Final Report. Interstate-680 Bus-on-Shoulder Feasibility Assessment. prepared for

Transcription

1 Final Report Interstate-680 Bus-on-Shoulder Feasibility Assessment prepared for Metropolitan Transportation Commission & Contra Costa Transportation Authority prepared by HDR in association with Fehr & Peers May 3, 2017

2

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Background and Purpose Infrastructure Summary Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Transit Services Transit Travel Times Transit Ridership Corridor Characteristics Traffic Speeds Freeway Ramp Volumes Expected Future Corridor Conditions Planned Corridor Improvements Future Corridor Transit Services Projected Corridor Transit Ridership Projected Corridor Travel Speeds Projected Corridor Ramp Volumes Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations Criteria and Protocols Criteria for Use of Shoulder Inside or Outside Shoulder Use Shoulder Design Considerations Highway Interchange Weaving and Interface Strategies Legal Framework and Policies Proposed Concept of Operations Estimated BOS Benefits Potential Travel Time Reduction Potential Transit Ridership Increase Bus Vehicle Requirements Potential Reliability and On-Time Performance Improvements Potential Safety Improvements Estimated BOS Infrastructure Cost Estimate Recommendations and Next Steps...33 i

4 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1. Existing I-680 Transit Service Summary... 7 Table 2. Existing Corridor Transit Travel Times... 7 Table 3. Existing Route-Level Ridership... 8 Table Hourly Ramp Volumes at Corridor Ramps...14 Table 5. Projected Route-Level Ridership without BOS Operations...16 Table Hourly Ramp Volume (vph)...18 Table 7. Summary of Corridor Travel Time Benefits...28 Table 8. Estimated Ridership Increases...29 Table 9. Estimated Vehicle Requirements...29 Table 10. BOS On-Time Performance Case Studies...30 Table 11. Projected Crash Benefits with BOS...31 Table of Figures Figure 1. I-680 BOS Study Area... 2 Figure 2. Existing Study Area Transit Services... 6 Figure 3. Summary of Existing I-680 Lane Configuration in Study Area...10 Figure 4. Existing Study Area Corridor Northbound Speeds by Time of Day...11 Figure 5. Existing Study Area Corridor Southbound Speeds by Time of Day...12 Figure 6. Locations with Existing Average Speeds Under 35 MPH for All Time Periods...13 Figure 7. Locations with Projected Average Speeds Under 35 MPH for All Time Periods...17 Figure 8. Typical Interchange Vehicle Movements and Potential Bus Conflict Points...21 Figure 9. Entry Ramp Merging with Ramp Meters...22 Figure 10. Typical BOS Signs and Placement Locations...23 Figure 11. Proposed BOS Concept of Operations Path of Travel...25 Appendices Appendix A: I-680 Corridor BOS Infrastructure System Assessment Inventory Data... A Appendix B: I-680 Corridor BOS System Limits Diagram... B Appendix C: I-680 Corridor BOS Layout Maps... C Appendix D: I-680 Corridor BOS Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate... D Appendix E: Project Team Meeting Summary Notes... E ii

5 Background and Purpose 1 Background and Purpose The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is working in partnership with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to identify and evaluate a variety of congestion relief strategies along the I-680 corridor in Contra Costa County. A number of operational and transit improvement strategies were developed from the I-680 Design Alternative Assessment (DAA), and the I-680 Transit Investment/Congestion Relief Options Study, including a feasibility analysis of bus on shoulder (BOS) concept presented herein. The purpose of this study is to identify the feasibility and potential benefits of operating buses along the shoulder of the I-680 study corridor, between Alcosta Boulevard and Ygnacio Valley Road (see Figure 1). Within the study area, BOS operations are expected to run from Livorna Road to Alcosta Boulevard in the southbound direction and Bollinger Canyon Road to Ygnacio Valley Road in the northbound direction. BOS operations provide an opportunity for transit operators to cost-effectively and quickly prioritize transit services along this highly congested freeway, given the need with limited infrastructure improvements. BOS facilities are proven to improve transit travel times, on-time performance, and service reliability by reducing the impact of recurring and non-recurring congestion on transit operations. This Report documents: Section 2.0 presents a summary of the Infrastructure Assessment within the study area presenting the feasibility of bus on shoulder operations through on and off ramps and mainline segments in the corridor (Task 8A); Sections 3.0 and 4.0 presents an assessment of existing (2016) and future (2020) transit and traffic conditions, respectively, in the study area, including a summary of the existing freeway design configurations and design feasibility to accommodate bus on shoulder operations as well as a set of typical operating and design criteria to warrant BOS operations (Task 8C); Section 5.0 presents the proposed BOS concept of operations for both short-term (2016) and near-term future (2020) conditions (Task 8D); Section 6.0 presents an assessment of the estimated benefits of BOS service operations and ridership (Task 8E); and Section 7.0 presents an assessment of probable infrastructure cost estimates to implement BOS in the corridor (Task 8B); May 3,

6 Background and Purpose Figure 1. I-680 BOS Study Area 2 May 3, 2017

7 Infrastructure Summary 2 Infrastructure Summary An infrastructure assessment of the I-680 corridor was conducted to assess the potential feasibility of providing BOS operations for both the southbound and northbound directions in the study area. For each segment in the corridor, for both southbound and northbound directions, the following information was collected, reviewed, and assessed: Type of Infrastructure Gore Area or Outside (Right) Shoulder; Post Mile Location; Existing Outside Shoulder Width Existing Outside Lane Pavement Depth; Existing Outside Shoulder Pavement Depth; and Existing Drainage Systems and Outside Shoulder Drainage Inlet Locations. The majority of the shoulder segments in the corridor have a feasible rating, defined as a segment that currently could accommodate bus on shoulder operations without any need for major infrastructure improvements (pavement width or depth) but may require minor modification improvements to existing drainage facilities. For example, of the 47 segments in the southbound direction, 42 were considered feasible based on the variables identified above. In addition, five (5) of the southbound segments considered a feasible with major improvements, defined as current segments requiring pavement widening or replacement improvements needed to accommodate BOS operations. Also, two (2) of the southbound segments were determined to be Infeasible, with major existing constraints requiring considerable costs to accommodate BOS operations. Similar results were identified for the current northbound segments, with 47 rating as feasible, four (4) rating as feasible with improvements, and one (1) as infeasible. Appendix A presents the detailed infrastructure data used for analysis of the corridor, including mainline segments for both southbound and northbound directions. Infrastructure constraints identified for the currently infeasible segments included the following constraints: Sound walls, in some cases including fencing; Insufficient shoulder widths; Structure columns and abutments Right of Way. A team meeting with MTC and CCTA was held on January 6, 2017 where the study team reviewed the infrastructure assessment data and discussed the potential BOS limits for the study corridor. The team evaluated locations of traffic congestion, the feasibility assessment data and the travel routes of the transit operators. The BOS limits determined for purposes of the study were from Livorna Road to Alcosta Boulevard in the southbound direction and from Bollinger Canyon Road to Ygnacio Valley Road in the northbound direction. The meeting also included a discussion on bus operators utilizing existing auxiliary (aux) lanes instead of outside shoulder where the aux lanes exist. May 3,

8 Infrastructure Summary The BOS System Limits Diagram (Appendix B) shows the limits of the BOS system and delineates where the buses will be travelling within the outside shoulder or where travel will be within the aux lanes. The BOS Layout Maps (Appendix C) presents the BOS system limits in more detail and shows the path of travel along the existing I-680 shoulders, lanes and gore areas. It also notes where improvements will be needed for implementation. 4 May 3, 2017

