new ch03-15 traffic done - alameda county, california · 2014. 6. 6. · policy 190: the county...
TRANSCRIPT
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐1
June 2014ICF 00323.08
3.15 Transportation/Traffic Thissectiondescribestheenvironmentalsettingandregulatorysettingfortransportationandtraffic.Italsodescribesthetransportationandtrafficimpactsthatwouldresultfromimplementationoftheprogramandtwoindividualprojects,andmitigationmeasuresthatwouldreducetheseimpactswherefeasibleandappropriate.
3.15.1 Existing Conditions
Regulatory Setting
Federal and State
CaltransisresponsibleforoperatingandmaintainingallState‐ownedroadwaysandinterstatehighwaysinCalifornia.TheCaliforniaVehicleCodeDivision15givesCaltransdiscretionaryauthoritytoissuespecialpermitsforthemovementofvehicles/loadsexceedingstatutorylimitationsonthesize,weight,andloadingofvehicles.AspecialpermitissuedbyCaltransisrequiredtoauthorizetheoperationofoversizeoroverweighttrucks,bothofwhichwouldberequiredforimplementationoftherepowerprogramandthesubjectprojects.
Local
AlamedaCounty’sECAP(AlamedaCounty2000)containsgoalsandpoliciestomaintainanefficientcirculationnetworkintheeasternportionofthecounty.Goalsincludecreatingandmaintainingabalancedmultimodaltransportationsystem,cooperatingwithotherregionaltransportationplanningagencies,integratingpedestrianuseintothetransportationsystem,andmitigatingexceedancesoflevelofservice(LOS)standards.AccordingtoPolicy193,thetrafficLOSstandardformajorintercityarterialsisLOSD.TheLOSstandardadoptedbytheAlamedaCountyTransportationCommission(CTC),theCounty’sCongestionManagementAgency(CMA),fortheCongestionManagementProgram(CMP)andMetropolitanTransportationSystem(MTS)roadwayssegments(e.g.I‐580,I‐680,andSR84)isLOSE.
LOSstandardsandtraveldemandmeasures,establishedbytheAlamedaCTC,areintendedtoregulatelong‐termtrafficimpactsassociatedwithfuturedevelopment,anddonotapplytotemporaryconstructionprojectswhoseshort‐termtrafficincreasesendwhenconstructionactivitiesend.
AlamedaCountyhasnotdesignatedlocaltruckroutesnoradoptedspecificpoliciesregardingmanagementofconstructionactivities.Chapter12.08oftheAlamedaCountyCoderegulatesroadwayuse,includingissuanceofencroachmentpermitsforworkwithinanAlamedaCountyroadright‐of‐way.
Alameda County General Plan
TheAlamedaCountyGeneralPlanconsistsofthreeareaplansthatcontaintheLandUseandCirculationelementsfortheirrespectivegeographicareas,aswellasareaspecificgoals,policiesandactionsforcirculation,openspace,conservation,safety,andnoise.Inaddition,theGeneralPlancontainsHousing,Conservation,OpenSpace,Noise,SeismicandSafety,andScenicRouteelements
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐2
June 2014ICF 00323.08
thatcontaingoals,policies,andactionsthatapplytotheentireunincorporatedarea(AlamedaCounty2013).OtherthantheScenicRoutegoalsandpoliciesthatarediscussedinSection3.1,Aesthetics,therearenocountywidecirculationpoliciesrelatedtotransportationortrafficissuespertinenttotheproposedprogramandthesubjectprojects.Countywidetransportationplans,suchastheCountywideTransportationPlan,andpoliciesareprimarilydevelopedandmaintainedbytheAlamedaCTC,whichservesastheCounty’sCMA.
Alameda County East County Area Plan
TheAlamedaCountyECAPcontainsgoalsandpoliciespertinenttotransportationandtrafficissuesonlanduseinvolvingwindfarmsandonthearea’stransportationsystemsinvolvinggeneraltransportationtopics,transportationdemandmanagement,streetsandhighways,bicycleandpedestrianpaths,andaviation(AlamedaCounty2000:43,50–56).GoalsintheECAPareintendedtobegeneralstatementsofaconditionAlamedaCountywantstoachieve,andtheassociatedpoliciesarethefocusedstatementsofhowtheCountywillachievethesegoals.Thegoalsandpolicieslistedbelowareconsideredrelevanttotherepowerprogramandthesubjectprojects.
Land Use—Windfarms
Goal:Tomaximizetheproductionofwindgeneratedenergy.
Policy170:TheCountyshallprotectnearbyexistingusesfrompotentialtraffic,noise,dust,visual,andotherimpactsgeneratedbytheconstructionandoperationofwindfarmfacilities.
Transportation Systems—General Transportation
Goal:Tocreateandmaintainabalanced,multi‐modaltransportationsystemthatprovidesfortheefficientandsafemovementofpeople,goods,andservices.
*Policy179:TheCountyshalladheretoprovisionsoftheRegionalTransportationPlan,CountywideTransportationPlan,andCountyCongestionManagementProgram,insofarastheyarenotinconsistentwiththeInitiative.
Transportation Systems—Transportation Demand Management
Goal:ToreduceEastCountytrafficcongestion.
Policy183:TheCountyshallseektominimizetrafficcongestionlevelsthroughouttheEastCountystreetandhighwaysystem.
Policy184:TheCountyshallseektominimizethetotalnumberofAverageDailyTraffic(ADT)tripsthroughoutEastCounty.
Policy185:TheCountyshallseektominimizepeakhourtripsbyexploringnewmethodsthatwoulddiscouragepeakhourcommutingandsinglevehicleoccupancytrips.
Policy187:TheCountyshallmonitortrafficlevelsaccordingtoEastCountyAreaPlanandCongestionManagementProgramobjectives.
Policy188:TheCountyshallpromotetheuseoftransit,ridesharing,bicycling,andwalking,throughlanduseplanningaswellastransportationfundingdecisions.
Policy190:TheCountyshallrequirenewnon‐residentialdevelopmentsinunincorporatedareastoincorporateTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)measuresandshallrequirenewresidentialdevelopmentstoincludesiteplanfeaturesthatreducetraffictripssuchasmixedusedevelopmentandtransit‐orienteddevelopmentprojects.
Policy191:TheCountyshallworkwithcitiesandtheCongestionManagementAgencytocoordinatelanduseimpactanalyses.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐3
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Transportation Systems—Streets and Highways
Goal:TocompleteCounty‐plannedstreetandhighwayimprovementsthatareattractivelydesignedtointegratepedestrianandvehicleuse.
Policy192:TheCountyshallworkwithCaltranstoimprovetheinterstateandstatehighwaysystemsandtheCountyroadsystemaccordingtothestreetclassificationsshownontheEastCountyAreaPlanTransportationDiagram(seeFigure6),consistentwithPolicy177.
