Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan
SQS^gendatoate -Augtistl 9,20Q3
County of Santa Clara
Roads & Airports Department
Design & Construction Operations
RAOl 081903
'
~
H ■
Prepared by: Dan Collen
'
P
DATE:
August 19,2003
TO:
Board of Supervisors
•"V.
nW
■
'
"
'
''
Senior Civil Engineer
"
-
-w-
,
,
-v^
,
.
FROM:
/ aJ"
■%■
'ifei
i'
V
■
'
'
'I
Michael Murdter, '
Director, Roads & Airports Department
'
SUBJECT: Compreherisive County Expressway Plaiming Study Implementation Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Consider recommendations relating to Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
Implementation Plan.
■
,.
.
Possible actions:
'
"
, .•
,
a. Accept Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study documents.
b. Approve the study findings with respect to the nged for capacity and operational
improvements on the expressway sysfem as cpntainedTn the Roadway Projects Tier
Summary.
c. Approve the study findin^^^iWlefpliCt ^'liB^eli^Si^icycle and pedestrian
improvements, sound wal^j,|^jj^|^ging^g|jl^j||p|sway system as shown in the
d.
Other Capital Improvements summary.
" Board of Supetyis'ors; Dohald
;Ading County Executive:-Peter Kufra's Jr;;
,.
leriiHiumiBp 6?'
-
Pete McHu^K,,Jim(Beili, Uz l^nisf
BOS AgendaDate -August 19,2003
Approve the recommended Funding Strategy related to Capital Improvements and
Maintenance/Operations.
e. Direct staff to pursue the Next Steps outlined in the Executive Summary.
f. Direct staff to forward the Implementation Plan to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority for inclusion in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020
(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
FISCAL TMPLTCATTONS
There
are no fiscal implicationsTd-thelCeneral Fund ortblhe Rdad Fund.
ij-
CONTRACT HTSTQRV
None.
'Z.
f
-r>
n
'S'
.
'
''f n
REASONS FOR^ECOMMENDATTON
At its meetinglM^ 29^ 2003,the Study Policy Advisory Board votedj^aniir^sly tbk
recommend me St&y^Implementation Plan to the Board of Supervisors fonapp^al.
Approval hy the Boardvvill cdnclude the Studxarid allow the Roads & Aii^®s'Dei|aftment
to move forward with implementation of the specific recommendations containeddn the Plan.
sn
The Study has reguifed almost twOiyears Of colla'^gir^^^ planiiihgded
hj^the County and
involving all ofthe cifies haying expresswaysHhrdugh fheir'jurisdiction and
regional
entities(VTA,MTC,Caltrahs,'CHP). The StudZprocess included jxtdnsiye public outreach,
with two telephone;^p'i)ihion surveys, meetirigs with cprrnnunit^,.associations,,]^r^^^^^
to
chambers of cornmSrcc, cphtact with Silicon Valley ManufacSring Group dhd/pthPr
development mterests,.prbject;community rneetings and a Draft Plan Open House, a project
hotline, and a project web site:Vz^
^
^
'
0'i. --' i''
As a result, the Plan has the suppori; ofthedpeaThitiesf^ith^councilv^^
of endorsement
completed by Campbell, Cripertinp'/ Los^;£itos, Milpitas,,Mpimtarh View, San Jose, Santa
Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Ehdorsement of the Plan is;under process by Palo Alto.
Gilroy and Morgan Hill were represented oh the"Policy Advisory Board but were not asked to
endorse the Plan as the South qggn||j|lg|ning egp§ta!9,Pjliping. Los Gatos and Monte
Sereno have no expressway mileage in their jurisdictions. Los Altos Hills participated at a
staff level only.
Proeessor tiamie
HeSeriSa^rs
ifem' Muraljer
07.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage/BlaHca'Aivarado, Pete McHugh,Jlm Beall, LizKnIss
Ading County'Executive: Beter kutrasJr;
BbS.Agenda.Dat'eiv^ugust 19, 2003
In addition to city support, the Plan has been endorsed by the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group. A copy of their letter of support is attached.
The County of Santa Clara Roads Commission has also reviewed the Draft Plan and
recommended approval of the Plan and funding strategy to the Board of Supervisors, with an
additional recommendation that high priority be.given to eliminating the maintenance and
operations shortfall.
'"|
|
, ^
On June 19, 2003, the H6using|Laigi UsefjEnyino:^ ^^'ranspoftatibn Committee took
action to accept the staff report oh the Study as well as the recommendations ofthe Roads
Commission, and forward the Implementation Plan to the Board with'a favorable
recommendation, f,,
V
(Aj '0'
Misf-
.r
"•
r
V
' ,:i
"
'
r.
A
A,a: A,.,;.
BACKGROUND S^
'
'n.
,
n
. . -j-
:
%
n , ,
sS
^
= !;= • , • :
^
:
...
The CompreHdhsive County Expressway PlanningvStudy will serve as'a long Tahge strategic
plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressways. The Shidy Iinplementation
Plan includes seven elements devoted to describing the pfoject, operations, and mainfenance
needs anddmprpvement recommendations. An eighth element recom&ppds a funding strategy.
Finally, the plah includes recomrriendations for further.study of7South?Coimtytransportation
needs.
nn
»
n i\
'•,1
,
\
'j. ,
n
• . •' > .
. •1
^
. i
^*
...
i
, ■5-'
The plan identifies capitalimpfovement program needs totaling $1:7 - $2;0 billion, and unmet
maintenance andfoperations needs tbtaling $13 million annually .^Delivery pTthetentire capital
program would alsa require $ 11.4 — $ 13.4 million m aimualized matching funds, assummg the
projects are subjecttoTederal grant match requirements. The Board's apprbyul of the
Implementation Plan dbes nbt commit the. County to undertake any,particular project. Prior to
making such a commitment, the County would und.ertake the appti6|jri|te review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Gl^A) and would ^nsidehthe results of that review.
41:
i'b'
'V
I
-vS-..
Implementation of the Capacity and Operational Improvement Element would result in
substantial traffic congestion relief. Currently, 30 out of 129intersections on the expressways
are operating at Level of Servic^J^^Ol^l^fhe wbrlPeate^o^^df traffic congestion
of these traffic signal
locations would be operating at LOS P. The proposed capacity and operational projects
■ IbM Wuraiber 67:
' Board of Supetvisbrs:.Donald F. GagO, Bianca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jlrn:B:ea!l, Liz Knlss
Acting County Executive: Peter Kutras Jr.;
BOS Agerid^ Date :August,.19,'2003
mitigate 28 out ofthe existing 30 LOS F intersections, and 43 out of50 of the projected 2025
LOS F intersections. All but one ofthe LOS F intersections to remain deficient are the subject
of prior policy decisions or are the subject of continuing study (e.g. Capitol Expressway in the
area of the planned LRT project).
Corridor-wide traffic analysis shows overall corridor LOS to be significantly improved with
implementation ofthe capacity/ operational improvements. Six of the eight expressways
would operate at a minimum of LO.S -D with sdrne expressway segments achieving LOS C.
Montague Expressway east of1-8,80 \ypurd;,im]^^^ from LOS to E. West of 1-880,
Montague would continue to og&^e h^OS F ouLthe ^euing aniLo^erall delay would be
reduced significantly(25% redubtiph in ^l^Pf allvehicles; 13%inu|e reduction in travel
time). Capitol Expressway from Neiman Blvd. through the US.lOl infefchange would
improve from LOS F tb;!^.and would remain D west of US.lOl. Projected LOS information
for Capitol north of-^eiman to I-68U is not available-since the conditions iri^heiarea of
planned LRT cdns;^ctioh have not been fully defined. .
.A
' n ■'
J
Other elemehis of the plan address and quantify heeds .related to signal operatibhs, and Traffic
Operations System (TOS) impfbvements. High pccupanby Vehicle (HOV)dhneC bicydle
accommodations, pedestrian facilities, frontage fmishing withTandscapihgvahd sound walls,
and maintenance and opefatiohs at a recommended level of effort. .
"
At its March 25, 2003 meeting^ the Board of Supervisors approved relea|e/of dtafl Study
documents for public review attid comment; Methods used- tomotify the community about the
Draft Plan's availabili|y .and puf offer to rneef with bonimunity assbciatioris included:
• Sent notices" to,thet85 memb
the cbinmiinity whb have commented fin the Study
since its starf or'^ttendpd oiie of the Study's meetings^? . -A
" ''
^
• Mailed notices to 'oveh350 community/ neighborhood.associations throughout the
county, made possible by the^^United^eighbOrhopds of S thta Clara County who
provided their membership mailing li^t.
'
• Received assistance fronMh^difies^fMi^ifSsfMOuSflln View, and Sunnyvale, and
from San Jose PAB membei:s.whq.nQtified kewcpmmunity associations.
n- ycemur i aamM
opter.i aalipi
iieti'sTlilffMjibr
67
Board dfSupemsors: Dori"a|d F. GageV.BIanca Alva'radd, Pete tvlcHugh, Jirri.BVall, Liz Ktiiss
.Acting-County Executive: Rater Kutras.Jr.;
BOS Agenda Date :AUgust,19, 2003
• Submitted newsletter articles for various community groups and articles about the Draft
Plan appeared in some of the local newspapers.
As a result of the outreach, comments and inquiries were received on the Study website and
hotline, and staff was requested to attend various community association meetings.
Project staff presented the Draft,Plan to A^STA's Ihtizen 2|tdvi|6ry,Committee(CAC)and
Teehnieal Advisory Committee^(?TAC|li Thi drafe bicydejari|pede^an elements of the Plan
were presented to the Coimty/ ^JA|Bicycle and PedestriallAdyisoty Committee(BPAC). In
addition, three cities (Campbell, Los Altos,'and Sunnyvalej.Jtqolc theseielements to their
BPACs and forwarded.comments. Santa Clara dhd Milpitas B.PACs had reviewed the bicycle
and pedestrian elements barlier in the process and forwarded comihents. . &
...
-ft
As a result of,the outreach-warious discussions were held and a number,df comments were
received. MosLof.the discussion at m:eetings..and:Some oftheiconi^
wereWetually
questions and requestsfoil clarification Staff has respbMed*to all.ofthese^^
and'have
incorporated text changes as needed and app^ropriate, and ditfhighlight- all,'sigmfieantiihanges
proposed to the.Draft to the PAB at.the Mhy 29, 2003 iheeMg. The edits were alLaccepted as
part of the;appipying action ofthe PAB.;. ,; - ;.;j>
n
V'
i
'
-i
b'
*1 '
"
i',
A - .- "
-t
3 -J
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
-
lyp
-4 '
- I
f
^
Iniplementation^dfrecommendations contairied;infhoPlan, m£duxiing'fi|ndiii^
will be delayed; Projects identified in the plan niay nofcbe^hcluded ini^t^^^
2003/2004 update.
ate. ?
" 'v;'. ;
^
''
STEPS EOTJ.OWTNG jPERtwAL
M process to^
Send KEYBOARD notification ofdomplb|e,d
1. Dan Collen in the Roads and AirporflDepartihbht —Design and Construction Branch
2. Kent Mitchell in the Roads and Airports Department — Administration
MeetlBg Date
ftygu.st'.'l§,;2003.
Staff will forward the Plan to thej3^all^^^^mns|)ort|^^^
(VTA)for inclusion in the
Valley Transportation Plan 2020(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
teriiMiirhber
67
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvaradd, Pete McHugh,Jim .Beall, LizKniss
Acting County Executive: Peter Kutras Jr.-
BOS Agenda Date August 19,'2003
ATTACHMENTS
•Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Recommendations (Miscellaneous)
•Expressway Planning Study - Executive Summary (Miscellaneous)
I i I
:f.
..i
1.' V
V
If...
'tf''
"
n
• ■'M
' V-. ■ 'i 'ft-
\ ■ f'jiP' -
"> ;;u
3
:4
■ Jr'.T'
t . ' -
-
'V.
•
-
■■
A ■■-.
, -V-A."
' ^ 'a^V
'l'.*.
V
v-..%
' ■•'.
1
i.C-V. t'
-^i
C-,
/.
4-
'
.ft' lu.
,# .
'¥
■|' '
M
3^-
ii;b • :. , ■ t'-rf"!
iv-''--'. 4
I' ■ M
■
Meetmi CaSe
•s'" f."
' .?•'■ 'SftS'K ..
.
.."
:fegust i 0, :2i03':
Proeelsor liime
Heleri Salr^rs
ttefu'Wisnber
6'7
Board of Supetyisors: Donald F. Oage. Blanca Alvaradb, Pete fvlcHugh, Jim.Beaii, Liz Ktiiss
Acting County ExecOtjve: ifeter Kutras Jh;
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
Proposed Final
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
9
sr?T-
5^
r
i
A
<;>
6qu^>
A
o
-f\
Roads and Airports Department
August 19, 2003
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Donald F. Gage
Blanca Alvarado - Chairperson
Pete McHugh
District 1
District 2
District 3
James T. Beall, Jr.
Liz Kniss
District 4
District 5
Peter Kutras, Jr.
Acting County Executive
Policy Advisory Board
Members
James T. Beall, Jr. - PAB Chair
Donald F. Gage
Donald R. Burr
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
City of Campbell
Sandra James
Tom Springer
Francis A. La Poll
Vice Mayor
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Cupertino
City of Cllroy
City of Los Altos
Patricia Dixon
Dennis Kennedy
Michael Kasperzak
Vice Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
City of Milpitas
City of Morgan Hill
City of Mountain View
Yoriko Kishimoto
Pat Dando
Aldyth Parle
Councilmember
Vice Mayor
Councilmember
City of Palo Alto
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Ann Waltonsmith
Tim Risch
Manuel Valeria
Vice Mayor
Vice Mayor
City of Sunnyvale Councilmember
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
VTA Board Member
Dave Cortese - PAB Vice-Chair
Dave Fadness - ex-officio
Ted Brown - ex-ofBcio
City of San Jose Councilmember
Roads Commissioner
Roads Commissioner
VTA Board Member
County of Santa Clara
County of Santa Clara
Vice Mayor
Alternates
Matthew Dean
Richard Lowenthal
Craig Gartman
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
City of Campbell
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
John Moss
Jose Esteves
Greg Sellers
Mayor Pro Tern
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Los Altos
City of Milpitas
City of Morgan Hill
Matt Pear
Linda J. LeZotte
John L. McLemore
Vice Mayor
Councilmember
Councilmember
City of Mountain View
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Nick Streit
Jack Walker
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
South County PAB Guest Member
Former PAB Members
Jim Lawson
Henry Manayan
Forrest Williams
Former Councilmember
Former Mayor
Councilmember
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas
City of San Jose
Comprehensive County Expressway
Planning Study
Proposed Final
Implennentation Plan
County of Sonto Clara
Roods and Airports Department
101 Skyp>ort Drive
Son Jose. CA 95110
August 19, 2003
Table Of Contents
Section
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
Page
ES-1
Expressway Study Process
ES-2
Expressway System Overview
ES-2
Capital Improvement Program
ES-5
Maintenance & Operations
ES-14
Funding Strategy
ES-15
Next Steps
ES-17
Introduction
1
Description of Expressway System
2
Previous Expressway Planning Efforts
3
Expressway Study Process
5
Organization of Document
9
Expressway System Characteristics and Needs
13
Expressway System Characteristics
14
Expressway System Needs
19
Potential Expansion of the System
23
Expressway Vision Statements
26
Capacity and Operational Improvement Element
29
Recommended Improvements
29
Systemwide Results
32
Systemwide Prioritization
35
Tier 1A Effectiveness
45
Implementation Strategies
47
Signals and Traffic Operations System (TOS) Element
49
Current Traffic Signal Synchronization Practice
50
Traffic Operations System Program
50
Recommended Signal Operations/TOS Projects
52
Inter-Agency Signal Coordination
57
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Section
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Page
High-Occupancy Vehicle(MOV)System Element
Expressway HOV System Overview
63
Evaluating HOV Lane Performance
64
New HOV Facilities
69
Project Recommendations
70
Bicycle Element
75
Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines
76
Bicycle Improvement Projects
77
Bicycle Travel Area Maintenance
83
Bike Lane Designation Process
84
Pedestrian Element
87
Pedestrian Facilities Along the Expressways
87
Expressway Pedestrian Crossings
94
Cost Summary
98
Finishing Program Element
101
Sound Walls
101
Landscaping
110
Street Lighting
113
Finishing Program Implementation Strategies
114
Maintenance and Operations Element
117
Current Practices
117
Recommended Levels of Effort
120
Funding Strategy
123
Expressway Capital and Maintenance/Operations Needs
124
Existing and Potential Funding Sources
127
New Revenue Sources
138
Implementation Plan Funding Strategy
141
Implementation Plan Next Steps and Updates
145
Next Steps
145
Interim Plan Update
146
Triennial Plan Updates
147
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Appendix
A
Glossary of Terms
B
Summary of Recommendations by Expressway
C
Summary of Plan Endorsements
Figures
Fage
ES-l
Santa Clara County Expressway System
ES-6
ES-2
Corridor Level of Service for No Project
ES-10
ES-3
Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
ES-11
1-1
Santa Clara County Expressway System
2-1
LOS Intersections
20
2-2
Proportion of Service
27
3-1
Capacity/Operational I mprovements
31
3-2a
Corridor Level of Service for No Project
32
3-2b
Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
33
3-3
Corridor Level of Service for Tier 1A
46
4-1
Current Traffic Signal Coordination Grouping
51
5-1
HOV System Recommendations
62
6-1
Bicycle Facility Improvements
78
7-1
Pedestrian Improvements
90
8-1
Sound Wall Improvements
104
Tables
3
Page
ES-1
Roadway Projects Tier Summary
ES-7
ES-2
Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
ES-6
ES-3
Other Capital Improvements
ES-13
ES-4
Recommended Maintenance/Operations levels of Effort
ES-14
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Tables
Page
1-1
Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process
1-2
Additional Reports Available
10
2-1
Expressway Characteristics
15
2-2
Transit Services Using Expressways
17
2-3
Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway(2001 & 2025)
21
2-4
Expressway Vision Statements
27
3-1
Criteria of Tier Assignment
36
3-2
Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
37
3-3
Summary of Tier Results
44
4-1
Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary
53
5-1
Existing Expressway HOV Lanes
63
5-2
HOV Lane Performance Measures
65
5-3
Summary of HOV Lane Performance by Expressway
Existing Conditions for Peak Direction of Travel
iv
6
67
5-4
Expressway HOV Lane Travel Time Comparison
68
6-1
Bicycle Improvement Projects
81
7-1
New Sidewalks
91
7-2
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
95
7-3
Pedestrian Improvement Cost Summary by Improvement Category
99
7-4
Pedestrian Improvement Costs Included in Roadway Projects
99
8-1
Sound Wall Improvement Projects
105
9-1
Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort
118
9-2
Maintenance and Operations Annual Costs
121
10-1
Capital Program Needs
124
10-2
Capital Program Local Match Requirements
126
10-3
Maintenance and Operations Needs
126
10-4
VTP 2020 Capital Funding Programs
130
10-5
Expressway Maintenance and Operating Revenue
134
10-6
Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources
137
10-7
New Funding Sources To Consider
140
Table of Contents
Photos for Executive Summary to be placed here
Executive Summary
The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study was undertaken to provide a longterm plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. The
study took almost two years to complete and culminated in the development of the
Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan provides a basis for and guides the
investment of money and other resources in the expressways. The plan:
v
Projects conditions and evaluates need over a 30-year timeframe to be compatible
with other regional planning documents and to provide a long-term perspective on
expressways needs.
v
Identifies capital project improvement needs ranging from short sidewalk segments
to extensive expressway segment improvements to freeway interchange
reconstruction.
v
Identifies maintenance and operational improvement needs varying from signal
coordination expansion to enhanced street sweeping intervals to infrastructure
replacement.
v
Provides immediately useful information by including recommendations for
improvements to signal timing plans and modifications to high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane operations, and by recommending design guidelines for bicycle
accommodation on the expressways.
v
Relates project benefits and potential for delivery to priorities expressed through a
tier structure, with the highest priority Tierl A roadway projects expected to be
funded through existing revenue sources.
v
Proposes a funding strategy to achieve plan implementation.
v
Considers roadway improvement needs in South County, where Gilroy is
constructing Santa Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards.
Expressway Study Process
A collaborative planning process was used during the study to ensure the local cities and
their residents would support the Implementation Plan. The foundation for the collaborative
process was a solid technical analysis process. The study collected traffic data and provided
analysis of existing conditions; projected 2025 traffic conditions; developed conceptual
improvement strategies and designs; and used experts for block-by-block evaluation of study
elements for pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall needs and proposed improvements.
Study progress and direction was monitored and guided by a Policy Advisory Board (PAB).
PAB membership consisted of two county supervisors, one council member each from
twelve cities, two VTA board members, and two members of the County Roads Commission.
The PAB met as a whole every two to three months to discuss study and systemwide issues
and met twice in small groups to discuss issues and recommendations for individual
expressways. County Supervisor james T. Beall, Jr., a leading advocate of the Expressway
Study, served as the chair of the PAB.
A Technical Working Group(TWO) provided review and input to both study staff and the
PAB. The TWO members included staff from twelve cities, Caltrans, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTO, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
TWO meetings occurred every one to two months to prepare for PAB meetings, address
specific issues, and achieve technical and administrative consensus.
Expressway System Overview
The expressways were designed to relieve local streets and supplement the freeway system.
In addition to single-occupant automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, carpools, and transit use
the expressways. Key statistics about the system include:
8 expressways, 5 of which have HOV lanes
62 centerline miles of expressway, traveling through 11 cities
134 signalized intersections, 55 bridges, and 150,000 feet of existing sound walls
1.5 million vehicles use expressways daily
ES-2
Executive Summary
v 55% of Santa Clara County residents use an expressway daily (based on 2001
telephone survey)
Key findings about expressway characteristics and traffic conditions include:
v
The highest use expressways are Capitol, Lawrence, and Montague with 280,000 to
300,000 daily users. San Tomas is close behind at 220,000. Central, Foothill, and
Almaden are in the mid-range (110,000 to 150,000) and Oregon-Page Mill is the
lowest used expressway at 50,000.
v
The posted speed limit is 45 or 50 miles per hour (mph)for all but Oregon-Page
Mill Expressway. However, due to congestion and signal wait times, the average
speed during commute hours is generally much lower. Montague and Lawrence
experience the lowest average speeds (12 and 17 mph, respectively) due to high
demand, limited capacity, and the resulting congestion levels.
v
Residential land uses, mixed with some commercial, are predominant along three of
the expressways while one expressway is surrounded mostly by industrial uses. The
remaining four expressways serve a fairly equal mix of residential/commercial and
industrial land uses.
v
Almaden, Capitol, Lawrence, Montague, and San Tomas users expressed the
greatest dissatisfaction with congestions levels (over 70% of surveyed respondents),
while Foothill and Central were seen as less of a congestion problem (around 55%),
and Oregon-Page Mill fell in the middle (617o). (2001 telephone survey)
v Out of the 134 signalized intersections, 30 intersections were operating at level of
service (LOS) F in 2001. The number of LOS F intersections is projected to increase
to 50 by 2025. San Tomas has the highest number of existing LOS F intersections (9
intersections) with Montague close behind (8). Lawrence and San Tomas tied for
the highest number of 2025 LOS F intersections (12 each).
v
Montague Expressway currently operates at LOS F corridor-wide and portions of
Capitol and Central expressways are expected to degrade to corridor LOS F
conditions by 2025.
Executive Summary
ES-3
Expansion of the Expressway System
Almaden Expressway - Almaden will eventually be extended to Bailey Avenue. The timing
of the extension will be determined by San Jose land use decisions with the likely trigger
being development of Coyote Valley.
South County - The City of Gilroy is constructing Santa Teresa Boulevard to expressway
standards. The City of Morgan Hill does not support having expressways within Morgan
Hill. The PAB South County representatives arrived at a consensus that a regional
transportation plan is needed for the South County area. The "South County Circulation
Study" will be managed by VTA and will involve the County, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San
Jose. The results of this study will help facilitate the decision making about whether Santa
Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy should be part of the County's expressway system.
Expressway Vision Statements
A key finding from the data gathering and city/community outreach is that each expressway
has its own unique character, function, and community relationship. Therefore, the ultimate
build-out of each expressway must vary to meet community needs. To guide the expressway
plans, a vision was developed for each expressway, through a collaborative process
involving the cities, TWG,and PAB.
ES-4
Executive Summary
Capital Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Program includes roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, sound wall, and
landscaping improvements.
Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements
Seventy-two (72) roadway improvement projects are identified for the expressway system.
Figure ES-1 illustrates the following types of projects:
Capac/ty Projects - Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or
reconfigured interchanges/grade separations.
Operational and Safety Improvements - Auxiliary lanes, median/access closures, and bridge
replacements.
Signal Operational Improvements - Traffic Operations System (TOS)equipment using
advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated
equipment, and expanded coordination with city signal systems.
In addition to the projects shown in Figure ES-1, the roadway Capital Improvement Program
includes:
HOV System Projects - Improves effectiveness of HOV system. Includes adding one new
HOV lane segment, removing HOV lanes experiencing operational problems, and adding
expressway-freeway HOV direct connector ramps.
Roadway Improvements Costs and Priorities
The total cost for the roadway improvement capital program is $1.64 to 1.94 billion. To
determine priorities for funding and implementation, the roadway projects were divided into
tiers using specific criteria. Table ES-1 summarizes the tiers.
Executive Summary
ES-5
Figure ES-1: Santa Clara County Expressway System
T«ii«nDr^^
•MHwoMAvj^
'"tt
*\
llMdJM m
X
HorvoeS
a Lj<ihw»c< Dv
BiioU*y8i
HCioinA
(.RT Study
\
•Montl
GeMxSUMOr
teefewn *<•
awmCrwft
CMrt
■SSimSii
l*eorwt*#e
lot Comckx Stud
/
\
\
Leg€nd
C yCorridor Operational Improvement
■MweSegmeni Widening
Funded Widening
■Ma>^>erational/Safety Widening
• Signalized Intersections
e Timing Project
•
RHedian/Street Closure
e
Funded Improvement
itemM
Cmi
Cmfnla
Ctany*!*
UNBMRm
USORRaM
CahflMlW
• At-grade Improvement
Grade Separation/Interchange
■ Freeway Interchange Improvement
■ Operational/Safety Improvement
CmMaAm
South County
CtrcuUtion ^dy
TMMdOr
X
ES-6
Executive Summary
Table ES-1: Roadway Projects Tier Summary
Tier
1A
IB
Tier Criteria
Improves 2001 LOS F intersections,
provides operational improvements, or
conducts key feasibility studies
# of Projects
Capital Cost
(millions)
28
$149-151
7
$261-271
13
$49-53
Provides other expressway capacity
improvements or new technologies
15
$585-671
Reconstructs major existing facilities or
9
$593-795
72
$1,637-1,941
Constructs Interchanges at 2001 LOS F
intersections
1C
Improves 2025 projected LOS F
intersections
2
3
constructs new facilities
Totals
Consistent with the long-term view and expressway vision statements, the plan Includes
some large-scale improvement projects. While proceeding with the projects now is not
economically feasible, the plan does allow for progress by recommending early feasibility
studies to better quantify project benefits, costs, and impacts. The plan also emphasizes
flexibility and the needs for continued close coordination with the cities and neighborhood
outreach when project funds are actually in place.
The 28 projects in Tier 1A address the top priorities for each expressway and improve most
of the current LOS and operational problem areas for a total cost of $150 million. These
low<ost improvements can be delivered relatively quickly once funds are secured. Table
ES-2 lists the Tier lA projects.
Executive Summary
ES-7
Table ES-2 Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expressway
Project Description
(When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community
outreach as appropriate. Project description may be changed based on the results ofthese activities.)
Cost
(millions)
Widen to 8 lanes tietween Coleman and Blossom Hill including an additional left-turn lane from SB
Almaden to Coleman and from EB and WB Coleman to Almaden, and a right-turn lane from WB
Coleman to N6 Almaden: a 4th SB and NB through lane on Almaden at Via Monte; and an additional
eft-turn (a total of three)from SB Almaden to EB Blossom Hill and an additicmal SB through lane at
$6-8
Blossom Hill intersection
Almaden
nitiate a Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)/Pro]ect Development Study(PDS)to reconfigure SR
85/Almaden interchange
Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Almaden: widen SB Almaden to provide a 5th
ane iDetween the Best Buy driveway and SB loop on-ramp serving as auxiliary lane for weaving
$0.25
$2
vehicles; widen SB SR 85 off-ramp to add a third left-turn; provide an additional EB approach lane
resulting in two left-turn, one through/right shared, and two right-turn lanes
Central
Widen t>etween Mary and Lawrence to provide auxiliary and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes to
mprove ramp operations and safety
$13
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways without HOV lane operations
$10
Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas and De La Cruz to mixed flow and
remove the HOV queue jump lanes at Scott, if unsuccessful after a 3 to 5-year trial period
Signal operational improvements between Edith and El Monte including adjacent side street
$15
intersections and at Grant/St. Joseph
Foothill
Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio by 250 feet
$0.5
Replace Loyola Bridge (This improvement prefect will also provide necessary bicycle and pedestrian
$10
facilities, and channelization and operational improvements at adjacent intersections.)
Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Avenue comdor including Lawrence/Prospect,
Lawrence/Saratoga, Saratoga/Prospect, and Saratoga/Cox intersections
Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and south of Calvert with additional WB through lane at
Moorpark
Lawrence
Coordinate and optimize signal phasing and timing plans at l-280/Lawrence interchange area
including City of Santa Clara signals along Stevens Creek and County's signal at Lawrence/Calvert/I-
$0.1
$4
$0.1
280 SB ramp
Prepare Caltrans PSR for Tier 1C project at the Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 interchange area
$0.5
Close median at Lochinvar and right-in-and-out access at DeSoto, Golden State, Granada, Buckley,
and St- Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
Convert HOV to mixed-flow lanes between US 101 and EIko due to high violation rates & operational
problems
ES-8
$0.1
$0.5
$0.1
Executive Summary
Table ES-2 Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Project Description
(When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community
outreach as appropriate. Project description may be changed based on the results of these activities.)
Expressway
Convert HOV lanes on 6-lane facility to mixed-flow use between 1-880 and 1-680 due to operational
and safety problems
Montague
Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening and 1-880 par-cio interchange with at-grade
improvements at Lick Mill, Plumeria/Rlver Oaks, Main/Old Oakland, and McCandless/Trade Zone;
Cost
(millions)
$0.1
$38.5
designate new lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 as HOV for a 3 to 5-year trial period
l-ZOO/Page Mill Interchange modification: remove SB loop on-ramp and construct SB diagonal onramp with signal operations; signalize NB off-ramp intersection; and provide proper channelization for
$5
pedestrians and bicycles
Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
$0.25
Oregon corridor Improvements:
OregonPage Mill
•
Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding impacts on safety at unsignallzed
intersections
•
•
•
Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections
Study operational changes at the unsignallzed Intersections at Waverley, Ross, and Indian that
avoid increasing traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets, enhance bicycle and pedestrian
safety, and maintain vehicle safety
Conduct feasibility study of adding turn lane at MIddlefleld Road and converting to 8-phase
signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-of-way
$5
At grade Improvements at SR 17/San Tomas:
San Tomas
•
Restripe the E6 through lane on White Oaks to provide an optional left as 3rd left-turn lane
•
Provide second right-turn lane on SB off-ramp
•
Study potential operational & safety Improvements in the interchange area
Provide a 2nd left-turn lane from EB and WB Hamilton to San Tomas and a 2nd left-turn lane from NB
San Tomas to WB Hamilton
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real with additional left-turn lane from EB and WB
El Camino Real to San Tomas
Signals/
Projects
$2
$28
Provide an additional right-turn lane from WB Monroe to NB San Tomas
$1
Traffic information outlets such as electronic Information signs, advisory radio, cable TV feeds, and a
$5
install equipment to coordinate expressway signals with city signals on perpendicular streets
$10
Install equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos traffic signal
$2.5
web page
TOS Capital
$2
Interconnect systems
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
$0.5
Total Tier 1A
Executive Summary
148.5 -150.5
ES-9
Figure ES-2: Corridor Level of Service for No Project
V
isScot
BMtfiSr
Sar«09si
ISoemMli k
aofcwftd
Uso'oarti Am
9
s
%
oswa H4
«tnaa Am
Legend
O Existing LOS F
irSdftMve
Ctf«vAy«
• 2025 LOS F
^■LOS A-C Corridors
■■fLOS D Corridors
SRWWOM
LOS E Corridors
^■LOS F Corridors
%
Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements
Figures ES-2 and ES-3 illustrate the LOS benefits of the recommended capacity and
operational improvements for the planning year 2025. Figure ES-2 indicates projected
corridor LOS and Intersection LOS F locations in 2025 if no improvements are made. Figure
ES-3 indicates 2025 LOS conditions with full implementation of all recommendations. Key
findings include:
ES-10
Executive Summary
Figure ES-3: Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
Sludy tof mi
^^VSaryM
TiAfto
ajmov w
0^
Legend
■■LOS A-C Corridors
■■LOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
IHLOS F Corridors
•
LOS F intersections
v 6 of the 8 expressways would operate at corridor LOS D or better.
v
Montague Expressway would have LOS E and F corridor segments but queuing and
overall delay would be reduced significantly over existing levels.
v
Capitol Expressway may have LOS E or F segments northeast of US 101; however, a
light rail line is planned for this expressway providing a travel alternative.
v
28 existing LOS F intersections and 43 projected 2025 LOS F intersections would be
improved to at least LOS E, with most improved to LOS D or better.
v The Tier lA list of projects improves 18 existing and 24 projected 2025 LOS F
intersections.
Executive Summary
ES-11
Other Capital Improvements
Bicycle Projects - Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways. Bicycle improvement
recommendations were identified based on bringing all expressways into compliance with
the Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG). The BAG includes guidelines on bicycle
travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections, maintenance, and several other design
treatments. Specific capital projects identified include striping improvements and shoulder
widening.
Pedestrian Facilities - A pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the entire length
of each expressway. Recommended pedestrian improvements for traveling along the
expressways vary along sections of the expressways based on physical conditions, pedestrian
needs, fronting land use, and community development plans. New sidewalks are
recommended to close gaps in otherwise continuous sidewalks, to access transit stops, and
to provide access to land uses fronting on the expressways. Recommendations also include
improved connections and directional signage to parallel pedestrian facilities, such as trails
and frontage roads.
For expressway crossing needs, high-demand crossing locations were identified for potential
crossing enhancements ranging from reconfiguring intersections to make them more
pedestrian-friendly to installing pedestrian countdown timers and pedestrian ramps. Two
new pedestrian overcrossings(POCs) are also recommended - one on Almaden near
Coleman Road and one on San Tomas near Latimer Avenue.
Finishing Program: Sound Walls - An assessment of sound wall needs was conducted
according to the guidelines of Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Overall, the plan recommends 63,5(X)feet of new sound walls and replacing 36,000 feet of
existing walls with higher walls. The plan also acknowledges that sound walls are not
always the preferred method of noise abatement for the local community and recommends
that the preferred level and type of noise abatement (including sound wall height) be based
on noise analysis, community outreach, and city coordination when funding is available.
Finishing Program: Landscaping - The following level of landscaping is recommended for
the expressways: trees and limited shrubs; median finishes, such as decomposed granite;
sound walls covered with vines; and, automated irrigation system. However, the plan also
ES-12
Executive Summary
recommends continuing with the County's current landscaping policy to not install new
landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining it.
Table ES-3 summarizes the costs for these recommended capital improvements by
expressway.
Table ES-3: Other Capital Improvements
Sound Wall/
Bicycle
(millions)
Pedestrian
Almaden
$0.40
$6.35
$5.60
$12.35
Capitol'
$0.20
$3.83
$3.74
$7.77
$2.67
$5.10
$7.77
$0.50
$0.45
$8.84
$9.79
Lawrence
-(2)
$2.81
$3.59
$6.40
Montague
_(3)
$0.4013}
$2.06
$2.46
$1.20
$5.70
$6.90
$13,09
$18.83
Expressway
Central
FooWiill
(millions)
~
Oregon-Page Mill
;
San Tomas
$0.45
$5.29
Systemwide
$0.10
$0.20
Improvements
(millions)
1
$0.30
1
Landscaping
Installation
Expressway Total
(millions)
Noise Abatement
$21.00
1
System Total
Part of Roadway Projects
Net AddKional Cost
$93.57
$18.14
$75.43
Notes:
{1} Bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wali needs for Capitoi between Nieman and Story will be determined by
WA's light rail project.
(2) Bicycle improvement needs for Lawrence will be completed as part of the 2003 pavement resurfacing
project.
(3) The 8-lane widening for Montage includes all bicycle improvements and sidewalks.
(4) Roadway capacity/operational projects include pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall improvements within
project limits-
Executive Summary
ES-13
Maintenance & Operations
Maintenance and operations include all activities and materials necessary to keep the
expressways functioning and looking presentable. Based on comments received from the
public, cities, and policymakers, the overall goal for expressway maintenance and operations
OC
can be summed up as: 'The expressways should be cleaner andCOgreener with smooth
pavement and synchronized signals."
The County's current practices are limited by available revenue. However,to meet the
desired goal, the plan recommends levels of effort comparable to the cities' current practices.
Table ES-4 lists the estimated costs for the recommend«J levels of effort:
Table ES-4: Recommended
Maintenance/Operations Levels of Effort
Annual
Category
Operating Cost
(millions)
Signal Operations/TOS
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscape Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
Infrastructure Replacement
(all types)
$6.6
All Other
$1.5
Total
ES-14
$18.0
Executive Summary
Funding Strategy
The Implementation Plan has laid out a comprehensive program for the improvement and
maintenance of the expressways over the next 30 years. The plan identifies a total capital
program approaching $2 billion as well as needs of $18 million annually for maintenance
and operations. In addition, delivery of the entire capital program would require $11.4 13.5 million in annualized matching funds, assuming the projects are subject to VTA's 20%
local match requirements. Funding such a program requires both aggressively pursuing
existing revenue sources and finding new revenue sources.
Capital Improvements Fund Sources
The primary funding sources for the capital improvement program are federal and state
grants. These grants are allocated through VTA's Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020.
Currently, out of a $2 billion roadway funding program, VTP 2020 allocates $80 million for
expressways. VTP 2020 also includes competitive grant programs for bicycle, pedestrian,
TOS, and sound wall improvements.
The County remains financially challenged to provide a significant local match for
expressway projects given that existing roadway revenue sources are needed for
maintenance and operations. The most significant existing and potential source of local
match funds are developer traffic impact fees. The County cannot directly collect developer
traffic impact fees in the incorporated city areas through which the expressways run.
Developer contributions are determined and collected by the cities. It is unlikely that even
an aggressive impact fee program pursued by all cities would raise enough funds for the full
20% local match for every project given the magnitude of the needs and the limited
development opportunities along many of the expressways.
Maintenance and Operations Fund Sources
The only continuous sources of expressway maintenance and operating funds are the
County's share of the state gas tax and future Proposition 42 (sales tax on gas tax) funds.
These funds must be divided among the expressways and the 635 miles of county
unincorporated roads. The predictable sustainable revenue available for expressway
Executive Summary
ES-15
maintenance/operations ranges from $5.2 million in 2003 to $7.9 million in 2009 when
Proposition 42 funds begin. If enacted, current state and federal proposals to index gas taxes
for inflation would provide some additional revenue and would help sustain current levels of
effort since the gas tax does not currently keep pace with increased costs due to inflation and
higher traffic demand.
Supplementing the gas tax revenues are landscape maintenance agreements where cities and
private developers pay for routine landscaping maintenance. There are also occasional one
time funding sources, most notably for pavement maintenance. The current expressway
pavement resurfacing projects are funded through the Measure B sales tax program. VTP
2020 also provides pavement management grants. These special funding sources cannot be
counted on to be available for scheduled routine maintenance necessary to extend pavement
life.
Funding Strategi; Recommendations
Taking into consideration all the existing, potential, and possible new funding sources, a
funding strategy has been developed addressing each major area of need. Key
recommendations from that funding strategy include the following:
v
As part of the VTP 2020 update process, request that VTA increase the expressway
allocation from $80 million to at least $150 million to allow full implementation of
Tier lA projects. Tier 1A roadway projects have highest priority for VTP 2020
Expressway Program funding allocations.
v Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating
needs and the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program
local match requirements.
v
Resolve the expressway local match issue during VTA's VTP 2020 update process,
especially if a new funding source cannot be secured. Strategies include continuing
to work with the cities to secure developer impact fees where appropriate,
exchanging federal/state funds for local funds with no match requirements, and
using other non-county sources as match.
ES-16
Executive Summary
v
Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigations, and expressway
pedestrian, sound wall, and landscaping improvements through land development
approval processes.
v
Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as
pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and TOS projects.
Next Steps
The Implementation Plan will be submitted to VTA for inclusion in the VTP 2020 2003/04
update. It is anticipated that the VTP 2020 update will incorporate all projects and priorities
as identified In the plan. The VTP 2020 update will also determine the amount of federal
and state funding that will be allocated to the expressway program over the next 30 years.
Based on key recommendations in the Implementation Plan, there are several activities and
improvements for the County to pursue in the near term that do not require large financial
outlays, including:
v
Participate in the development of the South County Circulation Study.
v Implement new signal timing plans developed as part of the Expressway Study.
v
Conduct the environmental review for converting the Lawrence HOV lane north of
US 101 and the Montague HOV lanes east of 1-880 to mixed-flow lanes.
v
Update County policies regarding bicycle and pedestrian access on the expressways
to be consistent with the plan.
v
Work closely with VTA and the cities to pursue the Implementation Plan funding
strategy.
The County will update the Implementation Plan every three years in conjunction with the
triennial updates of VTP 2020 to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions. In
addition, an interim update will be prepared in 2004 if VTA does not fully fund the Tier 1A
list of roadway projects in the VTP 2020 2003/04 update. This interim update will focus on
using the plan's collaborative process to establish Tier 1A priorities.
Executive Summary
ES-17
Photos for Section 1 to be placed here.
ES-18
Executive Summary
Section One
Introduction
In September 2001, the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department began work
on the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study. The study's purpose was to
provide a long-range plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressways in Santa
Clara County. It took almost two years to complete and culminated in the development of
the Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan details the policies, improvement recommendations, priorities, and
funding strategy for the expressway system. It is comprehensive and considers the needs of
each expressway and the expressway system as a whole. Specific areas addressed in the
plan include:
v Capital improvement program - consists of roadway, signal system enhancements,
high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)facilities, bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and
sound wall projects. Project lists vary from short sidewalk segments to extensive
expressway segment improvements to freeway interchange reconstruction. The
projects include both capacity needs and operational/safety improvements.
v
Maintenance and operations- identifies all activities and materials necessary to keep
the expressways functioning and looking presentable. Improvements vary from
signal coordination expansion to enhanced street sweeping intervals to pavement
maintenance to infrastructure replacement.
v
Funding strategy - summarizes the costs of the recommendations included in the
plan and describes existing, potential, and new funding sources for funding these
recommendations. A list of funding strategies to pursue are recommended.
v
Roadway improvement needs in South County, where Cllroy is constructing Santa
Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards, were also considered during the study
and the Implementation Plan includes a recommendation for a separate South
County circulation study.
Description Of Expressway System
There are eight expressways operated by Santa Clara County: Almaden, Capitol, Central,
Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, Oregon-Page Mill, and San Tomas (see Figure 1-1).
Southwest Expressway was never part of the county system and is maintained as a city street.
Santa Teresa Boulevard was originally planned to be a continuous expressway between
South San jose and Highway 101 south of Gilroy, but much of the alignment has been
relinquished or annexed into San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy as those cities have grown
and established their own circulation plans. The portion of Capitol Expressway between
Almaden Expressway and State Route (SR) 85 was relinquished to San Jose as part of an auto
dealer assessment district improvement plan.
The eight expressways provide significant capacity for local trips, with 1.5 million vehicle
trips made on a daily basis. In a 2001 survey of county residents, 55% reported using an
expressway on a daily basis. While providing for intracity trips (Almaden and Capitol are
entirely within San Jose; Oregon-Page Mill is mostly within Palo Alto), the expressways are
also important intercity facilities. Montague-San Tomas connects Milpitas to Campbell and
terminates near Los Gatos; Central connects Palo Alto to San Jose; and, Lawrence connects
Sunnyvale to Saratoga. Sixty-two (62) centerline miles in length, the expressways provide a
vital connection among residential areas, industrial centers, and commercial districts.
Section 1 Introduction
Figure 1-1: Santa Clara County Expressway System
m
// A A
W
1 L
Oa
.
d \
®s 9
*
--—■ -
/
I
*\
II Ne
*»&»/
CXATM
0»y
9
SctAlM
Mr*
ft««4Aw
M«Ta*a
V.
Canvw %W
- /
CbWw®® Aw
-
-
- IWnWvfW
' (
smtm
om*i»
HQ'mmM
L«n^
ammAm
►wWWfl %■
6M»a
eweeje W
Qytl m
rwiU
CMAOr
,->
<> ,
SCipMIMt V _
BaMOASt
Mpa«
1 11
o'V>>K
'
talCW*M
■ ni
'
MMMl Aw
^j8Q^Ft«w
UesVnv
i*ens Al
CtofsM
Sf»ff7NSOIUw
%
Aewemd
\
\
KttMf
^«Aaaf*q>Av*
CWlvAw
rrsa
SAAArr,«QA
'/
L
Ha M
V .
Legend
•
Signalized intersections
>
k
V
/
t-.
\>rusa*io»
\
J9
hm*mu u
CMn>AM
SKassac*
y«
/'"-f'--1
t*.»—
V» IMrH *)«
Ci—wfi a«
•":.
y
>■''
Previous Expressway Planning Efforts
The origin of the expressways dates back to 1956, when the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors initiated a study to define transportation needs for the county. The January 1959
Trafficways Plan for Santa Clara County concluded that the existing highways would not be
able to handle projected vehicular traffic and recommended constructing various facilities,
including the expressway system. To build the expressways, a $70 million bond proposal
was put to the voters and approved on March 28, 1961. As a result, the County of Santa
Clara became the only county In the state to operate a high capacity roadway system through
incorporated city areas.
Section 1 Introduction
The bond money allowed substantial work to proceed on the expressways, but skyrocketing
property values reduced the program's purchasing power, and a Phase 2 funding proposal
fell through. Ultimately, the existing system was built out by supplementing the program
with federal revenues, by not obtaining full access control in some cases, and by not
pursuing some expressway alignments (Hillsdale, for example).
Significant efforts were made to update expressway plans in 1971 (Future Width Line Study)
and 1986 (Transportation 2000 or ''T2000''). Most of T2000's highest priority, short-term
expressway projects have been implemented. However, the long-range elements, especially
the interchange projects, are no closer to construction than they were in 1986. The
intersection problem areas identified in the T2000 study are essentially the same areas that
are experiencing problems today. However, conditions and city plans have changed since
T2000 making some of the T2000 recommendations unnecessary or impractical.
The need for a new comprehensive study of the expressway system became apparent during
development of the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020, adopted in 2000 by the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The T2000 expressway recommendations were
dated. In response to a general call for projects conducted as part of VTP 2020, the cities
and County submitted over $940 million worth of expressway projects. Some of these
projects conflicted with another jurisdiction's preferences, some would have major impacts
to surrounding neighborhoods, and some would just shift congestion to other expressway
locations. What was lacking was a comprehensive approach to identifying, analyzing, and
developing consensus on a list of expressway improvement projects.
VTP 2020's expenditure plan, therefore, allocated funding only to projects on Central and
Montague Expressways which were considered to have well defined scope. VTP 2020 also
recommended that each expressway be studied, similar to the 1999 Montague Expressway
Study, to determine improvement needs and priorities for that expressway. The County
Board of Supervisors, however, determined that a more comprehensive study was necessary
to identify the full range of needs on all expressways and to set priorities in the context of
systemwide needs. Consequently, an agreement was reached for the County to conduct the
Expressway Study using a planning grant from VTA.
Section 1 Introduction
Expressway Study Process
The Expressway Study proceeded in two major phases. The first phase identified needs and
resulted in individual expressway vision statements. In Phase 2, improvement strategies
were developed and evolved into the Implementation Plan.
A collaborative planning process was used during the study to ensure the local cities and
their residents would support the Implementation Plan. The foundation for the collaborative
process was a solid technical analysis process. The study collected traffic data and provided
analysis of existing conditions; projected 2025 traffic conditions; developed conceptual
improvement strategies and designs; and used experts for block-by-block evaluation of study
elements for pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall needs and proposed improvements.
City and Community Participation
Study progress and direction was monitored and guided by a Policy Advisory Board (PAB).
PAB membership consisted of two county supervisors, one council member each from
twelve cities, two VTA board members, and two members of the County Roads Commission.
The PAB met as a whole every two to three months to discuss study and systemwide issues
and met twice in small groups to discuss issues and recommendations for individual
expressways. County Supervisor James T. Beall, Jr., a leading advocate of the Expressway
Study, served as the chair of the PAB.
A Technical Working Group(TWG) provided review and input to both study staff and the
PAB. The TWG members included staff from twelve cities, Caltrans, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTQ,and VTA. TWG meetings occurred every one to two
months to prepare for PAB meetings, address specific issues, and achieve technical and
administrative consensus.
Table 1-1 summarizes the study process by time period, activity, and purpose. Also shown
are the community outreach activities, including telephone surveys, various neighborhood
and business community meetings, and a project open house. Throughout the project, there
was a project website with a link for public comment and a project telephone hotline.
Comments received were summarized, made available to the PAB, and posted at the
website.
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-1: Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process
Activity
Time Period
Sept.- Nov. 2001
Nov. 2001 - Jan. 2002
Dec. 2001
Purpose
2 TWG meetings:
Present and receive comments on Study's draft work
Met wi&i VTA committees
scope
Interviewed staff from 13 cities, VTA,
Caltrans, and CHR
expressways
Telephone survey #1
Ga^er city/agency input on key issues related to the
Determine public opinions about and usage of
expressways
Jan - Mar. 2002
2 PAB meetings and 2 TWG meetings
Discuss current and projected traffic conditions,
other technical information, and city/community input
received
Feb.-Mar. 2002
5 project design meetings wi^ cities' staffs
Develop roadway improvement design concepts
Mar. 2002
PAB South County small group vwrkshop #1
Discuss South County's transportation needs
May - June 2002
4 PAB small group workshops
Discuss visions, potential improvements, and key
issues for each expressway
June 2002
PAB South County small group workshop #2
Develop consensus for a South County Circulation
Study
May-June 2002
1 PAB meeting and 2 TWG meetings
Discuss pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and
landscaping issues
Briefed 9 city councils and Boaid of
Review and comment on expressway visions and
potential improvements
July-Oct. 2002
Supervisors
Sept.-Oct. 2002
4 community meetings
Review and comment on expressway visions and
potential improvements
Sept.-Oct. 2002
1 PAB meeting and 1 TWG meeting
Discuss results of city/community outreach and
expressway funding needs and options
Oct.-Nov. 2002
4 PAB small group workshops and 4 TWG
Discuss recommendations and priorities for each
small group meetings
expressway
Nov. 2002
PAB South County small group vrorkshop #3
(part of VTA South County PAB meeting)
Present draft South County Working Paper
Nov. 2002
PAB Capitol small group joint workshop with
VTA Downtown East Valley PAB
Develop consensus on proposed vision for Capitol
Expressway
Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003
Met with 3 chambers of commerce
Receive comments on preliminary recommendations
and potential new funding sources
Jan. 2003
Telephone survey #2
Evaluate support for proposed improvements and
funding sources
Dec. 2002- Mar.
2003
2 PAB meetings and 4 TWG meetings
Discuss and approve elements of the Draft
Implementation Plan
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-1: Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process(continued)
Activity
Time Period
Mar. 2003
Board of Supervisors meeting
Purpose
Release Draft Implementation Plan for rewew and
comment
Mar.- Apr. 2003
Notified over 350 neighborhood
Invite comments on Draft Plan and offer to meet with
associations/community groups, the Cities'
their groups upon request
Association, and the NAIOP about the Draft
Plan's availability
Apr.-August 2003
Met with 10 city councils
Receive comments and request endorsement of
Draft Plan
Apr.- July 2003
Met with 3 community groups, 3 VTA advisory
committees, 1 chamtier of commerce, and
Receive comments on Draft Plan
SVMG
May 2003
Expressway Study Open House
May 2003
1 PAB meeting and 1 TWG meeting
Receive comments on Draft Plan
Approve revisions to Draft Plan and recommend
approval of proposed Final Plan by Board of
Supervisors
August 2003
Board of Supervisors meeting
Approve Final Plan for submlttal to VTA for Inclusion
in the VTP 2020 Update
Throughout Study
Attended 6 meetings of VTA/County BPAC
Receive input during development of the bicycle and
pedestrian elements
Throughout Study
Met with VTA staff frequently
Discuss specific issues related to the Study,
Including traffic modeling, South County, Capitol
Expressway, bicycle/pedestrian planning, and
transportation funding
Throughout Study
Met with community/business groups, city
staff, city committees, and PAB members
Discuss specific Issues related to the expressways,
including potential improvements, maintenance,
upon request
signal operations, funding strategies, traffic
modeling, and South County needs
Monthly
Attended County Roads Commission
Provide updates on the Study
meetings
Continuously
Maintained Study web site and telephone
hotline
BPAC = Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CHP = California Highway Patrol
NAIOP = National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
PAB = Policy Advisory Board
SVMG = Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group
TWG = Technical Working Group
VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VTP = Valley Transportation Plan
Section 1 Introduction
Provide Information and receive comments
Process Results
The collaborative planning process was well received and generated the following outcomes;
v
Agreement on solid foundation concepts such as the vision statement for each
expressway.
v
Strong consensus on project scope to satisfy service issues consistent with the
expressway vision statements.
v
Clear and two-way communication of desirable operating standards and
maintenance budget limitations.
v
Strengthened working relationships with all of the agencies involved.
Overall, the study has provided an educational experience for all participants. The lessons
learned included;
v
There was a shared desire among all participants that the expressways be "greener
and cleaner, with smooth maintained pavement and synchronized traffic signals.'
v
While there is a continuing emphasis on the benefits of signal system
enhancements, there is recognition that many expressway segments have or are
expected to exceed capacity, and signal timing efforts alone will not provide longterm service improvements.
v
Some previous long-range plan elements are no longer needed or inconsistent with
local preferences.
v
In some cases, different types of expressway improvements could conflict,
frequently due to limited right-of-way (e.g., sidewalk versus landscaping). Tradeoffs
must be made in the context of each expressway's particular conditions and local
preferences.
These lessons helped shape the approach to and recommendations included in the
Implementation Plan.
Section 1 Introduction
Organization Of Document
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan is organized into specific elements reflecting the
different types of improvements, needs, and transportation modes. Each element deals with
systemwide needs, listing recommendations for individual expressways as appropriate. The
plan also recognizes that there are inter-relationships between the elements. For example,
many of the elements have both capital and maintenance/operations needs or can adversely
affect one another, such as mature landscaping infringing on pedestrian and bicycle travel
areas.
The next section of the document (Section 2 "Expressway System Characteristics and Needs')
provides key information about the expressway system including current and projected traffic
conditions, specific characteristics of each expressway, description of transit services on the
expressways, system expansion and South County status, and each expressway's vision
statement.
Sections 3 to 9 detail recommendations for the seven elements: Capacity/Operational
Improvements, Signals/Traffic Operations System (TOS), High-Occupancy Vehicle(MOV)
System, Bicycle, Pedestrian, Finishing Program (sound walls and landscaping), and
Maintenance/Operations. Section 10 provides the funding strategy and Section 11 lists key
issues to be addressed in future plan updates. The document also includes two appendices:
Appendix A provides a glossary and Appendix B summarizes all element recommendations
by expressway.
During the study, a number of technical reports and memorandums were prepared covering
a full range of technical and collaborative planning details including traffic analysis, traffic
modeling, sound walls, pedestrian facilities, bicycle improvements, funding issues, and
community outreach findings. There are also supplemental formal reports available for more
information. Table 1-2 lists these reports.
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-2: Additional Reports Available
Report Title
Summary Brochure
South County Working Paper
Content
Summarizes the Expressway Study Implementation Plan
Documents the study's work and findings related to
expressway planning In South County
Bicycie Accommodation Guidelines(BAG)
Provides detail diagrams and guidelines for bicycie
treatments on expressways
Individual Expressway Reports:
Summarizes key information and all recommendations for
Almaden Expressway
each expressway
Capitol Expressway
Central Expressway
Foottiill Expressway
Lawrence Expressway
Montague Expressway
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
10
Section 1 Introduction
Photos for Section 2 to be placed Here
Section Two
Expressway System
Characteristics & Needs
To determine potential improvements for the expressways, it was necessary to document
current conditions and needs. This included technical research related to traffic conditions
and general operating characteristics of the expressways. It also involved collecting
information from users of the expressways and the cities/agencies served by the expressways.
This section summarizes the key findings from these efforts. It starts with an overview of the
expressway system providing key characteristics of each expressway. Needs are described
based on both traffic data and public opinion surveys, followed by findings related to
potential expansion of the expressway system. Concluding the section are the vision
statements that were developed for each expressway, reflecting that expressway's unique
characteristics and needs.
Expressway System Characteristics
The expressways were designed to relieve local streets and supplement the freeway system.
The expressway system consists of 8 expressways serving residents and employees in 11
cities and carrying 1.5 million vehicles daily. Table 2-1 lists key characteristics of each
expressway ranging from basic statistics such as length and number of users to presence of
high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes and surrounding land uses. Key findings include:
v
Length of each expressway varies from a high of 9.6 centerline miles for Central to a
low of 4.7 miles for Oregon-Page Mill.
v
Most of the expressways average from 2.1 to 2.6 signals per centerline mile.
Central and Foothill have fewer {1.5 to 1.8 signals/mile) reflecting Central's freeway
like segment through Sunnyvale and Foothill's wide spacing between cross streets.
