expansion, capital improvement funding constraints, concern over the negative environmental impacts of expanding vehicle-based environments, and the recognition that there is a need to provide an equitable system for all users that makes driving alone a choice rather than a necessity. Why TDM? Vehicular congestion results from the concurrent demand of two elements: space and time. For traffic congestion, it results from the demand of a place on the transportation network at a time of the day when many other people are making the same demand. TDM programs aim to relieve peak period congestion by addressing the demand for transportation rather than its provision. This is done by putting together a program that:

4 The TRIMMS software was developed in 2009 by National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida through funding provided by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 5 Emissions reductions will not reflect the benefit of the Pavley-I and low carbon fuel standards. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐1 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

 Encourages mode-shifts away from driving to walking, biking, and taking transit;  Provides viable options to solo-driving, such as carpooling and vanpooling; and  Promotes time-shifts by or diminishes the need for solo-driving commuting by having flexible work schedule and tele-work options. A meaningful TDM program has the capacity to meet multiple objectives for transportation, safety, economics, and livability. Traditional strategies for reducing congestion (increasing single occupant vehicle capacity) can have negative environmental impacts (fuel efficiency) and can generally work against other objectives that may also be important to communities. Table 2-1 summarizes objectives supported or contradicted by these strategies. Table 2-1: Comparison of Strategies and Objectives Strategies Fuel Efficiency Objective Widen Highways Standards TDM Program Congestion Reduction +-+ Road & Parking Savings --+ Consumer Savings (vehicle costs) + Transport Choice + Road Safety --+ Environmental Protection -++ Efficient Land Use --+ Community Livability -+ "+" = supports objective; "-" = contradicts objective. Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, accessed website on October 15, 2009, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm51.htm

Given that the non-discretionary nature of the home based work trip and its contribution to AM and PM peak hour congestion, TDM strategies often focus on solutions at the employer-level. Commute hours are typically the most consistently congested time periods on a transportation network and solutions for congestion relief generally arise from analysis of these time periods. However, TDM strategies need not be confined to employers and can be implemented on a broader scale. Potential TDM Strategies This section contains a discussion of potential strategies to summarize tools that may be utilized in the creation of a TDM plan. They include financial, system, and demand incentives, as described below. Financial Incentives These strategies provide financial reasons for motorists to switch transportation modes, carpool, eliminate or reduce the number of vehicle trips.  Roadway pricing – Charging vehicles for roadway use is probably the most effective way to reduce vehicle miles, increase carpooling, encourage multi-purpose vehicle trips (trip-chaining), and encourage access by other modes of travel. Congestion relief can be permanently achieved if tolls change according to demand, much the way airline ticket prices differ based on demand for flying on certain days and at certain times. General roadway pricing currently exists in certain areas of the United States (i.e., New Jersey’s toll roads, New York and San Francisco Bay Area bridge tolls) and tolled expressways are used in other parts of the world to fund transportation projects and operations (i.e., France, Mexico, and Singapore). Many jurisdictions of the United States have installed or are studying Express Lanes (HOT lanes), which allow I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐2 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

solo drivers to utilize carpool lanes by paying a toll that increases or decreases according to demand (i.e., SR-91 in Riverside-Orange Counties in California).  Area-wide pricing – This mechanism charges a one-time fee to motorists to enter an area (generally a central business district) during certain time periods. London, England and Singapore currently operate area-wide pricing programs.  Parking pricing – Charging to motorists to park decreases parking demand, which in turn reduces vehicle miles traveled, increases carpooling, and encourages access by other modes. It also properly assesses fees to the users (motorists) rather than having the cost to provide uncharged parking incorporated into goods and services purchased by the general population. By reducing parking demand, more land space can be devoted to community-enhancing land-uses and be oriented for access by pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers with compact and mixed-use developments.  Parking cash-out – For commercial or residential developments that currently subsidize or provide free parking for employees or residents, they can offer cash or reimbursement in exchange for the parking space.  Employee travel allowance – This is generally offered as a benefit to employees, which can come in the form of reimbursement and/or as pre-tax income. Commuter Check allows employers to reimburse travel to and from work by transit. Employers can also reimburse employees who regularly commute to work by bicycle.  Transit pass (Eco-pass) – Commercial or residential developments can offer to provide complimentary or subsidized transit passes to their employees and/or residents. System Incentives These strategies summarize potential improvements, provided at the regional and inter-regional level, to support TDM efforts.  Provision of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes which provide travel time savings for high occupant vehicles including vanpools and transit vehicles. HOV lanes support rideshare and transit mode choices by providing exclusive and premium peak period lane capacity.  Park and Ride lots – Government agencies and commercial developments can provide park and ride lots that are located to allow a convenient central meeting area for carpools, vanpools, and transit.  Expansion of transit services that are specifically tailored to serve commuter needs e.g., regional express services as well as commuter rail.  Bicyclist facilities – The following facilities can be provided to encourage access by bicycle: o Secure bicycle parking: Commercial and residential developments can provide secure, convenient parking to employees and residents that protects bicycles from inclement weather. Clearly-marked and conveniently located short-term parking can also be provided to visitors. o Changing areas, lockers, and showers: Schools and commercial developments can provide areas to change in and out of bicycle clothing, lockers for clothing and toiletry storage, and facilities for bicyclists who would like to shower after commuting to work. If these amenities are not able to be provided on-site, complimentary or subsidized membership at a local gym could be substituted. Demand Incentives These incentives focus on providing programmatic support for TDM programs that may be implemented at various levels, from the employer/developer to the regional agencies, depending on the strategy.  Rideshare Programs – Government agencies and/or employers offer rideshare matching services that facilitate matching interested or prospective carpoolers and/or vanpoolers with others that have similar or I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐3 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

compatible trip characteristics to form carpools and/or vanpools. This is performed by developing a centralized rideshare matching database that is continually maintained.  Preferred parking for carpools – Schools and commercial developments can designate preferred parking areas for employees and students who regularly carpool.  Vanpool Programs – Employers and other large commercial developments (i.e., office business parks or office buildings) can offer vanpools that would shuttle employees to and from work. Commercial and residential developments can provide shuttles to and from major transit centers.  Flexible work schedule – Employers can offer flexible work schedules to employees so that they have the opportunity to travel to and from work during non-peak commute hours.  Tele-work – Employers can provide the opportunity to employees to work from home for a certain number of days per week.  Car-sharing – Commercial and residential developments can either institute a car-sharing program or allow an existing car-sharing organization to set up in their parking areas. Car-sharing is a membership-based program that allows short-term use of vehicles for hourly and/or mileage charges. It provides access to vehicles for people who don’t regularly use a car to commute or shop. For employees who carpool, use transit, walk, or bicycle to work, it provides access to vehicles for mid-day errands or emergency needs. For residents, car-sharing can provide access to a primary or secondary vehicle on an as-needed basis. In retail areas, car-sharing can provide shoppers the opportunity to haul large purchases on an as-needed basis. Employers and residential developments can offer complimentary or subsidized car-sharing membership.  Bike-sharing – Government agencies, and commercial and residential developments can provide free or low-cost bikes for short-term use.  Guaranteed ride home – For employees who regularly commute to work by carpool, transit, walking, or biking, a guaranteed ride home program enables them take a taxi or company car free of charge in the event of an emergency.  Information and guidance – Commercial and residential developments can develop brochures and webpages that detail TDM programs and information.  TDM coordinator – Employers and residential developments can appoint a specific person to the task of managing their TDM program. This person would be responsible for implementing TDM strategies, tracking adherence to the TDM program, and disseminating information and guidance. Limitations to Implementing TDM In 1995, the Lewis Bill was passed by the California State Legislature.6 It prohibits public agencies from requiring employee trip reduction programs for purposes of achieving air quality standards, except in federally-recognized non- attainment areas where pollutants exceed EPA standards. However, it is permissible to require employer-based TDM to address other issues, such as parking shortages or traffic congestion. Agencies may then require TDM as part of conditions of approval for new development. The San Joaquin Valley, which includes San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, is a federally recognized non- attainment area and adopted a mandatory employee trip reduction program in 2009. The San Francisco Bay Area is not currently designated as a non-attainment area, thus regional agencies cannot require TDM programs based on air quality standards. However, some local agencies have required employee trip reduction programs as part of conditions of approval to address traffic congestion and parking issues.

6 California Senate Bill 437, code 40717.9 in Health and Safety regulations I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐4 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR TDM This section describes regulations that apply to TDM, traveler information, and case studies of TDM and other supportive measures. Regulations Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain national ambient air quality standards.7 The San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley both have SIPs, and their inclusion of TDM is discussed below. Strategies include emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations, and limits on emissions from consumer products. Transportation Control Measures are defined as measures that reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congested conditions. Often, these measures include TDM as well as support for public transit, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, walking, and biking. Measures that are relevant to this study include:  Improved public transit;  High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes;  Employer-based transportation management plans and incentives;  Trip-reduction ordinances;  Traffic flow improvements;  Fringe and transportation corridor parking carpool, vanpool, and transit service;  Limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other congested areas;  Rideshare services;  Limit portions of roads or certain sections of the metropolitan area to non-motorized access;  Bicycle storage, lanes, and other facilities;  Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules;  Planning and development efforts to reduce Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel;  Construction of paths, tracks, or areas for non-motorized travel.8 Transportation Control Measures (TCM) must be expeditiously implemented, according to federal standards outlined in the Clean Air Act and the transportation budget bills (ISTEA and SAFETEA-LU). San Francisco Bay Area State Implementation Plan Since 1982, the San Francisco Bay Area’s SIP has included Transportation Control Measures (TCM) to reduce vehicle emissions. Many of the TCMs originally set forth in previous plans have been achieved and the most recent TCMs expand upon the original ones. The most recent TCMs are contained in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Transportation Demand Management is placed under the broad category of encouraging sustainable travel behavior. In particular, TCM C-1 calls for supporting voluntary employer-based trip reduction programs by implementing rideshare and Spare the Air programs, encouraging cities to adopt transit benefit ordinances, and supporting Bay

7 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, California State Implementation Plans, accessed April 6, 2011 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm 8 Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Conformity Reference Guide, Chapter 3 Transportation Control Measures, accessed April 6, 2011 at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/conformity/reference/reference_guide/chap3.cfm I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐5 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Area shuttle service providers. Additionally, TCM C-3 calls for supporting rideshare services and incentives and TCM C-4 calls for conducting public outreach and education for the air quality, environmental, and social benefits of reducing vehicle miles traveled. Many of the other TCMs call for TDM-supportive actions, including improving transit service, supporting focused growth, and implementing parking and roadway pricing strategies.9 According to the Lewis Bill, the region is unable to require employer-based TDM for the purpose of improving air quality. San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan The San Joaquin Valley, which includes San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, is identified as a non-attainment area in terms of federal air quality standards. As such, it is able to over-ride the Lewis Bill and require trip reduction strategies to address air quality issues. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) e-TRIP (Rule 9410) Employer-Based Trip Reduction was adopted in December 2009. Its purpose is to reduce vehicle miles traveled by employees to and from work in order to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. It requires jurisdictions within the San Joaquin Valley – including San Joaquin and Stanislaus County - to implement employee trip reduction programs by the year 2014. Only employers with one hundred or more full-time eligible employees would be subject to e-TRIP (Rule 9410). Employers with two hundred and fifty or more full-time employees will need to develop more comprehensive TDM plans than smaller employers. One of the predominant industries in San Joaquin County is agriculture, and as such contains a number of employers who utilize seasonal labor for food harvesting and processing. e-TRIP (Rule 9410) excludes large employers whose maximum work-force needs are less than sixteen consecutive weeks of full-time employment. More information for e-TRIP (Rule 9410) can be found at the SJVAPCD website: http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/Rule9410TripReduction/eTRIP_main.htm The San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Travel Demand Management Plan The San Joaquin Council of Government’s (SJCOG) 2010 Regional Travel Demand Management Plan fully integrates requirements for enhanced travel demand management activities within the San Joaquin County to monitored congestion identified as part of the County’s Congestion Management Program. The Regional TDM Plan provides an assessment of: 1) current TDM programs and policies being implemented in San Joaquin County; 2) existing institutional, political and technical barriers to TDM implementation; and, 3) a TDM Action Plan that identifies a two tiered level of TDM effort required of SJCOG and its member agencies based on monitored congestion on the CMP system and fair share considerations. The TDM Action plan was developed to be supportive and consistent with the San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 9410 that identifies and analyzes opportunities to use existing resources more efficiently and opportunities for cooperation between public agencies, employers and other businesses for travel demand management. The TDM Action Plan clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the partner agencies, both in implementing and in compliance reporting. More information can be found at: http://www.sjcog.org/docs/pdf/Regional%20Planning/CMP/Final_TDMPlan Alameda County Congestion Management Program Alameda County’s 2009 Congestion Management Program contains a travel demand management element. It seeks to complement efforts put forth in the San Francisco Bay Area SIP/ Clean Air Plan and provide locally-based programs. In this element there are four programs:

9 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Final Clean Air Plan, Volume I, Adopted September 15, 2010. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐6 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

 A Required Program – Local jurisdictions must adopt and implement guidelines for site design that enhance transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.  A Countywide Program – Actions that the Congestion Management Agency will take to support and supplement local efforts, such as parking cash-out, guaranteed ride home, and telecommuting support programs.  A Regional Program – Actions state and regional authorities should take to support TDM programs area- wide, mostly focused on financial support for coordinated transit, HOV use, park-and-ride lots, and improvements for non-motorized and ADA access.  A Comprehensive Program – All actions above, plus others that can be recommended for employers on an entirely voluntary basis, such as an official employer transportation managers network, information for new employees, preferential parking for carpoolers and bicyclists, flexible work hours, and shuttle service. More information can be found at http://www.accma.ca.gov/pages/HomeCongestionMgmt.aspx. Traveler Information One recurrent theme is the high-value of having a readily available TDM resource for employers and employees to use. Traveler information websites provide a one-stop resource for alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel. There are three organizations in our study area that provide multimodal travel information and promotions: (1) 511 (San Francisco Bay Area), (2) 511 Contra Costa (Contra Costa County), and (3) Commute Connection (San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties). These resources provide crucial support to local and regional TDM efforts. A summary of these organizations follow: 511 511 serves all nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Alameda County. In addition to providing traveler information, ride-matching services, and incentives, 511 has a public transit trip planner that incorporates schedules for all Bay Area transit providers and develops individualized, door-to-door instructions. Additionally, it has spearheaded the Clipper Card, an electronic fare payment system that is being implemented across transit agencies. In Alameda County near the I-580 corridor, there are over 150 employers actively utilizing 511 to assist with their TDM efforts (meaning that they have requested and received rideshare and TDM information). Annually across all nine counties, there are about 11,000 new carpool and vanpools registered through 511. Along the I-580 corridor, carpooling appears to be the most popular TDM strategy, followed by tele-work and flexible work schedules.10 511 Contra Costa 511 Contra Costa was borne out of Transportation System Management requirements in Contra Costa County, as cities are mandated to include TDM ordinances or resolutions as part of the County’s growth management program. Due to the geographic size and diversity, this organization is divided into four sub-sections covering different parts of the County to develop feasible TDM strategies tailored to local conditions and preferences. 511 Contra Costa provides traveler information, carpool and vanpool matching and incentives, Park-and-Ride and bicycling maps, a guaranteed ride home program, and free bicycle parking installations that are focused on the unique attributes of the County. Additionally, they perform outreach at workshops and fairs and will work with major employers and multi- tenant building managers to develop an employee trip reduction program. Every three years, 511 Contra Costa conducts surveys of employees to document the results of their TDM efforts. This section highlights the two sub- areas in closest proximity to I-580, Southwest Contra Costa County (SWAT) and West Contra Costa County (WCCTAC), and summarizes phone interviews with each organization.

10 The information presented in this paragraph is based on a phone interview between Kamala Parks of Dowling Associates and Melanie Crotty, Traveler Coordination and Information for 511 on February 25, 2011. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐7 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

The City of San Ramon provides administrative oversight and implements the 511 Southwest Contra Costa County TDM programs for Lafayette, Orinda, San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, and unincorporated areas. The primary goal of San Ramon’s employer-based TDM program is to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality through the reduction of work-related car trips. There are about 1,000 employers (including those in Bishop Ranch) who participate in TDM through this program on a voluntary basis. The coordinators have found that carpooling is one of the most popular traveler options, but employers tend to be reluctant to offer tele-work opportunities to their employees. Some of the challenges that 511 Southwest Contra Costa faces include coordination amongst various transit providers to provide seamless connections to travelers.11 511 West Contra Costa focuses on TDM programs in the cities of El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Hercules, Kensington, Pinole, Richmond, Rodeo, San Pablo as well as the unincorporated areas. This program has been focused on encouraging bicycle and transit commuter benefits, coordination with transit and shuttle services, and assisting carpool and vanpool matches. They have over 1,400 employers actively participating in TDM efforts through their program. Carpooling has been the most popular option, but bicycling is on the rise. Employer participation in TDM strategies has generally been voluntary due to the Lewis Bill regulations. However, the City of Richmond recently adopted a city-wide ordinance that will require all employers with 10 or more employees to engage in trip reduction strategies. Similar to 511 Southwest Contra Costa, employers are reluctant to offer tele-work to their employees. Challenges to TDM in West Contra Costa include the abundance of free parking.12 Commute Connection The San Joaquin Council of Governments, with the assistance of Stanislaus Council of Governments, provides transportation demand management planning, commuter matching, and marketing services under the auspices of Commute Connection. It operates and administers a ride-matching database to assist commuters with carpool and vanpool matching and coordination free of charge. The program also refers commuters to available transit, operates guaranteed ride home, and provides information on park-and-ride lots, Freeway Service Patrol, bicycling, walking, and tele-work. Commute Connection serves over 6,000 commuters annually, reducing annual vehicle miles of travel by approximately 32 million miles. Advisory Committee Advisory committees can provide a crucial link and foster collaborative efforts with regard to TDM. An example is San Ramon’s TDM Advisory Committee, which is responsible for:  Coordinating and monitoring the implementation of TDM efforts in order to achieve reductions in employment-related, single-occupant vehicles;  Providing recommendations to the City Council regarding improvements in City services and facilities to assist employers in reduction single-occupant vehicles;  Developing and implementing commute alternative programs in concert with 511 Contra Costa and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority;  Coordinating TDM efforts with all employers and complexes in the City;  Coordinating TDM efforts with local and regional agencies, as designated by the City; and  Serving as liaison between the City and business community.

11 The information presented in this paragraph is based on a phone interview between Kamala Parks of Dowling Associates, Darlene Amaral, TDM Representative of 511 Southwest Contra Costa County and Lisa Bobadilla, Program Manager of 511 Southwest Contra Costa County on February 2, 2011. 12 The information presented in this paragraph is based on a phone interview between Kamala Parks of Dowling Associates and Linda Young, Program Manager of 511 West Contra Costa County on January 26, 2011. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐8 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Case Studies This section provides highlights some examples of TDM programs and other programs supportive to providing single- occupant vehicle alternatives in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It is not a comprehensive assessment, but provides some examples of TDM programs and ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed previously, the Lewis Bill forbids the implementation of mandatory TDM requirements to address air quality issues, but they can be required to address local traffic issues. Bishop Ranch Bishop Ranch is an office park in suburban San Ramon (Contra Costa County) that covers 585 acres over 46 buildings, which contain approximately 9.5 million square feet of office space. There are roughly 550 employers, including large companies such as AT&T and Chevron, with about 26,000 employees, currently. Its employee capacity is about 33,000 to 35,000 employees. It is served by Interstates 580 and 680 and is located five miles from the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and BART stations are connected to Bishop Ranch by feeder bus service provided by County Connection. The 24-mile Iron Horse Trail, which connects Pleasanton to Concord, runs through Bishop Ranch and is used extensively by commuter bicyclists. There are no user charges for parking in Bishop Ranch parking areas, and parking availability is generally plentiful. Some buildings provide preferential parking stalls to vanpools. The development and implementation of a TDM program is part of their conditions of approval. There two full-time TDM coordinators for the Bishop Ranch Transportation Center, positions that are funded by the office park owners, Sunset Development Company, and Chevron. They coordinate extensively rail and bus transit agencies to obtain discounted passes and provide input on schedules and services that meet the needs of employees. They maintain a webpage that provides one-on-one personal routing assistance, information for 511 Contra Costa’s Guaranteed Ride Home program, traveler information and carpool/ vanpool incentives. They also provide outreach and develop promotions to create awareness of the incentives and information they offer. They host one of the biggest Bike-To-Work-Day (BTWD) Energizer stations in Contra Costa County and provide BTWD kits to employees upon request. Employee participation is voluntary and is estimated to be about 25% to 30% of Bishop Ranch’s workforce. Most recently, the Bishop Ranch Transportation Center issued roughly 2,400 half-year transit passes to employees for use on County Connection buses, and they expected to get up to 2,600 by the end of the cycle. An office park wide survey is conducted every three years. The last survey was done in October of 2009 but the report is still in draft form. However, estimated calculations of commute mode share are presented in Table 2-2. In terms of the future for Bishop Ranch, the TDM coordinators anticipate more preferential parking designations for carpools and vanpools, as well as the installation of electric car charging stations. Once the HOV lanes are completed on I-580, they also foresee more carpooling and expansion of express bus services over the I-580 Altamont Pass. The coordinators see a greater opportunity for the air districts to coordinate with one another on such events as Spare the Air days.13 Additionally, TDM requirements for the new San Ramon City Center development, adjacent to Bishop Ranch, will enhance the availability of services.

13 The information presented in this section is based on a phone interview between Kamala Parks of Dowling Associates and Marci Maguire of the Bishop Ranch Transportation Center on January 31, 2011. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐9 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-2: Bishop Ranch Estimated Commute Mode Share

Percent of Commute Mode Employees Single Occupant Vehicle 60% Carpool 7% Vanpool 5% Transit ACE Train-bus combo 1.6% BART-bus combo 9.1% Bus only 7.5% Bicycling 1.5% Walking 1.5% Telecommuting 3.5% Total 97% Note: Figures are estimates and don't tally to 100% Source: January 31, 2011 Phone interview with Marci Maquire, TDM Coordinator for Bishop Ranch, based on October 2009 survey Dowling Associates, Inc

Hacienda Business Park Hacienda Business Park in suburban Pleasanton (Alameda County) began as an office park in the 1980’s but today includes 1,550 residential units. It has over 10 million square feet of office space and covers 854 acres. There are about 19,500 employees, currently, with a capacity for about 8,500 more. It is served by Interstates 580 and 680 and is located in close proximity to the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and BART stations are connected to Hacienda Business Park by feeder bus service provided by Wheels/LAVTA. The 24- mile Iron Horse Trail is located north of the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. There are no user charges for parking in Hacienda Business Park areas, and parking availability is generally plentiful. 5% of stalls are designated as preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and bicycle parking is provided at a rate of 3.5% of vehicle parking stalls. The development and implementation of a TDM program is part of their conditions of approval. Hacienda’s TDM programs are incorporated into a bundle of services offered through the Hacienda Owner’s Association (HMA), funded by an assessment to occupants based on acreage, but participation in the TDM strategies is voluntary. The HMA works with Wheels/LAVTA for discounted transit passes and to ensure coordinated schedules and services for its occupants. Depending on the employer or housing management, free or discounted transit passes may be offered to employees and residents on Wheels/LAVTA. The HMA also provides complimentary tickets to new riders on various transit systems, operates a carpool and vanpool matching service, conducts outreach to new businesses and residences, and designates preferred parking. Alameda County has a guaranteed ride home program that the HMA promotes. An employee transportation survey of the Hacienda Business Park is conducted every couple of years. The last survey was done in 2009 and published in 2010. It summarizes current commute practices, housing locations, and attitudes towards SOV-alternatives. Employees living east or west of the Hacienda Business Park would be most likely to use I-580 for the majority of their commute, and the survey found that 15% of employees live west of the Dublin Hills and 6% of employees live east of Livermore. 34% of Hacienda Business Park employees live in Pleasanton, Livermore, or Dublin. Table 2-3 shows the commute mode shares of Hacienda Business Park employees versus the City of Pleasanton at large. The TDM coordinator notes that providing free and discounted transit passes has been a successful strategy as well as carpooling. He sees interest in more mixed-use development in Pleasanton. For example, Pleasanton rezoned to

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐10 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

allow 31 acres of the business park closest to the BART station to be developed for high-density residential and other mixed uses.14 Table 2-3: Employee Commute Mode - Hacienda Business Park Compared to City at Large

Hacienda Business City of Commute Mode Park Pleasanton Single Occupant Vehicle 71% 77% Carpool/ Vanpool 7% 7% Transit BART 9% 5% ACE <1% 1% Bus 5% 2% Bicycling 1% 2% Walking <1% 1% Telecommuting 6% 3% Other 2% 2% Total 101% 100% Note: Summation over 100% due to rounding Source: Hacienda Business Park 2009 Employee Transportation Survey , March 2010 Dowling Associates, Inc. Staples Ranch Staples Ranch in suburban Pleasanton (Alameda County) is a proposed 124-acre development on the border with Livermore near I-580 and El Charro Road. It will include an auto mall, senior housing, retail/ commercial uses, an ice rink and parks. As part of its conditions of approval, the auto mall and senior housing property owners are required to join the City’s Transit System Management Plan. The auto mall conditions of approval require an on-site TSM coordinator and encouragement of employee carpooling, biking, walking, and transit. The senior housing conditions of approval require an on-site TSM coordinator, the provision of free private shuttle services, and trip reduction goals. Emery Go-Round A crucial element to supporting TDM efforts may include the provision of shuttles to address connectivity between major transit stations and destinations. The Emery Go-Round is a shuttle service provided in the City of Emeryville and a part of Berkeley (Alameda County) that is financed by commercial property owners located in the transportation business improvement district. It provides fare-free shuttle rides between various points in Emeryville, the Emeryville Amtrak station, and the MacArthur BART station in Oakland. Real-time arrival information is provided through Next-Bus, which enables riders to minimize their waiting times at shuttle stops. Service is provided seven days a week with frequencies ranging from 10 to 20 minutes. The service, which began in 1997 and was originally funded by a public/private partnership, provides the crucial last mile link between transit and destinations for residents, employees, and visitors. Information for the shuttle can be accessed through its website, www.emerygoround.com, or the regional travel information website, 511.org. Its annual ridership was 1.3 million passengers in 2009 and its operating expense was $2.4 million for 2010.15

