DOCSLIB.ORG

HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study Prepared for: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 Contact: Jean G. Hart Deputy Director Telephone: (510) 836-2560 Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Acumen Building Enterprise Dowling Associates, Inc. ECONorthwest Evans/McDonough Company, Inc August 2005 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background of the FAIR Lanes Concept................................................................................1 1.2 Focus of I-580 and I-680 Study..............................................................................................2 2. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................4 2.1 Physical Characteristics .........................................................................................................4 2.2 Operational Characteristics....................................................................................................5 2.3 Travel Patterns .......................................................................................................................13 2.4 Transit ....................................................................................................................................15 3. Alternatives Definition ................................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Alternative Compensation Schemes .......................................................................................17 3.2 Uniform Characteristics for all Alternatives .............................................................................17 3.3 Variable Features ....................................................................................................................19 3.4 Selection of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................20 4. Public Acceptance of HOT Credit Lanes and Value-Priced Lanes as an Equity Solution.....22 4.1 Focus Groups.........................................................................................................................22 4.2 Public Opinion Survey............................................................................................................25 5. HOT Credit Policy Modeling Results...........................................................................................28 5.1 Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................28 5.2 Analysis of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................30 5.3 Users’ Value of Time..............................................................................................................31 5.4 Results for 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2000 and 2025..........................................................32 5.5 Conclusions............................................................................................................................46 6. Revenue Estimates .......................................................................................................................48 6.1 Revenues for 20-Year Period.................................................................................................48 6.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................................51 7. Cost Estimates...............................................................................................................................52 7.1 Assumptions for Estimates.....................................................................................................52 7.2 Capital Costs ..........................................................................................................................52 7.3 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................55 HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study August 2005 TOC-1 8. Operational Analysis.....................................................................................................................57 8.1 Demand Forecast Results..................................................................................................... 57 8.2 I-580 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 58 8.3 I-680 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 60 8.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................61 9. Findings and Conclusions............................................................................................................62 9.1 HOT/C Lanes Feasibility Considerations .............................................................................. 62 9.2 Implementation Challenges................................................................................................... 63 10. References .....................................................................................................................................64 Appendix A: Value Pricing State-of-the-Art Review Appendix B: Travel Demand Modeling Appendix C: Focus Groups Moderator’s Guide Appendix D: Public Opinion Survey Questionnaire HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study August 2005 TOC-2 FIGURES 1 Project Location........................................................................................................4 2 Weekday Traffic – I-580 Westbound ........................................................................6 3 Weekday Traffic – I-580 Eastbound .........................................................................6 4 Weekday Traffic – I-680 Southbound.......................................................................7 5 Weekday Traffic – I-680 Northbound .......................................................................7 6 Peak Hour Volumes by Ramp – Westbound I-580...................................................9 7 Peak Hour Volumes by Ramp – Eastbound I-580....................................................9 8 Peak Hour Volumes by Ramp – Southbound I-680..................................................10 9 Peak Hour Volumes by Ramp – Northbound I-680..................................................10 10 Alameda County Residents’ Opinion of SMART Lanes ...........................................26 11 Alameda County Residents’ Opinion of Fairness Proposals ...................................27 HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study August 2005 TOC-3 TABLES 1 Average Daily Traffic ................................................................................................8 2 Historical Change in Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...............................................8 3 Year 2002 Congestion Delay and Duration .............................................................11 4 Corridor Travel Times and Average Speeds............................................................12 5 I-680 (Southbound AM) Vehicle Occupancy and Classification .............................13 6 Origins and Destinations by County for