The highest ratio is along Oregon-Page Mill (3.0 signals/mile) with the Oregon
segment having closely spaced signals.
v
The highest use expressways are Capitol, Lawrence, and Montague with 280,000 to
300,000 daily users. San Tomas is close behind at 220,000. Central, Foothill, and
Almaden are in the mid-range (110,000 to 150,000) and Oregon-Page Mill is the
lowest used expressway at 50,000.
v
The posted speed limit is 45 or 50 miles per hour(mph)for all but Oregon-Page
Mill Expressway. However, due to congestion and signal wait times, the average
speed during commute hours is generally much lower. Montague and Lawrence
experience the lowest average speeds(12 and 17 mph, respectively) due to high
demand, limited capacity, and the resulting congestion levels.
v
Residential land uses, mixed with some commercial, are predominant along three of
the expressways while one expressway is surrounded mostly by industrial uses. The
remaining four expressways serve a fairly equal mix of residential/commercial and
industrial land uses.
14
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
6.0
Montague
6-8
8.7
Lawrence
4
7.3
Foothill
9.6
Central
6-8
8,7
Capitol
4-8
8.5
Almaden
Lanes
Length
(miles)
Expressway
#of
Table 2-1: Expressway Characteristics
HOV Lanes
Signals
Speed
Limit
Average
Peak Hour
Speed *
Served
Users *
Cities
Daily
Major Surrounding
Land Uses
Predominately
residential with some
None
19
45
25
150,000
1
commercial in Blossom
Hill area and north of
Capitol
Capitol Ave.
4-6
to Silver
Predominately
18
45
24
300,000
1
residential mixed with
Residential with
Queue jump
commercial throughout
Creek
lanes at
17
45/50
27
110,000
5
commercial on west
end
Scott
end; industrial on east
Bovirers and
None
11
45
26
110,000
4
Residential with some
commercial
commercial on
Creek to
Residential with some
Stevens
Arques
23
50
17
280,000
5
Lakehaven to
southem and northern
ends; industrial in
center
Tasman
6-8
some residential and
College to
Mostly industrial with
Mission
McCarthy
13
45
12
290,000
3
commercial
Main to
Milpitas Blvd
Oregon-Page
Industrial along Page
Mill; residential along
...
62
Expressway
System
6-8
8.5
San Tomas
4
4.7
Mill
19
Budd to
Walsh
14
None
23
45
19
35/50
3
220,000
2
50,000
Oregon with
commercial near El
Camino Real
Residential with some
i
commerdal on
soutfiem end; industrial
on northern end
...
134
1.51
...
...
million
11
...
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
15
MulUmodal Uses
In addition to single-occupant automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, carpools, and transit use
the expressways. Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways with Foothill Expressway
in particular being a high-use bicycle facility. Pedestrians use the expressways for a variety
of reasons, with high pedestrian demand in some areas and only emergency/occasional use
in others. Carpools are supported on five of the expressways with HOV lanes. Additional
information about the use of these travel modes on the expressways can be found in the
Plan's Bicycle, Pedestrian, and HOV System Elements.
Transit services on expressways are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Valley
(VTA). VTA operates bus and shuttle services on the expressways and collects federal fixed
guideway funds where buses run in expressway HOV lanes. VTA has plans to extend light
rail transit (LRT) into the median of Capitol Expressway. There are also regional transit
services that use the expressway system, including one inter-county express bus service.
The County of Santa Clara, governed by the five-member, elected Board of Supervisors, is
responsible for improving, operating, and maintaining the expressway system. The VTA,
governed by the twelve-member, appointed Board of Directors, is responsible for planning,
funding, and operating transit services in the county, including on the expressways. In its
role as Congestion Management Agency(CMA), VTA also determines the apportionment of
discretionary transportation funding. Therefore, the Expressway Study does not make
recommendations related to the amount, routing, or funding of transit services; however, it
does include improvements to support transit services.
Table 2-2 provides a description of current and planned transit services using the
expressways. In summary, six of the expressways have a bus route or a combination of bus
routes that serve almost the entire length of the expressway. Buses on the remaining two
expressways only use small segments of the expressways. Many of the bus routes on the
expressways are limited stop or express routes providing a few trips each AM and PM
commute period rather than all-day service. In addition to the LRT planned for one
expressway, there are Caltrain and LRT stations located adjacent to five expressways.
16
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-2: Transit Services Using Expressways
r/)/s information is based on the transit services provided and/or planned as of June 2002 with some notation where appropriate about
proposed service cuts that may occur in 2004.
Expressway
Transit Services
•
Bus service is provided along almost the entire corridor with one bus route serving the area from Harry
Road to Coleman Road and a second route serving the area from Coleman Road to Lincoln Avenue.
Almaden
Capitol
Frequency of service ranges from 30 to 60 minutes.
•
Another line travels a short segment of Almaden from Via Vallente to Camden Avenue.
•
One bus route travels from SR 87 to Eastridge along Capitol every 15 minutes and a peak- express bus
route uses Capitol from Snell Avenue to US 101,
•
North of Eastridge to the Capitol Avenue/1-680 area, one express route and one limited stop route make
a total of 7 trips each peak period, but service could be reduced to 3 trips per peak period in 2004.
•
Eastridge Transit Center is adjacent to Capitol at Eastridge Mall and has direct access to the
expressway. Neighborhood access to the center is across and along the expressway.
•
The Caltrain and LRT Capitol Stations are easily accessible from Capitol.
•
LRT is planned to travel the entire length of Capitol Expressway,
•
Four bus lines use small segments of Central Expressway. There is no bus service along the length of
Central.
Central
Foothill
•
Caltrain and Tasman LRT run parallel to parts of Central with the rail stations at the Downtown
Mountain View Transit Center easily accessible from Central.
•
Three bus lines use small segments of Foothill Expressway. There is no bus service on most of Foothill
Expressway.
•
A limited stop bus route runs one AM and one PM peak hour trip along the entire length of Lawrence
Expressway.
Lawrence
•
Two bus routes use segments of Lawrence south of 1-280 and 3 use segments north of US 101, mostly
during the peak commute periods.
•
The Lawrence Caltrain station Is easily accessible from Lavirrence.
•
A limited stop bus route travels the entire length of Montague, providing 3 frips during the peak
commute periods. In 2004, a new route that uses Montague from Mission College Boulevard to Great
Mall Parkway may replace this route.
•
Three other bus routes use short segments of Montague {two from US 101 to Mission College
Boulevard and one from Trade Zone Boulevard to Mllpitas Boulevard) and a LRT shuttle travels on
Montague from Mission College Boulevard to North First Street.
•
A future BART and LRT multlmodal station is planned near the Montague/Great Mall Parkway
intersection. VTA may route additional bus sen/lce on Montague In the future to serve these rail
Montague
stations.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
17
Table 2-2: Transit Services Using Expressways (continued)
This information is based on the transit services provided and/or planned as of June 2003 with some notation where appropriate about
proposed service cuts that may occur in 2004.
Expressway
Transit Services
•
The Dumbarton Express uses almost the entire length of Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. It provides
several trips each AM and PM commute period.
Oregon-Page
Mill
•
Three VTA bus routes travel on segments of the expressway and when combined, they cover almost
the entire length. Two of the routes are express peak-period only sen/ice.
•
The Caiifomia Caltrain Station is accessible from Oregon.
•
A limited stop route travels the entire length of San Tomas, providing 3 trips each rommute period. It
may be reduced to two trips in 2004.
San Tomas
•
Two other routes use a segment of San Tomas near SR17 during commute periods.
To support transit services, the Expressway Study Implementation Plan includes adding
sidewalks and intersection pedestrian crossing enhancements to help transit users access
stops (see Pedestrian Element). HOV lane and bus stop pavement maintenance costs are
included in the Maintenance/Operations Element. The Capacity/Operational Improvements
Element lists grade separation projects at LRT/expressway crossings, which would enhance
LRT operations.
Additional transit service needs are difficult to quantify at this time given ongoing transit line
rerouting and fleet redeployment; however,the County closely cooperates with VTA's transit
plans as they are developed. For example, the County made available a portion of Central
Expressway right-of-way for the Tasman LRT line; worked collegially with VTA on at-grade
LRT crossings of Montague, Lawrence, and Central; and repairs failed pavement at bus stops.
Expressway roadway capacity/operational projects will include transit service needs (e.g., bus
stops) when the projects are designed and built.
Usage of Expressways
As noted previously, 1.5 million vehicles use the expressway system daily. The telephone
public opinion survey conducted in December 2001 provides some insight into why the
expressways are so well used:
18
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
v
55% of respondents used an expressway almost daily and another 29% use an
expressway a few times a week.
v
Of several expressway characteristics rated, "convenience" received the highest
percentage of "excellent/good" ratings both systemwide and for each expressway.
The excellent/good ratings ranged from 91% for Foothill to 74%) for Montague with
all other expressways over 80%.
v
The primary purposes of using the expressways are work trips(37% of respondents)
and shopping trips (27%). Not surprisingly, those expressways serving major
employment centers had the highest percentage of work trips, including Montague
(60%)and Central (52%). Almaden, which serves some major commercial facilities,
had the highest shopping use (41 %>).
Expressway System Needs
A key finding from the December 2001 telephone survey was that expressways are
convenient but congested. Congestion consistently received the highest percentage of
"fair/poor" ratings systemwide and for each expressway. Almaden, Capitol, Lawrence,
Montague, and San Tomas users expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with congestion levels
(over 70%), while Foothill and Central were seen as less of a congestion problem (around
55% rating as fair/poor) and Oregon-Page Mill fell in the middle (61 %).
Traffic Conditions
The technical data on level of service (LOS)confirms the users' perceptions. LOS is a
measure of traffic flow and congestion levels. LOS A is the best condition representing freely
flowing traffic. LOS F is the worst condition representing excessive delays and jammed
conditions. Out of 134 signalized intersections, 30 intersections were operating at LOS F in
2001. The number of LOS F intersections is projected to increase to 50 by 2025. Montague
Expressway currently operates at LOS F corridor-wide and portions of Capitol and Central
Expressways are expected to degrade to corridor LOS F conditions by 2025. Figure 2-1
illustrates the LOS F intersection locations with Table 2-3 providing a list of the intersections,
including seconds of delay.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
19
Figure 2-1: LOS F Intersections
/
•nir
S
W
SCwWAv#
Tt«*M
a«i iiM
tana
s
Legend
LOS F (2001/2002)
LOS F (2025)
20
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-3: Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway (2001& 2025)
2001 Existing
Expressway
LOS F Intersection
AM Peak
PM Peak
Camden Ave(CMP)
Almaden
Coleman Rd (CMP)
2025 Baseline |
AM Peak
PM Peak
F(287)
F (260)
F(174)
Blossom Hill Rd(CMP)
F(68)
Hwy. 85(North Ramp)(CMP)
F(352)
F(79)
F(70)
Senter Rd.(CMP)
F(63)
McLaughlin Ave.(CMP)
Silver Creek Rd.(CMP)
F(155)
F(76)
F(75)
F{82)
F(214)
Quimby Rd
F {")(1)
F(")(1)
Tuliy Rd
F(")(1)
F(")(')
F(63)
F(104)
Atwm Rd.(CMP)
Capitol
F(74)
Ocala Ave
Story Rd (CMP)
F(89)
F(66)
F(154)
F(233)
Capitoi Ave(CMP)
F(63)
F(125)
Lafayette St.(CMP)
F(62)
F(60}
De La Cruz Blvd.(CMP)
F(82)
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway(CMP)
F(90)
Bowers Ave.(CMP)
Central
Foothill
F(175)
El Monte Rd.(CMP)
F(80)
F(69)
1
1
1
F(69)
Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
F(64)
Saratoga Ave.(CMP)
F(73)
F(2D6)
Prospect Rd.(CMP)
F(68)
F(65)
F(96)
F(81)
Moorpark Ave./Bollinger Rd.(CMP)
Lawrence
F(111)
F(99)
Calvert Dr.(CMP)
F(63)
Homestead Rd.(CMP)
F(73)
F(160)
Benton St
Reed Ave./Monroe Ave.(CMP)
Kifer Rd.
Arques Ave.(CMP)
F(92)
F(123)
Lxhinvar Ave
F{66)
F(64)
F(195)
F(122)
F(133)
F(63)
F(67)
Duane Ave/Oakmead Pkwy
F(67)
Sandia Dr/Lakehaven Dr.
F(60)
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
21
Table 2-3: Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway(2001& 2025)
(continued)
2001 Existing
Expressway
LOS F Intersection
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
Oregon-Page Mill
PM Peak
Mission College Boulevard(CMP)
F(67)
F(78)
F{95)
First St,(CMP)
F(74)
F(113)
F(133)
F(161)
F(91)
F(101)
Trimble Rd,(CMP)
F(148)
F{160)
F(160)
F(149)
McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Ave.(CMP)
F(97)
F(137)
Zanker Road(CMP)
Montague
2025 Baseline |
I-S80 SB Ramps
Main St./Old Oakland Rd.(CMP)
F{120)
McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.(CMP)
F(88)
Great Mall Pkwy/Capitol Ave.(CMP)
F(119)
Milpitas Blvd(CMP)
F(104)
F(153)
F(134)
F(112)
F(121)
F(84)
F(94)
F(68)
F(91)
F(90)
Foothill Expressway(CMP)
CurlnerAve.(CMP)
F(90)
F(90)
F{82)
SR17SB Ramps(CMP)
Campbell Ave.(CMP)
1
Hamilton Ave,(CMP)
F(96)
Mooipark Ave.(CMP)
Stevens Creek Blvd.(CMP)
San Tomas
F(137)
F(67)
F(82)
F(143)
F{109)
Saratoga Ave.(CMP)
F(103)
F(70)
F(63)
F(86)
F(97)
F{79)
F(66)
F(74)
F(92)
El Camino Real(CMP)
F(92)
F(74)
F(75)
F(103)
Monroe St.(CMP)
F(113)
Pruneridge Ave,
Homestead Rd,(CMP)
F(74)
Benton St.
F(99)
F(66)
Scott Blvd,(CMP)
20
Total LOS F Intersections
21
30
34
40
50
1
Notes;
(CMP)= Intersection monitored by Congestion Management Program.
F = Indicates whict) intersections are at LOS F, and (# #) indicates delay (seconds/vehicle)
1) (**) = Final determination of seconds of delay is pending release of VTA's Capitol LRT environmental document
2) The LOS for the Foothill and Oregon-Page Mill Intersection is listed und^ both expressways, but Is only counted as one
LOS F intersection In the totals,
Soun»; CCS Ranning & Engineering, Inc.(2002)
22
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
User Opinions
Listed below are the key findings from the December 2001 and January 2003 telephone
surveys:
v
After congestion, timing of lights and landscaping received the highest percentage of
"fair/poor" ratings(48% and 44% of respondents, respectively). The individual
expressway ratings for timing of lights were similar for ail expressways.
Landscaping on 6 of the expressways was also rated similar to the system results.
The exceptions are Foothill and Oregon-Page Mill users who are quite satisfied with
landscaping (over 80% rating "excellent/good"). (December 2001 Survey)
v Synchronizing the traffic signals was the most important proposed change for all
expressways in both surveys. In the 2003 survey, 69% of respondents rated
synchronizing traffic signals as "very important.'
v
Eliminating dangerous merges and maintaining pavement also received a large
amount of 'very important' ratings(66% and 62%, respectively). Oanuary 2003
Survey)
v
More landscaping(16% very important), decreasing the number of traffic lights
(24%), and building more sound walls(26%) were the least popular of the proposed
improvements among respondents. (January 2003 Survey)
Potential Expansion of the System
The 1960's build-out plan for the expressway system included at least one additional
expressway and extending three other existing expressways. The concept was that the
expressways should connect with the freeways and with other expressways. In the last 40
years, local plans and policies have changed. In the 1990's, Capitol Expressway, between
State Route (SR)87 and Almaden Expressway, was relinquished to San Jose to become Auto
Mall Parkway. Questions have continued to be asked about other expressway extensions
and these issues were discussed with the cities, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB), and the
Technical Working Group(TWO early in the Study process. Described below are the key
system expansion issues and status.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
23
Almaden Expressway
Almaden Expressway will eventually be extended to Bailey Avenue where people can
connect to US 101 via the future Bailey interchange. The timing of the Almaden extension
will be determined by San Jose land use decisions. The likely trigger will be Coyote Valley
development. It is anticipated that development traffic impact fees will pay for the extension.
The trigger may or may not occur within the 30-year timeframe of this Study. Future updates
of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan will include the extension once more is
known about the timing and funding.
Central Expressway
The original plans for Central called for it to continue through Palo Alto on Alma Avenue to
terminate at Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. Palo Alto does not support extending Central
Expressway onto Alma. Alma has four lanes, like Central Expressway, and already connects
to Oregon-Page Mill. The land along Alma is completely developed with Caltrain along one
side and residences and several residential side streets along the other. Therefore, Palo Alto
wants Alma to remain a city arterial with relatively slower speeds and narrower lanes than
the expressway. Extending Central through Palo Alto will not be pursued.
Lawrence Expressway
Lawrence was originally slated to continue down Quito Road in Saratoga to connect with the
future SR 85 under the assumption that there would be an interchange at Quito. When SR
85 was built, the interchange was moved to Saratoga Avenue. The City of Saratoga does not
support converting Saratoga Avenue into an extension of Lawrence Expressway. Extending
Lawrence onto Saratoga Avenue will not be pursued. The Study does include a signal
coordination project for Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue that will help with traffic
flow to the SR 85/Saratoga Avenue interchange.
South County
There have been various plans for a north-south expressway on the west side of US 101 since
the 1960's. By the 1980's, County transportation planning documents began to recommend
a north-south arterial rather than a formal expressway. These new recommendations
24
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
occurred due to a lack of funding for building and maintaining new expressways, and due to
conflicting plans and policies at the local cities.
The City of Morgan Hill does not support having expressways in Morgan Hill. The City of
Gilroy is in favor of having an expressway. Gilroy's Circulation Element identifies Santa
Teresa as an expressway meeting all expressway standards including limited access and no
parking. It would be a loop expressway beginning and ending at US 101 at the south and
north ends of Gilroy. Gilroy is currently funding and constructing the widening of Santa
Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards and will provide for maintenance of the widened
facility.
The PAB South County small group arrived at the following agreements:
v
Regional travel demand from south of Gilroy heading into South San Jose should be
accommodated on US 101.
v
A South County "local corridor" is needed to facilitate travel between Gilroy and
Morgan Hill. It does not necessarily need to be called an "expressway" or fall under
single-jurisdiction ownership, but it does need consistent standards and an
identifiable alignment.
v
Some kind of regional transportation plan is needed for the South County area - a
"South County Circulation Study."
v
All five government agencies need to be involved in the development of a
Circulation Study - VTA, County of Santa Clara, and the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan
Hill, and San Jose.
VTA has recently established a South County Roadways Policy Advisory Board to discuss
roadway projects and issues for the South County area and provide policy input into the
proposed South County Circulation Study. Among several other issues, the Circulation Study
will determine the need and support for new Santa Teresa Boulevard connections to US 101
in Gilroy. The results of this study will help facilitate the decision making about whether the
Santa Teresa loop should be considered part of the County's expressway system. The results
of the Circulation Study will be considered in the VTP 2020 2003/2004 Update and in the
next update of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
25
Expressway Vision Statements
A key finding from the data gathering and city/community outreach is that each expressway
has Its own unique character, function, and community relationship. Therefore, the ultimate
build-out of each expressway must vary to meet community needs. To guide the expressway
plans, a vision was developed for each expressway, through a collaborative process
involving the cities, TWG,and PAB.
The visions are listed in Table 2-4. There are three key terms used that are critical to an
understanding of the visions:
v
Arterial - An expressway that is arterial-like would be similar to a major city street.
It will tend to carry relatively less traffic than other expressways and is likely to be 4
to 6 lanes wide. Other potential attributes include more multimodal use (such as a
major transit presence or high use bike corridor), higher pedestrian demand,
somewhat slower moving traffic, and very few grade separations. It may have
commercial or other land uses directly accessed from the expressway.
v
High-end express arterial - These expressways would be similar to how most
people define the term "expressway." They move high volumes of traffic and may
be 6 to 8 lanes wide. Most intersections are signalized rather than grade separated.
There are few land uses accessed directly from the expressway and less demand for
pedestrian travel.
v
Freeway-like - As the name implies, these expressway segments would be similar to
a freeway. No expressway is envisioned to be converted completely into a freeway,
but some have segments with such high traffic demand, that freeway-like treatments
would be warranted. Generally, this means building interchanges to replace
congested at-grade intersections. The land uses along these segments tend to be
Industrial or commercial with buildings fronting on other roadways, not the
expressway.
26
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-4: Expressway Vision Statements
Expressway
Vision Statement
Almaden
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
Capitol
Corridor in transition to high-capacity arterial with light rail transit in
median.
Central
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
Foothill
Attractive express arterial, not freeway-like, that also plays an
important role as a regional bicycle facility.
Lawrence
Southern end more arterial-like; mid-section more high-end
expressway with freeway-like segments; and northern end more
high-end express arterial.
Montague
Multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway in Milpitas east of
1-880; west of 1-880, high-end express arterial with freeway-like
segments.
Oregon-Page Mill
Multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with slower, smoothflowing traffic.
San Tomas
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
One of the defining features of these three types of roadways is the relationship between
traffic mobility and land access. As shown in Figure 2-2, consistent and continuous access
control from abutting property is desirable for those expressways which need a high degree
of vehicle mobility.
Figure 2-2: Proportion of Service
Traffic
Mobility
Freeway-like
High-end express arterial
Land Access
Arterial
Source Adapted from Exhibit 1-5, AASHTO - Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
27
Section Three
Capacity & Operational
Improvement Element
The Capacity and Operational Improvement Element focuses on automobile-related capital
improvements. It includes projects that will increase roadway capacities; improve
operational and safety conditions; facilitate traffic flow using signal coordination and
advanced traffic operations systems (TOS); and provide direct high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)
connectors between expressways and freeways where HOV facilities exist or have been
planned.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The process to develop the list of improvements began with a comprehensive traffic analysis,
including existing and projected 2025 traffic volumes, intersection level of service (LOS), and
intersection collision data. Project lists from other studies, such as the Valley Transportation
Plan (VTP) 2020 and city capital improvement programs, were consulted. In addition,
discussions were held with staff from the participating cities and agencies to help identify
problem areas and locally desired improvements.
A preliminary list of improvements was then developed to address both congestion and
operational/safety problems areas. Recognizing that signal timing changes and new
technologies can alleviate some congestion problems, adjustments to signal operations were
considered first. Capacity improvements to alleviate LOS F conditions were then
recommended In those areas where signal operational changes were unable to resolve the
congestion problem. Considerations of capacity improvements began with at-grade
improvement options (e.g., adding a lane). Grade separations/interchanges were
recommended when at-grade options became infeasible. Based on the discussions with
local cities and other agencies, the improvements list was further expanded to include
desired improvements that will help achieve the vision for each expressway.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the capacity and operational improvements recommended for the
expressway system. The types of improvements range from operational improvements such
as corridor signal projects, median closures, and safety widenings, to capacity projects such
as new lanes, intersection improvements, and new interchanges. The map also recognizes
the South County Circulation Study, which will develop improvement recommendations for
Rural Commute Routes, such as Santa Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy. Although not technically
County expressways, these routes will require funding from the same sources as the
expressway projects and could serve the same type of intercity travel needs as the
expressways.
The capacity/operational improvements will cost from $1.64 to $1.94 billion to implement.
The total cost includes approximately $100-150 million for HOV-related projects and $83105 million for signals/Traffic Operations System (TOS) improvements. Detailed descriptions
of the signalsA'OS and HOV projects can be found in their respective elements.
30
Section 3 Capacity & Opefational Improvement Element
Figure 3-1: Capacity/Operational Improvements
^8
♦♦
V
jt
^
♦«
««*>•
Homes
\
m UwrMCtO*
IWI Slud)
fttfJiky 8
Stmmm Crmt
iiijuiM»i
Comdor
\
\
Legend
oCorridor Operational Improvement
■■aiSegmenl Widening
Mpunded Widening
BnnhafBLA
a^HCperational/Safety Widenir>g
•
•
Signalized Intersections
Timing Project
•
Median/Street Closure
e
Funded Improvement
CMiry w*
tSMBGffKm
asffioff RjM
USflMRU
• At-grade Improvement
Grade Separation/Interchange
■ Freeway Interchange Improvement
■ Operational/Safety Improvement
CamdM
South County
Circulaiion Study
m
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
31
Figure 3-2a: Corridor Level of Service for No Project
B«ftcir>Si
A
A i lnmnawm
Pnj^Kjge
S^raiova i
noorrart ^w
MwRd
MoVD«rtt Ai<«
\
\
Legend
O Existing LOS F
I? Sfi RaTOt
• 2025 LOS F
(■■LOS A-C Conldors
BSSLOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
SftKNeOB
CotviwiRd
m
^■LOS F Corridors
^v«»ISA
Systemwide Results
Figures 3-2a and 3-2b illustrates the LOS benefits of the recommended capacity and
operational improvements for the planning year 2025. Figure 3-2a indicates projected
corridor LOS and intersection LOS F locations in 2025 if no improvements are made. Figure
3-2b indicates 2025 LOS conditions with full implementation of all recommendations.
32
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Figure 3-2b: Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
k
r'-"'
Unde* Study for LRT
StcnfU
A
Legend
ILOS A-C Corridors
ILOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
ILOS P Corridors
LOS F intersections
The corridor-wide traffic analysis shows overall corridor LOS to be significantly improved
with the implementation of the capacity/operational improvements. Six of the eight
expressways would operate at a minimum of LOS D with some expressway segments
achieving LOS C. Montague Expressway, east of 1-880, would improve from LOS F to E.
West of 1-880, Montague would continue to operate at LOS F but the queuing and overall
delay would be reduced significantly(25% reduction in delay of all vehicles; 13-minute
reduction in travel time). Capitol Expressway from Nieman through the US 101 interchange
would improve from LOS F to E and would remain LOS D west of US 101. Projected LOS
Information for Capitol north of Nieman to 1-680 is not available since the future conditions
with the planned LRT in place have not yet been fully defined.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
33
Altogether, the capacity and operational projects listed mitigate 28 out of 30 existing LOS F
intersections. The remaining 2 existing LOS F intersections are as follows:
v
Capitol/Story - This intersection is part of the initial phase of the Downtown East
Valley light rail project. Any potential improvement project for this location will be
determined through coordination with the light rail project and San jose policies.
v
Montague/First - The 1999 Montague Study included a policy decision to accept
LOS F conditions at this intersection.
Under 2025 projected conditions, the overall list of projects mitigates 43 out of 50 LOS F
intersections, with the following 7 intersections remaining at F:
v
The 2 existing LOS F intersections listed above.
v
Three additional intersections on Capitol Expressway (Ocala, Tully, and Quimby)Like Capitol/Story, any potential improvement projects for these locations will be
determined through coordination with the light rail project and San Jose policies.
v
Montague/Zanker - Like Montague/First, the 1999 Montague Study included a
policy decision to also accept LOS F conditions at this intersection.
v
Lawrence/Homestead - An interchange would be required to improve this
intersection to LOS E or better, and an interchange at this location is not supported
by local cities due to the right-of-way impacts.
In addition to congestion relief, many of the projects provide safety and multimodal benefits.
Most of the intersections with the highest collision rates are also those with the worst
congestion problems and will be improved through the recommended capacity projects.
One of the segment widenings (Central through Sunnyvale) is specifically recommended to
Improve an area experiencing a high collision rate. Many of the projects include muchneeded improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians and a couple of the grade separations
have the potential to improve light rail operations.
34
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Systemwide Prioritization
During development of the Improvement lists, the top priorities for each expressway were
identified based on both technical analysis and city/community preferences. However, with
a systemwide capacity/operational improvement list of 72 projects that approach $2 billion
In cost, a systemwide prioritization list was needed.
To start the prioritization process, a technical analysis was conducted ranking intersections
by existing and future peak hour delay, highest collision locations, and a cost/benefit ratio for
capacity projects. A review of these rankings compared to each expressway's proposed
priorities indicated that the top priority projects for each expressway address almost all of the
highest ranking locations in terms of delay and accident locations, and are cost-effective.
However, it also became apparent that it would be difficult to develop criteria/performance
measures to prioritize the operational/safety projects against the LOS projects.
The projects were then grouped into tiers starting with the concept that the top tier should
include operational/safety improvements and projects that mitigate LOS F intersections. The
remaining projects fell into Tiers 2 and 3 based on the type of project. When Tier 1 projects
added up to more than can be expected from existing funding sources, sub-tiers were created
dividing up relatively low-cost operational/at-grade improvements, high<ost interchange
projects, and projects addressing future LOS F conditions. A key concept in dividing the
projects into the Tier 1 sub-tiers was that existing LOS F intersection improvements should
receive a higher priority than projected LOS F intersections. Table 3-1 lists the final criteria
used for each tier.
Table 3-2 provides a detailed list of the capacity/operational improvement projects divided
into the tiers. Table 3-3 provides a tier summary.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
35
Table 3-1: Criteria for Tier Assignment
Tier
Criteria
•
•
At-grade improvements to mitigate existing LOS F intersections to E or t>etter
Operational improvements to eliminate weaving, merging/diverging, and queuing problems,
thus improving safety conditions
1A
•
•
Signal operations improvements that improve traffic flow
Low-cost feasibility studies needed to answer critical questions about interchange
reconfigurations that have a high level of local support
IB
•
•
Improvements (both at-grade and grade separation/interchange projects) needed to mitigate
the projected 2025 LOS F intersections
1C
36
Grade separation/interchange projects to mitigate existing LOS F intersections
•
Longer term signal operational improvements
•
All other expressway capacity improverrrent projects that can furfier facilitate traffic flow
2
•
Enhancements and upgrades to signal systems using new technologies that will became
available over the next 30 years
3
•
Major existing faciiity reconstruction and new facilities such as HOV direct connectors
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expressway
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Measure B Projects (Funded)
Provide additional NB through lane on Almaden at Blossom Hill and SR 85 NB offAlmaden
ramp intersections plus additional SB through lane on Almaden at Branham and
Cherry intersections with additional left-turn lane at all four approaches at Cherry
NA
intersection
San Tomas
Provide a 2nd left-turn lane from EB and WB Campbell to San Tomas and a separate
right-turn lane from WB Campbell to NB San Tomas
N.A,
Provide TOS improvements including traffic management center upgrades, new loop
Expressway Traffic
and video sensors along the expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic
Operations System (TOS) signals; and implement Traffic Adaptive System along Lawrence between Oakmead
N.A.
and Kifer
Tier 1A Projects
Widen to 8 lanes between Coleman and Blossom Hill including an additional left-turn
lane from SB Almaden to Coleman and from EB and WB Coleman to Almaden, and a
right-turn lane from WB Coleman to NB Almaden; a 4th SB and NB through lane on
$6-8
Almaden at Via Monte; and an additional left-tum (a total of three)from SB Almaden to
EB Blossom Hill and an additional SB through lane at Blossom Hill Intersection
Almaden
Initiate a Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)/Project Development Study(PDS)to
reconfigure SR 85/Almaden interchange
$0.25
Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Almaden: widen SB Almaden to
provide a 5th lane between the Best Buy driveway and SB loop on-ramp serving as
auxiliary lane for weaving vehicles; widen SB SR 85 off-ramp to add a third left-turn;
$2
provide an additional EB approach lane resulting In two left-tum, one through/right
shared, and two right-tum lanes
Widen between Mary and Lawrence to provide auxiliary and/or
acceleration/deceleration lanes to improve ramp operations and safety P'
Central
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways without HOV lane
operations
$13
$10
Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas and De La Cruz to
mixed flow and remove the HOV queue jump lanes at Scott, if unsuccessful after a 3
$0.1
to 5-year trial period
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
37
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway arid proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway d>
Expressway
Foothill
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Signal operational improvements between Edith and El Monte Including adjacent side
street intersections and at Grant/St. Joseph
$1.5
Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio by 250 feet
$0.5
Replace Loyola Bridge(This improvement project will also provide necessary Ixcyde
and pedestrian facilities, and channelization and operational Improvements at adjacent
$10
Intersections.)
Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Avenue corridor Including
Lawrence/Prospect, Lawrence/Saratoga, Saratoga/Prospect, and Saratoga/Cox
$0.1
Intersections f®'
Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark/Bolllnger and south of Calvert with additional WB
through lane at Moorpark
$4
Coordinate and optimize signal phasing and timing plans at l-280/Lawrence
Lawrence
Interchange area including City of Santa Clara signals along Stevens Creek and
County's signal at Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 SB ramp
Prepare Caltrans PSR for Tier 1C project at the Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 interchange
area
Close median at Lochlnvar and right-In-and-out access at DeSoto, Golden State,
Granada, Buckley, and St, Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
Convert HOV to mixed-fiow lanes between US 101 and EIko due to high violation rates
& operational problems
Convert HOV lanes on 6-lane facility to mixed-flow use between 1-880 and 1-680 due
to operational and safety problems f®)
Montague
Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening and 1-880 par-cio interchange with atgrade Improvements at Uck Mill, Plumeiia/RiverOaks, Main/Old Oakland, and
McCandless/Trade Zone; designate new lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 as HOV for a
3 to 5-year trial period
38
$0,1
$0.5
$0.5
$0.1
$0.1
$38.5
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway hi
Expressway
Cost
Project Description <2)
(millions)
i-280/Page Mill interchange modification: remove SB loop on-ramp and construct SB
diagonal on-ramp with signal operations; signalize NB off-ramp intereection; and
$5
provide proper channelization for pedestrians and bicycles
Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
$0.25
Oregon corridor improvements:
v
Oregon-Page Mill
v
Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding Impacts on safety at
unsignalized Intersections f®'
Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized
intersections
v
Study operational changes at the unsignalized Intellections at Waverley, Ross,
v
enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety, and maintain vehicle safety
Conduct feasibility study of adding turn lane at MIddlefield Road and converting
to 8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-
$5
and Indian that avoid increasing traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets,
of-way
At grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas:
v
Re-stripe the EB through lane on White Oaks to provide an optional left as 3rd
$2
left-turn lane
San Tomas
v
Provide second right-turn lane on SB off-ramp
<•
Study potential operational & safety Improvements in the Interchange area
Provide a 2nd left-tum lane from EB and WB Hamilton to San Tomas and a 2nd leftturn lane from NB San Tomas to WB Hamilton
$2
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real with additional left-tum lane
from EB and WB El Camino Real to San Tomas
$28
Provide an additional right-turn lane from WB Monroe to NB San Tomas
$1
Traffic Information outlets such as electronic information signs, advisory radio, cable
$5
TV feeds, and a web page
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Install equipment to coordinate expressway signals with city signals on perpendicular
$10
streets
Install equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos
$2.5
traffic signal interconnect systems
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
$0,5
Total Tier 1A
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
148.5-150.5
39
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expr^sway
Cost
Project Description
(millions)
Tier 1B Projects
Capitol
Lawrence
Montague
$50-60
Interchange at Sliver Creek
Interchange at Monroe
$45
interchange at Klfer
$45
Interchange at Argues with square loops along Kern and Titan
$35
At-grade improvements at Mission College and par-do interchange at US 101
$11
Trimble flyover
$15
McCarthy-OToole square loop interchange
$60
TOTAL TIER IB
$261 -271
Tier 1C Projects
Almaden
Capitol
Widen to 6 lanes starting south of Camden to conform with the current 6-lane segment
south of Redmond with additional left-turn lane from EB and WB Camden to Almaden
Provide a third left-turn lane from SB Senter to EB Captol
$4.5
Provide a third left-tum from SB McLaughlin to EB Capitol ^
$3.5
Provide a third left-turn lane from NB Abom to WB Capitol and a second right-turn lane
from EB Capitol to SB Abom
Provide a third left-tum shared with through lane from SB Capitol Avenue to SB
Capitol Expressway
Lawrence
San Tomas
40
$5-6
$5-6
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from EB Saratoga to NB Lawrence
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from EB Prospect to NB Lawrence
$2
Interim improvements at Lawrence/Calvert/l-280; provide additional SB through lane at
Calvert; widen 1-280 SB on-ramp to provide additional mixed-flow lane; and construct
1-280 SB slip on-ramp from Calvert west of Lawrence and prohibit EB through
$8
movement at CalveiVLawrence Intersection {based on results of Tier 1A PSR)
Provide additional EB through lane on Homestead
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from WB Benton to SB Lawrence
$2
Provide a 3rd left-tum lane from EB Oakmead/Duane to NB Lawrence
$2
Provide additional right-tum lane from WB Scott to NB San Tomas
$1
Section 3 Capacity & Operational improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway d)
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Cost
Project Description P)
Expressway
(Millions)
Adaptive traffic signal system for selected or all expressways based upon further
feasibility study
Total Tier 10
$10-12
$49-53
Tier 2 Projects
Almaden
Central
Widen to 6 lanes from Almaden Road to south of Camden t®)
$10
Interchange at Rengstorff hO)
$60
Depress Central at light rail crossing near Whisman
$35
At-grade improvements or interchange at Mary dh
$4-50
Interchange at Bowers
$45
Signalize the Wildwood Ave. intersection Including opening the median, realigning
Lawrence
Montague
Oregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Wildwood Ave,, and re-tlming signals between US 101 and EIko
$4
Interchange at Tasman
$45
Interchange at Mission College
$55
Interchange at Great Mali/Capltol
$42
Provide a separate right-turn lane from WB Oregon to El Camino Real and lengthen
left-turn lane from WB Oregon to El Camino Real
N.A,
Interchange at Stevens Creek
$50-70
Interchange at El Camino Real
$60
Interchange at Monroe
$55
Interchange at Scott
$65
New technology/Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) updates over the next 30
$55-75
years
Total Tier 2
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
$585 - 671
41
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Cost
Project Description P)
Expressway
(millions)
Tiers Projects
Almaden
Modify the SR 85/Almaden Interchange to a par-clo type with loops In the NE and SE
quadrants based on results of Tier 1A PSR/PDS
Initiate a feasibility study to provide direct access between Lawrence, 1-280, and
Stevens Creek, and HOV direct connectors at this interchange area
$20
$1
Lawrence
Reconstajct the interchange to provide direct access ramps between Lawrence, 1-280,
and Stevens Creek, and HOV direct connectors
Montague
1-680 interchange modification
$250-300
$20
Add a second SB right-turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill; extend the SB rightOregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
HOV Direct Connectors
tum lane half way to Stanford Intersection. Maintain through bike lane, no free righttum lane, avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Avenue
$2-4
Alma Bridge reconstruction based on results of Tier 1A feasibility study
$100
Initiate a study to reconfigure SR 17/San Tomas Interchange
$0.25
Reconstruct SR 17/San Tomas Interchange
$100-200
Freeway/expressway direct connector HOV ramps at five locations: CapitolAJS 101,
Montague/l-^80, Lawrence/US 101, Montague/San Tomas/US 101, and San Tomas/I-
$100-150
280
Total Tier 3
$593.25795.25
Other Projects
Any potential roadway improvements for the Nieman to Story segment of Capitol
Capitol
Expressway will be determined through coordination with VTA's light rail project and
San Jose's policies. The light rail project Draft Environmental Impact
TBD
Statement/Environmental Impact Report(EIS/EIR)to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)will be released in mid-2003.
South County
Actual improvements and costs to be determined by a separate South County
Circulation Study to be conducted by VTA
Grand Total
42
TBD
$1,636.751,940.75
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Notes:
(1) Expressway Direction:
Almaden = South-north
Capitol = west=east from SR 87 to Abom & south-north from Abom to 1-680
Central = west-east
Foothill = west-east
Lawrence = south-north
Montague = west-east
Oregon-Page Mill = west-east
San Tomas = south-north
(2) When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate.
Project description will be changed as needed based on the results of these activities,
(3) May also Include a turning lane improvement at Central/Mary; need for this improvement will be determined during project
design.
(4) The existing LOS F intersections between Lawrence Expressway and De La Cruz will be mitigated if the widening is operated as
mixed-flow. If the new lanes between San Tomas and De La Cruz remain designated as HOV after the trial period and the
widening between Lawrence and San Tomas is operated as HOV lanes, then interchanges will be required at 2 of the LOS F
Intersections(Bowers and Lafayette) and will need to be placed in Tier 1B.
(5) Please see the HOV System Element for more Information about these projects.
(6)
Please see the Signals/TOS Element for more Information about these projects.
(7) Actual improvements and cost estimates for the McLaughlin to Abom segment of Capitol Expressway will be Identified through
VTA's US 101 Central Corridor Study to be completed by the end of 2003 or early 2004. Projects for McLaughlin, Silver Creek,
and Abom are listed here as placeholders.
(8) Additional EB through at the Homestead intersection would not Improve the projected 2025 LOS from F to E or better. However.
it would reduce average intersection delay significantly.
(9) Implementation of an extension of Almaden Expressway to Bailey Avenue and additional improvements for the existing Almaden
^pressway will be determined by City of San Jose land use decisions.
(10) The City of Mountain View is pursuing options for grade separating the Caltrain railroad tracks from Rengstorff Avenue. If this
project is built, the signalized Intersection at Central and Rengstorff may degrade to LOS F, In which case the
Central/Rengstorff interchange project will move Into Tier 1B.
(11) Local and regional LOS standards are not projected to be violated at the Central/Mary intersection within the timeframe of the
plan.
(12) Local and regional LOS standards are not projected to be violated at the Lawrence/Tasman intersection within the timeframe of
the plan.
(13) If the new HOV lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 remain designated as HOV after the trial period, the Great Mall/Capltol
interchange may need to be moved into Tier 1B.
(14) Palo Alto may conduct further studies and minor operational Improvements for the Oregon-Page Mill/El Camino Real
Intersection, as specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(15) Although this is an existing LOS F intersection, Palo Alto would like to wait on improvements until they can evaluate the benefits
of the Sand Hill Road Improvements and programs to encourage alternate modes of transportation on the LOS at this locahai.
Should a future evaluation indicate improvements are still needed, the project could be moved Into Tier 1 with Palo Alto's
concurrence.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
43
Table 3-3: Summary of Tier Results
# of LOS F Intersections
Tier
Mitigated
# of Projects
2001/2002
Cost
Existing
Baseline
2025
(millions)
Measure B
N.A,
2
N.A.
N.A.
1A
28
18
24 h)
$149-151
IB
7
7
7
$261-271
1C
13
0
11
$49-53
2
15
0
0
$585-671
3
9
1 (2)
1
$593-795
Totals
72
28
43
$1,637-1,941
Notes:
(1) Tier 1A also mitigates six projected 2025 LOS F Intersections that are not existing LOS F
locations. This is attributed to implementation strategies for existing LOS F intersections
that benefit adjacent Intersections, either with operational or capacity improvements.
(2) At the local city's request, one existing/future LOS F Intersection Improvement project has
_been placed In Tier 3 rather than In Tier 1 A.
Project Completion Timing
The projects in each tier also tend to have similar implementation challenges and project
delivery schedules. Listed below are the estimated delivery time for each project once funds
become available for that project:
Tier 1A - Most of the projects in this tier can be completed in 3-4 years (including time for
environmental review, community outreach, design, right-of-way acquisition, utility
relocation, and construction). A couple projects may stretch to 6 years due to structures
Involved and coordination with other agencies. Projects where right-of-way is available (i.e.,
no right-of-way impact or acquisition) and complex utility relocation Is not needed can be
completed within 2 years. The feasibility studies will take 1 to 2 years to complete.
44
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Tier IB - These projects can typically be completed within 6-8 years. The 6-8 year
implementation timeframe anticipates 2 years for environmental clearance and preliminary
engineering, 1-2 years for final design, 1-2 years for right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocation, and 2 years for construction. The only exception is the Montague/Mission
College/101 par-cio interchange project, which will have a similar project schedule as Tier 3
projects (8-10 years) because of Caltrans involvement.
Tier 1C - The at-grade improvement projects in Tier 1C will have a similar implementation
timeframe as the Tier 1A projects (1-4 years depending on right-of-way and utility impacts).
The grade separation/interchange projects will have schedules similar to the Tier 1B projects
(6-8 years).
Tier 2 - Most of these projects are grade separation/interchange projects that will have a
similar implementation schedule as Tier 1B projects (6-8 years).
Tier 3- Tier 3 projects will require significant right-of-way acquisitions and a relatively long
project development process that will take 8-10 years to complete. All of these projects,
except Alma Bridge reconstruction, involve Caltrans review and approval. The 8-10 year
timeframe anticipates 3-4 years for Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR), Project Report(PR)
and Environmental Document(ED), 2 years for final design, 1-2 years for right-of-way
acquisition and utility relocation, and 2 years for construction. The Alma Bridge
reconstruction will involve coordination with the public utility commission (PUC)and
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) due to the Caltrain tracks. This will affect
delivery timing similar to a Caltrans project.
Tier lA Effectiveness
The 28 Tier 1A projects address the top priorities for each expressway and improve most of
the current LOS and operational problem areas for a total cost of $150 million. These lowcost improvements can be delivered relatively quickly once funds are secured.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
45
Fisiure 3-3: Corridor Level of Service for Tier 1A
\
8*I0V W Irf^
Oe^0m
T«fly«d
ChMrM
I
SMCMfelld
Legend
IHLOS A-C Corridors
IHLOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
IMLOS F Corridors
O Existing LOS F
• 2025 LOS F
%
Figure 3-3 illustrates the LOS effectiveness of the Tier 1A package of projects. Compared
with the "No Project" map in Figure 3-2, significant improvement is seen with Tier lA:
v
18 of the existing 30 LOS F intersections and 24 of the 50 projected 2025 LOS F
intersections are mitigated.
v
Aimaden between Camden Avenue and SR 85 is improved from a corridor LOS E to
LOS D.
46
v
Central east of Lawrence is improved from a corridor LOS F to LOS D.
v
Montague east of 1-880 improves from corridor LOS F to E.
v
San Tomas is improved from corridor LOS E to D.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Implementation Strategies
The following key implementation strategies are recommended for the capacity/operational
projects:
v The Tier 1A projects should be funded with existing resources without breaking up
the package of improvements. However, not all 28 projects in Tier 1A can be
worked on concurrently and the funding will likely not be available all at once. A
project delivery schedule will need to be developed once roadway funds become
available.
v The project lists and tier assignments should be revised regularly by the County.
Project description/definition, cost, and tier assignments are based on conditions
known today. They are also based on the limited design work that is completed in a
long-range planning study. As funding becomes available for project development,
the project description and cost estimates will be further defined and may require
some changes. In addition, it is likely that new land use and transportation system
decisions will affect the 2025 traffic projections that were used as the basis for
planning in the Expressway Study and will require changes in the project list and
tier assignments.
v When funding is obtained, each capacity improvement project will undergo design,
environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate. Operational
improvement projects (such as median closures, MOV conversions) will also have
appropriate traffic analysis, community outreach, and environmental review before
implementation.
v Alt capacity improvement projects will incorporate pedestrian, bicycle, transit
support (e.g., bus stops), and sound wall needs into the design and construction of
the project. The costs for these improvements are included in the project's cost
estimate. Landscaping improvements may also be included where provisions have
been made for ongoing maintenance costs.
Recommended actions relating to funding sources are included in Section 10, Funding
Strategies.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
47
Photos for Section 4 to be placed Here.
Section Four
Signals & Traffic
Operations System (TOS)
Element
Traffic signals play a key role In the efficient functioning of the expressways. They regulate
traffic flow on the expressways and help balance the mobility needs of users of the
expressways and cross streets. Survey respondents have consistently rated timing of lights
and synchronizing signals as very important improvements. In many instances, signal timing
changes and new signal technologies can alleviate congestion problems as traffic demand
grows. For this reason, adjustments to signal operations were considered as a key part of the
overall improvement strategy.
This element provides a description of current traffic signal operations along the expressways
and the funded expressway Traffic Operations System (TOS) Program. It then documents the
recommendations and costs for enhancing signal operations and TOS, including capital
improvements and operations/maintenance. The costs of the recommended capital projects
are incorporated in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element, while operating costs
are folded into the Maintenance and Operations Element.
Current Traffic Signal Synchronization Practice
There are 134 signalized intersections along the eight expressways. Figure 4-1 shows the
current groupings of synchronized traffic signals. Intersections that are not included in a
group are operating in isolation from other traffic signals. Typically, breaks in the signal
groupings occur where the travel patterns change or the signals are controlled by Caltrans,
such as at freeway interchanges and El Camino Real. The signals at the western end of
Central Expressway and the First Street area of Montague Expressway operate without
synchronization due to frequent train pre-emption of the signals.
The goal of synchronization along expressways is to give priority to through traffic on the
expressways. It's designed to progress large volumes of through traffic in the peak direction,
especially during the peak hour periods, from one end of each group to another. Thus,
delays and stops on the expressway are relatively low while delays and stops are relatively
high for side street movements.
All expressway signal groups are coordinated in the weekday AM and PM peak periods for
the commute direction. The exact peak period varies by expressway depending on travel
patterns. Some of the expressway signal groups are coordinated for weekday mid-day
periods and during the weekends. When not coordinated, the signals are free-running and
responsive to the left turns and cross-street activation by approaching vehicles. Current
practice is to conduct signal timing studies and re-time the signals as funding allows, which is
generally limited to responding to specific requests from cities and the public.
Traffic Operations System Program
TOS is an operational system for managing and operating transportation systems with
technologies. It is a system made up of various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
components such as surveillance (loop detectors, closed-circuit TV, etc.), monitoring
equipment, highway advisory radio, and changeable message signs(CMS).
In the mid-1990s, the County embarked on a cooperative effort with other agencies to study
the Silicon Valley Smart Corridor along 1-880 and State Route(SR) 17. A Smart Corridor is
one where various public agencies' traffic management activities are coordinated to more
50
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Figure 4-1; Current Traffic Signal Coordination Grouping
/
lOf
\
\
\
S
V
10^
effectively manage traffic in that corridor. These are typically achieved using advanced
technologies or ITS while partnerships between jurisdictions are necessary to develop
procedures and measures for coordination. The first phase of the 1-880/SR 17 Smart
Corridor project was deployed in 2000 and included improvements on San Tomas and
Montague Expressways. The project's components enable local and regional agencies to
respond to traffic incidents and to better manage traffic operations in the corridor. Initial
installations Included intersection and freeway cameras, changeable message signs, a new
traffic data collection station, a new highway advisory radio transmitter, and central traffic
signal system enhancements.
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
51
The County has also developed a TOS Master Plan that includes $42 million in TOS
improvements along the expressways. The 1996 Measure B Sales Tax Program allocated
$24.5 million for expressway TOS allowing implementation of over half of the TOS Master
Plan. Funded improvements include traffic management center upgrades, new loop and
video sensors along the various expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic
signals. As the first step, a countywide review of traffic signal equipment and operations,
including synchronization, was completed in 2000. Construction of initial TOS
improvements on Central and Lawrence Expressways is now underway, and construction of
Improvements on Oregon-Page Mill, Foothill, and Almaden Expressways Is scheduled over
the next two years.
Additionally, a demonstration Traffic Adaptive System project is in progress along Lawrence
Expressway between Oakmead Parkway and Kifer Road intersections. The adaptive module
optimizes the timing split based on current conditions. If all the cars in a phase do not make
it through the intersection, then a set amount of time is automatically added to that phase in
the next cycle. If significant gaps develop in the flow of cars, then a set amount of time is
removed from that phase in the next cycle.
Recommended Signal Operatlons/TOS Projects
Table 4-1 summarizes the funded TOS projects and the recommended signal operations and
TOS improvement projects that will require additional funding.
Signal Operations Projects
The following projects totaling $6.7 million have been included in the Tier 1A
capacity/operational improvements list. These projects were selected because they have the
potential to improve LOS problems and facilitate traffic flow along specific expressway
segments as described below:
v
Foothill operational corridor improvement ($1.5 million)- Signalized intersections
along Foothill between Edith Avenue and El Monte Avenue are closely spaced with
the adjacent local intersections in the City of Los Altos. This project includes
upgrading signal controllers at the local intersections, providing communication
52
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Table 4-1: Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary
Category
Project Description
Status/
Capital Improvements
(Funded)
Measure B Program
Cost
(millions)
Recommended Tier
TOS improvements including traffic
management center upgrades, new
loop and video sensors along the
$23.0
expressways, and fiber optic
interconnect between traffic signals
Traffic Adaptive System
implementation along Lawrence
$1.5
between Oakmead and Kifer
$24.5
Total Funded
Capital Improvements Signal Operations
(Unfunded)
Listed as Tier 1A Capacity/
Foothill operational corridor
Operational Improvement
Projects
improvements between Edith and El
Monte including adjacent side street
Intersections & at Grant/St. Joseph
$1.5
Lawrence/l-280/Stevens Creek:
optimize signal phasing and timing
plans including City of Santa Clara
signals at Stevens Creek and
County's signal at
$0.1
Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 SB on-ramp
Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal
optimization between Prospect and
$0.1
SR 85
Oregon corridor improvements,
including replacing signal standards
$5.0
and re-timing accordingly
Total Tier 1A Signal Operations Projects
Capital Improvements -
Included in TOS
TOS
Master Plan but not
funded
(Unfunded)
1A
$6.7
Traffic information outlets such as
electronic information signs, advisory
radio, cable TV feeds, and a web
$5.0
page
1A
1A
Install equipment to coordinate
expressway signals vi/ith city signals
on perpendicular sb'eets
Install equipment to connect with
Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain
View, and Los Altos traffic signal
$10.0
$2.5
interconnect systems
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
53
Table 4-1: Signal Operations and ICS Project Summary (continued)
Category
Project Description
Status/
Capital Improvements -
Addidonal TOS
TOS
projects
1A
Cost
Upgrade traffic signal system to
allow automatic traffic count
(Unfunded)
1
(millions)
Recommended Tier
collection
$0.5
(continued)
1C
Adaptive traffic signal system for
selected or all expressways based
$10-12
upon further feasibility study
2
New technology/ITS update over the
next 30 years
$83-105
Total Unfunded TOS
Operations/Maintenance
$55-75
Conducted by Expressway
Update signal timing plans along the
Study
following three expressway corridors:
•
Oregon between El Camino
Real and Indian
•
Foothill from Magdalena to
N.A
Edith
•
SanTomasfromMoorparkto
Scott
•
San Tomas from Hamilton to
Budd and coordination with
Hamilton system
Potential needs
Annual maintenance of TOS
equipment
$0.5 annually
Develop & update multiple timing
plans for different times of days and
$1.0 annually
days of week for all expressways
Total Operations/Maintenance
54
$1.5 annually
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
between the expressway and local signals, and developing timing plans to facilitate
traffic flow within the corridor.
v
Lawrence/l-280/Stevens Creek signal optimization study ($0.1 million) - This study
will develop optimal signal phasing and timing plans for operations during different
times of the day and/or different days of the week to facilitate traffic flow in the
interchange area. The study will include three traffic signals along Stevens Creek
Boulevard being operated by the City of Santa Clara and the County's signal at
Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 southbound on-ramp.
v
Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal operations study ($0.1 million) - This study will
develop multiple timing plans to facilitate traffic flow between SR 85 and Lawrence
Expressway during the peak hour periods.
v
Oregon corridor improvement project ($5.0 million)- This study includes replacing
and relocating the traffic signal standards at signalized intersections between El
Camino Real and US 101, constructing pedestrian ramps when the standards are
relocated, potentially adding a southbound left-turn lane at Middlefield Road for 8phase signal operations, studying operational/safety improvements at the
unsignalized intersections at Waverley Street, Ross Road, and Indian Drive, and
developing new timing plans based on the corridor improvements.
TOS Improvements
A total of $83-105 million has been identified for continuous update of the expressway TOS
using available and new technologies over the next 30 years.
As shown in Table 4-1, the unfunded items of the current TOS Master Plan ($17.5 million)
and upgrades to the County's standard signal controllers to allow for automatic traffic count
collection ($0.5 million) are recommended as Tier 1A projects. The automated count
collection system can help identify trouble spots in the signal operations/TOS and aid in
future design.
The County is already deploying a trial installation of a fully adaptive system on three
Intersections on Lawrence Expressway. Depending on the success of this trial, the adaptive
module can be added to the current County signal timing toolbox. Depending on the
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
55
feasibility and the number of intersections, implementation of adaptive signal system would
cost $10-12 million. This project has the potential to provide operational improvements in
the longer term and is, therefore, prioritized as a Tier 1C project.
Additionally, $55-75 million has been estimated and prioritized in Tier 2 to provide TOS
enhancements and update the system as new technologies become available over the next
30 years. The availability and cost of new technologies over a 30-year period cannot be
predicted with any accuracy. To arrive at a reasonable cost estimate as a placeholder, we
assumed that a sum equal to the current TOS project recommendations (approximately $55
million including both funded and unfunded elements) will be needed to replace the TOS
over the 30-year period. Another $20 million has been added to account for further
enhancements to the current TOS,such as incident management and communications with
systems in other agencies.
Operations and Maintenance
Currently, the County adjusts the signal timing plans along the expressways in response to
requests or complaints from the local agencies and the public and as monies allow. During
the Expressway Study, it became clear that a more proactive approach to adjusting signal
timing was desired and needed. Traffic conditions are constantly changing in response to the
economy and new land uses. These changes affect the length and times of peak period
flows, cross-street traffic demand, and the overall volume of traffic. Most of all, they affect
signal synchronization, which requires regular timing adjustments for maximum
effectiveness.
In response to concerns expressed regarding signal timing on specific expressway segments,
four signal timing studies were initiated as part of the Expressway Study. The scope and
purpose of these studies are as follows:
v
Oregon between El Camino Real and Indian Drive - Validate the need to include the
Caltrans operated El Camino Real signal for coordination with the Page Mill system
in the PM peak hours and with the Oregon system In the AM peak hour to facilitate
traffic flow along Oregon-Page Mill during the commute peak hours. Coordination
is required with Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto staff.
56
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
v
Foothill from Magdalena Avenue to Edith Avenue - Facilitate traffic flow between El
Monte Avenue and San Antonio Road and balance this movement with the throu^
traffic flow on Foothill Expressway during the commute peak hours.
v San Tomas from Moorpark Avenue to Scott Boulevard - Optimize timing plans to
balance expressway and side street delays during the peak hours.
v San Tomas between Budd Avenue and Hamilton Avenue - Optimize timing plans
for this coordinated system and provide coordination with the City of Campbell's
signal system on Hamilton Avenue.