9 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions 3 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Current transit conditions and characteristics in the corridor are presented in this section. 3.1 Transit Services The study area currently includes seven (7) unique bus routes operated by three different transit agencies, including: The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) operates Routes 92X, 95X, 96X, and 97X serving the Pleasanton Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Train Station, Bishop Ranch, San Ramon Transit Center, Walnut Creek BART Station, and Dublin/Pleasanton BART station along the I-680 corridor. The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) operates Routes 70X serving East Dublin BART station, Walnut Creek BART station, and Pleasant Hill BART station. Two privately operated express routes also provide service to/from Silicon Valley and San Francisco to Bishop Ranch office park using the I-680 corridor. Most of these routes provide express service for regional commuters during AM and PM peak periods. Buses typically operate along the I-680 corridor using the existing general purpose lanes and not the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, primarily due to difficulty moving into and out of the HOV lane across the general purpose lanes to enter and exit and freeway at various locations where congestion exists. Figure 2 illustrates the existing bus service routes along the corridor. Table 1 shows the existing bus service descriptions and levels along the corridor. 3.2 Transit Travel Times To estimate the potential travel time savings resulting from proposed BOS operations, the existing transit travel times for all corridor bus routes were collected from published schedules. For each route, travel time is collected from the published scheduled times between two adjacent bus stops that cover the I-680 segment. Table 2. Table 2 summarizes the existing travel times for each route by direction and time of the day. The existing travel times will be used to evaluate projected travel time savings as a result of potential BOS operations along the corridor. 3.3 Transit Ridership Table 3 shows the existing route-level ridership for the bus routes currently operating along the study area corridor. The 7 corridor bus routes serve approximately 1,377 passenger trips on a daily basis typically during traditional commute times. Existing route-level ridership was used to evaluate potential ridership increases as a result of project travel time reductions the transit service may experience if BOS operation is feasible. May 3,

10 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Figure 2. Existing Study Area Transit Services 6 May 3, 2017

11 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Table 1. Existing I-680 Transit Service Summary Transit Operator Route Service Description Weekday Service Hours Daily Number of Oneway Trips Peak Service Frequency 92X Ace Express: Pleasanton Train Station (ACE), Bishop Ranch, San Ramon Transit Center 5:53 a.m. - 7:19 p.m minutes County Connection 95X 96X San Ramon Express: San Ramon Transit Center to Walnut Creek BART Bishop Ranch Express, North: Walnut Creek BART to Bishop Ranch 6:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m minutes 5:35 a.m. - 7:50 p.m minutes 97X Bishop Ranch Express, South: Dublin BART to Bishop Ranch 6:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m minutes Wheels 70X East Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Walnut Creek BART 5:43 a.m. - 8:53 a.m. 4:00 p.m. - 7:10.p.m minutes Bishop Ranch SF Express Silicon Valley Express Park Presidio/Divisadero/Marke t/2nd Street/4th Street Cupertino - San Jose Fremont to Bishop Ranch 6:10 a.m. - 7:55 a.m. 4:35 p.m. - 6:55 p.m. 6:45 a.m. - 8:10 a.m. 4:50 p.m. - 6:20 p.m. 2 One daily round trip 2 One daily round trip Source: Table 2. Existing Corridor Transit Travel Times County Connection Wheels Bishop Ranch Bus Travel Time (minutes) 92X 95X 96X 97X 70X SF SV AM Peak Northbound (NB) AM Peak Southbound (SB) PM Peak NB PM Peak SB May 3,

12 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Table 3. Existing Route-Level Ridership Transit Operator Route Existing Daily Ridership Existing Peak Hour Vehicle Load Factor 4 92X County Connection 1 95X X X Wheels 2 70X (AM), 0.43 (PM) Bishop Ranch 3 SF Express Silicon Valley Express Total 1, Source: DKS, I-680 Transit investment/congestion Relief Options Study, December Source: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Short Range Transit Plan FY , November Source: Bishop Ranch Transportation Management Association 4. Source: CCCTA 2015 Title VI report, Wheels 2012 SRTP 3.4 Corridor Characteristics The majority of the corridor consists of four lanes (including one HOV Lane) in both directions. Buses typically operate along the I-680 corridor using the existing general purpose lanes and not the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, primarily due to difficulty moving into and out of the HOV lane across the general purpose lanes during times of congestion. The corridor also includes a series of auxiliary lanes in both directions, which will be considered to connect segments of proposed BOS operations. There are also several off-ramps with dual exit lanes in both directions, where special provisions may be required for BOS operations to overcome challenges of bus merging or weaving, such as requiring buses to re-enter the general purpose lanes when continuing through interchanges. These ramps are located at the interchanges of Ygnacio Valley Road, Sycamore Valley Road, Crow Canyon Road, Bollinger Canyon Road and Olympic Boulevard/SR 24. Freeway Ramp Volumes Ramp volumes along the corridor were reviewed to identify locations that may present operational issues for buses that travel across ramps while using the shoulder within the vicinity of freeway interchanges. TCRP Report 151 suggests that generally any ramp volume below 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) will allow safe and effective BOS operations. However, volumes of 1,000 to 1,500 vph are less feasible, and any ramp volume over 1,500 vph will likely not be feasible. Table 4 shows the existing 2015 (representative of 2016 conditions) hourly ramp volumes for the study area corridor. Volumes higher than 1,500 vph are highlighted in red. As 8 May 3, 2017

13 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions shown in the table, ramps of NB SR 24, NB/SB Crow Canyon Road, and NB/SB Bollinger Canyon Road have volumes higher than 1,500 vph. Figure 3 shows a summary of the existing corridor lane configuration of I-680 in the study area. 3.5 Traffic Speeds According to TCRP Report 151 1, surveys of bus drivers and decades of operating experience suggest 35 miles per hour (mph) as the threshold speed in general purpose traffic lanes for buses to use the shoulders. It also suggests 15 mph as the maximum speed differential between general purpose traffic speeds and speeds that allow buses to operate using the shoulder, although some locations within the U.S. operate with a 10 mph speed differential. To identify corridor segments that may warrant BOS operations, the existing mainline travel speed was examined along the study area corridor by direction and time of the day using INRIX data collected in October As shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, congestion typically occurs during the AM peak period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:15.a.m. in the southbound direction and the PM peak period between 2:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. in the northbound direction. During the AM peak period, the southbound mainline travel speed reduces to 35 mph or lower between N. Main Street and Stone Valley Road for approximately 3 hours, with speeds on portions of the segment dropping 15 mph or lower within that time period. During the PM peak period, the northbound mainline travel speed reduces 35 mph or lower between Sycamore Valley Road and N. Main Street for approximate 4 hours, with speeds on portions of the segment dropping to 15 mph or lower within that time period. Figure 6 illustrates the locations along the study area corridor under 2016 conditions that drop below 35 mph at several points during the day. 3.6 Freeway Ramp Volumes Ramp volumes along the corridor were reviewed to identify locations that may present operational issues for buses that travel across ramps while using the shoulder within the vicinity of freeway interchanges. TCRP Report 151 suggests that generally any ramp volume below 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph) will allow safe and effective BOS operations. However, volumes of 1,000 to 1,500 vph are less feasible, and any ramp volume over 1,500 vph will likely not be feasible. Table 4 shows the existing 2015 (representative of 2016 conditions) hourly ramp volumes for the study area corridor. Volumes higher than 1,500 vph are highlighted in red. As shown in the table, ramps of NB SR 24, NB/SB Crow Canyon Road, and NB/SB Bollinger Canyon Road have volumes higher than 1,500 vph. 1 TCRP, Report A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder (BOS) Systems, May 3,

14 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Figure 3. Summary of Existing I-680 Lane Configuration in Study Area 10 May 3, 2017

15 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Figure 4. Existing Study Area Corridor Northbound Speeds by Time of Day I-680 Northbound Travel Speed 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM N. MAIN OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CA-24 ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # YGNACIO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # OLYMPIC ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # SR 24 OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # S. MAIN OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # RUDGEAR ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # RUDGEAR OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # LIVORNA ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # LIVORNA OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY LOOP OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # PINTADO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CERRO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CERRO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DIABLO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DIABLO LOOP ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DIABLO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # SYCAMORE ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # SYCAMORE OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON LOOP ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER LOOP ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ALCOSTA ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ALCOSTA OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I-580 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # < 15 mph mph mph > 55 mph May 3,