Policy193:TheCountyshallensurethatnewdevelopmentpaysforroadwayimprovementsnecessarytomitigatetheexceedanceoftrafficLevelofServicestandards(asdescribedbelow)causeddirectlybythedevelopment.TheCountyshallfurtherensurethatnewdevelopmentisphasedtocoincidewithroadwayimprovementssothat(1)trafficvolumesonintercityarterialssignificantlyaffectedbytheprojectdonotexceedLevelofServiceDonmajorarterialsegmentswithinunincorporatedareas,and(2)thattrafficvolumesonCongestionManagementProgram(CMP)designatedroadways(e.g.,InterstateHighways580and680andStateHighway84)significantlyaffectedbytheprojectdonotexceedLevelofServiceEwithinunincorporatedareas.IfLOSEisexceeded,DeficiencyPlansforaffectedroadwaysshallbepreparedinconjunctionwiththeCongestionManagementAgency.LOSshallbedeterminedaccordingtoCongestionManagementAgencyadoptedmethodology.TheCountyshallencouragecitiestoensurethattheseLevelsofServicestandardsarealsometwithinunincorporatedareas.
Transportation Systems—Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
Goal:Toincludeacomprehensivenetworkofbicycleandpedestrianpathsinthelocalandsubregionaltransportationnetwork.
Policy211:TheCountyshallcreateandmaintainasafe,convenient,andeffectivebicyclesystemthatmaximizesbicycleuse.
Policy214:TheCountyshallrequirethatcirculationandsiteplansforindividualdevelopmentsminimizebarrierstoaccessbypedestrians,thedisabled,andbicycles(e.g.,collectorsorarterialsseparatingschoolsorparksfromresidentialneighborhoods).
Transportation Systems—Aviation
Goal:Toensuretheefficient,safe,andeconomicallybeneficialoperationoftheLivermoreMunicipalAirport.
Policy217:TheCountyshallrequirethat,whereconflictsbetweenanewuseandtheairportthatcouldinterferewiththeairport’soperationsareanticipated,theburdenofmitigatingtheconflictswillbetheresponsibilityofthenewuse.
Alameda County Congestion Management Program
TheAlamedaCountyCMPidentifiescountywidestrategiestorespondtofuturetransportation;onneedsandprocedurestoreducecongestion.TheCMPidentifiesexistinganddesiredtrafficconditionsonavarietyofroadwaysthroughoutthecounty.TheonlyCMP‐designatedroadwaythatextendsthroughtheprogramareaisI‐580,whichconnectstoI‐680tothewestandI‐205totheeast(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013a:35,Figure1).The2012LOSmonitoringstudyrevealedthatsegmentsofI‐580intheprogramvicinityoperatedatLOSFduringpeakhours:westboundsegmentfromGreenvilleRoadintheCountytoPortolaAvenueinLivermoreduringtheAMpeakhourandeastboundsegmentfrom1stStreetinLivermoretoNorthFlynnRoadintheCountyduringthePMpeakhour(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013b:12‐16).
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐4
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan
TheAlamedaCountywideTransportationPlan(CWTP)isalong‐rangepolicydocumentthatguidestransportationfundingdecisionsforAlamedaCounty'stransportationsystemovera25‐yearhorizon.TheCWTPlaysoutastrategyformeetingtransportationneedsforallusersinAlamedaCountyandincludesprojectsandotherimprovementsfornewandexistingfreeways,localstreetsandroads,publictransit(paratransit,buses,rails,ferries),aswellasfacilitiesandprogramstosupportbicyclingandwalking(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2012a).TheCWTPgoalsforthecounty’stransportationsystemareasfollows.
Multimodal.
Accessible,affordableandequitableforpeopleofallages,incomes,abilitiesandgeographies.
Integratedwithlandusepatternsandlocaldecision‐making.
Connectedacrossthecounty,withinandacrossthenetworkofstreets,highwaysandtransit,bicycleandpedestrianroutes.
Reliableandefficient.
Costeffective.
Wellmaintained.
Safe.
Supportiveofahealthyandcleanenvironment.
Thesegoalsarethenalignedwithoneormoreperformancecategoriesandperformancemeasurements.Theplanalsoidentifieslanduseandconservationdevelopmentstrategies.
Alameda County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for Unincorporated Areas
TheBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlan(AlamedaCounty2012)describesexistingconditionsforbicyclingandwalking,identifiesneedsforcapitalandprogramimprovementstosupportthesemodes,andrecommendsimprovementprojectstoenhancebicyclingandwalkingintheunincorporatedareas.Highpriorityprojectsthatmeettheshort‐termneedsofthecommunitiesareidentified.Strategiesforeducation,fundingandimplementationoftherecommendedprojectsandprogramsarealsoprovided.Thisplanwaspreparedtoupdatethepreviousbicycleandpedestriandocuments.ItprovidesavisionforbicyclingandwalkinginAlamedaCountyasimportantalternativetransportationmodes.Theplanalsoidentifiesimplementableprojectsthatwillcontributetoamorebicycleandpedestrian‐friendlyenvironmentfortheunincorporatedareas.
TheBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlancontainsgoalsandpoliciesfordevelopingandimplementingabikewaysystemandpedestrianimprovementsthatmeettheCounty’svisionforsafe,attractive,andconvenientopportunitiesforbicyclingandwalkingforalltypesoftripsandusergroups.
Goal1:ImprovebicycleandpedestrianaccessandcirculationforallusersasameanstomeetthegoalsoftheAlamedaCountyUnincorporatedAreasClimateActionPlan.
Goal2:Createandmaintainacomprehensivesystemofbicycleandpedestrianfacilitiesinthelocalandsub‐regionaltransportationnetworkinordertoestablishabalancedmulti‐modaltransportationsystem.
Policy2.8:Routinelymaintainbicycleandpedestrianfacilitiesandamenities.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐5
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Goal3:Maximizetheuseofpublicandprivateresourcesforimplementingbicycleandpedestrianimprovements.
Goal4:Provideasaferbicyclingandwalkingenvironment
Policy4.1:Monitorbicycleandpedestrian‐involvedcollisionsintheUnincorporatedAreasandtargetthehighincidencelocationsforbicycleandpedestrianimprovements.
Policy4.4:Workwithlawenforcementofficialsoneducationandenforcementprogramsthatincreasesafetyawarenessofallroadusersforbicyclistsandpedestriansandthatreducebicycleandpedestrian‐involvedcollisions.
Goal5:Promotelandusesandurbandesignthatsupportapleasantenvironmentforbicyclingandwalking.
Policy5.2:Designnewdevelopmentandredevelopmentprojectstofacilitatebicycleandpedestrianaccess,reducebicyclingandwalkingtriplengths,andavoidadverseimpactstothebicycleandpedestriansafety,access,andcirculation.
Policy5.3:Consideroptionsforcommercialandindustrialdevelopmentprojectstoincludebicyclestoragefacilitiesforemployeesandcustomers,shower/lockerareas,andotherfacilitiesidentifiedinthisplanforemployeesthatcommutebybicycle.Thiscouldincludeon‐sitefacilitiesorservicesavailablethroughlocalpartnerships.Encourageincludingbicycleparkingandshower/lockerareasinnewconstructionormajorremodelprojects.