These studies address currently identified problem areas. To develop a regularly scheduled
signal retiming program for the entire expressway system, a total of $1.5 million annually is
needed for signal operations and maintenance. The estimated cost includes $1.0 million to
develop and optimize variable timing plans for different times of the day and days of the
week for all expressways annually and another $0.5 million to operate and maintain the
TOS.
Inter-Agency Signal Coordination
As shown on Figure 4-1, the expressway signal synchronization system is disrupted by
Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways and by train crossings receiving signal pre
emption. Currently, there are railroad crossings on Montague Expressway and light rail
transit (LRT) crossings on Montague, Lawrence, and Central Expressways.
Traffic flow along local streets and on the expressways can also be impaired when there are
city<ontrol!ed signals at local intersections closely spaced with expressway signals. Several
of the signal projects listed in this element involve improved coordination between the
County's and other agencies' signals and/or incorporating the other agencies' signals into the
expressway signal system.
In addition, VTP 2020 recommends broader countywide planning efforts to define and
develop new ITS projects. These efforts require ongoing multi-agency partnerships. The
expressways, as major travel corridors, will likely play key roles in new Smart Corridor ITS
projects.
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
57
Specific recommendations for continuing to improve inter-agency signal coordination
include:
v
Work with Caltrans to bring more Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways
into the expressways' synchronized signal system.
v
Work with Caltrans on optimal ramp meter operations to ensure ramp queues do
not negatively impact expressway operations.
v
Explore additional opportunities to increase coordination between city-operated
signals on major cross streets with expressway signals to help optimize traffic flow
on both roadways.
v
Continue coordination efforts with rail operators to minimize expressway traffic
impacts, and where appropriate, support grade separation of the facilities. A
potential instrument for expressway coordination with LRT operations would be a
joint operation agreement to optimize peak commute operations for users of the
crossing, both on the expressway and LRT.
v
Continue to participate in VTA's ITS planning efforts and in the Silicon Valley (SV)ITS Program Partnership. VTP 2020 recommends that the SV-ITS partnership be
expanded to implement three additional ITS projects in Santa Clara and Southern
Alameda Counties.
58
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Photos for Section 5 to be placed Here.
Section Five
High-Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)System Element
The first expressway high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes opened on San Tomas Expressway
in 1982 and the Montague HOV lanes opened one year later. Since then, HOV lanes have
been added to Capitol and Lawrence Expressways and HOV queue jump lanes to Central
Expressway. Other improvements have included adding electronic signage, moving HOV
lanes off the shoulders, and expanding operating hours. Following the County's lead, the
state has added a significant number of HOV lane miles on the freeway system, and more are
planned. Today, we have 50 miles of expressway HOV lanes and 187 miles of freeway
HOV lanes, existing and planned (see Figure 5-1). The total miles of HOV lanes make Santa
Clara County the most HOV-friendly county in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The purpose of this element is to take a comprehensive look at the expressway HOV system,
including the performance of existing HOV lanes and potential expansion of the HOV
system. The goal is to establish an expressway HOV system that is truly effective and
functions well with the freeway HOV system.
Figure 5-1: HOV System Recommendations
%
Legend
■^Existing Fwy HOV
"^~Und«r Construction Fwy HOV
■— Planned/Under Study Fwy HOV
Expwy HOV
■
Expwy HOV on Trial Basis
OLRT
Fwy/Expwy HOV Connectors
^^Conversion to Mixed Flow or
(Candidates)
Q Fwy/Fwy HOV Connectors
(Under Construction/Planned)
62
Section 5 HOV System Element
Expressway HOV System Overview
Table 5-1: Existing Expressway HOV Lanes
Expressway
Capitol
Silver Creek Road to Capitol Avenue
Central
Bowers Avenue. Scott Boulevard queue jump lanes
Lawrence
Nearby Freeway
Expressway HOV Limits
Stevens Creek Boulevard to Arques Avenue
US 101, 1-680
N/A
^
Lakehaven Drive to Tasman Drive
Montague
San Tomas
Mission College Boulevard to McCarthy/OToole
Main Street to Mllpitas Boulevard
Budd Avenue to Walsh Avenue
1-280, US 101
US101,SR 237
US 101, 1-880
1-880, 1-680
SR 17. US 101
Caltrans does not allow the HOV lanes to continue through freeway interchange areas due to
concerns about the continuous weaving through the right hand lanes necessary to enter and
exit the freeway ramps. For that reason, the HOV lanes usually start and/or end at least one
signalized intersection away from the interchange area. This creates gaps in the system for
the Lawrence Expressway and San Tomas/Montague Expressway HOV lanes.
Current Plansfor Expresswaj^ HOV Lanes
Other planning efforts and recommendations that relate to potential changes in the
expressway HOV lanes include:
v
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020 and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's(MTO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) include adding HOV lanes
on Central Expressway from De La Cruz Boulevard to State Route (SR) 237 and a
1990 environmental clearance document includes HOV lanes through to Shoreline
Boulevard.
v San Jose's Evergreen Specific Plan Infrastructure Improvements called for the Capitol
Expressway HOV lane to be replaced by light rail service. VTA is currently
proceeding with environmental clearance for the light rail extension on Capitol
Expressway.
Section 5 HOV System Element
63
Expressway HOV Lane Operational Characteristics
v
Two or more people per vehicle are required. This is consistent with the freeway
requirements.
v
Operating periods are 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 7:00 PM. These times are
comparable to the freeway HOV lanes, although some freeway lanes start as early
5:00 AM and others end at 10:00 AM.
v
All expressway HOV lanes are bi-directional during peak periods, except San Tomas
south of El Camino Real and Montague, where the HOV lanes currently operate
only in the peak direction during peak periods. The 8-lane widening projects for
San Tomas and Montague Expressways will allow operation of the HOV lanes as bi
directional in each peak period.
v
HOV is in the right lane next to the shoulder. This is to allow transit to access bus
stops along the expressway. This location has a secondary advantage of creating
acceleration and deceleration lanes for all vehicles entering and exiting the
expressway using right turns.
v
Violations are defined as single-occupant vehicles proceeding straight through a
signalized intersection rather than turning off the expressway.
Evaluating HOV Lane Performance
In 2002,traffic counts were conducted at select locations for each expressway HOV lane.
These locations were selected based on maximum traffic volumes and stopped queues,
providing an incentive to carpool. The counts included number and types of vehicles in the
HOV lane, number of violations, and number of vehicles in the mixed-flow lanes. In
addition, travel time surveys were conducted for the length of each HOV lane.
Performance Measures
To evaluate the performance of the expressway HOV lanes, five performance measures were
used. These performance measures were based on similar measures used by Caltrans and
MTC to evaluate freeway HOV lanes. The performance measures are described in Table 5-2
Including how they were adjusted from freeway to expressway HOV lanes.
64
Section 5 HOV System Element
Table 5-2: HOV Lane Performance Measures
Performance
Freeway Standard
Measure
Total vehicles per
Minimum of 800
Expressway
How Expressway Standard
Standard
Determined
Minimum of 400
Converted the freeway standard to take
into account the lovirer capacity on
peak hour
expressways due to slower speeds and
signals.
Total persons per
Minimum of 1,600
Minimum of 880
Based on the average occupancy of 2.2
people per vehicle in the expressway
hour
HOV lanes.
Around this range of productivity, the
impact of converting the HOV lane to
Lane Productivity
(ratio of people in
No standard set;
however, could be
HOV lane to mixed-
considered at least
mixed flow would lead to no net increase
flow lane)
1.0 <1)
in capacity if a significant number of HOV
Minimum of 0.80
to 0.90
users return to single-occupant vehicles.
Violation Rates
No higher than 10%
No higher than
A higher violation rate standard was set
15%
due to the right lane position of the HOV
lane.
Travel Time Savings
Due to differing operating conditions, a
At least 1 minute
Travel time to be
per mile savings
equal or better
minimum travel time savings standard
over mixed-flow
than mixed-flow
comparable to the freeway standard
lane
lane
cannot be established.
However, lack of any travel time benefit is
indicative of operational problems.
Notes:
1) The "Lane Productivity" measure was established by MTC for use in the regional 2002 HOV Lane Master
Plan Update. The report notes that all freeways in the Bay Area, except one, has a productivity ratio of at
least 1.0 and several of the freeway HOV lanes have productivity ratios of 2.0 and 3.0 (i.e., double and
triple the people in an HOV lane compared to a mixed-flow lane).
2) Witii signals approximately every half mile, the primary benefit of expressway HOV lanes Is shorter queues
at the signal as opposed to freeway travel where the primary benefit is being able to travel at a faster
speed.
Key Findings
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize the performance of the expressway HOV lanes using the
performance measures. All measures must be considered to obtain a full view of the lane's
performance. Key findings include:
Section 5 HOV System Element
65
v
Capitol Expressway is the best performing HOV lane and has relatively low
violation rates.
v
Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways south of US 101 are performing acceptably.
This is likely due to no parallel freeway so these expressways provide the primary
central county north-south travel corridors. San Tomas has the most solid and
consistent travel time savings.
v
Lawrence north of US 101 performs poorly and has excessively high violation rates.
This is due to operational problems created by the early merging of single-occupant
vehicles into the lane to prepare for entry onto SR 237.
v
Montague Expressway's performance is marginal to under performing. The area
between 1-680 and Great Mall Parkway has high violation rates, generally due to the
lack of access control along the expressway (i.e., driveways between intersections).
Operational problems at the 1-880 interchange combined with street connections
and driveways immediately east of this interchange slow down travel in the
eastbound direction so significantly that the travel time for the Montague HOV lane
is higher than in the adjacent mixed-flow lane.
v
Central Expressway's queue jump lanes at Bowers Avenue and Scott Boulevard
perform very poorly even though the intersection evaluated operates at level of
service (LOS) F. Being closely parallel to the US 101 HOV lane probably accounts
for the poor performance.
In summary, the key problems with the under-performing HOV lanes are:
v Operational problems created by lack of access control and close spacing of
intersections/on-ramps leading to weaving conflicts and high violation rates.
v
Parallel freeway HOV lanes that offer more travel time savings and convenience for
longer commutes.
v
The right-hand HOV lane concept does not provide an incentive where a large
volume of right-turning vehicles must share the lane.
66
Section 5 HOV System Element
Table 5-3: Summary of HOV Lane Performance by Expressway
Existing Conditions for Peak Direction of Travel
Persons/Lane
Expressway
Capitol
Central
Intersection
Story
Bowers
Monroe
Lawrence
Homestead
Tasman
Trade Zone
Montague
Zanker
San Tomas
Monroe
Peak
Hour
Direction
of Travel
Mixed- Flow
Thru Lanes
HOV
HOV
Productivity
Violation
Rate
HOV(i)
Mixed
Vehicles
Ratio (3)
Peak Hour
Flow <2)
AM
Northbound
3
16%
1,060
973
1.09
556
PM
Southbound
3
17%
1.219
892
1.37
633
AM
Westbound
2
38%
205
998
0.21
88
PM
Eastbound
2
32%
245
947
0.26
94
AM
Northbound
3
38%
853
1,323
0.64
376
PM
Southbound
3
22%
1,070
1,038
1.03
461
AM
Northbound
3
35%
767
961
0.80
340
PM
Souttibound
3
28%
678
1,052
0.64
297
AM
Northbound
3
82%
275
637
0.43
98
PM
Southbound
3
39%
326
525
0.62
AM
Westbound
2
61%
427
1,059
0.40
208
PM
Eastbound
2
64%
315
892
j
0.35
103
AM
Westbound
2
34%
426
866
1
0.49
188
PM '
Eastbound
2
22%
557
668
:
0.83
235
AM
Northbound
3
30%
702
1,243
0.56
369
PM
Southbound
3
15%
903
980
0.92
448
!
124
Notes:
HOV = High-Occupancy Vehicle
SOV = Single-Occupancy Vehicle
Performance values shaded are tfie ones exceeding the following performance measure standards:
Violation Rate < = 15%.
Persons/ HOV Lane > = 880
Productivity Ratio > = 0.80.
HOV vehicles > = 400 vph.
1) Based on actual counts conducted by CCS and County (Capitol Expwy.)in 2002. The HOV volume also Includes bus and truck volumes
observed or estimated.
2) The values shown assume that all vehicles on mixed-flow lanes are SOV's.
3) Productivity Ratio =(HOV persons)/(avg. mixed-flow persons/lane)
Section 5 HOV System Element
67
Table 5-4: Expressway HOV Lane Travel Time Comparison
Expressway
HOV Lane
Capitol
Lawrence
Montague
San Tomas
Lane Length
(miles)
3.8
Peak Hour
1
AM
Peak Direction
Seconds Saved per Mile 1
North/Eastbound i
2001
2002
19
18
PM
South/Westbound
0
6
AM
Northbound
6
7
PM
Southbound
3
12
AM
Westbound
3
36
PM
Eastbound
1
-7
AM
Northbound
26
26
PM
Southbound
3
24
6.1
5.4
7.2
Notes:
1) Based on travel time surveys conducted by County Roads and Airports Department.
2) The "Seconds Saved per Mile" represents the average over the entire length of each HOV lane. The
standard for freeway HOV lanes is a minimum of 1 minute per mile.
3) The 2001 data for Montague was collected while various constiuction projects were underway, which
affected overall travel time for all lanes.
Operational Improvement Strategies
Looking more closely at the operational problems experienced by Lawrence north of US 101
and Montague between 1-880 and 1-680, a preliminary identification and assessment of
potential solutions was conducted. As described below, none of the options present
encouraging results in terms of effectiveness and general feasibility.
Potential operational improvement strategies include:
v
Remove of access/right turn movement - This is the most direct solution, but it has
limited application, could result in whole takes of properties lacking alternative
access, and does not address freeway connections, a typical problem area. This
strategy has application at other locations along the expressway, consistent with the
discussion in Section 2 regarding access vs. mobility. It is proposed for several
68
Section 5 HOV System Element
locations along Lawrence between 1-280 and US 101, where HOV lanes are to be
maintained.
v Add auxiliary lanes - This strategy would widen the expressway to add outside
auxiliary lanes in the hopes that this would allow separation of HOV through traffic
from right turning traffic, but it would result in an unenforceable center lane
operation for the HOV lanes; require costly widening, property acquisition and
other impacts; and risk safety impacts associated with unsafe driver lane change
movements because of unfamiliarity with this design and the legal restrictions.
v
Construction of frontage roads - Frontage roads address some of the safety issues
associated with the auxiliary lanes, but adds others by intensifying and
concentrating weaving movements at frontage road access points which would be
expected to be near signalized cross streets (the worst location from perspective of
HOV operation), and would be more costly and have more construction impacts.
v
Construct braided ramps - Braided ramps would apply a freeway design concept to
the expressways, with freeway project level costs and impacts. It would require
substantial property takes and potentially introduce other environmental impacts
(particularly in residential areas as along Lawrence).
New HOV Facilities
No new expressway HOV lanes or extensions to existing lanes are recommended except for
a funded project on part of Central Expressway (discussed further below). The expressway
segments without HOV lanes all meet at least two of the following conditions which are not
supportive of widening the expressway for HOV lanes:
v
The projected traffic congestion levels for the corridor are not high enough to
provide incentives to carpool.
v
The local community has other priorities for the right-of-way that would be used for
an HOV lane (e.g., bike travel, landscaping, and safety enhancements).
v
There would be operational problems due to lack of access control or
intersection/ramp configurations.
v
There are competing parallel freeway HOV lanes existing or planned.
Section 5 HOV System Element
69
The most significant enhancement that can be made to the expressway HOV system is
constructing direct ramp connections from the right-hand expressway HOV lane to the
median freeway HOV lane. These would be one-way connectors: from expressway to
freeway in the peak direction. The direct connector ramps could provide significant time
savings for carpoolers. They would avoid the ramp meter and meter queues and avoid
having to cross 2 to 3 lanes of congested freeway to reach the median HOV lane. They
would also help resolve existing ramp conflict areas for bicyclists as described in Section 6,
"Bicycle Element". Six locations are recommended for potential HOV direct connector
ramps.
Project Recominendations
Capitoi Expresswai;
v
Retain the HOV lane on Capitol Expressway from Nieman Boulevard to Silver Creek
Road pending completion of the US 101 Central Corridor Study. Should the results
of the US 101 Central Corridor Study confirm that the HOV lane should be retained
after the light rail project is built, consider connecting it to US 101 by constructing
an HOV direct connector ramp onto US 101 to encourage carpool use in this highly
congested corridor.
v
Removal of the HOV lane between Quimby Road and Capitol Avenue to provide
for LRT construction will be the subject of a VTA project environmental analysis.
Central Expressway
v
Complete the currently funded project to build a new HOV lane on Central
Expressway from De La Cruz Boulevard to San Tomas Expressway. Operate this
HOV lane and the Bowers Avenue queue jump lane on a trial basis for 3 to 5 years
with regular monitoring based on the performance measures.
If the HOV lane is not successful by the end of the trial period, convert it and
the Bowers Avenue queue jump lane to mixed flow to mitigate the LOS F
intersections along this section of the expressway.
70
Section 5 HOV System Element
n
If the HOV lane Is successful, extend it to Lawrence Expressway when funds
allow. If the HOV lane is retained, two interchange projects will be needed to
mitigate existing LOS F intersections, adding $80 to 90 million to the Tier 1B
list of projects.
v
Do not construct the HOV lane on Central Expressway from Lawrence Expressway
to Shoreline Boulevard for the following reasons:
West of Lawrence Expressway, Central Expressway has no existing or projected
LOS F intersections and, overall traffic congestion is not severe.
n
Central Expressway closely parallels a freeway HOV lane.
n
Ramp safety improvements are needed between Lawrence Expressway and
Mary Avenue in Sunnyvale.
•
From Mary Avenue to Shoreline Boulevard in Mountain View,there is local
opposition to removing the existing landscaping to construct an HOV lane,
especially since there is not a need for the lane based on traffic demand and
traffic congestion levels.
Lawrence Expressway
v
Convert the Lawrence Expressway HOV lane north of US 101 between Lakehaven
Drive to Tasman Drive to mixed-flow lanes due to poor performance and
operational problems, and to mitigate projected traffic conditions.
Montague Expressway
v
Convert the existing Montague Expressway HOV lanes between Main Street and
Milpitas Boulevard (i.e., between 1-880 and 1-680) to mixed-flow lanes, after the
appropriate environmental review and revisions to the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The conversion is be due to poor performance and operational problems and
to mitigate LOS F conditions.
v When the 4'*' lane in each direction is added, designate It as an HOV lane on a trial
basis for 3 to 5 years with regular monitoring based on the performance measures.
Section 5 HOV System Element
71
The design of the 4'*' lane should address the operational problems to the greatest
extent feasible. The 680-880 Cross-Connector Study should include funding for
correcting the operational problems should Montague be designated the primary
HOV connector.
n
If the HOV lane is not successful after the trial period and continues to
experience significant operational problems, convert it to mixed flow.
• If the HOV lane is retained, an interchange project at Great Mall/Capitol
Avenue may be needed to mitigate an existing LOS F, adding $42 million to the
Tier IB list of projects.
HOV Direct Connector Ramps
v
Candidate locations for expressway to freeway HOV direct connector ramps are as
follows:
Capitol Expressway and US 101 (subject to 101 Central Corridor Study)
•
Lawrence Expressway and 1-280(would be part of the overall interchange
reconfiguration for Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard/1-280)
Lawrence Expressway and US 101
Montague Expressway and 1-880
San Tomas Expressway and 1-280(would be a stand-alone connection without
an interchange)
San Tomas Expressway/Montague Expressway and US 101
Costs and Project Delivery
v Converting HOV lanes to mixed flow - Funding is required for environmental
review and for removing signage and pavement markings. These costs are
estimated at $0.1 million per conversion project. Tier 1A of the Capacity and
Operational Improvement Projects includes three expressway conversions for a total
of $0.3 million. Once funds are available, these projects could be completed in
about one year.
72
Section 5 HOV System Element
v Fixed Culdeway Funds - VTA receives federal Fixed Guideway Funds for operating
buses in HOV lanes. Converting HOV lanes will result in lost operating revenue for
VTA, estimated at $40,000 per year for the Lawrence HOV lane north of US 101
and $220,000 per year for the Montague HOV lane between 1-880 and 1-680.
v
HOV direct connector ramps - The estimated cost is $20 - 30 million for each
location assuming a one-way connection from the expressway to the freeway based
on the peak flow of traffic. The Lawrence Expressway/280 direct connector is
included in the Tier 3 project to reconfigure the entire interchange area. Another
$100-150 million has been allocated to Tier 3 for the remaining five locations
recommended. Once funds become available, these projects will take
approximately 8 to 10 years to deliver.
Operational Recommendations
v
Continue the regular monitoring program for the expressway HOV lanes to
determine performance using the performance measures. If not performing up to
standards, take appropriate corrective action. Some guidelines for corrective action
include;
High violation rates - If the violation rate is over 15% and less than 50%,
enforcement should be increased. Violation rates over 50% typically indicate a
problem with the usability of the lane. The operational problem should be
identified and, if feasible, eliminated. If it cannot be eliminated, consideration
should be given to converting the HOV lane to mixed flow.
Under-performing - If there is an incentive to use the HOV lanes due to high
levels of congestion and LOS F intersections, focus should be on what more
can be done to encourage carpool use. If the performance cannot be improved
and corridor level of service is poor, consideration should be given to
converting the HOV lane to mixed flow to relieve the congestion problems.
v Work with Caltrans to determine what is needed to continue the expressway HOV
lanes across the freeways, especially for the San Tomas Expressway/Montague
Expressway/US 101 interchange.
v
Continue to coordinate with Caltrans for consistency on operational policies for the
freeway and expressway HOV lanes
Section 5 HOV System Element
73
Section Six
Bicycle Element
On August 13, 1991,the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a "Policy for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Usage of the Expressways." This policy led to the removal of bicycle
prohibitions for all expressways. Over the last ten years, the presence of bicycles on the
expressways has grown. Foothill Expressway is such a major bicycle travel corridor that the
Expressway's vision includes the statement that it "plays an important role as a regional
bicycle facility."
For bicyclists the expressways offer convenient and direct travel routes with few driveways
and well-spaced intersections. They are ideal for bicyclists commuting to work or making
other long-distance trips. However, there has been general agreement among the public,
policymakers, and technical staff that only advanced-skilled bicyclists should be encouraged
to use the expressways. Given the high speeds and freeway-like merging and crossing
movements, the expressways are not for children or occasional recreational bicyclists.
Therefore, the Bicycle Element is based on the following two principles:
v
Bicycle travel will be accommodated on all expressways.
v The expressways should only be used by advanced-skilled bicyclists and should not
be used by children or novice bicyclists.
Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines
County Roads now has over ten years of experience with unregulated bicycle travel on all
expressways, and several more years of experience with bicycles on some expressways.
During this time, County Roads staff, working closely with the cities and the County Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), has been continuously modifying and
improving striping and signage along the expressways for bicycles.
The first step in developing the Expressway Study's Bicycle Element was to document
standard bicycle treatments by creating Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG). The
BAG consists of detail diagrams that will be applied to the entire length of all expressways. It
includes guidelines on bicycle travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections,
maintenance, and several other design treatments. The BAG is consistent with the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual(HDM)and will be updated as needed when changes are made to
bicycle treatments in the HDM. Listed below are the objectives and guidelines used to
formulate the BAG.
Objectives
1. Provide safer accommodation for bicyclists along all expressways.
2. Be consistent along the entire length of each expressway and among the expressways for
the benefit of both motorists and cyclists, to the extent possible.
Guidelines
1. Travel width - Provide adequate continuous travel width for use by bicyclists on the
expressways.
2. Delineation - Delineate the bicycle travel width with shoulder stripes and other striping
as needed.
3. Entrance and exit ramps - On county facility, signalize exiting or merging movements
with two or more lanes. In Caltrans' jurisdiction, work with Caltrans to improve
situations where bicyclists must cross more than one conflicting vehicle lane at a time.
4. Safe passage across intersections - Provide intersection design treatments and operations
that enhance safe passage for bicyclists.
76
Section 6 Bicycle Element
5. Trail connectivity - Wherever feasible, work with trail operators to plan for and provide
direct connections between trail over and undercrossings and both directions of
expressways.
6. Maintenance - Maintain clear and clean shoulder areas on the expressways.
Bicycle improvement Projects
The bicycle improvements identified here are needed to bring all expressways into full
compliance with the BAG. There are four categories of improvements. They are described
below, along with costs and implementation recommendations as appropriate.
Pavement Delineation
This category includes improvements related to striping, such as replacing dashes with solid
stripes, providing a bike through slot between through and right-turn or auxiliary lanes, and
installing a dash stripe across driveways. Due to the current resurfacing program funded by
the Measure B Sales Tax, many of the expressways have recently been or will soon be restriped in compliance with the BAG at no extra cost. It is estimated that $0.6 million is
needed for re-striping treatments at key spots that are not due to be resurfaced in the near
future. A bicycle grant for $0.5 million has been received, leaving $0.1 million unfunded.
Ramp Conflicts
This category deals with freeway/expressway interchanges where there are double-right onramps(one lane Is usually an HOV bypass lane) which forces a bicyclist to cross more than
one conflicting vehicle lane at a time. The ramp conflict locations, shown in Figure 6-1, as
fol lows:
v
Almaden/State Route(SR)85
v
Capitol/US 101
v
Lawrence/US 101
v
Lawrence/SR 237
v
Montague/San Tomas/US 101
v
Oregon-Page Mill/1-280
v
San Tomas/SR 17
Section 6 Bicycle Element
77
Figure 6-1: Bicycle Facility Improvements
//
QmkJHmrn
m^^Miinii rw
CiMk
MHadwCiMPm
UVM
W—w
CtmMJnM
CeiWtCwfc
Legend
• Trail Connections
I pool Existing Pad. Overcrossing
Proposed Ped. Overcrossing
Operationai Reconstruction
Projects
I
C allw—ltd
A
n Shoulder Widening
n Ramp Conflict Locatione
Note:0«twrml ra-otriplng nvded ayetamvidde for compliance with BAO
Potential solutions for these conflicts include reducing the entrance point of the on-ramp to
one lane and then widening to 2 or 3 lanes on the ramp itself; adding a stop signal light at
the on-ramp; or creating a bike through slot when both lanes are exit-only lanes. Any design
change, however, must receive Caltrans approval and be supported in the HDM. County
staff will continue to work with Caltrans staff to study design options that can improve the
situation yet still meet traffic demand requirements. No project costs are provided because
the improvements are still to be determined.
There is a roadway project recommended that will eliminate one of the ramp conflicts. The
Page Mill/1-280 interchange project will reconfigure the west side of the interchange into a
78
Section 6 Bicycle Element
half diamond and will cost $5 million. Since it provides operational benefits, it is included
in the Tier 1A list of projects in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element.
There may also be opportunities to work with Caltrans to resolve some ramp conflict
locations as part of projects recommended in the Capacity/Operational Improvement
Element. Specifically, the Tier lA Almaden/SR 85 Project Study Report(PSR), Tier IB
Montague/US 101 par-cio interchange, and Tier lA San Tomas/SR 17 operational/
safety improvement study present opportunities to look at new ramp design concepts. VTA
may also be able to resolve the Capitol/tJS 101 ramp conflict location as part of the US 101
Central Corridor Study.
The Capacity/Operational Improvement Element also includes a number of new expressway
interchanges. Following the BAG principles and guidelines, the interchange ramps will be
signalized or otherwise designed to avoid forcing bicyclists to cross more than one
conflicting vehicle lane at a time. In addition, as the interchange projects are designed, the
County will seek to make the interchange areas as bicycle and pedestrian friendly as possible
consulting with bicycling experts and the County BPAC on the design.
The HOV System Element includes recommendations to construct direct connector ramps for
HOV lanes. At several locations, existing HOV ramp meter bypass lanes are the source of
the conflict with through bike use. Installing direct connectors would eliminate the conflict.
Shoulder Widening
Projects in this category involve widening the shoulders to provide sufficient bicycle travel
width. Ten specific projects have been identified. The locations for these projects are shown
on Figure 6-1 and listed on Table 6-1. Costs and implementation of these projects are
divided as follows:
v The project on Almaden Is already listed as a VTP 2020 Tier 1 bicycle project. The
cost for this project is $2 million with $1.6 million in grant funds already allocated.
v
Lawrence (at Pruneridge and from El Camino Real to Kifer Road) will be
implemented as part of the County's 2003 pavement resurfacing project at no
additional cost.
Section 6 Bicycle Element
79
v Two projects (Foothill at Loyola Corners and Oregon at Alma Avenue) can only be
accomplished as part of the overall bridge reconstruction projects that are included
in the (Capacity/Operational Improvements Element. Therefore, there is no cost
estimate for just making the bicycle-related improvements.
v Three projects (Foothill/San Antonio Road, San Tomas/Hamilton Avenue, and
Capitol/Silver Creek Road) can be done as part of roadway projects already included
in the Capacity and Operational Improvements Element under Tiers 1A and IB at
no additional cost. However, these roadway projects may take 10-20 years to
implement. Given the relatively low cost of these pavement-widening
improvements($0.65 million total), it is recommended that these projects be
pursued independent of the roadway projects where site conditions indicate
minimal impacts or facility relocation.
v
Two pavement widening areas (Foothill/Magdalena and San Toma^Cabrillo) do not
have any associated roadway improvement projects. They will cost $0.5 million to
implement.
Specific shoulder widening needs for Montague Expressway have not been identified.
Montague is being widened to 8 lanes along its full length. Some sections are already
widened and some sections are funded, while the remaining unfunded sections are included
In the Tier 1A Capacity/Operational Improvement project list. The 8-lane widening project
scope Includes bringing Montague Into full compliance with the BAG, including providing
adequate shoulder width for bicycle travel.
80
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Table 6-1: Bicycle Improvement Projects
Improvement
Category
Location
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Potential Implementation
Most re-striping can be done
as part of near-term
pavement overlay projects at
Pavement
Delineation
All Expressways
Re-striping per Bicycle
Accommodation Guide(BAG)
$0.60
no additional costs. This cost
($0.50 funded) estimate reflects spot
treatments needed
independent of pavement
overlays.
Shoulder
Almaden between
Widening
ironwood and Koch
SB widening to provide
adequate shoulder per BAG
$2.00
VTP 2020 Tier 1 bicycle
($1.60 funded) project
Capitol/Silver Creek
Widen WB approach for
approximately 270 feet to
provide a bicycle slot
$0.20
Tier IB Roadway Project
Foothitl/San Antonio
Widen WB approach for
approximately 300 feet to
provide a bicycle slot
$0.20
Tier 1A Roadway Project
Foothill/Magdalena
approximately 600 feet to
Widen EB approach for
$0.30
provide a bicycle slot
Foothill/Loyola
Provide more shoulder width in
both directions under the
Loyola Bridge
Must be completed as part of
N.A.
Widen NB approach for
Lawrence/Pruneridge
approximately 150 feet to
provide angle break before
Part ofCount/s 2003
N.A.
Oregon/Alma Bridge
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Part of County's 2003
Prowde more shoulder
N.A,
Real to Kifer
Pavement Maintenance
Project
Pruneridge
Lawrence/El Camino
overall bridge reconstruction
project (Tier 1A in Capacity/
Operational Element)
Pavement Maintenance
Project
Provide more shoulder width in
both directions under the Alma
Bridge
Must be completed as part of
N.A.
overall bridge reconstruction
project (Tier 3 in Capacity/
Operational Element)
81
Table 6-1: Bicycle Improvement Projects (continued)
Improvement
Category
Shoulder
Widening
Project Description
Location
San Tomas/Hamifton
(continued)
Widen SB approach for
approximately 275 feet to
provide adequate shoulder per
Cost
(millions)
$0.25
Potential Implementation
Tier 1A Roadway Project
BAG
Widen NB approach for
San Tomas/Cabrillo
approximately 375 feet to
provide adequate shoulder per
$0.20
BAG
Total Funded:
$2.10
Total Tier 1A:
$0.45
Total Tier IB:
$0.20
Total Bicycle Improvement
Only:
$1.00
Total Needs
$3.75
Notes:
1 1) Roadway project costs in &ie Capacity/Operational Element include these bicycle improvements.
]
Trail Connections
One of the objectives of the BAG is to provide for connections to all creek trails that cross or
run parallel to an expressway. Trail connection points are Identified on Figure 6-1. County
staff will work with all related public agencies involved in building the trails to facilitate
connections to the expressways. All off-expressway trail improvements are funded by the
trails projects. It is not anticipated that the activities involved in facilitating the trail
connections will involve much cost (e.g., openings in fences); therefore, no costs for the trail
connections are included in the bicycle improvement plan.
The Pedestrian Element does include on-expressway projects to support trail connections.
These projects are crossing enhancements and a Pedestrian Overcrossing(POQ. Although
these projects will benefit bicyclists, they are generally considered to be pedestrian
Improvements and the costs are included in the Pedestrian Element.
82
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Cost Summaty
A total of $3.75 million in bicycle improvement projects has been identified with only $1.65
million unfunded. This is a low cost compared to other Implementation Plan elements for
three reasons: 1) most expressway mileage is already in compliance with the BAG due to
County Roads improving bicycle accommodations on the expressways for the last ten years;
2) the remaining major problem areas (Foothill/Loyola, Oregon/Alma Bridge, and Page Mill/1280) require operational roadway improvements that include more than just bicycle-related
improvements; and, 3) the freeway/expressway ramp conflict locations require Caltrans
agreement on design changes before cost estimates can be developed.
Bicycle Travel Area Maintenance
One of the BAG guidelines is to maintain clear and clean shoulder areas on the expressways.
In support of this guideline, the Maintenance and Operations Element of the Implementation
Plan includes a recommendation to increase sweeping of each expressway from one time per
month to twice per month plus on-call response. The estimated cost to implement this
recommendation is $0.6 million annually.
The Maintenance and Operations Element also includes increased levels of effort for
pavement maintenance, landscaping maintenance, and traffic control/safety devices
infrastructure replacement which will also benefit bicycle travel. As discussed in the
Funding Strategy section, these increased levels of effort, including more sweeping, can only
be implemented when additional operating revenue is secured.
Section 6 Bicycle Element
83
Bike Lane Designation Process
In general, the recommended expressway approach is to delineate bike travel width, but not
to designate bike facilities as formal bike lanes. Delineation refers to striping; designation
refers to bike lane signs and pavement markings. This approach is based on the concept that
children and inexF>erienced bicyclists should not be encouraged to use the expressways.
Another element of designation is the incorporation of routes into various bicycle route
maps. Casual recreational or family outing users could misunderstand inclusion on a bike
route map to mean an easy route for novices.
However, expressways vary as to existing conditions and community preferences. To allow
designation of bike lanes, the following process will be used:
1. Specific criteria for evaluating bike lane designation proposals will be developed. The
criteria will consider elements such as: posted speed limit, geometric conditions, type of
merge and diverge crossings, consistency along the expressway, consistency with city
bike plans, and continuity with other bike facilities, including creek trails. County staff
will establish the bike lane designation criteria using a collaborative process involving
city staff, the County Roads Commission, and the County BPAC.
2. Where new bike lanes are proposed, cities shall supply a council-approved request.
3. County staff shall than apply the criteria to evaluate the suitability and develop a
recommendation about the proposed bike lane. The recommendation will be brought to
the County Roads Commission and County BPAC, prior to submittal to the Board of
Supervisors for final action.
The existing bike lanes along portions of Oregon-Page Mill and Foothill Expressways will
remain in place. Extending these lanes, however, will require Board of Supervisors' approval
using the bike lane designation process.
84
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Photos for Section 7 to be placed Here.
Section Seven
Pedestrian Element
The Pedestrian Element focuses on two different pedestrian needs; traveling along
expressways and crossing the expressways. To identify projects for travel along the
expressways, a pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the entire length of each
expressway. For crossing needs, high-demand crossing locations were identified for crossing
enhancement treatments.
Pedestrian Facilities Along the Expressways
In 1991, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a "Policy for Bicycle and
Pedestrian Usage of the Expressways." The policy stated that the Board is committed to
accommodating pedestrians wherever possible, subject to safety considerations and fiscal
constraints. Since 1991, other agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Caltrans, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), have developed
policies and design guidelines to facilitate pedestrian use of roadway corridors. The types
and designs of pedestrian facilities on expressways will continue to evolve as new policies,
legislation, and design guidelines are developed. The County's 1991 policy is still in effect
today and is supported in the Pedestrian Element's recommendations.
Pedestrian Use of Expressways
Pedestrians walk along the expressways for a variety of reasons including: to access a bus
stop or building that fronts on the expressway; because there is no parallel facility available
or no other way to cross a barrier such as a creek or freeway; because they are unaware of
alternate routes; or for emergency needs (e.g., their car breaks down). Sometimes, the
expressway is simply the most direct route to their destination.
There are also a variety of conditions along the expressways that affect the level of pedestrian
demand and how pedestrian-friendly the expressway is. These conditions include:
v
All but one of the expressways are posted with speed limits of 45 or 50 miles per
hour. Some of the expressways have high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes In the
right-hand lane.
v
Most of the shoulder widths are six feet wide but there are some areas where, due to
limited right-of-way, shoulders are narrower. Shoulders are used for bicycle travel,
vehicular emergencies, traffic enforcement, and other emergency vehicle use.
v
Most of the expressways have little or no additional right-of-way available.
Pavement and landscaping may be using ail right-of-way available leaving no room
behind the curb line.
v Generally, there are few destinations fronting on the expressways. Buildings tend to
have their backs to the expressway with access points off a parallel local street, but
some expressway sections do have retail/commercial development fronting on the
expressway.
v Frontage roads and nearby parallel roads, trails, or easements are available along
portions of the expressways.
The expressway vision statements all classify the expressways as arterials; however, the type
of arterial ranges from high-end express arterials with some freeway-like sections to local,
multimodal arterials. These vision statements imply a different approach to pedestrian
facilities for each expressway. In general, for the freeway-like sections, a parallel pedestrian
facility is preferred while for the local arterials, sidewalks along the expressways are
encouraged.
88
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Recommended Pedestrian Facilities
To help identify pedestrian needs and projects, an inventory of existing pedestrian facilities
and conditions along each expressway was developed. The inventory included existing
sidewalks, shoulder widths, informal paths, frontage roads, parallel creek trails, surrounding
land uses, and locations of bus stops, schools, and other destination points. With the help of
the inventory, a pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the length of each
expressway. Pedestrian treatments varied along sections of the expressways based on
physical conditions, pedestrian needs, fronting land uses, and community development
plans. Figure 7-1 illustrates the pedestrian plan for each expressway with the following
pedestrian provisions and recommended improvements for pedestrian travel along the
expressways.
Sidewalks - Existing sidewalk locations and proposed new sidewalks are shown. New
sidewalks are recommended to close gaps, access transit stops, and provide access to land
uses fronting on the expressway.
Table 7-1 provides a list of new sidewalk projects totaling $6.6 million. Approximately $1.4
million of this need can be met as part of roadway capacity/operational improvements. The
remaining $5.2 million in sidewalk improvements will have to be pursued as independent
projects. The new sidewalk locations for Montague Expressway are not listed on Table 7-1
because they are already included in the 8-lane widening project, which is currently partially
funded.
Some of these sidewalks may not be deliverable. A final determination will need to be made
in context of the overall finishing treatments for the expressway. As discussed in the
Finishing Program Element, when right-of-way is limited, some tradeoff decisions may be
needed about sidewalks, sound walls, and landscaping for each project location as funds
become available.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
89
Figure 7-1: Pedestrian Improvements
Cvtiem
\
P' C*OKVl
/
\
/
\
fPoc
\
Legend
Profiosod Pad. Overcro»»lng
Existing P«d. Ov«rer«*slng
Bin Stops
Psdestrian Crossing Enhancsmont
Trail Connecttons
Existing Sidewalk
Proposed Sidewalk
Parallel StreeVPatti
tWde SlwukierlPath
Narrow Shoulder
CvndPi
Parallel Street or Path - Where convenient parallel streets or paths (e.g., frontage roads and
creek trails) are available, they are shown as the preferred pedestrian route along the
expressway. In some cases, a sidewalk Is provided to access a bus stop on the expressway,
but the parallel facility is shown for through travel.
Improvements to parallel streets and trails are not listed as part of the expressway program
since they are outside the expressways' right-of-way and under other agencies' jurisdiction.
The list of expressway sidewalk improvements does include improving connections to
parallel facilities. In addition, approximately $0.2 million for expressway signage directing
pedestrians to the parallel paths is included in the expressway pedestrian program.
90
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-1: New Sidewalks
Expressway
Location
Project Need
Cost
(millions)
Potential
Implementation
NW quadrant at Camden
Gap closure
$0.08
NE of Redmond
Gap closure
$0.15
NE of McAbee
Gap closure
$0.08
NEof Coleman
Gap closure
$0.23
Tier 1A roadway project
NE of Via Monte
Gap closure
$0.15
Tier 1A roadway project
SE of Cherry
Gap closure
$0.16
NW of Branham
Connect to parallel path
$0.06
NE of Koch
Connect to parallel path
$0.04
Vista Parl( to SR 87, south
Gap closure
$0.41
Gap closure
$0.41
Gap closure & connect to
parallel path
$0.63
west side &SE of Senter
NE of Senter to NW of
Connect to parallel path
$0.21
SW of Quimby
Gap closure
$0.41
Capitol Ave to i-680, west
Connect to parallel path
$0.36
NW of Mayfield
Gap closure
$0.05
Moffett to Rengstorff, norUi
Gap closure
$0.90
Neighborhood circulation
$0.41
Connection to bus stop and
$0.05
Almaden
Tier 1C roadway project
side
SWcfSnell to SE of
Monterey
Seven Trees to Senter,
Capitol
McLaughlin along Coyote
Creek Park, north side
Tier 1C roadway project
side
side
Whisman to NW of SR 85,
Central
north side
NE of Mary
businesses
Bowers to Oakmead, south
Business access
$0.41
SW quadrant at De La Cruz
Gap closure
$0.05
SW of Magdalena with
Connect to parallel path
$0.05
Tier 1A roadway project
side
Foothill
connection to Boulder
frontage road
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
91
Table 7-1: ^<jew Sidewalks (contirlued)
Cost
Potential
(millions)
Implementation i^)
Gap closure
$0.18
Tier 1A roadway project
SE of Pruneridge
Connection to parallel path
$0.03
North of Pruneridge, east
Gap closure
$0,18
SW of Benton
Gap closure
$0.03
NW of Lakehaven
Connection between
$0.14
Expressway
Location
Saratoga to Prospect, east
Project Need
side
side
Lawrence
Tier 1C roadway project
parallel paths
North of Palamos to Tasman, Connection between
east side
$0.25
parallel paths, bus stop
connection
Neighborhood circulation
NA12)
SW of Stevens Creek
Gap closure
$0.38
NE quadrant at Pmneridge
Bus stop connection
$0.03
NW quadrant at Walsh
Bus stop connection
$0.08
Total TierIA
$0.97
Total TierIC
$0.47
Total Sidewalk Only
$5.16
North of Elko to Caribbean,
east side
San Tomas
Grand Total
$6.60
[Notes:
New sidewalks for Montague Expressway are included in the 8-lane widening Baseline project.
1) Identifies which sidewalk installations are induded in roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element.
2) This sidewalk will require widening of the overpass at SR 237. An estimated cost is not available but could be $5 to $10
million. It should be noted that sidewalks are provided north of Elko along the west side over the overpass through to
Caribbean Drive.
92
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Additional funding will be needed for maintenance of the signs and is accounted for in the
Maintenance and Operations Element.
During the community outreach process, there was one request to provide a new parallel
facility: residents near San Tomas Expressway in San Jose have requested that the open creek
culvert along the west side of San Tomas(from north of Hamilton Avenue to Moorpark
Avenue) be covered, landscaped, and made into a parkstrip walkway. Implementation of
this request does not conflict with any of the expressway plans and the County would
support efforts by the city, water district, and trails program to create the parkstrip walkway.
Wide Shoulder or Path within Expressway Right-of-Way - In locations where there are no
sidewalks or parallel facilities and there is no major demand for pedestrian travel, these
shoulder/path facilities can serve as emergency walkways and for occasional pedestrian use.
No projects are recommended for these locations; however, landscaping needs to be kept
trimmed back at intersection areas and along the travel way so pedestrians do not have to
enter the travel lane. Landscaping maintenance costs are included in the Maintenance and
Operations Element.
Narrow Shoulder - These areas represent gaps in the pedestrian plan for each expressway.
There is no sidewalk or parallel facility and the shoulder area is narrow. In many cases, there
is a pedestrian facility on the other side of the expressway and, in some cases, a more distant
parallel facility is indicated. Typically, these areas represent no or low demand for
pedestrian travel. No specific improvements are recommended for these "gap" locations
since there is generally no immediately apparent cost-effective solution. However, the
locations are noted on the map so that shoulder widening and/or adding a pedestrian facility
can be pursued if an opportunity arises (e.g., future roadway improvement or new
development).
Pedestrian Prohibition
Pedestrians are currently prohibited along some sections of the expressways. Pedestrian
prohibitions along expressways are a function of and enforceable through city police powers
and, therefore, are established by city ordinances. When the County Board of Supervisors
adopted the 1991 Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy, one of the policy statements was to
encourage cities to repeal pedestrian prohibition ordinances, except where safe access is
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
93
impeded by obstacles that create an unsafe environment. Upon approval of the Expressway
Study Implementation Plan, County staff will assist the cities with reviewing existing
ordinances and revising them as appropriate to be legally enforceable, to reflect existing
conditions, and to meet city objectives.
Expressway Pedestrian Crossings
A key pedestrian issue for all expressways is facilitating safe pedestrian crossings, especially
at high demand locations near schools, community centers, transit facilities, and trail
connections. A total of 45 high demand pedestrian crossing locations have been identified
through city and community comments as well as field observations (see Figure 7-1 and
Table 7-2). These crossings are recommended to receive 'crossing enhancement'
improvements.
Types of Improvements
There is a wide variety of crossing enhancement improvements that could be applied to an
Intersection to make it more pedestrian friendly. Much is dependent upon existing
conditions at the site. Crossing enhancement concepts include:
v
Eliminate free right turns at non-signalized entrance/exits by adding 'Stop' or 'Yield
to Pedestrian" signs.
v
Eliminate free right turns at signalized intersections by modifying the signals and/or
curb line so the right turns must stop at the signal, including removing pork chops
where appropriate.
Use signals or yield signs at interchange areas to support pedestrian crossings at
ramp locations.
Add pedestrian bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances.
Use electronic signs with flashers to highlight the presence of pedestrians for
motorists.
Set pedestrian signal timing to allow enough time for crossing the full width of the
expressways, especially near senior housing, senior services, or elementary schools.
94
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-2: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
Expressway
Almaden
Capitol
Intersection
Access Needed
Potential Implementation
Tier 1C roadway project
O'Grady/Almaden
Trail; Bus stops; Commercial
Via Valiente
School; Commercial
Tier 2 roadway project
Trinidad
Bus stops
Tier 2 roadway project
Camden
School
Redmond
Bus stops; Commercial
McAbee/Winfield
Bus stops; Commercial
Branham
Bus stops; Commercial
Bluefield
Bus stops
Vista Park
Bus stops; Commercial
Snell
Bus stops; Commercial
Seven Trees
Bus stops; Commercial
Center
School
Tier 1C roadway project
Silver Creek
Bus stops; Commercial
Tier 1B roadway project
Abom
Bus stops; Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Castro
Downtown; Transit Center
Bernardo
Commercial
Central
Mary
Foothill
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Neighborhood drculation;
Commercial
Bowers
Commercial
Main/Burke
Downtown; Park
El Monte
School
Magdalena/Springer
School; Commercial
St Joseph/Grant
School
Vineyard/Homestead
School; Commercial
Tier 2 roadway project
Tier 2 roadway project
Tier 1A roadway project
Funded by Measure B Sales Tax
Program
Funded by Safe Routes to Schools
Program
Funded by Measure B Sales Tax
Program
95
Table 7-2: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations (continued)
Expressway
Intersection
Access Needed
Prospect
School; Trail
Tier 1C roadway project
Moorpark
School; Trail
Tier 1A roadway project
Mitty
School; Trail
Tier 1A roadway project
Pruneridge
Bus stops; Commercial
Homestead
Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Benton
Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Cabrillo
Schools (3); Commercial
Reed/Monroe
School; Commercial
Sandia/Lakehaven
Neighborhood circulaticm
Tasman
Light Rail Station
Tier 2 roadway project
North First
Light Rail Station
Tier 1A roadway project
Great Mali
Transit Center
Tier 1A roadway project
El Camino
Commercial
Bryant
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Cowper
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Middlefield
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Louis
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Greer
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Williams
School; Bus stops
Tier 1A roadway project
Homestead
School; Bus stops
Tier 1A roadway project
El Camino Real
Commercial
Tier 1A roadway project
Cabrillo
School; Bus stops
Lawrence
Montague
Oregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
Potential Implementation
Tier 1B roadway project
Tier 2 roadway project
Notes:
j
Average cost per intersection is $0.2 million
1
96
1) Sev^l pedestrian crossing enhancement locations are part of roadway improvement projects.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
v Install pedestrian countdown timers to inform pedestrians of the time remaining to
cross the street.
v
Install median signal push buttons where the median is wide enough to provide safe
refuge for the pedestrian.
v
Use high-visibility crosswalk striping.
v
Install signs to advise pedestrians to keep a clear distance from the curb while
waiting to cross.
v
Install pedestrian ramps on the corners of the intersection.
The effectiveness of various types of crossing enhancements in improving pedestrian safety is
continuously being studied and evaluated throughout the United States and other countries.
Some of the concepts listed above are experimental in nature (e.g., electronic signs with
flashers to notify motorists of pedestrian presence) and the effectiveness of others are being
evaluated (e.g., high-visibility crosswalks and pedestrian countdown timers). The list of
pedestrian crossing enhancement concepts will be updated as needed to reflect the latest
studies and the most effective improvements.
The exact improvements for each intersection must be determined on a case-by<ase basis.
As funds become available, the intersections will be studied to determine which types of
improvements and strategies are needed. City involvement and community outreach will be
included in the decisions of types of improvements to make.
Improvement Costs
The costs for these improvements can range from less than $0.05 million to $0.3 million per
intersection. The average cost is assumed to be $0.2 million since many of the identified
locations need the more expensive intersection reconfiguration treatments. With 42
intersections listed as unfunded for crossing enhancements, the total cost estimate would be
$8.4 million if all projects were pursued independent of roadway improvements. Twentyseven of these intersections, however, are within the project limits of recommended
capacity/operational roadway improvements, leaving 15 intersections (totaling $3.0 million)
to implement as stand-alone projects.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
97
Generally, those intersections needing curb line reconstruction or relocation of signals
should be done as part of roadway improvement projects, when possible. If the crossing
improvement is funded in advance of the roadway project, the improvements made must be
consistent with the final plans for the roadway.
There are also additional maintenance costs associated for the improvement concepts
involving electronic signage and new signal equipment. Implementation of these projects
can only occur if there is adequate funding for the ongoing maintenance and operations.
Pedestrian Overcrossing(POC)Structures
Pedestrian overcrossing (POCs) are typically recommended to facilitate mid-block crossings
of the expressways where high demand exists and the nearest signalized intersection is too
far away for convenient pedestrian use. New POCs cost approximately $4 million each.
Figure 7-1 indicates the locations of existing POCs and the following two recommended
POCs:
v
Almaden Expressway - near Coleman Road to connect trails and provide access to
the Almaden light rail station.
v San Tomas Expressway - near Latimer Avenue in Campbell to connect various
community facilities separated by the expressway.
Cost Summary
The total cost for the recommended pedestrian improvements is $23.2 million. Table 7-3
provides a summary of these costs by type of project. Table 7-4 indicates that approximately
$6.8 million is already included in roadway improvement project costs, leaving $16.4
million in stand-alone pedestrian projects.
98
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-3: Pedestrian Improvement Cost Summary
by Improvement Category
Cost
Improvement Category
(millions)
New Sidewalks
$6.60
Crossing Enhancements
$8.40
Parallel Street/Path Signage
$0.20
Pedestrian Overcrossings
$8.00
Total
$23.20
Table 7-4: Pedestrian Improvement Costs Included in
Roadway Projects
Cost
Roadway Project Tier
(millions)
Tier 1A
$3.57
TiertB
$0.40
Tier 10
$2.27
Tier 2
$0.60
Pedesbian Improvements Only
$16.36
Total
$23.20
At this time, the Implementation Plan does not prioritize the pedestrian improvements. As
discussed in more detail in the Funding Strategy section, the most likely fund sources for
pedestrian improvements are as part of roadway projects, developer conditions, and the
Valley Transportation Plan (VIP) 2020 Livable Community and Pedestrian funding program.
The roadway projects are already prioritized and will be implemented as funds become
available. Developer conditions will happen by opportunity regardless of priority. As the
Livable Community and Pedestrian grant program is developed, those projects that can
compete successfully for funding will be pursued. Therefore, the Pedestrian Element
identifies needs rather than priorities to take advantage of all funding opportunities.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
99
Photos for Section 8 to be placed here.
100
Sectimt 7 Pedestrian Element
Section Eight
Finishing Program Element
The Finishing Program Element involves improvements to expressway medians and edges
(i.e., back of curb to right-of-way line). These improvements include landscaping, sound
walls, and sidewalks. Due to varying community preferences and restrictive right-of-way,
and to avoid future conflicts or throw-away installations, it is important to plan for these
improvements in the coordinated context of a finishing program. Included in this element
are sound wall and landscaping needs. Sidewalk needs are listed in the Pedestrian Element.
The element concludes with a list of finishing program implementation strategies.
Sound Wails
In compliance with environmental regulations, sound walls are provided to mitigate noise
impacts along residential and other sensitive land uses when expressway capacity
improvement projects are constructed. However, there are several areas along the
expressways with no or inadequate sound walls. These expressways were built or expanded
before current practices for noise mitigation were developed. Most of the first generation
walls are 30 years old, are relatively low in height, and have become inadequate over time
with increasing traffic volumes. In addition, many of the existing sound walls that are
adequate for noise attenuation are reaching the end of their design life and will soon need
replacement.
To assess sound wall needs along the expressways, an inventory and noise attainment survey
was conducted to identify the following three conditions:
v
Locations where a sound wall does not exist but is needed.
v
Locations where existing sound walls are too low in height to provide an adequate
level of noise abatement.
v
Locations where existing sound walls are sufficient for noise mitigation purposes.
Sound walls are recommended for residential neighborhoods, schools, churches, and other
noise-sensitive land uses. Sound walls are not provided in commercial and office areas.
Evaluation Criteria and Methodology
The assessment of sound wall needs was conducted according to the guidelines of Caltrans
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These are guidelines that are in effect for
any state or federally funded roadway improvement project that would increase roadway
capacity or move the traveled ways closer to wayside residents. The assessment was based
on predicted noise levels resulting from projected 2025 expressway traffic conditions.
The criteria used to determine new and higher sound wall needs were as follows:
v The criterion that would trigger the need for either a higher wall or a new wall
where none presently exists is 65.5 decibels. This trigger helps determine the areas
of highest priority and establish funding needs that may qualify for grant funds.
v
The minimum height of a new sound wall is ten feet in keeping with the
requirement that sound walls must block the lines of sight between heavy truck
exhaust stacks and receptors on the ground.
v
The maximum height used is approximately 16 feet. This is based on the Highway
Design Manual, which limits sound wail heights to 5 meters (16.4 feet).
v
Consistent with relatively new Caltrans practices, higher sound walls were
indicated to abate noise levels for second and third floors of buildings if they would
provide at least five decibels of attenuation for these receptors.
102
Sections Finishing Program Element
The methodology used to determine the sound wall need locations and requisite heights was
consistent with the FHWA highway noise abatement regulations (as cited in 23 CRF 772).
Distances of the wall alignments and receptors from the roadways were determined using
aerial photographs. The sides of all eight expressways were videotaped to gather data about
the relative elevations of the roadway, existing wail tops, and the receptors. This data,
combined with the projected 2025 traffic conditions, allowed the noise consultant to
compute the noise level of receptors along the expressways.
Recommended Sound Wall Improvements
The initial results of the sound wall needs assessment were shared with city staff,
policymakers, and the community. Some of the locations identified as potentially needing
new sound walls were not supported due to conflicts with community preferences and plans.
These locations were deleted from the new sound wall list.
The recommended sound wall improvements are illustrated in Figure 8-1 and summarized
below:
v 63,500 feet of new walls are needed at various heights.
v
36,000 feet of existing walls need to be replaced with higher walls ranging from 10
to 16 feet.
v
The remaining 150,000 feet of existing sound walls are sufficient to meet the noise
level standard, but will require replacement as they reach the end of their design
life.
The overall result of the sound wall recommendations is that all residential areas would have
sound walls except in areas where they are in conflict with local preferences. There are
some relatively newer sound walls along Lawrence Expressway that are shown as being too
low. This is due to the application of the new second floor guidelines.
Sections Finishing Program Element
103
Figure 8-1: Sound WaH Improvements
6
...
\
5s.
Legend
'Sufficient Wall
'Higher Wall Needed
'New Wall Needed
Sound Wall Costs
The overall cost estimates for the sound wall recommendations add up to close to $100
million. Approximately $27 million is needed for new sound walls and $21 million for
higher replacement walls. Another $50 million is needed to replace the noise-sufficient
walls that become structurally and aesthetically insufficient as they reach the end of their
design life.
Table 8-1 provides a breakdown of new and higher wall costs by expressway. The costs are
provided by expressway segment for ease of comparison to roadway widening projects.
104
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects
Cost
(millions)
Project Description
Expressway
New
Wall
Higher
Replacement
Potential
Implementation
Wall
From Aimaden/O'Grady to south of Camden
•
Higher replacement walls along east side
between Winfield and Redmond, and new
walls between the existing and
$0.27
$0.42
replacement walls
•
Tier 2 roadway
project
Higher replacement and new walls SE of
Trinidad
Almaden
Between Coleman and SR 85
•
New walls NE of Foxchase and west side
$0.37
Tier 1A roadway
-
project
between Mesa and Coleman
Between SR 85 and SR 87
•
New walls NE and SE of Koch and SW of
Cherry
•
$1.91
$2,63
$3.26
$0.20
Higher replacement walls SW of Koch and
NW of Cherry
Between SR 87 and US 101
•
New walls along NE and SE of Senter, SW
of Seven Trees, NW and SE of Vista Pat1<,
gap closure on south side between Vista
Park and Bluefield, and NW of Bluefield
Capitol
•
Higher replacement wall SE of Seven
Trees
New walls for gap closure between 1-680 and
Capitol Avenue.