16 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Figure 5. Existing Study Area Corridor Southbound Speeds by Time of Day I-680 Sorthbound Travel Speed 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM N. MAIN ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CA-24 OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # YGNACIO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # OLYMPIC OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CA-24 ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # OLYMPIC ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # S. MAIN OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # S. MAIN ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # RUDGEAR ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # LIVORNA OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # LIVORNA ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY DIAG. OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY LOOP OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # STONE VALLEY ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # PINTADO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CERRO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CERRO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DIABLO OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # DIABLO ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # SYCAMORE OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # SYCAMORE ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON LOOP ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CROW CANYON DIAG. ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER LOOP ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # BOLLINGER DIAG. ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ALCOSTA OFF # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ALCOSTA ON # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # < 15 mph mph mph > 55 mph 12 May 3, 2017

17 Existing Corridor Transit and Traffic Conditions Figure 6. Locations with Existing Average Speeds Under 35 MPH for All Time Periods May 3,

18 Table Hourly Ramp Volumes at Corridor Ramps AM Max 2015 Hourly Ramp Volume (vph) PM Max Southbound Ramps Northbound Ramps AM Max PM Max Ygnacio Valley Off Olympic On SR 24 Off Olympic Off S. Main Off Rudgear On Rudgear Off Livorna Off Livorna On Livorna On Livorna Off Stone Valley Diagonal Off Stone Valley On Stone Valley Loop Off Stone Valley Loop Off Stone Valley On Stone Valley Diagonal Off El Pintado Off El Pintado On El Cerro Off El Cerro On El Cerro On El Cerro Off-Ramp Diablo Off Diablo Valley Diagonal On Diablo On Diablo Valley Loop On Diablo Valley Off-Ramp Sycamore Off Sycamore On Sycamore On Sycamore Off-Ramp Crow Canyon Off Crow Canyon Diagonal On Crow Canyon Loop On Crow Canyon Loop On Crow Canyon Diagonal On Crow Canyon Off-Ramp Bollinger Off Bollinger Diagonal On Bollinger Loop On Bollinger Loop On Bollinger Diagonal On San Ramon/Alcosta Off Source: Fehr & Peers. 14 May 3, 2017

19 Expected Future Corridor Conditions 4 Expected Future Corridor Conditions The following future transit and traffic conditions along the study area corridor were considered for the 2020 BOS concept of operations. 4.1 Planned Corridor Improvements Existing HOV lanes along the corridor are currently being converted to express lanes, and are expected to open in late This includes the conversion of HOV lanes between Rudgear Road and Alcosta Blvd in the southbound direction and between Alcosta Blvd and Livorna Rd in the northbound direction. The express lanes will be available for HOV, buses, vanpools, motorcycles, and eligible clean air vehicles at no cost and will be available to single occupancy vehicles willing to pay a toll to access the lane. The express lane tolls will fluctuate based on demand, with tolls typically increasing during higher congested periods. The following plans and projects 2, identified for the corridor, are presented in some detail. These projects are assumed to not influence the feasibility of near-term (2020) BOS operations. I-680 South Express Lane Project, which will convert the existing HOV lanes to Express Lanes from Livorna Road to Alcosta Boulevard. This project is currently under construction and will be complete by the time BOS is implemented (if determined to be feasible). I-680 Southbound Gap Closure Project and I-680 North Express Lane Project, which will provide a new express lane between the N Main Street and Livorna Road interchanges and convert the existing southbound HOV lane north of N. Main Street into an express lane, creating a continuous express lane from south of Marina Vista Road to Alcosta Boulevard. Central County Action Plan identified a northbound HOV lane extension from N. Main Street to SR-242. This project is yet to be funded, although it is assumed this improvement will not influence the near-term feasibility of BOS along the corridor given the time frame for completion. Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan identified the addition of northbound and southbound HOV/express lanes between SR-84 and Alcosta Boulevard, neither of which have been funded. 4.2 Future Corridor Transit Services According to County Connection Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), County Connection staff has completed an initial evaluation of routes that could potentially attract more passengers destined to BART if its all-day service frequencies were increased to every 15 minutes. This analysis included Route 95X, San Ramon Transit Center to Walnut Creek BART via I-680, in the study area. The SRTP also lists other I-680 corridor service improvements, which include the proposal of six shuttle routes providing direct service between Park and Ride lots and BART stations (two from existing and four from new facilities) and service increases during off-peak periods for current express and local services. These proposed service 2 Source: CCTA, I-680 Transit Investment/Congestion Relief Options Study (2015) May 3,

20 Expected Future Corridor Conditions improvements would potentially increase the benefit of the proposed BOS operations if more buses operate on the shoulder, more riders would benefit from reduced travel times in the corridor. 4.3 Projected Corridor Transit Ridership Projected 2020 route-level ridership for each route traveling along the study area corridor without BOS operations is shown in Table 5. Annual growth factors were derived from the latest ridership projections included in the respective transit agency Short Range Transit Plans. Table 5. Projected Route-Level Ridership without BOS Operations Transit Operator Route 2016 Daily Ridership Annual Growth Factor Estimated 2020 Ridership 92X X County Connection 1 96X X Wheels 2 70x Bishop Ranch 3 Silicon Valley Express SF Express Total 1,377 1,725 1 Annual growth rate calculated based on County Connection SRTP Table 11. Fixed-Route Performance Data: FY12 FY14 Total Passengers 2 FY2011 FY2020 growth rate calculated based on Wheels SRTP Exhibit 1A-Fixed Route Financial Plan and Operating Characteristics: FY2011 FY2021 Ridership 3 Bishop Ranch growth rate is assumed to be similar to CCTA growth projections due to similar ridership 4.4 Projected Corridor Travel Speeds To identify corridor segments that may warrant BOS operations in the future, the projected mainline travel speed was examined along the study area corridor by direction and time of the day using the 2020 microsimulation models developed for the corridor and used to support the I-680 DAA. The basis for the 2020 travel times developed and used in the microsimulation models were generated using INRIX baseline travel speed data. Figure 7 illustrates the locations along the study area corridor under 2020 conditions that drop below 35 mph at any time period during the day. The recurring northbound speed conditions along the entirety of the study corridor are expected to drop below 35 mph, warranting BOS operations. 16 May 3, 2017

21 Expected Future Corridor Conditions Figure 7. Locations with Projected Average Speeds Under 35 MPH for All Time Periods May 3,

22 Expected Future Corridor Conditions 4.5 Projected Corridor Ramp Volumes Table 6 shows the projected 2020 hourly ramp volumes for the study corridor. Volumes higher than 1,500 vph are highlighted in red. In addition to the ramps that already have volumes higher than 1,500 vph in 2015, the northbound Sycamore Valley Road on-ramp is projected to have volumes higher than 1,500 vph by Table Hourly Ramp Volume (vph) AM Max 2020 Hourly Ramp Volume (vph) PM Max Southbound Ramps Northbound Ramps AM Max PM Max Ygnacio Valley Off Olympic On SR 24 Off Olympic Off S. Main Off Rudgear On Rudgear Off Livorna Off Livorna On Livorna On Livorna Off Stone Valley Diagonal Off Stone Valley On Stone Valley Loop Off Stone Valley Loop Off Stone Valley On Stone Valley Diagonal Off El Pintado Off El Pintado On El Cerro Off El Cerro On El Cerro On El Cerro Off-Ramp Diablo Off Diablo Valley Diagonal On Diablo On Diablo Valley Loop On Diablo Valley Off-Ramp Sycamore Off Sycamore On Sycamore On Sycamore Off-Ramp Crow Canyon Off Crow Canyon Diagonal On Crow Canyon Loop On Crow Canyon Loop On Crow Canyon Diagonal On Crow Canyon Off-Ramp Bollinger Off Bollinger Diagonal On Bollinger Loop On Bollinger Loop On Bollinger Diagonal On San Ramon/Alcosta Off Source: Fehr & Peers. 18 May 3, 2017