Policy5.7:Requirethatalltrafficimpactstudiesandanalysesofproposedstreetchangesaddressimpactsonbicyclingandpedestriantransportation.Specifically,thefollowingshouldbeconsidered:
ConsistencywithGeneralPlanandtheBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlanpolicies;
ImpactontheexistingandfutureBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlanBikewaySystem;
Permanenttravelpatternoraccesschangesincludingthedegreetowhichbicycleandpedestriantravelpatternsarealteredorrestrictedduetoanychangetotheroadwaynetwork;and
Conformitytoacceptedbicycleandpedestrianfacilitydesignstandardsandguidelines.
Goal6:Supportagencycoordinationfortheimprovementofbicycleandpedestrianaccess.
Environmental Setting
Roadway Network
Roadwayaccesstotheprogramareaisprovidedbyhighwaysandlocalcountyroadways.RegionalaccessisprovidedbyI‐580,amajoreast‐westtrucktravelrouteandmainthroughwayineasternAlamedaCountythatconnectsI‐680onthewestandI‐5ontheeast(seeFigure1‐1).The2012annualaveragedailytraffic(AADT)volumesonI‐580intheprogramareaareabout143,000vehiclesperdaywithabout10.4%oftrucktraffic(CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation2013).Caltransannualaveragedailytraffic(AADT)volumesandcompositionoftrucksdatafortheseroutesareprovidedinTable3.15‐1.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐6
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐1. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Regional Access Roadways
RoadwayName SegmentLocation 2012AADT2012TruckAADT/PercentofTotalAADT
I‐580,inprogramarea
I‐205—GreenvilleRoad,Livermore
143,000 14,870/10.4%
I‐580,westofProgramarea
GreenvilleRoad,Livermore—I‐680
142,000–214,000 7,550–20,130/4.6%–12.2%
I‐580,eastofProgramarea
I‐5—I‐205 21,000–31,000 3,380–5,330/12.5%–17.9%
I‐205,Tracy I‐580—JunctionI‐5 82,000–114,000 10,560–13,680/11.3%–12.0%
I‐680,Dublin BernalAvenue,Pleasanton—AlcostaBoulevard,SanRamon
132,000–167,000 8,750–12,690/5.3%–9.2%
Sources:CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation2013.
MajorcountyroadsthatprovideaccessintheprogramareaincludeVascoRoad,AltamontPassRoad,andPattersonPassRoad.Inaddition,DyerRoad,FlynnRoad,andJessRanchRoadprovidelocalaccesstothewindfarmsintheprogramareaviaAltamontPassRoadandPattersonPassRoad.TherecentADTvolumescollatedonPattersonPassRoadareabout2,700to3,700vehiclesperday(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013a)andonAltamontPassRoadareabout5,850to10,250vehiclesperday(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013b).ThepostedspeedlimitsonPattersonPassRoadandtheothercountyroadstypicallyrangefrom45to50milesperhour(mph)intheprogramarea,withafewsegmentsthatallowupto55mph,orlimitspeedsto40mph.Therehavebeen47collisionsinthelast5yearsonPattersonPassRoad,whichrepresentsarelativelyhighrateandforwhichsafetyimprovementsareverydesirable(AlamedaCounty2013).Manycountyroadsinthevicinityhaveinsufficientroadbasetosupportheavy,frequenttruckloads(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013b),includingPattersonPassRoad.AveragedailytrafficvolumeshavebeencollectedforsomeoftheroadsintheprogramareaandareprovidedinTable3.15‐2.
Table 3.15‐2. Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Local Access Roadways in Program Area
RoadwayName CounterLocation CountDate Direction ADT
PattersonPassRoad EastofGreenvilleRoad January2009–December2012
Both 3,100
EastofSouthFlynnRoad 2,700
EastofMidwayRoad 3,700
AltamontPassRoad WestofGreenvilleRoad
September2011
Westbound 5,050
Eastbound 5,200
Total 10,250
WestofGrantLineRoad
September2011
Westbound 3,550
Eastbound 2,300
Total 5,850
Source:AlamedaCounty2013a,2013b.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐7
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Public Transit
Thereisnopublictransitserviceprovidedintheprogramarea.TothewestoftheprogramareatheclosestbusserviceprovidedisintheincorporatedLivermoreareabytheLivermoreAmadorValleyTransitAuthority.Eastoftheprogramarea,theclosestbusserviceisprovidedintheCityofTracybytheSanJoaquinRegionalTransitDistrict.TheAltamontCorridorExpress(ACE)trainisacommutertrainservicemanagedbytheSanJoaquinRegionalRailCommissionforweekdaytravelbetweenStocktonandSanJose.TheACEusestheUnionPacificRailroad(UPRR)tracksthroughtheprogramarea,withgrade‐separatedcrossingsofI‐580andAltamontPassRoad.
Bikeway/Pedestrian Circulation
BicyclefacilitiesinthecitiesandcommunitiesofAlamedaCountyareclassifiedintothreecategories:ClassI(bikepaths)aredescribedascompletelyseparated,off‐street,pavedright‐of‐way(sharedwithpedestrians)paths,whichexcludemotorvehicletraffic;ClassII(bikelanes)arestripedlanesforone‐waybiketravelonaroadway;andClassIII(bikeroutes)areon‐streetbikerouteswithoutstriping.TheBicycleMasterPlan,updatedin2012,usestheseorsimilarcategoriestodescribethebikewaynetworkintheunincorporatedareasofAlamedaCounty(AlamedaCounty2012).
TheonlyexistingdesignatedbikewayintheprogramareaistherecreationalpathalongtheCaliforniaaqueductinthenortheastportionoftheprogramarea,althoughtheBicycleMasterPlanrecommendsbikewayrouteadditionstotheexistingbikewaynetworkbydesignationofnewClassIIICruralbikeroutesonAltamontPassRoad,PattersonPassRoad,NorthFlynnRoadandSouthFlynnRoad(AlamedaCountyPublicWorksAgency2012:3‐18,Table3‐10,and3‐25,Figure3‐3e)andtheEastBayRegionalParksDistrict(EBRPD)MasterPlanidentifiespotentialbiketrailsintheprogramareathatwouldbecomepartofalargerregionalnetwork(EastBayRegionalParksDistrict2013).
Plannedbicycleroutesintheareawouldtypicallynotserveaconventionalbicyclecommuterfunction,butprimarilyareintendedasrecreationalandinter‐regionalaccessroutes.Notably,theareaishosttoseveralannualspring,summerandfallbicycletouring,racingandcharityeventsthatutilizetheseruralbikeroutes,suchasthewell‐knownAmgenTourofCalifornia,variousridesbycyclingclubs,andtheMealsonWheelsride.In2013,aportionofPattersonPassRoadintheprogramareawaspartoftheStage7RouteoftheAmgenTourfromLivermoretoMountDiablo(AmgenTourofCalifornia2013).
Air Traffic
Therearefourairportsinthevicinityoftheprogramarea:ByronAirportislocatedabout2milesnorthoftheprogramareaboundary;TracyMunicipalAirportislocatedabout6.5mileseastoftheprogramareaboundary;MeadowlarkFieldislocatedabout3mileswestoftheprogramareaboundary;andLivermoreMunicipalAirportislocatedabout7mileswestoftheprogramareaboundary.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐8
June 2014ICF 00323.08
3.15.2 Environmental Impacts
Thissectiondescribestheimpactanalysisrelatingtotransportationandtrafficfortheproposedprogramandthesubjectprojects.Itdescribesthemethodsusedtodeterminetheimpactsoftheprogramandliststhethresholdsusedtoconcludewhetheranimpactwouldbesignificant.Measurestomitigate(i.e.,avoid,minimize,rectify,reduce,eliminate,orcompensatefor)significantimpactsaccompanytheimpactdiscussion.