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
$0.28
-
105
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects (continued)
Cost
(millions)
Expressway
Potential
Project Description
New
Wall
Higher
Replacement
Implementation
Wall
From west of Rengstorff to SR 85
•
New walls along north side from Rengstorff
$2.33
-
to Shoreline, NW and NE of Moffett
Norffi side between SR 85 and Whisman
Central
$0.63
-
From Mary to Lawrence
•
New walls SB of Pastoria, NE of Mathilda,
and south side between Mathilda and Fair
Oaks
•
$1.38
$0.76
$8.39
$0.45
Tier 1A roadway
project
Higher replacement wall along south side
between Mary and Potrero, and SW of
Pastoria
Spot improvements along the expressway
•
New walls on north side near Arroyo and
adjacent to residences aiong Blue Oak,
NW of El Monte, north side between El
Monte and Springer, south side virest of
Springer and between Springer and east of
Loyola, north side west and east of Grant,
Foothill
and south side between St. Joseph and
Vineyard
•
Higher replacement wall NE of
Loyola/Fremont
Between i-280 and Central
•
Higher replacement walls on west side
near Dahlia, SW of Poinciana, east side
Lawrence
-
near St. Lawrence, NW of Granada, both
sides between Granada and Benton. NW
$2.63
of Homestead and SW of Pruneridge
Higher replacement wall NW of Prospect
Montague
Higher replacement wall on south side from
west to east of De La Cruz adjacent to the
mobile home park
106
-
--
$0.96
$2.06
Tier 1A roadway
project
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects (continued)
Cost
(millions)
Potential
Project Description
Expressway
New
Wall
OregonPage Mill
New walls on both sides between US 101 and
Alma (3)
Higher
Replacement
Implementation
Wall
$5.70
-
Between SR17 and Williams
•
New walls along west side and gap closure
on east side between Williams and Payne,
SE of Hamilton, west side near Bucknail,
SW of Budd, and NW of Winchester ramp
•
$2.25
$3.31
Higher replacement wails along east side
from sou^ of Hamilton to north of
Campbell and from Budd to Winchester
Between Williams and El Camino Real
San Tomas
•
Higher replacement walls east side from El
Camino Real to Forbes, SW of Benton,
$5.39
SW of Saratoga, vi/est side adjacent to
Tier 1A roadway
project
Greenlee residences north of i-280 and
Larkmead residences south of 1-280, and
east side gap closure north of Williams
Between El Camino Real and Central
•
Higher replacement walls along NW and
-
NE of Cabrillo, and east side from Cabrillo
$2.14
to El Camino Real
Total Tier 1A:
$1.75
$8.21
Total Tier 2:
$0.27
$0.42
Total Sound Wall Only:
$24.75
$12.31
Grand Total
$26.77
$20.94
Notes:
1) Sound wall needs are divided into expressway segments for ease of comparison to roadway widening projects. Each
segment can be divided into several separate sound wail projects since the sound wail needs are not continuous along die
length of each segment.
2) Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Element included these new or higher sound wall installations. Only
roadway widening projects are used because they include significant segments of new and higher sound wails. The
intersection roadway projects (i.e., interchanges and at-grade improvements)also include appropriate sound wails, but
tfiey are spot improvements that will not meet a significant portion of systemwide sound wail needs.
3) The new wails on Oregon-Page Mill are listed to document the need for sound mitigation measures. The local community and
city have indicated that other sound mitigation measures should be considered in addition to sound wails.
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
107
Within each expressway segment, the sound wall needs can be divided into several separate
sound wall projects since the needs are not continuous.
The $50 million needed to replace existing sound walls as they reach the end of their design
life is included in the Maintenance and Operations Element as Sound Wall Infrastructure
Replacement. Over the 30-year period covered by this plan, the average annual need is $1.7
million. The Maintenance and Operations Element also includes $0.2 million per year for
sound wall maintenance, mostly for removing graffiti.
Sound Wall Implementation
The sound wall assessment process was useful for dividing the sound wall needs into
separate categories. These categories illustrate the areas of highest need in terms of noise
abatement. They also provide a list of sound wall projects that may be eligible for grant
funding versus projects that will have to depend on maintenance and operating funds.
This assessment of sound wall needs, including potential heights, is strictly for planning
purposes. The determination of the actual height of each sound wall will be a balance
between the amount of noise abatement, impacts created by the sound wall, and general
community acceptance. These decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis when
the sound walls are designed.
Specific implementation strategies for sound walls include the following:
v
When funding is available to build new sound walls or replace existing sound walls,
the preferred level of noise abatement and sound wall height for each location will
be based on noise analysis, community outreach, and city coordination. Where
appropriate, other implementation criteria typically used by Caltrans and FHWA
will also be taken into account, such as cost-effectiveness analysis and the design
standard to provide at least five decibels of improvement. Should the final design
and costs exceed the state standard or funding amount available, cost-sharing
agreements may be needed for full implementation. Should the results of
community outreach and city coordination indicate a lack of support for sound
walls, the sound wall project will not be pursued.
108
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
v
Noise-sufficient sound walls due for infrastructure replacement that are located
within roadway widening project limits should be replaced as part of the roadway
project if funding is available. Completing all construction at once may lead to cost
efficiencies and prevents residents from having to endure two separate construction
projects.
v
Other noise abatement strategies can be considered when determining the need and
height of sound walls; however, their application will likely be quite limited. These
strategies and their constraints are described below:
Pavement treatments - The special pavement surfaces primarily consist of
"open graded" or rubberized asphalt concrete(RAG). The treatments provide
limited benefits (e.g., 3 or 4 decibels when the pavement is new and less when
older), and should only be used when material durability has been proven
dependable.
Trees or other landscaping - A 100-foot deep row of trees and shrubs with
dense foliage is required to provide noise reduction approaching that of sound
walls. Application of this treatment is limited by available right-of-way.
Expressway frontages are typically not wide enough to accommodate
landscaping of sufficient depth.
Earth mounding - Use of earth mounds is limited by available right-of-way.
Typical expressway frontages are not wide enough to accommodate mounding
of sufficient height.
Operational control - This strategy includes reduction of speed limits, heavytruck use restrictions, and land use restrictions. Use of these strategies could
diminish the effectiveness of the expressways in meeting transportation needs.
Sound insulation of structures - This would involve installing acoustically
qualified windows and doors for houses adjacent to the expressways. This
strategy is fraught with implementation challenges and is generally pursued on
a more limited rather than area-wide basis.
Sound wall projects are not prioritized beyond categorizing them as new and higher
replacement walls. As discussed in more detail in the Funding Strategy section, the most
likely fund sources for sound wall improvements are as part of roadway projects, developer
conditions, and the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020 Sound Wall funding program.
Sections Finishing Program Element
109
The roadway projects are already prioritized and will be implemented as funds become
available. Developer conditions will happen by opportunity regardless of priority. As the
VIP 2020 Sound Wall grant program is developed, those projects that can compete
successfully for funding will be pursued. Therefore, the Finishing Program Element identifies
sound wall needs rather than priorities to take advantage of all funding opportunities.
Landscaping
Landscaping is a critical finishing aesthetic element for the expressways, affecting both the
medians and roadway edges. The appearance of the expressways should contribute
positively to the community and attractive landscaping is an integral part of the expressway
appearance. Unfortunately, due to a lack of revenue to properly maintain landscaping, most
expressways have little or no landscaping.
The expressways with more extensive landscaping are under maintenance agreements,
where the cities or private developers are paying for landscape maintenance. These
expressways include:
v
Capitol Expressway between Silver Creek and Aborn (city maintenance agreement)
v
Central Expressway in Mountain View (city maintenance agreement)
v
Foothill Expressway - some sections in Los Altos and Palo Alto (city maintenance
agreements)
v
Montague Expressway - various sections (private developer agreements)
v
Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto (city maintenance agreement)
Recent land use development approvals along San Tomas and Capitol Expressways have
made developers responsible for median landscaping. Montague Expressway through San
Jose has benefited from assessment district contributions for both landscaping improvements
and maintenance.
110
Sections Finishing Program Element
Expresstcay Master Landscape Plan
In june 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County of Santa Clara Expressway Master
Landscape Plan. The Master Landscape Plan included the following items:
v
Evaluation and inventory of current landscaping and irrigation conditions
v
Identification of four 'levels' of landscaping, along with capital and maintenance
costs associated with each level of landscaping
v
Requirements and design guidelines for new plantings
v
Discussion of funding sources and strategies
v
An Action Plan to address landscaping needs, implemented by an Interim Policy
and Long Term Plan
The Action Plan's Interim Policy was based on the principle that new landscaping should
only be installed if it can be properly maintained. The Interim Policy, which remains in
effect today, includes the following statements:
v
New landscape improvements shall not be installed unless full recovery of capital
and maintenance costs can occur. New landscaping is dependent upon support
systems that provide supplemental water, periodic fertilization, and the elimination
of competing materials; therefore, assurance that maintenance costs will be covered
is fundamental to the initial success of any landscape installation.
v The County shall cooperate fully with public agencies and private entities seeking to
make landscaping improvements to the expressway system.
The Long Term Plan called for the County to seek regional funds for an Expressway
Finishing Program and to work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(VTA)to
develop a funding program to provide for final build-out and operational support of the
expressway system. This action item eventually led to the development of the
Expressway Study Implementation Plan.
Section B Finishing Program Element
111
Needs Assessment and Estimated Cost
The Master Landscape Plan stated that landscape improvements should establish at least a
Type C level of landscaping throughout the expressway system. The Type C level includes
trees and limited shrubs, with some ground cover and limited irrigation. The needs
assessment and cost estimates provided in the Master Landscape Plan were based on this
level of landscaping.
During the Expressway Study's review of landscaping needs, feedback from the cities was
that the Type C level was not adequate. It needed to be enhanced with a few features from
the Type B level to create an acceptable standard of landscaping. Therefore, the
recommended level of landscaping is as follows:
v
Trees and limited shrubs
v
Median finishes, such as decomposed granite
v
Sound walls covered with vines
v
Automated irrigation system
A revised needs assessment based on this enhanced level of landscaping concludes that all
expressways, except those sections under maintenance agreements, need new or upgraded
landscaping. The installation cost systemwide is estimated to be $19-23 million. The range
takes into account that some landscaping installation costs can be met as part of roadway
improvement projects. Although the installation costs are significant, there are a variety of
sources, including grants, developer exactions, and neighborhood "plant-ins," to provide
these one-time funds.
The more challenging obstacle has proven to be funding the annual maintenance. The
estimated cost to fully maintain the landscaping for the whole system, including maintenance
agreement areas, is $3.5 million annually. This estimate includes weed control, litter pick
up, and fence repair. There are no grant sources currently available to provide for these
costs.
Another critical maintenance need is replacing plants that reach the end of their natural life
span. This need is already acute along existing finished landscape areas. For example, trees
112
Sections Finishing Program Element
are periodically removed due to damage or death by frost, drought or disease, as well as
structural and safety issues. Currently, trees removed by County staff are not replaced due to
lack of resources. Replacement plantings require more maintenance attention than mature,
established plantings. The estimated annual cost for replacement plantings. Including
maintenance, is $0.5 million.
The Maintenance and Operations Element includes a total of $4.0 million per year to cover
all landscape maintenance needs.
Street Lighting
Street lighting is not provided along the expressways. Since the expressways do not
experience a high demand for pedestrian travel, there has not been a need for lighting. In
addition, the utility and maintenance costs of street lighting are high and beyond the means
of the expressway system's operating budget. During the Expressway Study, there were no
requests from local communities for lighting and one community specifically requested that
the expressway not be lit because it would disturb the surrounding homes.
Street lighting along Capitol Expressway may be added as part of VTA's light rail project in
anticipation that pedestrian traffic will increase substantially along the expressway. It is
expected that VTA or the City of San Jose will be responsible for the utility and maintenance
costs of the lighting.
Sections Finishing Program Element
113
Finishing Program Implementation Strategies
As mentioned in the introduction to the Finishing Program Element, finishing plans must
Integrate sound wall, landscaping, and sidewalk needs. Where right-of-way is limited, some
tradeoff decisions have to be made. This comprehensive approach is used during the design
and construction of roadway projects. But timing and tradeoffs also need to be considered
when projects are pursued independent of roadway improvements.
Some specific implementation issues and strategies include;
v
Installation of sidewalks and sound walls usually disturbs and/or displaces existing
landscaping. One opportunity to add new sidewalks and sound walls is when
mature plantings need replacement. This way all the elements can be integrated
into the new design.
v
Adding landscape improvements without consideration of pedestrians potentially
forces pedestrians to walk on the pavement closer to traffic. Where landscaping
uses all the area behind the curb, plans need to ensure good parallel pedestrian
routes are available with improved connections.
v
Growing vines on sound walls can reduce graffiti abatement costs and softens the
aesthetic appearance of the sound walls. The tradeoff, however, is increased
landscape maintenance costs.
v
While much of the expressway frontage properties are developed, finishing
improvements and maintenance continue to be implemented through development
conditioning on a limited scale. If expanded to apply consistently to all
developments, including those not fronting but perhaps within some defined
mitigation or assessment area, the practice could achieve more than the currently
limited effort. The cities and County should collaborate to complete the finishing
plans for each expressway and condition projects for improvements during the city's
development approval process.
v
One of the key limitations to providing wide, offset sidewalks and extensive
landscaping is the lack of right-of-way. There are generally more opportunities for
implementing expressway finishing plans in industrial/commercial areas than in
residential areas. Industrial/commercial areas tend to redevelop regularly allowing
114
Sections Finishing Program Element
the cities to condition the developments for additional right-of-way or easements for
the pedestrian facility and landscaping improvements. In residential areas, the rightof-way is more limited, individual parcels are smaller, and reconstruction of large
enough areas for continuous sidewalks/landscaping is less frequent.
It is expected that expressways will qualify for the VTP 2020 sound wall program,
although the assigned fund source does not allow projects off the state system. The
assumption is expressway projects will be accommodated through fund exchanges.
A potential topic for consideration in the next VTP 2020 update is whether the
sound wall category can be increased to respond to identified expressway needs.
Also to be determined is if, consistent with the above discussion, qualifying project
costs can include other finishing elements.
Sections Finishing Program Element
115
Photos for Section 9 to be placed Here.
Section Nine
Maintenance & Operations
Element
The Maintenance and Operations Element includes all activities and materials necessary to
keep the expressways functioning and looking presentable. There are a wide variety of
activities involved including signal operations, sweeping, pavement maintenance,
landscaping maintenance, enforcement, and aging infrastructure replacement. The key
feature all these activities have In common is that their costs are recurring rather than a one
time capital outlay.
Based on comments received from the public, cities, and policy makers, the overall goal for
maintenance and operations of the expressway system can be summed up as follows:
"The expressways should be cleaner and greener with smooth
pavement and synchronized signals."
Current Practices
Table 9-1 provides a list of categories for maintenance and operations activities along with a
description of the County's current practices. The County's current practices are determined
by available funding and cannot be enhanced until additional revenue is secured. In the
meantime, the County must first apply its limited revenue to safety and key operating areas,
such as operating signals, repairing traffic control/safety devices, repairing potholes, and
maintaining drainage systems. Aesthetic treatments, such as landscaping maintenance,
receive a lower priority and are more dependent on revenue availability.
Table 9-1: Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort
Category
Signal Operations
County's Current Practice
Optimize signal timing per
request/complaint as ^nds allow
Proposed Level of Effort
As described in the Signals /TOS Element:
Develop and optimize variable timing plans
for different times of the day and days of the
week for all expressways annually
Maintain newly installed Traffic Operations
System (TOS)
Sweeping
Once per month
Tviflce per month plus on-call response
Landscaping
Maintain landscaping and control weeds
along expressways wifri none to
minimum landscaping
Maintain landscaping and irrigation systems
Maintenance
Expressways with more extensive
landscaping have maintenance
agreements with cities or private
developers
Replacement plantings as needed
Control weeds
Glean up litter
Repair fences as needed
No replacement or new plantings
Fence repair and trash pick-up as funds
allow
Pavement Maintenance
Patch potholes as encountered
Continue to patch potholes as encountered
Resurface on 15-20 year cycle (60
Pavement Condition Index (PCI))
Preventive maintenance/rehabilitation to
extend life of pavement(70-80 PCI)
Use more expensive products like
Rubberized Asphalt Concrete(RAC) with
longer life cycle where cost-effective
Pavement
Implement pavement reconstruction as
Reconstruction
funds allow
(part of infrastructure
replacement)
118
Reconstruct/replace 10% of expressway
pavement sections within the 30-year
timeframe
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort (continued)
Table 9-1:
Category
County's Current Practice
Sound Wall Maintenance
Paint over graffiti in compliance with city
Respond to graffiti within 1 to 3 days of
requirements(1-2 weeks)
notification depending on type of graffiti
Sound Walls
(as part of Infrastructure
Proposed Level of Effort
Repair sound walls where damaged by
Replace all existing noise sufficient sound
errant vehicles
walls(150,000 feet systemwide) based on a
30-40 year life cycle
Replacement)
Infrastructure
Fix immediately when safety-related
items are broken or damaged; nonsafety items deferred until resources are
Replacement
available
Traffic Control/
Safety Devices
(such as signal & lighting
systems, guard rails,
signs, delineators)
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled routine before wom
out
Replace and upgrade materials to reflect
latest technologies/ materials where costeffective
Repair as funds allow
Other Infrastructure
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled basis to prevent
Replacement
service interruption
(such as sidewalks,
drainage, and other
utility systems)
Replace with more expensive but longer
service life materials \^ere cost-effective
Facility, Equipment, and
Maintain, repair, and replace as funds
Fleet
allow
Implement routine maintenance
Repair as needed
Replace based on variable standard life
cycles
Upgrade to accommodate the proposed
level of maintenance efforts listed above
1
Enforcement
Contract with the California Highway
Patrol(CHP)for enforcement on San
Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence
Continue to contract with CHP to patrol San
Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence
Expressways; if feasible, add Central when
Expressways
HOV lanes are added
Cities provide enforcement on all other
Cities continue to provide enforcement on
expressways
all other expressways
Note:
1) These expressways are patrolled by the CHP to help enforce the high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes. The CHP uses
the fines collected from HOV lane violations to pay for most of the costs of enforcement.
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
119
Recommended Levels of Effort
To develop a recommended level of effort for the expressway system, a survey of the cities'
current practices for roadway maintenance and operations was conducted. This survey was
useful in placing practical limits on what is desirable. The recommended levels of effort
described in Table 9-1 reflect a medium to high-end level compared to the cities' current
practices.
The total annual cost to provide the proposed maintenance and operations levels of effort is
$18.0 million. A breakdown of the costs is provided in Table 9-2. For some categories, such
as signal operations, sweeping, and landscaping maintenance, the costs are incurred on an
annual basis. For infrastructure replacement and pavement maintenance, the costs are
incurred at various intervals. For these categories, the total cost over the Implementation
Plan's 30-year planning period was calculated and then divided by 30 for an average annual
cost.
The opportunities for increasing operating revenue to meet the $18.0 million in needs are
discussed in the Funding Strategy section.
120
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
Table 9-2: Maintenance and Operations Annual Costs
Annual Cost
Category
(millions)
Signal Operations
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscaping Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
$3.8
Pavement Reconstruction
$1.4
Sound Wall Maintenance
$0.2
Sound Wall Infrastructure Replacement
$1.7
Traffic Control/Safety Devices Infrastructure Replacement
$2.5
Other Infrastructure Replacement
$1.0
Facility, Equipment, and Fleet
$1.2
Enforcement '2)
$0.1
Total
$18.0
Notes:
1) The annual cost for the landscaping category reflects the maintenance cost if all 8
expressways are brought up to the landscaping standard described in the Finishing
Program Element. The capital costs for landscaping Installation is not included
here.
2) The $0,1 million In annual enforcement costs Is in addition to the $0.3 million provided
to the CHR from fines for HOV lane violations. If the CHP were to provide traffic
enforcement for all 8 expressways, the annual cost would be $3 million with the
County and cities having to reimburse the state for the costs.
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
121
Section Ten
Funding Strategy
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan has laid out a comprehensive program for the
improvement and maintenance of the expressways over the next 30 years. The plan identifies
a total capital program approaching $2 billion as well as needs of $18 million annually for
maintenance and operations.
Funding such a program requires both aggressively pursuing existing revenue sources and
finding new revenue sources. It is also advisable to be realistic about how much of the plan
may actually be achievable during the 30-year timeframe given the competing interests for
transportation dollars. To address this, the various needs are broken out by capital and
maintenance/operations and into categories by type of project. In addition, the biggest
category of capital projects {roadway capacity/operational improvements) has been broken
into tiers to help the prioritization process.
This section summarizes the funding needs as identified in the plan; explains the existing
level of funding available to the expressways along with other competing needs for roadway
funds; and explores potential new revenue sources. The section concludes with a specific
list of funding strategies to pursue.
Expressway Capital and Maintenance/Operations
Needs
Total capital needs for the expressway system range from $1.7 to 2.0 billion. Table 10-1
summarizes the capital program needs by element.
Table 10-2 provides local match requirements for each tier list and the entire capital
program. The local match requirement is based on the 207© match policy included as part of
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's(VTA) Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020
Plan. The match requirement currently applies to all grant funds from federal, state, and
regional sources that are allocated by VTA.
Total maintenance/operations needs are $18 million annually, based mostly on existing
facility requirements(pavement maintenance and signal operations) and to a lesser extent on
build-out of the related portions of the capital program (i.e.. Traffic Operations System (TOS)
enhancements, landscaping). Table 10-3 summarizes the annual maintenance operations
needs by category to provide the level of effort that matches the adjoining cities' current
policies.
Table 10-1: Capital Program Needs
Element
'H
Subtotal Cost
Total/Net Cost
(millions)
(millions)
Capacity/Operational Improvement Element (including
HOV (5 signal/TOS projects)
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
$149-151
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
$261-271
Tier 1C Roadway Projects
$49-53
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
$585-671
Tier 3 Roadway Projects
$593-795
Total
124
$1,637-1,941
Section 10 Funding Strategy
1
Table 10-1: Capital Program Needs(continued)
Element
Subtotal Cost
Total/Net Cost
(millions)
(millions)
Bicycle Element
$3.75
Total
Funded
($2.10)
Tier 1A Roadway Projects d'
($0.45)
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
($0.20)
$1.00
Net Needs
Pedestrian Element
Total
$23.20
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
($3.57)
Tier IB Roadway Projects
($0.40)
Tier 1C Roadway Projects
($2.27)
($0.60)
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
1
1
$16.36
Net Needs
Finishing Program ElementNew and Higher Sound Walls
Total
$47.71
Tier 1A Roadway Projects d)
($9,96)
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
($0,69)
Net Needs
$37.06
Net Needs
$19-23
Finishing Program Element:
Landscaping Installation
Grand Total
$1,710-2,018
Notes:
1) The capacity/operational roadway project cost estimates include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and
sound wall improvements within each project's limits. In order to avoid double counting these
needs in the'Grand Total," the amount included in roadway projects is deducted from each
element's total needs.
2) Infrastructure replacement of aging, noise-sufficient sound walls is included in the
Maintenance/Operations cost summary.
3) The level of landscaping recommended in the plan is not included in the capacity/operational roadway
projects' scope of work due to lack of ongoing maintenance funding. If landscape maintenance
funds can be secured, then some portion of the $19-23 million in landscape installation costs may
be funded within roadway project budgets. Environmental mitigation requirements also may require
project replacement plantings, but lacking increased maintenance funding, agreements with local
cities or private partnerships will be needed to ensure planting survival.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
125
Table 10-2: Capital Program Local Match Requirements
Description
Annualized Cost
Total Match
(millions)
(millions)
CO
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
$29.8-30.1
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
$52.2-54.2
$1.7-1.8
Tier 10 Roadway Projects
$9.8-10.6
$0.3-0.4
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
$117.0-134.2
$3.94.5
Tier 3 Roadway Projects
$118.6-159.0
$4.0-5.3
$14.7-15.5
$0.5
$342.1-403.6
$11.4-13.5
Bicycle, Pedestrian, Sound Wall,
and Landscaping
Total Capital Program
$1.0
Note:
1} Calculated based on the VTA VIP 2020's 20% local match requirement for receiving federal and state
capital program funds. Annual cost assumes a 30-year capita! program implementation period.
Table 10-3: Maintenance and Operations Needs
Annual Cost
Category
(millions)
Signal OperationsTOS
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscaping Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
Infrastructure Replacement (all types)
$6.6
All Other
$1.5
Total
126
$18.0
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Existing and Potential Funding Sources
Existing funding sources for the expressway system are monies already allocated to the
expressways. This includes designated capital improvement dollars and maintenance/
operations revenue.
There are also established funding sources for which the expressways may be eligible, but
would have to compete with other roadways for the funds. These are called "potential"
funding sources because it is unknown how much of this money will be available for the
expressways. Described below are the existing and potential funding sources for the capital
program, local match, and maintenance/operations needs.
Capital Program - Existing Funding Sources
Measure B - The most significant source of current funding for capital improvements on the
expressways is the Measure B Sales Tax Program. Measure B, the general fund 1/2-<:ent sales
tax passed by County voters in 1996, will raise approximately $1.3 billion in revenue over
the nine-year life of the tax. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the sales tax monies for
many categories of transportation improvements including major highway and transit
projects. All Measure B revenue has been allocated.
Measure B expressway capital projects have included $11.2 million for level of service(LOS)
intersection improvements (e.g., at San Tomas Expressway/Campbell Avenue) and $24.5
million to upgrade to the Traffic Operations Center and to install fiber optic cable and closedcircuit TV cameras to improve the efficiency of the signals system. The Measure B
expressway capital projects have been listed as funded in the Expressway Study
Implementation Plan.
VTP 2020 Plan - VTA's VTP 2020 Plan was adopted in 2000. VTP 2020 estimates that
approximately $2 billion in flexible revenue from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(STP/CMAQ) programs will be available for Santa Clara County through the year 2036. VTP
2020 also allocates this money to various transportation projects and programs. Listed below
are VTP 2020 funds specifically allocated to expressway projects:
Section 10 Funding Strategy
127
v
Expressway Program - $80 million In 2006-2036 STIP funds for specific capital
projects on Montague and Central ($40 million each). When VTP 2020 was
developed, there was no comprehensive list of expressway projects and needs;
therefore, only projects that had been identified in other plans and studies were
incorporated. The Expressway Study Implementation Plan has now developed a
list of projects with priorities. In addition, the Central Expressway project identified
in VTP 2020 has been re-scoped (e.g., replacing the proposed Central HOV lane
through Sunnyvale with a safety improvement project in the same right-of-way)
changing cost estimates. The Implementation Plan assumes the $80 million will be
available to the Tier 1A list of roadway projects.
v
Freeway Program - $35 million in 2006-2036 STIP funds for two freeway/
expressway interchange areas: Montague Expressway/San Tomas Expressway/
US 101/Mission College Boulevard ($10 million) and Lawrence Expressway/1-280
($25 million). The Montague/San Tomas/101 project is a Tier IB roadway project.
The Caitrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the Lawrence/280 project is a Tier 1A
project and construction of the project is in Tier 1C. VTP 2020 also cites a Trimble
Road/De la Cruz/Central Expressway/US 101 ($25 million) project; however, this
project is not included in the Implementation Plan since it only indirectly relates to
Central Expressway.
VTP 2020's funding allocations were based on long-range estimates of state and federal fund
programs. Therefore, they must be revisited regularly to reflect changing conditions. VTP
2020 will be updated every three years with the next update starting by the end of 2003.
The first step in the update will be to revise the 30-year projections. Due to reduced
revenues at all government levels, it is anticipated that the dollars originally earmarked in the
VTP 2020 document may not be available in the same timeframe as originally anticipated.
Once VTA has revised the fund estimates, it will proceed to reallocate the funds among the
nine roadway transportation programs (e.g., freeways, expressways, local streets & county
roads).
County Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds - The County receives a bicycle/pedestrian project
allocation of $60,000 per year from Transportation Development Act(TDA) Article 3 funds
administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)to be divided between
unincorporated roads and expressways. The projects funded are based on priorities
128
Section 10 Funding Strategy
recommended by the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee(BPAC) and the
County Roads Commission.
Capital Program - Potential Funding Sources
VTP 2020 Plan - The VTP 2020 Plan allocates STIP and STP/CMAQ revenue among nine
transportation programs. Seven of the programs can potentially help fund expressway capital
improvements. These seven programs are summarized below and described in Table 10-4:
v
The Expressway Program earmarks money for expressway capacity/operational
roadway improvements.
v
Expressways are technically ineligible for the Freeway Program; however, there is
potential benefit when freeway funds are allocated to freeway/expressway
interchanges.
v
Expressways are eligible to compete for the Transportation Systems
Operations/Management(TSOM), Pedestrian/Livable Community, and Bicycle
Programs.
v
For expressways to be eligible for the Sound Walls and Landscape Restoration/
Graffiti Removal Programs, VTA would have to use a fund source not restricted to
freeways.
The remaining two VTP 2020 programs include Local Streets & County Roads($410 million),
where expressways are ineligible, and Pavement Management($450 million), which is
discussed as part of maintenance/operations funding sources.
As part of the VTP 2020 2003/04 update, funding may be reallocated among the various
programs. With the completion of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan, a list of
expressway project priorities is now available for funding consideration in the update.
Therefore, a key potential funding source is to increase the Expressway Program allocation
from the current $80 million to $150 million to fully fund the Tier 1A roadway projects.
With the constrained revenue projections, increasing the expressway's allocation will require
moving funds from other VTP 2020 programs, such as Freeways, Local Streets & County
Roads, or other programs listed in Table 10-4.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
129
Table 10-4; VIP 2020 Capital Funding Programs
These are programs with expressway allocations or for which expressways may 6e able to compete.
VTP 2020 Capital
Improvement Programs
Expressway
Category Eligibility
Federal
STP/CMAQ
(milllons)
(millions)
Montague and Central have been
specifically earmarked
Freeway
STIP
2006-2036
The freeway program is allocated a
o
OC
$820
total of $820 million. Two
freeway/expressway interchange
projects are included for $35 million.
Transportation Systems
Operations and
Management(TSOM)
VTA has a short-term list of projects
$70
that will use $50 million and the
remaining $20 million will likely go to
projects in the mid-term list. The lists
include some expressway projects, but
new projects would need to be added to
the list to receive funding.
Livable Community and
Currently unallocated - any eligible city
Pedestrian Projects
or county sponsored project could
$25
compete for these funds once VTA
establishes the criteria.
Bicycle
VTA has developed a tiered list of
bicycle projects to receive these funds,
$40
+ additional
it includes some expressway bicycle
funds from
projects, but new projects would need
TFCA & TDA <i)
to compete to be added.
Sound Walls
Currently unallocated - current funding
$30
source makes only freeway projects
eligible although the funds are intended
for both freeways and expressways.
Landscape Restoration
and Graffiti Removal
Currently VTP 2020 allocates the full
amount to augment Caitrans' efforts on
$30
the freeways while simultaneously
acknowledging needs on the
expressway system.
Notes;
1) TFCA = Transportation Funds for Clean Air
IDA = Transportation Deveiopment Act
130
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Developer Contributions- Generally, developer contributions have been and can continue
to be a good source of improvements to the expressway system. Cities collect traffic impact
fees or require direct improvements as a condition of the development permits. To the
extent County Roads is brought into the process, the department coordinates with the
individual city jurisdiction to suggest and support appropriate traffic impact mitigations.
Major projects previously funded by developer fees/conditions include the HOV lanes on
Capitol Expressway and widening of portions of Montague Expressway through Milpitas, San
Jose, and Santa Clara. The larger scale projects are rare, however. Usually the county
expressways receive small-scale improvements such as sidewalks, landscaping, sound walls,
or an intersection Improvement. A developer project to add median landscaping and sound
walls on Capitol Expressway is a recent example of this type of project.
The developer conditions have limitations as a dependable funding source. First, they are
unpredictable. They are generally a matter of opportunity and working closely with the cities
who have the legal authority to make developer exactions. Second, they usually require
nexus where the funds must be used on a project that has a relationship to the impacts of the
development. In other words, they cannot be automatically applied to the highest
expressway priorities. Finally, some developer fees have sunset or expiration dates that
make them problematic for matching federal grant projects that involve long development
timelines.
Local Match Funding Sources
The County remains financially challenged to provide a significant local match for
expressway projects out of existing County resources. Existing roadway revenue sources
must be used to provide maintenance and operations and are not adequate for providing
matching funds for capital projects.
The most significant existing and potential source of local match funds are developer traffic
impact fees. The County cannot directly collect developer traffic impact fees in the
incorporated city areas through which the expressways run. As discussed above, the
developer contributions are determined and collected by the cities, and the contributions
must have nexus to the actual project funded. It is unlikely that even an aggressive impact
fee program pursued by all cities would raise enough funds for the full 20% local match for
every project given the magnitude of the needs and the nexus requirement.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
131
It has been suggested that VTA treat expressway projects differently on the match
requirement. This issue has yet to be resolved and is expected to be addressed as part of the
VTP 2020 2003/04 update .
MaintenancelOperations - Existing Funding Sources
Table 10-5 lists the various sources of maintenance/operations revenue, both existing and
potential. The existing sources of expressway maintenance/operations revenue include:
Gas Tax - A portion of the state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel goes directly back to the
cities and counties for streets and roads maintenance. These funds are allocated based on
formulas set by the state legislature. There are no special funds received by the County for
operating the expressway system. Santa Clara County is the only county in the state with a
high-capacity expressway network operating through incorporated cities. The state gas tax
formula does not recognize the funding needs of such a unique system.
The fiscal year 2002 Roads Department allocation from the gas tax was $26 million. The
County must split these revenues between unincorporated roads and expressways. There are
635 centerline miles of non-expressway County roads including 248 miles of mountain roads
and 36 miles of County roads east of Mt. Hamilton. In addition, there are 168 bridges to
maintain on these roads. The mountain and rural roads place a special burden on the County
as they are particularly susceptible to extensive storm damage. The County has a legal
responsibility to maintain all unincorporated roads at a minimum standard regardless of
traffic volumes.
The expressways account for approximately 9% of the total County road centerline miles and
20% of the total lane miles. The County's gas tax revenue split is 807o ($20.8 million) to
unincorporated roads and 20% ($5.2 million) to expressways, equivalent to the percentage
of lane miles between the expressways and unincorporated roads.
Proposition 42 - The recent passage of State Proposition 42(March 2002) will benefit
transportation once it takes effect in 2009. This proposition clarifies that the sales tax on the
gas tax needs to be utilized for transportation purposes only. The proposition also clarified a
formula for the distribution of those funds. The annual positive impact to the County Roads
Department budget is estimated to be $12 million. With the 80/20 unincorporated
roadway/expressway split, expressways will receive $2.4 million more per year.
132
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Pavement Maintenance Program - The Measure B sales tax program allocated $27 million
in one-time revenues to help with expressway pavement maintenance. These funds will be
fully expended by the end of 2003. While the 62-mile expressway system received $27
million for pavement maintenance, the 635-mile unincorporated road system received $13.7
million in one-time federal funds for storm damage repair and long-deferred maintenance.
Despite applying two-thirds of the available pavement maintenance funds to the
expressways, not all of the immediate needs will be met due to the seriously deteriorated
condition of the pavement resulting from inadequate maintenance funds and years of
increasing traffic.
Landscape Maintenance Agreements- These agreements can be with individual cities or
private developers. Through these agreements, the parties generally perform the
maintenance themselves. There are agreements in place with Los Altos for landscape
maintenance on Foothill Expressway, Palo Alto for Oregon/Page Mill, Mountain View for
Central Expressway, and San Jose for a small portion of Capitol Expressway. A developer
agreement funds landscape maintenance on a portion of Montague in San Jose. In addition,
the expressways realize a landscaping benefit where commercial landowners maintain their
frontages by providing a landscaped buffer between their property and the expressway
outside the expressway right-of-way.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
133
Table 10-5: Expressway Maintenance and Operating Revenue
Expressway
Source
Annual Revenue
Comments
(millions in 2002 $)
State Gas Tax
$5.2
20% of County Roads' gas tax allocations; remaining
80% goes to the 635-mile unincorporated road
system.
SB 541 {if enacted)
$1.1
Based on the 4-cent immediate gas tax increase and
the 80/20 County roads/expressway split.
Proposition 42 funds
$2.4
Will be available starting in 2009 and assumes 80/20
County roads/expressway split.
Measure B pavement
$0
maintenance funds
VTP 2020 Pavement Maintenance
Unknown
Program (PMP)
A total of $27 miilion was allocated to expressways,
which will be fully expended by the end of 2003.
$15 million is planned to be allocated annually
among the County and cities starting in 2006. No
formuia has been set yet. The County's allocation
will be split between unincorporated roads and
expressways.
Federal Gas Tax Indexing {if
Unknown
Could increase VTP 2020 allocations of STP/CMAQ
funds to cities and County by approximately $1million
enacted)
annually.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFGA)
$0
This is a one-time grant source rather than an annual
revenue stream. $2.4 miilion will be allocated among
city and County grant applicants in 2003. Types of
projects funded are specialized and limited.
Landscape Maintenance
Agreements
Unknown
As opposed to being a revenue source, these
agreements relieve the County of financial
responsibility to maintain the iandscaping.
MaintenancelOperations - Potential Funding Sources
SB 541 - SB 541 (Torlakson) is a bill that would tie the state gas tax rate to the consumer
price index so as inflation goes up, the gas tax would automatically adjust upward to
compensate. If this bill were enacted, the initial result would be a 4-cent increase in the state
gas tax rate from 18 cents to 22 cents. This could potentially provide another $1.1 million
annually for expressway maintenance. Also of significance would be the automatic increases
in the state gas tax indexed to inflation assuring that this primary maintenance/
operating revenue source maintains its purchasing power over time.
134
Section 10 Funding Strategy
VTP 2020 Pavement Maintenance Program - VTP 2020 allocates $450 million in federal
STP/CMAQ money to pavement maintenance countywide. This equates to $15 million
annually that must be divided between the County expressways, County unincorporated
roads, and the cities. No formula has been set for dividing the funds; therefore, it is
unknown how much the expressways will receive.
Federal Cas Tax indexing - Similar to SB 541 for the state gas tax, there are discussions
occurring to index the federal gas tax to inflation. The current proposal is for an immediate
5-cent increase to restore the purchasing power of the federal gas tax back to 1992 levels.
This would potentially result an immediate increase of $7.8 million per year to Santa Clara
County and an annual increase of $1.0 million thereafter. It is unknown how much of this
money could flow to the expressways since the federal gas tax is used to fund the
STP/CMAQ and other federal grants programs. VTP 2020 currently allocates 55% of the
current STP/CMAQ funds to the VTP 2020 Pavement Management Program. Assuming this
allocation split continues, the Pavement Management Program could see an increase in
funding levels for city and County use.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)- These funds are generated by the $4 surcharge
on vehicle registration. The funds are used to implement projects and programs to reduce air
pollution from motor vehicles. Approximately $2.7 million from the recent cycle is available
to distribute within Santa Clara County using an application process administered by VTA.
Program criteria generally excludes most road improvements other than signal system
improvements under very limited conditions. Some cities have been successful in qualifying
trails improvements and maintenance vehicles for the grant funds.
Maintenance/Operations Shortfall
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan estimates that $18.0 million in today's dollars
would be required to provide the level of effort for maintenance/operations desired by the
cities and community. As the revenue projections indicate, the predictable sustainable
revenue available ranges from $5.2 million in 2003 to $7.9 million in 2009 when
Proposition 42 funds begin plus some VTP 2020 PMP funds beginning in 2006.
A critical problem is that the predictable revenue sources are based on the gas tax, and the
gas tax is not indexed to inflation. Cas tax is based solely on revenue off of gasoline sold.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
135
and it has experienced relatively fiat revenue growth due to more fuel-efficient cars and,
recently, the poor economy. In addition, gas tax revenue growth usually does not keep pace
with additional wear and tear on the expressways as traffic demand increases. Therefore, the
Increase in maintenance/operations costs often outpaces the growth in gas tax revenue. SB
541, if enacted, could help substantially with this problem. Without SB 541 or another type
of gas tax increase, most of Proposition 42 funds will need to be used to simply continue the
current level of maintenance/operations rather than expand efforts.
The lack of adequate sustainable revenue for maintenance/operations affects both the quality
of the expressways and the ability to make improvements. For example, the County will not
install nor allow others to install new landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining
it. Other capital improvements that create increased maintenance/operating costs (e.g., new
signal technologies, more roadway pavement) could increase the maintenance/operations
shortfall. For example, the $24.5 million in Measure B funds for TOS improvements just
paid for equipment and installation and does not cover the additional $0.5 million needed
annually to maintain and operate the system.
Summary of Capital and Maintenance/Operations Revenue
Sources
Table 10-6 summarizes all revenue sources described above, matching the specific funding
pots to each expressway element. As can been seen, the opportunities for funding different
types of projects vary depending on the funding source. This Is one of the reasons the plan
does not try to prioritize between the elements. For example, although some cities have
stated improved landscaping is a higher priority than either sound walls or pedestrian
improvements, there are currently more funding opportunities for sound walls and pedestrian
improvements than for landscaping. It is also difficult to prioritize sound wall or pedestrian
improvements, since the most likely funding sources are developer improvements and
implementation will be based more on opportunity than on priorities.
136
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Table 10-6: Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources
Capital Program
Existing Funds
Expressway
Cost
Element
(millions)
S""'"
Capacity/
$150
VIP 2020
Operational
Improvements
(Tier 1 A)
Expressway
(millLs)
(millLs)
$80
VTP 2020
Additional
Expressway
$70 from
VTP 2020
(including HOV,
SignalsffOS)
VTP 2020
$35
VTP 2020 TSOM
Freeway
Developer fees from
expressway
Unknown
cities
interchanges}
$1.65
Portion of
$70?
(freeway/
Bicyde
Potential Funds
TDA County
Portion of
Tier 1A Roadway
Bike/Ped
annual
Project*
Allocation
$0.06
VTP 2020 Bicyde
$0.45
Portion of
$40?
Pedestrian
$23.14
Developer conditions
Unknown
$3.57
TDA County
Portion of
Tier 1A Roadway
Bike/Ped
annual
Project*
Allocation
$0.06
VTP 2020 Pedestrian
Portion of
$25?
Sound Walls
$47.71
Developer conditions
Unknown
Tier 1A Roadway
Project'
$9.96
VTP 2020 Sound Wall
Portion of
$30?
Developer conditions
Landscaping
$19-23
VTP 2020 Landscape
Unknown
Portion of
$30?
Developer conditions
Unknown
Developer fees from
Unknown
Local Match for Capital Program
Total
$342^04
Tier 1A
$30
Non-Roadway
$15
Section 10 Funding Strategy
cities
137
Table 10-6: Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources (continued)
Maintenance & Operations
Potential Funds
Existing Funds
Cost
(millions)
Annually
$18.0
Source
Gas Tax
$
Source
(millions)
$5.2
SB 541 (if enacted)
annually
Prop 42
$2.4
(start in 2009)
annually
1
$
(millions)
$1.1
annually
VTP 2020 Pavement
Maintenance
Portion of
$15
annually
Landscape
maintenance
Unknown
TFCA
Small
portion of
agreements
$2.4 in one
time grants
More landscape
Unknown
maintenance
agreements
Note;
Only the bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall projects included in Tier 1A Capacity/Operational roadway
projects are listed as potentially fundable. The projects that could be built as part of lower tier roadway
projects are not included since no source of capital funds has been identified for the lower tier projects.
New Revenue Sources
Regardless of the outcome of the VTP 2020 update process, the amount of funds available
will fall significantly short of needs in capital, local match, and annual maintenance/
operations. Therefore, implementation of a significant portion of the plan will require new
revenue sources. The Expressway Study considered a variety of new funding sources in
terms of revenue potential, implementation process, and community acceptability.
During the study, a telephone survey conducted in late January 2003 concentrated on a
modest 3 or 5-cent gas tax for the expressway system. Although those surveyed use the
expressway system frequently(61% use it weekly and an additional 187o use it monthly) and
92% feel the expressway system is "an important part of the transportation system in Santa
Clara County," there was not strong support for paying for the improvements at the pump.
Of course, some of the pessimism can be traced to the downtown in the economy and the
138
Section 10 Funding Strategy
spike in gas prices, but there is also a feeling that the gas tax is a sensitive subject for many
motorists.
Based on these findings, the overall list of new revenue sources was pared down and can be
found in Table 10-7. As the table shows, the fund sources have the potential to raise
significant transportation dollars. Many of these funding sources are also being looked at by
VTA to solve their current transit operations fiscal crisis. The sources that may have the
capacity to support a transportation package for both transit and expressway needs are
marked. Most of the new sources will require a vote of the public and will need an
organized campaign to explain the benefits of the various projects to the voting public.
Federal earmarks are another possible new source for expressway revenue; however,
opportunities are likely to be limited to a few million dollars. The current reauthorization
program is known as the Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act of 2003, or
SAFETEA. It calls for authorizing a relatively flat federal surface transportation program for
the next six years. The County will pursue as much funding from federal sources as possible.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
139
Table 10-7: New Funding Sources To Consider
Potential Source
Potential $ from
Decision Process/
Source
Controlling Body
Approval Process and Comments
$65 million per year
County or VTA
2/3 vote if special district: simple majority if A plus B approach
Local Sales Tax
$130 million per
County or VTA
2/3 vote if special district; simple majority if A plus B approach
1/2 cent (1)
year
STIR Portion of
$22-29 million per
year after '09
VTA
Prop 42
Passed by statewide vote in March 2002. Allocation not yet
voted as a policy at VTA Board; however, in current VTA
funding plan, 100% Is earmarked for transit
Local Sales Tax
1/4 cent (1)
Regional Fuel
3-5 cents/gallon
MTC to allocate
MTC Is authorized up to 10 cents; approval requires majority
Tax/
would raise
calculation based on
vote of the residents In 9 Bay Area Counties
"car user fee"
$25 - 45 million per
year for distribution
population split, likely
to also Include money
wi^ln Santa Clara
set aside for region-
County
wide priorities
1 cent equals $7
million per year
Supervisors and the
Cities
Majority vote of the Board of Supervisors and the majority of
the cities representing the majority of the population In the
county and 2/3 vote of Santa Clara County voters
million per year
County Board of
Supervisors
nexus to % of wages within service area
* Parcel
Unknown,
County Board of
Tax/Benefit
Depends on tax
amount and scope.
Supervisors and
Property within certain distance of the expressways could be
subject to an assessment; 2/3 majority of property owners
Property Owners
would need to vote approval
Countywide Fuel
Tax
* Payroll Tax
Assessment
1/4% equals $150
County Board of
Would need to develop service area and determine fee and
District
Note:
1) Fund source being considered by VTA also, Could be a VTA/Expressway package,
140
Sect/on 10 Funding Strategy
Implementation Plan Funding Strategy
Taking into consideration all the existing, potential, and possible new funding sources, a
funding strategy has been developed addressing each major area of need.
CapacHylOperational Improvements - Tier lA
Tier 1A projects have highest priority for VTP 2020 Expressway Program funding allocations.
The Tier lA funding strategy involves the following steps:
v As part of the VTP 2020 update process, VTA will be requested to increase the VTP
2020 Expressway Program allocation from $80 million to at least $150 million to
allow full implementation of the Tier lA projects.
v If inadequate funds are allocated in VTP 2020, the Study's Technical Working
Group(TWO)and Policy Advisory Board (PAB) will reconvene to set criteria to
prioritize the Tier 1A projects to meet the available revenues.
v City participation in Tier lA project match requirements is not mandatory, but in the
absence of other sources available to the County to provide expressway program
revenue, participation by the cities may be necessary to allow projects to proceed.
Capaciti;IOperational Improvements - Tier IB
The Tier 1B projects, totaling $261-271 million, also address existing LOS F intersections.
There may be opportunities for the cities to provide all or a portion of the funding for a Tier
1B project through developer fees. The points listed below outline the process for advancing
Tier 1B projects early and for prioritizing the Tier 1B projects:
v If Tier 1A is fully funded through VTP 2020 and any city wants to advance a lower
tier project for funding prior to completion of all viable Tier 1A projects, the city
will need to identify Tier lA project(s) in that city, or through agreement with other
cities, which can be deferred to provide sufficient funding and allow the lower tier
project to proceed.
v
Tier IB project priority shall be based on evaluation of cost effectiveness defined as
the relationship of project vehicle hours traveled (VHT)savings to estimated project
cost as developed by the Expressway Study.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
141
v
To allow Tier 1B flexibility and recognize the significant contributions of local cities
and/or land developments within that city, city and/or developer contributions will
be deducted from the project estimate so the cost-effectiveness evaluation reflects
only the project requirements for grant or expressway program revenue.
v
Cities may choose to fully fund Tier 1B projects and distribute credit for that work as
local contribution to other Tier 1B projects in that city.
All Capital Improvements
The following actions will help produce funding for all types of capital Improvements:
v
Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigation fees and expressway
pedestrian, sound wall, landscaping, and intersection improvements through the
land development approval process.
v
Pursue funding from the various VTP 2020 comF>etitive programs for expressway
improvements.
v
Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as
pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
projects.
v
Pursue funding from other programs/agencies that benefit from a proposed project.
For example, off-expressway improvements needed to connect pedestrians and
bicyclists to the trails should be funded by the trails program and/or local
jurisdiction. Projects involving grade separating rail tracks from the expressway
should have funding participation from the rail operator.
Maintenance/Operations and Local Match
The following actions address the maintenance/operations annual shortfall and the lack of
local matching funds:
v Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating
needs and the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program
local match requirements.
v
Resolve the expressway local match issue during VTA's VTP 2020 update process,
especially if a new funding source cannot be secured. There should be an
understanding that the expressways are an essential part of the regional
142
Section 10 Funding Strategy
transportation network, with many of them serving residents and employees from
multiple cities. Improvements should not be limited to those areas with major new
development potential where cities can raise significant money. Strategies include
continuing to work with the cities to secure developer impact fees where
appropriate, exchanging federal/state funds for local funds with no match
requirements, and using other non-county sources as match.
Support all state efforts to index gas tax to inflation and to increase the gas tax to
help fund the maintenance and operations of the expressway system.
Continue with the County's current landscaping policy that states: "New landscape
improvements shall not be installed unless full recovery of capital and maintenance
costs can occur."
Include maintenance and lifecycle costs when approving capital projects. The
intent of this recommendation is to ensure that any "significant new burden" to the
maintenance and/or operations of the expressway system should be fully considered
in the context of the decision to allocate the capital dollars to the project.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
143
Photos for Section 11 to be placed here.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
123
Section Eleven
Next Steps & Updates
Upon approval by the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors in August 2003, the
Expressway Study's Implementation Plan will be submitted to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)for inclusion in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020
2003/04 update. It is anticipated that the VTP 2020 update will incorporate all projects and
priorities as identified in the plan. The VTP 2020 update will also determine the amount of
federal and state funding that will be allocated to the expressway program over the next 30
years.
Next Steps
Based on key recommendations in the Implementation Plan, the County of Santa Clara will
pursue the following activities:
v
Participate in the development of the South County Circulation Study to be
managed by VTA.
v
Implement signal timing plans for Foothill, Oregon-Page Mill, and San Tomas
Expressways using results of signal timing studies conducted by the Expressway
Study.
v
Monitor the performance of expressway high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes using
the established performance measures and take corrective action for underperforming lanes.
v
Conduct the environmental review and the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP)
amendment process for converting the Lawrence HOV lane north of US 101 and
Montague HOV lane east of 1-880 to mixed-flow lanes.
v
Work with Caltrans to determine what is needed to continue expressway HOV
lanes across freeway interchanges.
v
Update County policies regarding bicycle and pedestrian access on the expressways
as needed to be consistent with the Implementation Plan, including adopting the
policy for designating new bike lanes, establishing the bike lane designation criteria,
and continuing to work with cities in reviewing city ordinances prohibiting
pedestrians and seeking their repeal where determined unnecessary.
v
Work with Caltrans to study design options to eliminate freeway interchange ramp
conflicts for bicyclists traveling on expressways.
v
Work closely with VTA and the cities to pursue the Implementation Plan Funding
Strategy.
v
Continue to pursue grants and partnerships to the extent operating funds can
support match requirements or added maintenance responsibilities.
v
Update the Implementation Plan every three years in conjunction with the triennial
updates of VTP 2020 to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions.
v
Prepare an interim update if VTA does not fully fund the Tier 1A list of roadway
projects in the VTP 2020 2003/04 update.
Interim Plan Update
The 28 Tier 1A roadway capacity and operational projects address the top priorities for each
expressway and city and improves most of the current level of service (LOS) and
operational/safety problem areas. The Implementation Plan recommends all of Tier 1A be
funded as part of the VTP 2020 Expressway Program at a total cost of $1 SO million. With
only $80 million currently shown in the VTP 2020 Expressway Program, an additional $70
million must be identified during the VTP 2020 update process.
Should VTA decide not to allocate $150 million to the expressways, decisions will be
needed on which of the 28 projects will be funded within the available allocation. If it is
146
Section 11 Next Steps & Update
necessary to prioritize the Tier 1A projects, the Expressway Study's collaborative process will
be used to set the criteria and develop the priority list. The timeline will require that the
interim update lake place in 2004 prior to completion of the VTP 2020 update.
Triennial Plan Updates
The Implementation Plan's project lists, cost estimates, and other recommendations are
based on conditions known today. The plan will be revisited prior to each VTP 2020 update
so the VTP 2020 Expressway Program stays current.
The process used during each update will vary depending on the types of revisions that may
be necessary. In those years where new conditions do not affect the expressway project list
or priorities, the update is likely to be more administrative in nature with participation by the
County Roads Commission and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Should there be a
critical issue for one expressway or city, the County will set up a collaborative planning
process involving affected staff and policymakers to deal with that issue. If major revisions to
the plan are needed, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) and Technical Working Croup(TWO)
will be re-established. It is anticipated that every third or fourth update {9 to 12 years) will
require the full collaborative planning and technical analysis process.
Specific issues to be addressed in future Implementation Plan updates include the following:
v
Develop a delivery schedule for the Tier 1A list of projects during the update
immediately preceding the first availability of funds. Whether or not Tier 1A is fully
funded in the VTP 2020 update, the funds will be allocated over a 30-year period.
In addition, the first set of funds will likely become available after 2006. Therefore,
it is necessary to develop a delivery schedule for the project list to determine when
each project will receive funding once more is known about the timing of funding
availability.
v
Prioritize the Tier 1B interchange projects when enough expressway program
funding becomes available to pursue Tier 1B projects. The Funding Strategy
includes a recommended process for prioritizing the projects.
v
Incorporate any expressway-related recommendations from the South County
Circulation Study.
Section 11 Next Steps & Updates
147
Revise the HOV System Element's recommendations to reflect the results of the 3 to
5-year trial periods for the Central and Montague HOV lane segments.
Prioritize bicycle, pedestrian, and/or sound wall projects after VTA sets criteria for
existing funding sources and/or new funding sources become available. This will
help assure that the highest priority projects are the ones that will compete
successfully for funding.
Update the Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG)as may be determined
beneficial.
Update the Expressway Landscape Master Plan's block-by-block recommendations
to meet the upgraded landscaping recommended in the Implementation Plan when
funding sources are secured for systemwide installation and maintenance.
As conditions change, review feasibility of improving existing and projected LOS F
intersections and other problem areas that are currently considered impracticable or
undesirable to improve.
148
Section 11 Next Steps & Updates
Appendix A
Glossary
Under Development
Appendix B
Expressway Summary Sheets
Under Development
Appendix C
Summary of Plan Endorsement Actions
Appendix C
Summary of Plan Endorsement Actions
On March 25, 2003, the Board of Supervisors released the draft Implementation Plan for review
and comment. During the comment period, the city councils of the ten cities with existing
expressway mileage reviewed the plan. Listed below is a summary of the cities' actions and
comments. The final Implementation Plan was revised to reflect the comments received as
appropriate.
City
Date
Action Taken
Milpltas
April 1,2003
Endorsed the plan.
San Jose
Mays, 2003
The Council's Building Better Transportation committee approved the
plan with the following comments:
•
Include in the document a statement about the community's
request that the culvert adjacent to San Tomas Expressway be
covered and used as a landscaped walkway.
•
A mechanism is needed to seize opportunities that come along in
between the 3-year plan update cycles.
The full City Council received the committee's report on May 20 with no
further comments.
Campbell
May 6,2003
Approved the plan with the following comments:
•
•
Recommend that the County with VTA pursue local matching
funds for the San Tomas Expressway/Hamilton LOS improvement
project.
Reiterated the City's position of not supporting a closure of the
East Sunnyoaks Avenue on-ramp to San Tomas Expressway.
Saratoga
May 7,2003
Endorsed the plan.
Sunnyvale
May 13,2003
Endorsed the plan with the following comments:
•
Future improvements at ttie intersection of Central
Expressway/Mary Avenue and Lawrence Expressway/Tasman
Drive should be listed with the notation that local and regional LOS
standards are not projected to be violated at these locations within
the timeframe of the plan.
Cupertino
•
Encourage the County of Santa Clara to pursue shared
cooperative local match funding with adjacent local jurisdictions for
expressway capital project needs.
•
VTP 2020 Local Streets and County Roads program funds should
be made available for expressways improvements.
May 19.2003
Endorsed the plan.
' May 20.2003
Endorsed the plan.
Los Aitos
May 27.2003
Endorsed the plan.
Mountain View
July 8,2003
Endorsed the plan.
Palo Alto
August 14(tentative) '
TBD
Santa Clara
Appendix C
Page 1 of 2
Additional Endorsement
The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group endorsed the plan in July 2003 with a request that the
County consider making some of the funds in the Signals & Traffic Operations System Element
discretionary to enable the County to take advantage of new technologies that become available
during the life of this planning document.