23 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations 5 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations 5.1 Criteria and Protocols Bus on shoulder (BOS) operations is typically considered using a series of criteria to permit the use of a freeway shoulder. Operating speeds, hours, inside or outside shoulder use, freeway design, interchange geometry and striping, ramp volumes, and legal requirements should be considered when implementing BOS operations. Bus operator training, public education, and interagency coordination are also critical elements for successful application. A key element to maintaining safe operations is providing proper training and instructions to bus drivers to use the shoulder at their discretion, allowing them to opt to operate at lower speeds, if safer. The following BOS operating criteria and key considerations have been sourced from TCRP 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder Systems (2012) and experience in implementing BOS in other areas. These guidelines are intended to be flexible based on experiences and policies developed for any given region Criteria for Use of Shoulder PERMITTED SERVICES Typical BOS operations implementation restricts the use of the shoulder to fixed-route transit service only. Privately operated buses, school buses, and/or paratransit vehicles are not typically permitted to use the shoulder due to lack of driver training, operating procedures, and operations oversight. The decision to allow other, non-fixed-route transit vehicles will need to be established by the sponsoring agencies. OPERATING HOURS AND SPEEDS BOS operations are typically triggered by reduced speeds on the freeway mainline caused by recurring or non-recurring congestion at various times throughout the day. Operating hours and speed guidelines should be established to provide BOS operations direction and oversight. Set or fixed hours could be established using regulatory signs or allow operations at any time of day, depending on congested conditions or incidents causing slower speeds. Setting appropriate bus operating speeds should be defined in policies and procedures, particularly related to driver training and operations oversight. As mentioned above, typical BOS speed guidance is as follows: Buses could enter the shoulder when mainline general purpose traffic lane falls below 35 miles per hour 3, Buses should operate no faster than 35 miles per hour in shoulder lane, and Buses should operate with a maximum 15 miles per hour speed differential from the adjacent traffic lane. 3 A speed of 35 miles per hour has been proven in a number of BOS locations to be safe to operate within a minimum 10-foot wide shoulder lane. May 3,

24 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations Inside or Outside Shoulder Use BOS operations typically occur on the outside (right) or inside (left) shoulder, depending on several key design and operational factors. These include shoulder width, pavement depth, bus entry and exit locations, and interchange merging conditions, among other factors. BOS operations are more common on the outside shoulder to allow for easy and effective freeway entry and exit using typical right side ramps. Right shoulder operations provide better opportunity for bus drivers to maintain safe separation from the adjacent lane, as general traffic falls to the driver s immediate left. Left shoulder operations require buses to weave across several traffic lanes for freeway entry and exit; however, if the transit service is designed to operate along a freeway segment for a extended distance, there may be advantages in using the left shoulder to avoid potential interchange weaving conflicts. For purposes of this study, BOS operation will only be considered on the right side shoulder along the study area corridor, given the lack of sufficient left shoulder width along the corridor and to avoid left shoulder width reductions currently proposed for the study area corridor, among other considerations Shoulder Design Considerations The following shoulder design considerations typically accommodate bus on shoulder operations: 1. A minimum 10 foot shoulder width typically allows for safe and effective bus operation, 2. Sufficient pavement depth to accommodates bus vehicles, 3. Bus shoulder lane should be reviewed for lateral and vertical clearance issues that may pose BOS operations challenges, and 4. Drainage inlets along the shoulder may be considered potential issues for bus vehicles. They should be relocated or modified to accommodate bus travel Highway Interchange Weaving and Interface Strategies BOS operations using the right shoulder typically weave and interface with interchange entry ramps, exit ramps, and auxiliary lanes to maintain effective operation along a corridor. Bus drivers are typically trained to yield to vehicles to avoid potential conflicts. Bus drivers are typically given the option to merge into general purpose traffic lanes in advance of the interchanges and enter the shoulder after the entry ramp, based on driver discretion. Ramp volumes and ramp design should be considered when defining BOS corridor operations. The following guidelines are typically followed for BOS operations within interchange proximity: 1. Auxiliary Lane: BOS operations should strive to utilize corridor auxiliary lanes whenever possible to minimize conflicts between buses and vehicles. 2. Ramp Volumes: Ramps carrying less than 1,000 vehicles per hour are typically considered feasible for BOS weaving; whereas ramps carrying between 1,000 and 1,500 vehicles per hour are considered less feasible, given the limited vehicle gaps that allow weaving. Ramps carrying more than 1,500 vehicles per hour should be avoided. 3. Exit Ramps: Buses may travel across single exit ramp lanes from an upstream shoulder when vehicle gaps exist and depending on bus driver discretion. Exit ramps without an 20 May 3, 2017

25 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations upstream auxiliary lane may create potential conflicts between buses and exiting vehicles. Figure 8 illustrates the location of a potential BOS/vehicle conflict point at an exit ramp. If available, operations within an available auxiliary lane can avoid potential vehicle conflict, although the benefit of exclusive bus use is removed, as these lanes are available for use by all vehicles. Figure 8. Typical Interchange Vehicle Movements and Potential Bus Conflict Points BOS Conflict Point Bus Path Source: Missouri DOT and HDR 4. Entry Ramps: Buses may travel across single entry ramp lanes from upstream shoulders when vehicle gaps exist. Figure 8 also illustrates the location of a potential BOS/vehicle conflict point at an entry ramp. Entry ramp conflicts between buses using the shoulder and vehicles entering the freeway could be managed with adaptive ramp metering at the entry ramp. The adaptive ramp meter could be designed to detect an approaching bus on the shoulder, which would trigger the ramp meter to hold vehicles and create a gap for buses to travel across the entry ramp from the upstream shoulder, continuing into the downstream shoulder. Figure 9 illustrates the use of ramp metering (note that this example is not representative of specific I-680 on-ramp striping configurations) to manage vehicle gaps for approaching buses operating in the shoulder. May 3,

26 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations Figure 9. Entry Ramp Merging with Ramp Meters 5. Dual Lane Exit and Entry Ramps: Dual lane exit ramps typically require the bus to reenter general purpose traffic upstream. The location of re-entering the general purpose lane depends on the interchange design. BOS operations through dual lane entry ramps could be accomplished by weaving across both lanes to align with the downstream shoulder or merging into an added entry lane/auxiliary lane prior to weaving to the shoulder (see Figure 9 above).both cases can be similarly managed with ramp meter detection. 6. Signs and Pavement Markings: Signs are typically required to notify the bus driver and general purpose vehicles of permitted BOS operation locations. Figure 10 illustrates several example BOS signs and placement locations Legal Framework and Policies In certain jurisdictions, laws exist where the use of shoulder for any vehicle operations is illegal, which may require statute adoption to exempt buses from this restriction. Along the I-680 corridor, BOS operation implementation may require a change in California Vehicle Code, as well as Caltrans policy. In addition, maintenance and enforcement policies and procedures may need to be established to ensure a consistently clear shoulder for BOS operation. 5.2 Proposed Concept of Operations The proposed concept of operations for BOS during short-term (2016) and near-term future (2020) conditions was developed using a combination of information presented in separate documents and above including infrastructure conditions, transit and traffic conditions, BOS operating procedures, and a qualitative infrastructure design review identified in Task 8A of the corridor to test for BOS feasibility. The qualitative design review rated each section of outside shoulder along the corridor in one of three ways: feasible, feasible with improvements, and infeasible. The feasibility assessment was based on several design factors, including shoulder width, shoulder pavement depth, drainage inlets, and horizontal/vertical clearances (e.g., sound 22 May 3, 2017

27 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations walls). Attachment A details the corridor design feasibility review under consideration for BOS operations. Figure 10. Typical BOS Signs and Placement Locations Source: TCRP 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder Systems (2012) May 3,