Methods for Analysis
Implementationoftheproposedprogram,includingtheGoldenHillsandPattersonPassprojects,wouldreplacetheexistingturbineswithfewerandlargerturbines.Becauseoftheearthworkvolumesinvolvedandtheneedfordeliveriesofhighly‐specializedmaterialsandwindturbinecomponents,constructionwouldintermittentlygeneratesubstantialvolumesoftrafficduringthedecommissioningandinstallationofwindturbines,andnumerousoversizeandoverweighttrucktrips.Oncetheturbinesareinstalledandinoperation,maintenanceneedswouldbelimitedandnotsubstantiallygreaterthancurrentlyrequired;post‐constructiontrafficgenerationwouldbewellwithinthecapacityofthelocalroadwaysystemandwouldnotdiffermateriallyfromcurrentmaintenancetrafficlevels.Analysisoftrafficimpactsthereforeconcentratedonconstructionactivities.
Analysisusedestimatedconstructiontrafficgeneration(expressedasaveragetripsperday)todevelopaqualitativeevaluationofshort‐termimpactsonthelocalandregionalroadwaysinthevicinityoftheprogramarea.Forthepurposeofidentifyingtrafficimpactsassociatedwithanticipatedprojectsthatcouldoccurintheprogramarea,atypical80MWrepoweringproject,basedonthereviewofwindrepoweringprojectsintheprogramvicinity,isassumedfortheanalysistoestimatetheconstriction‐relatedvehicletrips.BasedontheanalysisforVascoWindRepoweringProject(ContraCostaCounty2010)intheprogramvicinityanddataprovidedbytheprojectapplicants,atypical80MWrepoweringprojectintheprogramareaandGoldenHillsprojectareanticipatedtogenerateanaverageof424vehicletripsperday(304trucktripsand120workertrips)duringthepeakmonthsoftheconstructionperiod.ItisanticipatedthatworkertripswouldoccurduringAMandPMcommutehoursandtrucktripswouldoccurthroughouttheconstructionhours(assuming8hoursperday),whichwouldgenerateanaverageof98vehicletripsperhour(38trucktripsand60workertrips)duringthepeakcommutehours.ThePattersonPassproject,a27MWrepoweringproject,isanticipatedtogenerateanaverageof230vehicletripsperday(150trucktripsand80workertrips)duringthepeakmonthsoftheconstructionperiod,withanaverageof59vehicletripsperhour(19trucktripsand40workertrips)generatedduringthepeakcommutehours.
TheaveragedailytripgenerationforatypicalrepoweringprojectintheprogramareaandtwosubjectprojectsareshowninTable3.15‐3.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐9
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐3. Average Daily Construction Trip Generation Assumptions
Activity
AverageVehicleTripsperDay(one‐way)a
TotalHeavyDutyTruck
LightDutyTruck Worker
TypicalRepoweringProjectinProgramAreaandGoldenHillsProject
Decommissioning 8 6120,allconstructionactivity
RoadsandWTGfoundationsconstruction 166 108
WTGmachines,pads,andsubstationmaterialsdeliveryandinstallation
10 6
Total 184 120 120 424
PattersonPassProject
Decommissioning 4 280,allconstructionactivity
RoadsandWTGfoundationsconstruction 102 36
WTGmachines,pads,andsubstationmaterialsdeliveryandinstallation
4 2
Total 110 40 80 230
a Toprovidetheconservativeassessment,theaveragevehicletripsareestimatedforthepeakconstructionmonths.
Determination of Significance
InaccordancewithAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines,programAlternative1,programAlternative2,theGoldenHillsproject,orthePattersonPassprojectwouldbeconsideredtohaveasignificanteffectifitwouldresultinanyoftheconditionslistedbelow.
Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit.
Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways.
Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks.
Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment).
Resultininadequateemergencyaccess.
Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐10
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ImpactTRA‐1a‐1:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Operations
ConstructiontrafficassociatedwithprogramAlternative1wouldbetemporary.Oncethenewturbinesareinstalledandinoperation,maintenanceneedswouldbelimitedandnotsubstantiallygreaterthancurrentlyrequired;post‐constructiontrafficgeneratedbythemaintenanceactivitieswouldbewellwithinthecapacityofthelocalroadwaysystemandwouldnotdiffermateriallyfromthecurrentmaintenancetrafficlevel.OperationofwindfarmsintheAPWRAisconsistentwiththeAlamedaCountyGeneralPlan,transportationplans,andregulationsincorporatingassumptionsofbuildoutoftheGeneralPlan.Accordingly,programAlternative1wouldnotconflictwithapplicabletransportationplans,ordinances,andpolicies.ThetrafficimpactassociatedwithoperationandmaintenanceoftheAlternative1wouldbelessthansignificant.
Construction
ConstructionofindividualrepoweringprojectsintheprogramareaassociatedwithAlternative1wouldtemporarilyincreasevehicletrafficonregionalandlocalaccessroutesintheprojectvicinityandinvolvethetransportofoversizeandoverweightwindturbinecomponents.Dependingonthesizeofeachseparaterepoweringproject,constructionactivitiescouldtakeplaceoveratimeperiodlastingbetween6and12months.AsdiscussedaboveandsummarizedinTable3.15‐3,atypical80MWrepoweringprojectintheprogramareaisanticipatedtogenerateanaverageof424vehicletripsperday(304trucktripsand120workertrips)and98vehicletripsperhour(38trucktripsand60workertrips)duringthepeakcommutehours.
Table3.15‐4summarizesanestimateoftheconstruction‐relatedtripsonregionalaccesshighwaysintheprogramvicinity.Theincreaseinconstructiontripsisasmallfraction(lessthan0.5percent)ofADTonI‐580intheprogramareaandtheregionalaccesshighwaysintheprogramvicinity;accordingly,theconstructiontrafficisnotexpectedtodegradetrafficoperationontheseregionalaccessroadways.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐11
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐4. Estimated Construction Trips on Regional Access Roadways—Typical Repowering Project and Golden Hills Project
RoadwayName Description
2012AADT
2012TruckAADT/PercentofTotalAADT
AverageDailyConstructionTrips/PercentofTotalAADT
AverageDailyConstructionTrickTrips/PercentofTotalAADT
I‐580,inprogramarea
I‐205—GreenvilleRoad,Livermore
143,000 14,870/10.4% 212a/0.1% 152a/0.1%
I‐580,westofProgramarea
GreenvilleRoad,Livermore—I‐680
142,000–214,000
7,550–20,130/4.6%–12.2%
212a/0.1% 152a/0.1%
I‐580,eastofProgramarea
I‐5—I‐205 21,000–31,000
3,380–5,330/12.5%–17.9%
106b/0.5% 76b/0.2%–0.4%
I‐205,Tracy I‐580—JunctionI‐5 82,000–114,000
10,560–13,680/11.3%–12.0%
106b/0.1% 76b/<0.1%
I‐680,Dublin BernalAvenue,Pleasanton—AlcostaBoulevard,SanRamon
132,000–167,000
8,750–12,690/5.3%–9.2%
53c/<0.1% 38c/<0.1%
aAssumes50percentoftotaldailyvehicletrips(424)andtotaltrucktrips(304)wouldoriginatefromwestoftheprogramarea,fromtheLivermoreareaandareastothewest,and50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldoriginatefromeastoftheprogramarea,fromtheTracyareaandareastotheeast.