Appendix C
Page 2 of 2
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Policy Advisory Board and Technical Working Group for their
commitment, time and efforts.
c
Policy Advisory Board
Left to right: Dave Cortese(San Jose Councilmember), Matt Pear(Mountain View Vice Mayor), Don Burr(Campbell Vice Mayor),
Dave Fadness(County Roads Commissioner), Ted Brown (County Roads Commissioner), Aldyth Fade(Santa Clara Councilmember),
Linda LeZotte(San Jose Councilmember), Tim Risch (Sunnyvale Vice Mayor), Sandra James(Cupertino Vice Mayor), Ann Waltonsmith
(Saratoga Vice Mayor), James T. Beall, Jr. (County Supervisor), Patricia Dixon (Milpitas Vice Mayor), Yoriko Kishimoto
(Palo Alto Councilmember), Don Gage (County Supervisor)
Technical Working Group
Zachary Chop
Caltrans
Matthew fue
City of Campbell
Ben Tripousis
City of San Jose
David Pitton
City of Santa Clara
Ralph Quails
Morgan Kessler
City of Cupertino
City of Saratoga
Kristi Abrams
City of Gilroy
Jack Witthaus
City of Sunnyvale
Jim Porter
Marc Roddin
City of Los Altos
MTC
Tom Ho
Doug Johnson
City of Los Altos
MTC
Joseph (Joe)J. Oliva
Carolyn Gonot
City of Milpitas
VTA
Jim Rowe
Jim Lightbody
City of Morgan Hill
VTA
Dennis Belluomini
Julie Render
City of Mountain View
VTA
Joseph Kott
City of Palo Alto
VTA
Chris Ching
City of San Jose
Casey Emoto
Acknowledgements
County of Santa Clara
Project Staff
Contributing Staff
Michael Murdter, Director
Roads & Airports Department
Rollo Parsons, Branch Manager
Dan Collen, Senior Civil Engineer
Study Project Manager
fon Elson, Branch Manager
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Dawn Cameron
Alan Jones, Branch Manager
Consulting Transportation Planner
Roads & Fleet Operations
Design & Construction
Masoud Akbarzadeh, Traffic Engineer
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Ananth Prasad, Associate Civil Engineer
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Bernardine Caceres, Civil Engineer
Design & Construction
Ruth Marston, Deputy Clerk
Clerk of the Board
Consultant Staff
Chwen Siripocanont
Ruth Bernstein
Team Project Manager
Public Outreach
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Evans/McDonough Company, Inc.
Betty Caudle
Project Assistant
Travel Forecast
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Dowling Associates, Inc.
Mike Aronson
Steve Fitzsimons
Keith Higgins
Pedestrian/ITS
Traffic
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Higgins Associates, Inc.
Kevin Picanco
Mike O'Connor
Civil/Roadway Design
Noise
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
MO'C Physics Applied
David Kobayashi
Traffic/Bicycle
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Chris Metzger
Civil/Roadway Design
Tim McKimson
Steven Grover
Landscaping
Pedestrian Overcrossing
SCA Architecture & Engineering
AAM Design, Inc.
Eileen Goodwin
Public Outreach/Funding
Apex Strategies, Inc.
Robert Burkhalter
Photographer
Robert Burkhalter Photography
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
John Ciccarelli
Bicycle
TransSight/Bicycle Solutions LLC
County of Santa Clara
Roads & Airports Department
Design & Construction Operations
RAOl 081903
'
~
H ■
Prepared by: Dan Collen
'
P
DATE:
August 19,2003
TO:
Board of Supervisors
•"V.
nW
■
'
"
'
''
Senior Civil Engineer
"
-
-w-
,
,
-v^
,
.
FROM:
/ aJ"
■%■
'ifei
i'
V
■
'
'
'I
Michael Murdter, '
Director, Roads & Airports Department
'
SUBJECT: Compreherisive County Expressway Plaiming Study Implementation Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Consider recommendations relating to Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
Implementation Plan.
■
,.
.
Possible actions:
'
"
, .•
,
a. Accept Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study documents.
b. Approve the study findings with respect to the nged for capacity and operational
improvements on the expressway sysfem as cpntainedTn the Roadway Projects Tier
Summary.
c. Approve the study findin^^^iWlefpliCt ^'liB^eli^Si^icycle and pedestrian
improvements, sound wal^j,|^jj^|^ging^g|jl^j||p|sway system as shown in the
d.
Other Capital Improvements summary.
" Board of Supetyis'ors; Dohald
;Ading County Executive:-Peter Kufra's Jr;;
,.
leriiHiumiBp 6?'
-
Pete McHu^K,,Jim(Beili, Uz l^nisf
BOS AgendaDate -August 19,2003
Approve the recommended Funding Strategy related to Capital Improvements and
Maintenance/Operations.
e. Direct staff to pursue the Next Steps outlined in the Executive Summary.
f. Direct staff to forward the Implementation Plan to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority for inclusion in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020
(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
FISCAL TMPLTCATTONS
There
are no fiscal implicationsTd-thelCeneral Fund ortblhe Rdad Fund.
ij-
CONTRACT HTSTQRV
None.
'Z.
f
-r>
n
'S'
.
'
''f n
REASONS FOR^ECOMMENDATTON
At its meetinglM^ 29^ 2003,the Study Policy Advisory Board votedj^aniir^sly tbk
recommend me St&y^Implementation Plan to the Board of Supervisors fonapp^al.
Approval hy the Boardvvill cdnclude the Studxarid allow the Roads & Aii^®s'Dei|aftment
to move forward with implementation of the specific recommendations containeddn the Plan.
sn
The Study has reguifed almost twOiyears Of colla'^gir^^^ planiiihgded
hj^the County and
involving all ofthe cifies haying expresswaysHhrdugh fheir'jurisdiction and
regional
entities(VTA,MTC,Caltrahs,'CHP). The StudZprocess included jxtdnsiye public outreach,
with two telephone;^p'i)ihion surveys, meetirigs with cprrnnunit^,.associations,,]^r^^^^^
to
chambers of cornmSrcc, cphtact with Silicon Valley ManufacSring Group dhd/pthPr
development mterests,.prbject;community rneetings and a Draft Plan Open House, a project
hotline, and a project web site:Vz^
^
^
'
0'i. --' i''
As a result, the Plan has the suppori; ofthedpeaThitiesf^ith^councilv^^
of endorsement
completed by Campbell, Cripertinp'/ Los^;£itos, Milpitas,,Mpimtarh View, San Jose, Santa
Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Ehdorsement of the Plan is;under process by Palo Alto.
Gilroy and Morgan Hill were represented oh the"Policy Advisory Board but were not asked to
endorse the Plan as the South qggn||j|lg|ning egp§ta!9,Pjliping. Los Gatos and Monte
Sereno have no expressway mileage in their jurisdictions. Los Altos Hills participated at a
staff level only.
Proeessor tiamie
HeSeriSa^rs
ifem' Muraljer
07.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage/BlaHca'Aivarado, Pete McHugh,Jlm Beall, LizKnIss
Ading County'Executive: Beter kutrasJr;
BbS.Agenda.Dat'eiv^ugust 19, 2003
In addition to city support, the Plan has been endorsed by the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group. A copy of their letter of support is attached.
The County of Santa Clara Roads Commission has also reviewed the Draft Plan and
recommended approval of the Plan and funding strategy to the Board of Supervisors, with an
additional recommendation that high priority be.given to eliminating the maintenance and
operations shortfall.
'"|
|
, ^
On June 19, 2003, the H6using|Laigi UsefjEnyino:^ ^^'ranspoftatibn Committee took
action to accept the staff report oh the Study as well as the recommendations ofthe Roads
Commission, and forward the Implementation Plan to the Board with'a favorable
recommendation, f,,
V
(Aj '0'
Misf-
.r
"•
r
V
' ,:i
"
'
r.
A
A,a: A,.,;.
BACKGROUND S^
'
'n.
,
n
. . -j-
:
%
n , ,
sS
^
= !;= • , • :
^
:
...
The CompreHdhsive County Expressway PlanningvStudy will serve as'a long Tahge strategic
plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressways. The Shidy Iinplementation
Plan includes seven elements devoted to describing the pfoject, operations, and mainfenance
needs anddmprpvement recommendations. An eighth element recom&ppds a funding strategy.
Finally, the plah includes recomrriendations for further.study of7South?Coimtytransportation
needs.
nn
»
n i\
'•,1
,
\
'j. ,
n
• . •' > .
. •1
^
. i
^*
...
i
, ■5-'
The plan identifies capitalimpfovement program needs totaling $1:7 - $2;0 billion, and unmet
maintenance andfoperations needs tbtaling $13 million annually .^Delivery pTthetentire capital
program would alsa require $ 11.4 — $ 13.4 million m aimualized matching funds, assummg the
projects are subjecttoTederal grant match requirements. The Board's apprbyul of the
Implementation Plan dbes nbt commit the. County to undertake any,particular project. Prior to
making such a commitment, the County would und.ertake the appti6|jri|te review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Gl^A) and would ^nsidehthe results of that review.
41:
i'b'
'V
I
-vS-..
Implementation of the Capacity and Operational Improvement Element would result in
substantial traffic congestion relief. Currently, 30 out of 129intersections on the expressways
are operating at Level of Servic^J^^Ol^l^fhe wbrlPeate^o^^df traffic congestion
of these traffic signal
locations would be operating at LOS P. The proposed capacity and operational projects
■ IbM Wuraiber 67:
' Board of Supetvisbrs:.Donald F. GagO, Bianca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jlrn:B:ea!l, Liz Knlss
Acting County Executive: Peter Kutras Jr.;
BOS Agerid^ Date :August,.19,'2003
mitigate 28 out ofthe existing 30 LOS F intersections, and 43 out of50 of the projected 2025
LOS F intersections. All but one ofthe LOS F intersections to remain deficient are the subject
of prior policy decisions or are the subject of continuing study (e.g. Capitol Expressway in the
area of the planned LRT project).
Corridor-wide traffic analysis shows overall corridor LOS to be significantly improved with
implementation ofthe capacity/ operational improvements. Six of the eight expressways
would operate at a minimum of LO.S -D with sdrne expressway segments achieving LOS C.
Montague Expressway east of1-8,80 \ypurd;,im]^^^ from LOS to E. West of 1-880,
Montague would continue to og&^e h^OS F ouLthe ^euing aniLo^erall delay would be
reduced significantly(25% redubtiph in ^l^Pf allvehicles; 13%inu|e reduction in travel
time). Capitol Expressway from Neiman Blvd. through the US.lOl infefchange would
improve from LOS F tb;!^.and would remain D west of US.lOl. Projected LOS information
for Capitol north of-^eiman to I-68U is not available-since the conditions iri^heiarea of
planned LRT cdns;^ctioh have not been fully defined. .
.A
' n ■'
J
Other elemehis of the plan address and quantify heeds .related to signal operatibhs, and Traffic
Operations System (TOS) impfbvements. High pccupanby Vehicle (HOV)dhneC bicydle
accommodations, pedestrian facilities, frontage fmishing withTandscapihgvahd sound walls,
and maintenance and opefatiohs at a recommended level of effort. .
"
At its March 25, 2003 meeting^ the Board of Supervisors approved relea|e/of dtafl Study
documents for public review attid comment; Methods used- tomotify the community about the
Draft Plan's availabili|y .and puf offer to rneef with bonimunity assbciatioris included:
• Sent notices" to,thet85 memb
the cbinmiinity whb have commented fin the Study
since its starf or'^ttendpd oiie of the Study's meetings^? . -A
" ''
^
• Mailed notices to 'oveh350 community/ neighborhood.associations throughout the
county, made possible by the^^United^eighbOrhopds of S thta Clara County who
provided their membership mailing li^t.
'
• Received assistance fronMh^difies^fMi^ifSsfMOuSflln View, and Sunnyvale, and
from San Jose PAB membei:s.whq.nQtified kewcpmmunity associations.
n- ycemur i aamM
opter.i aalipi
iieti'sTlilffMjibr
67
Board dfSupemsors: Dori"a|d F. GageV.BIanca Alva'radd, Pete tvlcHugh, Jirri.BVall, Liz Ktiiss
.Acting-County Executive: Rater Kutras.Jr.;
BOS Agenda Date :AUgust,19, 2003
• Submitted newsletter articles for various community groups and articles about the Draft
Plan appeared in some of the local newspapers.
As a result of the outreach, comments and inquiries were received on the Study website and
hotline, and staff was requested to attend various community association meetings.
Project staff presented the Draft,Plan to A^STA's Ihtizen 2|tdvi|6ry,Committee(CAC)and
Teehnieal Advisory Committee^(?TAC|li Thi drafe bicydejari|pede^an elements of the Plan
were presented to the Coimty/ ^JA|Bicycle and PedestriallAdyisoty Committee(BPAC). In
addition, three cities (Campbell, Los Altos,'and Sunnyvalej.Jtqolc theseielements to their
BPACs and forwarded.comments. Santa Clara dhd Milpitas B.PACs had reviewed the bicycle
and pedestrian elements barlier in the process and forwarded comihents. . &
...
-ft
As a result of,the outreach-warious discussions were held and a number,df comments were
received. MosLof.the discussion at m:eetings..and:Some oftheiconi^
wereWetually
questions and requestsfoil clarification Staff has respbMed*to all.ofthese^^
and'have
incorporated text changes as needed and app^ropriate, and ditfhighlight- all,'sigmfieantiihanges
proposed to the.Draft to the PAB at.the Mhy 29, 2003 iheeMg. The edits were alLaccepted as
part of the;appipying action ofthe PAB.;. ,; - ;.;j>
n
V'
i
'
-i
b'
*1 '
"
i',
A - .- "
-t
3 -J
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
-
lyp
-4 '
- I
f
^
Iniplementation^dfrecommendations contairied;infhoPlan, m£duxiing'fi|ndiii^
will be delayed; Projects identified in the plan niay nofcbe^hcluded ini^t^^^
2003/2004 update.
ate. ?
" 'v;'. ;
^
''
STEPS EOTJ.OWTNG jPERtwAL
M process to^
Send KEYBOARD notification ofdomplb|e,d
1. Dan Collen in the Roads and AirporflDepartihbht —Design and Construction Branch
2. Kent Mitchell in the Roads and Airports Department — Administration
MeetlBg Date
ftygu.st'.'l§,;2003.
Staff will forward the Plan to thej3^all^^^^mns|)ort|^^^
(VTA)for inclusion in the
Valley Transportation Plan 2020(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
teriiMiirhber
67
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvaradd, Pete McHugh,Jim .Beall, LizKniss
Acting County Executive: Peter Kutras Jr.-
BOS Agenda Date August 19,'2003
ATTACHMENTS
•Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Recommendations (Miscellaneous)
•Expressway Planning Study - Executive Summary (Miscellaneous)
I i I
:f.
..i
1.' V
V
If...
'tf''
"
n
• ■'M
' V-. ■ 'i 'ft-
\ ■ f'jiP' -
"> ;;u
3
:4
■ Jr'.T'
t . ' -
-
'V.
•
-
■■
A ■■-.
, -V-A."
' ^ 'a^V
'l'.*.
V
v-..%
' ■•'.
1
i.C-V. t'
-^i
C-,
/.
4-
'
.ft' lu.
,# .
'¥
■|' '
M
3^-
ii;b • :. , ■ t'-rf"!
iv-''--'. 4
I' ■ M
■
Meetmi CaSe
•s'" f."
' .?•'■ 'SftS'K ..
.
.."
:fegust i 0, :2i03':
Proeelsor liime
Heleri Salr^rs
ttefu'Wisnber
6'7
Board of Supetyisors: Donald F. Oage. Blanca Alvaradb, Pete fvlcHugh, Jim.Beaii, Liz Ktiiss
Acting County ExecOtjve: ifeter Kutras Jh;
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study
Proposed Final
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
9
sr?T-
5^
r
i
A
<;>
6qu^>
A
o
-f\
Roads and Airports Department
August 19, 2003
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Donald F. Gage
Blanca Alvarado - Chairperson
Pete McHugh
District 1
District 2
District 3
James T. Beall, Jr.
Liz Kniss
District 4
District 5
Peter Kutras, Jr.
Acting County Executive
Policy Advisory Board
Members
James T. Beall, Jr. - PAB Chair
Donald F. Gage
Donald R. Burr
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Clara
City of Campbell
Sandra James
Tom Springer
Francis A. La Poll
Vice Mayor
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Cupertino
City of Cllroy
City of Los Altos
Patricia Dixon
Dennis Kennedy
Michael Kasperzak
Vice Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
City of Milpitas
City of Morgan Hill
City of Mountain View
Yoriko Kishimoto
Pat Dando
Aldyth Parle
Councilmember
Vice Mayor
Councilmember
City of Palo Alto
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Ann Waltonsmith
Tim Risch
Manuel Valeria
Vice Mayor
Vice Mayor
City of Sunnyvale Councilmember
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
VTA Board Member
Dave Cortese - PAB Vice-Chair
Dave Fadness - ex-officio
Ted Brown - ex-ofBcio
City of San Jose Councilmember
Roads Commissioner
Roads Commissioner
VTA Board Member
County of Santa Clara
County of Santa Clara
Vice Mayor
Alternates
Matthew Dean
Richard Lowenthal
Craig Gartman
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
City of Campbell
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
John Moss
Jose Esteves
Greg Sellers
Mayor Pro Tern
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Los Altos
City of Milpitas
City of Morgan Hill
Matt Pear
Linda J. LeZotte
John L. McLemore
Vice Mayor
Councilmember
Councilmember
City of Mountain View
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Nick Streit
Jack Walker
Mayor
Councilmember
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
South County PAB Guest Member
Former PAB Members
Jim Lawson
Henry Manayan
Forrest Williams
Former Councilmember
Former Mayor
Councilmember
City of Milpitas
City of Milpitas
City of San Jose
Comprehensive County Expressway
Planning Study
Proposed Final
Implennentation Plan
County of Sonto Clara
Roods and Airports Department
101 Skyp>ort Drive
Son Jose. CA 95110
August 19, 2003
Table Of Contents
Section
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
Page
ES-1
Expressway Study Process
ES-2
Expressway System Overview
ES-2
Capital Improvement Program
ES-5
Maintenance & Operations
ES-14
Funding Strategy
ES-15
Next Steps
ES-17
Introduction
1
Description of Expressway System
2
Previous Expressway Planning Efforts
3
Expressway Study Process
5
Organization of Document
9
Expressway System Characteristics and Needs
13
Expressway System Characteristics
14
Expressway System Needs
19
Potential Expansion of the System
23
Expressway Vision Statements
26
Capacity and Operational Improvement Element
29
Recommended Improvements
29
Systemwide Results
32
Systemwide Prioritization
35
Tier 1A Effectiveness
45
Implementation Strategies
47
Signals and Traffic Operations System (TOS) Element
49
Current Traffic Signal Synchronization Practice
50
Traffic Operations System Program
50
Recommended Signal Operations/TOS Projects
52
Inter-Agency Signal Coordination
57
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Section
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Page
High-Occupancy Vehicle(MOV)System Element
Expressway HOV System Overview
63
Evaluating HOV Lane Performance
64
New HOV Facilities
69
Project Recommendations
70
Bicycle Element
75
Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines
76
Bicycle Improvement Projects
77
Bicycle Travel Area Maintenance
83
Bike Lane Designation Process
84
Pedestrian Element
87
Pedestrian Facilities Along the Expressways
87
Expressway Pedestrian Crossings
94
Cost Summary
98
Finishing Program Element
101
Sound Walls
101
Landscaping
110
Street Lighting
113
Finishing Program Implementation Strategies
114
Maintenance and Operations Element
117
Current Practices
117
Recommended Levels of Effort
120
Funding Strategy
123
Expressway Capital and Maintenance/Operations Needs
124
Existing and Potential Funding Sources
127
New Revenue Sources
138
Implementation Plan Funding Strategy
141
Implementation Plan Next Steps and Updates
145
Next Steps
145
Interim Plan Update
146
Triennial Plan Updates
147
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Appendix
A
Glossary of Terms
B
Summary of Recommendations by Expressway
C
Summary of Plan Endorsements
Figures
Fage
ES-l
Santa Clara County Expressway System
ES-6
ES-2
Corridor Level of Service for No Project
ES-10
ES-3
Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
ES-11
1-1
Santa Clara County Expressway System
2-1
LOS Intersections
20
2-2
Proportion of Service
27
3-1
Capacity/Operational I mprovements
31
3-2a
Corridor Level of Service for No Project
32
3-2b
Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
33
3-3
Corridor Level of Service for Tier 1A
46
4-1
Current Traffic Signal Coordination Grouping
51
5-1
HOV System Recommendations
62
6-1
Bicycle Facility Improvements
78
7-1
Pedestrian Improvements
90
8-1
Sound Wall Improvements
104
Tables
3
Page
ES-1
Roadway Projects Tier Summary
ES-7
ES-2
Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
ES-6
ES-3
Other Capital Improvements
ES-13
ES-4
Recommended Maintenance/Operations levels of Effort
ES-14
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents
Tables
Page
1-1
Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process
1-2
Additional Reports Available
10
2-1
Expressway Characteristics
15
2-2
Transit Services Using Expressways
17
2-3
Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway(2001 & 2025)
21
2-4
Expressway Vision Statements
27
3-1
Criteria of Tier Assignment
36
3-2
Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
37
3-3
Summary of Tier Results
44
4-1
Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary
53
5-1
Existing Expressway HOV Lanes
63
5-2
HOV Lane Performance Measures
65
5-3
Summary of HOV Lane Performance by Expressway
Existing Conditions for Peak Direction of Travel
iv
6
67
5-4
Expressway HOV Lane Travel Time Comparison
68
6-1
Bicycle Improvement Projects
81
7-1
New Sidewalks
91
7-2
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
95
7-3
Pedestrian Improvement Cost Summary by Improvement Category
99
7-4
Pedestrian Improvement Costs Included in Roadway Projects
99
8-1
Sound Wall Improvement Projects
105
9-1
Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort
118
9-2
Maintenance and Operations Annual Costs
121
10-1
Capital Program Needs
124
10-2
Capital Program Local Match Requirements
126
10-3
Maintenance and Operations Needs
126
10-4
VTP 2020 Capital Funding Programs
130
10-5
Expressway Maintenance and Operating Revenue
134
10-6
Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources
137
10-7
New Funding Sources To Consider
140
Table of Contents
Photos for Executive Summary to be placed here
Executive Summary
The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study was undertaken to provide a longterm plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. The
study took almost two years to complete and culminated in the development of the
Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan provides a basis for and guides the
investment of money and other resources in the expressways. The plan:
v
Projects conditions and evaluates need over a 30-year timeframe to be compatible
with other regional planning documents and to provide a long-term perspective on
expressways needs.
v
Identifies capital project improvement needs ranging from short sidewalk segments
to extensive expressway segment improvements to freeway interchange
reconstruction.
v
Identifies maintenance and operational improvement needs varying from signal
coordination expansion to enhanced street sweeping intervals to infrastructure
replacement.
v
Provides immediately useful information by including recommendations for
improvements to signal timing plans and modifications to high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane operations, and by recommending design guidelines for bicycle
accommodation on the expressways.
v
Relates project benefits and potential for delivery to priorities expressed through a
tier structure, with the highest priority Tierl A roadway projects expected to be
funded through existing revenue sources.
v
Proposes a funding strategy to achieve plan implementation.
v
Considers roadway improvement needs in South County, where Gilroy is
constructing Santa Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards.
Expressway Study Process
A collaborative planning process was used during the study to ensure the local cities and
their residents would support the Implementation Plan. The foundation for the collaborative
process was a solid technical analysis process. The study collected traffic data and provided
analysis of existing conditions; projected 2025 traffic conditions; developed conceptual
improvement strategies and designs; and used experts for block-by-block evaluation of study
elements for pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall needs and proposed improvements.
Study progress and direction was monitored and guided by a Policy Advisory Board (PAB).
PAB membership consisted of two county supervisors, one council member each from
twelve cities, two VTA board members, and two members of the County Roads Commission.
The PAB met as a whole every two to three months to discuss study and systemwide issues
and met twice in small groups to discuss issues and recommendations for individual
expressways. County Supervisor james T. Beall, Jr., a leading advocate of the Expressway
Study, served as the chair of the PAB.
A Technical Working Group(TWO) provided review and input to both study staff and the
PAB. The TWO members included staff from twelve cities, Caltrans, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTO, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
TWO meetings occurred every one to two months to prepare for PAB meetings, address
specific issues, and achieve technical and administrative consensus.
Expressway System Overview
The expressways were designed to relieve local streets and supplement the freeway system.
In addition to single-occupant automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, carpools, and transit use
the expressways. Key statistics about the system include:
8 expressways, 5 of which have HOV lanes
62 centerline miles of expressway, traveling through 11 cities
134 signalized intersections, 55 bridges, and 150,000 feet of existing sound walls
1.5 million vehicles use expressways daily
ES-2
Executive Summary
v 55% of Santa Clara County residents use an expressway daily (based on 2001
telephone survey)
Key findings about expressway characteristics and traffic conditions include:
v
The highest use expressways are Capitol, Lawrence, and Montague with 280,000 to
300,000 daily users. San Tomas is close behind at 220,000. Central, Foothill, and
Almaden are in the mid-range (110,000 to 150,000) and Oregon-Page Mill is the
lowest used expressway at 50,000.
v
The posted speed limit is 45 or 50 miles per hour (mph)for all but Oregon-Page
Mill Expressway. However, due to congestion and signal wait times, the average
speed during commute hours is generally much lower. Montague and Lawrence
experience the lowest average speeds (12 and 17 mph, respectively) due to high
demand, limited capacity, and the resulting congestion levels.
v
Residential land uses, mixed with some commercial, are predominant along three of
the expressways while one expressway is surrounded mostly by industrial uses. The
remaining four expressways serve a fairly equal mix of residential/commercial and
industrial land uses.
v
Almaden, Capitol, Lawrence, Montague, and San Tomas users expressed the
greatest dissatisfaction with congestions levels (over 70% of surveyed respondents),
while Foothill and Central were seen as less of a congestion problem (around 55%),
and Oregon-Page Mill fell in the middle (617o). (2001 telephone survey)
v Out of the 134 signalized intersections, 30 intersections were operating at level of
service (LOS) F in 2001. The number of LOS F intersections is projected to increase
to 50 by 2025. San Tomas has the highest number of existing LOS F intersections (9
intersections) with Montague close behind (8). Lawrence and San Tomas tied for
the highest number of 2025 LOS F intersections (12 each).
v
Montague Expressway currently operates at LOS F corridor-wide and portions of
Capitol and Central expressways are expected to degrade to corridor LOS F
conditions by 2025.
Executive Summary
ES-3
Expansion of the Expressway System
Almaden Expressway - Almaden will eventually be extended to Bailey Avenue. The timing
of the extension will be determined by San Jose land use decisions with the likely trigger
being development of Coyote Valley.
South County - The City of Gilroy is constructing Santa Teresa Boulevard to expressway
standards. The City of Morgan Hill does not support having expressways within Morgan
Hill. The PAB South County representatives arrived at a consensus that a regional
transportation plan is needed for the South County area. The "South County Circulation
Study" will be managed by VTA and will involve the County, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San
Jose. The results of this study will help facilitate the decision making about whether Santa
Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy should be part of the County's expressway system.
Expressway Vision Statements
A key finding from the data gathering and city/community outreach is that each expressway
has its own unique character, function, and community relationship. Therefore, the ultimate
build-out of each expressway must vary to meet community needs. To guide the expressway
plans, a vision was developed for each expressway, through a collaborative process
involving the cities, TWG,and PAB.
ES-4
Executive Summary
Capital Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Program includes roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, sound wall, and
landscaping improvements.
Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements
Seventy-two (72) roadway improvement projects are identified for the expressway system.
Figure ES-1 illustrates the following types of projects:
Capac/ty Projects - Roadway widening, new turning lanes at intersections, and new or
reconfigured interchanges/grade separations.
Operational and Safety Improvements - Auxiliary lanes, median/access closures, and bridge
replacements.
Signal Operational Improvements - Traffic Operations System (TOS)equipment using
advanced technologies to monitor and improve traffic flow, replacement of outdated
equipment, and expanded coordination with city signal systems.
In addition to the projects shown in Figure ES-1, the roadway Capital Improvement Program
includes:
HOV System Projects - Improves effectiveness of HOV system. Includes adding one new
HOV lane segment, removing HOV lanes experiencing operational problems, and adding
expressway-freeway HOV direct connector ramps.
Roadway Improvements Costs and Priorities
The total cost for the roadway improvement capital program is $1.64 to 1.94 billion. To
determine priorities for funding and implementation, the roadway projects were divided into
tiers using specific criteria. Table ES-1 summarizes the tiers.
Executive Summary
ES-5
Figure ES-1: Santa Clara County Expressway System
T«ii«nDr^^
•MHwoMAvj^
'"tt
*\
llMdJM m
X
HorvoeS
a Lj<ihw»c< Dv
BiioU*y8i
HCioinA
(.RT Study
\
•Montl
GeMxSUMOr
teefewn *<•
awmCrwft
CMrt
■SSimSii
l*eorwt*#e
lot Comckx Stud
/
\
\
Leg€nd
C yCorridor Operational Improvement
■MweSegmeni Widening
Funded Widening
■Ma>^>erational/Safety Widening
• Signalized Intersections
e Timing Project
•
RHedian/Street Closure
e
Funded Improvement
itemM
Cmi
Cmfnla
Ctany*!*
UNBMRm
USORRaM
CahflMlW
• At-grade Improvement
Grade Separation/Interchange
■ Freeway Interchange Improvement
■ Operational/Safety Improvement
CmMaAm
South County
CtrcuUtion ^dy
TMMdOr
X
ES-6
Executive Summary
Table ES-1: Roadway Projects Tier Summary
Tier
1A
IB
Tier Criteria
Improves 2001 LOS F intersections,
provides operational improvements, or
conducts key feasibility studies
# of Projects
Capital Cost
(millions)
28
$149-151
7
$261-271
13
$49-53
Provides other expressway capacity
improvements or new technologies
15
$585-671
Reconstructs major existing facilities or
9
$593-795
72
$1,637-1,941
Constructs Interchanges at 2001 LOS F
intersections
1C
Improves 2025 projected LOS F
intersections
2
3
constructs new facilities
Totals
Consistent with the long-term view and expressway vision statements, the plan Includes
some large-scale improvement projects. While proceeding with the projects now is not
economically feasible, the plan does allow for progress by recommending early feasibility
studies to better quantify project benefits, costs, and impacts. The plan also emphasizes
flexibility and the needs for continued close coordination with the cities and neighborhood
outreach when project funds are actually in place.
The 28 projects in Tier 1A address the top priorities for each expressway and improve most
of the current LOS and operational problem areas for a total cost of $150 million. These
low<ost improvements can be delivered relatively quickly once funds are secured. Table
ES-2 lists the Tier lA projects.
Executive Summary
ES-7
Table ES-2 Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expressway
Project Description
(When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community
outreach as appropriate. Project description may be changed based on the results ofthese activities.)
Cost
(millions)
Widen to 8 lanes tietween Coleman and Blossom Hill including an additional left-turn lane from SB
Almaden to Coleman and from EB and WB Coleman to Almaden, and a right-turn lane from WB
Coleman to N6 Almaden: a 4th SB and NB through lane on Almaden at Via Monte; and an additional
eft-turn (a total of three)from SB Almaden to EB Blossom Hill and an additicmal SB through lane at
$6-8
Blossom Hill intersection
Almaden
nitiate a Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)/Pro]ect Development Study(PDS)to reconfigure SR
85/Almaden interchange
Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Almaden: widen SB Almaden to provide a 5th
ane iDetween the Best Buy driveway and SB loop on-ramp serving as auxiliary lane for weaving
$0.25
$2
vehicles; widen SB SR 85 off-ramp to add a third left-turn; provide an additional EB approach lane
resulting in two left-turn, one through/right shared, and two right-turn lanes
Central
Widen t>etween Mary and Lawrence to provide auxiliary and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes to
mprove ramp operations and safety
$13
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways without HOV lane operations
$10
Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas and De La Cruz to mixed flow and
remove the HOV queue jump lanes at Scott, if unsuccessful after a 3 to 5-year trial period
Signal operational improvements between Edith and El Monte including adjacent side street
$15
intersections and at Grant/St. Joseph
Foothill
Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio by 250 feet
$0.5
Replace Loyola Bridge (This improvement prefect will also provide necessary bicycle and pedestrian
$10
facilities, and channelization and operational improvements at adjacent intersections.)
Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Avenue comdor including Lawrence/Prospect,
Lawrence/Saratoga, Saratoga/Prospect, and Saratoga/Cox intersections
Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and south of Calvert with additional WB through lane at
Moorpark
Lawrence
Coordinate and optimize signal phasing and timing plans at l-280/Lawrence interchange area
including City of Santa Clara signals along Stevens Creek and County's signal at Lawrence/Calvert/I-
$0.1
$4
$0.1
280 SB ramp
Prepare Caltrans PSR for Tier 1C project at the Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 interchange area
$0.5
Close median at Lochinvar and right-in-and-out access at DeSoto, Golden State, Granada, Buckley,
and St- Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
Convert HOV to mixed-flow lanes between US 101 and EIko due to high violation rates & operational
problems
ES-8
$0.1
$0.5
$0.1
Executive Summary
Table ES-2 Tier 1A Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Project Description
(When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community
outreach as appropriate. Project description may be changed based on the results of these activities.)
Expressway
Convert HOV lanes on 6-lane facility to mixed-flow use between 1-880 and 1-680 due to operational
and safety problems
Montague
Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening and 1-880 par-cio interchange with at-grade
improvements at Lick Mill, Plumeria/Rlver Oaks, Main/Old Oakland, and McCandless/Trade Zone;
Cost
(millions)
$0.1
$38.5
designate new lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 as HOV for a 3 to 5-year trial period
l-ZOO/Page Mill Interchange modification: remove SB loop on-ramp and construct SB diagonal onramp with signal operations; signalize NB off-ramp intersection; and provide proper channelization for
$5
pedestrians and bicycles
Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
$0.25
Oregon corridor Improvements:
OregonPage Mill
•
Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding impacts on safety at unsignallzed
intersections
•
•
•
Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections
Study operational changes at the unsignallzed Intersections at Waverley, Ross, and Indian that
avoid increasing traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets, enhance bicycle and pedestrian
safety, and maintain vehicle safety
Conduct feasibility study of adding turn lane at MIddlefleld Road and converting to 8-phase
signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-of-way
$5
At grade Improvements at SR 17/San Tomas:
San Tomas
•
Restripe the E6 through lane on White Oaks to provide an optional left as 3rd left-turn lane
•
Provide second right-turn lane on SB off-ramp
•
Study potential operational & safety Improvements in the interchange area
Provide a 2nd left-turn lane from EB and WB Hamilton to San Tomas and a 2nd left-turn lane from NB
San Tomas to WB Hamilton
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real with additional left-turn lane from EB and WB
El Camino Real to San Tomas
Signals/
Projects
$2
$28
Provide an additional right-turn lane from WB Monroe to NB San Tomas
$1
Traffic information outlets such as electronic Information signs, advisory radio, cable TV feeds, and a
$5
install equipment to coordinate expressway signals with city signals on perpendicular streets
$10
Install equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos traffic signal
$2.5
web page
TOS Capital
$2
Interconnect systems
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
$0.5
Total Tier 1A
Executive Summary
148.5 -150.5
ES-9
Figure ES-2: Corridor Level of Service for No Project
V
isScot
BMtfiSr
Sar«09si
ISoemMli k
aofcwftd
Uso'oarti Am
9
s
%
oswa H4
«tnaa Am
Legend
O Existing LOS F
irSdftMve
Ctf«vAy«
• 2025 LOS F
^■LOS A-C Corridors
■■fLOS D Corridors
SRWWOM
LOS E Corridors
^■LOS F Corridors
%
Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements
Figures ES-2 and ES-3 illustrate the LOS benefits of the recommended capacity and
operational improvements for the planning year 2025. Figure ES-2 indicates projected
corridor LOS and Intersection LOS F locations in 2025 if no improvements are made. Figure
ES-3 indicates 2025 LOS conditions with full implementation of all recommendations. Key
findings include:
ES-10
Executive Summary
Figure ES-3: Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
Sludy tof mi
^^VSaryM
TiAfto
ajmov w
0^
Legend
■■LOS A-C Corridors
■■LOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
IHLOS F Corridors
•
LOS F intersections
v 6 of the 8 expressways would operate at corridor LOS D or better.
v
Montague Expressway would have LOS E and F corridor segments but queuing and
overall delay would be reduced significantly over existing levels.
v
Capitol Expressway may have LOS E or F segments northeast of US 101; however, a
light rail line is planned for this expressway providing a travel alternative.
v
28 existing LOS F intersections and 43 projected 2025 LOS F intersections would be
improved to at least LOS E, with most improved to LOS D or better.
v The Tier lA list of projects improves 18 existing and 24 projected 2025 LOS F
intersections.
Executive Summary
ES-11
Other Capital Improvements
Bicycle Projects - Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways. Bicycle improvement
recommendations were identified based on bringing all expressways into compliance with
the Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG). The BAG includes guidelines on bicycle
travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections, maintenance, and several other design
treatments. Specific capital projects identified include striping improvements and shoulder
widening.
Pedestrian Facilities - A pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the entire length
of each expressway. Recommended pedestrian improvements for traveling along the
expressways vary along sections of the expressways based on physical conditions, pedestrian
needs, fronting land use, and community development plans. New sidewalks are
recommended to close gaps in otherwise continuous sidewalks, to access transit stops, and
to provide access to land uses fronting on the expressways. Recommendations also include
improved connections and directional signage to parallel pedestrian facilities, such as trails
and frontage roads.
For expressway crossing needs, high-demand crossing locations were identified for potential
crossing enhancements ranging from reconfiguring intersections to make them more
pedestrian-friendly to installing pedestrian countdown timers and pedestrian ramps. Two
new pedestrian overcrossings(POCs) are also recommended - one on Almaden near
Coleman Road and one on San Tomas near Latimer Avenue.
Finishing Program: Sound Walls - An assessment of sound wall needs was conducted
according to the guidelines of Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Overall, the plan recommends 63,5(X)feet of new sound walls and replacing 36,000 feet of
existing walls with higher walls. The plan also acknowledges that sound walls are not
always the preferred method of noise abatement for the local community and recommends
that the preferred level and type of noise abatement (including sound wall height) be based
on noise analysis, community outreach, and city coordination when funding is available.
Finishing Program: Landscaping - The following level of landscaping is recommended for
the expressways: trees and limited shrubs; median finishes, such as decomposed granite;
sound walls covered with vines; and, automated irrigation system. However, the plan also
ES-12
Executive Summary
recommends continuing with the County's current landscaping policy to not install new
landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining it.
Table ES-3 summarizes the costs for these recommended capital improvements by
expressway.
Table ES-3: Other Capital Improvements
Sound Wall/
Bicycle
(millions)
Pedestrian
Almaden
$0.40
$6.35
$5.60
$12.35
Capitol'
$0.20
$3.83
$3.74
$7.77
$2.67
$5.10
$7.77
$0.50
$0.45
$8.84
$9.79
Lawrence
-(2)
$2.81
$3.59
$6.40
Montague
_(3)
$0.4013}
$2.06
$2.46
$1.20
$5.70
$6.90
$13,09
$18.83
Expressway
Central
FooWiill
(millions)
~
Oregon-Page Mill
;
San Tomas
$0.45
$5.29
Systemwide
$0.10
$0.20
Improvements
(millions)
1
$0.30
1
Landscaping
Installation
Expressway Total
(millions)
Noise Abatement
$21.00
1
System Total
Part of Roadway Projects
Net AddKional Cost
$93.57
$18.14
$75.43
Notes:
{1} Bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wali needs for Capitoi between Nieman and Story will be determined by
WA's light rail project.
(2) Bicycle improvement needs for Lawrence will be completed as part of the 2003 pavement resurfacing
project.
(3) The 8-lane widening for Montage includes all bicycle improvements and sidewalks.
(4) Roadway capacity/operational projects include pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall improvements within
project limits-
Executive Summary
ES-13
Maintenance & Operations
Maintenance and operations include all activities and materials necessary to keep the
expressways functioning and looking presentable. Based on comments received from the
public, cities, and policymakers, the overall goal for expressway maintenance and operations
OC
can be summed up as: 'The expressways should be cleaner andCOgreener with smooth
pavement and synchronized signals."
The County's current practices are limited by available revenue. However,to meet the
desired goal, the plan recommends levels of effort comparable to the cities' current practices.
Table ES-4 lists the estimated costs for the recommend«J levels of effort:
Table ES-4: Recommended
Maintenance/Operations Levels of Effort
Annual
Category
Operating Cost
(millions)
Signal Operations/TOS
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscape Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
Infrastructure Replacement
(all types)
$6.6
All Other
$1.5
Total
ES-14
$18.0
Executive Summary
Funding Strategy
The Implementation Plan has laid out a comprehensive program for the improvement and
maintenance of the expressways over the next 30 years. The plan identifies a total capital
program approaching $2 billion as well as needs of $18 million annually for maintenance
and operations. In addition, delivery of the entire capital program would require $11.4 13.5 million in annualized matching funds, assuming the projects are subject to VTA's 20%
local match requirements. Funding such a program requires both aggressively pursuing
existing revenue sources and finding new revenue sources.
Capital Improvements Fund Sources
The primary funding sources for the capital improvement program are federal and state
grants. These grants are allocated through VTA's Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020.
Currently, out of a $2 billion roadway funding program, VTP 2020 allocates $80 million for
expressways. VTP 2020 also includes competitive grant programs for bicycle, pedestrian,
TOS, and sound wall improvements.
The County remains financially challenged to provide a significant local match for
expressway projects given that existing roadway revenue sources are needed for
maintenance and operations. The most significant existing and potential source of local
match funds are developer traffic impact fees. The County cannot directly collect developer
traffic impact fees in the incorporated city areas through which the expressways run.
Developer contributions are determined and collected by the cities. It is unlikely that even
an aggressive impact fee program pursued by all cities would raise enough funds for the full
20% local match for every project given the magnitude of the needs and the limited
development opportunities along many of the expressways.
Maintenance and Operations Fund Sources
The only continuous sources of expressway maintenance and operating funds are the
County's share of the state gas tax and future Proposition 42 (sales tax on gas tax) funds.
These funds must be divided among the expressways and the 635 miles of county
unincorporated roads. The predictable sustainable revenue available for expressway
Executive Summary
ES-15
maintenance/operations ranges from $5.2 million in 2003 to $7.9 million in 2009 when
Proposition 42 funds begin. If enacted, current state and federal proposals to index gas taxes
for inflation would provide some additional revenue and would help sustain current levels of
effort since the gas tax does not currently keep pace with increased costs due to inflation and
higher traffic demand.
Supplementing the gas tax revenues are landscape maintenance agreements where cities and
private developers pay for routine landscaping maintenance. There are also occasional one
time funding sources, most notably for pavement maintenance. The current expressway
pavement resurfacing projects are funded through the Measure B sales tax program. VTP
2020 also provides pavement management grants. These special funding sources cannot be
counted on to be available for scheduled routine maintenance necessary to extend pavement
life.
Funding Strategi; Recommendations
Taking into consideration all the existing, potential, and possible new funding sources, a
funding strategy has been developed addressing each major area of need. Key
recommendations from that funding strategy include the following:
v
As part of the VTP 2020 update process, request that VTA increase the expressway
allocation from $80 million to at least $150 million to allow full implementation of
Tier lA projects. Tier 1A roadway projects have highest priority for VTP 2020
Expressway Program funding allocations.
v Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating
needs and the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program
local match requirements.
v
Resolve the expressway local match issue during VTA's VTP 2020 update process,
especially if a new funding source cannot be secured. Strategies include continuing
to work with the cities to secure developer impact fees where appropriate,
exchanging federal/state funds for local funds with no match requirements, and
using other non-county sources as match.
ES-16
Executive Summary
v
Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigations, and expressway
pedestrian, sound wall, and landscaping improvements through land development
approval processes.
v
Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as
pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and TOS projects.
Next Steps
The Implementation Plan will be submitted to VTA for inclusion in the VTP 2020 2003/04
update. It is anticipated that the VTP 2020 update will incorporate all projects and priorities
as identified In the plan. The VTP 2020 update will also determine the amount of federal
and state funding that will be allocated to the expressway program over the next 30 years.
Based on key recommendations in the Implementation Plan, there are several activities and
improvements for the County to pursue in the near term that do not require large financial
outlays, including:
v
Participate in the development of the South County Circulation Study.
v Implement new signal timing plans developed as part of the Expressway Study.
v
Conduct the environmental review for converting the Lawrence HOV lane north of
US 101 and the Montague HOV lanes east of 1-880 to mixed-flow lanes.
v
Update County policies regarding bicycle and pedestrian access on the expressways
to be consistent with the plan.
v
Work closely with VTA and the cities to pursue the Implementation Plan funding
strategy.
The County will update the Implementation Plan every three years in conjunction with the
triennial updates of VTP 2020 to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions. In
addition, an interim update will be prepared in 2004 if VTA does not fully fund the Tier 1A
list of roadway projects in the VTP 2020 2003/04 update. This interim update will focus on
using the plan's collaborative process to establish Tier 1A priorities.
Executive Summary
ES-17
Photos for Section 1 to be placed here.
ES-18
Executive Summary
Section One
Introduction
In September 2001, the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department began work
on the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study. The study's purpose was to
provide a long-range plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressways in Santa
Clara County. It took almost two years to complete and culminated in the development of
the Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan details the policies, improvement recommendations, priorities, and
funding strategy for the expressway system. It is comprehensive and considers the needs of
each expressway and the expressway system as a whole. Specific areas addressed in the
plan include:
v Capital improvement program - consists of roadway, signal system enhancements,
high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)facilities, bicycle, pedestrian, landscaping, and
sound wall projects. Project lists vary from short sidewalk segments to extensive
expressway segment improvements to freeway interchange reconstruction. The
projects include both capacity needs and operational/safety improvements.
v
Maintenance and operations- identifies all activities and materials necessary to keep
the expressways functioning and looking presentable. Improvements vary from
signal coordination expansion to enhanced street sweeping intervals to pavement
maintenance to infrastructure replacement.
v
Funding strategy - summarizes the costs of the recommendations included in the
plan and describes existing, potential, and new funding sources for funding these
recommendations. A list of funding strategies to pursue are recommended.
v
Roadway improvement needs in South County, where Cllroy is constructing Santa
Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards, were also considered during the study
and the Implementation Plan includes a recommendation for a separate South
County circulation study.
Description Of Expressway System
There are eight expressways operated by Santa Clara County: Almaden, Capitol, Central,
Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, Oregon-Page Mill, and San Tomas (see Figure 1-1).
Southwest Expressway was never part of the county system and is maintained as a city street.
Santa Teresa Boulevard was originally planned to be a continuous expressway between
South San jose and Highway 101 south of Gilroy, but much of the alignment has been
relinquished or annexed into San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy as those cities have grown
and established their own circulation plans. The portion of Capitol Expressway between
Almaden Expressway and State Route (SR) 85 was relinquished to San Jose as part of an auto
dealer assessment district improvement plan.
The eight expressways provide significant capacity for local trips, with 1.5 million vehicle
trips made on a daily basis. In a 2001 survey of county residents, 55% reported using an
expressway on a daily basis. While providing for intracity trips (Almaden and Capitol are
entirely within San Jose; Oregon-Page Mill is mostly within Palo Alto), the expressways are
also important intercity facilities. Montague-San Tomas connects Milpitas to Campbell and
terminates near Los Gatos; Central connects Palo Alto to San Jose; and, Lawrence connects
Sunnyvale to Saratoga. Sixty-two (62) centerline miles in length, the expressways provide a
vital connection among residential areas, industrial centers, and commercial districts.
Section 1 Introduction
Figure 1-1: Santa Clara County Expressway System
m
// A A
W
1 L
Oa
.
d \
®s 9
*
--—■ -
/
I
*\
II Ne
*»&»/
CXATM
0»y
9
SctAlM
Mr*
ft««4Aw
M«Ta*a
V.
Canvw %W
- /
CbWw®® Aw
-
-
- IWnWvfW
' (
smtm
om*i»
HQ'mmM
L«n^
ammAm
►wWWfl %■
6M»a
eweeje W
Qytl m
rwiU
CMAOr
,->
<> ,
SCipMIMt V _
BaMOASt
Mpa«
1 11
o'V>>K
'
talCW*M
■ ni
'
MMMl Aw
^j8Q^Ft«w
UesVnv
i*ens Al
CtofsM
Sf»ff7NSOIUw
%
Aewemd
\
\
KttMf
^«Aaaf*q>Av*
CWlvAw
rrsa
SAAArr,«QA
'/
L
Ha M
V .
Legend
•
Signalized intersections
>
k
V
/
t-.
\>rusa*io»
\
J9
hm*mu u
CMn>AM
SKassac*
y«
/'"-f'--1
t*.»—
V» IMrH *)«
Ci—wfi a«
•":.
y
>■''
Previous Expressway Planning Efforts
The origin of the expressways dates back to 1956, when the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors initiated a study to define transportation needs for the county. The January 1959
Trafficways Plan for Santa Clara County concluded that the existing highways would not be
able to handle projected vehicular traffic and recommended constructing various facilities,
including the expressway system. To build the expressways, a $70 million bond proposal
was put to the voters and approved on March 28, 1961. As a result, the County of Santa
Clara became the only county In the state to operate a high capacity roadway system through
incorporated city areas.
Section 1 Introduction
The bond money allowed substantial work to proceed on the expressways, but skyrocketing
property values reduced the program's purchasing power, and a Phase 2 funding proposal
fell through. Ultimately, the existing system was built out by supplementing the program
with federal revenues, by not obtaining full access control in some cases, and by not
pursuing some expressway alignments (Hillsdale, for example).
Significant efforts were made to update expressway plans in 1971 (Future Width Line Study)
and 1986 (Transportation 2000 or ''T2000''). Most of T2000's highest priority, short-term
expressway projects have been implemented. However, the long-range elements, especially
the interchange projects, are no closer to construction than they were in 1986. The
intersection problem areas identified in the T2000 study are essentially the same areas that
are experiencing problems today. However, conditions and city plans have changed since
T2000 making some of the T2000 recommendations unnecessary or impractical.
The need for a new comprehensive study of the expressway system became apparent during
development of the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020, adopted in 2000 by the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The T2000 expressway recommendations were
dated. In response to a general call for projects conducted as part of VTP 2020, the cities
and County submitted over $940 million worth of expressway projects. Some of these
projects conflicted with another jurisdiction's preferences, some would have major impacts
to surrounding neighborhoods, and some would just shift congestion to other expressway
locations. What was lacking was a comprehensive approach to identifying, analyzing, and
developing consensus on a list of expressway improvement projects.
VTP 2020's expenditure plan, therefore, allocated funding only to projects on Central and
Montague Expressways which were considered to have well defined scope. VTP 2020 also
recommended that each expressway be studied, similar to the 1999 Montague Expressway
Study, to determine improvement needs and priorities for that expressway. The County
Board of Supervisors, however, determined that a more comprehensive study was necessary
to identify the full range of needs on all expressways and to set priorities in the context of
systemwide needs. Consequently, an agreement was reached for the County to conduct the
Expressway Study using a planning grant from VTA.
Section 1 Introduction
Expressway Study Process
The Expressway Study proceeded in two major phases. The first phase identified needs and
resulted in individual expressway vision statements. In Phase 2, improvement strategies
were developed and evolved into the Implementation Plan.
A collaborative planning process was used during the study to ensure the local cities and
their residents would support the Implementation Plan. The foundation for the collaborative
process was a solid technical analysis process. The study collected traffic data and provided
analysis of existing conditions; projected 2025 traffic conditions; developed conceptual
improvement strategies and designs; and used experts for block-by-block evaluation of study
elements for pedestrian, bicycle, and sound wall needs and proposed improvements.
City and Community Participation
Study progress and direction was monitored and guided by a Policy Advisory Board (PAB).
PAB membership consisted of two county supervisors, one council member each from
twelve cities, two VTA board members, and two members of the County Roads Commission.
The PAB met as a whole every two to three months to discuss study and systemwide issues
and met twice in small groups to discuss issues and recommendations for individual
expressways. County Supervisor James T. Beall, Jr., a leading advocate of the Expressway
Study, served as the chair of the PAB.
A Technical Working Group(TWG) provided review and input to both study staff and the
PAB. The TWG members included staff from twelve cities, Caltrans, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTQ,and VTA. TWG meetings occurred every one to two
months to prepare for PAB meetings, address specific issues, and achieve technical and
administrative consensus.
Table 1-1 summarizes the study process by time period, activity, and purpose. Also shown
are the community outreach activities, including telephone surveys, various neighborhood
and business community meetings, and a project open house. Throughout the project, there
was a project website with a link for public comment and a project telephone hotline.
Comments received were summarized, made available to the PAB, and posted at the
website.
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-1: Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process
Activity
Time Period
Sept.- Nov. 2001
Nov. 2001 - Jan. 2002
Dec. 2001
Purpose
2 TWG meetings:
Present and receive comments on Study's draft work
Met wi&i VTA committees
scope
Interviewed staff from 13 cities, VTA,
Caltrans, and CHR
expressways
Telephone survey #1
Ga^er city/agency input on key issues related to the
Determine public opinions about and usage of
expressways
Jan - Mar. 2002
2 PAB meetings and 2 TWG meetings
Discuss current and projected traffic conditions,
other technical information, and city/community input
received
Feb.-Mar. 2002
5 project design meetings wi^ cities' staffs
Develop roadway improvement design concepts
Mar. 2002
PAB South County small group vwrkshop #1
Discuss South County's transportation needs
May - June 2002
4 PAB small group workshops
Discuss visions, potential improvements, and key
issues for each expressway
June 2002
PAB South County small group workshop #2
Develop consensus for a South County Circulation
Study
May-June 2002
1 PAB meeting and 2 TWG meetings
Discuss pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and
landscaping issues
Briefed 9 city councils and Boaid of
Review and comment on expressway visions and
potential improvements
July-Oct. 2002
Supervisors
Sept.-Oct. 2002
4 community meetings
Review and comment on expressway visions and
potential improvements
Sept.-Oct. 2002
1 PAB meeting and 1 TWG meeting
Discuss results of city/community outreach and
expressway funding needs and options
Oct.-Nov. 2002
4 PAB small group workshops and 4 TWG
Discuss recommendations and priorities for each
small group meetings
expressway
Nov. 2002
PAB South County small group vrorkshop #3
(part of VTA South County PAB meeting)
Present draft South County Working Paper
Nov. 2002
PAB Capitol small group joint workshop with
VTA Downtown East Valley PAB
Develop consensus on proposed vision for Capitol
Expressway
Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003
Met with 3 chambers of commerce
Receive comments on preliminary recommendations
and potential new funding sources
Jan. 2003
Telephone survey #2
Evaluate support for proposed improvements and
funding sources
Dec. 2002- Mar.
2003
2 PAB meetings and 4 TWG meetings
Discuss and approve elements of the Draft
Implementation Plan
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-1: Expressway Study Collaborative Planning Process(continued)
Activity
Time Period
Mar. 2003
Board of Supervisors meeting
Purpose
Release Draft Implementation Plan for rewew and
comment
Mar.- Apr. 2003
Notified over 350 neighborhood
Invite comments on Draft Plan and offer to meet with
associations/community groups, the Cities'
their groups upon request
Association, and the NAIOP about the Draft
Plan's availability
Apr.-August 2003
Met with 10 city councils
Receive comments and request endorsement of
Draft Plan
Apr.- July 2003
Met with 3 community groups, 3 VTA advisory
committees, 1 chamtier of commerce, and
Receive comments on Draft Plan
SVMG
May 2003
Expressway Study Open House
May 2003
1 PAB meeting and 1 TWG meeting
Receive comments on Draft Plan
Approve revisions to Draft Plan and recommend
approval of proposed Final Plan by Board of
Supervisors
August 2003
Board of Supervisors meeting
Approve Final Plan for submlttal to VTA for Inclusion
in the VTP 2020 Update
Throughout Study
Attended 6 meetings of VTA/County BPAC
Receive input during development of the bicycle and
pedestrian elements
Throughout Study
Met with VTA staff frequently
Discuss specific issues related to the Study,
Including traffic modeling, South County, Capitol
Expressway, bicycle/pedestrian planning, and
transportation funding
Throughout Study
Met with community/business groups, city
staff, city committees, and PAB members
Discuss specific Issues related to the expressways,
including potential improvements, maintenance,
upon request
signal operations, funding strategies, traffic
modeling, and South County needs
Monthly
Attended County Roads Commission
Provide updates on the Study
meetings
Continuously
Maintained Study web site and telephone
hotline
BPAC = Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CHP = California Highway Patrol
NAIOP = National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
PAB = Policy Advisory Board
SVMG = Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group
TWG = Technical Working Group
VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VTP = Valley Transportation Plan
Section 1 Introduction
Provide Information and receive comments
Process Results
The collaborative planning process was well received and generated the following outcomes;
v
Agreement on solid foundation concepts such as the vision statement for each
expressway.
v
Strong consensus on project scope to satisfy service issues consistent with the
expressway vision statements.
v
Clear and two-way communication of desirable operating standards and
maintenance budget limitations.
v
Strengthened working relationships with all of the agencies involved.
Overall, the study has provided an educational experience for all participants. The lessons
learned included;
v
There was a shared desire among all participants that the expressways be "greener
and cleaner, with smooth maintained pavement and synchronized traffic signals.'
v
While there is a continuing emphasis on the benefits of signal system
enhancements, there is recognition that many expressway segments have or are
expected to exceed capacity, and signal timing efforts alone will not provide longterm service improvements.
v
Some previous long-range plan elements are no longer needed or inconsistent with
local preferences.
v
In some cases, different types of expressway improvements could conflict,
frequently due to limited right-of-way (e.g., sidewalk versus landscaping). Tradeoffs
must be made in the context of each expressway's particular conditions and local
preferences.
These lessons helped shape the approach to and recommendations included in the
Implementation Plan.
Section 1 Introduction
Organization Of Document
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan is organized into specific elements reflecting the
different types of improvements, needs, and transportation modes. Each element deals with
systemwide needs, listing recommendations for individual expressways as appropriate. The
plan also recognizes that there are inter-relationships between the elements. For example,
many of the elements have both capital and maintenance/operations needs or can adversely
affect one another, such as mature landscaping infringing on pedestrian and bicycle travel
areas.