14 The information presented in this section is based on a phone interview between Kamala Parks of Dowling Associates and James Paxson, TDM coordinator of the Hacienda Business Park, on February 17, 2011, as well as the Hacienda Business Park 2009 Employee Transportation Survey, published March 2010 15 Accessed Emery Go-Round’s website at www.emerygoround.com on March 30, 2011 and Chapter 5 of Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Draft Briefing Book. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐11 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

INTERREGIONAL TDM SCENARIOS This section describes the interregional TDM scenario development and assumptions associated with the analysis of employer-based TDM benefits on the I-580/I-205 corridor. The basis for developing the interregional TDM scenarios was the varying degrees of implementation assumed for the following regional TDM initiatives: 1. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) e-TRIP Rule; 2. Bay Area Implementation of Commuter Benefit Ordinances (CBO) per passage of SB 582 3. TDM Programs as a CEQA condition of approval; and, 4. Pricing – specifically parking pricing. The trip and VMT reduction benefits of the TDM and pricing strategies were calculated using TRIMMS software package. The TRIMMS software includes a built-in database for travel behavior and socioeconomic data by region throughout the United States and includes specific adjustments for numbers of metropolitan areas. TRIMMS allows an assessment of employer based TDM benefits including benefits from pricing/cost incentives as well as TDM support activities (referred to as “soft” programs). SJVAPCD e-TRIP (Rule 9410) and Commuter Benefits Ordinances (CBOs) Both San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County are subject to SJVAPCD e-TRIP (Rule 9410) Employer Based Trip Reduction Rule. This regulation is not applicable to the Bay Area counties within the study corridor (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). For the Bay Area counties, a similar regional enactment of legislation to allow “Commuter Benefit Ordinances” (CBOs) was pursued in July 2011. Although passing both houses – SB 582 was vetoed by the governor. Passage of SB 582 would have allowed public agencies to develop commuter benefit ordinances throughout the State of California. It is anticipated that future attempts of bills similar to SB 582 will be pursued in the future. Comparatively – the provisions SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP (Rule 9410) and SB 582 are very similar. It is important to note that either Rule 9410 or SB 582 require (or would have required) affected employers to achieve employee trip reduction or alternative mode utilization targets for compliance. To comply, affected employers are simply required to participate by offering a requisite number of programs or incentives to their employees for using alternative modes of transportation to work. Whether or not employees take advantage of the offered programs will remain strictly voluntary. A key difference between the alternative TDM scenarios will be the affected market share of employees within each affected county. SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP (Rule 9410) specifically targets both existing and future large non-seasonal employers (with 100 or more employees). As part of SB 582, two CBO scenarios were evaluated in the San Francisco Bay Area. CBO#1 requires all employers above some minimum threshold size to provide commuter benefits to their employees. The threshold of 50 employees or more was used to establish employer applicability for the CBO#1 scenario. Conversely, CBO#2 is assumed to be applicable to only future employment sites with 100 or more employees. To determine the number of employees working at large worksites (i.e. worksites with 100 or more employees), the number of employees by business size was obtained from the Employment Development Department (EDD) quarterly report. The latest information available as of March 2011 was for the third quarter of 2009. Table 2-4 shows the percent of employees employed at large (100+) worksites for each county. In general, the percent of employees working at large worksites ranges between 40% (in Stanislaus) and 52% (in Santa Clara) of total the employees for each county.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐12 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-4: EDD’s Employment Data for 2009

Employees at % Employees at County Total Employees Large Worksites Large Worksites Alameda 629,356 293,540 47% Contra Costa 316,326 133,858 42% San Francisco 544,067 273,636 50% San Joaquin 209,580 86,964 41% San Mateo 318,101 147,163 46% Santa Clara 836,476 433,535 52% Stanislaus 164,827 66,083 40% Source: Employment Development Department, "Number of Employees by Size Category", Table 3B, Labor Market Information Division, 3rd Quarter, 2009, accessed http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?PAGEID=138 on March 30, 2011 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Projected total employment for the future years was obtained from the latest adopted regional growth forecasts for employment. These projections are resident in the land use files of the respective regional travel demand models. The future-year employment data for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties are available through the SJCOG’s travel model and the employment data for the Bay Area counties are available through the MTC and Alameda CTC travel models. The calculated percent of employees working at large worksites was assumed to remain constant throughout the analysis horizon i.e., future years 2020 and 2035. Table 2-5 shows employment projections for 2020 and 2035. Table 2-5: Employment Data Projections

County Agency Year 2020 Year 2035 Alameda MTC 758,697 906,293 Contra Costa MTC 390,740 469,463 San Francisco MTC 599,059 698,793 San Joaquin SJCOG 263,922 356,943 San Mateo MTC 370,906 442,850 Santa Clara MTC 987,347 1,212,952 Stanislaus SJCOG 246,273 322,160 Source: SJCOG, MTC, and Alameda CTC travel demand models Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐13 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

TDM: California Environmental Quality Act Condition of Approval Interregional commuter travel is usually a very small percentage of any given employer’s work force. However, when enough employers are combined, a critical mass can be achieved. Developments such as business parks provide office space for relatively small employers (businesses with less than 100 employees) but collectively result in very large centralized concentrations of employment. As a condition of CEQA approval, some of these large business park developments have been required to establish TDM programs. Some examples of these TDM programs in Alameda County include: Bishop Ranch, Hacienda Business Park and Staples Ranch. Interviews with the TDM Coordinators at the Bishop Ranch, Hacienda Business Park and Staples Ranch developments were performed. This included inquiries and/or review of available employee mode split survey information collected as part of the TDM programs. Based on this information it was determined that business park TDM programs can reduce the single occupant vehicle mode split percentage of its employees by approximately 10- 15%. Based on these successful examples of major business parks that have successfully leveraged several small, medium and large employers into the critical mass needed to support successful and self-sustaining interregional TDM services, this TDM strategy assumes that lead agencies under CEQA (e.g., local cities, counties) will systematically require similar TDM programs as a condition of approval for new business park type development proposals. Given that employees working for new large employers (100 or more employees) will already be subject to Rule 9410 or CBO#2, this strategy is assumed to apply only to new worksites with less than 100 employees. Based on EDD data, approximately 60 percent of the employment growth in the study area counties will be in the industry sectors that typically locate in business park type developments. It was assumed that 30% of the new employers working for employers with less than 100 employees would be subject to TDM Condition-of-Approval (COA). Given that CBO#1 applies to existing and new Bay Area employees working for employers with 50 or more employees – the potential trip reduction benefits of TDM COA overlap with those anticipated under CBO#1. To avoid double counting of trip reduction benefits, the benefits of TDM COA were assumed to be captured by implementing CBO#1 in the Bay Area. Unlike SJVAPCD e-TRIP (Rule 9410), TDM as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) condition of approval is applicable only to future employment sites. Conversely, it is applicable to new employees at any business size. Based on information obtained from the TDM case studies presented earlier (i.e., Bishop Ranch, Staples Ranch and Hacienda developments), an average single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) mode share of 60% was assumed for commuters traveling to and from these new developments. A commensurate increase in the future proportional market shares for high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) and public transportation is assumed. This SOV adjustment will not affect San Francisco County since the SOV share is currently below 42% based on the 2009 Census16. Parking Pricing Pricing strategies – specifically for parking is common in most urban areas. This analysis examined the implications of a broader application of parking pricing over a range of pricing costs. Employer parking policies have a direct impact on travel mode choice by employees. Typically, considerations for parking pricing are intended to increase parking revenue or decreasing parking demand. Charging motorists to park typically decreases parking demand, which in turn reduces vehicle miles traveled, increases carpooling, and encourages utilization of other modes. It also properly assesses fees to the motorists rather than having the cost to provide uncharged parking “absorbed” into the price of goods and services purchased by the general population. By

16 2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, Table B08301. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐14 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

reducing parking demand, more land space can be devoted to community-enhancing land-uses including provision of better pedestrian and bicycle access, and more compact and mixed-used developments to promote transit. Several parking pricing scenarios will be evaluated in terms of before and after impacts. These pricing scenarios include:  Elimination of employer parking subsidy  Fee increase and decrease Elimination of employer parking subsidy will terminate free parking and institute some fees in conjunction with offsetting incentives or options to mitigate the disruption for employees, including cash-out and vouchers. Fee strategies are typically structured to vary rates by user. Variable fees can be applied to create a pricing differential between SOV and HOV vehicles, which typically provide parking incentive to rideshare employees (e.g. lower parking rate for HOVs). Based on a monthly rate at 20 public garages in San Francisco17, a daily parking cost varies from $5 to $22 or at an average of $14 per day. For purposes of this analysis, a flat rate parking fees at $7/day ($140/month) and $15/day ($300/month) were used as low and high parking fees imposed for the Bay Area counties. Each TDM strategy described above was evaluated for its’ employee trip reduction impact as part of four TDM scenarios. These scenarios are described below. TDM Affected Employees Forecasts Each TDM strategy previously described was evaluated for its’ employee trip reduction impact. In all four TDM scenarios were considered in this study. Each scenario represents a combination of the SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP (Rule 9410) and TDM Condition-of-Approval (COA) for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties and the CBO or parking pricing fee structures for the San Francisco Bay Area counties. These scenarios are summarized below:  TDM 1 – SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP + TDM COA (San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties) and CBO#1 + TDM Condition-of-Approval (Bay Area counties). The benefits of TDM COA were assumed to be captured by implementing CBO#1 in the Bay Area i.e., affected Bay Area employees subject to TDM COA were not reflected in the analysis.  TDM 2 – SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP + TDM COA (San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties) and CBO#2 + TDM COA (Bay Area counties)  TDM 3 – SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP + TDM COA (San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties) and parking pricing program for Bay Area counties o TDM 3.1 – SJVAPCD’s e-TIRP + TDM COA for San Joaquin and Stanislaus and impose flat rate parking fee at $7/day for the Bay Area counties o TDM 3.2 – SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP + TDM COA for San Joaquin and Stanislaus and impose flat rate parking fee at $15/day for the Bay Area counties A market share summary for each TDM scenario is provided in Table 2-6.

17 Parking Authority, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pgar/garages.htm (accessed June 28th, 2011) I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐15 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-6: Summary for Employer Base TDM Scenarios Participation Assumptions for Future Employer Based TDM Scenarios Scenario 1Scenario 2 Scenario 3 New Development New Development New Development County Existing Development Only Existing Development Only Existing Development Only Alameda CBO#1: 50% (50+) CBO#1: 50% (50+) N/A CBO#2: 100% (100+) Pricing: 40% (All) Pricing: 40% (All) + COA: 30% (<100) Contra Costa CBO#1: 50% (50+) CBO#1: 50% (50+) N/A CBO#2: 100% (100+) Pricing: 40% (All) Pricing: 40% (All) + COA: 30% (<100) San Francisco CBO#1: 50% (50+) CBO#1: 50% (50+) N/A CBO#2: 100% (100+) Pricing: 70% (All) Pricing: 70% (All) + COA: 30% (<100) San Joaquin e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) + COA: 30% + COA: 30% (<100) (100+) + COA: 30% (<100) (<100) San Mateo CBO#1: 50% (50+) CBO#1: 50% (50+) N/A CBO#2: 100% (100+) Pricing: 40% (All) Pricing: 40% (All) + COA: 30% (<100) Santa Clara CBO#1: 50% (50+) CBO#1: 50% (50+) N/A CBO#2: 100% (100+) Pricing: 40% (All) Pricing: 40% (All) + COA: 30% (<100) Stanislaus e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) e-TRIP: 100% (100+) + COA: 30% + COA: 30% (<100) (100+) + COA: 30% (<100) (<100) e-TRIP is the mandatory employee trip reduction program for large employers instituted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. COA refers to TDM required as condition of approval for new development as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. CBO#1 and CBO#2 refer to the Commuter Benefits Ordinances for the Bay Area Counties Pricing refers to elimination of employer parking subsidies, such as free or reimbursed parking, charging user fees for parking, and offering parking cash-out or reduced rates for carpools. Dowling Associates, Inc.

Descriptions of each TDM scenario are provided in the following sections. It is important to note that aspects of these scenarios should be considered “what if” scenarios and should not be construed as regulatory mandates.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐16 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

TDM Scenario 1 In this scenario, SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP for existing and future employees working at large worksites and the TDM Condition-of-Approval for 30% of new worksites with less than 100 employees are assumed for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. The CBO#1 is applied to 50% of existing and new worksites with 50 or more employees. Given than potential over-lap in trip reduction benefits of TDM COA and CBO#1 for Bay Area counties – the number affected Bay Area employees subject to TDM COA was not incorporated in the analysis. Figure 2-1 provides an illustration of the market share assessment that breaks down total trips on an individual I- 580/I-205 corridor segment “i” into an affected portion of trips subject to the TDM Scenario 1. Table 2-7 shows the calculated market share for existing and new employees at medium/large worksites for each county. Table 2-8 shows the calculated market share for employees at new small and medium worksites in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. Figure 2-1: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 1 Freeway

Segment i

HBW HBS HBO NHB

Alameda Contra San San San Mateo Santa Stanislaus Costa Francisco Joaquin Clara

50% of Ex. 50% of Ex. 50% of Ex. 100% of Ex. 50% of Ex. 50% of Ex. 100% of Ex. Medium & Medium & Medium & Large Worksites Medium & Medium & Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites

50% of New 50% of New 50% of New 100% of New 50% of New 50% of New 100% of New Medium & Medium & Medium & Large Worksites Medium & Medium & Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Worksites

30% of New 30% of New Small & Medium Small & Medium Worksites Worksites HBW: Home Based Work Trips HBS: Home Based Shop Trips HBO: Home Based Other Trips NHB: Non-Home Based Trips Ex.: Existing Worksites New: Future Worksites Medium Worksites = ≥ 50 employees < 100 employees Large Worksites = 100+ employees

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐17 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-7: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (e-TRIP and CBO#1) for Scenario 1

% Employees 2020 2035 at % Total Medium/Large % TDM Affected Total Total Affected Total Total Affected County Worksites Participation Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Alameda 61% 50% 31% 758,697 231,403 906,293 276,419 Contra Costa 57% 50% 29% 390,740 111,361 469,463 133,797 San Francisco 62% 50% 31% 599,059 185,708 698,793 216,626 San Joaquin 41% 100% 41% 263,922 108,208 356,943 146,347 San Mateo 60% 50% 30% 370,906 111,272 442,850 132,855 Santa Clara 65% 50% 33% 987,347 320,888 1,212,952 394,209 Stanislaus 40% 100% 40% 246,273 98,509 322,160 128,864 Total 3,616,944 1,167,349 4,409,454 1,429,117 TDM Scenario 1 assumes e-TRIP participation by 100% of large employers in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties and CBO#1 participation by 50% of medium and large employers in Bay Area Counties Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-8: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (COA) for Scenario 1

% Employees 2020 2035 at Small and % Total Medium % TDM Affected New Total Affected New Total Affected County Worksites Participation Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees San Joaquin 59% 30% 18% 54,342 9,619 147,363 26,083 Stanislaus 60% 30% 18% 81,446 14,660 157,333 28,320 Total 135,788 24,279 304,696 54,403 TDM Scenario 1 assumes TDM COA participation by 30% of new small and medium employers in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐18 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

TDM Scenario 2 In this scenario, the SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP and CBO#2 are assumed for existing and new worksites with 100 or more employees in the Central Valley and Bay Area counties respectively. The TDM COA is also assumed to apply to 30% of new worksites with less than 100 employees for the San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties as well as the Bay Area counties. Figure 2-2 provides an illustration of the market share assessment that breaks down total trips on an individual I- 580/I-205 corridor segment “i” into an affected portion of trips subject to the TDM Scenario 2. Table 2-9 shows the calculated market share for employees at large worksites based on TDM Scenario 2 conditions. The market share of employees at new small and medium worksites is provided in Table 2-10. Figure 2-2: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 2 Freeway

Segment i

HBW HBS HBO NHB

Alameda Contra San San San Mateo Santa Clara Stanislaus Costa Francisco Joaquin

100% of New 100% of New 100% of New 100% of Ex. 100% of New 100% of New 100% of Ex. Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites Large Worksites

30% of New 30% of New 30% of New 100% of New 30% of New 30% of New 100% of New Small & Medium Small & Medium Small & Medium Large Worksites Small & Medium Small & Medium Large Worksites Worksites Worksites Worksites Worksites Worksites Worksites Worksites

30% of New 30% of New Small & Medium Small & Medium Worksites Worksites HBW: Home Based Work Trips HBS: Home Based Shop Trips HBO: Home Based Other Trips NHB: Non-Home Based Trips Ex.: Existing Worksites New: Future Worksites Medium Worksites = ≥ 50 employees < 100 employees Large Worksites = 100+ employees

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐19 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-9: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (e-TRIP and CBO#2) for Scenario 2

% Employees 2020 2035 at Large % TDM Total New Total Affected Total New Total Affected County Worksites Participation Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Alameda 47% 100% 758,697 129,341 60,790 906,293 276,937 130,160 Contra Costa 42% 100% 390,740 74,414 31,254 469,463 153,137 64,318 San Francisco 50% 100% 599,059 54,992 27,496 698,793 154,726 77,363 San Joaquin 41% 100% 263,922 54,342 108,208 356,943 147,363 146,347 San Mateo 46% 100% 370,906 52,805 24,290 442,850 124,749 57,385 Santa Clara 52% 100% 987,347 150,871 78,453 1,212,952 376,476 195,768 Stanislaus 40% 100% 246,273 81,446 98,509 322,160 157,333 128,864 Total 3,616,944 429,001 4,409,454 800,204 TDM Scenario 2 assumes e-TRIP participation by all large employers in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties and CBO#2 participation by all large employ ers in Bay Area Counties. Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-10: Summary for Affected Number of Employees (COA) for Scenario 2

% Employees 2020 2035 at Small and Medium % TDM Total New Total Affected Total New Total Affected County Worksites Participation Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Alameda 53% 30% 758,697 129,341 20,565 906,293 276,937 44,033 Contra Costa 58% 30% 390,740 74,414 12,948 469,463 153,137 26,646 San Francisco 50% 30% 599,059 54,992 8,249 698,793 154,726 23,209 San Joaquin 59% 30% 263,922 54,342 9,619 356,943 147,363 26,083 San Mateo 54% 30% 370,906 52,805 8,554 442,850 124,749 20,209 Santa Clara 48% 30% 987,347 150,871 21,725 1,212,952 376,476 54,213 Stanislaus 60% 30% 246,273 81,446 14,660 322,160 157,333 28,320 Total 3,616,944 96,321 4,409,454 222,713 TDM Scenario 2 assumes TDM COA participation by 30% of small and medium employ ers in all counties. Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐20 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

TDM Scenario 3 In this scenario, the SJVAPCD’s e-TRIP is assumed for existing and new worksites with 100 or more employees and the TDM Condition-of-Approval is assumed to apply to 30% of new worksites with less than 100 employees in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. The parking pricing was assumed as the only employer base TDM strategy for the Bay Area counties. A 70% participation rate was assumed for San Francisco County and 40% for the other Bay Area counties. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-11 provides a market share assessment that breaks down total trips on individual segment of I-580/I-205 corridors into an affected portion for the TDM Scenario 3. The effected number of employees at new small and medium worksites in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties will be the same as for TDM Scenarios 1 and 2 (Table 2-8). Table 2-12 provides a summary of parking pricing scenarios that were evaluated. Two pricing scenarios were analyzed, one with a flat rate fee of $7 and one charging $15 per day were assumed for SOVs in the parking subsidy elimination sub-scenario. Figure 2-3: Market Share Structure for TDM Scenario 3 Freeway

Segment i

HBW HBS HBO NHB

Alameda Contra San San San Mateo Santa Clara Stanislaus Costa Francisco Joaquin

40% of All Ex. 40% of All Ex. 70% of All Ex. 100% of Ex. 40% of All Ex. 40% of All Ex. 100% of Ex. Worksites Worksites Worksites Large Worksites Worksites Worksites Large Worksites

40% of All New 40% of All New 70% of All New 100% of New 40% of All New 40% of All New 100% of New Worksites Worksites Worksites Large Worksites Worksites Worksites Large Worksites Worksites Worksites

30% of New 30% of New Small & Medium Small & Medium Worksites Worksites HBW: Home Based Work Trips HBS: Home Based Shop Trips HBO: Home Based Other Trips NHB: Non-Home Based Trips Ex.: Existing Worksites New: Future Worksites Medium Worksites = ≥ 50 employees < 100 employees Large Worksites = 100+ employees

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐21 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-11: Summary for Affected Number of Employees for Scenario 3

% Employees % 2020 2035 at Large Participation Total Total Affected Total Total Affected County Worksites (TDM/ Pricing) Employees Employees Employees Employees Alameda 40% 758,697 303,479 906,293 362,517 Contra CostaN/A 40% 390,740 156,296 469,463 187,785 San Francisco 70% 599,059 419,341 698,793 489,155 San Joaquin 41% 100% 263,922 108,208 356,943 146,347 San Mateo 40% 370,906 148,362 442,850 177,140 N/A Santa Clara 40% 987,347 394,939 1,212,952 485,181 Stanislaus 40% 100% 246,273 98,509 322,160 128,864 Total 3,616,944 1,629,135 4,409,454 1,976,989 N/A = Not applicable for the specified county TDM Scenario 3 assumes e-TRIP participation by all large employers in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties and pricing parking strategies for TDM by 40-70% of employers in the Bay Area Counties. Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-12: Parking Pricing Scenarios Parking Pricing Scenarios Before After 3 Elimination of employer parking subsidy 3.1 $7/day Free – all modes Impose $7 fee – SOVs 3.2 $15/day Free – all modes Impose $15 fee – SOVs

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐22 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

TRIMMS TDM TOOLBOX The TRIMMS software includes a built-in database for travel behavior and socioeconomic data by region throughout the United States and includes specific adjustments for numbers of metropolitan areas. TRIMMS allows the assessment of TDM benefits (i.e., trip and VMT reductions) attributable to TDM support activities that aim to either encourage or increase the convenience for employees to use alternative modes to work (referred to as “soft” programs). TRIMMS also has ability to evaluate various parking pricing strategies including a fee increase/decrease, employer parking subsidy, SOV versus rideshare fee differential, and parking subsidy policies (referred to as “hard” programs). The parking pricing feature in TRIMMS was utilized to help analyze TDM Scenario 3.1 and 3.2. For each region within the I-580/205 corridor, Dowling Associates developed the following fourteen sectors of employment types required by TRIMMS:  Agriculture and Mining  Manufacturing  Construction  Military  Education  Professional Services  Finance and Insurance  Retail Service  Government  Transportation  Health Service  Utilities  Information Services  Others Customized TRIMMS inputs18 were developed for San Joaquin County based on sample interviews with large employers performed in 2010. This information was used to determine incentives currently provided to employees to encourage commuting by modes other than single-occupant vehicles19. Given the socio-economic similarities between San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, this survey information was also applied to Stanislaus County. Statistical data and parameters for San Francisco—Oakland—San Jose areas are included in TRIMMS model and were applied to all San Francisco Bay Area counties. After all employer data and TDM strategies are input - including inputs for TDM program characteristics such as cost, time duration, number of full-time/part-time employees, and employment sector, TRIMMS predicts the impact of the various alternative TDM strategies at the area wide level and corridor level of analysis. Mode shares changes resulting from employer based TDM support programs such as transit/carpool/vanpool/bike/walk subsidies/services, parking service, are estimated. TRIMMS output includes:  Changes in mode share, trip and VMT with respect to the baseline  Changes in social costs generated by TDM policy under evaluation  Benefit/Cost ratio for program under evaluation Followings are TDM strategies were assumed as part of the TRIMMS analysis for the I-580/205 corridor.  Alternative work schedules  Telework  Rideshare program  Carsharing program

18 Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan for San Joaquin County, Dowling Associates, August 2010. 19 Telephone surveys were completed by Dowling Associates Inc. for approximately 30% of the 102 employers. Surveys span all eight employment sectors by weighted by percentage. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐23 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

 Guaranteed ride home program  Implementation of a commute trip reduction program  Participate in/create/sponsor a transportation management association  Employer Subsidies: o Vanpool/carpool/parking-cash out financial incentives – assumed to be a net increase of $2.50/trip for San Francisco and San Mateo counties and $5.00/trip for all other study counties o Public transit financial incentive – assumed to be a net increase of $2/trip for all counties The incremental increases in employer subsidies were determined based on the Alameda CTC Financial Incentives Demonstration Program results/findings and current California employer subsidy tax limits. Given that employer subsidies are already common/prevalent in San Francisco and San Mateo counties – the net financial subsidy increase in these two counties was assumed to be half of what was assumed for the remaining study counties where employer subsidies are less common. Work Trip Characteristics A change in ridership by mode for each employment sector was calculated using TRIMMS’s built-in empirical equations and parameters (long-term elasticities) for particular worksite characteristics. In order to estimate trip reductions, basic commuter trip characteristics were required. The following section describes how these requisite analysis inputs were determined. Table 2-13 presents baseline mode share surveyed data for each county from the Census’s American Community Survey (ACS). To represent mode of travel that is applicable to I-580/I-205 corridor, the mode share in Table 2-13 was recalculated based on only auto modes (e.g. auto-drive alone, auto-rideshare, vanpool, and public transport). Table 2-14 presents mode share that represents only auto mode of travel by each county on I-580/I-205 corridor.