bAssumes50percentoftheconstructiontrafficoriginatedfromeastoftheprogramarea,whichis25percentoftotalconstructiontraffic,wouldaccesstheprojectareaviaI‐580,and50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldaccesstheprojectareaviaI‐205.
cAssumes50percentoftheconstructiontrafficoriginatedfromwestoftheprogramarea,whichis25percentoftotalconstructiontraffic,wouldbefromareaswestofLivermoreanduseI‐680toaccesstheprogramarea.50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromsouthand50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromnorth(12.5percentoftotalconstructiontraffic).
Constructiontrafficcouldcauseasubstantialtrafficincreaseonthelocalcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstotheprojectconstructionsites—e.g.,VascoRoad,AltamontPassRoad,PattersonPassRoad,DyerRoad,andFlynnRoad—astheseroadsgenerallyhavelowtrafficvolumes.Table3.15‐5summarizesanestimateoftheconstruction‐relatedtripsonmajorcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstoconstructionsites(AltamontPassRoadandPattersonPassRoad)intheprogramarea.Theincreaseinconstructiontripswouldrangefrom2to8percentofADTandfrom5to18percentofpeakhourvolumesonAltamontPassRoadandPattersonPassRoad.Thesubstantialincreaseinconstructiontraffic,especiallyduringtheAMandPMpeakcommutehours,couldpotentiallycausedegradationoftrafficoperationontheselocalprojectaccessroutes.Theimpactfromincreasesconstructiontripsonthelocalroadwaytrafficoperationisconsideredasignificantimpact.
However,becausetheconstructionactivitieswouldbetemporaryandwouldnotcausethelong‐termclosuresoralternationofprojectaccessroadsthatwouldotherwisesubstantiallychangethecirculationofsurroundingroadwaysystemandcoulddegradethetrafficoperationtoanunacceptableLOS,implementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducetheimpactofincreasedtrafficonlocalaccessroadsandtheimpactofshort‐termtemporaryclosuresoftravellanesatprojectsiteaccesspointsduringdeliveryofoversizedloadstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐12
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐5. Estimated Construction Trips on Local Access Roadways—Typical Repowering Project and Golden Hills Project
RoadwayName CounterLocationExistingADT(vpd)
AverageDailyConstructionTripsa/PercentofTotalADT
AveragePeakHourConstructionTripsa/PercentofPeakHourTrafficb
PattersonPassRoad EastofGreenvilleRoad 3,100 212/7% 49/15%
EastofSouthFlynnRoad 2,700 212/8% 49/18%
EastofMidwayRoad 3,700 212/6% 49/13%
AltamontPassRoad WestofGreenvilleRoad 10,250 212/2% 49/5%
WestofGrantLineRoad 5,850 212/4% 49/8%a AssumesconstructiontrafficwouldaccesstheconstructionsiteseitherviaPattersonPassRoadorviaAltamontPassRoad,dependingontheprojectlocations;and50percentoftotalconstructiontraffic(424dailytripsand98peakhourtrips)wouldaccesstheprojectareaviaeitherroadwaysfromthewestand50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromtheeast.
b Peakhourtrafficontheroadwaysegmentstypicallyisassumedabout10%ofADT.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
Priortostartingconstruction‐relatedactivities,theApplicantshallprepareandimplementaTrafficControlPlan(TCP)thatwillreduceoreliminateimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedprogram.TheTCPshalladheretoAlamedaCountyandCaltransrequirements,andmustbesubmittedforreviewandapprovaloftheCountyPublicWorksDepartmentpriortoimplementation.TheTCPshallincludethefollowingelements.TheCountyandCaltransmayrequireadditionalelementstobeidentifiedduringtheirreviewandapprovaloftheTCP.
Scheduleconstructionhourstoavoidtheconstructionworkerscommutingto/fromtheprojectsiteduringtypicalpeakcommutehours(7a.m.to9a.m.and4p.m.to6p.m.).
Limittruckaccesstotheprojectsiteduringtypicalpeakcommutehours(7a.m.to9a.m.and4p.m.to6p.m.).
Requirethatwrittennotificationbeprovidedtocontractorsregardingappropriatehaulroutestoandfromtheprogramarea,aswellastheweightandspeedlimitsonlocalcountyroadsusedtoaccesstheprogramarea.
Provideaccessforemergencyvehiclestoandthroughtheprogramareaatalltimes.
Whenlane/roadclosuresoccurduringdeliveryofoversizedloads,provideadvancenoticetolocalfire,police,andemergencyserviceproviderstoensurethatalternativeevacuationandemergencyroutesaredesignatedtomaintainserviceresponsetimes.
Provideadequateonsiteparkingforconstructiontrucksandworkervehicles.
Requiresuitablepublicsafetymeasuresintheprogramareaandattheentranceroads,includingfences,barriers,lights,flagging,guards,andsigns,togiveadequatewarningtothepublicoftheconstructionandofanydangerousconditionsthatcouldencounteredasaresultthereof.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐13
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Completeroadrepairsonlocalpublicroadsasneededduringconstructiontopreventexcessivedeterioration.Thisworkmayincludeconstructionoftemporaryroadwayshoulderstosupportanynecessarydetourlanes.
Repairorrestoretheroadright‐of‐waytoitsoriginalconditionorbetteruponcompletionofthework.
Coordinateprogram‐relatedconstructionactivities,includingschedule,trucktraffic,haulroutes,andthedeliveryofoversizedoroverweightmaterials,withAlamedaCounty,Caltrans,andaffectedcitiestoidentifyandminimizeoverlapwithotherareaconstructionprojects.
ImpactTRA‐1a‐2:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
AsmentionedinChapter2,ProjectionDescription,withtheexceptionofthenameplatecapacityandtheresultanttotalnumberofturbines(i.e.,approximately259turbinesunderAlternative1and281underAlternative2),thetwoalternativesareidentical.ForthepurposeofidentifyingtrafficimpactsassociatedwithanticipatedprojectsthatcouldoccurunderAlternative2,atypical80MWrepoweringproject,asanalyzedunderImpactTRA‐1a‐1forAlternative,isalsoassumedfortheanalysis.Therefore,operationandconstructiontrafficimpactoftheAlternative2wouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐1a‐1.