28 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations The 2016 and 2020 BOS concept of operations path of travel is illustrated in Figure 11 below. The path of travel did not consider the inside express lane due to likely weaving issues involved with freeway entry and exit along the corridor. BOS is anticipated to be warranted in the northbound direction from Bollinger Canyon Road to Ygnacio Valley Road and in the southbound direction from Livorna Road to Alcosta Boulevard, both due to typical mainline lane speed and shoulder design conditions. As shown below and consistent with the operating criteria described above, the path of BOS operation considers auxiliary lanes, dual entry/exit lanes, and shoulder lanes based on previously defined feasibility ratings. Based on projected typical 2020 travel speeds and recurring congestion along the corridor, BOS is anticipated to be warranted for the entire length of the study corridor in the northbound direction. The southbound direction is feasible from a design perspective to accommodate shoulder operations, although the typical speed conditions may only warrant BOS in some segments along the study corridor. The northbound Sycamore Valley Road on-ramp and the southbound Bollinger Canyon Road loop on-ramp slightly exceed the 1,500 vph ramp volume limit for single lane on-ramps; although the use of a ramp meter to detect approaching buses may provide opportunities to safely and effectively operate BOS across the on-ramp. BOS may be warranted at additional locations than what is shown due to non-recurring or incidental congestion beyond what is observed in short- and near-term traffic conditions. The flexible nature of BOS may allow buses to enter and exit the shoulder at locations that are feasible from a design perspective to accommodate shoulder running buses. For this reason, Figure 11 also include dashed lines to represent locations where BOS is feasible if mainline speeds drop to a level that warrants shoulder use beyond the locations of recurring congestion identified above. 24 May 3, 2017

29 Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations Figure 11. Proposed BOS Concept of Operations Path of Travel May 3,

30 26 May 3, 2017 Metropolitan Transportation Commission & Contra Costa Transportation Authority Final Report Bus on Shoulder Concept of Operations

31 Estimated BOS Benefits 6 Estimated BOS Benefits Effective BOS operation provides potential benefits in several different ways. Travel time, reliability, and on-time performance improvements for transit services directly benefit from increased transit priority facilitated with BOS operations. Any reduction in corridor travel times influences the potential travel savings for transit users and reductions in transit operating costs. As transit travel time and reliability improves, services become more competitive with autos using the same paths (origins and destinations), thereby, leading to a potential modal shift from auto to transit, which would increase transit ridership. Corridor safety may also improve as a result of the expected mode shift resulting from BOS operations. For purposes of this analysis, improvements in transit travel time and ridership have been projected for both 2016 and 2020 conditions. The following methodology used to support this analysis is presented in the following sections. 6.1 Potential Travel Time Reduction Travel time is estimated for segments of the study area corridor that warrant BOS operations as described above. For those segments that operate below 35 mph on the mainline, BOS is assumed to operate faster than the mainline speed by no more than 15 mph and a max speed of no greater than 35 mph. The mainline speed is averaged across the time period that currently experiences conditions below 35 mph. The travel time savings is calculated based on the change in travel time between the shoulder operating bus and the general purpose lane speed, for each segment and each time period warranting BOS operations under recurring congestion conditions. Table 7 shows the projected travel time savings for each analysis year, based on recurring congestion levels described above. Additional travel time savings and improvements to reliability/on-time performance may be identified if BOS operates along additional segments during periods of non-recurring or incidental congestion. 6.2 Potential Transit Ridership Increase Estimates in potential BOS ridership increases are tied directly to the expected travel time reductions listed in Table 7 and freeway mainline volumes along the corridor, since the service will become more attractive to potential new riders. The transit travel time reductions are expected to eliminate approximately vehicles from the freeway per day (primarily in the morning and afternoon peak periods of travel) as a result of the modal shift to shoulder running buses. BOS ridership increases are estimated using an elasticity factor of for AM peak conditions and for PM peak conditions (i.e., every 1 percent increase in travel time results in a percent and percent shift from automobile person trips to transit during AM and PM time periods, respectively). 4 The reduction in mainline vehicle volumes used as the baseline was increased by a representative vehicle occupancy rate to account for vehicles traveling with 4 Source: Litman, Todd. Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities; How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 12 March p 47. May 3,

32 Estimated BOS Benefits more than one person. 5 The resulting BOS ridership by direction and time of day was proportionately distributed to each transit line anticipated to benefit from BOS operations. Routes 70X, 92X, 95X, and 96X were included since these will be the routes that will benefit from the proposed BOS operations in both 2016 and 2020 conditions, assuming recurring congestion levels described above. Table 8 presents the estimated ridership increases as a result of the BOS travel time savings. The BOS operating concept is expected to generate a range between 880and 1,014 total new daily bus boardings by 2020 (daily ridership represents morning and afternoon peak period only, with added riders during the morning peak period and during the afternoon peak period), which equates to between 222,000 and 257,000 new boardings annually. Table 7. Summary of Corridor Travel Time Benefits Year Corridor Direction and Time Period Projected Travel Time Savings Per Transit Trip (Minutes) BOS Travel Time Difference from Mainline General Purpose Travel Time (Percentage) NB AM Peak Hour % 2016 NB PM Peak Hour % SB AM Peak Hour % SB PM Peak Hour % NB AM Peak Hour % 2020 NB PM Peak Hour % SB AM Peak Hour % SB PM Peak Hour.4-31% 6.3 Bus Vehicle Requirements The ridership increases expected along the study corridor and described in Table 8 may require additional vehicles due to increases in vehicle passenger loading. In order to determine if any additional vehicles would be required to accommodate the additional passengers as a result of BOS operation, the existing and projected peak hour vehicle load information is compare to the agency standards for those routes expected to experience ridership increases. Table 9 details the anticipated number of additional vehicles for each route that is expected to utilize the BOS facilities. Using the existing reported peak load information from each agency, projected growth in ridership with BOS in 2020, and the peak load standard for each agency, the estimated projected vehicle loads provide indication of additional bus vehicle requirements. 5 Vehicle occupancy rates were derived from the CCTA Travel Model and are as follows: NB AM 1.19; NB PM 1.31; SB AM 1.27; SB PM May 3, 2017

33 Estimated BOS Benefits As shown, Route 70X and Bishop Ranch SF anticipate requiring an additional vehicle to accommodate projected demand. Table 8. Estimated Ridership Increases Route Existing Daily Route Level Ridership Percent of Total Weekday Ridership (Percentage) Estimated 2016 Additional Daily BOS Ridership Estimated 2020 Additional Daily BOS Ridership Estimated Total Additional Daily BOS Ridership by 2020 Estimated Annual (Total with BOS) Bus Ridership by X % ,887-37,910 92X % ,691-43,447 95X % ,963-36,845 96X % , ,397 BR SF Express 80 7% ,781-17,038 Total 1, , , ,637 1 Assuming 253 weekdays per year. Table 9. Estimated Vehicle Requirements Route Existing Daily Route Level Ridership Estimated 2020 New Daily Ridership Projected Ridership Growth Rate Existing Peak Hour Vehicle Load Peak Hour Vehicle Load 2 Agency Vehicle Load Standard 3 Additional Vehicles Required 70X (AM) 0.43 (PM) (AM) (PM) X X X BR SF Express Source: Route 70X: LAVTA 2012 SRTP; Routes 92X, 95X, and 96X: CCTA 2015 Title VI Report; BR SF Express: Assumes each vehicle regularly carries available capacity based on ridership Peak Loads are a product of ridership growth and reported vehicle loads. 3 Bishop Ranch Express load standard is assumed to be 1 since service typically carries up to total capacity of each vehicle. May 3,