Table 2-13: Mode Share for Work Trips by County Mode Share Contra San San San Santa Mode Alameda Costa Francisco Joaquin Mateo Clara Stanislaus Auto-Drive Alone 69.5% 73.9% 41.7% 80.2% 74.2% 79.3% 83.5% Auto-Rideshare 10.7% 12.5% 7.7% 13.7% 11.3% 11.2% 10.8% Vanpool 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% Public Transport 12.4% 9.5% 34.1% 2.0% 8.8% 3.3% 0.8% Cycling 1.8% 0.6% 3.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 0.4% Walking 3.6% 2.0% 11.1% 1.6% 3.0% 2.3% 1.8% Other 1.7% 1.0% 1.9% 1.1% 1.1% 2.1% 2.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: US Census Bureau 2009 ACS, Table B08301 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐24 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-14: Auto Mode Share for Work Trips by County Mode Share Contra San San San Santa Mode Alameda Costa Francisco Joaquin Mateo Clara Stanislaus Auto-Drive Alone 74.81% 76.66% 49.76% 82.85% 78.19% 84.27% 87.16% Auto-Rideshare 11.52% 12.97% 9.19% 14.15% 11.91% 11.90% 11.27% Vanpool 0.32% 0.52% 0.36% 0.93% 0.63% 0.32% 0.73% Public Transport 13.35% 9.85% 40.69% 2.07% 9.27% 3.51% 0.84% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: US Census Bureau 2009 ACS, Table B08301 Dowling Associates, Inc.

By default, TRIMMS provides estimate of person trips for baseline and final scenarios. To convert person trips to auto-trips for carpool/vanpool mode, a share of carpool and vanpool was further broken down to proportion by number of persons per vehicle using census data. Table 2-15 shows these proportions by occupancy.

Table 2-15: Type and Percent of Carpool by County Percentage Contra San San San Santa HOV Type Alameda Costa Francisco Joaquin Mateo Clara Stanislaus 2-person 74.6% 75.1% 71.1% 70.0% 74.0% 82.0% 75.3% 3-person 19.4% 14.7% 17.3% 18.3% 17.3% 11.9% 14.8% 4-person 3.3% 6.1% 8.5% 5.4% 3.9% 3.2% 3.3% Vanpool 5-6-person 1.4% 2.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% 2.0% 4.2% Vanpool 7-person 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 4.2% 2.3% 0.8% 2.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: US Census Bureau 2009 ACS, Table B08301 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Given that the largest city of each county is likely to produce majority of work trips, these large cities were selected to represent the county’s business center for calculating average trip length between counties. Followings are the selected cities that were used in the inter-county trip length analysis.  Alameda County: Oakland  Contra Costa County: San Ramon  San Francisco County: San Francisco  San Joaquin County: Stockton  San Mateo County: San Mateo  Santa Clara County: San Jose  Stanislaus: Modesto County-to-county origin-destination (O-D) flow matrix was extracted from the 3-year CTPP (2006-2008 ACS) data from the Census Bureau. Table 2 19 provides O-D matrix of home base work trips between counties. For the

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐25 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

purpose of this analysis, only O-D pairs that have as the preferred/logical travel route on I-580 corridor were considered. Trip length of routes that span the I-580 corridor between major cities in each county was measured from aerials. Given that the internal commute trips within Alameda County may or may not travel the entire I-580 corridor, home base work trips within Alameda County were assumed using the national average trip length from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data.

Table 2-16: County-to-County Home Base Work Trip Matrix for I-580 Corridor

To Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo Santa Clara Stanislaus Others Total From Alameda 91.76% 7.90% n/a 0.34% n/a n/a n/a n/a 100.00% Contra Costa 61.04% n/a 30.99% 1.22% 6.53% n/a 0.22% n/a 100.00% San Francisco n/a 98.88% n/a 0.75% n/a n/a 0.37% n/a 100.00% San Joaquin 58.38% 11.82% 6.29% n/a 4.00% 19.51% n/a n/a 100.00% San Mateo n/a 89.14% n/a 3.89% n/a n/a 6.97% n/a 100.00% Santa Clara n/a n/a n/a 72.50% n/a n/a 27.50% n/a 100.00% Stanislaus n/a 22.63% 12.84% n/a 13.35% 51.18% n/a n/a 100.00% n/a = not applicable route on I-580 corridor Source: US Census Bureau 2006-2008 ACS, CTPP Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-17 provides average trip length between the identified key cities of each county. A weighted average trip length was calculated for each county to reflect the average travel distance in miles of commute trips traveling on the I-580. The percent trip distributions from Table 2-16 were used to yield these weighted average trip lengths. The latter was then applied along with number of workdays per month, vehicle gas mileage, and gas price to yield the commute trip cost for high-occupancy mode associated with each county shown in Table 2-18.

Table 2-17: County-to-County Average Trip Length (mi.) for I-580 Corridor To Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo Santa Clara Stanislaus Others Weighted From Avg. Alameda 12.2 32.1 n/a 74.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 14.0 Contra Costa 32.1 n/a 42.5 55.5 39.1 n/a 63.4 n/a 36.1 San Francisco n/a 42.5 n/a 84.1 n/a n/a 92.1 n/a 43.0 San Joaquin 74.0 55.5 84.1 n/a 79.1 89.0 n/a n/a 75.6 San Mateo n/a 39.1 n/a 79.1 n/a n/a 88.5 n/a 44.1 Santa Clara n/a n/a n/a 89.0 n/a n/a 86.8 n/a 88.4 Stanislaus n/a 63.4 92.1 n/a 88.5 86.8 n/a n/a 82.4 n/a = not applicable route on I-580 corridor Source: Google Earth Pro Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐26 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-18: Average Commute Trip Cost Avg Trip Length SOV HOV SOV HOV County (mi.) ($/day) ($/day) ($/trip) ($/trip) Alameda 14.0 $6 $3 $3.0 $1.5 Contra Costa 36.1 $15 $7.50 $7.5 $3.8 San Francisco 43.0 $25 $12.50 $12.5 $6.3 San Joaquin 75.6 $32 $16 $16.0 $8.0 San Mateo 44.1 $19 $9.50 $9.5 $4.8 Santa Clara 88.4 $38 $19 $19.0 $9.5 Stanislaus 82.4 $36 $18 $18.0 $9.0 Source: Commute Connection (assumed 20 workday s/month, 25 mpg, and $4/gallon) Dowling Associates, Inc.

Another travel parameter used by TRIMMS is a percent work trip during peak period. It is not typical that all of the employees will report to work during the peak hours. Some would report to work during off-peak hours. The Census’s ACS Table B08302 data suggests that approximately 53%-68% of employees within the seven counties would commute to work during the AM peak period. Table 2-19 presents percent commute work trips during the AM peak period for each county.

Table 2-19: Percent of Work Trips during Peak Period County Percent of Trips in Peak Period Alameda 64% Contra Costa 62% San Francisco 68% San Joaquin 53% San Mateo 66% Santa Clara 63% Stanislaus 55% Source: US Census Bureau 2009 ACS, Table B08302 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐27 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

INTERREGIONAL TRIP REDUCTION ANALYSIS All of the TDM strategies available in TRIMMS previously described were applied. For area wide applications, TRIMMS provides for default geographical area selection. Three metropolitan statistical areas were used as representatives for the seven counties. These are shown in Table 2-20.

Table 2-20: Metropolitan Statistical Areas Representing the Analysis County County Metropolitan Statistical Areas Alameda San Francisco – Oakland – San Jose, CA Contra Costa San Francisco – Oakland – San Jose, CA San Francisco San Francisco – Oakland – San Jose, CA San Joaquin Fresno, CA San Mateo San Francisco – Oakland – San Jose, CA Santa Clara San Jose CA Stanislaus Fresno, CA Dowling Associates, Inc.

Trip Reduction Analysis Results Trip reduction analysis was performed using the travel parameters described in the previous sections. The trip reduction analysis only considers commuter auto trip reduction impacts during the AM/PM peak periods. Given that the focus of this study was interregional travel, non-vehicular related trips (i.e., bike and walking trips) are not applicable. TRIMMS trip reduction output addresses person trips – not vehicle trips. To convert person trips to auto trips, vehicle occupancy and its percentage as described in Table 2-15 were used to aggregate person trips to high occupancy vehicle trips. Person trips that travel by single occupant vehicles were directly considered as auto trips. Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 1 Table 2-21 presents percent changes in auto-trips for the eligible commute work trips by county for 2020 and 2035. Findings indicate that the employer-based programs defined in TDM Scenario 1 would result in reduction of commute work trips varied by county and by year at between 9.31% and 13.82%. To reflect the above TDM trip reduction benefit, the percent trip reduction was applied to the eligible commute work trip portion of each analysis section’s AM/PM peak hour traffic volume identified in Figure 2-1. Table 2-22 presents adjusted traffic volumes for TDM Scenario 1. Figure 2-4 presents percent trip reduction expected from employment based TDM for each of analysis section. Overall, TDM Scenario 1 is expected to reduce peak-hour traffic volume by approximately 3% in 2020 and 2035. The trip reduction benefits are fairly constant across the I-580/I-205 analysis segments showing little variation throughout the study corridor. Given the greater HBW percentage relative to other trip purposes that occurs in the AM peak hour versus the PM peak hour, a greater number of work trips are reduced during the AM peak period versus the PM peak period. Similarly, with more demand projected in 2035 versus 2020, a greater absolute reduction in commute trips occurs in 2035 than in 2020 – even though the percent reduction may be equal.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐28 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-21: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 1)

County Auto Trip Reduction 2020 2035 Alameda -12.50% -12.51% Contra Costa -10.15% -10.17% San Francisco -13.80% -13.82% San Joaquin -9.31% -9.33% San Mateo -11.32% -11.34% Santa Clara -11.00% -11.01% Stanislaus -9.85% -9.87% Source: TRIMMS 2.0 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Note: Applicable for:  existing/new medium and large worksites (50+) in Bay Area counties  existing/new large worksites (100+) in San Joaquin and Stanislaus

Table 2-22: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 1 Study Post Mile 2020 Traffic 2035 Traffic Freeway Direction Section From To AM PM AM PM H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 5,053 6,124 5,249 7,453 H 14.7 16.2 WB 9,845 2,708 11,025 2,859 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 6,669 8,288 7,308 10,137 G 28.75 30.8 WB 7,076 6,067 9,169 7,219 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,763 6,757 6,751 7,460 F 23.72 28.75 WB 7,532 7,126 8,679 7,198 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,802 6,482 6,790 6,979 E 21.43 23.72 WB 7,286 6,862 8,395 7,005 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 5,332 6,153 5,482 6,959 D 14.2 21.43 WB 8,591 6,844 10,391 7,078 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 4,469 7,737 4,663 9,508 C9.6814.2WB 7,290 5,265 9,506 5,540 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 3,513 8,143 4,712 10,663 B 5.98 9.68 WB 6,753 3,977 9,596 4,941 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 2,312 7,807 3,577 10,463 A 0.39 5.98 WB 8,422 4,242 11,676 5,465 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 2,720 5,438 3,312 6,801 I 0.213 0.447 WB 5,586 3,243 6,976 3,525 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐29 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-4: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 1

Trip Reduction Scenario 1 7.00% 6.00% 2020 AM 5.00% 2020 PM Reduction

4.00%

Trip 3.00%

2035 AM 2.00% 2035 PM

Percent 1.00% 0.00%

EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB Direction WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I Section

Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 2 Table 2-23 presents percent changes in auto-trips for the eligible commute work trips by county for 2020 and 2035. Findings indicate that the employer-based TDM Scenario 2 would result in reduction of commute work trips varied by county and by year at between 9.31% and 13.71%. For purposes of this analysis, the auto trip reduction for TDM Condition-of-Approval was assumed to be the same as for large worksites for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. To reflect the above TDM trip reduction benefit, the percent trip reduction was applied to the eligible commute work trip portion of each analysis section’s AM/PM peak hour traffic volume identified Figure 2-2. Table 2-24 presents adjusted traffic volumes for TDM Scenario 2. Figure 2-5 presents percent trip reduction expected from employment based TDM for each of the study sections. Overall, TDM Scenario 2 is expected to reduce peak-hour traffic volume between approximately 1% and 2% in 2020 (depending on I-580 sub-section) and between 2% and 2.5% in 2035 (depending on I-580 sub-section). The lower overall benefit experienced relative to TDM Scenario 1 can be attributed to application CBO#2 which only affects future (not existing) large employers in the Bay Area counties. This is evident in the lower projected trip reduction benefits in the most Bay Area influenced analysis segments (H through E).

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐30 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-23: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 2)

County Auto Trip Reduction 2020 2035 Alameda -12.38% -12.45% Contra Costa -10.04% -10.10% San Francisco -13.60% -13.71% San Joaquin -9.31% -9.33% San Mateo -11.19% -11.27% Santa Clara -10.91% -10.97% Stanislaus -9.85% -9.87% Source: TRIMMS 2.0 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Note: Applicable for:  new large worksites (100+) in Bay Area counties  existing/new large worksites (100+) in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Table 2-24: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 2 Study Post Mile 2020 Traffic 2035 Traffic Freeway Direction Section From To AM PM AM PM H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 5,155 6,235 5,314 7,538 H 14.7 16.2 WB 10,043 2,758 11,162 2,891 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 6,809 8,433 7,405 10,254 G 28.75 30.8 WB 7,225 6,173 9,290 7,303 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,881 6,861 6,825 7,535 F 23.72 28.75 WB 7,663 7,236 8,774 7,270 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,922 6,587 6,866 7,052 E 21.43 23.72 WB 7,414 6,973 8,489 7,078 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 5,411 6,242 5,531 7,023 D 14.2 21.43 WB 8,717 6,943 10,483 7,143 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 4,522 7,828 4,696 9,579 C9.6814.2WB 7,376 5,326 9,574 5,582 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 3,547 8,226 4,740 10,732 B 5.98 9.68 WB 6,818 4,017 9,652 4,973 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 2,334 7,886 3,598 10,528 A 0.39 5.98 WB 8,502 4,285 11,742 5,499 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 2,738 5,491 3,321 6,828 I 0.213 0.447 WB 5,623 3,275 6,995 3,539 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐31 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-5: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 2

Trip Reduction Scenario 2 7.00% 6.00% 2020 AM 5.00% 2020 PM Reduction

4.00%

Trip 3.00%

2035 AM 2.00% 2035 PM

Percent 1.00% 0.00%

EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB Direction WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I Section

Trip Reduction for TDM Scenario 3 TDM Scenario 3.1 Table 2-25 presents percent changes in auto-trips for the eligible commute work trips by county for 2020 and 2035. Findings indicate that a parking pricing strategy ($7/day flat rate) would result in a reduction of commute work trips varied by county and by year at between 11.42% and 12.90%. A trip reduction for San Joaquin and Stanislaus is subjected to only Rule 9410 and remain at the same rates as for the previous scenarios. For purposes of this analysis, the auto trip reduction for TDM Condition-of-Approval was assumed to be the same as for large worksites for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. To reflect the above TDM trip reduction benefit, the percent trip reduction was applied to the eligible commute work trip portion of each analysis section’s AM/PM peak hour traffic volume identified in Figure 2-3. Table 2-26 presents adjusted traffic volumes for TDM Scenario 3.1. Figure 2-6 presents the percent trip reduction expected from employment based TDM for each of the study sections. Overall, Scenario 3.1 TDM program is expected to reduce peak-hour traffic volume between approximately 3% and 4% in 2020 and 2035. The trip reduction benefits are greater than the previous two TDM scenarios which did not include a parking pricing component. The trip reduction benefits are fairly constant across the I-580/I-205 analysis segments but tend to diminish extending eastward. This can be attributable to the assumption of no parking pricing in San Joaquin or Stanislaus counties.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐32 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-25: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 3.1)

County Auto Trip Reduction 2020 2035 Alameda -12.48% -12.48% Contra Costa -12.44% -12.44% San Francisco -11.42% -11.42% San Joaquin -9.31% -9.33% San Mateo -12.64% -12.64% Santa Clara -12.90% -12.90% Stanislaus -9.85% -9.87% Source: TRIMMS 2.0 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-26: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 3.1 Study Post Mile 2020 Traffic 2035 Traffic Freeway Direction Section From To AM PM AM PM H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 4,998 6,064 5,189 7,378 H 14.7 16.2 WB 9,737 2,682 10,900 2,830 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 6,586 8,197 7,215 10,017 G 28.75 30.8 WB 6,988 6,000 9,052 7,134 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,690 6,694 6,675 7,383 F 23.72 28.75 WB 7,452 7,059 8,581 7,124 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,730 6,418 6,714 6,905 E 21.43 23.72 WB 7,208 6,795 8,301 6,930 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 5,284 6,098 5,431 6,893 D 14.2 21.43 WB 8,512 6,783 10,293 7,011 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 4,437 7,681 4,628 9,433 C9.6814.2WB 7,237 5,226 9,434 5,497 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 3,493 8,093 4,684 10,593 B 5.98 9.68 WB 6,714 3,952 9,538 4,909 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 2,298 7,759 3,557 10,397 A 0.39 5.98 WB 8,372 4,216 11,608 5,431 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 2,709 5,405 3,302 6,771 I 0.213 0.447 WB 5,565 3,223 6,957 3,510 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐33 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-6: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 3.1

Trip Reduction Scenario 3.1 7.00% 6.00% 2020 AM 5.00% 2020 PM Reduction

4.00%

Trip 3.00%

2035 AM 2.00% 2035 PM

Percent 1.00% 0.00%

EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB Direction WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I Section

TDM Scenario 3.2 Table 2-27 presents percent changes in auto-trips for the eligible commute work trips by county for 2020 and 2035. Findings indicate that a parking pricing strategy ($15/day flat rate) would result in a reduction of commute work trips varied by county and by year at between 15.04% and 17.01%. A trip reduction for San Joaquin and Stanislaus is subjected to only Rule 9410 and remain at the same rates as for the previous scenarios. For purposes of this analysis, the auto trip reduction for TDM Condition-of-Approval was assumed to be the same as for large worksites for San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. To reflect the above TDM trip reduction benefit, the percent trip reduction was applied to the eligible commute work trip portion of each analysis section’s AM/PM peak hour traffic volume identified in Figure 2-3. Table 2-28 presents adjusted traffic volumes for TDM Scenario 3.2. Figure 2-7 presents percent trip reduction expected from employment based TDM for each of the study sections. Overall, Scenario 3.2 TDM program is expected to reduce peak-hour traffic volume between 5.8% and 3.2% in 2020 (depending on I-580 sub-section) and between approximately 6% and 3.2% in 2035 (depending on I-580 sub- section). The larger overall benefit experienced relative to TDM Scenario 3.1 is expected given the increase in parking fee from $7 to $15. Similar to TDM Scenario 3.1, the trip reduction benefits are fairly constant across the I- 580/I-205 analysis segments but tend to diminish extending eastward. This can be attributable to the assumption of no parking pricing in San Joaquin or Stanislaus counties.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐34 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-27: Commute Work Trip Reduction for each County (Scenario 3.2)

County Auto Trip Reduction 2020 2035 Alameda -16.44% -16.44% Contra Costa -16.39% -16.39% San Francisco -15.04% -15.04% San Joaquin -9.31% -9.33% San Mateo -16.66% -16.66% Santa Clara -17.01% -17.01% Stanislaus -9.85% -9.87% Source: TRIMMS 2.0 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-28: Adjusted Peak Traffic Volumes for TDM Scenario 3.2 Study Post Mile 2020 Traffic 2035 Traffic Freeway Direction Section From To AM PM AM PM H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 4,932 5,992 5,118 7,286 H 14.7 16.2 WB 9,608 2,650 10,750 2,795 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 6,494 8,100 7,110 9,890 G 28.75 30.8 WB 6,890 5,929 8,921 7,044 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 6,611 6,624 6,592 7,299 F 23.72 28.75 WB 7,363 6,985 8,474 7,043 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6,649 6,348 6,630 6,823 E 21.43 23.72 WB 7,122 6,721 8,197 6,848 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 5,231 6,038 5,375 6,821 D 14.2 21.43 WB 8,427 6,716 10,188 6,937 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 4,401 7,619 4,589 9,352 C9.6814.2WB 7,179 5,184 9,355 5,449 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 3,471 8,039 4,653 10,516 B 5.98 9.68 WB 6,671 3,926 9,475 4,873 A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 2,283 7,707 3,534 10,324 A 0.39 5.98 WB 8,319 4,187 11,533 5,393 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 2,697 5,369 3,292 6,739 I 0.213 0.447 WB 5,540 3,202 6,935 3,493 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐35 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-7: Percent Peak Trip Reduction by I-580 Section for TDM Scenario 3.2

Trip Reduction Scenario 3.2 7.00% 6.00% 2020 AM 5.00% 2020 PM Reduction

4.00%

Trip 3.00%

2035 AM 2.00% 2035 PM

Percent 1.00% 0.00%

EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB Direction WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I Section

INTERREGIONAL TDM I-580 TRIP REDUCTION RESULTS

Table 2-29 presents the AM/PM peak hour percentage trip reduction projected for each future TDM scenario by county for 2020 and 2035 respectively. These countywide trip reductions results were then converted to percent trip reductions to benefits specific to the I-580. These I-580 AM/PM peak hour percent trip reductions by TDM scenario are summarized in Figure 2-8 through Figure 2-11. Table 2-29: Percent Peak Hour Trip Reduction by County

Peak Hour Auto Trip Reduction County 2020 2035 TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 San Francisco 13.80% 13.60% 11.42% 15.04% 13.82% 13.71% 11.42% 15.04% San Mateo 11.32% 11.19% 12.64% 16.66% 11.34% 11.27% 12.64% 16.66% Santa Clara 11.00% 10.91% 12.90% 17.01% 11.01% 10.97% 12.90% 17.01% Alameda 12.50% 12.38% 12.48% 16.44% 12.51% 12.45% 12.48% 16.44% Contra Costa 10.15% 10.04% 12.44% 16.39% 10.17% 10.10% 12.44% 16.39% San Joaquin 9.31% 9.31% 9.31% 9.31% 9.33% 9.33% 9.33% 9.33% Stanislaus 9.85% 9.85% 9.85% 9.85% 9.87% 9.87% 9.87% 9.87% TRIMMS 2.0 Dowling Associates, Inc. Results indicate that employer based TDM strategies (TDM Scenarios 1 and 2) can reduce region-wide commute trips by up to 13 percent. This translates to an overall volume reduction of up to 3 percent specifically on the I-580 (results vary slightly by I-580 segment). By supplementing employer based TDM strategies in the Central Valley with parking pricing in the San Francisco Bay Area (TDM Scenarios 3.1 and 3.2), region-wide commute trips can be reduced by up to 17 percent. This translates to an overall volume reduction of up to 6 percent specifically on the I- 580 (results vary slightly by I-580 segment).

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐36 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-8: 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 6.00%

5.00%

4.00% TDM 1 3.00% Reduction TDM 2 Trip

2.00%

% TDM 3.1 1.00% TDM 3.2

0.00% EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I

Figure 2-9: 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 6.00%

5.00%

4.00% TDM 1 3.00% Reduction TDM 2 Trip

2.00%

% TDM 3.1 1.00% TDM 3.2

0.00% EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐37 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-10: 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 7.00%

6.00%

5.00%

4.00% TDM 1 Reduction 3.00% TDM 2 Trip

% 2.00% TDM 3.1

1.00% TDM 3.2

0.00% EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I

Figure 2-11: 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Reduction 6.00%

5.00%

4.00% TDM 1 3.00% Reduction TDM 2 Trip

2.00%

% TDM 3.1 1.00% TDM 3.2

0.00% EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB

HHGGF F E EDDCCBBAAI I

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐38 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