ThetrafficimpactassociatedwithoperationandmaintenanceoftheAlternative2wouldbelessthansignificant.However,theconstructiontrafficimpactwouldbesignificantonthelocalcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstotheprojectarea.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐1b:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
TheGoldenHillsProjectisan80MWrepoweringproject.Therefore,operationandconstructiontrafficimpactoftheprojectwouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐1a‐1.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐14
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Thetrafficimpactassociatedwithoperationandmaintenanceoftheprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.However,theconstructiontrafficimpactwouldbesignificantonthelocalcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstotheprojectarea.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐1c:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
AsdiscussedunderImpactTRA‐1a‐1,maintenanceneedsoftheprojectwouldbelimitedandnotsubstantiallygreaterthancurrentlyrequired;post‐constructiontrafficgeneratedbythemaintenanceactivitieswouldbewellwithinthecapacityofthelocalroadwaysystemandwouldnotdiffermateriallyfromthecurrentmaintenancetrafficlevel.Therefore,thetrafficimpactassociatedwithoperationandmaintenanceoftheprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.
Constructionoftheprojectwouldtemporarilyincreasevehicletrafficonregionalandlocalaccessroutesintheprojectvicinityandinvolvethetransportofoversizeandoverweightwindturbinecomponents.AsdiscussedaboveandsummarizedinTable3.15‐3,theprojectisanticipatedtogenerateanaverageof230vehicletripsperday(150trucktripsand80workertrips)and59vehicletripsperhour(19trucktripsand40workertrips)duringthepeakcommutehours.
Table3.15‐6summarizesanestimateoftheconstruction‐relatedtripsonregionalaccesshighwaysintheprogramvicinity.Theincreaseinconstructiontripsisasmallfraction(lessthan0.3percent)ofADTonI‐580intheprogramareaandtheregionalaccesshighwaysintheprogramvicinity;accordingly,theconstructiontrafficisnotexpectedtodegradetrafficoperationontheseregionalaccessroadways.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐15
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐6. Estimated Construction Trips on Regional Access Roadways–Patterson Pass Project
RoadwayName Description
2012AADT
2012TruckAADT/PercentofTotalAADT
AverageDailyConstructionTrips/PercentofTotalAADT
AverageDailyConstructionTrickTrips/PercentofTotalAADT
I‐580,inprogramarea
I‐205—GreenvilleRoad,Livermore
143,000 14,870/10.4% 115a/<0.1% 75a/<0.1%
I‐580,westofProgramarea
GreenvilleRoad,Livermore—I‐680
142,000–214,000
7,550–20,130/4.6%–12.2%
115a/<0.1% 75a/<0.1%
I‐580,eastofProgramarea
I‐5—I‐205 21,000–31,000
3,380–5,330/12.5%–17.9%
58b/0.3% 38b/0.1%–0.2%
I‐205,Tracy I‐580—JunctionI‐5 82,000–114,000
10,560–13,680/11.3%–12.0%
58b/<0.1% 38b/<0.1%
I‐680,Dublin BernalAvenue,Pleasanton—AlcostaBoulevard,SanRamon
132,000–167,000
8,750–12,690/5.3%–9.2%
29c/<0.1% 19c/<0.1%
a Assumes50percentoftotaldailyvehicletrips(230)andtotaltrucktrips(150)wouldoriginatefromwestoftheprogramarea,fromtheLivermoreareaandareastothewest,and50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldoriginatefromeastoftheprogramarea,fromtheTracyareaandareastotheeast.
b Assumes50percentoftheconstructiontrafficoriginatedfromeastoftheprogramarea,whichis25percentoftotalconstructiontraffic,wouldaccesstheprojectareaviaI‐580,and50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldaccesstheprojectareaviaI‐205.
c Assumes50percentoftheconstructiontrafficoriginatedfromwestoftheprogramarea,whichis25percentoftotalconstructiontraffic,wouldbefromareaswestofLivermoreanduseI‐680toaccesstheprogramarea.50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromsouthand50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromnorth(12.5percentoftotalconstructiontraffic).
Constructiontrafficcouldcauseasubstantialtrafficincreaseonthelocalcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstotheprojectconstructionsites—e.g.,PattersonPassRoadandJessRanchRoad—astheseroadsgenerallyhavelowtrafficvolumes.Table3.15‐7summarizesanestimateoftheconstruction‐relatedtripsonPattersonPassRoad,whichprovidesdirectaccesstoconstructionsitesintheprojectarea.Theincreaseinconstructiontripswouldrangefrom3to4percentofADTandfrom8to11percentofpeakhourvolumesonPattersonPassRoad.Thesubstantialincreaseinconstructiontraffic,especiallyduringtheAMandPMpeakcommutehours,couldpotentiallycausedegradationoftrafficoperationontheselocalprojectaccessroutes.Theimpactfromincreasesconstructiontripsonthelocalroadwaytrafficoperationisconsideredasignificantimpact.
However,becausetheconstructionactivitieswouldbetemporaryandwouldnotcausethelong‐termclosuresoralternationofprojectaccessroadsthatwouldotherwisesubstantiallychangethecirculationofsurroundingroadwaysystemandcoulddegradethetrafficoperationtoanunacceptableLOS,implementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducetheimpactofincreasedtrafficonlocalaccessroadsandtheimpactofshort‐termtemporaryclosuresoftravellanesatprojectsiteaccesspointsduringdeliveryofoversizedloadstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐16
June 2014ICF 00323.08
Table 3.15‐7. Estimated Construction Trips on Local Access Roadways–Patterson Pass Project
RoadwayName CounterLocationExistingADT(vpd)
AverageDailyConstructionTripsa/PercentofTotalADT
AveragePeakHourConstructionTripsa/PercentofPeakHourTrafficb
PattersonPassRoad EastofGreenvilleRoad 3,100 115/4% 30/10%
EastofSouthFlynnRoad 2,700 115/4% 30/11%
EastofMidwayRoad 3,700 115/3% 30/8%
a AssumesconstructiontrafficwouldaccesstheconstructionsiteseitherviaPattersonPassRoadorviaAltamontPassRoad,dependingontheprojectlocations;and50percentoftotalconstructiontraffic(230dailytripsand59peakhourtrips)wouldaccesstheprojectareaviaeitherroadwaysfromthewestand50percentoftheconstructiontrafficwouldbefromtheeast.
b Peakhourtrafficontheroadwaysegmentstypicallyisassumedabout10%ofADT.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐2a‐1:Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificant)
AsdiscussedunderTRA‐1a‐1,maintenanceneedsoftheprojectwouldbelimitedandnotsubstantiallygreaterthancurrentlyrequired;post‐constructiontrafficgeneratedbythemaintenanceactivitieswouldbewellwithinthecapacityoftheCMProadwaysystemandwouldnotdiffermateriallyfromthecurrentmaintenancetrafficlevel.Therefore,thetrafficimpactassociatedwithoperationandmaintenanceoftheprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.
