TRANSACTIONS NEWSLETTER ONLINE

A Tunnel Runs Through It:
Does the Caldecott need a fourth bore?

The story begins in 1998 when MTC, together with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Caltrans, took on the task of analyzing what could be done to relieve increasing traffic congestion on Route 24, particularly the daily backups at the Caldecott Tunnel. The key question facing planners, policymakers and the public is whether a fourth tunnel bore should be drilled through the hills.

In addition to looking at a new tunnel bore, the study analyzed numerous other transportation options and their impacts on traffic congestion in the corridor as well as on other demographic trends in Alameda and Contra Costa counties over the next 20 years.

The study kicked off with meetings of key stakeholders from Alameda and Contra Costa counties. MTC then convened technical and policy advisory committees made up of elected and appointed representatives from the two counties along with the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Lafayette and Orinda. The three public transit agencies (AC Transit, County Connection and BART) that serve the corridor and Caltrans also are represented.

The 14-member policy committee's directive to MTC was clear: Focus on moving people rather than just vehicles; improve travel times, reliability and convenience of travel; and protect local streets from negative impacts.

Three Packages Studied
Assisted by a consulting team, MTC spent most of 1999 assessing travel conditions in the corridor and identifying strategies for reducing congestion and improving travel times. The most promising of the 52 possible improvements were eventually assembled into three "packages" of alternatives to be studied more closely:

• improve highway operations on both sides of the tunnel approaches by adding metered on-ramps, relocating merge lanes near the tunnel and adding carpool lanes that bypass congestion at the tunnel approaches;
• expand public transit options by increasing feeder bus service to and from BART stations, initiating intercounty bus service through the tunnel, providing direct Bay Point- Fremont BART service, and increasing parking at BART stations in the corridor;
• construct a new two-lane tunnel bore north of the existing three bores, with or without auxiliary lanes and bicycle lanes. (A three-lane bore also was examined, but has not been pursued because it would be more complex and considerably more expensive to build.)

Contrary Outcomes
The evaluation of the alternatives produced findings that run contrary to what some may have hoped or assumed would result from the study.

For one, a fourth tunnel bore would not improve the westbound morning or eastbound evening commute of Contra Costa County residents.

Why not? Currently, there are three bores with two lanes each, for a total of six lanes. Depending on traffic conditions, the tunnel can be configured as four eastbound and two westbound lanes, or four westbound and two eastbound lanes. The policy committee agreed at the outset that if a new bore were built, it should "balance tunnel capacity" by providing four permanent traffic lanes in each direction. (Since there are no plans to add traffic lanes on the tunnel approaches or on Route 24, increasing tunnel capacity for Contra Costa commuters -- beyond four lanes in either direction -- would merely move the bubble of traffic congestion farther along the corridor.)

Adding a fourth bore, however, would help existing and future reverse-commute (eastbound a.m., westbound p.m.) and weekend traffic congestion at the tunnel. Projecting ahead to the year 2020, the study shows that adding a two-lane bore would allow 1,600 additional reverse commuters to travel through the tunnel and eliminate the 12-minute backup anticipated for reverse-commute and weekend traffic 20 years from now.

The study also found that greatly improved transit service would make little difference to traffic through the tunnel. Commuters heading east to jobs spread throughout Contra Costa County would still find it faster, or nearly as fast, to drive rather than take the bus or BART. According to Kimsey, "Most of the 67,500 daily transit trips generated by improving transit would be intracounty and not through the tunnel. In addition, new Bay Point-to-Fremont BART service is expensive and does little to increase transit use through the tunnel corridor."

Initial study results show that improving highway operations and adding carpool/ vanpool lanes at the tunnel approaches may result in some reduction in congestion near the tunnel. This is still being evaluated.

In another study outcome unexpected by some, a fourth tunnel bore is unlikely to have much impact on growth and development in the corridor. According to MTC consultant Walter Kieser of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., "Given current land use and travel patterns and the relatively minor change in capacity afforded by a fourth bore É growth and development in the corridor will be far more dependent on other factors, including regional and national economic conditions, local land use and development policies, and improvements elsewhere in the region's transportation network."

In response to concerns that a fourth bore would encourage sprawl in Contra Costa County and take business and economic development away from Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville by easing the eastbound commute to Contra Costa County, Kieser says, "We believe that it would be beneficial for the corridor communities both east and west of the tunnel to collaborate on ways to leverage the economic potential of the greater East Bay to the benefit of all communities."

Tunnel Divides Opinions
Nonetheless, general opinions on the merits of building a new tunnel bore are as different as the weather on either side of the tunnel, with Alameda County chilly to the idea and Contra Costa County warmly receptive.

Comments Policy Advisory Committee Member Jane Brunner, who serves on the Oakland City Council, "It's not something that Alameda County has put high on its priority list, and I don't believe that the problem the bore will correct is worth the cost. I want to know what that amount of money would buy in public transportation."

On the other side, Contra Costa County Policy Committee Member Charlie Abrams, vice mayor of Walnut Creek, asserts, "The results of the study are clear. There is an extreme need to go ahead with the new bore. It has benefits for both counties in safety and in reducing delays."

The fourth bore also has two powerful allies in James Kellogg and Jeremiah Hallisey, chair and vice chair, respectively, of the California Transportation Commission, and both Contra Costa residents. Says Hallisey, "When the last tunnel was completed in 1964, Contra Costa County's population was 500,000. It's now one million. The tunnel has substantial backups in either direction, and it needs to be corrected. A Berlin Wall is not the solution to Alameda County's problems. The tunnel is a two-way street and mutually beneficial to both counties."

Hallisey supports the idea of a new three-lane bore and wants the corridor study's cost estimates refined to see how realistic they are. "Money can be available," he says.

Money, in fact, is key to the story's ending. According to MTC project manager Kimsey, "Al-though a new tunnel bore would solve the problem of reverse-commute and weekend traffic congestion, it comes with a steep price tag" (see table).

He pointed out a number of sources that could be used to finance corridor transportation improvements: state gas-tax revenues, bridge toll revenues and county transportation sales-tax revenues. Aside from $20 million for a new tunnel bore proposed by Gov. Gray Davis in his transportation plan and now included in the state budget package, however, there is no "money in the bank" for the project.

The Final Chapter
With MTC's corridor study expected to wrap up early in the fall, the story is not yet over. Two more public workshops will take place this summer, followed by more advisory committee meetings, a summary report from MTC and decisions by the policy committee on next steps. Will there be more twists and turns? Stay tuned for the final chapter.
-- Marjorie Blackwell

Check meeting dates and study updates here.