I-580 FREEWAY OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS This section describes the I-580 freeway operational performance analysis and results. Using HCM2000 freeway analysis method, the level of service (LOS) results were generated for existing conditions (2010) and future conditions (2020 and 2035). Given that the TDM benefits are expected for future years, the LOS results provided in this section are for the existing conditions (2010) without TDM benefits and for 2020 and 2035 conditions for both with and without TDM benefits. It is important to note that this analysis is applicable to only I-580 basic freeway mainline operations. It does not address the operational performance of I-580 freeway system as whole. Ramp merge-diverge junctures (defined as 1,500-2,500 feet of on- or off-ramp junctures) or weave sections (on- to off-ramp distances are less than 1,500 feet) operations are not reflected in this analysis – nor is the interaction/ influence that operations in these sections can have on the basic segment operations (i.e., queuing). The HCM2000 methodology does not take into account nor is it applicable to (without modifications by the analyst) special lanes including: 1) HOV lanes; 2) Truck Only Lanes; or, 3) Auxiliary Lanes. All these special purpose lanes are either already present on the I-580 or are programmed as future improvements. As such, the following modifications were required to reflect the operational impact of these special lane types. HOV Lanes Control for the existence of an HOV lane was addressed by removing the lane and number of HOV vehicles using (or estimated to use) the HOV lanes during the AM/PM peak hours from the HCS analysis. The following two CMIA funded HOV improvements are included in the 2020 and 2035 analysis years: 1) I-580 Westbound HOV Lane, Greenville to Foothill (Section C & D); 2) I-580 Eastbound HOV Lane, Hacienda to Greenville (Section C). Truck Climbing Lanes Control for the existence of a truck climbing lane improvement was addressed by removing the lane, truck volume and reducing the percentage of heavy duty trucks to 0% for all mixed flow lanes. The following truck climbing lane improvement project was included in the 2020 and 2035 analysis years for the Goods Movement portion of this study (see Chapter 3). 3) I-580 Westbound/Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane, Altamont Pass (Section A). Auxiliary Lanes Not applicable. Given that freeway merge-diverge and weave operations were not performed as part of this analysis – auxiliary lanes do not factor into this analysis. The latter assumes that auxiliary lanes do not provide additional mainline capacity along the I-580. The operational performance of basic (mixed flow) freeway segments is based vehicle density expressed as passenger cars per mile per lane (pcplpm). The HCM2000 LOS criterion is provided in Table 2-30.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐39 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-30: Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria Level of Service Criteria for Basic Freeway Segments Level of Density (pc/mi/ln) Density (pc/mi/ln) Density (pc/mi/ln) Density (pc/mi/ln) Service FFS=70 FFS=65 FFS=60 FFS=55 A11111111 B18181818 C26262626 D35353535 E45454545 F- - - - FFS=Free Flow Speed (Speed of Vehicles as Density Approaches 0) Source: HCM2010 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I-580 Operational Results Table 2-31 and Table 2-32 provide the LOS results for existing conditions respectively for eastbound and westbound travel directions. These LOS results reflect I-580 baseline peak hour volumes that are approximately 6 percent lower than published 2006 volumes and 5 percent lower than published 2009 volumes. The downward trend in traffic growth experienced on the I-580 is a reflection of the recession and post housing market bubble collapse in 2007. These lower baseline counts will also result in lower out-year travel forecasts per the NCHRP 255 adjustment process. Table 2-33 through Table 2-36 provide the LOS results by direction and peak hour for the 2020 analysis year and Table 2-37 through Table 2-40 provide the LOS results by direction and peak hour for the 2035 analysis year. All Highway Capacity Software inputs are provided in the Technical Appendix (provided under separate cover). The I-580 HCS results indicate that the west juncture with I-238 and east juncture with I-205 experience the highest vehicle densities and therefore worse LOS. The peak directions of travel occur in the westbound direction during the AM peak period – reversing in the PM peak period. The employer-based TDM scenarios (TDM Scenario 1 and TDM Scenario 2) produce benefits for all analysis years (by reducing vehicle densities and LOS grade for some segments). An improvement of one LOS grade can be achieved for sections E, F, H, and I (depending on direction, peak hour and analysis year) for TDM Scenario 1. As expected, TDM Scenario 1 results in lower I-580/I-205 vehicle densities and therefore slightly better operational results than TDM Scenario 2. Also as anticipated, TDM Scenario 3.1 and 3.2 exact the greatest operational benefits by improving LOS to acceptable conditions (i.e., LOS D or better) for segments E, F, and I in 2020 and for segments C, E, F, and H in 2035 (depending on direction, peak hour and analysis year). By 2035 however, the TDM benefits under each scenario are not enough to outpace travel demand. Depending on direction of travel, approximately half of the I-580 analysis segments are projected to experience unstable flow conditions during the AM/PM peak hours. Although beyond the scope of this study, the I-580 operational benefits resulting from these TDM scenarios could be elucidated to a greater degree through simulation. For the I-580 CMSP operational analysis, Paramics simulation software was used to analyze the performance of the freeway system as a whole (i.e., basic freeway, merge-diverge, weave and special purpose lanes). Simulation can identify bottleneck locations, the magnitude and duration of queuing, total vehicle delay and travel speed. These latter measures of effectiveness tend to be more intuitive than vehicle density. Such an analysis can be performed during updates of the I-580 CSMP.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐40 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-31: Freeway LOS Results for 2010 East Bound AM Peak PM Peak Freeway Section From To Average Density 1 Average Density 1 LOS 2 LOS 2 Speed (mph) (pc/mi/ln) Speed (mph) (pc/mi/ln) I-238 H Post Mile 14.7 Post Mile 16.2 62.39 29.09 D 57.63 37.07 E I-580 G Post Mile 28.75 Post Mile 30.80 67.50 19.59 C 67.19 23.84 C F Post Mile 23.72 Post Mile 28.75 67.31 25.73 C 67.68 24.84 C E Post Mile 21.43 Post Mile 23.72 65.99 26.73 D 66.74 24.68 C D Post Mile 14.2 Post Mile 21.43 66.00 20.14 C 66.00 20.82 C C Post Mile 9.68 Post Mile 14.2 66.00 16.27 B 65.64 25.20 C B Post Mile 5.98 Post Mile 9.68 67.20 12.26 B 60.67 34.79 D A Post Mile 0.39 Post Mile 5.98 68.50 5.59 A 66.22 27.83 D I-205 I Post Mile 0.213 Post Mile 0.447 67.00 10.21 A 66.37 25.39 C 1 Density ex pressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy C altrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-32: Freeway LOS Results for 2010 West Bound AM Peak PM Peak Freeway Section From To Average Density 1 Average Density 1 LOS 2 LOS 2 Speed (mph) (pc/mi/ln) Speed (mph) (pc/mi/ln) I-238 H Post Mile 14.7 Post Mile 16.2 Unstable >45 F 64.80 10.19 A I-580 G Post Mile 28.75 Post Mile 30.80 67.50 18.86 C 67.50 16.79 B F Post Mile 23.72 Post Mile 28.75 66.44 27.46 D 66.58 27.20 D E Post Mile 21.43 Post Mile 23.72 65.36 28.02 D 64.76 29.06 D D Post Mile 14.2 Post Mile 21.43 63.84 29.51 D 65.30 26.36 D C Post Mile 9.68 Post Mile 14.2 65.98 22.67 C 66.00 18.71 C B Post Mile 5.98 Post Mile 9.68 67.16 22.16 C 67.20 12.90 B A Post Mile 0.39 Post Mile 5.98 58.01 38.61 E 68.50 15.20 B I-205 I Post Mile 0.213 Post Mile 0.447 66.70 24.15 C 67.00 13.22 B 1 Density ex pressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy C altrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐41 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-33: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 East Bound AM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 60.36 33.03 D 61.22 31.58 D 60.69 32.49 D 61.47 31.11 D 61.74 30.56 D I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.37 22.80 C 67.45 22.06 C 67.40 22.54 C 67.47 21.77 C 67.48 21.47 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.81 30.00 D 65.64 28.76 D 65.16 29.48 D 65.92 28.32 D 66.19 27.87 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 63.44 31.08 D 64.32 29.77 D 63.81 30.54 D 64.60 29.32 D 64.88 28.85 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 65.93 23.40 C 65.98 22.72 C 65.96 23.06 C 65.99 22.52 C 65.99 22.29 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 18.27 C 66.00 17.76 B 66.00 17.97 B 66.00 17.64 B 66.00 17.50 B B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.20 16.83 B 67.20 16.35 B 67.20 16.52 B 67.20 16.26 B 67.20 16.16 B A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.50 9.87 A 68.50 9.59 A 68.50 9.68 A 68.50 9.53 A 68.50 9.47 A I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 15.64 B 67.00 15.25 B 67.00 15.34 B 67.00 15.19 B 67.00 15.12 B 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-34: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 East Bound PM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 52.41 44.21 E 53.35 42.90 E I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 64.78 29.28 D 65.40 28.26 D 65.00 28.94 D 65.62 27.86 D 65.85 27.43 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.98 29.75 D 65.68 28.70 D 65.27 29.32 D 65.92 28.32 D 66.16 27.93 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 64.88 28.85 D 65.43 27.88 D 65.11 28.46 D 65.61 27.52 D 65.80 27.14 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.95 27.27 D 65.28 26.41 D 65.12 26.86 D 65.37 26.14 D 65.46 25.85 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 64.05 29.13 D 64.58 28.11 D 64.37 28.52 D 64.70 27.85 D 64.82 27.57 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 55.15 42.20 E 57.45 39.30 E 56.71 40.22 E 57.89 38.76 E 58.34 38.21 E I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 60.43 35.02 E 61.71 33.35 D 61.27 33.93 D 61.95 33.03 D 62.23 32.65 D 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐42 Chapter 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) July 2011

Table 2-35: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 West Bound AM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.09 24.25 C 67.28 23.41 C 67.17 23.94 C 67.33 23.11 C 67.38 22.77 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 60.20 35.93 E 61.76 34.00 D 60.89 35.08 E 62.28 33.35 D 62.82 32.67 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 56.98 39.45 E 58.86 37.09 E 57.79 38.43 E 59.47 36.32 E 60.12 35.49 E D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 62.19 32.11 D 63.08 30.77 D 62.65 31.43 D 63.33 30.36 D 63.59 29.94 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 65.38 26.11 D 65.61 25.28 C 65.53 25.62 C 65.66 25.08 C 65.71 24.87 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 63.24 31.37 D 64.11 30.09 D 63.84 30.50 D 64.29 29.82 D 64.46 29.56 D A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 59.24 36.53 E 60.59 34.81 D 60.26 35.23 E 60.78 34.57 D 61.00 34.28 D 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-36: Freeway LOS Results for 2020 West Bound PM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 64.80 12.27 B 64.80 11.93 B 64.80 12.15 B 64.80 11.82 B 64.80 11.68 B I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.50 20.56 C 67.50 20.03 C 67.50 20.39 C 67.50 19.81 C 67.50 19.57 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 63.09 32.32 D 64.04 31.06 D 63.46 31.83 D 64.38 30.60 D 64.71 30.13 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 60.29 35.28 E 61.52 33.69 D 60.79 34.64 D 61.96 33.12 D 62.40 32.53 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.74 27.76 D 65.12 26.86 D 64.93 27.32 D 65.22 26.57 D 65.33 26.27 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 65.99 22.23 C 66.00 21.62 C 66.00 21.88 C 66.00 21.45 C 66.00 21.29 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.20 17.41 B 67.20 16.89 B 67.20 17.07 B 67.20 16.79 B 67.20 16.68 B A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.49 20.51 C 68.50 19.90 C 68.50 20.10 C 68.50 19.78 C 68.50 19.65 C I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 18.75 C 67.00 18.24 C 67.00 18.42 C 67.00 18.12 C 67.00 18.00 B 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐43 Chapter 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-37: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 East Bound AM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 58.49 35.85 E 59.75 33.99 D 59.30 34.67 D 60.14 33.39 D 60.57 32.69 D I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.76 25.35 C 67.05 24.42 C 66.95 24.77 C 67.14 24.07 C 67.22 23.68 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.60 30.30 D 65.51 28.96 D 65.21 29.41 D 65.80 28.51 D 66.11 28.02 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 63.13 31.52 D 64.11 30.09 D 63.80 30.57 D 64.43 29.60 D 64.75 29.08 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 65.82 24.31 C 65.92 23.56 C 65.89 23.78 C 65.94 23.32 C 65.96 23.09 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 17.32 B 66.00 16.80 B 66.00 16.92 B 66.00 16.68 B 66.00 16.55 B B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.13 22.49 C 67.18 21.81 C 67.17 21.93 C 67.18 21.67 C 67.19 21.52 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.50 15.18 B 68.50 14.73 B 68.50 14.82 B 68.50 14.64 B 68.50 14.55 B I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 19.10 C 67.00 18.60 C 67.00 18.64 C 67.00 18.54 C 67.00 18.48 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-38: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 East Bound PM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 54.55 42.66 E 56.69 39.92 E 55.85 40.99 E 57.52 38.87 E 58.35 37.84 E F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 60.61 35.42 E 62.03 33.66 D 61.55 34.27 D 62.50 33.07 D 63.00 32.43 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 62.36 32.58 D 63.39 31.16 D 63.03 31.67 D 63.73 30.66 D 64.09 30.13 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 61.87 32.57 D 62.84 31.14 D 62.56 31.57 D 63.11 30.73 D 63.40 30.25 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.40 38.48 E 59.17 36.20 E 58.77 36.72 E 59.56 35.70 E 60.00 35.12 E B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐44 Chapter 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-39: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 West Bound AM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 60.91 34.62 D 62.40 32.69 D 61.85 33.42 D 62.91 32.02 D 63.43 31.30 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 53.65 44.14 E E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 52.48 44.95 E 53.40 43.71 E C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.93 37.80 E 59.58 35.66 E 59.22 36.13 E 59.96 35.18 E 60.36 34.64 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-40: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 West Bound PM Peak Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 64.80 13.09 B 64.80 12.72 B 64.80 12.85 B 64.80 12.59 B 64.80 12.44 B I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.95 24.75 C 67.16 23.99 C 67.08 24.30 C 67.22 23.68 C 67.28 23.36 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 62.26 33.38 D 63.42 31.88 D 63.02 32.40 D 63.82 31.35 D 64.24 30.79 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 57.67 38.58 E 59.39 36.42 E 58.80 37.16 E 59.98 35.68 E 60.60 34.88 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.61 28.05 D 65.04 27.06 D 64.91 27.36 D 65.16 26.75 D 65.27 26.43 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 21.77 C 66.00 21.12 C 66.00 21.27 C 66.00 20.95 C 66.00 20.77 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.18 21.72 C 67.20 21.01 C 67.20 21.15 C 67.20 20.86 C 67.20 20.71 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 66.58 27.20 D 67.14 26.11 D 67.04 26.31 D 67.23 25.91 C 67.33 25.69 C I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 20.54 C 67.00 19.94 C 67.00 20.01 C 67.00 19.85 C 67.00 19.76 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Lev el of serv ice is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐45 Chapter 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

I-580 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS ANALYSIS Passage of climate action planning initiatives in the state of California (e.g. AB 32, SB 375, and SB 582) requires addressing of transportation sector contribution to climate change related emissions. In response, GHG analysis will be required to assess air quality changes as a result of the TDM and transportation improvement programs. This GHG emissions analysis will focus specifically on on-road mobile source emissions germane to the I- 580 freeway. This required all on-road activity inputs for air quality modeling to be adapted to reflect a corridor specific analysis versus a regional countywide and air basin. A description of the components of GHG, development of GHG composite emission rates and development of the on-road activity inputs for emissions modeling are described in the following sections. GHG Components

On-road mobile sources consist of three compounds including Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and 20 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . The greenhouse gas inventory is presented in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) which weights and combines contributions for each greenhouse gas emitted. Each compound differs in warming influence due to differing radiative properties and atmospheric half-lives. The carbon dioxide equivalent emissions metric is based on each gasses potential to cause global warming, relative to 21 that of CO2 .

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions are defined as the amount of carbon dioxide emission that would cause the same time-integrated radiative forcing, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a long lived GHG or a mixture of GHGs. The equivalent carbon dioxide emission is obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon. For a mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of each gas.

GWP factors for use in calculating carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4, and 310 22,23 for N2O . It should be noted that the newest estimates for the global warming potential of N2O is slightly lower than the value used by the California Air Resources Board (298 vs. 310). This analysis uses the older value of 310 to be consistent with the State's methodology.

20 Rogers, J.; Eslinger, K.; Hunsaker, L.; Li, L.; Lowery, N.; Raymond, J.; Scott, K.; Vayssieres, M. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit; California Air Resources Board: Sacramento, California, 2007. 21 IPCC., Climate Change 2007 - Mitigation of Climate Change : Working Group III contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. In Cambridge University Press: Leiden, 2007; p 863 p. 22 Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Nganga, J.; Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Michael, S.; Van Dorland, R. 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: [S.l.], 2007. 23 IPCC., Climate change 1995 : IPCC second assessment : a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change: [S.l.], 1995; p viii, 64 p. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐46 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Composite Emission Rates Emissions are a function of the mix of vehicle types; vehicle ages; vehicle maintenance; ambient conditions; and the following vehicle operating modes: start mode; running mode; idling mode; and standing or evaporative. Only the running and start operating modes are applicable to this analysis. Emission rates used in this analysis are based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regional emissions model EMFAC/BURDEN’s default values for Alameda County. This county was selected given that it contributed the greatest trip contribution to I-580/205 corridor. Emission rates were determined for 2020 and 2035. EMFAC/BURDEN produces emission rates for up to 13 vehicle classifications and four technology groups (i.e., catalytic, non-catalytic, diesel, electric). The only vehicle classifications applicable to this emissions analysis are: light duty autos (LDA), light duty trucks (LDT), medium duty trucks (MDT), and motorcycles (MCY). These vehicle classifications are germane to commuter travel and are therefore applicable to the application of TDM strategies. 2 For GHG calculations, N2O emissions are assumed to be proportional to fuel consumption and are estimated using conversion factors of 1.92 and 0.332 grams of N2O per gallon of fuel consumed for gasoline and diesel, respectively24. These factors are California specific and were estimated by the California Air Resources Board for developing greenhouse gas emission inventories in California. On-Road Mobile Source Activity Data Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Peak-hour VMT was estimated by multiplying peak-hour traffic volumes by distance of each corresponding segment. Peak-hour VMT was expanded to reflect peak period VMT based on the peak hour to peak period VMT relationship documented in the I-580 CSMP study25. Table 2-41 presents the baseline peak period VMT comparison between this study and the simulated VMT results from I-580 CSMP study. The analysis years in the I-580 CSMP were 2008, 2015, and 2035. For purposes of comparison, the CSMP’s 2015 analysis year was compared relative to 2020 in this study. The average 2035 traffic projections volumes are approximately 13 percent less than the like projections reported in the I-580 CSMP. These VMT forecasts reflect the effect of two additional years of recession post housing market bubble collapse in 2007. These lower baseline counts result in lower out-year travel forecasts per the NCHRP 255 adjustment process. Table 2-42 and Table 2-43 show VMT estimates for all TDM scenarios, respectively for 2020 and 2035.

24 CARB, C. A. R. B., Documentation of California's Greenhouse Gas Inventory: categories 1A3bi, 1A3bii, and 1A3biii. 25 ALA-238/580 Corridor System Management Plan Technical Analysis Report, Dowling Associates, May 2009. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐47 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-41: VMT Estimate for Baseline Scenario %VMT VMT from I-580 %VMT VMT from I-580 Distribution from CSMP 2020 Baseline Distribution from CSMP 2035 Baseline Peak CSMP (2015)1 (Paramics:2015)1 VMT CSMP (2035)1 (Paramics:2035)1 VM T 5:00-6:00 16.36% 315,915 290,718 15.20% 410,082 362,638 6:00-7:00 23.66% 456,984 420,536 21.18% 571,381 505,275 7:00-8:00 29.76% 574,668 528,833 27.44% 740,347 654,693 8:00-9:00 30.22% 583,666 537,113 36.18% 976,102 863,173 AM 4-hour total 100.00% 1,931,233 1,777,200 100.00% 2,697,912 2,385,780 14:30-15:30 16.07% 442,555 421,452 11.90% 560,490 490,029 15:30-16:30 20.07% 552,846 526,483 20.07% 945,439 826,586 16:30-17:30 23.10% 636,341 605,997 22.11% 1,041,637 910,691 17:30-18:30 22.70% 625,362 595,541 23.18% 1,092,335 955,015 18:30-19:30 18.05% 497,248 473,537 22.75% 1,071,678 936,955 PM 5-hour total 100.00% 2,754,351 2,623,010 100.00% 4,711,579 4,119,275 Total 4,685,585 4,400,210 7,409,491 6,505,055 AM Diff. -8% -12% PM Diff. -5% -13% Total Diff. -6% -12% 1 ALA-238/580 Corridor System Management Plan Technical Analysis Report, Dowling Associates, May 2009. Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 2-42: VMT Estimate for 2020 Baseline and TDM Scenarios %VMT Distribution from 2020 VMT Peak CSMP (2015)1 Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 5:00-6:00 16.36% 290,718 282,354 286,444 279,868 277,131 6:00-7:00 23.66% 420,536 408,436 414,353 404,840 400,881 7:00-8:00 29.76% 528,833 513,618 521,059 509,095 504,117 8:00-9:00 30.22% 537,113 521,660 529,217 517,066 512,010 AM 4-hour total 100.00% 1,777,200 1,726,068 1,751,074 1,710,868 1,694,138 14:30-15:30 16.07% 421,452 410,028 415,567 406,651 402,947 15:30-16:30 20.07% 526,483 512,213 519,132 507,994 503,367 16:30-17:30 23.10% 605,997 589,571 597,535 584,715 579,389 17:30-18:30 22.70% 595,541 579,399 587,225 574,626 569,393 18:30-19:30 18.05% 473,537 460,701 466,925 456,906 452,745 PM 5-hour total 100.00% 2,623,010 2,551,911 2,586,384 2,530,892 2,507,842 Total 4,400,210 4,277,980 4,337,458 4,241,760 4,201,980 1 ALA-238/580 Corridor Sy stem Management Plan Technical Analysis Report, Dowling Associates, May 2009. Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐48 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-43: VMT Estimate for 2035 Baseline and TDM Scenarios %VMT Distribution from 2035 VMT Peak CSMP (2035)1 Baseline TDM 1 TDM 2 TDM 3.1 TDM 3.2 5:00-6:00 15.20% 362,638 351,666 354,730 348,543 345,097 6:00-7:00 21.18% 505,275 489,988 494,258 485,636 480,836 7:00-8:00 27.44% 654,693 634,885 640,417 629,246 623,026 8:00-9:00 36.18% 863,173 837,056 844,351 829,623 821,422 AM 4-hour total 100.00% 2,385,780 2,313,594 2,333,756 2,293,047 2,270,381 14:30-15:30 11.90% 490,029 475,500 479,534 471,376 466,846 15:30-16:30 20.07% 826,586 802,078 808,882 795,122 787,480 16:30-17:30 22.11% 910,691 883,689 891,186 876,025 867,606 17:30-18:30 23.18% 955,015 926,699 934,560 918,662 909,833 18:30-19:30 22.75% 936,955 909,175 916,887 901,289 892,627 PM 5-hour total 100.00% 4,119,275 3,997,142 4,031,049 3,962,473 3,924,392 Total 6,505,055 6,310,736 6,364,806 6,255,521 6,194,773 1 ALA-238/580 Corridor System Management Plan Technical Analysis Report, Dowling Associates, May 2009. Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐49 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) by Speed Class Distribution Given the sensitivity of vehicle running emission rates to vehicle speed, total VMT must be stratified into pre-defined speed bins for analysis. Based on the I-580 CSMP micro-simulation results, estimates of average I-580 travel speed in 2015 and 2035 were produced. The average travel speed for the I-580/205 corridor was estimated at 51.3 mph for 2015 and 42.2 mph for 2035. These simulated estimates of future year average I-580 freeway speed were considered more representative of future freeway operating conditions than the HCM2000 “static” estimates of segment speed previously presented. It was also necessary given that the HCM does not compute speeds for segments whose operations are defined as “unstable”. To create a speed class distribution specific to the I-580, three 5-mph speed bins were considered for each analysis year. It was assumed that 50% of the total VMT will be traveling at the speed bin representing the average speed (e.g. 50-55 mph for 2020 and 40-45 mph for 2035), 25% of the total VMT will be traveling at one bin lower (e.g. 45-50 mph for 2020 and 35-40 mph for 2035), and another 25% of the total VMT will be traveling at one bin higher than the average bin (e.g. 55-60 mph for 2020 and 45-50 for 2035). This “synthetic” distribution assumes a normal distribution with a maximum freeway speed variance of 15 mph. Figure 2-12 presents the VMT distribution by speed class and Table 2-44 and Table 2-45 present the calculated VMT by speed class distributions for baseline and TDM scenarios respectively.

Figure 2-12: VMT by Speed Class Distribution

60%

50% Class 40% Speed

30% by

2020 20% 2035 VMT

% 10%

0% 35‐40 40‐45 45‐50 50‐55 55‐60

Speed (mph)

Source: Adapted from ALA-238/580 Corridor System Management Plan Technical Analysis Report, Dowling Associates, May 2009.

Table 2-44: VMT Estimate by Speed Class for 2020 Baseline and TDM Scenarios Speed VMT / AM and PM Peak Periods (5-9 AM and 2.30-7.30 PM) Class Pct. Dist. Baseline TDM 1 Diff. TDM 2 Diff. TDM 3.1 Diff. TDM 3.2 Diff. (mph) 45-50 25% 1,100,053 1,069,495 -2.78% 1,084,364 -1.43% 1,060,440 -3.60% 1,050,495 -4.51% 50-55 50% 2,200,105 2,138,990 -2.78% 2,168,729 -1.43% 2,120,880 -3.60% 2,100,990 -4.51% 55-60 25% 1,100,053 1,069,495 -2.78% 1,084,364 -1.43% 1,060,440 -3.60% 1,050,495 -4.51% Total 100% 4,400,210 4,277,980 4,337,458 4,241,760 4,201,980 Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐50 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-45: VMT Estimate by Speed Class for 2035 Baseline and TDM Scenarios

Speed VMT / AM and PM Peak Periods (5-9 AM and 2.30-7.30 PM) Class Pct. Dist. Baseline TDM 1 Diff. TDM 2 Diff. TDM 3.1 Diff. TDM 3.2 Diff. (mph) 35-40 25% 1,626,264 1,577,684 -2.99% 1,591,201 -2.16% 1,563,880 -3.84% 1,548,693 -4.77% 40-45 50% 3,252,527 3,155,368 -2.99% 3,182,403 -2.16% 3,127,760 -3.84% 3,097,386 -4.77% 45-50 25% 1,626,264 1,577,684 -2.99% 1,591,201 -2.16% 1,563,880 -3.84% 1,548,693 -4.77% Total 100% 6,505,055 6,310,736 6,364,806 6,255,521 6,194,773 Dowling Associates, Inc.

Vehicle Trips Vehicle ignition key on- and off-events generate emissions called “starting” emissions. Although these emissions are not occurring on the I-580/205 corridor itself – they are applicable to this analysis given that trip reductions resulting from TDM strategies will result in a reduction in starting GHG emissions. To capture this emission reduction benefit, an estimate of the number of vehicle trips was required. This was done by dividing the VMT estimates described previously by the estimated weighted average trip length of trips using the I-580/205 corridor. The weighted average trip length of trips using the 32.14-mile corridor was identified using trip length by county (Table 2-17) and the percent trip share by county (Figure 1-5 through Figure 1-8). The average trip length for trips originating from Alameda County is 14-mile long and the average trip length for trips from other counties is estimated at over 36 miles. The trips originated from outside Alameda County were assumed to travel the entire distance of the I-580/205 corridor. These assumptions yield a weighted average trip length on the corridor of just over 23 miles. Table 2-46 and Table 2-47 provide estimates for weighted average trip length for 2020 and 2035 respectively.

Table 2-46: Weighted Average Trip Length Estimate for I-580/205 Corridor for 2020 One-Way %Trip %Trip %Trip Trip 2020 Share Share Share Length AM2 PM2 Avg. (mi.)1 Alameda 14.00 47.51% 48.26% 47.89% Others 32.14 52.49% 51.74% 52.12% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Weighted Avg. 23.45 Dowling Associates, Inc.

1 Average trip length for Alameda County = 14 miles (Table 2-17). Average trip length for other counties is greater than the corridor distance in one direction. The maximum travel distance for I-580/205 corridor is 32.14 miles. 2 Trip share was identified using selected link analysis (as presented in Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6).

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐51 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-47: Weighted Average Trip Length Estimate for I-580/205 Corridor for 2035 One-Way %Trip %Trip %Trip Trip 2035 Share Share Share Length AM2 PM2 Avg. (mi.)1 Alameda 14.00 47.40% 47.91% 47.66% Others 32.14 52.60% 52.09% 52.35% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Weighted Avg. 23.50 Dowling Associates, Inc.

1 Average trip length for Alameda County = 14 miles (Table 2-17). Average trip length for other counties is greater than the corridor distance in one direction. The maximum travel distance for I- 580/205 corridor is 32.14 miles. 2 Trip share was identified using selected link analysis (as presented in Figure 1-7 and Figure 1-8).