Drivers.......................................................14 7 San Joaquin I-580 Destinations, AM Peak Period, Westbound Drivers...................14 8 Rider Origins – Dublin Pleasanton Station ...............................................................16 9 Mean Values of Time per Vehicle-Hour by Vehicle Class........................................31 10 Average Toll and Hourly Revenue Estimates during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2000 (in 2004 Dollars) ..............................................................................................33 11 Average Toll and Hourly Revenue Estimates during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2025 (in 2004 Dollars) ..........................................................................................34 12 Average Speeds on the General Purpose and HOT Lane during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2000..................................................................................................35 13 Average Speeds on the General Purpose and HOT Lane during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2025..................................................................................................36 14 Summary of Average Vehicle Volumes on HOT Lane during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2000...........................................................................................................37 15 Summary of Average Vehicle Volumes on HOT Lane during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2025...........................................................................................................40 16 Summary of VMT and VHT during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2000........................43 17 Summary of VMT and VHT during 2-Hour AM Peak Period in 2025........................44 18 Summary of Alternative HOT Credit (HOT/C) Policies on VHT, Revenue, and Capital and Operating Costs (I-680
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ACE Train Time Schedule & Line Route
    ACE train time schedule & line map San Jose View In Website Mode The ACE train line (San Jose) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) San Jose: 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM (2) Stockton: 3:35 PM - 5:35 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest ACE train station near you and ƒnd out when is the next ACE train arriving. Direction: San Jose ACE train Time Schedule 10 stops San Jose Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM Stockton Station 949 Channel St, Stockton Tuesday 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM Lathrop/Manteca Station Wednesday 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM Tracy Station Thursday 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM Friday 4:10 AM - 6:40 AM Vasco Road Station South Vasco Road, Livermore Saturday Not Operational Livermore Station Pleasanton Station 403 Old Bernal Av, Pleasanton ACE train Info Direction: San Jose Fremont Station Stops: 10 37275 Fremont Bl, Fremont Trip Duration: 132 min Line Summary: Stockton Station, Lathrop/Manteca Great America Station Station, Tracy Station, Vasco Road Station, West Tasman Drive, Santa Clara Livermore Station, Pleasanton Station, Fremont Station, Great America Station, Santa Clara Station, Santa Clara Station San Jose Station Railroad Avenue, Santa Clara San Jose Station Direction: Stockton ACE train Time Schedule 10 stops Stockton Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 3:35 PM - 5:35 PM San Jose Station Tuesday 3:35 PM - 5:35 PM Santa Clara Station Railroad Avenue, Santa Clara Wednesday 3:35 PM - 5:35 PM Great America Station Thursday 3:35 PM - 5:35 PM
    [Show full text]
  • Altamont Corridor Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor Altamontaltamont Corridor Corridor Vision: Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor
    Altamont Corridor Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor AltamontAltamont Corridor Corridor Vision: Vision Universal Infrastructure, Universal Corridor What is the Altamont Corridor Vision? The Altamont Corridor that connects the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area is one of the most heavily traveled, most congested, and fastest growing corridors in the Northern California megaregion. The Bay Area Council estimates that congestion will increase an additional 75% between 2016 and 2040. To achieve state and regional environmental and economic development goals, a robust alternative is needed to provide a sustainable / reliable travel choice and greater connectivity. The Altamont Corridor Vision is a long-term vision to establish a universal rail corridor connecting the San Joaquin Valley and the Tri-Valley to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco and the Peninsula. This Vision complements other similar investments being planned for Caltrain, which is in the process of electrifying its corridor and rolling stock; Capitol Corridor, which is moving its operations to the Coast Subdivision as it improves its service frequency and separates freight from passenger service; a new Transbay Crossing, which would allow for passenger trains to flow from Oakland to San Francisco; the Dumbarton Rail Crossing, which is being studied to be brought back into service; and Valley Rail, which will connect Merced and Sacramento. The Vision also complements and connects with High- Speed Rail (HSR), and would enable a one-seat ride from the initial operating segment in the San Joaquin Valley throughout the Northern California Megaregion. One-Hour One-Seat One Shared Travel Time Ride Corridor Shared facilities, Oakland, Stockton, Express service, integrated Peninsula, Modesto modern rolling ticketing, San Jose stock timed connections • The limited stop (two intermediate stops) travel time between Stockton and San Jose is estimated to be 60 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public
    BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public Participation Report October 2017 Prepared by the Office of Civil Rights San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Table of Contents I. BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis Executive Summary 1 Section 1: Introduction 7 Section 2: Project Description 8 Section 3: Methodology 20 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 30 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 39 II. Appendices Appendix A: 2017 BART to Antioch Survey Appendix B: Proposed Service Plan Appendix C: BART Ridership Project Analysis Appendix D: C-Line Vehicle Loading Analysis III. BART to Antioch Public Participation Report i ii BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In October 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for Antioch Station (formerly known as Hillcrest Avenue Station). A Title VI/Environmental Justice analysis was conducted on the Pittsburg Center Station on March 19, 2015. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART to Antioch (Project) service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Authorizes Development Agreement for Eastside Hotel by Bruce Gach Scale-Branded Hotel
