Community Development Department
Pleasant Hill BART
Station Design Charrette
Responses to Issues/Ideas from 2/8/01Traffic Focus Group Meeting for the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
The issues are divided into 8 categories: 1) Traffic Impacts, 2) Design Plan, 3) Parking, 4) Bike / Pedestrian, 5) Regional Traffic, 6) Vehicle Access, 7) TDM / Modal Split, and 8) Transit / Bus. The numbering is based on the original summary list developed from the notes from the Focus Group Meeting.
1. The daily and peak traffic
volumes were just counted this year (2001). Both the existing and existing
plus Charrette project traffic volumes fit with the counts and projections
from the 1997 Traffic Study. The 1997 Traffic Study forecasted traffic
by adding to existing traffic the new trips from unbuilt but approved
development, future development of the BART property, plus a certain amount
of regional growth based on growth forecasts for areas outside the Specific
Plan boundaries. The 2001 traffic counts reaffirm the data and assumptions
of the 1997 Traffic Study, which found that future development in the
Specific Plan area will not cause traffic conditions on Treat Boulevard
to violate the standards for congestion that were established by central
county jurisdictions and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
for the Measure C Growth Management Program. An update to the traffic
service objective (TSO) monitoring for Treat Boulevard (considered a Route
of Regional Significance) was completed by the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority in 1999. The measured speeds and delay index values ranged from
21 miles per hour (mph) to 28 mph and 1.35 to 1.75, respectively. These
values are well above the average speed TSO requirement of 15 mph and
well below the Delay Index TSO requirement of 2.0.
34. Comment noted and was considered.
38. Traffic calming may be
appropriate and is provided for in the Specific Plan (Automobile Circulation
Policy #5, page 34.
46. Studies indicate the traffic will increase, even without any additional development on the BART property. Property owners of vacant parcels in the Specific Plan area have already funded and built significant upgrades to roads in the Specific Plan area to accommodate traffic generated from development on these parcels. The Charrette "final" plan seems to balance traffic generation and vitality.
48. Fehr & Peers is focusing on transportation and traffic, with Nelson-Nygaard focusing on transit and buses.
56. This Charrette process began with few "absolutes." The BART tracks, the columns, the actual station location and trees may be considered "givens." On-site roadways can be changed. It would be difficult to make major changes to Treat Boulevard, Oak Road and Jones Road. Internal roadway changes and other minor changes are considered.
57. See 56.
58. One-way streets are possible,
particularly for internal roadways. Major streets such as Treat would
not be included.
2. Traffic Service Objective (TSOs) apply for regional and local routes. As noted in the Specific Plan, "In the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, Treat Boulevard is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. The remaining streets in the area are Basic Routes and are subject to traffic service objectives defined in local general plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan (1991) designates the land use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area as 'central business district.' The traffic level of service (LOS) for this type of land use is defined as low E (volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 to 0.94)."
5. The minimum is based on legally vested development rights, set forth in the Development Agreement.
35. Comment noted and considered as part of process.
36. Technically possible, but economically difficult. Considered as part of process.
44. The Charrette process was planned to answer this question, and hopefully has done so.
47. Yes, important consideration for the process.
52. This is important consideration for the Charrette.
53. This is also an important
consideration for the Charrette. This was the philosophy of the Specific
Plan when it was adopted in 1984. Property owners were assessed over $40
million for road and other infrastructure upgrades to serve their development.
These infrastructure upgrades were completed in the late 1980's.
3. Comment noted.
4. Yes, parking studies would be required for less than the maximum. Lending institutions tend to prefer as much parking as can be achieved, particularly in suburban areas.
6. Comment noted.
23. Outlying Park and Ride lots examined by the PH BART Steering Committee and can be considered in the process.
26. Similar to 23, part of process.
29. Want "transit-oriented" development. The BART Board policy is currently set for the number of parking spaces at each station. The BART Access Plan for PH BART suggests greater use of alternate modes, not more parking.
30. Part of Specific Plan. Permanent BART parking has been set by the BART Board and was incorporated in the Specific Plan at 2806 spaces. The additional spaces identified in the comment include the temporary parking spaces. Providing additional permanent BART patron parking beyond the 2,806 spaces was considered in the Charrette.
31. Part of process and previous
43. "Density bonus" was removed from the Specific Plan. Can be considered as part of process.
59. BART is developing policies for airport parking separate from this Charrette process.
60. These BART policies are
not specifically a part of the process, but these issues have been considered
and have been brought to the attention of BART by the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Steering Committee.
7. The Specific Plan requires that a Bike Station will be included in any development plan.
16. Issues for bicyclists and pedestrians have been and continue to be an important part of the process.
17. Improvements are part of the process.
18. Improvements are part of the process for the Iron Horse Trail.
19. Comment noted and part of the process.
20. Comment noted and part of the process.
24. These are details that will be considered in the design of any overcrossing.
25. This is a part of site planning, and is a policy of the Specific Plan.
28. See 7 above, Bike Station, part of the process.
37. Considered as part of process, but may be difficult to change due to traffic volumes.
40. See 38 above under Traffic Impacts. Traffic calming may be appropriate.
50. Comment noted.
51. Yes, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access issues are important considerations for this process. This access includes access to and from the BART Station and to and from the trails.
63. Access is an important
part of the process, for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorized vehicles.
8. This work has been done, particularly in the 1997 Traffic Study for the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Roadway and other improvements were required and were built through an Assessment District in the Specific Plan area.
9. Comment noted.
10. See 8 above. Also note there is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (a congestion and growth management agency) which fosters cooperative transportation planning through the local planning groups in each area of the County, including TRANSPAC in central county, TRANSPLAN in east county, WCCTAC in west county, SWAT in the Lamorinda area and TVTC in south county. The 1997 Traffic Study was managed by staff from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was reviewed by the central county cities through TRANSPAC and the Plan was changed based on their review.
21. Part of the process.
22. Part of the process.
15. Part of the process.
27. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) issue was considered in the 1997 Traffic Study. The County is pursuing the Study's recommendations to promote the use of alternate modes of access to the Specific Plan area and these activities are part of the process.
41. Part of the process and
with TDM, see 27 above.
49. Higher alternate mode
splits were identified as potentially achievable in the 1997 Traffic Study.
However, the Traffic Study work assumed current levels of alternate mode
splits, which are relatively high for a suburban location. This process
emphasizes actual mode splits.
45. The process considers designs/land uses that are expected to emphasize transit use. TDM will be a consideration in evaluating the alternatives. It is Important to match the design with the available transit.
54. It is important to consider
transit operations and usage as part of the Charrette. These considerations
should not be done in isolation, but considered with other issues.