The estimate total trips along I-580/205 corridor were determined by dividing the VMT for each travel direction by the weighted average trip length (Table 2-46 and Table 2-47). The total VMTs shown in Table 2-42 and Table 2-43 were divided into eastbound and westbound directions using the EB/WB traffic ratio identified from the traffic forecast. The EB/WB ratio for 2020 is 47%/53% and the ratio for 2035 is 47%/53%. For each analysis year, the same ratio was used in all scenarios. This yields an estimate of total trips for 2020 and 2035 as shown in Table 2-48. Given that each trip reflects a single trip end – the number of trips also is a surrogate for vehicle population. Although vehicle population does not factor into the GHG emissions analysis, it is included as an input to this analysis for reasonableness26. Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14 provide a summary for daily VMT reduction and daily trip reduction, respectively from each TDM scenario for 2020 and 2035. TDM Scenario 1 is estimated to reduce VMT by approximately 120,000 VMT per day in 2020. TDM Scenario 2 reduces VMT by approximately half that of TDM Scenario 1. TDM Scenario 3.1 is projected to reduce daily VMT by approximately 160,000 VMT while TDM Scenario 3.2 reduces VMT by just under 200,000 VMT per day. Under 2035 conditions, daily VMT reductions of approximately 194,000 VMT, 140,000 VMT, 250,000 VMT and 310,000 VMT are projected for TDM Scenario 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. These daily VMT and trip reduction estimates yield the gasoline consumption reductions shown in Figure 2-15 for 2020 and 2035. Savings in gasoline consumption projected for 2020 range from approximately 2,500 gallons/day under TDM Scenario 2 to 10,000 gallons/day under TDM Scenario 3.2. Savings in gasoline consumption projected for 2035 range from approximately 7,500 gallons/day under TDM Scenario 2 to 15,000 gallons/day under TDM Scenario 3.2. The gasoline consumption estimates were generated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regional emissions model EMFAC2007/BURDEN.

26 Vehicle population allows diurnal and resting loss evaporative ROG emissions to be quantified. ROG are not defined as greenhouse gases. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐52 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-48: Average Vehicle Trips Estimate during Peak Periods Avg. Trip VMT (AM and PM Peak Periods) Trips (AM and PM Peak Periods) Length EB WB Total EB WB Total 2020 23.45 47.12% 52.88% 100.00% Baseline 2,073,425 2,326,786 4,400,210 88,405 99,208 187,613 TDM1 2,015,828 2,262,151 4,277,980 85,949 96,452 182,401 TDM2 2,043,855 2,293,603 4,337,458 87,144 97,793 184,937 TDM3.1 1,998,761 2,242,999 4,241,760 85,222 95,635 180,857 TDM3.2 1,980,016 2,221,964 4,201,980 84,422 94,738 179,161 2035 23.50 46.57% 53.43% 100.00% Baseline 3,029,334 3,475,721 6,505,055 128,933 147,932 276,865 TDM1 2,938,842 3,371,895 6,310,736 125,082 143,513 268,595 TDM2 2,964,021 3,400,784 6,364,806 126,153 144,743 270,896 TDM3.1 2,913,128 3,342,392 6,255,521 123,987 142,257 266,245 TDM3.2 2,884,839 3,309,934 6,194,773 122,783 140,876 263,659 Dowling Associates, Inc.

1Weigthed average trip length in one direction (Table 2-46 and Table 2-47: ) AM Peak Period = 5-9 AM PM Peak Period =2.30-7.30 PM Trips = VMT / Avg. Trip Length

Figure 2-13: TDM Daily VMT Reduction Summary

TDM VMT Reduction (per day) 350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 2020 150,000 2035 100,000

50,000

0 TDM1 TDM2 TDM31 TDM32

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐53 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-14: TDM Daily Trip Reduction Summary

TDM Trip Reduction (trips per day) 14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000 2020 6,000 2035 4,000

2,000

0 TDM1 TDM2 TDM31 TDM32

Figure 2-15: TDM Daily Fuel Consumption Reduction Summary

TDM Fuel Reduction (gals per day) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 2020 8,000 6,000 2035 4,000 2,000 0 TDM1 TDM2 TDM31 TDM32

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐54 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

GHG Analysis Results GHG estimates for each TDM scenario were generated using an automated application developed for EMFAC/BURDEN27. The automated application was used to interface the on-road activity data inputs with EMFAC/BURDEN and post process the outputs for CO2-eq estimates. VMT was distributed by speed class to the AM and PM peak periods consistent with the distributions established for the I-580 previously described. For the baseline years 2020 and 2035, peak period VMT by speed class was generated by multiplying the total VMT for each peak period Table 2-41) by the VMT distribution by speed class (Figure 2-12). For each TDM scenario, the delta (i.e., difference) between the TDM scenario VMT and the baseline VMT was input into EMFACBURDEN. The VMT reduction for each scenario was calculated for each peak period using the information provided in Table 2-42 and Table 2-43, for 2020 and 2035 respectively. The peak period VMT reduction was then grouped into speed class based on the information in Figure 2-12. Table 2-49and Table 2-50 provide the GHG result summaries for 2020 and 2035 analysis years respectively. These GHG emission reductions are specific to the I-580/I-205 corridor i.e., the total emission reduction benefit resulting from trip reductions that do not use the I-580/I-205 freeway are not reflected in these results. In 2020, TDM scenarios are estimated to provide GHG reduction benefit between 1.04% and 3.29% or a reduction of up to 103.47 tons/day (in TDM 3.2). Not surprisingly, the parking pricing strategy with the highest fee ($15/day) imposed results in the greatest GHG reduction. TDM programs in isolation of parking pricing are shown to decrease GHG by approximately 1.04%-2.03%. Similar conclusions are true for the 2035 analysis year, but at higher magnitude of GHG reduction. Table 2-50 shows that a maximum of 155.25 tons/day for GHG could be removed with the highest fee parking pricing option (TDM 3.2) in 2035. TDM programs in isolation of parking pricing are shown to decrease GHG by approximately 1.70%-2.36%. For comparison purpose for benefits of each TDM scenario, Figure 2-16 and Figure 2-17 provide a summary for GHG reduction respectively in tons per day and tons per year. Regional emission reduction projections for 2020 range from approximately 64 tons/day of GHG under TDM Scenario 2 to 103 tons/day of GHG under TDM Scenario 3.2. Emission reductions of GHG projected for 2035 range from approximately 70 tons/day under TDM Scenario 2 to 155 tons/day under TDM Scenario 3.2. The out-year GHG emission reduction benefits are shown to increase over time despite the fleet turnover of older more polluting vehicles and the market penetration of newer less polluting vehicles into the fleet mix. It should be noted that the above reductions do not reflect the Pavely-1 or low carbon fuel standards earmarked for the State of California in these future years.

27 The automated application was developed by Dowling Associates Inc. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐55 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-49: GHG Analysis Results Summary for 2020 Total GHG during Peak Reduction during Peak Periods Title Periods Baseline TDM1 TDM2 TDM3.1 TDM3.2 Area I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) Year 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Vehs/day 187,615 5,212 2,676 6,756 8,452 VMT/day 4,400,210 122,230 62,753 158,450 198,230 Trips/day 187,613 5,212 2,676 6,756 8,452

Total GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 165.24 4.14 2.12 5.36 6.70 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 4,285.82 36.50 18.74 47.32 59.20 CO2 (lbs./day) (wt=1) 4,948,400 116,180 59,660 150,620 188,440 Total GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 6,280,474.24 127,581.94 65,513.92 165,401.76 206,932.70

Total GHG CO2eq 3,140.24 63.79 32.76 82.70 103.47 (tons/day) % GHG Reduction 2.03% 1.04% 2.63% 3.29%

Run GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 159.42 4.00 2.06 5.18 6.48 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 4,088.34 34.36 17.64 44.54 55.74 CO2 (lbs./day) (wt=1) 4,913,500.00 115,260 59,180 149,420 186,940 Run GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 6,184,233.22 125,995.60 64,691.66 163,336.18 204,355.48 Run GHG CO2eq 3,092.12 63.00 32.35 81.67 102.18 (tons/day)

Start GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 5.50 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.22 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 112.96 2.14 1.10 2.76 3.46 CO2 (tons/day) (wt=1) 30,060.00 920.00 480.00 1,200 1,500 Start GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 65,193.10 1,586.34 822.26 2,059.38 2,577.22 Start GHG CO2eq 32.60 0.79 0.41 1.03 1.29 (tons/day)

Fuel Consumption Gasoline (gals/day) 204,943 5,970 3,065 7,739 9,682 Diesel (gals/day) 43,608 7 4 9 11 Source: EMFAC/BURDEN

Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐56 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐57 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Table 2-50: GHG Analysis Results Summary for 2035 Total GHG during Peak Reduction during Peak Periods Title Periods Baseline TDM1 TDM2 TDM3.1 TDM3.2 Area I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-580 Corridor from I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 I-238 to I-205 (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) (Alameda County) Year 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 Vehs/day 276,859 8,271 5,969 10,621 13,206 VMT/day 6,505,060 194,319 140,249 249,534 310,282 Trips/day 276,871 8,271 5,969 10,621 13,206

Total GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 148.62 3.74 2.70 4.80 5.96 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 2,970.32 22.64 16.34 29.06 36.14 CO2 (lbs./day) (wt=1) 7,310,820 187,360 135,220 240,600 299,180 Total GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 8,234,740.22 194,456.94 140,342.10 249,709.40 310,508.56

Total GHG CO2eq 4,117.37 97.23 70.17 124.85 155.25 (tons/day) % GHG Reduction 2.36% 1.70% 3.03% 3.77%

Run GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 145.00 3.66 2.64 4.70 5.86 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 2,772.68 21.60 15.58 27.74 34.48 CO2 (lbs./day) (wt=1) 7,260,260.00 185,920 134,180 238,740 296,860 Run GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 8,122,835.80 192,692.86 139,065.24 247,438.10 307,671.86 Run GHG CO2eq 4,061.42 96.35 69.53 123.72 153.84 (tons/day)

Start GHG pollutants CH4 (lbs./day) (wt=21) 3.22 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.10 NOx (lbs./day) (wt=310) 81.14 1.04 0.74 1.32 1.66 CO2 (tons/day) (wt=1) 43,980.00 1,460.00 1,040.00 1,860 2,320 Start GHG CO2eq (lbs./day) 69,201.02 1,783.66 1,270.24 2,270.88 2,836.70 Start GHG CO2eq 34.60 0.89 0.64 1.14 1.42 (tons/day)

Fuel Consumption Gasoline (gals/day) 308,168 9,613 6,938 12,345 15,350 Diesel (gals/day)58,9731122 Source: EMFAC/BURDEN

Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐58 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Figure 2-16: TDM Daily GHG Reduction Summary

TDM GHG Emission Reduction (tons per day) 180 160 140 120 100 2020 80 60 2035 40 20 0 TDM1 TDM2 TDM31 TDM32

Figure 2-17: TDM Annual GHG Reduction Summary

TDM GHG Emission Reduction (tons per year) 60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000 2020

20,000 2035

10,000

0 TDM1 TDM2 TDM31 TDM32

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 2‐59 Chapter 2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) August 2011

Chapter 3 : GOODS MOVEMENT

This chapter examines relevant short- and long-term goods movement projects and proposals. There are relatively few projects and proposals aimed strictly at goods movement. Truck climbing lanes, barge services, and new rail facilities or services are among the prominent examples. System capacity additions of all kinds, however, tend to affect the movement of goods as well as passengers, even if the main objective, such as reducing congestion during commute hours, is passenger-focused. The identified future improvements/ programs were used to determine the incremental operational benefits attributable to truck freight activity reductions along the I-580/ I-205 corridor. The term “Trucks” is used to denote commercial for hire or private trucks whose primary purpose is to carry cargo. These include single unit and articulated trucks. The terms “goods” and “freight” are used interchangeably throughout this report. Similarly, the terms “Altamont Pass” and “I-580/ I-205 corridor” are used interchangeably to denote the transportation corridor between Livermore and Tracy. APPROACH Existing conditions for goods movement were developed using FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Caltrans Intermodal Transportation Management System (ITMS) and published truck volumes. All freight-related improvement for short-term and long-term projects and proposals were inventoried and prioritized using published sources, such as regional planning and programming documents. This included any anticipated changes in drayage operations at the Port of Stockton and Oakland that might entail a greater future reliance on rail over truck freight movement. After baseline truck freight demand conditions were established, three approaches were used to forecast future truck volumes on the I-580/ I-205 corridor: (1) The American Trucking Association (ATA) multi-modal freight forecast, (2) The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) forecasts, and (3) Interregional Transportation Partnership’s regional agencies’ truck models. Once the differences between these forecasts were reconciled and finalized, the final forecasts were converted to passenger car equivalencies (PCEs). PCEs were then analyzed with the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) relative to identified future improvements and programs to determine the incremental operational benefits attributable to truck freight activity reductions along the I-580/ I-205 corridor. INTERREGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT OBJECTIVES There are four primary objectives of this goods movement analysis: 1) Establish existing conditions for freight between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley 2) Identify and document future freight-related projects and programs that would influence goods movement along the Altamont Pass 3) Forecast future demand for trucking on the I-580/ I-205 corridor 4) Assess changes in trucking volumes and benefits derived with and without future freight-related projects and programs

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐1 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

EXISTING CONDITIONS This section details truck routing alternatives between the San Francisco Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. Alternative Routing Comparisons The analysis presented here uses mileages on the various routes and combinations to illustrate how the market areas accessed by each route are determined. While mileage is not the only factor, it is the single most important factor. The actual routing choices of drivers and dispatchers are, of course, far more complex and might also consider a number of other factors, such as actual customer locations, time of day and expected congestion, location of other stops or previous/subsequent customers, driver preferences, size and weight of the truck and load in relation to grades, and/or locations of fuel, lodging, or other services. As Figure 3-1 illustrates, the I-580/ I-205 corridor is one of four routes between the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. The I-580/ I-205 corridor effectively connects I-880 to I-5 (and to Highway 99) over I-238, I-580, and I-205. Because the other routes are so widely separated there is minimal competition between them. Each serves a combination of origin and destination territories almost exclusively, with competition only on the margins. The I-580/ I-205 corridor dominates truck routings between the East Bay and the middle portion of the San Joaquin Valley. For San Joaquin Valley points north of Lodi and for access to I-80 over Donner Pass, the I-80 Corridor (including I-680) dominates truck routings. For points south of Turlock and access to I-40, I-15, and Southern California, SR-152 is shorter although slower. Figure 3-1: I-580/ I-205 Corridor and Alternatives

I-580/ I-205 Corridor Compared to the I-80 Corridor The I-580/ I-205 corridor can be used to connect the lower East Bay with I-80 north of Sacramento for interstate truck trips to and from points beyond California. The comparisons that follow illustrate the kinds of factors a truck driver or

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐2 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

dispatcher might consider in choosing a route, and the potential for diversion to or from other routes as their relative speeds change. As an example, Figure 3-2 shows the two routes from a common starting point where I-238 meets I-880 in San Leandro to a common end point just off I-80 north of Sacramento. The route via I-880/ I-80 is about 103 miles, while the route via I-238/ I-580/ I-205/ I-5 is about 119 miles. From points west or south of San Leandro the I-80 corridor is still shorter. The dividing point at which the routes would be of equal length is about 8 miles east of San Leandro. Figure 3-2: I-80 vs. I-580/ I-205 Corridors - Interstate Trip

Using the routing shown in Figure 3-2, an average speed of 60 MPH on each corridor would result in a 16-minute time savings on the I-880/ I-80 corridor, since it is 16 miles shorter than the I-238/ I-580/ I-205/ I-5 route. That time differential grows as average speed declines, as shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Impact of Speed on I-580/I-80 Travel Times Route Average Speed (in Miles per Hour) RouteMiles Travel Time 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Via I-880/ I-80 103 Minutes 103 112 124 137 155 177 206 247 309

Via I-238/ I-580/ I- 119 Minutes 119 130 143 159 179 204 238 286 357 205/ I-5/ I-80 Travel Time Difference in minutes on I-580 16 17 19 21 24 27 32 38 48 Source: The Tioga Group and Dowling Associates, Inc. If congestion or weather reduces the average truck speed to 30 MPH, the time advantage of the I-80 corridor grows to 32 minutes. However, if trucks are able to go at a faster average speed on the I-580/ I-205 corridor than on the I- 80 corridor, the time differential is reduced. Table 3-2 holds the time on both routes equal to determine the average speed for each route. If trucks average 45 MPH on the I-80 corridor, for example, they would have to average 52 MPH on the I-580/ I-205 corridor to equal the time. The required margin is least at the lowest speeds. If the I-80 I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐3 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

corridor were reduced to an average of 20 MPH, for instance, trucks could equal the time by averaging 23 MPH on the I-580 corridor. Table 3-2: Impact of Speed Differential on I-580/I-80 Travel Times Route Average Travel Time (in Minutes) Route Miles Speed 103 112 124 137 155 177 206 247 309 Via I-880/ I-80 103 Miles per 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Hour Via I-238/ I-580/ 119 Miles per 69 64 58 52 46 40 35 29 23 I-205/ I-5/ I-80 Hour Speed Difference in MPH on I-580 998765543 Source: The Tioga Group and Dowling Associates, Inc I-580/ I-205 Corridor Compared to the SR-4 and Delta Routes The Port of Oakland is a major intermodal freight hub for the west coast and is well connected to the Altamont Pass via I-880/ I-238. As an example, Figure 3-3 shows the access alternatives for a hypothetical agricultural exporter near Lodi to the Port of Oakland. The I-580/ I-205 corridor is 16 miles longer than the combination of SR-12/ SR-160/ SR-4/ SR-242/ SR-24/ I-880 through the Delta. However, speeds on I-5/ I-580/ I-205/ I-238/ I-880 are likely to be higher than on the state highways through the Delta, and a heavy-duty truck headed for the Port is likely to choose the I-580/ I-205 corridor. Additionally, for origins and destinations connecting the Port of Oakland to points in the San Joaquin Valley between Stockton and Manteca, the I-580/ I-205 route is preferable over the SR-4 and Delta Routes for both speed and mileage reasons. This origin-destination pairing also illustrates the existing truck movements for which an Oakland-Stockton barge service might compete. Figure 3-3: I-580/ I-205 vs. SR-4 & Delta Routes - Lodi Export to Port of Oakland

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐4 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

I-580/ I-205 Corridor Compared to the SR-152 Corridor South of the I-580/ I-205 corridor the next east-west route is SR-152 between Gilroy and Los Banos. Gilroy is roughly 62 miles south of the I-238/I-880 interchange at San Leandro. For trips from the East Bay to San Joaquin Valley, San Leandro via I-580 and Gilroy via SR-152 are about equidistant from Turlock on Highway 99, as Figure 3-4 shows. Highway 99 provides a more realistic comparison for San Joaquin Valley truck trips because there are few, if any, customers on I-5. For trips between points north of San Jose to Turlock, I-580 is shorter. For points south of San Jose, SR-152 is shorter. For destinations farther south on Highway 99, such as Merced, the SR-152 route becomes advantageous on the dividing point for customers on I-880 moves north, in this case to Milpitas. Improvements in the I-580/ I-205 corridor would have the effect of moving the origin dividing point south, thus accessing a larger market for any given end point in the San Joaquin Valley. The sparser population between San Jose and Gilroy, however, means that there are diminishing returns to accessing that portion of the market. For any given point in the lower East Bay, improvements in the I-880 corridor would enable a shipper to access more of the San Joaquin Valley. Figure 3-4: I-580 vs. SR-152 Corridors – San Joaquin Valley Trip

For trips from the East Bay to Southern California, truckers can use either the I-580/ I-205 corridor or the SR-152 corridor to connect with I-5. As shown in Figure 3-5, the distances involved would put the dividing line almost right at the I-880/I-238 interchange. The slower average speeds over SR-152 itself, however, are likely to lead many truckers serving the lower Bay Area to use the I-580/ I-205 corridor as well. Truckers serving the area between Fremont and Milpitas would also have I-680 as an option.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐5 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-5: I-580 vs. SR-152 Corridors – Southern California Trips

SR-4 Alternative In terms of roadway connections between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties, State Route 4 (SR-4) provides a potential alternate truck route to the I-580/ I-205 corridor. Under current and foreseeable conditions, however, SR-4 is not a usable route for regular heavy-duty truck service between the San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties and the San Francisco Bay Area. Between I-80 and Antioch, SR-4 is a multi-lane freeway heavily used by commuters. East of Antioch towards Stockton, SR-4 becomes a two-lane rural road unsuitable for regular use by heavy-duty trucks, especially considering the rising volume of commute traffic and the very poor safety record. Moreover, the slough crossings on either end of Victoria Island have narrow drawbridges with extremely restrictive approach curves that large trucks would have trouble negotiating safely. As a result, SR-4 cannot be considered an alternate I-580 for regular heavy-duty truck trips. The trucks that use SR-4 are primarily serving origins or destinations on or near SR-4 itself rather than using it as a through route between Stockton and the Bay Area. There have been numerous improvements made to the west end of SR-4 to support commute traffic. There is also a plan to improve the connection between the west end of the Stockton cross-town freeway adjacent to the Port of Stockton. These planned upgrades, however, fall short of creating an interstate-level route to close the SR-4 gap, as shown in Figure 3-6.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐6 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-6: SR-4 “Gap”

Stockton, CA

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐7 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

INTERREGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT: FUTURE I-580 TRUCK DEMAND Goods movement demand projections for the I-580 corridor for 2020 and 2035 are presented in this section. These projections are based primarily on other forecasts developed by the Interregional Transportation Partnership regional agencies, the American Trucking Association (ATA) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Comparisons are made with like truck forecasts developed from the Alameda CTC truck model. The growth of truck traffic in the I-580 corridor will be driven by a handful of major factors:  Increased demand for goods movement to and from the San Joaquin Valley, which is primarily a function of population growth and economic development.  Overall demand for goods movement within the nation, the state, and the region.  Specific growth of containerized trade through the Port of Oakland. Projected growth rates for each of these factors can be derived from available forecasts. It is important to note that there are additional factors not included in the analysis that impact goods movement having to do with land use and the real estate market in the study region. Particularly, the San Francisco Bay Area has a reduced supply of land and building space for freight businesses, which has lead to market pressures for higher value uses. Land use policies in most Bay Area jurisdictions allow and/or encourage new and competing uses in many industrial areas. As a result, land use conflicts are increasing as new development intensifies around industrial areas and shrinks the industrial land supply. Additionally, there is a lack of investment in upgrading older industrial areas for industrial purposes.28 2011 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The 2011 SJCOG RTP summarizes forecasts for two key growth factors for San Joaquin County: population and employment. SJCOG projects a total number of 312,799 jobs in San Joaquin County by 2035 (up from an estimated 213,956 in 2010), as detailed in Table 3-3. This will accompany an increase in population in San Joaquin County from 682,523 to 989,774 (from 2010 to 2035), an increase in population of 45 percent over the 25-year period, shown in Table 3-4.

28 Goods Movement/Land Use Project for the San Francisco Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, December 2008 I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐8 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-3: SJCOG Employment Projections Employment Projections (2010 - 2035) Jurisdication 2000 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Escalon 1,905 1,674 1,763 1,863 1,950 2,053 2,152 Lathrop 4,495 4,710 5,400 5,816 6,204 6,626 7,028 Lodi 21,450 22,093 24,949 26,619 28,222 30,012 31,887 Manteca 11,905 14,823 16,527 17,815 19,043 20,401 21,756 Ripon 2,925 3,171 3,387 3,639 3,872 4,118 4,347 Stockton 88,645 100,835 115,283 124,547 133,352 142,813 152,323 Tracy 16,360 16,939 17,825 19,246 20,575 21,996 23,389 County 48,025 49,711 55,016 58,952 62,567 66,340 69,917 Total 195,710 213,956 240,150 258,497 275,785 294,359 312,799

1 Census 2000 Population Counts Note: Numbers Reflect the number of jobs, not the number of employ ed residents Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011 Regional Transportation Plan, Table 3-2 Dowling Associates, Inc. July 2011

Table 3-4: SJCOG Population Projections

Population Projections (2010 - 2035) Jurisdication 2000 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Escalon 5,963 7,535 8,444 9,272 10,155 11,023 11,910 Lathrop 10,455 18,164 20,896 23,747 25,557 27,133 28,384 Lodi 56,999 61,684 63,959 66,588 69,643 72,644 75,525

Manteca 49,258 67,477 78,146 87,471 97,410 107,766 117,010 Ripon 10,146 15,496 18,023 21,139 23,902 26,899 29,587 Stockton 243,771 296,643 319,827 348,977 377,058 404,840 430,393 Tracy 26,929 82,337 94,620 103,456 113,295 122,790 131,385

County 130,087 133,187 140,544 149,035 155,940 161,408 165,580 Total 533,608 682,523 744,459 809,685 872,960 934,503 989,774

1 Census 2000 Population Counts Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011 Regional Transportation Plan, Table 3-1 Dowling Associates, Inc. July 2011

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐9 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Employment in the SJCOG region has a somewhat different profile than in California as a whole, as detailed in Table 3-5. The key difference, as expected, is a greater emphasis on agriculture and a reduced emphasis on other commercial and employment sectors. The SJCOG region also has a somewhat higher percentage of employment in transportation and warehousing, which may be linked to the agricultural sectors. Nonetheless, the patterns indicate that freight transportation growth factors in the SJCOG region will not be radically different than in California as a whole.