The next section of the document (Section 2 "Expressway System Characteristics and Needs')
provides key information about the expressway system including current and projected traffic
conditions, specific characteristics of each expressway, description of transit services on the
expressways, system expansion and South County status, and each expressway's vision
statement.
Sections 3 to 9 detail recommendations for the seven elements: Capacity/Operational
Improvements, Signals/Traffic Operations System (TOS), High-Occupancy Vehicle(MOV)
System, Bicycle, Pedestrian, Finishing Program (sound walls and landscaping), and
Maintenance/Operations. Section 10 provides the funding strategy and Section 11 lists key
issues to be addressed in future plan updates. The document also includes two appendices:
Appendix A provides a glossary and Appendix B summarizes all element recommendations
by expressway.
During the study, a number of technical reports and memorandums were prepared covering
a full range of technical and collaborative planning details including traffic analysis, traffic
modeling, sound walls, pedestrian facilities, bicycle improvements, funding issues, and
community outreach findings. There are also supplemental formal reports available for more
information. Table 1-2 lists these reports.
Section 1 Introduction
Table 1-2: Additional Reports Available
Report Title
Summary Brochure
South County Working Paper
Content
Summarizes the Expressway Study Implementation Plan
Documents the study's work and findings related to
expressway planning In South County
Bicycie Accommodation Guidelines(BAG)
Provides detail diagrams and guidelines for bicycie
treatments on expressways
Individual Expressway Reports:
Summarizes key information and all recommendations for
Almaden Expressway
each expressway
Capitol Expressway
Central Expressway
Foottiill Expressway
Lawrence Expressway
Montague Expressway
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway
San Tomas Expressway
10
Section 1 Introduction
Photos for Section 2 to be placed Here
Section Two
Expressway System
Characteristics & Needs
To determine potential improvements for the expressways, it was necessary to document
current conditions and needs. This included technical research related to traffic conditions
and general operating characteristics of the expressways. It also involved collecting
information from users of the expressways and the cities/agencies served by the expressways.
This section summarizes the key findings from these efforts. It starts with an overview of the
expressway system providing key characteristics of each expressway. Needs are described
based on both traffic data and public opinion surveys, followed by findings related to
potential expansion of the expressway system. Concluding the section are the vision
statements that were developed for each expressway, reflecting that expressway's unique
characteristics and needs.
Expressway System Characteristics
The expressways were designed to relieve local streets and supplement the freeway system.
The expressway system consists of 8 expressways serving residents and employees in 11
cities and carrying 1.5 million vehicles daily. Table 2-1 lists key characteristics of each
expressway ranging from basic statistics such as length and number of users to presence of
high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes and surrounding land uses. Key findings include:
v
Length of each expressway varies from a high of 9.6 centerline miles for Central to a
low of 4.7 miles for Oregon-Page Mill.
v
Most of the expressways average from 2.1 to 2.6 signals per centerline mile.
Central and Foothill have fewer {1.5 to 1.8 signals/mile) reflecting Central's freeway
like segment through Sunnyvale and Foothill's wide spacing between cross streets.
The highest ratio is along Oregon-Page Mill (3.0 signals/mile) with the Oregon
segment having closely spaced signals.
v
The highest use expressways are Capitol, Lawrence, and Montague with 280,000 to
300,000 daily users. San Tomas is close behind at 220,000. Central, Foothill, and
Almaden are in the mid-range (110,000 to 150,000) and Oregon-Page Mill is the
lowest used expressway at 50,000.
v
The posted speed limit is 45 or 50 miles per hour(mph)for all but Oregon-Page
Mill Expressway. However, due to congestion and signal wait times, the average
speed during commute hours is generally much lower. Montague and Lawrence
experience the lowest average speeds(12 and 17 mph, respectively) due to high
demand, limited capacity, and the resulting congestion levels.
v
Residential land uses, mixed with some commercial, are predominant along three of
the expressways while one expressway is surrounded mostly by industrial uses. The
remaining four expressways serve a fairly equal mix of residential/commercial and
industrial land uses.
14
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
6.0
Montague
6-8
8.7
Lawrence
4
7.3
Foothill
9.6
Central
6-8
8,7
Capitol
4-8
8.5
Almaden
Lanes
Length
(miles)
Expressway
#of
Table 2-1: Expressway Characteristics
HOV Lanes
Signals
Speed
Limit
Average
Peak Hour
Speed *
Served
Users *
Cities
Daily
Major Surrounding
Land Uses
Predominately
residential with some
None
19
45
25
150,000
1
commercial in Blossom
Hill area and north of
Capitol
Capitol Ave.
4-6
to Silver
Predominately
18
45
24
300,000
1
residential mixed with
Residential with
Queue jump
commercial throughout
Creek
lanes at
17
45/50
27
110,000
5
commercial on west
end
Scott
end; industrial on east
Bovirers and
None
11
45
26
110,000
4
Residential with some
commercial
commercial on
Creek to
Residential with some
Stevens
Arques
23
50
17
280,000
5
Lakehaven to
southem and northern
ends; industrial in
center
Tasman
6-8
some residential and
College to
Mostly industrial with
Mission
McCarthy
13
45
12
290,000
3
commercial
Main to
Milpitas Blvd
Oregon-Page
Industrial along Page
Mill; residential along
...
62
Expressway
System
6-8
8.5
San Tomas
4
4.7
Mill
19
Budd to
Walsh
14
None
23
45
19
35/50
3
220,000
2
50,000
Oregon with
commercial near El
Camino Real
Residential with some
i
commerdal on
soutfiem end; industrial
on northern end
...
134
1.51
...
...
million
11
...
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
15
MulUmodal Uses
In addition to single-occupant automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, carpools, and transit use
the expressways. Bicycles are accommodated on all expressways with Foothill Expressway
in particular being a high-use bicycle facility. Pedestrians use the expressways for a variety
of reasons, with high pedestrian demand in some areas and only emergency/occasional use
in others. Carpools are supported on five of the expressways with HOV lanes. Additional
information about the use of these travel modes on the expressways can be found in the
Plan's Bicycle, Pedestrian, and HOV System Elements.
Transit services on expressways are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Valley
(VTA). VTA operates bus and shuttle services on the expressways and collects federal fixed
guideway funds where buses run in expressway HOV lanes. VTA has plans to extend light
rail transit (LRT) into the median of Capitol Expressway. There are also regional transit
services that use the expressway system, including one inter-county express bus service.
The County of Santa Clara, governed by the five-member, elected Board of Supervisors, is
responsible for improving, operating, and maintaining the expressway system. The VTA,
governed by the twelve-member, appointed Board of Directors, is responsible for planning,
funding, and operating transit services in the county, including on the expressways. In its
role as Congestion Management Agency(CMA), VTA also determines the apportionment of
discretionary transportation funding. Therefore, the Expressway Study does not make
recommendations related to the amount, routing, or funding of transit services; however, it
does include improvements to support transit services.
Table 2-2 provides a description of current and planned transit services using the
expressways. In summary, six of the expressways have a bus route or a combination of bus
routes that serve almost the entire length of the expressway. Buses on the remaining two
expressways only use small segments of the expressways. Many of the bus routes on the
expressways are limited stop or express routes providing a few trips each AM and PM
commute period rather than all-day service. In addition to the LRT planned for one
expressway, there are Caltrain and LRT stations located adjacent to five expressways.
16
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-2: Transit Services Using Expressways
r/)/s information is based on the transit services provided and/or planned as of June 2002 with some notation where appropriate about
proposed service cuts that may occur in 2004.
Expressway
Transit Services
•
Bus service is provided along almost the entire corridor with one bus route serving the area from Harry
Road to Coleman Road and a second route serving the area from Coleman Road to Lincoln Avenue.
Almaden
Capitol
Frequency of service ranges from 30 to 60 minutes.
•
Another line travels a short segment of Almaden from Via Vallente to Camden Avenue.
•
One bus route travels from SR 87 to Eastridge along Capitol every 15 minutes and a peak- express bus
route uses Capitol from Snell Avenue to US 101,
•
North of Eastridge to the Capitol Avenue/1-680 area, one express route and one limited stop route make
a total of 7 trips each peak period, but service could be reduced to 3 trips per peak period in 2004.
•
Eastridge Transit Center is adjacent to Capitol at Eastridge Mall and has direct access to the
expressway. Neighborhood access to the center is across and along the expressway.
•
The Caltrain and LRT Capitol Stations are easily accessible from Capitol.
•
LRT is planned to travel the entire length of Capitol Expressway,
•
Four bus lines use small segments of Central Expressway. There is no bus service along the length of
Central.
Central
Foothill
•
Caltrain and Tasman LRT run parallel to parts of Central with the rail stations at the Downtown
Mountain View Transit Center easily accessible from Central.
•
Three bus lines use small segments of Foothill Expressway. There is no bus service on most of Foothill
Expressway.
•
A limited stop bus route runs one AM and one PM peak hour trip along the entire length of Lawrence
Expressway.
Lawrence
•
Two bus routes use segments of Lawrence south of 1-280 and 3 use segments north of US 101, mostly
during the peak commute periods.
•
The Lawrence Caltrain station Is easily accessible from Lavirrence.
•
A limited stop bus route travels the entire length of Montague, providing 3 frips during the peak
commute periods. In 2004, a new route that uses Montague from Mission College Boulevard to Great
Mall Parkway may replace this route.
•
Three other bus routes use short segments of Montague {two from US 101 to Mission College
Boulevard and one from Trade Zone Boulevard to Mllpitas Boulevard) and a LRT shuttle travels on
Montague from Mission College Boulevard to North First Street.
•
A future BART and LRT multlmodal station is planned near the Montague/Great Mall Parkway
intersection. VTA may route additional bus sen/lce on Montague In the future to serve these rail
Montague
stations.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
17
Table 2-2: Transit Services Using Expressways (continued)
This information is based on the transit services provided and/or planned as of June 2003 with some notation where appropriate about
proposed service cuts that may occur in 2004.
Expressway
Transit Services
•
The Dumbarton Express uses almost the entire length of Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. It provides
several trips each AM and PM commute period.
Oregon-Page
Mill
•
Three VTA bus routes travel on segments of the expressway and when combined, they cover almost
the entire length. Two of the routes are express peak-period only sen/ice.
•
The Caiifomia Caltrain Station is accessible from Oregon.
•
A limited stop route travels the entire length of San Tomas, providing 3 trips each rommute period. It
may be reduced to two trips in 2004.
San Tomas
•
Two other routes use a segment of San Tomas near SR17 during commute periods.
To support transit services, the Expressway Study Implementation Plan includes adding
sidewalks and intersection pedestrian crossing enhancements to help transit users access
stops (see Pedestrian Element). HOV lane and bus stop pavement maintenance costs are
included in the Maintenance/Operations Element. The Capacity/Operational Improvements
Element lists grade separation projects at LRT/expressway crossings, which would enhance
LRT operations.
Additional transit service needs are difficult to quantify at this time given ongoing transit line
rerouting and fleet redeployment; however,the County closely cooperates with VTA's transit
plans as they are developed. For example, the County made available a portion of Central
Expressway right-of-way for the Tasman LRT line; worked collegially with VTA on at-grade
LRT crossings of Montague, Lawrence, and Central; and repairs failed pavement at bus stops.
Expressway roadway capacity/operational projects will include transit service needs (e.g., bus
stops) when the projects are designed and built.
Usage of Expressways
As noted previously, 1.5 million vehicles use the expressway system daily. The telephone
public opinion survey conducted in December 2001 provides some insight into why the
expressways are so well used:
18
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
v
55% of respondents used an expressway almost daily and another 29% use an
expressway a few times a week.
v
Of several expressway characteristics rated, "convenience" received the highest
percentage of "excellent/good" ratings both systemwide and for each expressway.
The excellent/good ratings ranged from 91% for Foothill to 74%) for Montague with
all other expressways over 80%.
v
The primary purposes of using the expressways are work trips(37% of respondents)
and shopping trips (27%). Not surprisingly, those expressways serving major
employment centers had the highest percentage of work trips, including Montague
(60%)and Central (52%). Almaden, which serves some major commercial facilities,
had the highest shopping use (41 %>).
Expressway System Needs
A key finding from the December 2001 telephone survey was that expressways are
convenient but congested. Congestion consistently received the highest percentage of
"fair/poor" ratings systemwide and for each expressway. Almaden, Capitol, Lawrence,
Montague, and San Tomas users expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with congestion levels
(over 70%), while Foothill and Central were seen as less of a congestion problem (around
55% rating as fair/poor) and Oregon-Page Mill fell in the middle (61 %).
Traffic Conditions
The technical data on level of service (LOS)confirms the users' perceptions. LOS is a
measure of traffic flow and congestion levels. LOS A is the best condition representing freely
flowing traffic. LOS F is the worst condition representing excessive delays and jammed
conditions. Out of 134 signalized intersections, 30 intersections were operating at LOS F in
2001. The number of LOS F intersections is projected to increase to 50 by 2025. Montague
Expressway currently operates at LOS F corridor-wide and portions of Capitol and Central
Expressways are expected to degrade to corridor LOS F conditions by 2025. Figure 2-1
illustrates the LOS F intersection locations with Table 2-3 providing a list of the intersections,
including seconds of delay.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
19
Figure 2-1: LOS F Intersections
/
•nir
S
W
SCwWAv#
Tt«*M
a«i iiM
tana
s
Legend
LOS F (2001/2002)
LOS F (2025)
20
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-3: Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway (2001& 2025)
2001 Existing
Expressway
LOS F Intersection
AM Peak
PM Peak
Camden Ave(CMP)
Almaden
Coleman Rd (CMP)
2025 Baseline |
AM Peak
PM Peak
F(287)
F (260)
F(174)
Blossom Hill Rd(CMP)
F(68)
Hwy. 85(North Ramp)(CMP)
F(352)
F(79)
F(70)
Senter Rd.(CMP)
F(63)
McLaughlin Ave.(CMP)
Silver Creek Rd.(CMP)
F(155)
F(76)
F(75)
F{82)
F(214)
Quimby Rd
F {")(1)
F(")(1)
Tuliy Rd
F(")(1)
F(")(')
F(63)
F(104)
Atwm Rd.(CMP)
Capitol
F(74)
Ocala Ave
Story Rd (CMP)
F(89)
F(66)
F(154)
F(233)
Capitoi Ave(CMP)
F(63)
F(125)
Lafayette St.(CMP)
F(62)
F(60}
De La Cruz Blvd.(CMP)
F(82)
Oregon-Page Mill Expressway(CMP)
F(90)
Bowers Ave.(CMP)
Central
Foothill
F(175)
El Monte Rd.(CMP)
F(80)
F(69)
1
1
1
F(69)
Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
F(64)
Saratoga Ave.(CMP)
F(73)
F(2D6)
Prospect Rd.(CMP)
F(68)
F(65)
F(96)
F(81)
Moorpark Ave./Bollinger Rd.(CMP)
Lawrence
F(111)
F(99)
Calvert Dr.(CMP)
F(63)
Homestead Rd.(CMP)
F(73)
F(160)
Benton St
Reed Ave./Monroe Ave.(CMP)
Kifer Rd.
Arques Ave.(CMP)
F(92)
F(123)
Lxhinvar Ave
F{66)
F(64)
F(195)
F(122)
F(133)
F(63)
F(67)
Duane Ave/Oakmead Pkwy
F(67)
Sandia Dr/Lakehaven Dr.
F(60)
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
21
Table 2-3: Level of Service F Intersections by Expressway(2001& 2025)
(continued)
2001 Existing
Expressway
LOS F Intersection
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
Oregon-Page Mill
PM Peak
Mission College Boulevard(CMP)
F(67)
F(78)
F{95)
First St,(CMP)
F(74)
F(113)
F(133)
F(161)
F(91)
F(101)
Trimble Rd,(CMP)
F(148)
F{160)
F(160)
F(149)
McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Ave.(CMP)
F(97)
F(137)
Zanker Road(CMP)
Montague
2025 Baseline |
I-S80 SB Ramps
Main St./Old Oakland Rd.(CMP)
F{120)
McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.(CMP)
F(88)
Great Mall Pkwy/Capitol Ave.(CMP)
F(119)
Milpitas Blvd(CMP)
F(104)
F(153)
F(134)
F(112)
F(121)
F(84)
F(94)
F(68)
F(91)
F(90)
Foothill Expressway(CMP)
CurlnerAve.(CMP)
F(90)
F(90)
F{82)
SR17SB Ramps(CMP)
Campbell Ave.(CMP)
1
Hamilton Ave,(CMP)
F(96)
Mooipark Ave.(CMP)
Stevens Creek Blvd.(CMP)
San Tomas
F(137)
F(67)
F(82)
F(143)
F{109)
Saratoga Ave.(CMP)
F(103)
F(70)
F(63)
F(86)
F(97)
F{79)
F(66)
F(74)
F(92)
El Camino Real(CMP)
F(92)
F(74)
F(75)
F(103)
Monroe St.(CMP)
F(113)
Pruneridge Ave,
Homestead Rd,(CMP)
F(74)
Benton St.
F(99)
F(66)
Scott Blvd,(CMP)
20
Total LOS F Intersections
21
30
34
40
50
1
Notes;
(CMP)= Intersection monitored by Congestion Management Program.
F = Indicates whict) intersections are at LOS F, and (# #) indicates delay (seconds/vehicle)
1) (**) = Final determination of seconds of delay is pending release of VTA's Capitol LRT environmental document
2) The LOS for the Foothill and Oregon-Page Mill Intersection is listed und^ both expressways, but Is only counted as one
LOS F intersection In the totals,
Soun»; CCS Ranning & Engineering, Inc.(2002)
22
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
User Opinions
Listed below are the key findings from the December 2001 and January 2003 telephone
surveys:
v
After congestion, timing of lights and landscaping received the highest percentage of
"fair/poor" ratings(48% and 44% of respondents, respectively). The individual
expressway ratings for timing of lights were similar for ail expressways.
Landscaping on 6 of the expressways was also rated similar to the system results.
The exceptions are Foothill and Oregon-Page Mill users who are quite satisfied with
landscaping (over 80% rating "excellent/good"). (December 2001 Survey)
v Synchronizing the traffic signals was the most important proposed change for all
expressways in both surveys. In the 2003 survey, 69% of respondents rated
synchronizing traffic signals as "very important.'
v
Eliminating dangerous merges and maintaining pavement also received a large
amount of 'very important' ratings(66% and 62%, respectively). Oanuary 2003
Survey)
v
More landscaping(16% very important), decreasing the number of traffic lights
(24%), and building more sound walls(26%) were the least popular of the proposed
improvements among respondents. (January 2003 Survey)
Potential Expansion of the System
The 1960's build-out plan for the expressway system included at least one additional
expressway and extending three other existing expressways. The concept was that the
expressways should connect with the freeways and with other expressways. In the last 40
years, local plans and policies have changed. In the 1990's, Capitol Expressway, between
State Route (SR)87 and Almaden Expressway, was relinquished to San Jose to become Auto
Mall Parkway. Questions have continued to be asked about other expressway extensions
and these issues were discussed with the cities, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB), and the
Technical Working Group(TWO early in the Study process. Described below are the key
system expansion issues and status.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
23
Almaden Expressway
Almaden Expressway will eventually be extended to Bailey Avenue where people can
connect to US 101 via the future Bailey interchange. The timing of the Almaden extension
will be determined by San Jose land use decisions. The likely trigger will be Coyote Valley
development. It is anticipated that development traffic impact fees will pay for the extension.
The trigger may or may not occur within the 30-year timeframe of this Study. Future updates
of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan will include the extension once more is
known about the timing and funding.
Central Expressway
The original plans for Central called for it to continue through Palo Alto on Alma Avenue to
terminate at Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. Palo Alto does not support extending Central
Expressway onto Alma. Alma has four lanes, like Central Expressway, and already connects
to Oregon-Page Mill. The land along Alma is completely developed with Caltrain along one
side and residences and several residential side streets along the other. Therefore, Palo Alto
wants Alma to remain a city arterial with relatively slower speeds and narrower lanes than
the expressway. Extending Central through Palo Alto will not be pursued.
Lawrence Expressway
Lawrence was originally slated to continue down Quito Road in Saratoga to connect with the
future SR 85 under the assumption that there would be an interchange at Quito. When SR
85 was built, the interchange was moved to Saratoga Avenue. The City of Saratoga does not
support converting Saratoga Avenue into an extension of Lawrence Expressway. Extending
Lawrence onto Saratoga Avenue will not be pursued. The Study does include a signal
coordination project for Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue that will help with traffic
flow to the SR 85/Saratoga Avenue interchange.
South County
There have been various plans for a north-south expressway on the west side of US 101 since
the 1960's. By the 1980's, County transportation planning documents began to recommend
a north-south arterial rather than a formal expressway. These new recommendations
24
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
occurred due to a lack of funding for building and maintaining new expressways, and due to
conflicting plans and policies at the local cities.
The City of Morgan Hill does not support having expressways in Morgan Hill. The City of
Gilroy is in favor of having an expressway. Gilroy's Circulation Element identifies Santa
Teresa as an expressway meeting all expressway standards including limited access and no
parking. It would be a loop expressway beginning and ending at US 101 at the south and
north ends of Gilroy. Gilroy is currently funding and constructing the widening of Santa
Teresa Boulevard to expressway standards and will provide for maintenance of the widened
facility.
The PAB South County small group arrived at the following agreements:
v
Regional travel demand from south of Gilroy heading into South San Jose should be
accommodated on US 101.
v
A South County "local corridor" is needed to facilitate travel between Gilroy and
Morgan Hill. It does not necessarily need to be called an "expressway" or fall under
single-jurisdiction ownership, but it does need consistent standards and an
identifiable alignment.
v
Some kind of regional transportation plan is needed for the South County area - a
"South County Circulation Study."
v
All five government agencies need to be involved in the development of a
Circulation Study - VTA, County of Santa Clara, and the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan
Hill, and San Jose.
VTA has recently established a South County Roadways Policy Advisory Board to discuss
roadway projects and issues for the South County area and provide policy input into the
proposed South County Circulation Study. Among several other issues, the Circulation Study
will determine the need and support for new Santa Teresa Boulevard connections to US 101
in Gilroy. The results of this study will help facilitate the decision making about whether the
Santa Teresa loop should be considered part of the County's expressway system. The results
of the Circulation Study will be considered in the VTP 2020 2003/2004 Update and in the
next update of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan.
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
25
Expressway Vision Statements
A key finding from the data gathering and city/community outreach is that each expressway
has Its own unique character, function, and community relationship. Therefore, the ultimate
build-out of each expressway must vary to meet community needs. To guide the expressway
plans, a vision was developed for each expressway, through a collaborative process
involving the cities, TWG,and PAB.
The visions are listed in Table 2-4. There are three key terms used that are critical to an
understanding of the visions:
v
Arterial - An expressway that is arterial-like would be similar to a major city street.
It will tend to carry relatively less traffic than other expressways and is likely to be 4
to 6 lanes wide. Other potential attributes include more multimodal use (such as a
major transit presence or high use bike corridor), higher pedestrian demand,
somewhat slower moving traffic, and very few grade separations. It may have
commercial or other land uses directly accessed from the expressway.
v
High-end express arterial - These expressways would be similar to how most
people define the term "expressway." They move high volumes of traffic and may
be 6 to 8 lanes wide. Most intersections are signalized rather than grade separated.
There are few land uses accessed directly from the expressway and less demand for
pedestrian travel.
v
Freeway-like - As the name implies, these expressway segments would be similar to
a freeway. No expressway is envisioned to be converted completely into a freeway,
but some have segments with such high traffic demand, that freeway-like treatments
would be warranted. Generally, this means building interchanges to replace
congested at-grade intersections. The land uses along these segments tend to be
Industrial or commercial with buildings fronting on other roadways, not the
expressway.
26
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
Table 2-4: Expressway Vision Statements
Expressway
Vision Statement
Almaden
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
Capitol
Corridor in transition to high-capacity arterial with light rail transit in
median.
Central
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
Foothill
Attractive express arterial, not freeway-like, that also plays an
important role as a regional bicycle facility.
Lawrence
Southern end more arterial-like; mid-section more high-end
expressway with freeway-like segments; and northern end more
high-end express arterial.
Montague
Multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway in Milpitas east of
1-880; west of 1-880, high-end express arterial with freeway-like
segments.
Oregon-Page Mill
Multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with slower, smoothflowing traffic.
San Tomas
High-end express arterial with freeway-like segments.
One of the defining features of these three types of roadways is the relationship between
traffic mobility and land access. As shown in Figure 2-2, consistent and continuous access
control from abutting property is desirable for those expressways which need a high degree
of vehicle mobility.
Figure 2-2: Proportion of Service
Traffic
Mobility
Freeway-like
High-end express arterial
Land Access
Arterial
Source Adapted from Exhibit 1-5, AASHTO - Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets
Section 2 Expressway System Characteristics & Needs
27
Section Three
Capacity & Operational
Improvement Element
The Capacity and Operational Improvement Element focuses on automobile-related capital
improvements. It includes projects that will increase roadway capacities; improve
operational and safety conditions; facilitate traffic flow using signal coordination and
advanced traffic operations systems (TOS); and provide direct high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)
connectors between expressways and freeways where HOV facilities exist or have been
planned.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The process to develop the list of improvements began with a comprehensive traffic analysis,
including existing and projected 2025 traffic volumes, intersection level of service (LOS), and
intersection collision data. Project lists from other studies, such as the Valley Transportation
Plan (VTP) 2020 and city capital improvement programs, were consulted. In addition,
discussions were held with staff from the participating cities and agencies to help identify
problem areas and locally desired improvements.
A preliminary list of improvements was then developed to address both congestion and
operational/safety problems areas. Recognizing that signal timing changes and new
technologies can alleviate some congestion problems, adjustments to signal operations were
considered first. Capacity improvements to alleviate LOS F conditions were then
recommended In those areas where signal operational changes were unable to resolve the
congestion problem. Considerations of capacity improvements began with at-grade
improvement options (e.g., adding a lane). Grade separations/interchanges were
recommended when at-grade options became infeasible. Based on the discussions with
local cities and other agencies, the improvements list was further expanded to include
desired improvements that will help achieve the vision for each expressway.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the capacity and operational improvements recommended for the
expressway system. The types of improvements range from operational improvements such
as corridor signal projects, median closures, and safety widenings, to capacity projects such
as new lanes, intersection improvements, and new interchanges. The map also recognizes
the South County Circulation Study, which will develop improvement recommendations for
Rural Commute Routes, such as Santa Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy. Although not technically
County expressways, these routes will require funding from the same sources as the
expressway projects and could serve the same type of intercity travel needs as the
expressways.
The capacity/operational improvements will cost from $1.64 to $1.94 billion to implement.
The total cost includes approximately $100-150 million for HOV-related projects and $83105 million for signals/Traffic Operations System (TOS) improvements. Detailed descriptions
of the signalsA'OS and HOV projects can be found in their respective elements.
30
Section 3 Capacity & Opefational Improvement Element
Figure 3-1: Capacity/Operational Improvements
^8
♦♦
V
jt
^
♦«
««*>•
Homes
\
m UwrMCtO*
IWI Slud)
fttfJiky 8
Stmmm Crmt
iiijuiM»i
Comdor
\
\
Legend
oCorridor Operational Improvement
■■aiSegmenl Widening
Mpunded Widening
BnnhafBLA
a^HCperational/Safety Widenir>g
•
•
Signalized Intersections
Timing Project
•
Median/Street Closure
e
Funded Improvement
CMiry w*
tSMBGffKm
asffioff RjM
USflMRU
• At-grade Improvement
Grade Separation/Interchange
■ Freeway Interchange Improvement
■ Operational/Safety Improvement
CamdM
South County
Circulaiion Study
m
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
31
Figure 3-2a: Corridor Level of Service for No Project
B«ftcir>Si
A
A i lnmnawm
Pnj^Kjge
S^raiova i
noorrart ^w
MwRd
MoVD«rtt Ai<«
\
\
Legend
O Existing LOS F
I? Sfi RaTOt
• 2025 LOS F
(■■LOS A-C Conldors
BSSLOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
SftKNeOB
CotviwiRd
m
^■LOS F Corridors
^v«»ISA
Systemwide Results
Figures 3-2a and 3-2b illustrates the LOS benefits of the recommended capacity and
operational improvements for the planning year 2025. Figure 3-2a indicates projected
corridor LOS and intersection LOS F locations in 2025 if no improvements are made. Figure
3-2b indicates 2025 LOS conditions with full implementation of all recommendations.
32
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Figure 3-2b: Corridor Level of Service for All Projects
k
r'-"'
Unde* Study for LRT
StcnfU
A
Legend
ILOS A-C Corridors
ILOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
ILOS P Corridors
LOS F intersections
The corridor-wide traffic analysis shows overall corridor LOS to be significantly improved
with the implementation of the capacity/operational improvements. Six of the eight
expressways would operate at a minimum of LOS D with some expressway segments
achieving LOS C. Montague Expressway, east of 1-880, would improve from LOS F to E.
West of 1-880, Montague would continue to operate at LOS F but the queuing and overall
delay would be reduced significantly(25% reduction in delay of all vehicles; 13-minute
reduction in travel time). Capitol Expressway from Nieman through the US 101 interchange
would improve from LOS F to E and would remain LOS D west of US 101. Projected LOS
Information for Capitol north of Nieman to 1-680 is not available since the future conditions
with the planned LRT in place have not yet been fully defined.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
33
Altogether, the capacity and operational projects listed mitigate 28 out of 30 existing LOS F
intersections. The remaining 2 existing LOS F intersections are as follows:
v
Capitol/Story - This intersection is part of the initial phase of the Downtown East
Valley light rail project. Any potential improvement project for this location will be
determined through coordination with the light rail project and San jose policies.
v
Montague/First - The 1999 Montague Study included a policy decision to accept
LOS F conditions at this intersection.
Under 2025 projected conditions, the overall list of projects mitigates 43 out of 50 LOS F
intersections, with the following 7 intersections remaining at F:
v
The 2 existing LOS F intersections listed above.
v
Three additional intersections on Capitol Expressway (Ocala, Tully, and Quimby)Like Capitol/Story, any potential improvement projects for these locations will be
determined through coordination with the light rail project and San Jose policies.
v
Montague/Zanker - Like Montague/First, the 1999 Montague Study included a
policy decision to also accept LOS F conditions at this intersection.
v
Lawrence/Homestead - An interchange would be required to improve this
intersection to LOS E or better, and an interchange at this location is not supported
by local cities due to the right-of-way impacts.
In addition to congestion relief, many of the projects provide safety and multimodal benefits.
Most of the intersections with the highest collision rates are also those with the worst
congestion problems and will be improved through the recommended capacity projects.
One of the segment widenings (Central through Sunnyvale) is specifically recommended to
Improve an area experiencing a high collision rate. Many of the projects include muchneeded improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians and a couple of the grade separations
have the potential to improve light rail operations.
34
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Systemwide Prioritization
During development of the Improvement lists, the top priorities for each expressway were
identified based on both technical analysis and city/community preferences. However, with
a systemwide capacity/operational improvement list of 72 projects that approach $2 billion
In cost, a systemwide prioritization list was needed.
To start the prioritization process, a technical analysis was conducted ranking intersections
by existing and future peak hour delay, highest collision locations, and a cost/benefit ratio for
capacity projects. A review of these rankings compared to each expressway's proposed
priorities indicated that the top priority projects for each expressway address almost all of the
highest ranking locations in terms of delay and accident locations, and are cost-effective.
However, it also became apparent that it would be difficult to develop criteria/performance
measures to prioritize the operational/safety projects against the LOS projects.
The projects were then grouped into tiers starting with the concept that the top tier should
include operational/safety improvements and projects that mitigate LOS F intersections. The
remaining projects fell into Tiers 2 and 3 based on the type of project. When Tier 1 projects
added up to more than can be expected from existing funding sources, sub-tiers were created
dividing up relatively low-cost operational/at-grade improvements, high<ost interchange
projects, and projects addressing future LOS F conditions. A key concept in dividing the
projects into the Tier 1 sub-tiers was that existing LOS F intersection improvements should
receive a higher priority than projected LOS F intersections. Table 3-1 lists the final criteria
used for each tier.
Table 3-2 provides a detailed list of the capacity/operational improvement projects divided
into the tiers. Table 3-3 provides a tier summary.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
35
Table 3-1: Criteria for Tier Assignment
Tier
Criteria
•
•
At-grade improvements to mitigate existing LOS F intersections to E or t>etter
Operational improvements to eliminate weaving, merging/diverging, and queuing problems,
thus improving safety conditions
1A
•
•
Signal operations improvements that improve traffic flow
Low-cost feasibility studies needed to answer critical questions about interchange
reconfigurations that have a high level of local support
IB
•
•
Improvements (both at-grade and grade separation/interchange projects) needed to mitigate
the projected 2025 LOS F intersections
1C
36
Grade separation/interchange projects to mitigate existing LOS F intersections
•
Longer term signal operational improvements
•
All other expressway capacity improverrrent projects that can furfier facilitate traffic flow
2
•
Enhancements and upgrades to signal systems using new technologies that will became
available over the next 30 years
3
•
Major existing faciiity reconstruction and new facilities such as HOV direct connectors
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expressway
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Measure B Projects (Funded)
Provide additional NB through lane on Almaden at Blossom Hill and SR 85 NB offAlmaden
ramp intersections plus additional SB through lane on Almaden at Branham and
Cherry intersections with additional left-turn lane at all four approaches at Cherry
NA
intersection
San Tomas
Provide a 2nd left-turn lane from EB and WB Campbell to San Tomas and a separate
right-turn lane from WB Campbell to NB San Tomas
N.A,
Provide TOS improvements including traffic management center upgrades, new loop
Expressway Traffic
and video sensors along the expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic
Operations System (TOS) signals; and implement Traffic Adaptive System along Lawrence between Oakmead
N.A.
and Kifer
Tier 1A Projects
Widen to 8 lanes between Coleman and Blossom Hill including an additional left-turn
lane from SB Almaden to Coleman and from EB and WB Coleman to Almaden, and a
right-turn lane from WB Coleman to NB Almaden; a 4th SB and NB through lane on
$6-8
Almaden at Via Monte; and an additional left-tum (a total of three)from SB Almaden to
EB Blossom Hill and an additional SB through lane at Blossom Hill Intersection
Almaden
Initiate a Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)/Project Development Study(PDS)to
reconfigure SR 85/Almaden interchange
$0.25
Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Almaden: widen SB Almaden to
provide a 5th lane between the Best Buy driveway and SB loop on-ramp serving as
auxiliary lane for weaving vehicles; widen SB SR 85 off-ramp to add a third left-turn;
$2
provide an additional EB approach lane resulting In two left-tum, one through/right
shared, and two right-tum lanes
Widen between Mary and Lawrence to provide auxiliary and/or
acceleration/deceleration lanes to improve ramp operations and safety P'
Central
Widen to 6 lanes between Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways without HOV lane
operations
$13
$10
Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas and De La Cruz to
mixed flow and remove the HOV queue jump lanes at Scott, if unsuccessful after a 3
$0.1
to 5-year trial period
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
37
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway arid proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway d>
Expressway
Foothill
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Signal operational improvements between Edith and El Monte Including adjacent side
street intersections and at Grant/St. Joseph
$1.5
Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio by 250 feet
$0.5
Replace Loyola Bridge(This improvement project will also provide necessary Ixcyde
and pedestrian facilities, and channelization and operational Improvements at adjacent
$10
Intersections.)
Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Avenue corridor Including
Lawrence/Prospect, Lawrence/Saratoga, Saratoga/Prospect, and Saratoga/Cox
$0.1
Intersections f®'
Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark/Bolllnger and south of Calvert with additional WB
through lane at Moorpark
$4
Coordinate and optimize signal phasing and timing plans at l-280/Lawrence
Lawrence
Interchange area including City of Santa Clara signals along Stevens Creek and
County's signal at Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 SB ramp
Prepare Caltrans PSR for Tier 1C project at the Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 interchange
area
Close median at Lochlnvar and right-In-and-out access at DeSoto, Golden State,
Granada, Buckley, and St, Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
Convert HOV to mixed-fiow lanes between US 101 and EIko due to high violation rates
& operational problems
Convert HOV lanes on 6-lane facility to mixed-flow use between 1-880 and 1-680 due
to operational and safety problems f®)
Montague
Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening and 1-880 par-cio interchange with atgrade Improvements at Uck Mill, Plumeiia/RiverOaks, Main/Old Oakland, and
McCandless/Trade Zone; designate new lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 as HOV for a
3 to 5-year trial period
38
$0,1
$0.5
$0.5
$0.1
$0.1
$38.5
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway hi
Expressway
Cost
Project Description <2)
(millions)
i-280/Page Mill interchange modification: remove SB loop on-ramp and construct SB
diagonal on-ramp with signal operations; signalize NB off-ramp intereection; and
$5
provide proper channelization for pedestrians and bicycles
Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
$0.25
Oregon corridor improvements:
v
Oregon-Page Mill
v
Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding Impacts on safety at
unsignalized Intersections f®'
Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized
intersections
v
Study operational changes at the unsignalized Intellections at Waverley, Ross,
v
enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety, and maintain vehicle safety
Conduct feasibility study of adding turn lane at MIddlefield Road and converting
to 8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-
$5
and Indian that avoid increasing traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets,
of-way
At grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas:
v
Re-stripe the EB through lane on White Oaks to provide an optional left as 3rd
$2
left-turn lane
San Tomas
v
Provide second right-turn lane on SB off-ramp
<•
Study potential operational & safety Improvements in the Interchange area
Provide a 2nd left-tum lane from EB and WB Hamilton to San Tomas and a 2nd leftturn lane from NB San Tomas to WB Hamilton
$2
Widen to 8 lanes between Williams and El Camino Real with additional left-tum lane
from EB and WB El Camino Real to San Tomas
$28
Provide an additional right-turn lane from WB Monroe to NB San Tomas
$1
Traffic Information outlets such as electronic information signs, advisory radio, cable
$5
TV feeds, and a web page
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Install equipment to coordinate expressway signals with city signals on perpendicular
$10
streets
Install equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos
$2.5
traffic signal interconnect systems
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
$0,5
Total Tier 1A
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
148.5-150.5
39
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Expr^sway
Cost
Project Description
(millions)
Tier 1B Projects
Capitol
Lawrence
Montague
$50-60
Interchange at Sliver Creek
Interchange at Monroe
$45
interchange at Klfer
$45
Interchange at Argues with square loops along Kern and Titan
$35
At-grade improvements at Mission College and par-do interchange at US 101
$11
Trimble flyover
$15
McCarthy-OToole square loop interchange
$60
TOTAL TIER IB
$261 -271
Tier 1C Projects
Almaden
Capitol
Widen to 6 lanes starting south of Camden to conform with the current 6-lane segment
south of Redmond with additional left-turn lane from EB and WB Camden to Almaden
Provide a third left-turn lane from SB Senter to EB Captol
$4.5
Provide a third left-tum from SB McLaughlin to EB Capitol ^
$3.5
Provide a third left-turn lane from NB Abom to WB Capitol and a second right-turn lane
from EB Capitol to SB Abom
Provide a third left-tum shared with through lane from SB Capitol Avenue to SB
Capitol Expressway
Lawrence
San Tomas
40
$5-6
$5-6
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from EB Saratoga to NB Lawrence
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from EB Prospect to NB Lawrence
$2
Interim improvements at Lawrence/Calvert/l-280; provide additional SB through lane at
Calvert; widen 1-280 SB on-ramp to provide additional mixed-flow lane; and construct
1-280 SB slip on-ramp from Calvert west of Lawrence and prohibit EB through
$8
movement at CalveiVLawrence Intersection {based on results of Tier 1A PSR)
Provide additional EB through lane on Homestead
$2
Provide additional left-tum lane from WB Benton to SB Lawrence
$2
Provide a 3rd left-tum lane from EB Oakmead/Duane to NB Lawrence
$2
Provide additional right-tum lane from WB Scott to NB San Tomas
$1
Section 3 Capacity & Operational improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway d)
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Cost
Project Description P)
Expressway
(Millions)
Adaptive traffic signal system for selected or all expressways based upon further
feasibility study
Total Tier 10
$10-12
$49-53
Tier 2 Projects
Almaden
Central
Widen to 6 lanes from Almaden Road to south of Camden t®)
$10
Interchange at Rengstorff hO)
$60
Depress Central at light rail crossing near Whisman
$35
At-grade improvements or interchange at Mary dh
$4-50
Interchange at Bowers
$45
Signalize the Wildwood Ave. intersection Including opening the median, realigning
Lawrence
Montague
Oregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
Signal Operations/
TOS Capital
Projects
Wildwood Ave,, and re-tlming signals between US 101 and EIko
$4
Interchange at Tasman
$45
Interchange at Mission College
$55
Interchange at Great Mali/Capltol
$42
Provide a separate right-turn lane from WB Oregon to El Camino Real and lengthen
left-turn lane from WB Oregon to El Camino Real
N.A,
Interchange at Stevens Creek
$50-70
Interchange at El Camino Real
$60
Interchange at Monroe
$55
Interchange at Scott
$65
New technology/Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) updates over the next 30
$55-75
years
Total Tier 2
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
$585 - 671
41
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Projects for each tier are listed by expressway and proceed from south to north or west to east for each expressway
Cost
Project Description P)
Expressway
(millions)
Tiers Projects
Almaden
Modify the SR 85/Almaden Interchange to a par-clo type with loops In the NE and SE
quadrants based on results of Tier 1A PSR/PDS
Initiate a feasibility study to provide direct access between Lawrence, 1-280, and
Stevens Creek, and HOV direct connectors at this interchange area
$20
$1
Lawrence
Reconstajct the interchange to provide direct access ramps between Lawrence, 1-280,
and Stevens Creek, and HOV direct connectors
Montague
1-680 interchange modification
$250-300
$20
Add a second SB right-turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill; extend the SB rightOregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
HOV Direct Connectors
tum lane half way to Stanford Intersection. Maintain through bike lane, no free righttum lane, avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Avenue
$2-4
Alma Bridge reconstruction based on results of Tier 1A feasibility study
$100
Initiate a study to reconfigure SR 17/San Tomas Interchange
$0.25
Reconstruct SR 17/San Tomas Interchange
$100-200
Freeway/expressway direct connector HOV ramps at five locations: CapitolAJS 101,
Montague/l-^80, Lawrence/US 101, Montague/San Tomas/US 101, and San Tomas/I-
$100-150
280
Total Tier 3
$593.25795.25
Other Projects
Any potential roadway improvements for the Nieman to Story segment of Capitol
Capitol
Expressway will be determined through coordination with VTA's light rail project and
San Jose's policies. The light rail project Draft Environmental Impact
TBD
Statement/Environmental Impact Report(EIS/EIR)to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)will be released in mid-2003.
South County
Actual improvements and costs to be determined by a separate South County
Circulation Study to be conducted by VTA
Grand Total
42
TBD
$1,636.751,940.75
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Table 3-2: Capacity and Operational Improvement Projects (continued)
Notes:
(1) Expressway Direction:
Almaden = South-north
Capitol = west=east from SR 87 to Abom & south-north from Abom to 1-680
Central = west-east
Foothill = west-east
Lawrence = south-north
Montague = west-east
Oregon-Page Mill = west-east
San Tomas = south-north
(2) When funding is obtained, each project will undergo design, environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate.
Project description will be changed as needed based on the results of these activities,
(3) May also Include a turning lane improvement at Central/Mary; need for this improvement will be determined during project
design.
(4) The existing LOS F intersections between Lawrence Expressway and De La Cruz will be mitigated if the widening is operated as
mixed-flow. If the new lanes between San Tomas and De La Cruz remain designated as HOV after the trial period and the
widening between Lawrence and San Tomas is operated as HOV lanes, then interchanges will be required at 2 of the LOS F
Intersections(Bowers and Lafayette) and will need to be placed in Tier 1B.
(5) Please see the HOV System Element for more Information about these projects.
(6)
Please see the Signals/TOS Element for more Information about these projects.
(7) Actual improvements and cost estimates for the McLaughlin to Abom segment of Capitol Expressway will be Identified through
VTA's US 101 Central Corridor Study to be completed by the end of 2003 or early 2004. Projects for McLaughlin, Silver Creek,
and Abom are listed here as placeholders.
(8) Additional EB through at the Homestead intersection would not Improve the projected 2025 LOS from F to E or better. However.
it would reduce average intersection delay significantly.
(9) Implementation of an extension of Almaden Expressway to Bailey Avenue and additional improvements for the existing Almaden
^pressway will be determined by City of San Jose land use decisions.
(10) The City of Mountain View is pursuing options for grade separating the Caltrain railroad tracks from Rengstorff Avenue. If this
project is built, the signalized Intersection at Central and Rengstorff may degrade to LOS F, In which case the
Central/Rengstorff interchange project will move Into Tier 1B.
(11) Local and regional LOS standards are not projected to be violated at the Central/Mary intersection within the timeframe of the
plan.
(12) Local and regional LOS standards are not projected to be violated at the Lawrence/Tasman intersection within the timeframe of
the plan.
(13) If the new HOV lanes between 1-880 and 1-680 remain designated as HOV after the trial period, the Great Mall/Capltol
interchange may need to be moved into Tier 1B.
(14) Palo Alto may conduct further studies and minor operational Improvements for the Oregon-Page Mill/El Camino Real
Intersection, as specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(15) Although this is an existing LOS F intersection, Palo Alto would like to wait on improvements until they can evaluate the benefits
of the Sand Hill Road Improvements and programs to encourage alternate modes of transportation on the LOS at this locahai.
Should a future evaluation indicate improvements are still needed, the project could be moved Into Tier 1 with Palo Alto's
concurrence.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
43
Table 3-3: Summary of Tier Results
# of LOS F Intersections
Tier
Mitigated
# of Projects
2001/2002
Cost
Existing
Baseline
2025
(millions)
Measure B
N.A,
2
N.A.
N.A.
1A
28
18
24 h)
$149-151
IB
7
7
7
$261-271
1C
13
0
11
$49-53
2
15
0
0
$585-671
3
9
1 (2)
1
$593-795
Totals
72
28
43
$1,637-1,941
Notes:
(1) Tier 1A also mitigates six projected 2025 LOS F Intersections that are not existing LOS F
locations. This is attributed to implementation strategies for existing LOS F intersections
that benefit adjacent Intersections, either with operational or capacity improvements.
(2) At the local city's request, one existing/future LOS F Intersection Improvement project has
_been placed In Tier 3 rather than In Tier 1 A.
Project Completion Timing
The projects in each tier also tend to have similar implementation challenges and project
delivery schedules. Listed below are the estimated delivery time for each project once funds
become available for that project:
Tier 1A - Most of the projects in this tier can be completed in 3-4 years (including time for
environmental review, community outreach, design, right-of-way acquisition, utility
relocation, and construction). A couple projects may stretch to 6 years due to structures
Involved and coordination with other agencies. Projects where right-of-way is available (i.e.,
no right-of-way impact or acquisition) and complex utility relocation Is not needed can be
completed within 2 years. The feasibility studies will take 1 to 2 years to complete.
44
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Tier IB - These projects can typically be completed within 6-8 years. The 6-8 year
implementation timeframe anticipates 2 years for environmental clearance and preliminary
engineering, 1-2 years for final design, 1-2 years for right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocation, and 2 years for construction. The only exception is the Montague/Mission
College/101 par-cio interchange project, which will have a similar project schedule as Tier 3
projects (8-10 years) because of Caltrans involvement.
Tier 1C - The at-grade improvement projects in Tier 1C will have a similar implementation
timeframe as the Tier 1A projects (1-4 years depending on right-of-way and utility impacts).
The grade separation/interchange projects will have schedules similar to the Tier 1B projects
(6-8 years).
Tier 2 - Most of these projects are grade separation/interchange projects that will have a
similar implementation schedule as Tier 1B projects (6-8 years).
Tier 3- Tier 3 projects will require significant right-of-way acquisitions and a relatively long
project development process that will take 8-10 years to complete. All of these projects,
except Alma Bridge reconstruction, involve Caltrans review and approval. The 8-10 year
timeframe anticipates 3-4 years for Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR), Project Report(PR)
and Environmental Document(ED), 2 years for final design, 1-2 years for right-of-way
acquisition and utility relocation, and 2 years for construction. The Alma Bridge
reconstruction will involve coordination with the public utility commission (PUC)and
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) due to the Caltrain tracks. This will affect
delivery timing similar to a Caltrans project.
Tier lA Effectiveness
The 28 Tier 1A projects address the top priorities for each expressway and improve most of
the current LOS and operational problem areas for a total cost of $150 million. These lowcost improvements can be delivered relatively quickly once funds are secured.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
45
Fisiure 3-3: Corridor Level of Service for Tier 1A
\
8*I0V W Irf^
Oe^0m
T«fly«d
ChMrM
I
SMCMfelld
Legend
IHLOS A-C Corridors
IHLOS D Corridors
LOS E Corridors
IMLOS F Corridors
O Existing LOS F
• 2025 LOS F
%
Figure 3-3 illustrates the LOS effectiveness of the Tier 1A package of projects. Compared
with the "No Project" map in Figure 3-2, significant improvement is seen with Tier lA:
v
18 of the existing 30 LOS F intersections and 24 of the 50 projected 2025 LOS F
intersections are mitigated.
v
Aimaden between Camden Avenue and SR 85 is improved from a corridor LOS E to
LOS D.
46
v
Central east of Lawrence is improved from a corridor LOS F to LOS D.
v
Montague east of 1-880 improves from corridor LOS F to E.
v
San Tomas is improved from corridor LOS E to D.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
Implementation Strategies
The following key implementation strategies are recommended for the capacity/operational
projects:
v The Tier 1A projects should be funded with existing resources without breaking up
the package of improvements. However, not all 28 projects in Tier 1A can be
worked on concurrently and the funding will likely not be available all at once. A
project delivery schedule will need to be developed once roadway funds become
available.
v The project lists and tier assignments should be revised regularly by the County.
Project description/definition, cost, and tier assignments are based on conditions
known today. They are also based on the limited design work that is completed in a
long-range planning study. As funding becomes available for project development,
the project description and cost estimates will be further defined and may require
some changes. In addition, it is likely that new land use and transportation system
decisions will affect the 2025 traffic projections that were used as the basis for
planning in the Expressway Study and will require changes in the project list and
tier assignments.
v When funding is obtained, each capacity improvement project will undergo design,
environmental review, and community outreach as appropriate. Operational
improvement projects (such as median closures, MOV conversions) will also have
appropriate traffic analysis, community outreach, and environmental review before
implementation.
v Alt capacity improvement projects will incorporate pedestrian, bicycle, transit
support (e.g., bus stops), and sound wall needs into the design and construction of
the project. The costs for these improvements are included in the project's cost
estimate. Landscaping improvements may also be included where provisions have
been made for ongoing maintenance costs.
Recommended actions relating to funding sources are included in Section 10, Funding
Strategies.
Section 3 Capacity & Operational Improvement Element
47
Photos for Section 4 to be placed Here.
Section Four
Signals & Traffic
Operations System (TOS)
Element
Traffic signals play a key role In the efficient functioning of the expressways. They regulate
traffic flow on the expressways and help balance the mobility needs of users of the
expressways and cross streets. Survey respondents have consistently rated timing of lights
and synchronizing signals as very important improvements. In many instances, signal timing
changes and new signal technologies can alleviate congestion problems as traffic demand
grows. For this reason, adjustments to signal operations were considered as a key part of the
overall improvement strategy.
This element provides a description of current traffic signal operations along the expressways
and the funded expressway Traffic Operations System (TOS) Program. It then documents the
recommendations and costs for enhancing signal operations and TOS, including capital
improvements and operations/maintenance. The costs of the recommended capital projects
are incorporated in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element, while operating costs
are folded into the Maintenance and Operations Element.
Current Traffic Signal Synchronization Practice
There are 134 signalized intersections along the eight expressways. Figure 4-1 shows the
current groupings of synchronized traffic signals. Intersections that are not included in a
group are operating in isolation from other traffic signals. Typically, breaks in the signal
groupings occur where the travel patterns change or the signals are controlled by Caltrans,
such as at freeway interchanges and El Camino Real. The signals at the western end of
Central Expressway and the First Street area of Montague Expressway operate without
synchronization due to frequent train pre-emption of the signals.
The goal of synchronization along expressways is to give priority to through traffic on the
expressways. It's designed to progress large volumes of through traffic in the peak direction,
especially during the peak hour periods, from one end of each group to another. Thus,
delays and stops on the expressway are relatively low while delays and stops are relatively
high for side street movements.
All expressway signal groups are coordinated in the weekday AM and PM peak periods for
the commute direction. The exact peak period varies by expressway depending on travel
patterns. Some of the expressway signal groups are coordinated for weekday mid-day
periods and during the weekends. When not coordinated, the signals are free-running and
responsive to the left turns and cross-street activation by approaching vehicles. Current
practice is to conduct signal timing studies and re-time the signals as funding allows, which is
generally limited to responding to specific requests from cities and the public.
Traffic Operations System Program
TOS is an operational system for managing and operating transportation systems with
technologies. It is a system made up of various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
components such as surveillance (loop detectors, closed-circuit TV, etc.), monitoring
equipment, highway advisory radio, and changeable message signs(CMS).
In the mid-1990s, the County embarked on a cooperative effort with other agencies to study
the Silicon Valley Smart Corridor along 1-880 and State Route(SR) 17. A Smart Corridor is
one where various public agencies' traffic management activities are coordinated to more
50
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Figure 4-1; Current Traffic Signal Coordination Grouping
/
lOf
\
\
\
S
V
10^
effectively manage traffic in that corridor. These are typically achieved using advanced
technologies or ITS while partnerships between jurisdictions are necessary to develop
procedures and measures for coordination. The first phase of the 1-880/SR 17 Smart
Corridor project was deployed in 2000 and included improvements on San Tomas and
Montague Expressways. The project's components enable local and regional agencies to
respond to traffic incidents and to better manage traffic operations in the corridor. Initial
installations Included intersection and freeway cameras, changeable message signs, a new
traffic data collection station, a new highway advisory radio transmitter, and central traffic
signal system enhancements.
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
51
The County has also developed a TOS Master Plan that includes $42 million in TOS
improvements along the expressways. The 1996 Measure B Sales Tax Program allocated
$24.5 million for expressway TOS allowing implementation of over half of the TOS Master
Plan. Funded improvements include traffic management center upgrades, new loop and
video sensors along the various expressways, and fiber optic interconnect between traffic
signals. As the first step, a countywide review of traffic signal equipment and operations,
including synchronization, was completed in 2000. Construction of initial TOS
improvements on Central and Lawrence Expressways is now underway, and construction of
Improvements on Oregon-Page Mill, Foothill, and Almaden Expressways Is scheduled over
the next two years.
Additionally, a demonstration Traffic Adaptive System project is in progress along Lawrence
Expressway between Oakmead Parkway and Kifer Road intersections. The adaptive module
optimizes the timing split based on current conditions. If all the cars in a phase do not make
it through the intersection, then a set amount of time is automatically added to that phase in
the next cycle. If significant gaps develop in the flow of cars, then a set amount of time is
removed from that phase in the next cycle.
Recommended Signal Operatlons/TOS Projects
Table 4-1 summarizes the funded TOS projects and the recommended signal operations and
TOS improvement projects that will require additional funding.
Signal Operations Projects
The following projects totaling $6.7 million have been included in the Tier 1A
capacity/operational improvements list. These projects were selected because they have the
potential to improve LOS problems and facilitate traffic flow along specific expressway
segments as described below:
v
Foothill operational corridor improvement ($1.5 million)- Signalized intersections
along Foothill between Edith Avenue and El Monte Avenue are closely spaced with
the adjacent local intersections in the City of Los Altos. This project includes
upgrading signal controllers at the local intersections, providing communication
52
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Table 4-1: Signal Operations and TOS Project Summary
Category
Project Description
Status/
Capital Improvements
(Funded)
Measure B Program
Cost
(millions)
Recommended Tier
TOS improvements including traffic
management center upgrades, new
loop and video sensors along the
$23.0
expressways, and fiber optic
interconnect between traffic signals
Traffic Adaptive System
implementation along Lawrence
$1.5
between Oakmead and Kifer
$24.5
Total Funded
Capital Improvements Signal Operations
(Unfunded)
Listed as Tier 1A Capacity/
Foothill operational corridor
Operational Improvement
Projects
improvements between Edith and El
Monte including adjacent side street
Intersections & at Grant/St. Joseph
$1.5
Lawrence/l-280/Stevens Creek:
optimize signal phasing and timing
plans including City of Santa Clara
signals at Stevens Creek and
County's signal at
$0.1
Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 SB on-ramp
Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal
optimization between Prospect and
$0.1
SR 85
Oregon corridor improvements,
including replacing signal standards
$5.0
and re-timing accordingly
Total Tier 1A Signal Operations Projects
Capital Improvements -
Included in TOS
TOS
Master Plan but not
funded
(Unfunded)
1A
$6.7
Traffic information outlets such as
electronic information signs, advisory
radio, cable TV feeds, and a web
$5.0
page
1A
1A
Install equipment to coordinate
expressway signals vi/ith city signals
on perpendicular sb'eets
Install equipment to connect with
Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain
View, and Los Altos traffic signal
$10.0
$2.5
interconnect systems
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
53
Table 4-1: Signal Operations and ICS Project Summary (continued)
Category
Project Description
Status/
Capital Improvements -
Addidonal TOS
TOS
projects
1A
Cost
Upgrade traffic signal system to
allow automatic traffic count
(Unfunded)
1
(millions)
Recommended Tier
collection
$0.5
(continued)
1C
Adaptive traffic signal system for
selected or all expressways based
$10-12
upon further feasibility study
2
New technology/ITS update over the
next 30 years
$83-105
Total Unfunded TOS
Operations/Maintenance
$55-75
Conducted by Expressway
Update signal timing plans along the
Study
following three expressway corridors:
•
Oregon between El Camino
Real and Indian
•
Foothill from Magdalena to
N.A
Edith
•
SanTomasfromMoorparkto
Scott
•
San Tomas from Hamilton to
Budd and coordination with
Hamilton system
Potential needs
Annual maintenance of TOS
equipment
$0.5 annually
Develop & update multiple timing
plans for different times of days and
$1.0 annually
days of week for all expressways
Total Operations/Maintenance
54
$1.5 annually
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
between the expressway and local signals, and developing timing plans to facilitate
traffic flow within the corridor.
v
Lawrence/l-280/Stevens Creek signal optimization study ($0.1 million) - This study
will develop optimal signal phasing and timing plans for operations during different
times of the day and/or different days of the week to facilitate traffic flow in the
interchange area. The study will include three traffic signals along Stevens Creek
Boulevard being operated by the City of Santa Clara and the County's signal at
Lawrence/Calvert/l-280 southbound on-ramp.
v
Lawrence-Saratoga corridor signal operations study ($0.1 million) - This study will
develop multiple timing plans to facilitate traffic flow between SR 85 and Lawrence
Expressway during the peak hour periods.
v
Oregon corridor improvement project ($5.0 million)- This study includes replacing
and relocating the traffic signal standards at signalized intersections between El
Camino Real and US 101, constructing pedestrian ramps when the standards are
relocated, potentially adding a southbound left-turn lane at Middlefield Road for 8phase signal operations, studying operational/safety improvements at the
unsignalized intersections at Waverley Street, Ross Road, and Indian Drive, and
developing new timing plans based on the corridor improvements.