Theincreaseinconstructiontraffic,asshowninTable3.15‐4,isasmallfraction(lessthan0.5percent)ofADTonI‐580intheprogramareaandtheregionalCMProadways(I‐205andI‐680)intheprogramvicinity.AlthoughsomeoftheCMProadwaysegmentsoperatedatLOSF(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013b:12‐16).However,thesmallincreaseinconstructiontrafficisnotexpectedtodegradethetrafficoperationoftheCMProadwaysegmentsthatalreadyexceedtheLOSstandardEorcauseaCMProadwaysegmenttoexceedtheLOSstandard.Therefore,theconstructiontrafficimpactonCMProadwayswouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐2a‐2:Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificant)
OperationandconstructiontrafficimpactsontheCMProadwaysystemintheprogramvicinitywouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐2a‐1.ThetrafficimpactonCMProadwayswouldbelessthansignificant.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐17
June 2014ICF 00323.08
ImpactTRA‐2b:Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificant)
OperationandconstructiontrafficimpactsontheCMProadwaysystemintheprogramvicinitywouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐2a‐1.ThetrafficimpactonCMProadwayswouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐2c:Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificant)
OperationandconstructiontrafficimpactsontheCMProadwaysystemintheprogramvicinitywouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐1a‐1.Theincreaseinconstructiontraffic,asshowninTable3.15‐6,isasmallfraction(lessthan0.3percent)ofADTonI‐580intheprogramareaandtheregionalCMProadways(I‐205andI‐680)intheprogramvicinity.AlthoughsomeoftheCMProadwaysegmentsoperatedatLOSF(AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission2013b:12‐16).However,thesmallincreaseinconstructiontrafficisnotexpectedtodegradethetrafficoperationoftheCMProadwaysegmentsthatalreadyexceedtheLOSstandardEorcauseaCMProadwaysegmenttoexceedtheLOSstandard.Therefore,theoperationandconstructiontrafficimpactonCMProadwayswouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐3a‐1:Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificant)
ImplementingprogramAlternative1wouldnotaffectairtrafficpatternsofthepublicandprivateairportsinthevicinityoftheprogramarea.Additionally,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialsafetyrisksassociatedwithairportoperations(seeairportimpactdiscussionandFAAlightingrequirementsdiscussioninSection3.8,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,underImpactHAZ‐5andImpactHAZ‐6).Theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐3a‐2:Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificant)
ImplementingprogramAlternative2wouldnotaffectairtrafficpatternsofthepublicandprivateairportsinthevicinityoftheprogramarea.Additionally,thisalternativewouldnotresultinsubstantialsafetyrisksassociatedwithairportoperations(seeairportimpactdiscussionandFAAlightingrequirementsdiscussioninSection3.8,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,underImpactHAZ‐5andImpactHAZ‐6).Theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐3b:Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificant)
Theproposedprojectwouldnotaffectairtrafficpatternsofthepublicandprivateairportsinthevicinityoftheprojectarea.Theproposedprojectalsowouldnotresultinsubstantialsafetyrisks
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐18
June 2014ICF 00323.08
associatedwithairportoperations(seeairportimpactdiscussionandFederalAviationAdministrationlightingrequirementsdiscussioninSection3.8,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,underImpactHAZ‐5andImpactHAZ‐6).Theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐3c:Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificant)
Theproposedprojectwouldnotaffectairtrafficpatternsofthepublicandprivateairportsinthevicinityoftheproposedproject.Theproposedprojectalsowouldnotresultinsubstantialsafetyrisksassociatedwithairportoperations(seeairportimpactdiscussionandFederalAviationAdministrationlightingrequirementsdiscussioninSection3.8,HazardsandHazardousMaterials,underImpactHAZ‐5andImpactHAZ‐6).Theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.
ImpactTRA‐4a‐1:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)duetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Thepresenceoflarge,slow‐movingconstruction‐relatedvehiclesandequipmentamongthegeneral‐purposetrafficonroadwaysthatprovideaccesstotheprogramareacouldcauseotherdriverstoactimpatientlyandcreatetrafficsafetyhazards.Inaddition,theslow‐movingtrucksenteringorexitingtheprogramareafrompublicroadscouldposeatraffichazardtoothervehiclesandincreasethepotentialforturningmovementcollisionsattheprogramareaentranceintersection.Thecreationofpotentialtrafficsafetyhazardsasaresultofconstructiontruckswouldbeasignificantimpact.
Heavytrucktrafficdeliveringequipmentandmaterialstotheprogramareacouldresultinroadwearanddamagethatresultinadrivingsafetyhazard.Thedegreetowhichthislatterimpactwouldoccurdependsontheexistingroadwaydesign(pavementtypeandthickness)andexistingconditionoftheroad.FreewayssuchasI‐580aredesignedtoaccommodateamixofvehicletypes,includingheavytrucks,andtheconstructionvehicleimpactsareexpectedtobenegligibleonthoseroads.However,countyroadsarenotdesignedandconstructedtothesamestandardsastheinterstatehighwaysandcouldbedamagedbyconstructiontraffic.Thisimpactoncountyroadswouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
ConstructionassociatedwithprogramAlternative1wouldrequirethedeliveryofequipmentandmaterials,suchaswindturbines,thatcouldcausetheconstructiontruckstoexceedroadwayloadorsizelimits.Totransportthisequipment,theprojectapplicantmustobtainspecialpermitsfromCaltransDistrict4andotherrelevantjurisdictionsincludingAlamedaCountytomoveoversizedoroverweightmaterials.Inaddition,theapplicantmustensureproperroutesarefollowed;propertimeisscheduledforthedelivery;andproperescorts,includingadvancedwarningandtrailingvehiclesaswellaslawenforcementcontrolareavailable,ifnecessary.Therefore,compliancewithrequiredspecialpermits,alsoincorporatedintoMitigationMeasureTRA‐1,wouldensurethatsafetyhazardimpactsasresultofoversizedoroverweighttruckswouldbelessthansignificant.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐19
June 2014ICF 00323.08
ImpactTRA‐4a‐2:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)duetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
TheconstructiontrafficimpactontrafficsafetyhazardsundertheAlternative2wouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedunderImpactTRA‐4a‐1.Thesafetyhazardimpactoncountyroadswouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐4b:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipmentduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Proposedprojectingress/egresstotheprojectareawouldbeviaAltamontPassRoad,PattersonPassRoad,FlynnRoad,andDyerRoad.AsdescribedinSection2.6.1,minorintersectionimprovementswouldbeimplementedalongtheseroadstoallowforsafepassageoftheoversizedvehiclesandfacilitateingress/egressfromlocalaccessroads.Followingroadconstruction,allroadswouldbeinspectedtodetermineifandwhereanyadditionalgradingoradditionalgravelwouldbenecessarytomeetAlamedaCountyroadstandards.
Regardless,thepresenceoflarge,slow‐movingconstruction‐relatedvehiclesandequipmentamongthegeneral‐purposetrafficonroadwaysthatprovideaccesstotheprojectareacouldcauseotherdriverstoactimpatientlyandcreatetrafficsafetyhazards.Inaddition,theslow‐movingtrucksenteringorexitingtheprojectareafrompublicroadscouldposeatraffichazardtoothervehiclesandincreasethepotentialforturningmovementcollisionsattheprojectentranceintersection.Thecreationofpotentialtrafficsafetyhazardsasaresultofconstructiontruckswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐4c:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipmentduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Proposedprojectingress/egresstotheprojectareawouldbeviaPattersonPassRoadandJessRanchRoad.AsdiscussedinSection2.6.2,minorintersectionimprovementswouldbeimplementedalongtheseroadstoallowforsafepassageoftheoversizedvehiclesandfacilitateingress/egressfromlocalaccessroads.Followingroadconstruction,allroadswouldbeinspectedtodetermineifandwhereanyadditionalgradingoradditionalgravelwouldbenecessarytomeetAlamedaCountyroadstandards.