Table 3-5: Employment by Industry – San Joaquin Valley Compared to State Description San Joaquin Valley California Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining 162,059 10.4% 355,362 2.1% Construction 113,730 7.3% 1,222,364 7.1% Manufacturing 128,910 8.3% 1,796,323 10.5% Wholesale trade 58,456 3.7% 567,729 3.3% Retail trade 179,859 11.5% 1,913,970 11.2% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 84,475 5.4% 837,208 4.9% Information 24,132 1.5% 519,244 3.0% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental 65,863 4.2% 1,140,246 6.7% and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and 120,414 7.7% 2,056,620 12.0% administrative and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social 325,878 20.9% 3,438,701 20.1% assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 124,330 8.0% 1,614,171 9.4% accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration 75,035 4.8% 900,254 5.3% Public administration 97,245 6.2% 762,326 4.5% Civilian employed population 16 years and 1,560,386 100% 17,124,518 100% over Numbers derived from the 2008 American Community Survey , US Census Bureau Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011 Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix Table 1-4 Dowling Associates, Inc. July 2011

The multi-county comparison of projected employment growth in Table 3-6 does indicate that San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties – the primary east-end market area for the I-580 Corridor – are expected to gain employment faster than other parts of the region.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐10 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-6: Regional Employment Projections Number of Jobs by Year CA Growth Rate 1 2009- 2020- 2009- County Agency 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2020 2035 2035 Alameda MTC 629,356 640,141 679,218 758,697 805,011 839,813 906,293 1.7% 1.2% 0.9% Contra Costa MTC 316,326 322,460 342,805 390,740 415,393 433,949 469,463 1.9% 1.2% 0.9% San Francisco MTC 544,067 548,850 577,759 599,059 630,613 654,163 698,793 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% San Joaquin SJCOG 209,580 214,019 236,679 263,922 291,866 313,620 356,943 2.1% 2.0% 1.4%

San Mateo MTC 318,101 322,573 342,210 370,906 393,485 410,450 442,850 1.4% 1.2% 0.8% Santa Clara MTC 836,476 849,181 909,477 987,347 1,057,453 1,110,556 1,212,952 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% Stanislaus SJCOG 164,827 170,955 186,968 246,273 269,341 287,129 322,160 3.7% 1.8% 1.3% Total 3,018,733 3,068,180 3,277,131 3,616,944 3,865,186 4,051,709 4,409,454 1.7% 1.3% 0.9%

1 CA Growth Rate = Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: The Tioga Group, May 2011

American Trucking Associations (ATA) 2021 Forecast The American Trucking Association (ATA) commissions an annual freight transportation forecast that encompasses all modes. For this project, the truck and rail sectors are relevant. Table 3-7 displays the national truck forecast for the industry as a whole and for individual sectors. Generally speaking, the forecast calls for relatively rapid growth in the recession recovery period of 2010-2015, and more modest growth thereafter. General freight categories (e.g. consumer goods) tend to grow faster than bulk sectors (e.g. minerals, fuels). Less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking is expected to grow faster than truckload business. Commercial trucking is also expected to grow somewhat faster than private trucking, although they both have similar implications for the I-580/ I-205 corridor.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐11 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-7: ATA Truck Volume Forecast – For-Hire and Private Motor Carriers Volume - Millions of Tons Average Annual Growth Rate Description 2009 2015 2021 2010-2015 2016-2021 2010-2021 Total 8,848.8 10,515.2 11,497.9 3.1% 1.6% 2.3% General Freight 3,859.7 4,907.1 5,510.7 4.5% 2.1% 3.3% Bulk Freight 4,989.1 5,608.1 5,987.2 2.1% 1.1% 1.6% Truckload 4,315.0 5,194.8 5,726.5 3.4% 1.7% 2.6%

General Freight 1,815.0 2,393.8 2,734.9 5.3% 2.4% 3.8% Bulk Freight 2,500.0 2,801.0 2,991.6 2.0% 1.1% 1.6% LTL 123.0 151.7 175.7 3.9% 2.6% 3.3% General Freight 116.0 143.5 166.4 3.9% 2.7% 3.3% Bulk Freight 7.0 8.2 9.3 3.0% 2.1% 2.5%

Private Truck 4,410.8 5,168.6 5,595.8 2.9% 1.4% 2.1% General Freight 1,928.7 2,369.8 2,609.4 3.8% 1.7% 2.7% Bulk Freight 2,482.1 2,798.8 2,986.4 2.1% 1.1% 1.6% Source: Table 12, American Trucking Association The Tioga Group, May 2011

Table 3-8 shows the ATA-commissioned forecast for rail carload and rail intermodal sectors. Traditional rail carload business (where freight is directly loaded into and out of train cars) is expected to grow slowly, particularly for bulk commodity movements. Rail intermodal freight (where goods are in a container that can be transferred between trains, ships, and trucks without handling the freight itself) for general commodities is expected to grow much faster, driven by expansion of international container trade and domestic consumer business. This is the segment most directly competitive with trucking. Table 3-8: ATA 2021 Rail Forecast Volume - Millions of Tons Share By Mode AA Growth Rate 1 2010- 2016- 2010- Description 2009 2015 2021 2009 2015 2021 2015 2021 2021 Rail Carload Total 1,773.2 1,957.0 2,032.9 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.7% 0.6% 1.2%

General Commodities 427.5 547.4 612.7 24.1% 28.0% 30.1% 4.7% 2.0% 3.3% Bulk Commodities 1,345.7 1,409.6 1,420.2 75.9% 72.0% 69.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.5% Rail Intermodal Total 138.6 192.9 253.1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.5% 5.2% 5.9%

General Commodities 130.4 183.7 243.4 94.1% 95.2% 96.2% 6.8% 5.4% 6.1% Bulk Commodities 8.2 9.2 9.7 5.9% 4.8% 3.8% 2.0% 0.9% 1.5%

1 AA Growth Rate = Av erage Annual Growth Rate Source: Table 14, American Trucking Association The Tioga Group, May 2011

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐12 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Container Trade Forecast 2009 Growth of containerized international trade through the Port of Oakland is a major driver of truck traffic in the I-580/ I- 205 corridor, of rail intermodal traffic on adjacent rail routes, and of potential barge traffic between Oakland and the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento. Table 3-9 presents the BCDC cargo forecast for both loaded and empty container trade through San Francisco Bay, specifically the Port of Oakland. This forecast was developed by The Tioga Group for BCDC by applying long-term trade growth rates29 to recent Port of Oakland actual loaded twenty-foot equivalent (TEU) container volumes, and then forecasting empties as a percentage of loaded movements. The forecasts reflect the downturn between 2005 and 2010, and subsequent recovery. The long-term growth rates shown for 2010 to 2020 are higher than the growth rates experienced from 2000 to 2005. Conversely, the long-term growth rates for 2020 to 2030 are lower than the growth rates experienced from 2000 to 2005, in line with a more modest outlook for economic growth and consumer spending. Table 3-9: BCDC SF Bay/ Port of Oakland Container Forecast Containerized Cargo (in 1,000 TEU) By Year CA Growth Rate 1 2000- 2005- 2010- 2020- Loaded Containers 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2020 2030

Revised Forecast Loads 1,361 1,683 1,562 2,063 2,596 3,177 3,839 4.3% -1.5% 5.2% 4.0%

Revised Forecast 1,827 2,274 2,061 2,723 3,427 4,194 5,067 4.5% -1.9% 5.2% 4.0% Loaded and Empty

1 CA Growth Rate = Compound Annual Growth Rate Source: Bay Conservation and Development The Tioga Group, May 2011

Growth Rate Comparison Figure 3-7 displays the growth rates implicit in these various forecasts. The key observations are that:  Truck, rail, and trade volume growth are expected to outpace employment and population growth in the recovery years of 2010-2015.  The regional employment growth rates are closer to the projected transportation volume growth, consistent with the observation that the relevant truck traffic is that between regions rather than within a single high- growth region.  In the post-recovery years the employment, population, and truck traffic growth rates are both more modest and fairly consistent. Rail carload traffic growth will remain slow, but is less likely to directly affect truck traffic in the I-580 Corridor. Rail intermodal traffic and containerized trade are expected to grow somewhat faster than the other factors beyond 2015. This trend may tend to accelerate the growth of that segment of truck traffic in the I-580 Corridor.

29 Long-term trade growth rates were developed by IHS Global Insight. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐13 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-7: Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates – Factors for Truck Volumes

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐14 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Truck Volume Growth Rates Figure 3-7 displays forecasts for domestic truck movements, rail movements, and port-related containerized cargo movements. To forecast the combined domestic and port truck volume growth in the Altamont Pass corridor, these factors must be combined and weighted. Domestic Truck Traffic Table 3-10 shows the derivation of an average growth forecast for domestic freight movement from the four non-port truck growth factors in reported in Figure 3-7. The average reflects somewhat faster growth in the immediate post- recession years followed by more modest growth toward the forecast horizon. Table 3-10: Growth Factors for Domestic Goods Movement Compound Annual Growth Rate Forecast 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 SJCOG Population 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% SJCOG Employment 2.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% Regional Employment 1.3% 2.0% 1.3% 0.9% ATA Truck Volume 3.1% 1.6% N/A N/A Domestic Truck Freight Average 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% The Tioga Group and Dowling Associates, Inc., July 2011

Port Truck Traffic For the 2001 Port Services Location Study, the most recent (1999) truck and traffic data were obtained from Caltrans for the freeways affected by port truck traffic (Figure 3-8). Dowling Associates compared the amount of port container truck traffic to the amount of total traffic reported by Caltrans on the freeways segments, and developed the allocation shown in Figure 3-9. For the flow on I-238 leading to the I-580/ I-205 corridor, the estimated port truck traffic was 0.9% of a total truck share of 7.0%, or 13% of the truck count.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐15 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-8: 1999 Average Daily Traffic and Truck Totals

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐16 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-9: Estimated Port Truck Traffic Volumes

Weighted Average Truck Growth Rates Table 3-11 applies the weights derived above to the average domestic growth rate from Table 3-10 and the port cargo growth rate from the BCDC Seaport Plan (also shown in Figure 3-7).

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐17 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-11: Weighted Average Truck Traffic Growth Factors Compound Annual Growth Rate Forecast Share 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 Domestic Truck Freight Average 87% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2%

BCDC Port Container Cargo Forecast 13% 5.2% 5.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Weighted Average Growth Factor 100% 2.5% 2.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% Source: 2001 Port Services Location Study Dowling Associates, Inc, July 2011

Because port cargo is a relatively small part of the total truck volume, the weighted growth rates are only slightly higher than the underlying domestic growth rates. The 2030-2035 growth rate is beyond the forecast horizon for most sources in Figure 3-7 so for this purpose the 2025-2030 growth rate was extended to 2035. Truck Volume Growth by Segment Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 apply the forecast growth rates developed above to the most recent Caltrans truck baseline truck counts to generate the future year truck volume projections for each I-580 analysis segment, as illustrated previously in Figure 1-4. Each segment contained in the next two tables is defined below:  Section I. I-205 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Patterson Pass Road (Post mile 0.213 – 0.447)  Section A. I-580 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Flynn Road (Post mile 0.39 – 5.98)  Section B. I-580 from North Flynn Road to Vasco Road (Post mile 5.98 – 9.68)  Section C. I-580 from Vasco Road to Isabel Interchange – new SR 84 (Post mile 9.68 – 14.2)  Section D. I-580 from Isabel Interchange – new SR 84 to I-680/Foothill Road (Post mile 14.2 – 21.43)  Section E. I-580 from I-680/Foothill Road to Dublin Grade Summit (Post mile 21.43 – 23.72)  Section F. I-580 from Dublin Grade Summit to Central Street (Post mile 23.72 – 28.75)  Section G. I-580 from Central Street to Junction I-580/I-238 (Post mile 28.75 – 30.80)  Section H. I-238 from I-580 to I-880 (Post mile 14.70 – 16.70) Comparison with Alameda CTC Truck Model As a reasonableness check, the above I-580/I205 future year truck volume projections (Average Approach) were compared with the Alameda CTC truck model forecasts for 2015 and 2035. As described, the growth factor method was applied to 3+ axle truck counts. The Alameda CTC truck model classifies trucks into the following three categories: 1) Very Small Trucks: 2-axle four tires FHWA Class 3; 2) Small Trucks: 2-axle 6 tires FHWA Class 5; 3) Medium Trucks: 3-axle FHWA Class 6; and, 4) Combination Trucks: 4-axle+ FHWA Class 7-13. For comparison purposes, peak hour truck model volumes for the Medium Duty and Combination truck classifications were compared with the AM/PM peak hour 3+ axle truck volume sums developed herein. Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11 show the 2035 AM and PM peak hour truck forecast comparisons between the growth factor approach relative to the Alameda CTC truck model forecasts respectively. The PM peak hour projections track closely with the Alameda CTC truck model. Conversely, the AM peak hour forecasts are more disparate between the two with the growth factor results being generally more conservative. The AM peak hour disparities are likely attributable to the more conservative AM peak hour percentage of 3+ axle trucks assumed in the growth factor method.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐18 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-12: Forecast Truck Volumes - Average Approach

Traffic Volumes Truck Volumes Post Mile Study 2010 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Freeway Direction % Trucks1 Section From To AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 12.50% 1,325 6,372 166 796 188 902 209 1,003 227 1,092 246 1,181 265 1,276 A WB 12.50% 6,883 3,200 860 400 975 453 1,084 504 1,180 549 1,276 593 1,379 641 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 10.40% 2,602 6,662 271 693 307 785 341 873 371 950 401 1,027 434 1,110 B WB 10.40% 5,195 3,027 540 315 612 357 680 396 741 432 801 467 866 505 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 6.79% 3,817 5,877 259 399 294 452 326 503 356 547 384 592 415 640 C WB 6.79% 5,314 4,388 361 298 409 338 455 375 495 409 535 442 578 478 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 6.01% 4,740 4,898 285 294 323 333 359 371 391 404 422 436 456 472 D WB 4.60% 6,763 6,179 311 284 352 322 392 358 427 390 461 421 499 456 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6.01% 6,291 5,873 378 353 428 400 476 444 518 484 560 523 606 565 E WB 6.01% 6,124 6,296 368 378 417 428 463 476 505 519 546 561 590 606 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 4.48% 6,223 6,037 279 270 315 306 351 340 382 371 413 401 446 433 F WB 4.48% 6,552 6,506 293 291 332 330 369 367 402 399 435 432 470 467 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 4.48% 5,934 7,194 266 322 301 365 334 405 364 442 394 477 426 516 G WB 4.48% 5,715 5,089 256 228 290 258 322 287 351 312 379 338 410 365 H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 9.32% 4,776 5,621 445 524 504 593 561 660 611 719 660 777 714 840 H WB 9.32% 9,546 2,315 890 216 1,008 244 1,121 272 1,220 296 1,319 320 1,426 346 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 8.53% 1,807 4,453 154 380 175 430 194 478 211 521 229 563 247 609 I WB 8.53% 4,255 2,342 363 200 411 226 457 252 498 274 538 296 582 320 1 3 or more axles, Caltrans 2009 Developed based on forecast rates Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐19 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-13: Forecast Truck Volumes - Maximum Approach

Traffic Volumes Truck Volumes Post Mile Study 2010 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Freeway Direction % Trucks1 Section From To AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 12.50% 1,325 6,372 166 796 188 902 209 1,003 227 1,092 246 1,181 265 1,276 A WB 12.50% 6,883 3,200 860 400 975 453 1,084 504 1,180 549 1,276 593 1,379 641 B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 10.40% 2,559 6,760 266 703 301 796 335 885 365 964 395 1,042 427 1,127 B WB 10.40% 5,634 3,130 586 326 664 369 738 410 804 447 869 483 939 522 C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 6.79% 4,061 6,850 276 465 312 527 347 586 378 638 409 690 442 746 C WB 6.79% 5,786 4,860 393 330 445 374 495 416 539 453 583 489 630 529 D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 6.01% 6,214 6,115 373 367 423 416 470 463 512 504 554 545 598 589 D WB 4.60% 7,107 5,965 327 274 370 311 412 346 448 376 485 407 524 440 E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6.01% 6,692 6,299 402 378 455 429 506 477 551 519 596 561 644 607 E WB 6.01% 6,569 6,987 395 420 447 476 497 529 541 576 585 622 633 673 F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 4.48% 6,813 6,752 305 302 345 342 384 381 418 415 452 448 489 484 F WB 4.48% 7,062 7,074 316 317 358 359 398 399 433 434 469 469 507 507 G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 4.48% 5,934 7,194 266 322 301 365 334 405 364 442 394 477 426 516 G WB 4.48% 6,753 6,071 302 272 342 308 381 342 415 373 448 403 484 435 H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 9.32% 4,815 5,666 449 528 508 598 565 665 616 724 665 783 719 846 H WB 9.32% 9,623 2,334 897 218 1,016 246 1,130 274 1,230 298 1,330 323 1,438 349 I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 8.53% 1,807 4,453 154 380 175 430 194 478 211 521 229 563 247 609 I WB 8.53% 4,255 2,342 363 200 411 226 457 252 498 274 538 296 582 320 1 3 or more axles, Caltrans 2009 Developed based on forecast rates Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐20 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-10: I-580 AM Truck Forecast Comparison (Growth Factor vs. Alameda CTC Model)

I‐580 Truck Forecast Comparison 2035 AM Peak Hour 2,500

2,000 Volume

1,500 Truck

1,000 Growth Factor Axle

Truck Model 500 3+

0 GFEDCBA

I‐580 Segment

Figure 3-11: I-580 PM Truck Forecast Comparison (Growth Factor vs. Alameda CTC Model)

I‐580 Truck Forecast Comparison 2035 PM Peak Hour 2,500

2,000 Volume

1,500 Truck

1,000 Growth Factor Axle

Truck Model 500 3+

0 GFEDCBA

I‐580 Segment

Despite the AM peak hour disparity, the growth factor projections were used as the basis for analyzing I-580 operations for the following reasons: 1) the more limiting PM peak hour forecasts track closely with the Alameda CTC truck model results; 2) the growth factor analysis draws from more robust information sources (in addition to population and employment growth) that are considered more relevant indicators of goods movement demand; 3) it tends to generate more conservative 3+ axle truck volume estimates; and, 4) using percent of 3+ axle trucks relative to ADT is consistent to the 2000 HCM analysis inputs used as part of the baseline AM and PM peak hour LOS analyses. How the baseline truck percentages change as a result of the growth factor projections is shown in Table 3-14 and Table 3-15.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐21 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

These future baseline I-580/ I-205 corridor truck traffic volume projections were used to determine the percent of heavy duty trucks relative to AM/PM peak hour volumes for 2020 and 2035. The latter being a requisite input for converting trucks to passenger car equivalencies in order to determine operational performance for freeways. Table 3-14: Forecast AM/PM Directional Peak Hour Percent of 3+ Axle Truck on I-580 Study Post Mile 2010 % Truck 2020 % Truck 2035 % Truck Freeway Direction Section From To AM PM AM PM AM PM H I-238 14.7 16.2 EB 9.32% 9.32% 10.76% 10.48% 13.16% 10.95% H WB 9.32% 9.32% 11.03% 9.76% 12.52% 11.75% G I-580 28.75 30.8 EB 4.48% 4.48% 4.86% 4.77% 5.63% 4.95% G WB 4.48% 4.48% 4.41% 4.61% 4.32% 4.92% F I-580 23.72 28.75 EB 4.48% 4.48% 5.04% 4.91% 6.41% 5.65% F WB 4.48% 4.48% 4.76% 5.02% 5.25% 6.31% E I-580 21.43 23.72 EB 6.01% 6.01% 6.79% 6.68% 8.65% 7.88% E WB 6.01% 6.01% 6.18% 6.76% 6.81% 8.41% D I-580 14.2 21.43 EB 6.01% 6.01% 6.54% 5.86% 8.08% 6.58% D WB 4.60% 4.60% 4.43% 5.09% 4.66% 6.25% C I-580 9.68 14.2 EB 6.79% 6.79% 7.10% 6.32% 8.64% 6.52% C WB 6.79% 6.79% 6.06% 6.94% 5.90% 8.36% B I-580 5.98 9.68 EB 10.40% 10.40% 9.43% 10.40% 8.93% 10.07% B WB 10.40% 10.40% 9.79% 9.68% 8.75% 9.88% A I-580 0.39 5.98 EB 12.50% 12.50% 8.77% 12.47% 7.20% 11.81% A WB 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 11.52% 11.46% 11.35% I I-205 0.213 0.447 EB 8.53% 8.53% 6.96% 8.56% 7.26% 8.69% I WB 8.53% 8.53% 7.97% 7.55% 8.11% 8.82% Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 3-15: Forecast AM/PM Directional Peak Hour Percent of 3+ Axle Truck on I-580 (both directions) Study 2010 % Truck 2020 % Truck 2035 % Truck Section AM PM AM PM AM PM H 9.32% 9.32% 10.94% 10.26% 12.73% 11.17% G 4.48% 4.48% 4.63% 4.70% 4.91% 4.93% F 4.48% 4.48% 4.89% 4.97% 5.76% 5.97% E 6.01% 6.01% 6.47% 6.72% 7.63% 8.15% D 5.18% 5.22% 5.24% 5.46% 5.84% 6.42% C 6.79% 6.79% 6.46% 6.57% 6.81% 7.20% B 10.40% 10.40% 9.67% 10.16% 8.81% 10.01% A 12.50% 12.50% 11.70% 12.14% 10.46% 11.65% I 8.53% 8.53% 7.64% 8.18% 7.84% 8.74% Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐22 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

SHORT- AND LONG-TERM GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS This section identifies projects or other initiatives that could have sufficient impact on operating conditions in the I-580 corridor, or offer new rail or marine alternatives to divert heavy-duty trucks to or from their present and expected routing. Truck freight, rail and marine improvements are each identified and qualitatively examined as to their potential operational impact on I-580/I-205. Goods movement flows in the I-580 corridor (I-238/I-580/I-205) are dictated by geography. The I-580 route through Altamont Pass is the only major east-west heavy duty truck route between I-80 (50 miles to the north) and SR-152 (50 miles to the south). While SR-12 (an STAA Terminal Access Route) and SR-4 (A California Legal Advisory Route) provide connections between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley, they are not realistic routing alternatives for most heavy duty truck trips. Trucks moving between the Bay Area and San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties will use the I-580 corridor – there is no realistic alternative. As a result, trucks will not divert to or from the I-580 corridor due to minor changes in transit time, congestion, or other factors. Information Sources A number of information sources were used to identify short- and long-term improvements to goods movement within the I-580/I-205 corridor between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Goods movement strategies or improvements that have transportation federal/state/regional planning/programming traction or strong likelihood for future implementation were considered. This includes planned improvement projects or strategies that may have been programmed or earmarked for funding but have been subsequently de-prioritized. These information sources used to identify short- and long-term goods movement improvements are as follows:  Project Notebook, “Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area” dated May 2009 (MTC 2035 Plan)  SJCOG 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (SJCOG 2011 Plan)  StanCOG Regional Transportation Plan 2011 (StanCOG 2011 Plan)  Trade Corridor Improvement Fund Northern California Trade Projects (TCIF)  Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program submissions by Caltrans (Caltrans TIGER)  SJCOG Regional Congestion Management Program, Final 2007  SJCOG Regional Transportation Improvement Program, Final 2008  San Joaquin Regional Expressway Study, 2009  SJCOG Regional Deficiency Plan, August, 2010  SJCOG Travel Demand Management Plan, August, 2010  Northern San Joaquin Valley Regional Ramp Metering and HOV Master Plan, 2009  Caltrans Local Agency Construction Projects Authorized, May-October 2010  Caltrans Local Agency Preliminary Engineering Projects Authorized, May-October 2010  2010 Report of STIP Balances County And Interregional Shares, California Transportation Commission (2010 Orange Book)  2010 State Transportation Improvement Program Hearing Briefing Book, California Transportation Commission  Caltrans Goods Movement Action Plan, January, 2007 I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐23 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

 MTC Regional Goods Movement Study, 2004 Highway Truck Projects This section summarizes programmed projects on highways between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties that could affect trucking conditions. It is divided into two sections, one that specifically applies to trucking and the other that applies to the roadway corridor in general. I-580 Corridor – Truck Specific Projects The only truck-specific projects in the I-580 Corridor appear to be the truck climbing lanes, which are listed in multiple planning documents. This proposal will be analyzed as a separate goods movement factor in this study.  TCIF Project 10 – I-580 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane; included in 2035 MTC Plan, Alameda County Reference # 22013. (TCIF)  Westbound I-580 climbing lane on I-205/I-580 from Mountain House Parkway to the Alameda County line; sponsor San Joaquin County; also SJCOG SJ07-1004. (formally TCIF Project 20 but was not awarded funding). These climbing lanes might increase truck traffic in three ways:  By reducing travel time and trucking cost, they could induce more goods movements in the I-580/ I-205 corridor between existing shippers and receivers.  By reducing travel time and trucking cost, they could encourage more truck trip generators (e.g. manufacturers, processors, and distribution centers) to locate in areas served by the I-580/ I-205 corridor (e.g. Patterson, Crows Landing, Stockton, Tracy, or Lathrop).  By reducing travel time and trucking cost, they might divert some marginal truck traffic from other routes, primarily I-80 and SR-152. I-580 Corridor – General Capacity Projects There are a large number of proposals for improvements in the I-580/ I-205 corridor that would increase capacity, improve safety, and/or reduce travel times, either on the freeways themselves or on connectors. Most of these proposals would improve truck flow, but would not materially either increase or decrease truck movements and as such were not analyzed in the separate context of goods movement.  Widening I-205 to six lanes from Tracy to I-5. Source: SJCOG/STIP Project no. 7965C (2010 Orange Book)  Constructing east and westbound auxiliary lanes on I-205 between Tracy Blvd & Mountain House Parkway. Source: SJCOG Congestion Management Plan (2007)  Installing traffic monitoring systems in the I-580 corridor. Note: this description does not specify what portion of I-580 is involved or the nature of what is to be monitored, so this project may not be properly classified as “major”. Source: Alameda County (MTC 2035 Plan) Reference #230091 There are a number of projects involving improvements to I-580 that are categorized as having an indirect impact. Most are HOV lanes, ancillary lanes, ramp improvements, and improvements on major truck routes that cross I-580. None are anticipated to have a major impact on I-580. Collectively however, they could be considered “major” given that they needed to enhance I-580 and to complement other major planned and future projects.30

30 Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, May 2009, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Transportation Plan, Alameda County portion. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐24 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

There are many projects that add auxiliary and HOV lanes and improved interchanges and ramps to I-580, I-205, and I-5 north of its confluence with I-205. These are designed primarily with automobile traffic in mind but would have a minor, positive impact on truck operations. Also, project SJ07-1027 would widen I-580 from six to eight lanes from Mountain House Parkway to the Alameda County line. 31 There are a number of highway projects that are anticipated to have a minor impact. All affect roads that intersect or feed into I-580 and/or I-5 in the vicinity of CSR 132, Howard Road, and Sperry Road. These projects are identified in the Stanislaus Council of Government’s 2011 Regional Transportation Plan:  Caltrans #4 – CSR 84 Expressway between I-680 and I-580 near Livermore; sponsored by MTC and Alameda County. (Caltrans TIGER)  Caltrans #19 – Extension of West Jack London Blvd. as a paralleling alternative to I-580; sponsored by City of Livermore. (Caltrans TIGER)  Caltrans #86 – I-205/Lammers Road interchange in Tracy to connect SR-4 to I-205 and I-580. Sponsored by City of Tracy. (Caltrans TIGER)  Caltrans #100 – Construct River Islands Parkway and other connectors between I-5 near Lathrop and I-205 at MacArthur Blvd. Sponsored by City of Lathrop. (Caltrans TIGER)  Caltrans #104 – Vasco Road Safety Project on Vasco beginning at its junction with I-580 in Livermore; sponsored by Alameda County Public Works. (Caltrans TIGER) The following miscellaneous projects were noted for this study:  The San Joaquin Regional Expressway Study lists a number of possible regional routes that would connect with the I-580/ I-205 corridor.  Ramp metering in the I-580 corridor is listed as part of Project Number CML-6204(095) in the Caltrans list of local agency projects authorized.  The Northern San Joaquin Valley Regional Ramp Metering and HOV Master Plan lists the I-205 corridor as a candidate for ramp metering. SR-4 SR-4 would be an attractive alternative route for some of the truck traffic now using I-580 between the northern Bay Area and Central Valley points north and south of Stockton(and Tracy), but it is not now usable for regular heavy duty truck trips, as detailed under Existing Conditions. The section of SR-4 between Antioch and Discovery Bay is now being converted to a new bypass rather than continue as the main thoroughfare of Oakley and Brentwood. Between Discovery Bay and Stockton, SR-4 is a light-duty rural road with two bottlenecks at bridges. In both cases, the approaches to the bridges are on restrictive curves, and the bridges themselves are too narrow for heavy-duty trucks to pass each other when on the bridge deck. Additionally, SR-4 is not eligible to become a STAA approved route at the points where these bridges are located. Accordingly, truck traffic on the portions of SR-4 east and west of these bridges is largely confined to local trips with single unit vehicles that are smaller than “heavy duty”. There are a number of proposed improvements to SR-4, but they appear to be chiefly focused on addressing the needs of commuters. All of these improvements are to the west of Discovery Bay and of the restrictive bridges. While there has been informal discussion of upgrading SR-4 to interstate highway design standards, there are no actual proposals that would create a usable heavy-duty truck route so there is no plan to analyze these projects in this study.