34 Estimated BOS Benefits 6.4 Potential Reliability and On-Time Performance Improvements BOS facilities will provide benefits to transit service operations in the I-680 corridor by minimizing the influence of traffic congestion on service operations. Prioritizing freeway-based transit services with BOS operations will improve service reliability and on-time performance by separating the service from the general purpose travel lanes where congestion is more likely to occur and impact on-time performance. Reliability and on-time performance will particularly improve with BOS facilities during times of non-recurring (incidental) congestion, since BOS will allow the service to remain on-schedule. Reliability and on-time performance improvements as a result of BOS operations are often difficult to predict given the varying conditions of particular corridors. In most cases, these improvements are identified during pilot operations to compare pre- and post-bos operations. Table 10 highlights the on-time performance improvements for a set of locations that successfully implemented BOS operations. As shown, on-time performance improved with shoulder use. Table 10. BOS On-Time Performance Case Studies Location Bus Routes Using BOS OTP Improvement Results with BOS Suburban Chicago (Pace 755, 850, 851, & 856 OTP improved from 70% to 90% Bus) 1 Columbus, OH (COTA) 2 41, 44, 45, 47 OTP improved from 68% to 88% Miami-Dade Transit 3 Various OTP Improved between 2% and 19% with BOS SDMTS (San Diego, CA) OTP Improved to 99% with BOS 1 Source: Pace Bus. 2 Source: COTA. 3 Source: TCRP Report Potential Safety Improvements BOS operations have been proven to not result in any additional highway crashes due to the high level of operator training required, dedicated signage and striping, and improved driver awareness of buses using freeway shoulders. In fact, the expected mode shift from personal vehicles to bus service as a result of the improved travel time may result in a reduction of freeway crashes. This assumes latent demand for additional highway capacity will be limited and will not offset any reduction in personal vehicle trips along the study corridor. Utilizing the results of the corridor transit ridership increases with BOS operations described above, the level of auto trips expected to reduce by shifting to transit will be expected to reduce corridor crashes, assuming no latent demand will use the newly available freeway capacity. Table 11 below shows the potential crash reductions using the 2013 crash rate and projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction as a result of the expected BOS services. 30 May 3, 2017

35 Estimated BOS Benefits Table 11. Projected Crash Benefits with BOS Scenario 2020 VMT ADT 2 Crash Rate 3 Crashes No BOS 1,173, , With BOS 1,162, , Annual Crash Reduction VMT is calculated based on the vehicle trips along the corridor without and with BOS for time periods that BOS is warranted. Assumes a 15 mile corridor for VMT calculation purposes. 2 Source: Caltrans, 2015 AADT Report, p Crash rates are based on CalTrans 2010 crash information for I-680. May 3,

36 Estimated BOS Infrastructure Cost Estimate 7 Estimated BOS Infrastructure Cost Estimate A preliminary estimate of infrastructure costs was prepared for the proposed BOS system limits and was separated by northbound and southbound directions. Appendix D provides the cost estimate details for each BOS system direction. A summary of those costs are provided below. The preliminary estimate assumes a 20% contingency factor and only includes construction costs for the civil infrastructure (e.g., costs do not include design, environmental clearance, construction management) that is likely required for BOS implementation along the identified BOS system limits. I-680 Northbound Preliminary BOS Infrastructure Cost: $2,400,000; and I-680 Southbound Preliminary BOS Infrastructure Cost: $2,560, May 3, 2017

37 Recommendations and Next Steps 8 Recommendations and Next Steps The feasibility study documented in this report identifies locations and times of day suitable for BOS operations along the I-680 study corridor. A two-phased BOS pilot project is recommended: Phase 1: Implement a BOS Pilot Study in the northbound direction between Bollinger Canyon Road and Ygnacio Valley Road. o Conduct preliminary studies/additional planning in ; o Conduct environmental clearance, design, right-of-way and utility work in ; o Work with Caltrans on legislative requirements and approvals for BOS implementation in ; o Construct BOS facility in ; and o During the pilot phase(s), BOS service should be regularly monitored to identify and quantify actual benefit in travel time, reliability, on-time performance, and safety as anticipated. Phase 2: Implement a BOS Pilot Study in the southbound direction between Livorna Road and Alcosta Boulevard. o Conduct preliminary studies/additional planning in ; o Conduct environmental clearance, design, right-of-way and utility work in ; o Work with Caltrans on legislative requirements and approvals for BOS implementation in ; and o Construct BOS facility in The following next steps have been identified to begin implementation of a pilot study to test BOS operations along the study area corridor: Identify available funding sources to cover estimated improvement costs; Identify if any legal or statutory revisions to allow buses to use the freeway shoulder; Develop agreements with corridor jurisdictions; Create training and implementation materials for bus operators; Conduct community outreach and stakeholder engagement; Design and install field equipment; and Begin BOS pilot project, and regularly monitor service to identify any needed improvements, lessons learned, as well as to determine if BOS should be fully implemented. May 3,

38 Appendix A: I-680 Corridor BOS Infrastructure System Assessment Inventory Data A March 22, 2017

39 I 680 BUS ON SHOULDER (BOS) SYSTEM INFRASTUCTURE ASSESSMENT Feasibility Legend Feasible Feasible with Major Improvements Infeasible No. Work Zone Direction Type PM Prefix Post Mile Begin STA End STA Existing Outside Shoulder Width Outside Lane Pvmt Depth 1 Outside Shoulder Pvmt Depth 1 Adequate Depth (Y/N) Existing Drainage Inlets 1 S1 SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' Y SB Rt Shoulder R 1.57 M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' Y 1 3 SB Rt Shoulder R 2.56 M M ' 9.9' 2.14' 1.92' Y 2 4 SB Gore Area R 2.68 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 2.74 M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' Y 1 S2 6 6 SB Gore Area R 2.83 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 2.95 M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' Y 1 8 SB Gore Area R 3.08 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 3.15 M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' 2.14' Y 1 10 SB Rt Shoulder R 3.39 M M ' Min 2.14' 1.92' 2.14' Y 1 11 SB Gore Area R 3.88 M M S3 SB Rt Shoulder R 3.94 M M ' 7.2' 1.40' 1.92' Y SB Gore Area R 4.02 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 4.13 M M ' Min 1.4' 2.75' 1.92' Y 1 15 SB Rt Shoulder R 5.21 M M ' Min 1.4' 2.75' 1.92' Y 1 16 SB Rt Shoulder R 5.30 M M ' 9.9' 2.75' 1.92' Y 3 17 SB Rt Shoulder R 5.35 M M ' Min 2.10' 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 18 S4 SB Gore Area R 6.54 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 6.65 M M ' Min 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 20 SB Gore Area R 6.95 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 6.98 M M ' Min 2.14' 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 22 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.09 M M ' Min 2.14' 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 23 SB Gore Area R 7.34 M M SB Bridge R 7.43 M M ' Min 25 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.48 M M ' Min 1.2' 2.45' 1.92' 2.30' Y 1 26 SB Gore Area R 7.72 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 7.78 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.30' Y 1 28 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.82 M M ' 9.9' 2.45' 2.30' Y 3 29 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.85 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.30' Y 1 S SB Rt Shoulder R 7.86 M M ' 9.9' 2.45' 2.30' Y 2 31 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.92 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.30' Y 1 32 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.93 M M ' 9.9' 2.45' 2.30' Y 2 33 SB Rt Shoulder R 7.94 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.30' Y 2 34 SB Gore Area R 8.02 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 8.08 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 36 SB Gore Area R 8.33 M M SB Rt Shoulder R 8.40 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 Shoulder Feasibility DAA_I 680_Project Corridor Spreadsheet_ xlsx 1 of 3 HDR Engineering Inc.