Regardless,thepresenceoflarge,slow‐movingconstruction‐relatedvehiclesandequipmentamongthegeneral‐purposetrafficonroadwaysthatprovideaccesstotheprojectareacouldcauseotherdriverstoactimpatientlyandcreatetrafficsafetyhazards.Inaddition,theslow‐movingtrucksenteringorexitingtheprojectareafrompublicroadscouldposeatraffichazardtoothervehiclesandincreasethepotentialforturningmovementcollisionsattheprojectentranceintersection.The
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐20
June 2014ICF 00323.08
creationofpotentialtrafficsafetyhazardsasaresultofconstructiontruckswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐5a‐1:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Slow‐movingconstructiontruckscoulddelayorobstructthemovementofemergencyvehiclesonprogramareahaulroutes.Inaddition,lane/roadclosuresoccurringduringdeliveryofoversizedloadscouldimpairroadwaycapacityandincreasetheresponsetimeforemergencyvehiclestravelingthroughtheclosurearea.Therefore,constructionwouldhavethepotentialtosignificantlyaffectemergencyvehicleaccess.TheTCPrequiredundertheMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐5a‐2:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
ConstructiontrafficimpactoftheAlternative2wouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheAlternative1underImpactTRA‐5a‐1.Therefore,constructionwouldhavethepotentialtosignificantlyaffectemergencyvehicleaccess.TheTCPrequiredunderMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐5b:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
ConstructiontrafficimpactoftheproposedprojectwouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheprogramunderImpactTRA‐5a‐1.Therefore,constructionwouldhavethepotentialtosignificantlyaffectemergencyvehicleaccess.TheTCPrequiredunderMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐5c:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
ConstructiontrafficimpactoftheproposedprojectwouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedfortheprogramunderImpactTRA‐5a‐1.Therefore,constructionwouldhavethepotentialtosignificantlyaffectemergencyvehicleaccess.TheTCPrequiredunderMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐21
June 2014ICF 00323.08
ImpactTRA‐6a‐1:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities—programAlternative1:417MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Nopublictransitservicesorpedestrianfacilitiesareavailableontheprojectaccessroutesintheprogramvicinity.Therefore,themaintenanceandconstructionactivitiesassociatedwithwindfarmsintheprogramareawouldnotconflictwithpolices,plans,orprogramsregardingthealternativetransportationordegradetheperformanceoftransitservicesandpedestrianfacilities.
Mostofthemaintenanceandconstructionactivitiesassociatedwithwindfarmsarecontainedwithinthespecificprojectworksitesandarenotexpectedtoresultinthelong‐termclosuresoftravellanesorroadwaysegments,permanentlyalterthepublicaccessroadways,andcreatenewpublicroadwaysthatcouldsubstantiallychangethetravelpatternsofvehiclesandbicyclesonthesurroundingroadwayfacilitiesandconflictwiththepoliciesandplansregardingbicyclefacilities.
However,duringtheconstruction,slow‐movingoversizedtruckscouldpotentiallydisruptthemovementofbicyclestravelingontheshouldersalongAltamontPassRoad,PattersonPassRoad,andFlynnRoadintheprogramareaandincreasethesafetyconcernsforanybicyclistswhousetheroutes.TheseroadwaysarenottheCountyclassifiedbikeways,butareusedasrecreationalandinter‐regionalaccessroutes.Inaddition,lane/roadclosuresoccurringduringdeliveryofoversizedloadsneartheworksiteaccesspointscouldtemporarilydisruptthebicycleaccessontheroads.Therefore,constructionwouldhavethepotentialtosignificantlyaffectbicycleaccess.ThetrafficcontrolplanrequiredundertheMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐6a‐2:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities—programAlternative2:450MW(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Theconstructiontrafficimpactonalternativetransportationfacilities(transitservice,pedestrianfacilities,andbicyclefacilities)undertheAlternative2wouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedunderImpactTRA‐6a‐1.Theconstructiontrafficimpactonbicyclefacilitieswouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
ImpactTRA‐6b:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities—GoldenHillsProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Theconstructiontrafficimpactonalternativetransportationfacilities(transitservice,pedestrianfacilities,andbicyclefacilities)undertheprojectwouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedunderImpactTRA‐6a‐1.Theconstructiontrafficimpactonbicyclefacilitieswouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐22
June 2014ICF 00323.08
ImpactTRA‐6c:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities—PattersonPassProject(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)
Theconstructiontrafficimpactonalternativetransportationfacilities(transitservice,pedestrianfacilities,andbicyclefacilities)undertheprojectwouldbesimilartotheimpactdiscussedunderImpactTRA‐6a‐1.Theconstructiontrafficimpactonbicyclefacilitieswouldbesignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.
MitigationMeasureTRA‐1:Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan
3.15.3 References Cited
AlamedaCounty.2000.EastCountyAreaPlan.AdoptedMay1994.ModifiedbypassageofMeasureD,effectiveDecember22,2000.Oakland,CA.
———.2012.AlamedaCountyBicycleandPedestrianMasterPlanforUnincorporatedAreas.April.Available:http://www.acgov.org/pwa/documents/Bike‐Ped‐Plan‐for‐Unincorporated‐Final.pdf.Accessed:February7,2014.
———.2013.PattersonPassRoadandTeslaRoadSafetyStudy.PublicMeetingPresentationonMarch27.AlamedaCountyPublicWorksAgency.Available:http://www.acgov.org/pwa/updates/pattersonpassstudy.htm.Accessed:June27,2013.
AlamedaCountyTransportationCommission.2012a.AlamedaCountywideTransportationPlan.Available:http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/8043/ALAMEDA_CWTP_FINAL.pdf.Accessed:August28,2013.
———.2012b.AlamedaCountywideBicyclePlanwithVisionNetworkMaps,EastPlanningArea.AdoptedOctober2012.Available:http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/10086/ACTC_Bike_East_011013.pdf.Accessed:August19,2013.
———.2013a.AlamedaCountyCongestionManagementProgram.October.Available:http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/5224.Accessed:February7,2014.
———.2013b.2012LevelofServiceMonitoringReport.January.Available:http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/8091.Accessed:February7,2014.
AmgenTourofCalifornia.2013.Stage7–LivermoretoMtDiablo.Available:<http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/Route/stages/stage7.html>.Accessed:October17,2013.
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.2013.2012TrafficVolumesforAllVehiclesand2012TruckTrafficonCaliforniaStateHighways.TrafficDataBranch.Available:http://traffic‐counts.dot.ca.gov/.Accessed:February7,2014.
ContraCostaCounty.2010.VascoWindsRepoweringProjectDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport.December.SCHNo.2010032094.CountyFileNo.LP08‐2049.DepartmentofConservationandDevelopment.
Alameda County Community Development Agency Impact Analysis
Transportation/Traffic
APWRA Repowering Draft PEIR 3.15‐23
June 2014ICF 00323.08
EastBayRegionalParksDistrict.2013.2013MasterPlanMap.July16.Available:http://www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Master+Plan/Maps/Master+Plan+Map+‐+August+2013.pdf.Accessed:February7,2014.