31 The Future of Mobility for San Joaquin County, San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2011 Regional Transportation Plan I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐25 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

There is a “study only” project for corridor improvements on SR-4 between I-5 and Brentwood in Contra Costa County (SJ07-1034 listed in the SJCOG’s 2011 RTP), but there is no comparable project in the list of Contra Costa County projects in MTC’s RTP. Additionally, there is no Contra Costa County project to extend the new SR-4 Bypass southeasterly from Brentwood to I-205 or I-580 near the City of Tracy. There are four projects (Reference # 230202, 230203, 230205, 203206), submitted by Gray-Bowen and Comanyh Inc. (Caltrans TIGER), that extend improvements to the SR-4 Bypass between Lone Tree Way and Marsh Creek Road. To some extent, these improvements would increase the probability of truck trips diverting to use SR-4 Bypass and/or its access roads 32 to connect to SR-4 east towards Discovery Bay and Stockton or southeast to Byron Highway (i.e., San Joaquin County Road J4) to connect to either I-205 or I-580 near Tracy. These and other projects could conceivably be coordinated and enhanced to create a heavy-duty truck route between Tracy and the Napa area, but are not yet part of a definite plan and would not be analyzed as such in this study. Other projects on SR-4 are as follows:  Phase 2 for a new alignment of the planned Extension of SR-4 from Navy Drive to Charter Way is project SJ11-1002 and would have a minor impact on future improvements further west on SR-4. (SJCOG 2011 Plan)  The SR-4 Extension to the Port of Stockton, sponsored by SJCOG, is currently not funded. Project 7, SJCOG project # SJ11-1002. (TCIF) Project 22 is the SR-4 Extension to Port Stockton Phase 2, sponsored by SJCOG, see SJ11-1002. (TCIF) Other Routes and Plans There are three projects on SR-132 to add auxiliary lanes, to improve the roadway between I-580 and the Stanislaus County line, and to upgrade the interchange at Bird Road. These are SJ07-1013, 1031, and 2017, respectively, in the SJCOG’s 2011 RTP. Sacramento and San Joaquin COGs are pursuing a separate analysis of the impact of STAA routes in the two counties. The need to conduct this study is based on local issues. To have more STAA routes in these two counties might have a very indirect impact on the count of heavy duty truck trips on I-580, are not yet part of a definite plan, and would not be analyzed as such in this study. StanCOG has existing plans to improve SR 132 in several ways. The plans that involve SR 99 in and near Modesto might have a very indirect impact on the count of heavy duty truck trips on I-580 but would not be analyzed as such in this study. Rail Projects There are two rail rights-of-way in the I-580/ I-205 corridor (Figure 3-12), both owned by the Union Pacific between Niles Junction (in Fremont near the junction of SR-84/238) and Tracy Junction (in Tracy). The former Western Pacific (WP) line is used by ACE for commuter service and by UPRR for occasional rail freight service (largely as a reliever to the Martinez Subdivision line that parallels I-80). The former Southern Pacific (SP) line has no rail in place, except for the western end used by the Niles Canyon Railway for museum and excursion service.

32 Access roads are Balfour Road, Marsh Creek Road, Vasco Road, Camino Diablo Road, and/or Byron Airport I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐26 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Figure 3-12: Portion of I-580 Corridor Rail Routes

FORMER SP

FORMER WP

There is essentially no rail freight service between the San Joaquin/ Stanislaus Counties and the Bay Area, since the distances are generally too short and intermodal transfer costs too expensive for railroads to compete with trucks. Rail freight traffic moving over the UPRR Altamont Pass route is typically travelling between the Bay Area and points outside California or in Southern California. The major exception being the repositioning movements of empty marine containers between the UPRR Lathrop intermodal facility (at French Camp) and/or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s (BNSF) Mariposa intermodal facility (southeast of Stockton) to the Port of Oakland, usually on the weekends. Major Rail Projects Major rail projects of interest are those designed to divert truck traffic from the I-580 corridor. There are three proposed projects to create rail intermodal facilities in the Central Valley and serve those facilities via short-haul rail service to and from Oakland.  TCIF Project 12 – Short haul rail service to Crows Landing development; sponsored by Stanislaus County. This includes rail freight service between Oakland and Stockton including purchase of 52.6 miles of unspecified right of way. (Project SJCOG SJ07-6032)  TCIF Project 13 – Shafter intermodal facility; funded; sponsor is Kern County.  SJCOG SJ07-6027 includes the concept of a short haul freight rail service between the Port of Oakland and Stockton, possibly the Port of Stockton. (California Inter-Regional Intermodal Service, or CIRIS) These three projects all face substantial funding and implementation barriers, and would be analyzed as part of the long-term Corridor Scenarios. Expansion of the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR) Lathrop intermodal facility (actually at French Camp) would result in some additional truck traffic in the I-580 corridor and would be of interest to this study. The portion of domestic intermodal business that is actually moving to or from customers west of Altamont Pass is now and would be trucked to and from Lathrop (or in the case of BNSF to/from Mariposa). This expansion will quadruple the size of the Lathrop facility and is expected to generate 2,200 daily truck trips when completed (up from 960 daily truck trips). This project is listed as Caltrans 69 - Expansion of existing UPRR’s intermodal facility at Lathrop; submitted by UPRR

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐27 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

(Caltrans TIGER). Planned completion is in three years’ time (2014).33 How many of these trucks will use I-580 is not known. Altamont Pass Acquisition of Altamont Pass right-of-way (ROW) for expanded ACE service could likewise increase the chances of implementing short-haul intermodal service if the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is so inclined. The sale could also prohibit such service over Altamont Pass UPRR includes stipulations against freight use.  Acquisition of right of way for ACE rail service between Stockton and Niles Junction; Reference #98139; same as TCIF Project #11, and SJCOG project SJ07-6017 (MTC 2035 Plan)  Project #11 – San Joaquin Rail Commission ROW purchase for future rail service – Stockton to Fremont; included in MTC 2035 Plan, Alameda County Project #98139 and SJ07-6017. Note: Alameda Reference #98139 includes only the right of way between Stockton and Niles Junction (not Fremont) and SJ07-6017 is only between Lathrop (not Stockton) and Niles Junction. (TCIF)  SJ07-6017 is for acquisition of ACE Corridor between Lathrop and Niles Junction. This matches with Alameda County Reference #98139 and TCIF #11 but is much broader in concept because it includes freight and ports.  Four other passenger rail projects that relate to improvements to right of way used by ACE passenger trains. These are projects SJ07-6009, 6012, 6031, 6034 and 6035.  Project #18 – Oakland subdivision ROW purchase; there is no Alameda County counterpart project. (TCIF)  Project #9 Tehachapi Pass Improvements; funded, sponsored by Caltrans. (TCIF)  Project #19 – Alameda Creek Bridge; there is no Alameda County counterpart project. (TCIF) Other Rail Projects There are a series of upgrades and capacity projects that would encourage expansion of rail freight movements, particularly to and from the Port of Oakland. Given that they are primarily aimed at long-haul freight and intermodal movements, the projects listed below are unlikely to divert trucks from the I-580 corridor. If successful, however, they may increase the chances of implementing one or more of the three short-haul rail intermodal proposals listed above.  UPRR Martinez subdivision upgrade, Reference #22089 (presently categorized as “minor” but mentioned here because its reoccurs below as TCIP Project #2) (MTC 2035 Plan)  Project #2 – Martinez Subdivision Improvements; not started, not sponsored (Port of Oakland), not funded; UPRR objects to outside funding and the necessity for the project; included in 2035 MTC Plan, Alameda County Reference #22089. (TCIF)  Project #1 – 7th Street Grade Separation; included in 2035 MTC Plan, Alameda County Reference #22082. (TCIF) Upgrading the Stockton, Terminal, and Eastern Railroad may increase the amount of freight business performed in the Stockton area by rail, but such shipments would not ordinarily pass through the I-580 corridor so there is unlikely to be a discernable impact on truck movements.  Caltrans #124 – Upgrade Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad in Stockton; submitted by Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad. (Caltrans TIGER) The development of high speed rail (HSR) passenger service is unlikely to affect trucking in the I-580 corridor unless it prohibits development of short-haul intermodal service that would otherwise take place. More likely, any HSR

33 UP to Quadruple Size of Inland California Intermodal Rail Yard, Pacific Maritime Online, May 27, 2011. Accessed July 12, 2011 at http://www.pmmonlinenews.com/2011/05/up-to-quadruple-size-of-inland.html I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐28 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

development would use other ROW and not affect I-580 truck trips or rail freight service. Reducing passenger trips over the ACE line through diversion to HSR would not, in and of itself, be sufficient to generate more freight rail service or divert trucks from the I-580 corridor.  California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) project is funded in part by federal monies provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Marine Projects Major Marine Project The marine project of chief interest in this study is the proposed container-on-barge service between the Ports of Oakland, Stockton, and Sacramento under the Green Trade Corridor Marine Highway Project. This operation is intended to divert truck traffic from the I-580 Corridor, and that expected diversion justified funding from the air quality boards.  Caltrans 121 – California’s Green Trade Corridor Marine Highway; submitted by Port of Oakland. (Caltrans TIGER) Dredging between the San Francisco Bay and the Port of Stockton will enable larger ocean-going vessels to serve the Port of Stockton. At present, and for the near term, trade at the Port of Stockton is in bulk, liquid bulk, and break- bulk commodities such as minerals, rice, steel, dry cement, and liquid fertilizer. With the possible exception of dry cement, relatively little of this trade would pass over the I-580 corridor. The dredging is not needed for barge service. In the long term, however, the dredging would enable – although not guarantee – container service to Stockton instead of to Oakland for some cargoes. Were this to occur, it would likely affect container movements over I-580. Some containers that would have been trucked to and from Oakland would be trucked to and from Stockton instead. It is possible, however that some containers arriving in Stockton would be trucked back over I-580 to locations in the Bay Area. This proposal will be examined in this study to determine if there are likely to be significant truck reduction benefits.  Project #14 – Port of Stockton dredging SF Bay to Port of Stockton (TCIF) Minor Marine Projects Other marine projects, primarily at the Port of Oakland, may affect truck traffic in the I-580 corridor to the extent that they provide capacity to permit the projected development of trade. For the most part, however, the projected expansion of trade is already built into regional models, so the capacity increases would enable what is expected rather than generating new flows.  Project #3 – Construct Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal; included in existing 2035 MTC Plan Alameda County Reference #22760. (TCIF) Long/Short Term Projects “Short term” refers to projects planned for implementation by 2020; “long term” refers to projects planned for implementation between 2020 and 2035. There are five short term projects.  Truck climbing lanes. These are the coordinated addition of truck climbing lanes on I-580 over Altamont Pass in both directions. These have the potential to lessen trip times for other vehicles (but not heavy duty trucks because their rate of climb will not change) and to free up capacity on existing lanes for additional trips by other than heavy duty trucks.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐29 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

 UPRR improvements. The first phase of the UPRR’s expansion at its Lathrop intermodal terminal. The two UPRR mainline improvements on the Martinez subdivision and the 7th Street Grade Separation (which could also be considered a truck route improvement).  California’s Green Trade Corridor Marine Highway. This project can start prior to 2020 based on considerations outside of this analysis. The present plan calls for 250 containers to be transported each direction once per week. Assuming all else being equal (which may not be realistic), this would result in transferring 250 truck trips in each direction off of I-580 each week. It also would result in more than 250 truck (heavy duty or light duty) trips on the roadways into and out of the Port of Stockton. These trips would also use the appropriate roadways to and from the shipper/consignee locations. All other highway projects either might be implemented by 2020 - although some could lag to later than 2020. There are the following long term projects which most likely would be implemented in full or in part after 2020 and before 2035 although all could continue past 2035.  By highway there is the potential upgrade of some or all of SR-4 including some or all of the feeder routes to/from SR-4.  By rail there are several. All are far more likely to occur after 2020. There are the short haul intermodal service networks involving Crows Landing and Stockton. There is the intermodal terminal at Shafter. There is the second phase of the expansion of UPRR’s Lathrop facility. There are the host of projects involving Altamont Pass and the routes that feed the Altamont routes. There is the high speed rail project.  By water, there is only one other project, the Construction of Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal at the Port of Oakland. Demand Reduction Analysis There are several projects that will be analyzed for their impact on the demand for additional heavy duty truck trips on I-580. In the short term, the new marine highway service to/from the Port of Stockton is the only project that merits consideration. The climbing lanes on I-580 are not, in isolation, sufficient to divert trips using other routes (I-80 or SR-152). In very large part, this is testimony to the fact that I-580 has no logical alternatives for heavy duty truck trips. The expansion at UPRR’s Lathrop intermodal terminal could create incremental trips. The existing facility currently serves up to 800 truck round trips per weekday. However, there are currently no data regarding the number of these truck trips that use the I-580. Also, given the expected national growth of domestic rail intermodal service, that growth is the primary cause of more trips and the more important reason for the expansion of the Lathrop facility both short and long term. In the long term, the projects involving short haul rail intermodal service have the greatest potential to divert existing (and future growth) heavy duty truck trips off of I-580. All other longer term considerations relate to overall, national growth of either domestic rail intermodal services or international rail intermodal services. Table 3-16 below summarizes the relevant short-term and long-term projects and their expected truck trip impact. The table also lists selected passenger rail projects for clarity. In the short term, truck climbing lanes would not change the number of truck trips made, but would separate them from other traffic flows for purposes of LOS analysis. Expansion of UPRR’s Lathrop intermodal terminal would have no significant predictable impact on the I-580 corridor as the relevant truck flows would almost all be to the east of the study segments. If successful, the marine highway project (barge service) could divert about 250 trucks per week from the study route. In the longer term, improvement of the SR-4 route to full STAA status could divert trucks from the I-580 corridor, but there is no available estimate of the number. For example, sulfur trucks moving between Bay Area refineries and the I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐30 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Port of Stockton might take that route. The impact of SR-4 upgrades would ultimately be limited by the level of industrial development in the SR-4 service area. The three proposed inland terminal and rail shuttle projects (CIRIS, Crows Landing, and Shafter) could each have an impact on I-580 truck trips. The CIRIS Implementation Plan developed for SJCOG estimates that at maturity and with service to Stockton and Fresno, the CIRIS project could divert the equivalent of 213 truck trips in each direction from the I-580 corridor. In the absence of a more complete plan for the Crows Landing project, the same estimate could be used. Those two projects are mutually exclusive. The Shafter proposal at one time estimated that the equivalent of 509 trips to and from the Port of Oakland could be diverted to rail, but this is likely an over-estimate. Further expansion at UPRR’s Lathrop facility (implementation and full operation of Phase II) is likely to have little predictable impact on the I-580 corridor since most of the trucking activity would be to the east of the study segments. The various passenger rail improvements would have no identifiable impact on I-580 trucking. Any intermodal diversion is covered in the three inland terminal projects. While reducing passenger use of UPRR’s Altamont Pass line could conceivable make those inland rail projects more feasible, it would not produce a separate trucking impact. Marine terminal and intermodal developments at the Port of Oakland will contribute to long-term capacity and the ability of the Port to realize cargo projections implicit in the truck traffic forecasts, but would not result in separate identifiable truck flow changes.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐31 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-16: Projects and Truck Trip Impacts Impacted Projects Project Location Segment 1 Impact Short Term (Implemented by 2020) Highway: truck climbing lanes Altamont Pass in both directions A Shift trucks in both directions out of mixed flow lanes Freight Rail: UP Lathrop Intermodal Facility Lathrop intermodal terminal No Impact reducing truck freight demand Expansion Phase I west of the facility i.e., I-580 Corridor Highway: California's Green Trade Corridor A through I Estimated 250 truck trip reduction in each Marine Highway direction/week

Long Term (Implemented after 2020 and before 2035) 2 Highway: SR-4 upgrade to STAA Standards Some or all of SR-4 including A through I No estimate available - would require feeder routes extensive study. Probably significant impact. Freight Rail: Short haul intermodal service – A through I Maximum of 213 truck trips per weekday in CIRIS to Stockton each direction diverted to rail Freight Rail: Short haul intermodal service – A through I No estimate - use CIRIS estimate of up to 213 Crows Landing truck trips per weekday in each direction diverted to rail Freight Rail: UP Lathrop Intermodal Facility No signficant impact reducing truck freight Expansion Phase II west of facility i.e., I-580 Corridor Freight Rail: Intermodal Terminal at Shafter A through I Estimated 509 truck trips per day diverted to rail Passenger Rail Improvements: - To obviate No goods movement impact the need to use the UPPR Line a. Various ACE Service Improvements No goods movement impact b. HSR Stockton to San Jose No goods movement impact c. BART Extension to Livermore No goods movement impact d. ACE or HSR Connection to BART No goods movement impact Livermore Station Marine: Construction of outer harbor No impact - incorporated in forecast intermodal terminal at the port of Oakland

1 Freeway segments shown in Figure 1-3 2 Includes all of the short-term improv ements Note: UPRR Martinez Subdivision Upgrade, 7th Street Grade Separation, Upgrade Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad in Stockton is not listed as no benefit is cited in the study . Dowling Associates, Inc, July 2011

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐32 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

INTERREGIONAL TRUCK REDUCTION BENEFITS Operational benefits were analyzed resulting from the freight-related short- and long-term improvements along the I- 580/205 corridor. Only improvements that are currently programmed or have considerable planning traction were considered, as shown in Table 3-16. This may include project that may have been de-prioritized due to funding constraints. The truck trip reductions identified in Table 3-17 are daily estimates. For operational analysis, these estimates must be reduced to reflect AM and PM peak hour volumes. Based on the I-580 CMSP, I-580 truck percentage of ADT during the AM and PM peak periods was as follows:  AM Peak (7-9 AM): 17,561 total vehicles / 1,901 total trucks = 10.8%  PM Peak (3-7 PM): 33,534 total vehicles / 2,128 total trucks = 6.3% Assuming the distribution of trucks in the AM and PM peak hour remains constant during the respective peak periods – an estimate of the portion of these I-580 trucks associates with goods movement is needed. Based on computing a weighted average using published Caltrans classification data for the I-580 the percentage of 3+ axle trucks to total trucks is approximately 73%. Assuming all 3+ axle truck is related to goods movement yields:  AM Peak Hour Percentage: 17,561 total vehicles / (1,901 total trucks * .73 3+axle-adj) = 7.9%  PM Peak Hour Percentage: 33,534 total vehicles / (2,128 total trucks * .73 3+axle-adj) = 4.6% Approximately 7.9% of AM peak hour volume on I-580 will be trucks engaged in goods movement. Approximately 4.6% of the PM peak hour volume on I-580 will be trucks engaged in goods movement. Based on these estimates, Table 3-17 presents a number of truck reduction per direction for AM/PM peak hours. Note that depending on I-580 segment, these percentages of 3+ axle trucks relative to AM/PM peak hour volumes are lower than those assumed as part of the truck forecasts reported earlier in this chapter. Table 3-17: I-580 Peak Hour Truck Reduction Estimates Reduction of Large Trucks (/direction) Year Weekday %AM %PM AM PM 2020 50 7.9% 4.6% 4 3 2035 260 7.9% 4.6% 21 12

The short term projects would remove approximately 50 trucks per direction per day from the I-580/205 corridor and the long term projects are expected to remove approximately 260 trucks per direction per day. These daily estimates correspond to less than 10 peak hour truck trip reduction in the short term (2020) and 40 peak hour truck trip reduction in the long term (2035). For the I-580 Westbound/Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane, Altamont Pass (Section A shown in Figure 1-4) improvement, all 3+ axle trucks are assumed to utilize the truck climbing lanes. The impact this improvement will have on operations of the mixed flow lanes was reflected by removing the lane, truck volume and reducing the percentage of heavy duty trucks to 0% for all mixed flow lanes in the HCM2000 analysis. The freeway operation analysis was performed using HCM 2000 freeway method. The analysis method is applicable to freeway mixed flow lanes. Based on the HCM2000, operational performance of basic (mixed flow) freeway segments is based vehicle density expressed as passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl). The HCM2000 LOS criterion for basic freeway segment is provided in Table 3-18.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐33 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-18: Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria

Density Threshold if Free Flow Speed equals: 1 Level of Service 70 MPH 65 MPH 60 MPH 55 MPH A 11111111 B 18181818 C 26262626 D 35353535

E 45454545 F---- 1 Density is measured as passenger car equivalent per mile per trav el lane. Free Flow Speed is the speed of v ehicles as densities approach zero. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23 Dowling Associates, Inc, July 2011

Operational Results Table 3-19 through Table 3-22 resent the LOS results for 2020 conditions and Table 3-23 and Table 3-26 present the LOS results for 2035 conditions. A truck climbing lane is expected to significantly improve LOS of segment A (shown in Figure 1-4) in both directions for the 2020 analysis year. By 2035 – the operational benefits of removing truck traffic from the mixed flow lanes are not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service in the mixed flow lanes. The estimated goods movement truck reductions from both short term and long term improvement projects/strategies would only slightly improve operational performance of individual segments in each direction. These slight improvements (i.e., reducing vehicle densities in the mixed flow traffic stream) are not sufficient to exact a level of service grade change in any of the I-580 segments. It should be noted that although no direct good movement benefits can be derived from the planned improvements to passenger rail services, the passenger vehicle trip reduction benefits of the passenger rail service improvements are addressed in Chapter 4.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐34 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-19: LOS Results - 2020 Eastbound AM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 60.36 33.03 D 60.39 32.98 D I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.37 22.80 C 67.37 22.78 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.81 30.00 D 64.82 29.97 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 63.44 31.08 D 63.46 31.06 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 65.93 23.40 C 65.93 23.37 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 18.27 C 66.00 18.24 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.20 16.83 B 67.20 16.79 B A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.50 9.87 A 68.50 8.63 A I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 15.64 B 67.00 15.61 B 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 3-20: LOS Results - 2020 Eastbound PM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 64.78 29.28 D 64.80 29.26 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.98 29.75 D 65.00 29.72 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 64.88 28.85 D 64.90 28.83 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.95 27.27 D 64.96 27.25 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 64.05 29.13 D 64.07 29.09 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 55.15 42.20 E 65.22 29.39 D I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 60.43 35.02 E 60.48 34.96 D 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐35 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-21: LOS Results - 2020 Westbound AM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.09 24.25 C 67.10 24.22 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 60.20 35.93 E 60.25 35.87 E E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 56.98 39.45 E 57.04 39.38 E D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 62.19 32.11 D 62.21 32.09 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 65.38 26.11 D 65.39 26.07 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 63.24 31.37 D 63.26 31.35 D A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F 62.19 33.46 D I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 59.24 36.53 E 59.29 36.46 E 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 3-22: LOS Results - 2020 Westbound PM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 64.80 12.27 B 64.80 12.25 B I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 67.50 20.56 C 67.50 20.55 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 63.09 32.32 D 63.11 32.30 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 60.29 35.28 E 60.34 35.22 E D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.74 27.76 D 64.75 27.74 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 65.99 22.23 C 65.99 22.20 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.20 17.41 B 67.20 17.38 B A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.49 20.51 C 68.50 15.49 B I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 18.75 C 67.00 18.72 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐36 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-23: LOS Results - 2035 Eastbound AM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 58.49 35.85 E 58.72 35.53 E I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.76 25.35 C 66.80 25.22 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.60 30.30 D 64.73 30.11 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 63.13 31.52 D 63.29 31.30 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 65.82 24.31 C 65.84 24.17 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 17.32 B 66.00 17.18 B B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.13 22.49 C 67.15 22.28 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.50 15.18 B 68.50 13.61 B I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 19.10 C 67.00 18.94 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 3-24: LOS Results - 2035 Eastbound PM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 54.55 42.66 E 54.69 42.48 E F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 60.61 35.42 E 60.74 35.26 E E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 62.36 32.58 D 62.46 32.45 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 61.87 32.57 D 61.96 32.44 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.40 38.48 E 57.54 38.30 E B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐37 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Table 3-25: LOS Results - 2035 Westbound AM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 60.91 34.62 D 61.07 34.42 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.93 37.80 E 58.17 37.49 E B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 3-26: LOS Results - 2035 Westbound PM Peak-Hour