TOS Improvements
A total of $83-105 million has been identified for continuous update of the expressway TOS
using available and new technologies over the next 30 years.
As shown in Table 4-1, the unfunded items of the current TOS Master Plan ($17.5 million)
and upgrades to the County's standard signal controllers to allow for automatic traffic count
collection ($0.5 million) are recommended as Tier 1A projects. The automated count
collection system can help identify trouble spots in the signal operations/TOS and aid in
future design.
The County is already deploying a trial installation of a fully adaptive system on three
Intersections on Lawrence Expressway. Depending on the success of this trial, the adaptive
module can be added to the current County signal timing toolbox. Depending on the
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
55
feasibility and the number of intersections, implementation of adaptive signal system would
cost $10-12 million. This project has the potential to provide operational improvements in
the longer term and is, therefore, prioritized as a Tier 1C project.
Additionally, $55-75 million has been estimated and prioritized in Tier 2 to provide TOS
enhancements and update the system as new technologies become available over the next
30 years. The availability and cost of new technologies over a 30-year period cannot be
predicted with any accuracy. To arrive at a reasonable cost estimate as a placeholder, we
assumed that a sum equal to the current TOS project recommendations (approximately $55
million including both funded and unfunded elements) will be needed to replace the TOS
over the 30-year period. Another $20 million has been added to account for further
enhancements to the current TOS,such as incident management and communications with
systems in other agencies.
Operations and Maintenance
Currently, the County adjusts the signal timing plans along the expressways in response to
requests or complaints from the local agencies and the public and as monies allow. During
the Expressway Study, it became clear that a more proactive approach to adjusting signal
timing was desired and needed. Traffic conditions are constantly changing in response to the
economy and new land uses. These changes affect the length and times of peak period
flows, cross-street traffic demand, and the overall volume of traffic. Most of all, they affect
signal synchronization, which requires regular timing adjustments for maximum
effectiveness.
In response to concerns expressed regarding signal timing on specific expressway segments,
four signal timing studies were initiated as part of the Expressway Study. The scope and
purpose of these studies are as follows:
v
Oregon between El Camino Real and Indian Drive - Validate the need to include the
Caltrans operated El Camino Real signal for coordination with the Page Mill system
in the PM peak hours and with the Oregon system In the AM peak hour to facilitate
traffic flow along Oregon-Page Mill during the commute peak hours. Coordination
is required with Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto staff.
56
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
v
Foothill from Magdalena Avenue to Edith Avenue - Facilitate traffic flow between El
Monte Avenue and San Antonio Road and balance this movement with the throu^
traffic flow on Foothill Expressway during the commute peak hours.
v San Tomas from Moorpark Avenue to Scott Boulevard - Optimize timing plans to
balance expressway and side street delays during the peak hours.
v San Tomas between Budd Avenue and Hamilton Avenue - Optimize timing plans
for this coordinated system and provide coordination with the City of Campbell's
signal system on Hamilton Avenue.
These studies address currently identified problem areas. To develop a regularly scheduled
signal retiming program for the entire expressway system, a total of $1.5 million annually is
needed for signal operations and maintenance. The estimated cost includes $1.0 million to
develop and optimize variable timing plans for different times of the day and days of the
week for all expressways annually and another $0.5 million to operate and maintain the
TOS.
Inter-Agency Signal Coordination
As shown on Figure 4-1, the expressway signal synchronization system is disrupted by
Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways and by train crossings receiving signal pre
emption. Currently, there are railroad crossings on Montague Expressway and light rail
transit (LRT) crossings on Montague, Lawrence, and Central Expressways.
Traffic flow along local streets and on the expressways can also be impaired when there are
city<ontrol!ed signals at local intersections closely spaced with expressway signals. Several
of the signal projects listed in this element involve improved coordination between the
County's and other agencies' signals and/or incorporating the other agencies' signals into the
expressway signal system.
In addition, VTP 2020 recommends broader countywide planning efforts to define and
develop new ITS projects. These efforts require ongoing multi-agency partnerships. The
expressways, as major travel corridors, will likely play key roles in new Smart Corridor ITS
projects.
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
57
Specific recommendations for continuing to improve inter-agency signal coordination
include:
v
Work with Caltrans to bring more Caltrans-operated signals along the expressways
into the expressways' synchronized signal system.
v
Work with Caltrans on optimal ramp meter operations to ensure ramp queues do
not negatively impact expressway operations.
v
Explore additional opportunities to increase coordination between city-operated
signals on major cross streets with expressway signals to help optimize traffic flow
on both roadways.
v
Continue coordination efforts with rail operators to minimize expressway traffic
impacts, and where appropriate, support grade separation of the facilities. A
potential instrument for expressway coordination with LRT operations would be a
joint operation agreement to optimize peak commute operations for users of the
crossing, both on the expressway and LRT.
v
Continue to participate in VTA's ITS planning efforts and in the Silicon Valley (SV)ITS Program Partnership. VTP 2020 recommends that the SV-ITS partnership be
expanded to implement three additional ITS projects in Santa Clara and Southern
Alameda Counties.
58
Section 4 Signals & TOS Element
Photos for Section 5 to be placed Here.
Section Five
High-Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)System Element
The first expressway high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes opened on San Tomas Expressway
in 1982 and the Montague HOV lanes opened one year later. Since then, HOV lanes have
been added to Capitol and Lawrence Expressways and HOV queue jump lanes to Central
Expressway. Other improvements have included adding electronic signage, moving HOV
lanes off the shoulders, and expanding operating hours. Following the County's lead, the
state has added a significant number of HOV lane miles on the freeway system, and more are
planned. Today, we have 50 miles of expressway HOV lanes and 187 miles of freeway
HOV lanes, existing and planned (see Figure 5-1). The total miles of HOV lanes make Santa
Clara County the most HOV-friendly county in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The purpose of this element is to take a comprehensive look at the expressway HOV system,
including the performance of existing HOV lanes and potential expansion of the HOV
system. The goal is to establish an expressway HOV system that is truly effective and
functions well with the freeway HOV system.
Figure 5-1: HOV System Recommendations
%
Legend
■^Existing Fwy HOV
"^~Und«r Construction Fwy HOV
■— Planned/Under Study Fwy HOV
Expwy HOV
■
Expwy HOV on Trial Basis
OLRT
Fwy/Expwy HOV Connectors
^^Conversion to Mixed Flow or
(Candidates)
Q Fwy/Fwy HOV Connectors
(Under Construction/Planned)
62
Section 5 HOV System Element
Expressway HOV System Overview
Table 5-1: Existing Expressway HOV Lanes
Expressway
Capitol
Silver Creek Road to Capitol Avenue
Central
Bowers Avenue. Scott Boulevard queue jump lanes
Lawrence
Nearby Freeway
Expressway HOV Limits
Stevens Creek Boulevard to Arques Avenue
US 101, 1-680
N/A
^
Lakehaven Drive to Tasman Drive
Montague
San Tomas
Mission College Boulevard to McCarthy/OToole
Main Street to Mllpitas Boulevard
Budd Avenue to Walsh Avenue
1-280, US 101
US101,SR 237
US 101, 1-880
1-880, 1-680
SR 17. US 101
Caltrans does not allow the HOV lanes to continue through freeway interchange areas due to
concerns about the continuous weaving through the right hand lanes necessary to enter and
exit the freeway ramps. For that reason, the HOV lanes usually start and/or end at least one
signalized intersection away from the interchange area. This creates gaps in the system for
the Lawrence Expressway and San Tomas/Montague Expressway HOV lanes.
Current Plansfor Expresswaj^ HOV Lanes
Other planning efforts and recommendations that relate to potential changes in the
expressway HOV lanes include:
v
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020 and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's(MTO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) include adding HOV lanes
on Central Expressway from De La Cruz Boulevard to State Route (SR) 237 and a
1990 environmental clearance document includes HOV lanes through to Shoreline
Boulevard.
v San Jose's Evergreen Specific Plan Infrastructure Improvements called for the Capitol
Expressway HOV lane to be replaced by light rail service. VTA is currently
proceeding with environmental clearance for the light rail extension on Capitol
Expressway.
Section 5 HOV System Element
63
Expressway HOV Lane Operational Characteristics
v
Two or more people per vehicle are required. This is consistent with the freeway
requirements.
v
Operating periods are 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 7:00 PM. These times are
comparable to the freeway HOV lanes, although some freeway lanes start as early
5:00 AM and others end at 10:00 AM.
v
All expressway HOV lanes are bi-directional during peak periods, except San Tomas
south of El Camino Real and Montague, where the HOV lanes currently operate
only in the peak direction during peak periods. The 8-lane widening projects for
San Tomas and Montague Expressways will allow operation of the HOV lanes as bi
directional in each peak period.
v
HOV is in the right lane next to the shoulder. This is to allow transit to access bus
stops along the expressway. This location has a secondary advantage of creating
acceleration and deceleration lanes for all vehicles entering and exiting the
expressway using right turns.
v
Violations are defined as single-occupant vehicles proceeding straight through a
signalized intersection rather than turning off the expressway.
Evaluating HOV Lane Performance
In 2002,traffic counts were conducted at select locations for each expressway HOV lane.
These locations were selected based on maximum traffic volumes and stopped queues,
providing an incentive to carpool. The counts included number and types of vehicles in the
HOV lane, number of violations, and number of vehicles in the mixed-flow lanes. In
addition, travel time surveys were conducted for the length of each HOV lane.
Performance Measures
To evaluate the performance of the expressway HOV lanes, five performance measures were
used. These performance measures were based on similar measures used by Caltrans and
MTC to evaluate freeway HOV lanes. The performance measures are described in Table 5-2
Including how they were adjusted from freeway to expressway HOV lanes.
64
Section 5 HOV System Element
Table 5-2: HOV Lane Performance Measures
Performance
Freeway Standard
Measure
Total vehicles per
Minimum of 800
Expressway
How Expressway Standard
Standard
Determined
Minimum of 400
Converted the freeway standard to take
into account the lovirer capacity on
peak hour
expressways due to slower speeds and
signals.
Total persons per
Minimum of 1,600
Minimum of 880
Based on the average occupancy of 2.2
people per vehicle in the expressway
hour
HOV lanes.
Around this range of productivity, the
impact of converting the HOV lane to
Lane Productivity
(ratio of people in
No standard set;
however, could be
HOV lane to mixed-
considered at least
mixed flow would lead to no net increase
flow lane)
1.0 <1)
in capacity if a significant number of HOV
Minimum of 0.80
to 0.90
users return to single-occupant vehicles.
Violation Rates
No higher than 10%
No higher than
A higher violation rate standard was set
15%
due to the right lane position of the HOV
lane.
Travel Time Savings
Due to differing operating conditions, a
At least 1 minute
Travel time to be
per mile savings
equal or better
minimum travel time savings standard
over mixed-flow
than mixed-flow
comparable to the freeway standard
lane
lane
cannot be established.
However, lack of any travel time benefit is
indicative of operational problems.
Notes:
1) The "Lane Productivity" measure was established by MTC for use in the regional 2002 HOV Lane Master
Plan Update. The report notes that all freeways in the Bay Area, except one, has a productivity ratio of at
least 1.0 and several of the freeway HOV lanes have productivity ratios of 2.0 and 3.0 (i.e., double and
triple the people in an HOV lane compared to a mixed-flow lane).
2) Witii signals approximately every half mile, the primary benefit of expressway HOV lanes Is shorter queues
at the signal as opposed to freeway travel where the primary benefit is being able to travel at a faster
speed.
Key Findings
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize the performance of the expressway HOV lanes using the
performance measures. All measures must be considered to obtain a full view of the lane's
performance. Key findings include:
Section 5 HOV System Element
65
v
Capitol Expressway is the best performing HOV lane and has relatively low
violation rates.
v
Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways south of US 101 are performing acceptably.
This is likely due to no parallel freeway so these expressways provide the primary
central county north-south travel corridors. San Tomas has the most solid and
consistent travel time savings.
v
Lawrence north of US 101 performs poorly and has excessively high violation rates.
This is due to operational problems created by the early merging of single-occupant
vehicles into the lane to prepare for entry onto SR 237.
v
Montague Expressway's performance is marginal to under performing. The area
between 1-680 and Great Mall Parkway has high violation rates, generally due to the
lack of access control along the expressway (i.e., driveways between intersections).
Operational problems at the 1-880 interchange combined with street connections
and driveways immediately east of this interchange slow down travel in the
eastbound direction so significantly that the travel time for the Montague HOV lane
is higher than in the adjacent mixed-flow lane.
v
Central Expressway's queue jump lanes at Bowers Avenue and Scott Boulevard
perform very poorly even though the intersection evaluated operates at level of
service (LOS) F. Being closely parallel to the US 101 HOV lane probably accounts
for the poor performance.
In summary, the key problems with the under-performing HOV lanes are:
v Operational problems created by lack of access control and close spacing of
intersections/on-ramps leading to weaving conflicts and high violation rates.
v
Parallel freeway HOV lanes that offer more travel time savings and convenience for
longer commutes.
v
The right-hand HOV lane concept does not provide an incentive where a large
volume of right-turning vehicles must share the lane.
66
Section 5 HOV System Element
Table 5-3: Summary of HOV Lane Performance by Expressway
Existing Conditions for Peak Direction of Travel
Persons/Lane
Expressway
Capitol
Central
Intersection
Story
Bowers
Monroe
Lawrence
Homestead
Tasman
Trade Zone
Montague
Zanker
San Tomas
Monroe
Peak
Hour
Direction
of Travel
Mixed- Flow
Thru Lanes
HOV
HOV
Productivity
Violation
Rate
HOV(i)
Mixed
Vehicles
Ratio (3)
Peak Hour
Flow <2)
AM
Northbound
3
16%
1,060
973
1.09
556
PM
Southbound
3
17%
1.219
892
1.37
633
AM
Westbound
2
38%
205
998
0.21
88
PM
Eastbound
2
32%
245
947
0.26
94
AM
Northbound
3
38%
853
1,323
0.64
376
PM
Southbound
3
22%
1,070
1,038
1.03
461
AM
Northbound
3
35%
767
961
0.80
340
PM
Souttibound
3
28%
678
1,052
0.64
297
AM
Northbound
3
82%
275
637
0.43
98
PM
Southbound
3
39%
326
525
0.62
AM
Westbound
2
61%
427
1,059
0.40
208
PM
Eastbound
2
64%
315
892
j
0.35
103
AM
Westbound
2
34%
426
866
1
0.49
188
PM '
Eastbound
2
22%
557
668
:
0.83
235
AM
Northbound
3
30%
702
1,243
0.56
369
PM
Southbound
3
15%
903
980
0.92
448
!
124
Notes:
HOV = High-Occupancy Vehicle
SOV = Single-Occupancy Vehicle
Performance values shaded are tfie ones exceeding the following performance measure standards:
Violation Rate < = 15%.
Persons/ HOV Lane > = 880
Productivity Ratio > = 0.80.
HOV vehicles > = 400 vph.
1) Based on actual counts conducted by CCS and County (Capitol Expwy.)in 2002. The HOV volume also Includes bus and truck volumes
observed or estimated.
2) The values shown assume that all vehicles on mixed-flow lanes are SOV's.
3) Productivity Ratio =(HOV persons)/(avg. mixed-flow persons/lane)
Section 5 HOV System Element
67
Table 5-4: Expressway HOV Lane Travel Time Comparison
Expressway
HOV Lane
Capitol
Lawrence
Montague
San Tomas
Lane Length
(miles)
3.8
Peak Hour
1
AM
Peak Direction
Seconds Saved per Mile 1
North/Eastbound i
2001
2002
19
18
PM
South/Westbound
0
6
AM
Northbound
6
7
PM
Southbound
3
12
AM
Westbound
3
36
PM
Eastbound
1
-7
AM
Northbound
26
26
PM
Southbound
3
24
6.1
5.4
7.2
Notes:
1) Based on travel time surveys conducted by County Roads and Airports Department.
2) The "Seconds Saved per Mile" represents the average over the entire length of each HOV lane. The
standard for freeway HOV lanes is a minimum of 1 minute per mile.
3) The 2001 data for Montague was collected while various constiuction projects were underway, which
affected overall travel time for all lanes.
Operational Improvement Strategies
Looking more closely at the operational problems experienced by Lawrence north of US 101
and Montague between 1-880 and 1-680, a preliminary identification and assessment of
potential solutions was conducted. As described below, none of the options present
encouraging results in terms of effectiveness and general feasibility.
Potential operational improvement strategies include:
v
Remove of access/right turn movement - This is the most direct solution, but it has
limited application, could result in whole takes of properties lacking alternative
access, and does not address freeway connections, a typical problem area. This
strategy has application at other locations along the expressway, consistent with the
discussion in Section 2 regarding access vs. mobility. It is proposed for several
68
Section 5 HOV System Element
locations along Lawrence between 1-280 and US 101, where HOV lanes are to be
maintained.
v Add auxiliary lanes - This strategy would widen the expressway to add outside
auxiliary lanes in the hopes that this would allow separation of HOV through traffic
from right turning traffic, but it would result in an unenforceable center lane
operation for the HOV lanes; require costly widening, property acquisition and
other impacts; and risk safety impacts associated with unsafe driver lane change
movements because of unfamiliarity with this design and the legal restrictions.
v
Construction of frontage roads - Frontage roads address some of the safety issues
associated with the auxiliary lanes, but adds others by intensifying and
concentrating weaving movements at frontage road access points which would be
expected to be near signalized cross streets (the worst location from perspective of
HOV operation), and would be more costly and have more construction impacts.
v
Construct braided ramps - Braided ramps would apply a freeway design concept to
the expressways, with freeway project level costs and impacts. It would require
substantial property takes and potentially introduce other environmental impacts
(particularly in residential areas as along Lawrence).
New HOV Facilities
No new expressway HOV lanes or extensions to existing lanes are recommended except for
a funded project on part of Central Expressway (discussed further below). The expressway
segments without HOV lanes all meet at least two of the following conditions which are not
supportive of widening the expressway for HOV lanes:
v
The projected traffic congestion levels for the corridor are not high enough to
provide incentives to carpool.
v
The local community has other priorities for the right-of-way that would be used for
an HOV lane (e.g., bike travel, landscaping, and safety enhancements).
v
There would be operational problems due to lack of access control or
intersection/ramp configurations.
v
There are competing parallel freeway HOV lanes existing or planned.
Section 5 HOV System Element
69
The most significant enhancement that can be made to the expressway HOV system is
constructing direct ramp connections from the right-hand expressway HOV lane to the
median freeway HOV lane. These would be one-way connectors: from expressway to
freeway in the peak direction. The direct connector ramps could provide significant time
savings for carpoolers. They would avoid the ramp meter and meter queues and avoid
having to cross 2 to 3 lanes of congested freeway to reach the median HOV lane. They
would also help resolve existing ramp conflict areas for bicyclists as described in Section 6,
"Bicycle Element". Six locations are recommended for potential HOV direct connector
ramps.
Project Recominendations
Capitoi Expresswai;
v
Retain the HOV lane on Capitol Expressway from Nieman Boulevard to Silver Creek
Road pending completion of the US 101 Central Corridor Study. Should the results
of the US 101 Central Corridor Study confirm that the HOV lane should be retained
after the light rail project is built, consider connecting it to US 101 by constructing
an HOV direct connector ramp onto US 101 to encourage carpool use in this highly
congested corridor.
v
Removal of the HOV lane between Quimby Road and Capitol Avenue to provide
for LRT construction will be the subject of a VTA project environmental analysis.
Central Expressway
v
Complete the currently funded project to build a new HOV lane on Central
Expressway from De La Cruz Boulevard to San Tomas Expressway. Operate this
HOV lane and the Bowers Avenue queue jump lane on a trial basis for 3 to 5 years
with regular monitoring based on the performance measures.
If the HOV lane is not successful by the end of the trial period, convert it and
the Bowers Avenue queue jump lane to mixed flow to mitigate the LOS F
intersections along this section of the expressway.
70
Section 5 HOV System Element
n
If the HOV lane Is successful, extend it to Lawrence Expressway when funds
allow. If the HOV lane is retained, two interchange projects will be needed to
mitigate existing LOS F intersections, adding $80 to 90 million to the Tier 1B
list of projects.
v
Do not construct the HOV lane on Central Expressway from Lawrence Expressway
to Shoreline Boulevard for the following reasons:
West of Lawrence Expressway, Central Expressway has no existing or projected
LOS F intersections and, overall traffic congestion is not severe.
n
Central Expressway closely parallels a freeway HOV lane.
n
Ramp safety improvements are needed between Lawrence Expressway and
Mary Avenue in Sunnyvale.
•
From Mary Avenue to Shoreline Boulevard in Mountain View,there is local
opposition to removing the existing landscaping to construct an HOV lane,
especially since there is not a need for the lane based on traffic demand and
traffic congestion levels.
Lawrence Expressway
v
Convert the Lawrence Expressway HOV lane north of US 101 between Lakehaven
Drive to Tasman Drive to mixed-flow lanes due to poor performance and
operational problems, and to mitigate projected traffic conditions.
Montague Expressway
v
Convert the existing Montague Expressway HOV lanes between Main Street and
Milpitas Boulevard (i.e., between 1-880 and 1-680) to mixed-flow lanes, after the
appropriate environmental review and revisions to the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The conversion is be due to poor performance and operational problems and
to mitigate LOS F conditions.
v When the 4'*' lane in each direction is added, designate It as an HOV lane on a trial
basis for 3 to 5 years with regular monitoring based on the performance measures.
Section 5 HOV System Element
71
The design of the 4'*' lane should address the operational problems to the greatest
extent feasible. The 680-880 Cross-Connector Study should include funding for
correcting the operational problems should Montague be designated the primary
HOV connector.
n
If the HOV lane is not successful after the trial period and continues to
experience significant operational problems, convert it to mixed flow.
• If the HOV lane is retained, an interchange project at Great Mall/Capitol
Avenue may be needed to mitigate an existing LOS F, adding $42 million to the
Tier IB list of projects.
HOV Direct Connector Ramps
v
Candidate locations for expressway to freeway HOV direct connector ramps are as
follows:
Capitol Expressway and US 101 (subject to 101 Central Corridor Study)
•
Lawrence Expressway and 1-280(would be part of the overall interchange
reconfiguration for Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard/1-280)
Lawrence Expressway and US 101
Montague Expressway and 1-880
San Tomas Expressway and 1-280(would be a stand-alone connection without
an interchange)
San Tomas Expressway/Montague Expressway and US 101
Costs and Project Delivery
v Converting HOV lanes to mixed flow - Funding is required for environmental
review and for removing signage and pavement markings. These costs are
estimated at $0.1 million per conversion project. Tier 1A of the Capacity and
Operational Improvement Projects includes three expressway conversions for a total
of $0.3 million. Once funds are available, these projects could be completed in
about one year.
72
Section 5 HOV System Element
v Fixed Culdeway Funds - VTA receives federal Fixed Guideway Funds for operating
buses in HOV lanes. Converting HOV lanes will result in lost operating revenue for
VTA, estimated at $40,000 per year for the Lawrence HOV lane north of US 101
and $220,000 per year for the Montague HOV lane between 1-880 and 1-680.
v
HOV direct connector ramps - The estimated cost is $20 - 30 million for each
location assuming a one-way connection from the expressway to the freeway based
on the peak flow of traffic. The Lawrence Expressway/280 direct connector is
included in the Tier 3 project to reconfigure the entire interchange area. Another
$100-150 million has been allocated to Tier 3 for the remaining five locations
recommended. Once funds become available, these projects will take
approximately 8 to 10 years to deliver.
Operational Recommendations
v
Continue the regular monitoring program for the expressway HOV lanes to
determine performance using the performance measures. If not performing up to
standards, take appropriate corrective action. Some guidelines for corrective action
include;
High violation rates - If the violation rate is over 15% and less than 50%,
enforcement should be increased. Violation rates over 50% typically indicate a
problem with the usability of the lane. The operational problem should be
identified and, if feasible, eliminated. If it cannot be eliminated, consideration
should be given to converting the HOV lane to mixed flow.
Under-performing - If there is an incentive to use the HOV lanes due to high
levels of congestion and LOS F intersections, focus should be on what more
can be done to encourage carpool use. If the performance cannot be improved
and corridor level of service is poor, consideration should be given to
converting the HOV lane to mixed flow to relieve the congestion problems.
v Work with Caltrans to determine what is needed to continue the expressway HOV
lanes across the freeways, especially for the San Tomas Expressway/Montague
Expressway/US 101 interchange.
v
Continue to coordinate with Caltrans for consistency on operational policies for the
freeway and expressway HOV lanes
Section 5 HOV System Element
73
Section Six
Bicycle Element
On August 13, 1991,the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a "Policy for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Usage of the Expressways." This policy led to the removal of bicycle
prohibitions for all expressways. Over the last ten years, the presence of bicycles on the
expressways has grown. Foothill Expressway is such a major bicycle travel corridor that the
Expressway's vision includes the statement that it "plays an important role as a regional
bicycle facility."
For bicyclists the expressways offer convenient and direct travel routes with few driveways
and well-spaced intersections. They are ideal for bicyclists commuting to work or making
other long-distance trips. However, there has been general agreement among the public,
policymakers, and technical staff that only advanced-skilled bicyclists should be encouraged
to use the expressways. Given the high speeds and freeway-like merging and crossing
movements, the expressways are not for children or occasional recreational bicyclists.
Therefore, the Bicycle Element is based on the following two principles:
v
Bicycle travel will be accommodated on all expressways.
v The expressways should only be used by advanced-skilled bicyclists and should not
be used by children or novice bicyclists.
Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines
County Roads now has over ten years of experience with unregulated bicycle travel on all
expressways, and several more years of experience with bicycles on some expressways.
During this time, County Roads staff, working closely with the cities and the County Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), has been continuously modifying and
improving striping and signage along the expressways for bicycles.
The first step in developing the Expressway Study's Bicycle Element was to document
standard bicycle treatments by creating Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG). The
BAG consists of detail diagrams that will be applied to the entire length of all expressways. It
includes guidelines on bicycle travel area widths, striping, signage, trail connections,
maintenance, and several other design treatments. The BAG is consistent with the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual(HDM)and will be updated as needed when changes are made to
bicycle treatments in the HDM. Listed below are the objectives and guidelines used to
formulate the BAG.
Objectives
1. Provide safer accommodation for bicyclists along all expressways.
2. Be consistent along the entire length of each expressway and among the expressways for
the benefit of both motorists and cyclists, to the extent possible.
Guidelines
1. Travel width - Provide adequate continuous travel width for use by bicyclists on the
expressways.
2. Delineation - Delineate the bicycle travel width with shoulder stripes and other striping
as needed.
3. Entrance and exit ramps - On county facility, signalize exiting or merging movements
with two or more lanes. In Caltrans' jurisdiction, work with Caltrans to improve
situations where bicyclists must cross more than one conflicting vehicle lane at a time.
4. Safe passage across intersections - Provide intersection design treatments and operations
that enhance safe passage for bicyclists.
76
Section 6 Bicycle Element
5. Trail connectivity - Wherever feasible, work with trail operators to plan for and provide
direct connections between trail over and undercrossings and both directions of
expressways.
6. Maintenance - Maintain clear and clean shoulder areas on the expressways.
Bicycle improvement Projects
The bicycle improvements identified here are needed to bring all expressways into full
compliance with the BAG. There are four categories of improvements. They are described
below, along with costs and implementation recommendations as appropriate.
Pavement Delineation
This category includes improvements related to striping, such as replacing dashes with solid
stripes, providing a bike through slot between through and right-turn or auxiliary lanes, and
installing a dash stripe across driveways. Due to the current resurfacing program funded by
the Measure B Sales Tax, many of the expressways have recently been or will soon be restriped in compliance with the BAG at no extra cost. It is estimated that $0.6 million is
needed for re-striping treatments at key spots that are not due to be resurfaced in the near
future. A bicycle grant for $0.5 million has been received, leaving $0.1 million unfunded.
Ramp Conflicts
This category deals with freeway/expressway interchanges where there are double-right onramps(one lane Is usually an HOV bypass lane) which forces a bicyclist to cross more than
one conflicting vehicle lane at a time. The ramp conflict locations, shown in Figure 6-1, as
fol lows:
v
Almaden/State Route(SR)85
v
Capitol/US 101
v
Lawrence/US 101
v
Lawrence/SR 237
v
Montague/San Tomas/US 101
v
Oregon-Page Mill/1-280
v
San Tomas/SR 17
Section 6 Bicycle Element
77
Figure 6-1: Bicycle Facility Improvements
//
QmkJHmrn
m^^Miinii rw
CiMk
MHadwCiMPm
UVM
W—w
CtmMJnM
CeiWtCwfc
Legend
• Trail Connections
I pool Existing Pad. Overcrossing
Proposed Ped. Overcrossing
Operationai Reconstruction
Projects
I
C allw—ltd
A
n Shoulder Widening
n Ramp Conflict Locatione
Note:0«twrml ra-otriplng nvded ayetamvidde for compliance with BAO
Potential solutions for these conflicts include reducing the entrance point of the on-ramp to
one lane and then widening to 2 or 3 lanes on the ramp itself; adding a stop signal light at
the on-ramp; or creating a bike through slot when both lanes are exit-only lanes. Any design
change, however, must receive Caltrans approval and be supported in the HDM. County
staff will continue to work with Caltrans staff to study design options that can improve the
situation yet still meet traffic demand requirements. No project costs are provided because
the improvements are still to be determined.
There is a roadway project recommended that will eliminate one of the ramp conflicts. The
Page Mill/1-280 interchange project will reconfigure the west side of the interchange into a
78
Section 6 Bicycle Element
half diamond and will cost $5 million. Since it provides operational benefits, it is included
in the Tier 1A list of projects in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element.
There may also be opportunities to work with Caltrans to resolve some ramp conflict
locations as part of projects recommended in the Capacity/Operational Improvement
Element. Specifically, the Tier lA Almaden/SR 85 Project Study Report(PSR), Tier IB
Montague/US 101 par-cio interchange, and Tier lA San Tomas/SR 17 operational/
safety improvement study present opportunities to look at new ramp design concepts. VTA
may also be able to resolve the Capitol/tJS 101 ramp conflict location as part of the US 101
Central Corridor Study.
The Capacity/Operational Improvement Element also includes a number of new expressway
interchanges. Following the BAG principles and guidelines, the interchange ramps will be
signalized or otherwise designed to avoid forcing bicyclists to cross more than one
conflicting vehicle lane at a time. In addition, as the interchange projects are designed, the
County will seek to make the interchange areas as bicycle and pedestrian friendly as possible
consulting with bicycling experts and the County BPAC on the design.
The HOV System Element includes recommendations to construct direct connector ramps for
HOV lanes. At several locations, existing HOV ramp meter bypass lanes are the source of
the conflict with through bike use. Installing direct connectors would eliminate the conflict.
Shoulder Widening
Projects in this category involve widening the shoulders to provide sufficient bicycle travel
width. Ten specific projects have been identified. The locations for these projects are shown
on Figure 6-1 and listed on Table 6-1. Costs and implementation of these projects are
divided as follows:
v The project on Almaden Is already listed as a VTP 2020 Tier 1 bicycle project. The
cost for this project is $2 million with $1.6 million in grant funds already allocated.
v
Lawrence (at Pruneridge and from El Camino Real to Kifer Road) will be
implemented as part of the County's 2003 pavement resurfacing project at no
additional cost.
Section 6 Bicycle Element
79
v Two projects (Foothill at Loyola Corners and Oregon at Alma Avenue) can only be
accomplished as part of the overall bridge reconstruction projects that are included
in the (Capacity/Operational Improvements Element. Therefore, there is no cost
estimate for just making the bicycle-related improvements.
v Three projects (Foothill/San Antonio Road, San Tomas/Hamilton Avenue, and
Capitol/Silver Creek Road) can be done as part of roadway projects already included
in the Capacity and Operational Improvements Element under Tiers 1A and IB at
no additional cost. However, these roadway projects may take 10-20 years to
implement. Given the relatively low cost of these pavement-widening
improvements($0.65 million total), it is recommended that these projects be
pursued independent of the roadway projects where site conditions indicate
minimal impacts or facility relocation.
v
Two pavement widening areas (Foothill/Magdalena and San Toma^Cabrillo) do not
have any associated roadway improvement projects. They will cost $0.5 million to
implement.
Specific shoulder widening needs for Montague Expressway have not been identified.
Montague is being widened to 8 lanes along its full length. Some sections are already
widened and some sections are funded, while the remaining unfunded sections are included
In the Tier 1A Capacity/Operational Improvement project list. The 8-lane widening project
scope Includes bringing Montague Into full compliance with the BAG, including providing
adequate shoulder width for bicycle travel.
80
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Table 6-1: Bicycle Improvement Projects
Improvement
Category
Location
Project Description
Cost
(millions)
Potential Implementation
Most re-striping can be done
as part of near-term
pavement overlay projects at
Pavement
Delineation
All Expressways
Re-striping per Bicycle
Accommodation Guide(BAG)
$0.60
no additional costs. This cost
($0.50 funded) estimate reflects spot
treatments needed
independent of pavement
overlays.
Shoulder
Almaden between
Widening
ironwood and Koch
SB widening to provide
adequate shoulder per BAG
$2.00
VTP 2020 Tier 1 bicycle
($1.60 funded) project
Capitol/Silver Creek
Widen WB approach for
approximately 270 feet to
provide a bicycle slot
$0.20
Tier IB Roadway Project
Foothitl/San Antonio
Widen WB approach for
approximately 300 feet to
provide a bicycle slot
$0.20
Tier 1A Roadway Project
Foothill/Magdalena
approximately 600 feet to
Widen EB approach for
$0.30
provide a bicycle slot
Foothill/Loyola
Provide more shoulder width in
both directions under the
Loyola Bridge
Must be completed as part of
N.A.
Widen NB approach for
Lawrence/Pruneridge
approximately 150 feet to
provide angle break before
Part ofCount/s 2003
N.A.
Oregon/Alma Bridge
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Part of County's 2003
Prowde more shoulder
N.A,
Real to Kifer
Pavement Maintenance
Project
Pruneridge
Lawrence/El Camino
overall bridge reconstruction
project (Tier 1A in Capacity/
Operational Element)
Pavement Maintenance
Project
Provide more shoulder width in
both directions under the Alma
Bridge
Must be completed as part of
N.A.
overall bridge reconstruction
project (Tier 3 in Capacity/
Operational Element)
81
Table 6-1: Bicycle Improvement Projects (continued)
Improvement
Category
Shoulder
Widening
Project Description
Location
San Tomas/Hamifton
(continued)
Widen SB approach for
approximately 275 feet to
provide adequate shoulder per
Cost
(millions)
$0.25
Potential Implementation
Tier 1A Roadway Project
BAG
Widen NB approach for
San Tomas/Cabrillo
approximately 375 feet to
provide adequate shoulder per
$0.20
BAG
Total Funded:
$2.10
Total Tier 1A:
$0.45
Total Tier IB:
$0.20
Total Bicycle Improvement
Only:
$1.00
Total Needs
$3.75
Notes:
1 1) Roadway project costs in &ie Capacity/Operational Element include these bicycle improvements.
]
Trail Connections
One of the objectives of the BAG is to provide for connections to all creek trails that cross or
run parallel to an expressway. Trail connection points are Identified on Figure 6-1. County
staff will work with all related public agencies involved in building the trails to facilitate
connections to the expressways. All off-expressway trail improvements are funded by the
trails projects. It is not anticipated that the activities involved in facilitating the trail
connections will involve much cost (e.g., openings in fences); therefore, no costs for the trail
connections are included in the bicycle improvement plan.
The Pedestrian Element does include on-expressway projects to support trail connections.
These projects are crossing enhancements and a Pedestrian Overcrossing(POQ. Although
these projects will benefit bicyclists, they are generally considered to be pedestrian
Improvements and the costs are included in the Pedestrian Element.
82
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Cost Summaty
A total of $3.75 million in bicycle improvement projects has been identified with only $1.65
million unfunded. This is a low cost compared to other Implementation Plan elements for
three reasons: 1) most expressway mileage is already in compliance with the BAG due to
County Roads improving bicycle accommodations on the expressways for the last ten years;
2) the remaining major problem areas (Foothill/Loyola, Oregon/Alma Bridge, and Page Mill/1280) require operational roadway improvements that include more than just bicycle-related
improvements; and, 3) the freeway/expressway ramp conflict locations require Caltrans
agreement on design changes before cost estimates can be developed.
Bicycle Travel Area Maintenance
One of the BAG guidelines is to maintain clear and clean shoulder areas on the expressways.
In support of this guideline, the Maintenance and Operations Element of the Implementation
Plan includes a recommendation to increase sweeping of each expressway from one time per
month to twice per month plus on-call response. The estimated cost to implement this
recommendation is $0.6 million annually.
The Maintenance and Operations Element also includes increased levels of effort for
pavement maintenance, landscaping maintenance, and traffic control/safety devices
infrastructure replacement which will also benefit bicycle travel. As discussed in the
Funding Strategy section, these increased levels of effort, including more sweeping, can only
be implemented when additional operating revenue is secured.
Section 6 Bicycle Element
83
Bike Lane Designation Process
In general, the recommended expressway approach is to delineate bike travel width, but not
to designate bike facilities as formal bike lanes. Delineation refers to striping; designation
refers to bike lane signs and pavement markings. This approach is based on the concept that
children and inexF>erienced bicyclists should not be encouraged to use the expressways.
Another element of designation is the incorporation of routes into various bicycle route
maps. Casual recreational or family outing users could misunderstand inclusion on a bike
route map to mean an easy route for novices.
However, expressways vary as to existing conditions and community preferences. To allow
designation of bike lanes, the following process will be used:
1. Specific criteria for evaluating bike lane designation proposals will be developed. The
criteria will consider elements such as: posted speed limit, geometric conditions, type of
merge and diverge crossings, consistency along the expressway, consistency with city
bike plans, and continuity with other bike facilities, including creek trails. County staff
will establish the bike lane designation criteria using a collaborative process involving
city staff, the County Roads Commission, and the County BPAC.
2. Where new bike lanes are proposed, cities shall supply a council-approved request.
3. County staff shall than apply the criteria to evaluate the suitability and develop a
recommendation about the proposed bike lane. The recommendation will be brought to
the County Roads Commission and County BPAC, prior to submittal to the Board of
Supervisors for final action.
The existing bike lanes along portions of Oregon-Page Mill and Foothill Expressways will
remain in place. Extending these lanes, however, will require Board of Supervisors' approval
using the bike lane designation process.
84
Section 6 Bicycle Element
Photos for Section 7 to be placed Here.
Section Seven
Pedestrian Element
The Pedestrian Element focuses on two different pedestrian needs; traveling along
expressways and crossing the expressways. To identify projects for travel along the
expressways, a pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the entire length of each
expressway. For crossing needs, high-demand crossing locations were identified for crossing
enhancement treatments.
Pedestrian Facilities Along the Expressways
In 1991, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a "Policy for Bicycle and
Pedestrian Usage of the Expressways." The policy stated that the Board is committed to
accommodating pedestrians wherever possible, subject to safety considerations and fiscal
constraints. Since 1991, other agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Caltrans, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), have developed
policies and design guidelines to facilitate pedestrian use of roadway corridors. The types
and designs of pedestrian facilities on expressways will continue to evolve as new policies,
legislation, and design guidelines are developed. The County's 1991 policy is still in effect
today and is supported in the Pedestrian Element's recommendations.
Pedestrian Use of Expressways
Pedestrians walk along the expressways for a variety of reasons including: to access a bus
stop or building that fronts on the expressway; because there is no parallel facility available
or no other way to cross a barrier such as a creek or freeway; because they are unaware of
alternate routes; or for emergency needs (e.g., their car breaks down). Sometimes, the
expressway is simply the most direct route to their destination.
There are also a variety of conditions along the expressways that affect the level of pedestrian
demand and how pedestrian-friendly the expressway is. These conditions include:
v
All but one of the expressways are posted with speed limits of 45 or 50 miles per
hour. Some of the expressways have high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes In the
right-hand lane.
v
Most of the shoulder widths are six feet wide but there are some areas where, due to
limited right-of-way, shoulders are narrower. Shoulders are used for bicycle travel,
vehicular emergencies, traffic enforcement, and other emergency vehicle use.
v
Most of the expressways have little or no additional right-of-way available.
Pavement and landscaping may be using ail right-of-way available leaving no room
behind the curb line.
v Generally, there are few destinations fronting on the expressways. Buildings tend to
have their backs to the expressway with access points off a parallel local street, but
some expressway sections do have retail/commercial development fronting on the
expressway.
v Frontage roads and nearby parallel roads, trails, or easements are available along
portions of the expressways.
The expressway vision statements all classify the expressways as arterials; however, the type
of arterial ranges from high-end express arterials with some freeway-like sections to local,
multimodal arterials. These vision statements imply a different approach to pedestrian
facilities for each expressway. In general, for the freeway-like sections, a parallel pedestrian
facility is preferred while for the local arterials, sidewalks along the expressways are
encouraged.
88
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Recommended Pedestrian Facilities
To help identify pedestrian needs and projects, an inventory of existing pedestrian facilities
and conditions along each expressway was developed. The inventory included existing
sidewalks, shoulder widths, informal paths, frontage roads, parallel creek trails, surrounding
land uses, and locations of bus stops, schools, and other destination points. With the help of
the inventory, a pedestrian facilities plan was developed covering the length of each
expressway. Pedestrian treatments varied along sections of the expressways based on
physical conditions, pedestrian needs, fronting land uses, and community development
plans. Figure 7-1 illustrates the pedestrian plan for each expressway with the following
pedestrian provisions and recommended improvements for pedestrian travel along the
expressways.
Sidewalks - Existing sidewalk locations and proposed new sidewalks are shown. New
sidewalks are recommended to close gaps, access transit stops, and provide access to land
uses fronting on the expressway.
Table 7-1 provides a list of new sidewalk projects totaling $6.6 million. Approximately $1.4
million of this need can be met as part of roadway capacity/operational improvements. The
remaining $5.2 million in sidewalk improvements will have to be pursued as independent
projects. The new sidewalk locations for Montague Expressway are not listed on Table 7-1
because they are already included in the 8-lane widening project, which is currently partially
funded.
Some of these sidewalks may not be deliverable. A final determination will need to be made
in context of the overall finishing treatments for the expressway. As discussed in the
Finishing Program Element, when right-of-way is limited, some tradeoff decisions may be
needed about sidewalks, sound walls, and landscaping for each project location as funds
become available.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
89
Figure 7-1: Pedestrian Improvements
Cvtiem
\
P' C*OKVl
/
\
/
\
fPoc
\
Legend
Profiosod Pad. Overcro»»lng
Existing P«d. Ov«rer«*slng
Bin Stops
Psdestrian Crossing Enhancsmont
Trail Connecttons
Existing Sidewalk
Proposed Sidewalk
Parallel StreeVPatti
tWde SlwukierlPath
Narrow Shoulder
CvndPi
Parallel Street or Path - Where convenient parallel streets or paths (e.g., frontage roads and
creek trails) are available, they are shown as the preferred pedestrian route along the
expressway. In some cases, a sidewalk Is provided to access a bus stop on the expressway,
but the parallel facility is shown for through travel.
Improvements to parallel streets and trails are not listed as part of the expressway program
since they are outside the expressways' right-of-way and under other agencies' jurisdiction.
The list of expressway sidewalk improvements does include improving connections to
parallel facilities. In addition, approximately $0.2 million for expressway signage directing
pedestrians to the parallel paths is included in the expressway pedestrian program.
90
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-1: New Sidewalks
Expressway
Location
Project Need
Cost
(millions)
Potential
Implementation
NW quadrant at Camden
Gap closure
$0.08
NE of Redmond
Gap closure
$0.15
NE of McAbee
Gap closure
$0.08
NEof Coleman
Gap closure
$0.23
Tier 1A roadway project
NE of Via Monte
Gap closure
$0.15
Tier 1A roadway project
SE of Cherry
Gap closure
$0.16
NW of Branham
Connect to parallel path
$0.06
NE of Koch
Connect to parallel path
$0.04
Vista Parl( to SR 87, south
Gap closure
$0.41
Gap closure
$0.41
Gap closure & connect to
parallel path
$0.63
west side &SE of Senter
NE of Senter to NW of
Connect to parallel path
$0.21
SW of Quimby
Gap closure
$0.41
Capitol Ave to i-680, west
Connect to parallel path
$0.36
NW of Mayfield
Gap closure
$0.05
Moffett to Rengstorff, norUi
Gap closure
$0.90
Neighborhood circulation
$0.41
Connection to bus stop and
$0.05
Almaden
Tier 1C roadway project
side
SWcfSnell to SE of
Monterey
Seven Trees to Senter,
Capitol
McLaughlin along Coyote
Creek Park, north side
Tier 1C roadway project
side
side
Whisman to NW of SR 85,
Central
north side
NE of Mary
businesses
Bowers to Oakmead, south
Business access
$0.41
SW quadrant at De La Cruz
Gap closure
$0.05
SW of Magdalena with
Connect to parallel path
$0.05
Tier 1A roadway project
side
Foothill
connection to Boulder
frontage road
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
91
Table 7-1: ^<jew Sidewalks (contirlued)
Cost
Potential
(millions)
Implementation i^)
Gap closure
$0.18
Tier 1A roadway project
SE of Pruneridge
Connection to parallel path
$0.03
North of Pruneridge, east
Gap closure
$0,18
SW of Benton
Gap closure
$0.03
NW of Lakehaven
Connection between
$0.14
Expressway
Location
Saratoga to Prospect, east
Project Need
side
side
Lawrence
Tier 1C roadway project
parallel paths
North of Palamos to Tasman, Connection between
east side
$0.25
parallel paths, bus stop
connection
Neighborhood circulation
NA12)
SW of Stevens Creek
Gap closure
$0.38
NE quadrant at Pmneridge
Bus stop connection
$0.03
NW quadrant at Walsh
Bus stop connection
$0.08
Total TierIA
$0.97
Total TierIC
$0.47
Total Sidewalk Only
$5.16
North of Elko to Caribbean,
east side
San Tomas
Grand Total
$6.60
[Notes:
New sidewalks for Montague Expressway are included in the 8-lane widening Baseline project.
1) Identifies which sidewalk installations are induded in roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Improvement Element.
2) This sidewalk will require widening of the overpass at SR 237. An estimated cost is not available but could be $5 to $10
million. It should be noted that sidewalks are provided north of Elko along the west side over the overpass through to
Caribbean Drive.
92
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Additional funding will be needed for maintenance of the signs and is accounted for in the
Maintenance and Operations Element.
During the community outreach process, there was one request to provide a new parallel
facility: residents near San Tomas Expressway in San Jose have requested that the open creek
culvert along the west side of San Tomas(from north of Hamilton Avenue to Moorpark
Avenue) be covered, landscaped, and made into a parkstrip walkway. Implementation of
this request does not conflict with any of the expressway plans and the County would
support efforts by the city, water district, and trails program to create the parkstrip walkway.
Wide Shoulder or Path within Expressway Right-of-Way - In locations where there are no
sidewalks or parallel facilities and there is no major demand for pedestrian travel, these
shoulder/path facilities can serve as emergency walkways and for occasional pedestrian use.
No projects are recommended for these locations; however, landscaping needs to be kept
trimmed back at intersection areas and along the travel way so pedestrians do not have to
enter the travel lane. Landscaping maintenance costs are included in the Maintenance and
Operations Element.
Narrow Shoulder - These areas represent gaps in the pedestrian plan for each expressway.
There is no sidewalk or parallel facility and the shoulder area is narrow. In many cases, there
is a pedestrian facility on the other side of the expressway and, in some cases, a more distant
parallel facility is indicated. Typically, these areas represent no or low demand for
pedestrian travel. No specific improvements are recommended for these "gap" locations
since there is generally no immediately apparent cost-effective solution. However, the
locations are noted on the map so that shoulder widening and/or adding a pedestrian facility
can be pursued if an opportunity arises (e.g., future roadway improvement or new
development).
Pedestrian Prohibition
Pedestrians are currently prohibited along some sections of the expressways. Pedestrian
prohibitions along expressways are a function of and enforceable through city police powers
and, therefore, are established by city ordinances. When the County Board of Supervisors
adopted the 1991 Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy, one of the policy statements was to
encourage cities to repeal pedestrian prohibition ordinances, except where safe access is
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
93
impeded by obstacles that create an unsafe environment. Upon approval of the Expressway
Study Implementation Plan, County staff will assist the cities with reviewing existing
ordinances and revising them as appropriate to be legally enforceable, to reflect existing
conditions, and to meet city objectives.
Expressway Pedestrian Crossings
A key pedestrian issue for all expressways is facilitating safe pedestrian crossings, especially
at high demand locations near schools, community centers, transit facilities, and trail
connections. A total of 45 high demand pedestrian crossing locations have been identified
through city and community comments as well as field observations (see Figure 7-1 and
Table 7-2). These crossings are recommended to receive 'crossing enhancement'
improvements.
Types of Improvements
There is a wide variety of crossing enhancement improvements that could be applied to an
Intersection to make it more pedestrian friendly. Much is dependent upon existing
conditions at the site. Crossing enhancement concepts include:
v
Eliminate free right turns at non-signalized entrance/exits by adding 'Stop' or 'Yield
to Pedestrian" signs.
v
Eliminate free right turns at signalized intersections by modifying the signals and/or
curb line so the right turns must stop at the signal, including removing pork chops
where appropriate.
Use signals or yield signs at interchange areas to support pedestrian crossings at
ramp locations.
Add pedestrian bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances.
Use electronic signs with flashers to highlight the presence of pedestrians for
motorists.
Set pedestrian signal timing to allow enough time for crossing the full width of the
expressways, especially near senior housing, senior services, or elementary schools.
94
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-2: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations
Expressway
Almaden
Capitol
Intersection
Access Needed
Potential Implementation
Tier 1C roadway project
O'Grady/Almaden
Trail; Bus stops; Commercial
Via Valiente
School; Commercial
Tier 2 roadway project
Trinidad
Bus stops
Tier 2 roadway project
Camden
School
Redmond
Bus stops; Commercial
McAbee/Winfield
Bus stops; Commercial
Branham
Bus stops; Commercial
Bluefield
Bus stops
Vista Park
Bus stops; Commercial
Snell
Bus stops; Commercial
Seven Trees
Bus stops; Commercial
Center
School
Tier 1C roadway project
Silver Creek
Bus stops; Commercial
Tier 1B roadway project
Abom
Bus stops; Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Castro
Downtown; Transit Center
Bernardo
Commercial
Central
Mary
Foothill
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Neighborhood drculation;
Commercial
Bowers
Commercial
Main/Burke
Downtown; Park
El Monte
School
Magdalena/Springer
School; Commercial
St Joseph/Grant
School
Vineyard/Homestead
School; Commercial
Tier 2 roadway project
Tier 2 roadway project
Tier 1A roadway project
Funded by Measure B Sales Tax
Program
Funded by Safe Routes to Schools
Program
Funded by Measure B Sales Tax
Program
95
Table 7-2: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Locations (continued)
Expressway
Intersection
Access Needed
Prospect
School; Trail
Tier 1C roadway project
Moorpark
School; Trail
Tier 1A roadway project
Mitty
School; Trail
Tier 1A roadway project
Pruneridge
Bus stops; Commercial
Homestead
Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Benton
Commercial
Tier 1C roadway project
Cabrillo
Schools (3); Commercial
Reed/Monroe
School; Commercial
Sandia/Lakehaven
Neighborhood circulaticm
Tasman
Light Rail Station
Tier 2 roadway project
North First
Light Rail Station
Tier 1A roadway project
Great Mali
Transit Center
Tier 1A roadway project
El Camino
Commercial
Bryant
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Cowper
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Middlefield
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Louis
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Greer
Neighborhood circulation
Tier 1A roadway project
Williams
School; Bus stops
Tier 1A roadway project
Homestead
School; Bus stops
Tier 1A roadway project
El Camino Real
Commercial
Tier 1A roadway project
Cabrillo
School; Bus stops
Lawrence
Montague
Oregon-Page Mill
San Tomas
Potential Implementation
Tier 1B roadway project
Tier 2 roadway project
Notes:
j
Average cost per intersection is $0.2 million
1
96
1) Sev^l pedestrian crossing enhancement locations are part of roadway improvement projects.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
v Install pedestrian countdown timers to inform pedestrians of the time remaining to
cross the street.
v
Install median signal push buttons where the median is wide enough to provide safe
refuge for the pedestrian.
v
Use high-visibility crosswalk striping.
v
Install signs to advise pedestrians to keep a clear distance from the curb while
waiting to cross.
v
Install pedestrian ramps on the corners of the intersection.
The effectiveness of various types of crossing enhancements in improving pedestrian safety is
continuously being studied and evaluated throughout the United States and other countries.
Some of the concepts listed above are experimental in nature (e.g., electronic signs with
flashers to notify motorists of pedestrian presence) and the effectiveness of others are being
evaluated (e.g., high-visibility crosswalks and pedestrian countdown timers). The list of
pedestrian crossing enhancement concepts will be updated as needed to reflect the latest
studies and the most effective improvements.
The exact improvements for each intersection must be determined on a case-by<ase basis.
As funds become available, the intersections will be studied to determine which types of
improvements and strategies are needed. City involvement and community outreach will be
included in the decisions of types of improvements to make.
Improvement Costs
The costs for these improvements can range from less than $0.05 million to $0.3 million per
intersection. The average cost is assumed to be $0.2 million since many of the identified
locations need the more expensive intersection reconfiguration treatments. With 42
intersections listed as unfunded for crossing enhancements, the total cost estimate would be
$8.4 million if all projects were pursued independent of roadway improvements. Twentyseven of these intersections, however, are within the project limits of recommended
capacity/operational roadway improvements, leaving 15 intersections (totaling $3.0 million)
to implement as stand-alone projects.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
97
Generally, those intersections needing curb line reconstruction or relocation of signals
should be done as part of roadway improvement projects, when possible. If the crossing
improvement is funded in advance of the roadway project, the improvements made must be
consistent with the final plans for the roadway.
There are also additional maintenance costs associated for the improvement concepts
involving electronic signage and new signal equipment. Implementation of these projects
can only occur if there is adequate funding for the ongoing maintenance and operations.
Pedestrian Overcrossing(POC)Structures
Pedestrian overcrossing (POCs) are typically recommended to facilitate mid-block crossings
of the expressways where high demand exists and the nearest signalized intersection is too
far away for convenient pedestrian use. New POCs cost approximately $4 million each.
Figure 7-1 indicates the locations of existing POCs and the following two recommended
POCs:
v
Almaden Expressway - near Coleman Road to connect trails and provide access to
the Almaden light rail station.
v San Tomas Expressway - near Latimer Avenue in Campbell to connect various
community facilities separated by the expressway.
Cost Summary
The total cost for the recommended pedestrian improvements is $23.2 million. Table 7-3
provides a summary of these costs by type of project. Table 7-4 indicates that approximately
$6.8 million is already included in roadway improvement project costs, leaving $16.4
million in stand-alone pedestrian projects.
98
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
Table 7-3: Pedestrian Improvement Cost Summary
by Improvement Category
Cost
Improvement Category
(millions)
New Sidewalks
$6.60
Crossing Enhancements
$8.40
Parallel Street/Path Signage
$0.20
Pedestrian Overcrossings
$8.00
Total
$23.20
Table 7-4: Pedestrian Improvement Costs Included in
Roadway Projects
Cost
Roadway Project Tier
(millions)
Tier 1A
$3.57
TiertB
$0.40
Tier 10
$2.27
Tier 2
$0.60
Pedesbian Improvements Only
$16.36
Total
$23.20
At this time, the Implementation Plan does not prioritize the pedestrian improvements. As
discussed in more detail in the Funding Strategy section, the most likely fund sources for
pedestrian improvements are as part of roadway projects, developer conditions, and the
Valley Transportation Plan (VIP) 2020 Livable Community and Pedestrian funding program.
The roadway projects are already prioritized and will be implemented as funds become
available. Developer conditions will happen by opportunity regardless of priority. As the
Livable Community and Pedestrian grant program is developed, those projects that can
compete successfully for funding will be pursued. Therefore, the Pedestrian Element
identifies needs rather than priorities to take advantage of all funding opportunities.
Section 7 Pedestrian Element
99
Photos for Section 8 to be placed here.
100
Sectimt 7 Pedestrian Element
Section Eight
Finishing Program Element
The Finishing Program Element involves improvements to expressway medians and edges
(i.e., back of curb to right-of-way line). These improvements include landscaping, sound
walls, and sidewalks. Due to varying community preferences and restrictive right-of-way,
and to avoid future conflicts or throw-away installations, it is important to plan for these
improvements in the coordinated context of a finishing program. Included in this element
are sound wall and landscaping needs. Sidewalk needs are listed in the Pedestrian Element.
The element concludes with a list of finishing program implementation strategies.
Sound Wails
In compliance with environmental regulations, sound walls are provided to mitigate noise
impacts along residential and other sensitive land uses when expressway capacity
improvement projects are constructed. However, there are several areas along the
expressways with no or inadequate sound walls. These expressways were built or expanded
before current practices for noise mitigation were developed. Most of the first generation
walls are 30 years old, are relatively low in height, and have become inadequate over time
with increasing traffic volumes. In addition, many of the existing sound walls that are
adequate for noise attenuation are reaching the end of their design life and will soon need
replacement.