    Thursday, JULY 25, 2019 VOLUME LVI, NUMBER 30 Your Local News Source Since 1963 SERVING DUBLIN, LIVERMORE, PLEASANTON, SUNOL Council Authorizes Development Agreement for Eastside Hotel By Bruce Gach scale-branded hotel. The hotel will signatures must be qualified vot- council’s highest duty was to At the July 22 Livermore City include 1,400 to 2,000 square feet ers. On Friday, July 19, the Al- honor the community directed Council meeting, the council voted of conference space and a rooftop ameda County Registrar of Voters initiative, not subvert it. unanimously to direct staff to file deck. reported to the city that 6959 sig- William Dunlop, Chair of the See Inside Section A a Notice of Determination to in- Speakers in favor of the pres- natures were valid, 32.08% more Citizens for the Central Park Com- Section A is filled with troduce an ordinance authorizing ent City Plan with the hotel on the than needed. mittee, declared that the council information about arts, execution of a development agree- eastside of South Livermore and During the public hearing, Ta- moving forward “is intended to people, entertainment and ment with Presidio Co. to build a Railroad Avenues numbered 31, mara Reus related “If you proceed, cut off the rights of Livermore’s special events. There are downtown hotel on the eastside of with 29 against. we will file a referendum. You voters. The voters will use the education stories, a variety The initiative supporting the need to stop your illegal interfer- referendum power to reject any of features, and the arts Livermore Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • This Weekinside Highland Games Bring Kilt-Wearing Action To
    Vol. VII, Number 32 • September 1, 2006 www.PleasantonWeekly.com It’s all about Pleasanton ScottishThe arecoming Highland Games bring kilt-wearing action to Pleasanton page 10 Neal to retire Moving on up Travel the tracks Don’t delay Police chief ends Two Foothill grads make Reasons why and why Local Realtor advises 30 years of service their mark in the minors not to skip the plane against waiting to buy page 5 page 19 Section 2 page 30 INSIDE this week this IT’S TIME TO VOTE WHO WILL BE BEST OF PLEASANTON ton W asan eekl Ple y’s VOTE at PleasantonWeekly.com by September 22 • V • O T M E O O .C NL LY INE EEK at PLEASANTONW All you have to do is go to PleasantonWeekly.com It’s easier than being a “Survivor” You don’t even haveto sit through Tribal Council. Just go to PleasantonWeekly.com Page 2 • September 1, 2006 • Pleasanton Weekly Around Pleasanton by Jeb Bing Time Is Money. For a timely sale Toby Brink a good choice AND the best price, choose the right agent! for business group A terrible thing can happen if you choose the oby Brink, who has been to one of the top chambers in the executive director of the state, with strong support from wrong agent-NOTHING! If you're serious about T the San Ramon Chamber of Chevron and AT&T as well as selling, hire an agent with a proven marketing Commerce for the last four years, other major businesses in that city’s has been tapped to take over the reins thriving Bishop Ranch complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit to the Outer East
    TRANSIT TO THE OUTER EAST BAY BART is the main transit service for people trying to reach the outer East Bay: areas such as Walnut Creek, Concord, Pittsburg, Dublin, and Pleasanton. There are some alternative transit services, but they do not run very often and are expected to be very crowded. Carpooling is recommended for those who can. Or, check with your employer or school to see if alternative transportation is being provided. Not all services operate at all times. Check the Internet or call for information before taking any trip. Updated alternative information can be found on the Web at alert.511.org. DESTINATION GUIDE BART BUSES To reach See BART will provide charter bus service from Antioch Amtrak (other side of some East Bay BART stations to San Francisco. page) BART will be issuing round-trip tickets for Concord BART buses passengers in the morning: passengers who wish County Connection to return in the evening must have a round-trip ticket to return to the East Bay. Dublin BART buses Martinez Amtrak (other side of Current plans are for buses to operate from the page) following stations to a transfer point in West WestCAT Oakland, and then to San Francisco: Concord, Livermore ACE Fremont, Dublin/Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, San Leandro, and El Cerrito Del Norte. Pleasanton ACE BART buses Visit BART’s web site at www.bart.gov for more Walnut Creek BART buses information. ACE COUNTY CONNECTION ACE operates four trains daily from San Jose Up to three County Connection shuttles will and Fremont to Pleasanton, Livermore, Tracy, be provided to travel in the morning commute and Stockton.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenville Road Subdivision Project
    INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCH NUMBER: TBD GREENVILLE ROAD SUBDIVISION PROJECT Prepared For: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Community Development Agency 224 West Winton Avenue Hayward, CA 94544 PREPARED BY: LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO OAKLAND, CA 94606 September 2011 Table of Contents Page Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Document ............................................................................................................................... 1 General Project Information ..................................................................................................................... 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................................................ 8 Proposed Findings .................................................................................................................................. 20 Lead Agency Determination ................................................................................................................... 21 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 23 Proposed Uses/Operations ...................................................................................................................... 23 Requested Actions and Required Approvals .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Transit/Park-And-Ride Study