Baseline Goods Movement Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 64.80 13.09 B 64.80 13.01 B I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.95 24.75 C 66.97 24.68 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 62.26 33.38 D 62.37 33.24 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 57.67 38.58 E 57.90 38.29 E D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.61 28.05 D 64.65 27.95 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 21.77 C 66.00 21.70 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.18 21.72 C 67.18 21.66 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 66.58 27.20 D 68.50 20.06 C I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 20.54 C 67.00 20.43 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐38 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

INTERREGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT FINDINGS There are four potential truck routes that connect the San Francisco Bay Area to San Joaquin Valley and points beyond, as shown in Figure 3-1: I-580/ I-205 Corridor and Alternatives. However, the I-580 through Altamont Pass will remain the preferred route for most interregional truck trips between San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area because of its direct access as well as its trucking amenities and STAA roadway standards. In terms of future demand for goods movement, Figure 3-7: Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates – Factors for Truck Volumes, displays the following findings:  The regional employment growth rates are closer to the projected transportation volume growth, consistent with the observation that the relevant truck traffic is that between regions rather than within a single high- growth region.  Truck, rail, and trade volume growth are expected to outpace employment and population growth between 2010 and 2015.  Beyond 2015, the employment, population, and truck traffic growth rates are both more modest and fairly consistent. Rail carload traffic growth will remain slow, but is less likely to directly affect truck traffic in the Altamont Pass corridor.  Rail intermodal traffic and containerized trade are expected to grow somewhat faster than the other factors beyond 2015. This trend may tend to accelerate the growth of truck traffic in the Altamont Pass corridor. In terms of projects affecting freight transportation, the following findings are summarized:  In the short term, the new marine highway service to/from the Port of Stockton is the only project that can reduce demand for truck freight in the corridor. The climbing lanes on I-580 are not, in isolation, sufficient to divert trips using other routes (I-80 or SR-152). In very large part, this is testimony to the fact that I-580 has no logical alternatives for heavy duty truck trips. The expansion at UPRR’s Lathrop intermodal terminal could decrease long-haul truck freight to/from locations east or north of the facility. However, it is not anticipated to reduce truck trips between the Port of Stockton and the Port Oakland. The existing facility currently serves up to approximately 900 truck round trips per weekday which is anticipated to more than double after the proposed expansion. Given the expected national growth of domestic rail intermodal service, that growth is the primary cause of more trips and the more important reason for the expansion of the Lathrop facility both short and long term.  In the long term, the projects involving short haul rail intermodal service have the greatest potential to divert existing (and future growth) heavy duty truck trips off of I-580. All other longer term considerations relate to overall, national growth of either domestic rail intermodal services or international rail intermodal services. In terms of reducing truck trips on the I-580/ I-205 corridor, this study found the following:  A truck climbing lane is expected to significantly improve LOS of I-580 from Junction I-580/I-205 to Flynn Road (Segment A shown in Figure 1-4) in both directions for the 2020 analysis year. By 2035 – the operational benefits of removing truck traffic from the mixed flow lanes are not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service in the mixed flow lanes.  The estimated goods movement truck reductions from both short term and long term improvement projects/strategies would only slightly improve operational performance of individual segments in each direction. These slight improvements (i.e., reducing vehicle densities in the mixed flow traffic stream) are not sufficient to exact a level of service grade change in any of the I-580 segments.  Most freight that moves by rail along the Altamont Pass corridor is long-haul. Thus, the construction of passenger rail that is separated from freight rail lines would not have a significant effect on rail goods movement between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 3‐39 Chapter 3: Goods Movement August 2011

Chapter 4 : INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL BENEFITS

This chapter examines relevant regional transit improvement projects and proposals. The trip reduction benefits of TDM and goods movements described in previous chapters are then combined with the estimated I-580 regional transit trip reduction benefits. Future year 2035 vehicle trip and VMT reduction summaries are provided including I- 580 AM/PM peak hour operational results. Based on the results presented in previous chapters and those presented in this chapter, supporting policy directives were developed. The policy directives are provided as examples for future consideration by the local and regional agencies that are served by the I-580/I-205 corridor. APPROACH For the 2035 out-year analysis – the combined AM/PM peak hour trip reduction effect of the future TDM scenarios presented in Chapter 2 were combined with the estimated AM/PM peak hour truck trip reduction presented in Chapter 3. The incremental trip reduction benefits from future regional transit were then incorporated to estimate the AM/PM peak hour operational improvement resulting from these multi-modal and goods movement improvements to the I-580/I-205 corridor. BACKGROUND Existing and proposed expansion improvements of regional transit systems that serve the I-580 were reviewed and are described below. Interregional Transit Improvements At the statewide level, the California High Speed Rail Authority is in the development stages for preparing a project level EIR/EIS document for improving the Altamont Corridor regional passenger rail service between Stockton and San Jose through the Tri-Valley area – through the City of Livermore and Pleasanton. This High Speed Rail (HSR) spur can provide coordinated service with the BART extension to Livermore and/or ACE.  The Altamont Corridor Project is planned to support improved passenger rail service between the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri-Valley area and the Northern San Joaquin Valley, ultimately connecting with the north-south high speed rail system connecting San Diego to Sacramento through the Central Valley (defined as Phase I and Phase II HSR). The Altamont Corridor Project offers service to standards higher than the current ACE service, but not at the speeds of the planned statewide high speed system34. Interregional transit projects listed in the SJCOG 2011 Regional Transportation Plan financially constrained Tier I list of projects include:  Regional Transit District’s (RTD) regional/interregional bus rapid transit (BRT) services; and,  Expansion of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) passenger rail services – specifically the acquisition of ROW exclusively for passenger service. In the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a number of programmed and recently completed transit projects located in close proximity to I-580, particularly in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These include:

34 Bart to Livermore Extension Preferred Alternative Memorandum, BART, June 9, 2010. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐1 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

 West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station is an infill station that opened in early 2011. It is located between the Castro Valley and Dublin-Pleasanton stations and has 1,190 parking stalls. 35  BART extension to Livermore is an extension from the Dublin-Pleasanton station terminus. The preferred alignment is 11.3 miles and includes two new stations, one in downtown Livermore and one at Vasco Road. The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in July 2010 and BART is working on the Project EIR. 36  Tri-Valley Transit Access Improvements to BART include the R rapid bus, which runs parallel to I-580, connecting BART stations (West Dublin, Dublin/Pleasanton) and the Livermore ACE train station to major employment areas in eastern Alameda County (Hacienda Business Park, Livermore Labs, Stoneridge Mall). The R is currently operational and runs at 10 minute headways in the peak-hours and 15-minute headways in the non-peak-hours.37  AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Alameda County, with frequent and express service on East 14th Street-International Boulevard between San Leandro and Oakland and into Berkeley on Telegraph Avenue. Currently, rapid bus service (1R) on this route is implemented with 12-minute headways on weekdays and 15-minute headways on weekends. The Final EIR is being completed with construction expected to begin in 2012. 38 Other major transit projects in the San Francisco Bay Area include:  East Contra Costa BART (eBART) is a two-phase project. Phase I is a 10-mile extension from the Pittsburg-Bay Point station to Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch, with a stop at Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg. Phase 1 has been under construction since 2010 with an expected opening in 2015. Phase 2 extends it further eastward to Oakley, Brentwood, and perhaps Byron, but is unfunded. 39  BART extension to Santa Clara Valley is a multi-phase project. Currently under construction is a 5.4 mile extension from Fremont station to Warm Springs station, also in Fremont, with an expected opening in 2014. Studies are being conducted to evaluate a 16.3 mile extension from Warm Springs into Santa Clara Valley. 40  Ferry service expansion is being planned by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Plans include 7 new ferry routes, such as Berkeley/Albany to San Francisco, Richmond to San Francisco, Antioch- Martinez to San Francisco, and Oakland to South San Francisco, among others. Implementation is expected by 2025. 41  Major projects in San Francisco that will support the viability of interregional services by providing a more seamless transit network at the western terminus of the corridor include the Central Subway project, the Transbay Terminal reconstruction, Caltrain’s extension of its terminus at the new Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, and Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit.42

35 Bay Area Rapid Transit website, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110121.aspx 36 Bay Area Rapid Transit website, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/ 37 Wheels/Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Agency website on the Tri-Valley Rapid, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.wheelsbus.com/index.aspx?page=79 38 AC Transit website on East Bay Bus Rapid Transit, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.actransit.org/planning-focus/projects-in-the- works/east-bay-bus-rapid-transit/ 39 Bay Area Rapid Transit website, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ecc/ and Contra Costa Transportation Authority eBART presentation on October 27, 2010, accessed online at http://www.ccta.net/assets/documents/CAC/102710~CAC~Agenda/eBART%20CAC%20-%20102710_r1.pdf 40 Bay Area Rapid Transit website, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/wsx/ 41 Water Emergency Transportation Authority website, accessed August 5, 2011 at http://www.watertransit.org/aboutUs/aboutUs.aspx 42 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2035: Change in Motion, accessed online on August 5, 2011 at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/ and Resolution 3434: Regional Transit Expansion Program 2008 Strategic Plan, accessed online on August 5, 2011 at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/rtep/, I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐2 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

INTERREGIONAL TRANSIT BENEFITS Interregional transit improvements were evaluated as to their potential to reduce 2035 AM/PM peak hour traffic in the I-580/I-205 corridor. Only significant regional transit improvements were considered. The latter was limited to the High Speed Rail (HSR) spur connecting the Cities of Stockton and San Jose, ACE rail enhancements, and the BART extension to the Livermore (with inter-service connections/stations either in Livermore or at Vasco Road). The following criterion was used to determine if a given interregional transit improvement would have significant interregional trip reduction benefits on the I-580/I-205:  Improvement must directly serves the Altamont Corridor;  Improvement must provide new service capacity that is beyond the provision of future system capacity to accommodate projected population/employment growth; or,  Improvement must provide new service capacity that goes beyond the projected mode shifts resulting from the aforementioned TDM scenario analysis.

Based on the above screening criteria, further analysis was not considered warranted for the non-Alameda County San Francisco Bay Area regional transit improvements. These services will mainly support intra-regional origins and destinations and incrementally improve that attractiveness/viability of other interregional services (i.e., ACE and proposed HSR) by providing a more seamless transit network at the western termini of the corridor. They will also serve to accommodate the projected increase in home based work transit mode share resulting from the employer based TDM scenarios described in Chapter 2. Table 4-1 shows the projected percent change in countywide mode split results resulting from each TDM scenario. The percent change in regional transit mode share resulting from the TDM scenarios in San Francisco County is approximately 7 percent depending on scenario. Given this significant shift, the regional service expansions are presumed to absorb new regional transit demand from population and employment growth and the projected shift in regional transit mode share from future TDM strategies. Similar conclusions can be drawn for the Alameda County interregional transit improvements. Only the BART extension to Livermore with stations either in downtown Livermore and/or Vasco Road warrants interregional benefit consideration. This improvement will provide a potential BART connection with ACE passenger rail service over Altamont Pass and/or the HSR spur between Stockton and San Jose. Such a connection will mirror the existing BART connection in the City of Richmond which provides a seamless transfer with the Capital Corridor Train passenger rail service between Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. All other Alameda County regional transit service capacity improvements are anticipated to simply keep pace with the projected growth in population growth (45 percent) and employment growth (46 percent) between 2010 and 2035 as well as serve to accommodate the projected increase in home based work transit mode share resulting from the employer based TDM scenarios. Table 4-1 shows a 1.6 to 4 percent regional transit mode shift (depending on TDM scenario) for Alameda County. In the San Joaquin County, expansion of regional/interregional bus rapid transit (BRT) service is also presumed to accommodate future development – and will not significantly alter the future peak hour mode share over the Altamont Pass. Conversely, expansion of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) passenger rail services – specifically the acquisition of ROW exclusively for passenger service could have a significant impact. However, I-580 trip reduction benefits resulting from ACE passenger rail service enhancements will likely be captured by CHSPA HSR Altamont Corridor regional passenger rail service between Stockton and San Jose. It is presumed that the HSR spur will provide coordinated service with the BART extension to Livermore and/or ACE. Ridership forecasts for the HSR spur – assuming a direct connection to the BART extension to Livermore - is estimated at 2,700,000 new annual riders by 2030 (based on HSR at 77% of air fare levels)43. Dividing by 365 days and assuming a 10% peak hour to daily ridership relationship yields 740 new (one way) peak hour riders. An

43 California High Speed Rail Project Ridership and Review Forecasts, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cambridge Systematics, SYSTRA, 2010. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐3 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

additional 100 new riders (one way) are assumed to reflect the ACE acquisition of ROW exclusively for passenger service expansion of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) passenger rail services. Assuming an I-580 average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle (I-580 CSMP, 2010) yields a total AM/PM peak hour trip diversion of 700 vehicles that would otherwise be driving during the AM/PM peak hours on the I-580/I-205. New ridership for the BART extension to Livermore is estimated at 31,600 new riders by 203044. Due to latent peak hour demand for travel on the I-580 (i.e., motorists who prior to implementation of the regional transit improvements chose to avoid driving on the I-580 by taking alternative routes or time periods to travel to avoid congestion), the benefit of these trip reductions are projected to be seen primarily on local parallel facilities within Alameda County as opposed to the I-580. As such, no additional I-580 peak hour trip reduction benefit was credited for the BART Livermore Extension improvement beyond that what is estimated above for the HSR spur. Table 4-1: TRIMMS Percent Change in Mode Split

Scenario County Auto-Drive Alone Auto-Rideshare Vanpool Public Transit Other Alameda 74.81 11.51 0.31 13.34 0.03 Contra Costa 76.66 12.96 0.51 9.84 0.03 San Francisco 49.76 9.18 0.35 40.68 0.03 Baseline San Joaquin 82.85 14.14 0.92 2.06 0.03 San Mateo 78.19 11.90 0.62 9.26 0.03 Santa Clara 84.27 11.89 0.31 3.50 0.03 Stanislaus 87.16 11.26 0.72 0.83 0.03 Alameda -4.82 0.78 0.20 3.84 0.00 Contra Costa -4.38 0.98 2.13 1.26 0.00 San Francisco -7.21 -0.21 0.26 7.17 0.00 TDM 1 San Joaquin -3.58 1.28 1.87 0.43 0.00 San Mateo -4.00 0.94 0.92 2.13 0.00 Santa Clara -2.53 1.19 0.47 0.87 0.00 Stanislaus -2.43 1.11 1.11 0.20 0.00 Alameda -4.79 0.77 0.20 3.82 0.00 Contra Costa -4.35 0.97 2.13 1.25 0.00 San Francisco -7.16 -0.22 0.26 7.12 0.00 TDM 2 San Joaquin -3.58 1.28 1.87 0.43 0.00 San Mateo -3.97 0.93 0.92 2.12 0.00 Santa Clara -2.52 1.18 0.47 0.87 0.00 Stanislaus -2.43 1.11 1.11 0.20 0.00 Alameda -3.11 1.42 0.04 1.65 0.00 Contra Costa -2.92 1.62 0.06 1.23 0.00 San Francisco -4.06 0.74 0.03 3.29 0.00 TDM 3.1 San Joaquin -3.58 1.28 1.87 0.43 0.00 San Mateo -2.87 1.56 0.08 1.22 0.00 Santa Clara -2.21 1.67 0.04 0.49 0.00 Stanislaus -2.43 1.11 1.11 0.20 0.00 Alameda -4.27 1.95 0.05 2.26 0.00 Contra Costa -4.01 2.23 0.09 1.69 0.00 San Francisco -5.49 1.00 0.04 4.44 0.00 TDM 3.2 San Joaquin -3.58 1.28 1.87 0.43 0.00 San Mateo -3.94 2.15 0.11 1.67 0.00 Santa Clara -3.05 2.30 0.06 0.68 0.00 Stanislaus -2.43 1.11 1.11 0.20 0.00

44 Bart to Livermore Extension Preferred Alternative Memorandum, BART, June 9, 2010 I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐4 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

SUMMARY OF INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL BENEFITS Major interregional transit improvements were reviewed in terms of their effects on the I-580 corridor in the context of future year TDM scenarios. Based on this review, an estimated trip reduction of 700 AM and PM peak hour trips were estimated. This trip reduction benefit is assumed across all segments of the I-580/I205 analysis segments. The aforementioned I-580 specific trip reduction estimates for interregional transit improvements were combined with the trip reduction estimates estimated for interregional TDM (Chapter 2) and interregional goods movement (Chapter 3). These interregional AM/PM peak hour trip reduction estimates are provided in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Interregional Multi-Modal Peak Hour Trip Reductions

The combined interregional multi-modal trip reduction benefits shown above were input to the 2000 Highway Capacity Software to estimate the operational benefits to the I-580 under 2035 conditions. Table 4-2 through Table 4-5 present the LOS results by I-580/I-205 analysis segment. To summarize, the operational benefit can be expressed by the percent reduction of I-580 lane miles projected to experience unstable flow conditions. Unstable flow (i.e., stop and go) conditions on controlled access freeways occur when vehicle densities exceed 45 passenger cars per lane per mile. As shown in Figure 4-2, the combined interregional multi-modal effect of TDM, goods movement and regional transit is projected to reduce the number of lane miles experiencing unstable flow conditions in the peak directions of travel by almost half relative to the future baseline conditions. Although beyond the scope of this study, the operational benefits of the interregional TDM scenarios described herein could be better elucidated with simulation. For the I-580 CMSP operational analysis, Paramics simulation software was used to analyze the performance of the freeway system as a whole (i.e., basic freeway, merge-diverge, weave and special purpose lanes). Simulation can identify bottleneck locations, the magnitude and duration of queuing, total vehicle delay and travel speed. These latter measures of effectiveness tend to be more intuitive than vehicle density. Such an analysis can be performed during updates of the I-580 CSMP.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐5 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

Table 4-2: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Eastbound AM Peak Hour

Baseline TDM 1 + HSR + Truck TDM 2 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.1 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.2 + HSR + Truck Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 58.49 35.85 E 59.96 33.67 D 59.50 34.37 D 60.33 33.08 D 60.73 32.42 D I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.76 25.35 C 67.08 24.30 C 66.98 24.65 C 67.16 23.96 C 67.25 23.57 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 64.60 30.30 D 65.64 28.76 D 65.34 29.22 D 65.92 28.32 D 66.20 27.85 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 63.13 31.52 D 64.25 29.89 D 63.92 30.38 D 64.55 29.40 D 64.86 28.89 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 65.82 24.31 C 65.93 23.42 C 65.91 23.64 C 65.95 23.20 C 65.97 22.95 C C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 17.32 B 66.00 16.68 B 66.00 16.80 B 66.00 16.55 B 66.00 16.41 B B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.13 22.49 C 67.19 21.58 C 67.18 21.72 C 67.19 21.46 C 67.19 21.31 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 68.50 15.18 B 68.50 13.20 B 68.50 13.27 B 68.50 13.12 B 68.50 13.04 B I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 19.10 C 67.00 18.42 C 67.00 18.48 C 67.00 18.37 C 67.00 18.31 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 4-3: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Westbound AM Peak Hour

Baseline TDM 1 + HSR + Truck TDM 2 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.1 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.2 + HSR + Truck Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 60.91 34.62 D 65.00 28.94 D 64.63 29.52 D 65.32 28.40 D 65.64 27.82 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 Unstable >45 F 58.43 38.10 E 57.64 39.07 E 59.21 37.14 E 60.04 36.13 E E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 Unstable >45 F 54.22 42.99 E 53.20 44.34 E 55.23 41.68 E 56.25 40.37 E D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 Unstable >45 F 58.15 37.53 E 57.57 38.27 E 58.75 36.75 E 59.34 35.98 E C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.93 37.80 E 63.29 30.43 D 63.08 30.77 D 63.52 30.05 D 63.74 29.68 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F 52.67 45.00 E Unstable >45 F 52.97 44.59 E 53.27 44.19 E 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Table 4-4: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Eastbound PM Peak Hour

Baseline TDM 1 + HSR + Truck TDM 2 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.1 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.2 + HSR + Truck Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 54.55 42.66 E 60.98 34.54 D 60.36 35.32 E 61.59 33.76 D 62.18 32.98 D F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 60.61 35.42 E 65.57 28.87 D 65.27 29.32 D 65.87 28.41 D 66.16 27.93 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 62.36 32.58 D 65.86 27.01 D 65.67 27.41 D 66.03 26.64 D 66.22 26.20 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 61.87 32.57 D 65.02 27.10 D 64.88 27.43 D 65.16 26.75 D 65.29 26.39 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 57.40 38.48 E 62.99 30.91 D 62.75 31.29 D 63.24 30.52 D 63.48 30.12 D B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F Unstable >45 F A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 Unstable >45 F 55.32 41.97 E 54.76 42.70 E 55.88 41.27 E 56.45 40.55 E I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 Unstable >45 F 54.63 42.39 E 54.28 42.85 E 55.04 41.86 E 55.45 41.34 E 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐6 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

Table 4-5: Freeway LOS Results for 2035 Westbound PM Peak Hour

Baseline TDM 1 + HSR + Truck TDM 2 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.1 + HSR + Truck TDM 3.2 + HSR + Truck Average Average Average Average Average Freeway Section From To Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Density 1 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 Speed LOS 2 (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (pc/mi/ln) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) I-238 H PM 14.7 PM 16.2 64.80 13.09 B 64.80 12.64 B 64.80 12.78 B 64.80 12.52 B 64.80 12.36 B I-580 G PM 28.75 PM 30.80 66.95 24.75 C 67.17 23.92 C 67.10 24.23 C 67.24 23.62 C 67.30 23.30 C F PM 23.72 PM 28.75 62.26 33.38 D 63.52 31.75 D 63.13 32.27 D 63.91 31.23 D 64.32 30.67 D E PM 21.43 PM 23.72 57.67 38.58 E 59.60 36.16 E 59.02 36.89 E 60.17 35.43 E 60.79 34.64 D D PM 14.2 PM 21.43 64.61 28.05 D 65.07 26.97 D 64.95 27.27 D 65.18 26.68 D 65.30 26.34 D C PM 9.68 PM 14.2 66.00 21.77 C 66.00 21.05 C 66.00 21.20 C 66.00 20.88 C 66.00 20.70 C B PM 5.98 PM 9.68 67.18 21.72 C 67.20 20.94 C 67.20 21.07 C 67.20 20.80 C 67.20 20.64 C A PM 0.39 PM 5.98 66.58 27.20 D 68.50 19.42 C 68.50 19.53 C 68.50 19.28 C 68.50 19.15 C I-205 I PM 0.213 PM 0.447 67.00 20.54 C 67.00 19.85 C 67.00 19.93 C 67.00 19.76 C 67.00 19.66 C 1 Density expressed in pc/mi/ln, passenger cars per mile per lane

2 Level of service is based on density as described in Basic Freeway Segment, Chapter 23, HCM 2000 Indicates locations that do not satisfy Caltrans deficiency criteria Dowling Associates, Inc.

Figure 4-2: I-580 Peak Direction Percent of Lane Miles Projected to Experience Unstable Flow Conditions (2035 Baseline vs. Combined Interregional Multi-Modal Scenarios)

*Peak direction of travel are westbound during the AM peak hour and eastbound in the PM peak hour.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐7 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Based on the findings of this study, a range of policy recommendations and/or next-steps are proposed to engender greater institutional and interagency coordination among the participating Interregional Transportation Partnership agencies and their local member agencies with respect to TDM, goods movement and regional transit planning. The supporting policy directives are intended as examples for future consideration by local and regional agencies within the I-580/I-205 corridor. They are intended for policy direction only and can used or modified as applicable during normal updates to local general plan circulation elements and regional transportation and air quality plans.

The following policy directives pertain to transportation and land use activities in the northern San Joaquin Valley counties and the San Francisco Bay Area that have interregional implications on the I-580 corridor.

TDM & Air Quality  Support TDM Programs as a CEQA mitigation or as a condition of approval for large developments, such as business parks, office parks, multi-tenant office buildings, and single large employers.  Support implementation of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s e-TRIP (Rule 9410).  Support local, regional, and statewide commute benefit ordinance initiatives.  Support greater coordination with and between regional transportation and air quality planning agencies in the development of commute benefit ordinances.  Support employer based pricing incentives as a potential employee benefit.  Support implementation of parking pricing where feasible.  Develop a toolbox of interregional TDM strategies with guidelines for small, medium, and large employers.  Continue supporting regional traveler information websites (511, 511 Contra Costa, and Commute Connections) and enhance services, where possible.

Regional Transit  Support development of the BART extension to Livermore with ACE/HSR connections at either Vasco or downtown Livermore station locations.  Support enhancements to ACE passenger rail right-of-way over the Altamont Pass.  Support the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, which will connect the City of Stockton to the City of San Jose and serve as passenger rail feeder service to the future California High Speed Rail Project.  Support the expansion and enhancement of regional transit services.

Freeway System Planning  Support sponsoring and programming state and federal discretionary transportation funds to implement capacity and transportation system management improvements identified in the I-580 CSMP.

Goods Movement  Support projects/programs that improve the efficiencies of short-haul rail between the Port of Oakland and the Port of Stockton.  Support projects that serve to develop or enhance short-haul intermodal service in San Joaquin Valley.  Support intermodal container manufacturing in Northern San Joaquin County.  Support, where applicable, upgrades to sections of the State Route system (SR-12/ SR-160/ SR-4/ SR-242/ SR-24) and I-880 between the San Joaquin Valley and the Port of Oakland to STAA Standards. I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐8 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011

 Renew support for sponsoring and programming state and federal discretionary transportation funds to provide truck climbing lanes and exclusive truck right-of-way, where feasible, on I-580.  Consider supporting dredging operations to facilitate larger container ship services between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Port of Stockton.

I­580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study Page 4‐9 Chapter 4: Multi-Modal Benefits August 2011