40 I 680 BUS ON SHOULDER (BOS) SYSTEM INFRASTUCTURE ASSESSMENT Feasibility Legend Feasible Feasible with Major Improvements Infeasible No. Work Zone Direction Type PM Prefix Post Mile Begin STA End STA Existing Outside Shoulder Width Outside Lane Pvmt Depth 1 Outside Shoulder Pvmt Depth 1 Adequate Depth (Y/N) Existing Drainage Inlets 38 SB Rt Shoulder R 8.75 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 39 SB Gore Area R M M S6 SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y SB Gore Area R M M SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 43 SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 44 S7 SB Gore Area R M M SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 46 SB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.30' Y 1 S SB Gore Area R M M N2 NB Rt Shoulder R 3.09 M M ' Min 1.04' 3.02' 1.92' 2.14' Y NB Rt Shoulder R 3.39 M M ' Min 1.04' 3.02' 1.92' 2.14' Y 1 50 NB Gore Area R 3.92 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 4.04 M M ' Min 1.40' 1.92' Y 1 52 N3 NB Gore Area R 4.21 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 4.29 M M ' 9.6' 3.02' 1.92' Y 2 54 NB Gore Area R 4.42 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 5.21 M M ' Min 1.4' 3.02' 1.92' Y 1 56 NB Gore Area R 6.46 M M N4 NB Rt Shoulder R 6.58 M M ' Min 3.02' 1.92' Y NB Gore Area R 6.91 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 7.03 M M ' Min 2.14' 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 60 NB Rt Shoulder R 7.09 M M ' Min 2.14' 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 61 NB Gore Area R 7.35 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 7.39 M M ' Min 3.52' 1.92' Y 1 63 NB Gore Area R 7.51 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 7.53 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 65 N5 NB Gore Area R 7.69 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 7.76 M M ' Min 2.45' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 67 NB Gore Area R 8.01 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 8.08 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 69 NB Gore Area R 8.31 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 8.37 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 71 NB Rt Shoulder R 8.75 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 72 NB Gore Area R 8.84 M M NB Rt Shoulder R 8.88 M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 74 NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 N NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' 9.9' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 2 77 NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 79 NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.45' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 Shoulder Feasibility DAA_I 680_Project Corridor Spreadsheet_ xlsx 2 of 3 HDR Engineering Inc.

41 I 680 BUS ON SHOULDER (BOS) SYSTEM INFRASTUCTURE ASSESSMENT Feasibility Legend Feasible Feasible with Major Improvements Infeasible No. Work Zone Direction Type PM Prefix Post Mile Begin STA End STA Existing Outside Shoulder Width Outside Lane Pvmt Depth 1 Outside Shoulder Pvmt Depth 1 Adequate Depth (Y/N) Existing Drainage Inlets 81 NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.45' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 82 NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 84 N7 NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' 9.9' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 86 NB Gore Area R M M NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' 9.9' 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 2 89 NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.95' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 90 NB Gore Area R M M NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min 2.45' 2.8' 2.95' Y 1 92 N8 NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' 9.9' 2.45' 2.8' 2.95' Y NB Rt Shoulder R M M ' Min TBD 2.65' 1 94 NB Gore Area R M M NB Gore Area M M NB Rt Shoulder M M NB Rt Shoulder M M N9 NB Gore Area M M NB Rt Shoulder M M Notes: 1) As built reference from Caltrans U4 Shoulder Feasibility DAA_I 680_Project Corridor Spreadsheet_ xlsx 3 of 3 HDR Engineering Inc.

42 Appendix B: I-680 Corridor BOS System Limits Diagram March 22, 2017 B

43 I-680 BUS ON SHOULDER (BOS) SYSTEM LIMITS LEGEND: BUS TRAV WITHIN SHOULDER BUS TRAV WITHIN AUXILARY LANE RESTRICTED ACCESS EXPRESS LANE () OPEN ACCESS EXPRESS LANE () Diablo Rd Sycamore Valley Rd Bollinger Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd END SB BOS SYSTEM CC R0.00 AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX R7.82 R7.34 R6.98 R6.57 R4.64 R4.43 R4.08 R3.91 R3.15 R2.90 R2.68 R0.61 R0.43 SOUTHBOUND I-680 NORTHBOUND I-680 R7.75 R7.57 R7.34 R7.03 R6.46 R4.46 R4.28 R3.95 R3.14 R2.89 R2.62 R2.37 R0.24 CC R0.00 ALA R21.88 ALA R21.88 R21.63 R21.64 R21.32 AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX START NB BOS SYSTEM Sycamore Valley Crow Canyon Rd Diablo Rd Rd Bollinger Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd I-680 BOS SYSTEM LIMITS_ xlsx 1 of 2 HDR ENGINEERING INC.

44 I-680 BUS ON SHOULDER (BOS) SYSTEM LIMITS LEGEND: BUS TRAV WITHIN SHOULDER BUS TRAV WITHIN AUXILARY LANE RESTRICTED ACCESS EXPRESS LANE () OPEN ACCESS EXPRESS LANE () El Cerro Blvd El Pintado Rd Stone Valley Rd Livorna Rd Rudgear Rd South Main St Olympic Blvd SR 24 Olympic Blvd BEGIN SB BOS SYSTEM AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX R12.80 R12.77 R12.27 R12.25 R11.54 R11.03 R10.63 R10.43 R10.15 R10.09 R8.93 R8.40 R8.02 SOUTHBOUND I-680 NORTHBOUND I R12.42 R12.04 R11.47 R11.12 R10.60 R10.36 R10.19 R8.92 R8.38 R7.92 AUX AUX AUX AUX AUX END NB BOS SYSTEM El Cerro Rd El Pintado Rd Stone Valley Rd Livorna Rd South Broadway South Main St Olympic Blvd Olympic Blvd Ygnacio Valley Rd SR 24 I-680 BOS SYSTEM LIMITS_ xlsx 2 of 2 HDR ENGINEERING INC.

45 Appendix C: I-680 Corridor BOS Layout Maps C March 22, 2017

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 Appendix D: I-680 Corridor BOS Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate March 22, 2017 D

56 MTC - I-680 DAA - Bus On Shoulder (BOS) System Assessment HDR Engineering Inc. PRIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Unit Unit Price Quantity Unit Cost Quantity Unit Cost Section 1: Earthwork Roadway Excavation LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 Imported Borrow LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 Export LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 Clearing and Grubbing LS $15,000 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 Contaminated Soil Excavation (ADL) LS $15,000 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 Develop Water Supply LS $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 Topsoil Reapplication LS $0 $0 Stepped Slopes and Slope Rounding (Contour Grading) LS $0 $0 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section Subtotal Earthwork: $100,000 $60,000 HMA (Open Graded) Ton $0 $0 HMA (Type A) Ton $0 $0 Cement Treated Base CY $0 $0 Class 4 Aggregate Subbase CY $0 $0 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY $0 $0 Treated Permeable Base CY $0 $0 Subgrade Enhancement Fabric SQYD $0 $0 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete SQYD $0 $0 Edge Drain LF $0 $0 Pavement Work (Shoulder Widening) SQFT $ $100,000 $0 Section 3: Drainage Subtotal Structural Section: $100,000 $0 Large Drainage Facilities LS $0 $0 Storm Drains (Drainage Inlets - Shoulder) EA $30, $1,020, $1,320,000 Project Drainage (X-Drains, overside, etc.) LS $0 $0 Hydromodification LS $0 $0 Section 4: Specialty Items Subtotal Drainage: $1,020,000 $1,320,000 Retaining Walls SF $0 $0 Noise Barriers LS $0 $0 Concrete Barriers LF $0 $0 Metal Beam Guardrail (MGS) LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 Water Pollution Control LS $50,000 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 Hazardous Waste Investigation and/or Mitigation Work LS $0 $0 Environmental Mitigation LS $0 $0 Removal Items LS $15,000 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 Section 5: Traffic Items Subtotal Specialty Items: $90,000 $90,000 Highway Lighting LS $0 $0 Traffic Delineation Items (Pavement Markings) SQFT $6 3,200 $19,200 3,100 $18,600 Traffic Signals EA $0 $0 Overhead Signs EA $0 $0 Roadside Signs (Wood Post) EA $ $33, $27,000 Traffic Control Systems LS $100,000 1 $100,000 1 $100,000 Toll System Infrastructure LS $0 $0 Subtotal Traffic Items: $152,200 $145,600 MTC DAA_BOS Cost Estimate_ xlsx 1 of 3