    Table of Contents Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... III Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 Study Overview ................................................................................................................................ 5 Background, Historical Context and Need for the Study ..................................................... 5 Study Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6 Study Partners .............................................................................................................................. 7 Existing Facilities, Services and Utilization .................................................................................... 8 The Study Process .......................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Conditions Assessment ................................................................................................... 13 Travel Behavior and Market Analysis ......................................................................................... 16 Development and Evaluation of Potential Improvement Measures ................................... 19 Development of Potential Improvement Measures ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION This Agenda Shall
    Chair, Steve Dresser, City of Lathrop Commissioner, Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Vice Chair, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Commissioner, Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca Commissioner, John Marchand, City of Livermore Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at (209) 944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Commission are conducted in English. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does not furnish interpreters and, if one is needed, it shall be the responsibility of the person needing one. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Director located at 949 East Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda is available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website: www.acerail.com. August 3, 2018 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station (Conference Call) (Conference Call) South Hall Meeting Room Heritage House Fairmont Rehabilitation Center 949 East Channel Street County of Alameda 950 Fairmont Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 4501 Pleasanton Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Pleasanton, CA 94566 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.17 Transportation and Traffic
    Environmental Impact Analysis Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority Transportation and Traffic 3.17 Transportation and Traffic 3.17.1 Introduction This section describes the regulatory setting and environmental setting for transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the Proposed Project (including all track variants, technology variants, and the Greenville and Mountain House initial operating segments [IOS]) and the alternatives analyzed at an equal level of detail (Southfront Road Station Alternative, Stone Cut Alignment Alternative, West Tracy Operation and Maintenance Facility [OMF] Alternative, Mountain House Station Alternative, and Downtown Tracy Station Parking Alternatives 1 and 2). It also describes the impacts on transportation and traffic that would result and mitigation measures that would reduce significant impacts, where feasible. There would be no differences in the physical impacts related to hydrology and water quality due to the diesel multiple unit (DMU), hybrid battery multiple unit (HBMU), battery-electric multiple unit (BEMU), or diesel locomotive haul (DLH) technology variants, so the discussion in this section does not discuss those variants. Potential impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project and the alternatives analyzed at an equal level of detail assume the larger environmental footprint at proposed and alternative stations associated with a potential IOS (i.e., Greenville IOS, Mountain House IOS, Southfront Road Station Alternative IOS, and Mountain House Alternative IOS) and/or the expanded parking in 2040. As such, the analysis of the Proposed Project and the alternatives analyzed at an equal level of detail below considers the potential impacts associated with a potential IOS and/or the expanded parking in 2040.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 02-01-2019
    Chair, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Vice Chair, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Commissioner, Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Commissioner, John Marchand, City of Livermore Commissioner, Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at (209) 944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Commission are conducted in English. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does not furnish interpreters and, if one is needed, it shall be the responsibility of the person needing one. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available upon request in Spanish for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Director located at 949 East Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda is available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website: www.acerail.com. February 1, 2019 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station Conference Call Locations South Hall Meeting Room 1311 Midvale Avenue 949 East Channel Street Lodi, CA 95240 Stockton, CA 95202 1.
    [Show full text]
  • LIVERMORE AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Altamont
    LIVERMORE AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Altamont Regional Rail Working Group Minutes of March 8, 2017 Meeting 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Committee Chair Scott Haggerty called the meeting to order at 1:32pm. 2. Roll Call of Members Members Present Supervisor Scott Haggerty (Chair), Alameda County Mayor Pro Tem Veronica Vargas, City of Tracy Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Councilmember Don Biddle, City of Dublin (alternate for David Haubert) Mayor John Marchand, City of Livermore Mayor Jerry Thorne, City of Pleasanton Board Member John McPartland, BART Board Chair Steven Spedowfski (Livermore), LAVTA CEO Dale Kaye, Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group Policy Director Josh Huber, East Bay Leadership Group Members Absent Mayor David Haubert, City of Dublin Board Chair Bob Johnson, SJRRC/ACE CEO Michael Ammann, San Joaquin Partnership 3. Public Comment Robert S. Allen Mr. Allen stated that early planning called for BART along the railroads through downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. In 1986 the Livermore City Council voted to orient BART along I- 580. They sold the planned 11-acre downtown station site, and BART bought a 53-acre plot near I-580 and Isabel. Mr. Allen was BART District 5 Director at that time. Over two decades later a different Livermore City Council planned for BART near downtown in a costly subway. Mr. Allen co-authored an initiative petition seeking BART to Isabel and later to Greenville in the then vacant I-580 median. It gained over 840 (Mr. Allen has since contacted LAVTA after going on record at the March 8, 2017 meeting requesting that the minutes be corrected to 8,400) signatures of Livermore voters, and qualified for the 2011 municipal election ballot.
    [Show full text]