57 MTC - I-680 DAA - Bus On Shoulder (BOS) System Assessment HDR Engineering Inc. PRIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Unit Unit Price Quantity Unit Cost Quantity Unit Cost Section 6 Planting and Irrigation Highway Planting AC $0 $0 Replacement Planting LS $0 $0 Irrigation Modification LS $0 $0 Relocate Existing Irrigation Facilities LS $0 $0 Irrigation Crossovers LS $0 $0 Section 7: Roadside Management and Safety Subtotal Planting and Irrigation: $0 $0 Vegetation Control Treatments SQYD $0 $0 Gore Area Pavement SQFT $0 $0 Pavement Beyond Gore Area LS $0 $0 Miscellaneous Paving LS $0 $0 Erosion Control LS $150,000 1 $150,000 1 $150,000 Slope Protection LS $25,000 1 $25,000 $0 Side Slopes/Embankment Slopes LS $20,000 1 $20,000 $0 Maintenance Vehicle Pullouts EA $0 $0 Off-freeway Access (gates, stairways, etc.) EA $0 $0 Roadside Facilities EA $0 $0 High Speed WIM LS $0 $0 Relocating Roadside Facilities (TOS & Ramp Metering) LS $0 $0 CHP Enforcement Area LS $0 $0 Subtotal Roadside Management and Safety: $195,000 $150,000 TOTAL SECTIONS 1-7: $1,657,200 $1,765,600 MTC DAA_BOS Cost Estimate_ xlsx 2 of 3

58 MTC - I-680 DAA - Bus On Shoulder (BOS) System Assessment HDR Engineering Inc. PRIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Unit Unit Price Quantity Unit Cost Quantity Unit Cost Section 8: Minor Items Subtotal Sections 1-7: $1,657,200 $1,765,600 TOTAL MINOR ITEMS: 5% $82,860 5% $88,280 Section 9: Roadway Mobilization Subtotal Sections 1-8: $1,740,060 $1,853,880 TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION: 10% $174,006 10% $185,388 Section 10: Roadway Additions Subtotal Sections 1-8: $1,740,060 $1,853,880 Supplemental Work: 5% $87,003 5% $92,694 Subtotal Sections 1-8: $1,740,060 $1,853,880 Contingencies: 20% $348,012 20% $370,776 TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS: $435,015 $463,470 Section 11: Agency Furnished Materials Transportation Management Plan LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 Resident Engineer Office Space LS $25,000 1 $25,000 1 $25,000 TOTAL AGENCY FURNISHED MATERIALS: $50,000 $50,000 Section 12: Structures TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS: $2,399,081 $2,552,738 (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 11) Structure No. SQFT $0 $0 TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS: $0 $0 TOTAL CONSTUCTION COST: $2,400,000 $2,560,000 (Subtotal Sections 1 thru 12) MTC DAA_BOS Cost Estimate_ xlsx 3 of 3

59 Appendix E: Project Team Meeting Summary Notes E March 22, 2017

60 MEETING SUMMARY Contra Costa I-680 Design Alternative Assessment Phase 2 Meeting #1 January 6, :00 pm 4:30 pm CCTA Offices 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA Action Items: see underlined italic text 1. Adaptive Ramp Metering Assessment a. HDR distributed the most recent version of the adaptive ramp metering assessment. Per Caltrans Ramp Metering policy all of the proposed metered ramps were assumed to require an HOV bypass lane per current Caltrans Policy. HDR walked through some of the preliminary findings and identified several locations where major improvements would be necessary to provide the required on-ramp lanes per current Caltrans HDM and HOV policy standards. These locations are good candidates to request Caltrans exceptions to reduce/minimize the impacts and overall costs to implement the ramp metering. There was a team discussion whether low HOV volume require the need for an HOV bypass lane. In previous projects, Caltrans has allowed ramp metering installation at specific ramps without an HOV by-pass lane installed due to low volumes. Several requests were made to help reach a final recommendation for ramp metering assessment: i. For locations with low HOV volumes (less than 100 HOV s per hour), it is assumed that no by-pass lanes will be required, especially if the improvements to construct one require significant costs/impacts (R/W, Structures, etc.). ii. Insert additional columns to the spreadsheet to indicate the peak hour volume difference between what can be served by the current ramp configuration vs. what the required standard configuration. iii. For the ramps identified as requiring moderate roadway improvements (Yellow cells), provide a range of costs within the estimates that assumes exceptions/minimum design for the low range and a standard ramp for the high range. iv. Identify the types of exceptions to HOV policy and HDM standards needed for the ramp locations in the final assessment and cost estimate. v. At each ramp location, assume a hard wire connection to the corridor fiber backbone network to support the cost estimates. Assume power for the ramp metering equipment can be served from existing Caltrans service points if they exist. Kevin noted that based on prior discussions with Caltrans, the communication channel for adaptive ramp metering could be achieved through either the fiber network, or the standard modem that typically get installed with the ramp meters. 2. Bus on Shoulder Assessment a. HDR provided the team with 2 handouts documenting the infrastructure assessment of providing bus on shoulders. The preliminary findings appeared promising. The team agreed at locations where an auxiliary lane exists the bus will be assumed to use the auxiliary lane instead of the shoulder. b. The team discussed the limits of the BOS lanes. After considering the number of existing bus routes, traffic congestion on I-680, and potential design constraints, he team agreed 1

61 that the assessment for BOS limits should focus in the northbound direction from the Bollinger Canyon Road off-ramp to the Ygnacio Boulevard off-ramp. In the southbound direction the focus should be between the Livorna Road off-ramp to the Alcosta Boulevard off-ramp. The team requested that the once the transit operator s origin/destination paths were determined and the draft Concept of Operations is developed, that the exhibit diagrams include the actual bus paths to allow the team to see how a bus would transition in and out of the shoulder and the facility. HDR to add this information to the Bus on Shoulder Assessment. c. The group reviewed existing shoulder depth available. In general, it appears that full depth is available throughout the focused limits of the bus on shoulder lane. HDR will perform a backward calculation, using minimum available depth, to determine the maximum traffic load that is allowed (i.e. number of buses per hour). d. HDR presented a preliminary set of operating criteria and protocols that will be part of the BOS high level Con-Ops deliverable. The team discussed several potential issues including regulatory signs, enforcement, and potential CHP opposition to a proposed BOS system. i. CCTA will request background information from SANDAG for the recent BOS pilot projects in southern California. ii. HDR will investigate if there are any videos showing typical BOS movements that can be used to help inform local officials of how the system will work. 3. PSR for BOS a. The team discussed what type of Caltrans project initiation document would be necessary for the BOS as it is a unique project. A determination could not be made and HDR was asked to investigate further. HDR to investigate further regarding the Caltrans project initiation document for BOS. 4. Benefit Cost Analysis for BOS a. HDR is in the process of identifying the potential ridership, travel time savings, safety, and VMT reduction benefits in the corridor as a result of BOS operations. To perform a technically sound benefit cost analysis, the HDR will need to work with MTC and CCTA to define other potential benefits (emission/ghg education, accident reduction, others potentially) and to define methods to monetize the selected benefits. While there is no universal formula for this calculation, we will need to use our significant experience in developed these types of BCA tools including developing Caltrans Cal/BC tool, and supporting a variety of Tiger and Fast Lane Grant applications to provide MTC and CCTA with as technically as sound a process as possible. 5. Prepare for Meeting with Transit Operators on BOS a. The team discussed the need to meet with the transit operators to get their feedback/input on the evaluation as it is ultimately them who will benefit. HDR prepared a list of transit operators that provide service on I-680 and distributed to the team. Hisham expressed interest in creating an animation showing how BOS operations would work (i.e. how buses would navigate in the areas of on-ramps and off-ramps). A low-cost option would be to show examples of how the system works in other places. Additional 2

62 funding would be required to develop an animation specifically for the CC 680 corridor. This topic will be further discussed at a later date. Hisham to set up a meeting with transit operators within the next few weeks. 3

63