To assess sound wall needs along the expressways, an inventory and noise attainment survey
was conducted to identify the following three conditions:
v
Locations where a sound wall does not exist but is needed.
v
Locations where existing sound walls are too low in height to provide an adequate
level of noise abatement.
v
Locations where existing sound walls are sufficient for noise mitigation purposes.
Sound walls are recommended for residential neighborhoods, schools, churches, and other
noise-sensitive land uses. Sound walls are not provided in commercial and office areas.
Evaluation Criteria and Methodology
The assessment of sound wall needs was conducted according to the guidelines of Caltrans
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These are guidelines that are in effect for
any state or federally funded roadway improvement project that would increase roadway
capacity or move the traveled ways closer to wayside residents. The assessment was based
on predicted noise levels resulting from projected 2025 expressway traffic conditions.
The criteria used to determine new and higher sound wall needs were as follows:
v The criterion that would trigger the need for either a higher wall or a new wall
where none presently exists is 65.5 decibels. This trigger helps determine the areas
of highest priority and establish funding needs that may qualify for grant funds.
v
The minimum height of a new sound wall is ten feet in keeping with the
requirement that sound walls must block the lines of sight between heavy truck
exhaust stacks and receptors on the ground.
v
The maximum height used is approximately 16 feet. This is based on the Highway
Design Manual, which limits sound wail heights to 5 meters (16.4 feet).
v
Consistent with relatively new Caltrans practices, higher sound walls were
indicated to abate noise levels for second and third floors of buildings if they would
provide at least five decibels of attenuation for these receptors.
102
Sections Finishing Program Element
The methodology used to determine the sound wall need locations and requisite heights was
consistent with the FHWA highway noise abatement regulations (as cited in 23 CRF 772).
Distances of the wall alignments and receptors from the roadways were determined using
aerial photographs. The sides of all eight expressways were videotaped to gather data about
the relative elevations of the roadway, existing wail tops, and the receptors. This data,
combined with the projected 2025 traffic conditions, allowed the noise consultant to
compute the noise level of receptors along the expressways.
Recommended Sound Wall Improvements
The initial results of the sound wall needs assessment were shared with city staff,
policymakers, and the community. Some of the locations identified as potentially needing
new sound walls were not supported due to conflicts with community preferences and plans.
These locations were deleted from the new sound wall list.
The recommended sound wall improvements are illustrated in Figure 8-1 and summarized
below:
v 63,500 feet of new walls are needed at various heights.
v
36,000 feet of existing walls need to be replaced with higher walls ranging from 10
to 16 feet.
v
The remaining 150,000 feet of existing sound walls are sufficient to meet the noise
level standard, but will require replacement as they reach the end of their design
life.
The overall result of the sound wall recommendations is that all residential areas would have
sound walls except in areas where they are in conflict with local preferences. There are
some relatively newer sound walls along Lawrence Expressway that are shown as being too
low. This is due to the application of the new second floor guidelines.
Sections Finishing Program Element
103
Figure 8-1: Sound WaH Improvements
6
...
\
5s.
Legend
'Sufficient Wall
'Higher Wall Needed
'New Wall Needed
Sound Wall Costs
The overall cost estimates for the sound wall recommendations add up to close to $100
million. Approximately $27 million is needed for new sound walls and $21 million for
higher replacement walls. Another $50 million is needed to replace the noise-sufficient
walls that become structurally and aesthetically insufficient as they reach the end of their
design life.
Table 8-1 provides a breakdown of new and higher wall costs by expressway. The costs are
provided by expressway segment for ease of comparison to roadway widening projects.
104
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects
Cost
(millions)
Project Description
Expressway
New
Wall
Higher
Replacement
Potential
Implementation
Wall
From Aimaden/O'Grady to south of Camden
•
Higher replacement walls along east side
between Winfield and Redmond, and new
walls between the existing and
$0.27
$0.42
replacement walls
•
Tier 2 roadway
project
Higher replacement and new walls SE of
Trinidad
Almaden
Between Coleman and SR 85
•
New walls NE of Foxchase and west side
$0.37
Tier 1A roadway
-
project
between Mesa and Coleman
Between SR 85 and SR 87
•
New walls NE and SE of Koch and SW of
Cherry
•
$1.91
$2,63
$3.26
$0.20
Higher replacement walls SW of Koch and
NW of Cherry
Between SR 87 and US 101
•
New walls along NE and SE of Senter, SW
of Seven Trees, NW and SE of Vista Pat1<,
gap closure on south side between Vista
Park and Bluefield, and NW of Bluefield
Capitol
•
Higher replacement wall SE of Seven
Trees
New walls for gap closure between 1-680 and
Capitol Avenue.
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
$0.28
-
105
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects (continued)
Cost
(millions)
Expressway
Potential
Project Description
New
Wall
Higher
Replacement
Implementation
Wall
From west of Rengstorff to SR 85
•
New walls along north side from Rengstorff
$2.33
-
to Shoreline, NW and NE of Moffett
Norffi side between SR 85 and Whisman
Central
$0.63
-
From Mary to Lawrence
•
New walls SB of Pastoria, NE of Mathilda,
and south side between Mathilda and Fair
Oaks
•
$1.38
$0.76
$8.39
$0.45
Tier 1A roadway
project
Higher replacement wall along south side
between Mary and Potrero, and SW of
Pastoria
Spot improvements along the expressway
•
New walls on north side near Arroyo and
adjacent to residences aiong Blue Oak,
NW of El Monte, north side between El
Monte and Springer, south side virest of
Springer and between Springer and east of
Loyola, north side west and east of Grant,
Foothill
and south side between St. Joseph and
Vineyard
•
Higher replacement wall NE of
Loyola/Fremont
Between i-280 and Central
•
Higher replacement walls on west side
near Dahlia, SW of Poinciana, east side
Lawrence
-
near St. Lawrence, NW of Granada, both
sides between Granada and Benton. NW
$2.63
of Homestead and SW of Pruneridge
Higher replacement wall NW of Prospect
Montague
Higher replacement wall on south side from
west to east of De La Cruz adjacent to the
mobile home park
106
-
--
$0.96
$2.06
Tier 1A roadway
project
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
Table 8-1: Sound Wall Improvement Projects (continued)
Cost
(millions)
Potential
Project Description
Expressway
New
Wall
OregonPage Mill
New walls on both sides between US 101 and
Alma (3)
Higher
Replacement
Implementation
Wall
$5.70
-
Between SR17 and Williams
•
New walls along west side and gap closure
on east side between Williams and Payne,
SE of Hamilton, west side near Bucknail,
SW of Budd, and NW of Winchester ramp
•
$2.25
$3.31
Higher replacement wails along east side
from sou^ of Hamilton to north of
Campbell and from Budd to Winchester
Between Williams and El Camino Real
San Tomas
•
Higher replacement walls east side from El
Camino Real to Forbes, SW of Benton,
$5.39
SW of Saratoga, vi/est side adjacent to
Tier 1A roadway
project
Greenlee residences north of i-280 and
Larkmead residences south of 1-280, and
east side gap closure north of Williams
Between El Camino Real and Central
•
Higher replacement walls along NW and
-
NE of Cabrillo, and east side from Cabrillo
$2.14
to El Camino Real
Total Tier 1A:
$1.75
$8.21
Total Tier 2:
$0.27
$0.42
Total Sound Wall Only:
$24.75
$12.31
Grand Total
$26.77
$20.94
Notes:
1) Sound wall needs are divided into expressway segments for ease of comparison to roadway widening projects. Each
segment can be divided into several separate sound wail projects since the sound wail needs are not continuous along die
length of each segment.
2) Roadway project costs in the Capacity/Operational Element included these new or higher sound wall installations. Only
roadway widening projects are used because they include significant segments of new and higher sound wails. The
intersection roadway projects (i.e., interchanges and at-grade improvements)also include appropriate sound wails, but
tfiey are spot improvements that will not meet a significant portion of systemwide sound wail needs.
3) The new wails on Oregon-Page Mill are listed to document the need for sound mitigation measures. The local community and
city have indicated that other sound mitigation measures should be considered in addition to sound wails.
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
107
Within each expressway segment, the sound wall needs can be divided into several separate
sound wall projects since the needs are not continuous.
The $50 million needed to replace existing sound walls as they reach the end of their design
life is included in the Maintenance and Operations Element as Sound Wall Infrastructure
Replacement. Over the 30-year period covered by this plan, the average annual need is $1.7
million. The Maintenance and Operations Element also includes $0.2 million per year for
sound wall maintenance, mostly for removing graffiti.
Sound Wall Implementation
The sound wall assessment process was useful for dividing the sound wall needs into
separate categories. These categories illustrate the areas of highest need in terms of noise
abatement. They also provide a list of sound wall projects that may be eligible for grant
funding versus projects that will have to depend on maintenance and operating funds.
This assessment of sound wall needs, including potential heights, is strictly for planning
purposes. The determination of the actual height of each sound wall will be a balance
between the amount of noise abatement, impacts created by the sound wall, and general
community acceptance. These decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis when
the sound walls are designed.
Specific implementation strategies for sound walls include the following:
v
When funding is available to build new sound walls or replace existing sound walls,
the preferred level of noise abatement and sound wall height for each location will
be based on noise analysis, community outreach, and city coordination. Where
appropriate, other implementation criteria typically used by Caltrans and FHWA
will also be taken into account, such as cost-effectiveness analysis and the design
standard to provide at least five decibels of improvement. Should the final design
and costs exceed the state standard or funding amount available, cost-sharing
agreements may be needed for full implementation. Should the results of
community outreach and city coordination indicate a lack of support for sound
walls, the sound wall project will not be pursued.
108
Section 8 Finishing Program Element
v
Noise-sufficient sound walls due for infrastructure replacement that are located
within roadway widening project limits should be replaced as part of the roadway
project if funding is available. Completing all construction at once may lead to cost
efficiencies and prevents residents from having to endure two separate construction
projects.
v
Other noise abatement strategies can be considered when determining the need and
height of sound walls; however, their application will likely be quite limited. These
strategies and their constraints are described below:
Pavement treatments - The special pavement surfaces primarily consist of
"open graded" or rubberized asphalt concrete(RAG). The treatments provide
limited benefits (e.g., 3 or 4 decibels when the pavement is new and less when
older), and should only be used when material durability has been proven
dependable.
Trees or other landscaping - A 100-foot deep row of trees and shrubs with
dense foliage is required to provide noise reduction approaching that of sound
walls. Application of this treatment is limited by available right-of-way.
Expressway frontages are typically not wide enough to accommodate
landscaping of sufficient depth.
Earth mounding - Use of earth mounds is limited by available right-of-way.
Typical expressway frontages are not wide enough to accommodate mounding
of sufficient height.
Operational control - This strategy includes reduction of speed limits, heavytruck use restrictions, and land use restrictions. Use of these strategies could
diminish the effectiveness of the expressways in meeting transportation needs.
Sound insulation of structures - This would involve installing acoustically
qualified windows and doors for houses adjacent to the expressways. This
strategy is fraught with implementation challenges and is generally pursued on
a more limited rather than area-wide basis.
Sound wall projects are not prioritized beyond categorizing them as new and higher
replacement walls. As discussed in more detail in the Funding Strategy section, the most
likely fund sources for sound wall improvements are as part of roadway projects, developer
conditions, and the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020 Sound Wall funding program.
Sections Finishing Program Element
109
The roadway projects are already prioritized and will be implemented as funds become
available. Developer conditions will happen by opportunity regardless of priority. As the
VIP 2020 Sound Wall grant program is developed, those projects that can compete
successfully for funding will be pursued. Therefore, the Finishing Program Element identifies
sound wall needs rather than priorities to take advantage of all funding opportunities.
Landscaping
Landscaping is a critical finishing aesthetic element for the expressways, affecting both the
medians and roadway edges. The appearance of the expressways should contribute
positively to the community and attractive landscaping is an integral part of the expressway
appearance. Unfortunately, due to a lack of revenue to properly maintain landscaping, most
expressways have little or no landscaping.
The expressways with more extensive landscaping are under maintenance agreements,
where the cities or private developers are paying for landscape maintenance. These
expressways include:
v
Capitol Expressway between Silver Creek and Aborn (city maintenance agreement)
v
Central Expressway in Mountain View (city maintenance agreement)
v
Foothill Expressway - some sections in Los Altos and Palo Alto (city maintenance
agreements)
v
Montague Expressway - various sections (private developer agreements)
v
Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto (city maintenance agreement)
Recent land use development approvals along San Tomas and Capitol Expressways have
made developers responsible for median landscaping. Montague Expressway through San
Jose has benefited from assessment district contributions for both landscaping improvements
and maintenance.
110
Sections Finishing Program Element
Expresstcay Master Landscape Plan
In june 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County of Santa Clara Expressway Master
Landscape Plan. The Master Landscape Plan included the following items:
v
Evaluation and inventory of current landscaping and irrigation conditions
v
Identification of four 'levels' of landscaping, along with capital and maintenance
costs associated with each level of landscaping
v
Requirements and design guidelines for new plantings
v
Discussion of funding sources and strategies
v
An Action Plan to address landscaping needs, implemented by an Interim Policy
and Long Term Plan
The Action Plan's Interim Policy was based on the principle that new landscaping should
only be installed if it can be properly maintained. The Interim Policy, which remains in
effect today, includes the following statements:
v
New landscape improvements shall not be installed unless full recovery of capital
and maintenance costs can occur. New landscaping is dependent upon support
systems that provide supplemental water, periodic fertilization, and the elimination
of competing materials; therefore, assurance that maintenance costs will be covered
is fundamental to the initial success of any landscape installation.
v The County shall cooperate fully with public agencies and private entities seeking to
make landscaping improvements to the expressway system.
The Long Term Plan called for the County to seek regional funds for an Expressway
Finishing Program and to work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(VTA)to
develop a funding program to provide for final build-out and operational support of the
expressway system. This action item eventually led to the development of the
Expressway Study Implementation Plan.
Section B Finishing Program Element
111
Needs Assessment and Estimated Cost
The Master Landscape Plan stated that landscape improvements should establish at least a
Type C level of landscaping throughout the expressway system. The Type C level includes
trees and limited shrubs, with some ground cover and limited irrigation. The needs
assessment and cost estimates provided in the Master Landscape Plan were based on this
level of landscaping.
During the Expressway Study's review of landscaping needs, feedback from the cities was
that the Type C level was not adequate. It needed to be enhanced with a few features from
the Type B level to create an acceptable standard of landscaping. Therefore, the
recommended level of landscaping is as follows:
v
Trees and limited shrubs
v
Median finishes, such as decomposed granite
v
Sound walls covered with vines
v
Automated irrigation system
A revised needs assessment based on this enhanced level of landscaping concludes that all
expressways, except those sections under maintenance agreements, need new or upgraded
landscaping. The installation cost systemwide is estimated to be $19-23 million. The range
takes into account that some landscaping installation costs can be met as part of roadway
improvement projects. Although the installation costs are significant, there are a variety of
sources, including grants, developer exactions, and neighborhood "plant-ins," to provide
these one-time funds.
The more challenging obstacle has proven to be funding the annual maintenance. The
estimated cost to fully maintain the landscaping for the whole system, including maintenance
agreement areas, is $3.5 million annually. This estimate includes weed control, litter pick
up, and fence repair. There are no grant sources currently available to provide for these
costs.
Another critical maintenance need is replacing plants that reach the end of their natural life
span. This need is already acute along existing finished landscape areas. For example, trees
112
Sections Finishing Program Element
are periodically removed due to damage or death by frost, drought or disease, as well as
structural and safety issues. Currently, trees removed by County staff are not replaced due to
lack of resources. Replacement plantings require more maintenance attention than mature,
established plantings. The estimated annual cost for replacement plantings. Including
maintenance, is $0.5 million.
The Maintenance and Operations Element includes a total of $4.0 million per year to cover
all landscape maintenance needs.
Street Lighting
Street lighting is not provided along the expressways. Since the expressways do not
experience a high demand for pedestrian travel, there has not been a need for lighting. In
addition, the utility and maintenance costs of street lighting are high and beyond the means
of the expressway system's operating budget. During the Expressway Study, there were no
requests from local communities for lighting and one community specifically requested that
the expressway not be lit because it would disturb the surrounding homes.
Street lighting along Capitol Expressway may be added as part of VTA's light rail project in
anticipation that pedestrian traffic will increase substantially along the expressway. It is
expected that VTA or the City of San Jose will be responsible for the utility and maintenance
costs of the lighting.
Sections Finishing Program Element
113
Finishing Program Implementation Strategies
As mentioned in the introduction to the Finishing Program Element, finishing plans must
Integrate sound wall, landscaping, and sidewalk needs. Where right-of-way is limited, some
tradeoff decisions have to be made. This comprehensive approach is used during the design
and construction of roadway projects. But timing and tradeoffs also need to be considered
when projects are pursued independent of roadway improvements.
Some specific implementation issues and strategies include;
v
Installation of sidewalks and sound walls usually disturbs and/or displaces existing
landscaping. One opportunity to add new sidewalks and sound walls is when
mature plantings need replacement. This way all the elements can be integrated
into the new design.
v
Adding landscape improvements without consideration of pedestrians potentially
forces pedestrians to walk on the pavement closer to traffic. Where landscaping
uses all the area behind the curb, plans need to ensure good parallel pedestrian
routes are available with improved connections.
v
Growing vines on sound walls can reduce graffiti abatement costs and softens the
aesthetic appearance of the sound walls. The tradeoff, however, is increased
landscape maintenance costs.
v
While much of the expressway frontage properties are developed, finishing
improvements and maintenance continue to be implemented through development
conditioning on a limited scale. If expanded to apply consistently to all
developments, including those not fronting but perhaps within some defined
mitigation or assessment area, the practice could achieve more than the currently
limited effort. The cities and County should collaborate to complete the finishing
plans for each expressway and condition projects for improvements during the city's
development approval process.
v
One of the key limitations to providing wide, offset sidewalks and extensive
landscaping is the lack of right-of-way. There are generally more opportunities for
implementing expressway finishing plans in industrial/commercial areas than in
residential areas. Industrial/commercial areas tend to redevelop regularly allowing
114
Sections Finishing Program Element
the cities to condition the developments for additional right-of-way or easements for
the pedestrian facility and landscaping improvements. In residential areas, the rightof-way is more limited, individual parcels are smaller, and reconstruction of large
enough areas for continuous sidewalks/landscaping is less frequent.
It is expected that expressways will qualify for the VTP 2020 sound wall program,
although the assigned fund source does not allow projects off the state system. The
assumption is expressway projects will be accommodated through fund exchanges.
A potential topic for consideration in the next VTP 2020 update is whether the
sound wall category can be increased to respond to identified expressway needs.
Also to be determined is if, consistent with the above discussion, qualifying project
costs can include other finishing elements.
Sections Finishing Program Element
115
Photos for Section 9 to be placed Here.
Section Nine
Maintenance & Operations
Element
The Maintenance and Operations Element includes all activities and materials necessary to
keep the expressways functioning and looking presentable. There are a wide variety of
activities involved including signal operations, sweeping, pavement maintenance,
landscaping maintenance, enforcement, and aging infrastructure replacement. The key
feature all these activities have In common is that their costs are recurring rather than a one
time capital outlay.
Based on comments received from the public, cities, and policy makers, the overall goal for
maintenance and operations of the expressway system can be summed up as follows:
"The expressways should be cleaner and greener with smooth
pavement and synchronized signals."
Current Practices
Table 9-1 provides a list of categories for maintenance and operations activities along with a
description of the County's current practices. The County's current practices are determined
by available funding and cannot be enhanced until additional revenue is secured. In the
meantime, the County must first apply its limited revenue to safety and key operating areas,
such as operating signals, repairing traffic control/safety devices, repairing potholes, and
maintaining drainage systems. Aesthetic treatments, such as landscaping maintenance,
receive a lower priority and are more dependent on revenue availability.
Table 9-1: Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort
Category
Signal Operations
County's Current Practice
Optimize signal timing per
request/complaint as ^nds allow
Proposed Level of Effort
As described in the Signals /TOS Element:
Develop and optimize variable timing plans
for different times of the day and days of the
week for all expressways annually
Maintain newly installed Traffic Operations
System (TOS)
Sweeping
Once per month
Tviflce per month plus on-call response
Landscaping
Maintain landscaping and control weeds
along expressways wifri none to
minimum landscaping
Maintain landscaping and irrigation systems
Maintenance
Expressways with more extensive
landscaping have maintenance
agreements with cities or private
developers
Replacement plantings as needed
Control weeds
Glean up litter
Repair fences as needed
No replacement or new plantings
Fence repair and trash pick-up as funds
allow
Pavement Maintenance
Patch potholes as encountered
Continue to patch potholes as encountered
Resurface on 15-20 year cycle (60
Pavement Condition Index (PCI))
Preventive maintenance/rehabilitation to
extend life of pavement(70-80 PCI)
Use more expensive products like
Rubberized Asphalt Concrete(RAC) with
longer life cycle where cost-effective
Pavement
Implement pavement reconstruction as
Reconstruction
funds allow
(part of infrastructure
replacement)
118
Reconstruct/replace 10% of expressway
pavement sections within the 30-year
timeframe
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
Maintenance and Operations Levels of Effort (continued)
Table 9-1:
Category
County's Current Practice
Sound Wall Maintenance
Paint over graffiti in compliance with city
Respond to graffiti within 1 to 3 days of
requirements(1-2 weeks)
notification depending on type of graffiti
Sound Walls
(as part of Infrastructure
Proposed Level of Effort
Repair sound walls where damaged by
Replace all existing noise sufficient sound
errant vehicles
walls(150,000 feet systemwide) based on a
30-40 year life cycle
Replacement)
Infrastructure
Fix immediately when safety-related
items are broken or damaged; nonsafety items deferred until resources are
Replacement
available
Traffic Control/
Safety Devices
(such as signal & lighting
systems, guard rails,
signs, delineators)
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled routine before wom
out
Replace and upgrade materials to reflect
latest technologies/ materials where costeffective
Repair as funds allow
Other Infrastructure
Implement preventive maintenance by
replacing on scheduled basis to prevent
Replacement
service interruption
(such as sidewalks,
drainage, and other
utility systems)
Replace with more expensive but longer
service life materials \^ere cost-effective
Facility, Equipment, and
Maintain, repair, and replace as funds
Fleet
allow
Implement routine maintenance
Repair as needed
Replace based on variable standard life
cycles
Upgrade to accommodate the proposed
level of maintenance efforts listed above
1
Enforcement
Contract with the California Highway
Patrol(CHP)for enforcement on San
Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence
Continue to contract with CHP to patrol San
Tomas, Montague, and Lawrence
Expressways; if feasible, add Central when
Expressways
HOV lanes are added
Cities provide enforcement on all other
Cities continue to provide enforcement on
expressways
all other expressways
Note:
1) These expressways are patrolled by the CHP to help enforce the high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes. The CHP uses
the fines collected from HOV lane violations to pay for most of the costs of enforcement.
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
119
Recommended Levels of Effort
To develop a recommended level of effort for the expressway system, a survey of the cities'
current practices for roadway maintenance and operations was conducted. This survey was
useful in placing practical limits on what is desirable. The recommended levels of effort
described in Table 9-1 reflect a medium to high-end level compared to the cities' current
practices.
The total annual cost to provide the proposed maintenance and operations levels of effort is
$18.0 million. A breakdown of the costs is provided in Table 9-2. For some categories, such
as signal operations, sweeping, and landscaping maintenance, the costs are incurred on an
annual basis. For infrastructure replacement and pavement maintenance, the costs are
incurred at various intervals. For these categories, the total cost over the Implementation
Plan's 30-year planning period was calculated and then divided by 30 for an average annual
cost.
The opportunities for increasing operating revenue to meet the $18.0 million in needs are
discussed in the Funding Strategy section.
120
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
Table 9-2: Maintenance and Operations Annual Costs
Annual Cost
Category
(millions)
Signal Operations
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscaping Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
$3.8
Pavement Reconstruction
$1.4
Sound Wall Maintenance
$0.2
Sound Wall Infrastructure Replacement
$1.7
Traffic Control/Safety Devices Infrastructure Replacement
$2.5
Other Infrastructure Replacement
$1.0
Facility, Equipment, and Fleet
$1.2
Enforcement '2)
$0.1
Total
$18.0
Notes:
1) The annual cost for the landscaping category reflects the maintenance cost if all 8
expressways are brought up to the landscaping standard described in the Finishing
Program Element. The capital costs for landscaping Installation is not included
here.
2) The $0,1 million In annual enforcement costs Is in addition to the $0.3 million provided
to the CHR from fines for HOV lane violations. If the CHP were to provide traffic
enforcement for all 8 expressways, the annual cost would be $3 million with the
County and cities having to reimburse the state for the costs.
Section 9 Maintenance And Operations Element
121
Section Ten
Funding Strategy
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan has laid out a comprehensive program for the
improvement and maintenance of the expressways over the next 30 years. The plan identifies
a total capital program approaching $2 billion as well as needs of $18 million annually for
maintenance and operations.
Funding such a program requires both aggressively pursuing existing revenue sources and
finding new revenue sources. It is also advisable to be realistic about how much of the plan
may actually be achievable during the 30-year timeframe given the competing interests for
transportation dollars. To address this, the various needs are broken out by capital and
maintenance/operations and into categories by type of project. In addition, the biggest
category of capital projects {roadway capacity/operational improvements) has been broken
into tiers to help the prioritization process.
This section summarizes the funding needs as identified in the plan; explains the existing
level of funding available to the expressways along with other competing needs for roadway
funds; and explores potential new revenue sources. The section concludes with a specific
list of funding strategies to pursue.
Expressway Capital and Maintenance/Operations
Needs
Total capital needs for the expressway system range from $1.7 to 2.0 billion. Table 10-1
summarizes the capital program needs by element.
Table 10-2 provides local match requirements for each tier list and the entire capital
program. The local match requirement is based on the 207© match policy included as part of
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's(VTA) Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020
Plan. The match requirement currently applies to all grant funds from federal, state, and
regional sources that are allocated by VTA.
Total maintenance/operations needs are $18 million annually, based mostly on existing
facility requirements(pavement maintenance and signal operations) and to a lesser extent on
build-out of the related portions of the capital program (i.e.. Traffic Operations System (TOS)
enhancements, landscaping). Table 10-3 summarizes the annual maintenance operations
needs by category to provide the level of effort that matches the adjoining cities' current
policies.
Table 10-1: Capital Program Needs
Element
'H
Subtotal Cost
Total/Net Cost
(millions)
(millions)
Capacity/Operational Improvement Element (including
HOV (5 signal/TOS projects)
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
$149-151
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
$261-271
Tier 1C Roadway Projects
$49-53
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
$585-671
Tier 3 Roadway Projects
$593-795
Total
124
$1,637-1,941
Section 10 Funding Strategy
1
Table 10-1: Capital Program Needs(continued)
Element
Subtotal Cost
Total/Net Cost
(millions)
(millions)
Bicycle Element
$3.75
Total
Funded
($2.10)
Tier 1A Roadway Projects d'
($0.45)
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
($0.20)
$1.00
Net Needs
Pedestrian Element
Total
$23.20
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
($3.57)
Tier IB Roadway Projects
($0.40)
Tier 1C Roadway Projects
($2.27)
($0.60)
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
1
1
$16.36
Net Needs
Finishing Program ElementNew and Higher Sound Walls
Total
$47.71
Tier 1A Roadway Projects d)
($9,96)
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
($0,69)
Net Needs
$37.06
Net Needs
$19-23
Finishing Program Element:
Landscaping Installation
Grand Total
$1,710-2,018
Notes:
1) The capacity/operational roadway project cost estimates include appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and
sound wall improvements within each project's limits. In order to avoid double counting these
needs in the'Grand Total," the amount included in roadway projects is deducted from each
element's total needs.
2) Infrastructure replacement of aging, noise-sufficient sound walls is included in the
Maintenance/Operations cost summary.
3) The level of landscaping recommended in the plan is not included in the capacity/operational roadway
projects' scope of work due to lack of ongoing maintenance funding. If landscape maintenance
funds can be secured, then some portion of the $19-23 million in landscape installation costs may
be funded within roadway project budgets. Environmental mitigation requirements also may require
project replacement plantings, but lacking increased maintenance funding, agreements with local
cities or private partnerships will be needed to ensure planting survival.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
125
Table 10-2: Capital Program Local Match Requirements
Description
Annualized Cost
Total Match
(millions)
(millions)
CO
Tier 1A Roadway Projects
$29.8-30.1
Tier 1B Roadway Projects
$52.2-54.2
$1.7-1.8
Tier 10 Roadway Projects
$9.8-10.6
$0.3-0.4
Tier 2 Roadway Projects
$117.0-134.2
$3.94.5
Tier 3 Roadway Projects
$118.6-159.0
$4.0-5.3
$14.7-15.5
$0.5
$342.1-403.6
$11.4-13.5
Bicycle, Pedestrian, Sound Wall,
and Landscaping
Total Capital Program
$1.0
Note:
1} Calculated based on the VTA VIP 2020's 20% local match requirement for receiving federal and state
capital program funds. Annual cost assumes a 30-year capita! program implementation period.
Table 10-3: Maintenance and Operations Needs
Annual Cost
Category
(millions)
Signal OperationsTOS
$1.5
Sweeping
$0.6
Landscaping Maintenance
$4.0
Pavement Maintenance
Infrastructure Replacement (all types)
$6.6
All Other
$1.5
Total
126
$18.0
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Existing and Potential Funding Sources
Existing funding sources for the expressway system are monies already allocated to the
expressways. This includes designated capital improvement dollars and maintenance/
operations revenue.
There are also established funding sources for which the expressways may be eligible, but
would have to compete with other roadways for the funds. These are called "potential"
funding sources because it is unknown how much of this money will be available for the
expressways. Described below are the existing and potential funding sources for the capital
program, local match, and maintenance/operations needs.
Capital Program - Existing Funding Sources
Measure B - The most significant source of current funding for capital improvements on the
expressways is the Measure B Sales Tax Program. Measure B, the general fund 1/2-<:ent sales
tax passed by County voters in 1996, will raise approximately $1.3 billion in revenue over
the nine-year life of the tax. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the sales tax monies for
many categories of transportation improvements including major highway and transit
projects. All Measure B revenue has been allocated.
Measure B expressway capital projects have included $11.2 million for level of service(LOS)
intersection improvements (e.g., at San Tomas Expressway/Campbell Avenue) and $24.5
million to upgrade to the Traffic Operations Center and to install fiber optic cable and closedcircuit TV cameras to improve the efficiency of the signals system. The Measure B
expressway capital projects have been listed as funded in the Expressway Study
Implementation Plan.
VTP 2020 Plan - VTA's VTP 2020 Plan was adopted in 2000. VTP 2020 estimates that
approximately $2 billion in flexible revenue from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(STP/CMAQ) programs will be available for Santa Clara County through the year 2036. VTP
2020 also allocates this money to various transportation projects and programs. Listed below
are VTP 2020 funds specifically allocated to expressway projects:
Section 10 Funding Strategy
127
v
Expressway Program - $80 million In 2006-2036 STIP funds for specific capital
projects on Montague and Central ($40 million each). When VTP 2020 was
developed, there was no comprehensive list of expressway projects and needs;
therefore, only projects that had been identified in other plans and studies were
incorporated. The Expressway Study Implementation Plan has now developed a
list of projects with priorities. In addition, the Central Expressway project identified
in VTP 2020 has been re-scoped (e.g., replacing the proposed Central HOV lane
through Sunnyvale with a safety improvement project in the same right-of-way)
changing cost estimates. The Implementation Plan assumes the $80 million will be
available to the Tier 1A list of roadway projects.
v
Freeway Program - $35 million in 2006-2036 STIP funds for two freeway/
expressway interchange areas: Montague Expressway/San Tomas Expressway/
US 101/Mission College Boulevard ($10 million) and Lawrence Expressway/1-280
($25 million). The Montague/San Tomas/101 project is a Tier IB roadway project.
The Caitrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the Lawrence/280 project is a Tier 1A
project and construction of the project is in Tier 1C. VTP 2020 also cites a Trimble
Road/De la Cruz/Central Expressway/US 101 ($25 million) project; however, this
project is not included in the Implementation Plan since it only indirectly relates to
Central Expressway.
VTP 2020's funding allocations were based on long-range estimates of state and federal fund
programs. Therefore, they must be revisited regularly to reflect changing conditions. VTP
2020 will be updated every three years with the next update starting by the end of 2003.
The first step in the update will be to revise the 30-year projections. Due to reduced
revenues at all government levels, it is anticipated that the dollars originally earmarked in the
VTP 2020 document may not be available in the same timeframe as originally anticipated.
Once VTA has revised the fund estimates, it will proceed to reallocate the funds among the
nine roadway transportation programs (e.g., freeways, expressways, local streets & county
roads).
County Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds - The County receives a bicycle/pedestrian project
allocation of $60,000 per year from Transportation Development Act(TDA) Article 3 funds
administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)to be divided between
unincorporated roads and expressways. The projects funded are based on priorities
128
Section 10 Funding Strategy
recommended by the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee(BPAC) and the
County Roads Commission.
Capital Program - Potential Funding Sources
VTP 2020 Plan - The VTP 2020 Plan allocates STIP and STP/CMAQ revenue among nine
transportation programs. Seven of the programs can potentially help fund expressway capital
improvements. These seven programs are summarized below and described in Table 10-4:
v
The Expressway Program earmarks money for expressway capacity/operational
roadway improvements.
v
Expressways are technically ineligible for the Freeway Program; however, there is
potential benefit when freeway funds are allocated to freeway/expressway
interchanges.
v
Expressways are eligible to compete for the Transportation Systems
Operations/Management(TSOM), Pedestrian/Livable Community, and Bicycle
Programs.
v
For expressways to be eligible for the Sound Walls and Landscape Restoration/
Graffiti Removal Programs, VTA would have to use a fund source not restricted to
freeways.
The remaining two VTP 2020 programs include Local Streets & County Roads($410 million),
where expressways are ineligible, and Pavement Management($450 million), which is
discussed as part of maintenance/operations funding sources.
As part of the VTP 2020 2003/04 update, funding may be reallocated among the various
programs. With the completion of the Expressway Study Implementation Plan, a list of
expressway project priorities is now available for funding consideration in the update.
Therefore, a key potential funding source is to increase the Expressway Program allocation
from the current $80 million to $150 million to fully fund the Tier 1A roadway projects.
With the constrained revenue projections, increasing the expressway's allocation will require
moving funds from other VTP 2020 programs, such as Freeways, Local Streets & County
Roads, or other programs listed in Table 10-4.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
129
Table 10-4; VIP 2020 Capital Funding Programs
These are programs with expressway allocations or for which expressways may 6e able to compete.
VTP 2020 Capital
Improvement Programs
Expressway
Category Eligibility
Federal
STP/CMAQ
(milllons)
(millions)
Montague and Central have been
specifically earmarked
Freeway
STIP
2006-2036
The freeway program is allocated a
o
OC
$820
total of $820 million. Two
freeway/expressway interchange
projects are included for $35 million.
Transportation Systems
Operations and
Management(TSOM)
VTA has a short-term list of projects
$70
that will use $50 million and the
remaining $20 million will likely go to
projects in the mid-term list. The lists
include some expressway projects, but
new projects would need to be added to
the list to receive funding.
Livable Community and
Currently unallocated - any eligible city
Pedestrian Projects
or county sponsored project could
$25
compete for these funds once VTA
establishes the criteria.
Bicycle
VTA has developed a tiered list of
bicycle projects to receive these funds,
$40
+ additional
it includes some expressway bicycle
funds from
projects, but new projects would need
TFCA & TDA <i)
to compete to be added.
Sound Walls
Currently unallocated - current funding
$30
source makes only freeway projects
eligible although the funds are intended
for both freeways and expressways.
Landscape Restoration
and Graffiti Removal
Currently VTP 2020 allocates the full
amount to augment Caitrans' efforts on
$30
the freeways while simultaneously
acknowledging needs on the
expressway system.
Notes;
1) TFCA = Transportation Funds for Clean Air
IDA = Transportation Deveiopment Act
130
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Developer Contributions- Generally, developer contributions have been and can continue
to be a good source of improvements to the expressway system. Cities collect traffic impact
fees or require direct improvements as a condition of the development permits. To the
extent County Roads is brought into the process, the department coordinates with the
individual city jurisdiction to suggest and support appropriate traffic impact mitigations.
Major projects previously funded by developer fees/conditions include the HOV lanes on
Capitol Expressway and widening of portions of Montague Expressway through Milpitas, San
Jose, and Santa Clara. The larger scale projects are rare, however. Usually the county
expressways receive small-scale improvements such as sidewalks, landscaping, sound walls,
or an intersection Improvement. A developer project to add median landscaping and sound
walls on Capitol Expressway is a recent example of this type of project.
The developer conditions have limitations as a dependable funding source. First, they are
unpredictable. They are generally a matter of opportunity and working closely with the cities
who have the legal authority to make developer exactions. Second, they usually require
nexus where the funds must be used on a project that has a relationship to the impacts of the
development. In other words, they cannot be automatically applied to the highest
expressway priorities. Finally, some developer fees have sunset or expiration dates that
make them problematic for matching federal grant projects that involve long development
timelines.
Local Match Funding Sources
The County remains financially challenged to provide a significant local match for
expressway projects out of existing County resources. Existing roadway revenue sources
must be used to provide maintenance and operations and are not adequate for providing
matching funds for capital projects.
The most significant existing and potential source of local match funds are developer traffic
impact fees. The County cannot directly collect developer traffic impact fees in the
incorporated city areas through which the expressways run. As discussed above, the
developer contributions are determined and collected by the cities, and the contributions
must have nexus to the actual project funded. It is unlikely that even an aggressive impact
fee program pursued by all cities would raise enough funds for the full 20% local match for
every project given the magnitude of the needs and the nexus requirement.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
131
It has been suggested that VTA treat expressway projects differently on the match
requirement. This issue has yet to be resolved and is expected to be addressed as part of the
VTP 2020 2003/04 update .
MaintenancelOperations - Existing Funding Sources
Table 10-5 lists the various sources of maintenance/operations revenue, both existing and
potential. The existing sources of expressway maintenance/operations revenue include:
Gas Tax - A portion of the state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel goes directly back to the
cities and counties for streets and roads maintenance. These funds are allocated based on
formulas set by the state legislature. There are no special funds received by the County for
operating the expressway system. Santa Clara County is the only county in the state with a
high-capacity expressway network operating through incorporated cities. The state gas tax
formula does not recognize the funding needs of such a unique system.
The fiscal year 2002 Roads Department allocation from the gas tax was $26 million. The
County must split these revenues between unincorporated roads and expressways. There are
635 centerline miles of non-expressway County roads including 248 miles of mountain roads
and 36 miles of County roads east of Mt. Hamilton. In addition, there are 168 bridges to
maintain on these roads. The mountain and rural roads place a special burden on the County
as they are particularly susceptible to extensive storm damage. The County has a legal
responsibility to maintain all unincorporated roads at a minimum standard regardless of
traffic volumes.
The expressways account for approximately 9% of the total County road centerline miles and
20% of the total lane miles. The County's gas tax revenue split is 807o ($20.8 million) to
unincorporated roads and 20% ($5.2 million) to expressways, equivalent to the percentage
of lane miles between the expressways and unincorporated roads.
Proposition 42 - The recent passage of State Proposition 42(March 2002) will benefit
transportation once it takes effect in 2009. This proposition clarifies that the sales tax on the
gas tax needs to be utilized for transportation purposes only. The proposition also clarified a
formula for the distribution of those funds. The annual positive impact to the County Roads
Department budget is estimated to be $12 million. With the 80/20 unincorporated
roadway/expressway split, expressways will receive $2.4 million more per year.
132
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Pavement Maintenance Program - The Measure B sales tax program allocated $27 million
in one-time revenues to help with expressway pavement maintenance. These funds will be
fully expended by the end of 2003. While the 62-mile expressway system received $27
million for pavement maintenance, the 635-mile unincorporated road system received $13.7
million in one-time federal funds for storm damage repair and long-deferred maintenance.
Despite applying two-thirds of the available pavement maintenance funds to the
expressways, not all of the immediate needs will be met due to the seriously deteriorated
condition of the pavement resulting from inadequate maintenance funds and years of
increasing traffic.
Landscape Maintenance Agreements- These agreements can be with individual cities or
private developers. Through these agreements, the parties generally perform the
maintenance themselves. There are agreements in place with Los Altos for landscape
maintenance on Foothill Expressway, Palo Alto for Oregon/Page Mill, Mountain View for
Central Expressway, and San Jose for a small portion of Capitol Expressway. A developer
agreement funds landscape maintenance on a portion of Montague in San Jose. In addition,
the expressways realize a landscaping benefit where commercial landowners maintain their
frontages by providing a landscaped buffer between their property and the expressway
outside the expressway right-of-way.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
133
Table 10-5: Expressway Maintenance and Operating Revenue
Expressway
Source
Annual Revenue
Comments
(millions in 2002 $)
State Gas Tax
$5.2
20% of County Roads' gas tax allocations; remaining
80% goes to the 635-mile unincorporated road
system.
SB 541 {if enacted)
$1.1
Based on the 4-cent immediate gas tax increase and
the 80/20 County roads/expressway split.
Proposition 42 funds
$2.4
Will be available starting in 2009 and assumes 80/20
County roads/expressway split.
Measure B pavement
$0
maintenance funds
VTP 2020 Pavement Maintenance
Unknown
Program (PMP)
A total of $27 miilion was allocated to expressways,
which will be fully expended by the end of 2003.
$15 million is planned to be allocated annually
among the County and cities starting in 2006. No
formuia has been set yet. The County's allocation
will be split between unincorporated roads and
expressways.
Federal Gas Tax Indexing {if
Unknown
Could increase VTP 2020 allocations of STP/CMAQ
funds to cities and County by approximately $1million
enacted)
annually.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air
(TFGA)
$0
This is a one-time grant source rather than an annual
revenue stream. $2.4 miilion will be allocated among
city and County grant applicants in 2003. Types of
projects funded are specialized and limited.
Landscape Maintenance
Agreements
Unknown
As opposed to being a revenue source, these
agreements relieve the County of financial
responsibility to maintain the iandscaping.
MaintenancelOperations - Potential Funding Sources
SB 541 - SB 541 (Torlakson) is a bill that would tie the state gas tax rate to the consumer
price index so as inflation goes up, the gas tax would automatically adjust upward to
compensate. If this bill were enacted, the initial result would be a 4-cent increase in the state
gas tax rate from 18 cents to 22 cents. This could potentially provide another $1.1 million
annually for expressway maintenance. Also of significance would be the automatic increases
in the state gas tax indexed to inflation assuring that this primary maintenance/
operating revenue source maintains its purchasing power over time.
134
Section 10 Funding Strategy
VTP 2020 Pavement Maintenance Program - VTP 2020 allocates $450 million in federal
STP/CMAQ money to pavement maintenance countywide. This equates to $15 million
annually that must be divided between the County expressways, County unincorporated
roads, and the cities. No formula has been set for dividing the funds; therefore, it is
unknown how much the expressways will receive.
Federal Cas Tax indexing - Similar to SB 541 for the state gas tax, there are discussions
occurring to index the federal gas tax to inflation. The current proposal is for an immediate
5-cent increase to restore the purchasing power of the federal gas tax back to 1992 levels.
This would potentially result an immediate increase of $7.8 million per year to Santa Clara
County and an annual increase of $1.0 million thereafter. It is unknown how much of this
money could flow to the expressways since the federal gas tax is used to fund the
STP/CMAQ and other federal grants programs. VTP 2020 currently allocates 55% of the
current STP/CMAQ funds to the VTP 2020 Pavement Management Program. Assuming this
allocation split continues, the Pavement Management Program could see an increase in
funding levels for city and County use.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)- These funds are generated by the $4 surcharge
on vehicle registration. The funds are used to implement projects and programs to reduce air
pollution from motor vehicles. Approximately $2.7 million from the recent cycle is available
to distribute within Santa Clara County using an application process administered by VTA.
Program criteria generally excludes most road improvements other than signal system
improvements under very limited conditions. Some cities have been successful in qualifying
trails improvements and maintenance vehicles for the grant funds.
Maintenance/Operations Shortfall
The Expressway Study Implementation Plan estimates that $18.0 million in today's dollars
would be required to provide the level of effort for maintenance/operations desired by the
cities and community. As the revenue projections indicate, the predictable sustainable
revenue available ranges from $5.2 million in 2003 to $7.9 million in 2009 when
Proposition 42 funds begin plus some VTP 2020 PMP funds beginning in 2006.
A critical problem is that the predictable revenue sources are based on the gas tax, and the
gas tax is not indexed to inflation. Cas tax is based solely on revenue off of gasoline sold.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
135
and it has experienced relatively fiat revenue growth due to more fuel-efficient cars and,
recently, the poor economy. In addition, gas tax revenue growth usually does not keep pace
with additional wear and tear on the expressways as traffic demand increases. Therefore, the
Increase in maintenance/operations costs often outpaces the growth in gas tax revenue. SB
541, if enacted, could help substantially with this problem. Without SB 541 or another type
of gas tax increase, most of Proposition 42 funds will need to be used to simply continue the
current level of maintenance/operations rather than expand efforts.
The lack of adequate sustainable revenue for maintenance/operations affects both the quality
of the expressways and the ability to make improvements. For example, the County will not
install nor allow others to install new landscaping unless funds are available for maintaining
it. Other capital improvements that create increased maintenance/operating costs (e.g., new
signal technologies, more roadway pavement) could increase the maintenance/operations
shortfall. For example, the $24.5 million in Measure B funds for TOS improvements just
paid for equipment and installation and does not cover the additional $0.5 million needed
annually to maintain and operate the system.
Summary of Capital and Maintenance/Operations Revenue
Sources
Table 10-6 summarizes all revenue sources described above, matching the specific funding
pots to each expressway element. As can been seen, the opportunities for funding different
types of projects vary depending on the funding source. This Is one of the reasons the plan
does not try to prioritize between the elements. For example, although some cities have
stated improved landscaping is a higher priority than either sound walls or pedestrian
improvements, there are currently more funding opportunities for sound walls and pedestrian
improvements than for landscaping. It is also difficult to prioritize sound wall or pedestrian
improvements, since the most likely funding sources are developer improvements and
implementation will be based more on opportunity than on priorities.
136
Section 10 Funding Strategy
Table 10-6: Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources
Capital Program
Existing Funds
Expressway
Cost
Element
(millions)
S""'"
Capacity/
$150
VIP 2020
Operational
Improvements
(Tier 1 A)
Expressway
(millLs)
(millLs)
$80
VTP 2020
Additional
Expressway
$70 from
VTP 2020
(including HOV,
SignalsffOS)
VTP 2020
$35
VTP 2020 TSOM
Freeway
Developer fees from
expressway
Unknown
cities
interchanges}
$1.65
Portion of
$70?
(freeway/
Bicyde
Potential Funds
TDA County
Portion of
Tier 1A Roadway
Bike/Ped
annual
Project*
Allocation
$0.06
VTP 2020 Bicyde
$0.45
Portion of
$40?
Pedestrian
$23.14
Developer conditions
Unknown
$3.57
TDA County
Portion of
Tier 1A Roadway
Bike/Ped
annual
Project*
Allocation
$0.06
VTP 2020 Pedestrian
Portion of
$25?
Sound Walls
$47.71
Developer conditions
Unknown
Tier 1A Roadway
Project'
$9.96
VTP 2020 Sound Wall
Portion of
$30?
Developer conditions
Landscaping
$19-23
VTP 2020 Landscape
Unknown
Portion of
$30?
Developer conditions
Unknown
Developer fees from
Unknown
Local Match for Capital Program
Total
$342^04
Tier 1A
$30
Non-Roadway
$15
Section 10 Funding Strategy
cities
137
Table 10-6: Summary of Expressway Program Funding Sources (continued)
Maintenance & Operations
Potential Funds
Existing Funds
Cost
(millions)
Annually
$18.0
Source
Gas Tax
$
Source
(millions)
$5.2
SB 541 (if enacted)
annually
Prop 42
$2.4
(start in 2009)
annually
1
$
(millions)
$1.1
annually
VTP 2020 Pavement
Maintenance
Portion of
$15
annually
Landscape
maintenance
Unknown
TFCA
Small
portion of
agreements
$2.4 in one
time grants
More landscape
Unknown
maintenance
agreements
Note;
Only the bicycle, pedestrian, and sound wall projects included in Tier 1A Capacity/Operational roadway
projects are listed as potentially fundable. The projects that could be built as part of lower tier roadway
projects are not included since no source of capital funds has been identified for the lower tier projects.
New Revenue Sources
Regardless of the outcome of the VTP 2020 update process, the amount of funds available
will fall significantly short of needs in capital, local match, and annual maintenance/
operations. Therefore, implementation of a significant portion of the plan will require new
revenue sources. The Expressway Study considered a variety of new funding sources in
terms of revenue potential, implementation process, and community acceptability.
During the study, a telephone survey conducted in late January 2003 concentrated on a
modest 3 or 5-cent gas tax for the expressway system. Although those surveyed use the
expressway system frequently(61% use it weekly and an additional 187o use it monthly) and
92% feel the expressway system is "an important part of the transportation system in Santa
Clara County," there was not strong support for paying for the improvements at the pump.
Of course, some of the pessimism can be traced to the downtown in the economy and the
138
Section 10 Funding Strategy
spike in gas prices, but there is also a feeling that the gas tax is a sensitive subject for many
motorists.
Based on these findings, the overall list of new revenue sources was pared down and can be
found in Table 10-7. As the table shows, the fund sources have the potential to raise
significant transportation dollars. Many of these funding sources are also being looked at by
VTA to solve their current transit operations fiscal crisis. The sources that may have the
capacity to support a transportation package for both transit and expressway needs are
marked. Most of the new sources will require a vote of the public and will need an
organized campaign to explain the benefits of the various projects to the voting public.
Federal earmarks are another possible new source for expressway revenue; however,
opportunities are likely to be limited to a few million dollars. The current reauthorization
program is known as the Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act of 2003, or
SAFETEA. It calls for authorizing a relatively flat federal surface transportation program for
the next six years. The County will pursue as much funding from federal sources as possible.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
139
Table 10-7: New Funding Sources To Consider
Potential Source
Potential $ from
Decision Process/
Source
Controlling Body
Approval Process and Comments
$65 million per year
County or VTA
2/3 vote if special district: simple majority if A plus B approach
Local Sales Tax
$130 million per
County or VTA
2/3 vote if special district; simple majority if A plus B approach
1/2 cent (1)
year
STIR Portion of
$22-29 million per
year after '09
VTA
Prop 42
Passed by statewide vote in March 2002. Allocation not yet
voted as a policy at VTA Board; however, in current VTA
funding plan, 100% Is earmarked for transit
Local Sales Tax
1/4 cent (1)
Regional Fuel
3-5 cents/gallon
MTC to allocate
MTC Is authorized up to 10 cents; approval requires majority
Tax/
would raise
calculation based on
vote of the residents In 9 Bay Area Counties
"car user fee"
$25 - 45 million per
year for distribution
population split, likely
to also Include money
wi^ln Santa Clara
set aside for region-
County
wide priorities
1 cent equals $7
million per year
Supervisors and the
Cities
Majority vote of the Board of Supervisors and the majority of
the cities representing the majority of the population In the
county and 2/3 vote of Santa Clara County voters
million per year
County Board of
Supervisors
nexus to % of wages within service area
* Parcel
Unknown,
County Board of
Tax/Benefit
Depends on tax
amount and scope.
Supervisors and
Property within certain distance of the expressways could be
subject to an assessment; 2/3 majority of property owners
Property Owners
would need to vote approval
Countywide Fuel
Tax
* Payroll Tax
Assessment
1/4% equals $150
County Board of
Would need to develop service area and determine fee and
District
Note:
1) Fund source being considered by VTA also, Could be a VTA/Expressway package,
140
Sect/on 10 Funding Strategy
Implementation Plan Funding Strategy
Taking into consideration all the existing, potential, and possible new funding sources, a
funding strategy has been developed addressing each major area of need.
CapacHylOperational Improvements - Tier lA
Tier 1A projects have highest priority for VTP 2020 Expressway Program funding allocations.
The Tier lA funding strategy involves the following steps:
v As part of the VTP 2020 update process, VTA will be requested to increase the VTP
2020 Expressway Program allocation from $80 million to at least $150 million to
allow full implementation of the Tier lA projects.
v If inadequate funds are allocated in VTP 2020, the Study's Technical Working
Group(TWO)and Policy Advisory Board (PAB) will reconvene to set criteria to
prioritize the Tier 1A projects to meet the available revenues.
v City participation in Tier lA project match requirements is not mandatory, but in the
absence of other sources available to the County to provide expressway program
revenue, participation by the cities may be necessary to allow projects to proceed.
Capaciti;IOperational Improvements - Tier IB
The Tier 1B projects, totaling $261-271 million, also address existing LOS F intersections.
There may be opportunities for the cities to provide all or a portion of the funding for a Tier
1B project through developer fees. The points listed below outline the process for advancing
Tier 1B projects early and for prioritizing the Tier 1B projects:
v If Tier 1A is fully funded through VTP 2020 and any city wants to advance a lower
tier project for funding prior to completion of all viable Tier 1A projects, the city
will need to identify Tier lA project(s) in that city, or through agreement with other
cities, which can be deferred to provide sufficient funding and allow the lower tier
project to proceed.
v
Tier IB project priority shall be based on evaluation of cost effectiveness defined as
the relationship of project vehicle hours traveled (VHT)savings to estimated project
cost as developed by the Expressway Study.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
141
v
To allow Tier 1B flexibility and recognize the significant contributions of local cities
and/or land developments within that city, city and/or developer contributions will
be deducted from the project estimate so the cost-effectiveness evaluation reflects
only the project requirements for grant or expressway program revenue.
v
Cities may choose to fully fund Tier 1B projects and distribute credit for that work as
local contribution to other Tier 1B projects in that city.
All Capital Improvements
The following actions will help produce funding for all types of capital Improvements:
v
Work with the cities to collect expressway traffic mitigation fees and expressway
pedestrian, sound wall, landscaping, and intersection improvements through the
land development approval process.
v
Pursue funding from the various VTP 2020 comF>etitive programs for expressway
improvements.
v
Pursue grants and partnerships for non-roadway capacity projects, such as
pedestrian, bicycle, sound wall, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
projects.
v
Pursue funding from other programs/agencies that benefit from a proposed project.
For example, off-expressway improvements needed to connect pedestrians and
bicyclists to the trails should be funded by the trails program and/or local
jurisdiction. Projects involving grade separating rail tracks from the expressway
should have funding participation from the rail operator.
Maintenance/Operations and Local Match
The following actions address the maintenance/operations annual shortfall and the lack of
local matching funds:
v Jointly with VTA, pursue additional revenue for meeting both the transit operating
needs and the expressway maintenance/operations needs, including capital program
local match requirements.
v
Resolve the expressway local match issue during VTA's VTP 2020 update process,
especially if a new funding source cannot be secured. There should be an
understanding that the expressways are an essential part of the regional
142
Section 10 Funding Strategy
transportation network, with many of them serving residents and employees from
multiple cities. Improvements should not be limited to those areas with major new
development potential where cities can raise significant money. Strategies include
continuing to work with the cities to secure developer impact fees where
appropriate, exchanging federal/state funds for local funds with no match
requirements, and using other non-county sources as match.
Support all state efforts to index gas tax to inflation and to increase the gas tax to
help fund the maintenance and operations of the expressway system.
Continue with the County's current landscaping policy that states: "New landscape
improvements shall not be installed unless full recovery of capital and maintenance
costs can occur."
Include maintenance and lifecycle costs when approving capital projects. The
intent of this recommendation is to ensure that any "significant new burden" to the
maintenance and/or operations of the expressway system should be fully considered
in the context of the decision to allocate the capital dollars to the project.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
143
Photos for Section 11 to be placed here.
Section 10 Funding Strategy
123
Section Eleven
Next Steps & Updates
Upon approval by the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors in August 2003, the
Expressway Study's Implementation Plan will be submitted to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)for inclusion in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020
2003/04 update. It is anticipated that the VTP 2020 update will incorporate all projects and
priorities as identified in the plan. The VTP 2020 update will also determine the amount of
federal and state funding that will be allocated to the expressway program over the next 30
years.
Next Steps
Based on key recommendations in the Implementation Plan, the County of Santa Clara will
pursue the following activities:
v
Participate in the development of the South County Circulation Study to be
managed by VTA.
v
Implement signal timing plans for Foothill, Oregon-Page Mill, and San Tomas
Expressways using results of signal timing studies conducted by the Expressway
Study.
v
Monitor the performance of expressway high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes using
the established performance measures and take corrective action for underperforming lanes.
v
Conduct the environmental review and the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP)
amendment process for converting the Lawrence HOV lane north of US 101 and
Montague HOV lane east of 1-880 to mixed-flow lanes.
v
Work with Caltrans to determine what is needed to continue expressway HOV
lanes across freeway interchanges.
v
Update County policies regarding bicycle and pedestrian access on the expressways
as needed to be consistent with the Implementation Plan, including adopting the
policy for designating new bike lanes, establishing the bike lane designation criteria,
and continuing to work with cities in reviewing city ordinances prohibiting
pedestrians and seeking their repeal where determined unnecessary.
v
Work with Caltrans to study design options to eliminate freeway interchange ramp
conflicts for bicyclists traveling on expressways.
v
Work closely with VTA and the cities to pursue the Implementation Plan Funding
Strategy.
v
Continue to pursue grants and partnerships to the extent operating funds can
support match requirements or added maintenance responsibilities.
v
Update the Implementation Plan every three years in conjunction with the triennial
updates of VTP 2020 to reflect changing traffic and financial conditions.
v
Prepare an interim update if VTA does not fully fund the Tier 1A list of roadway
projects in the VTP 2020 2003/04 update.
Interim Plan Update
The 28 Tier 1A roadway capacity and operational projects address the top priorities for each
expressway and city and improves most of the current level of service (LOS) and
operational/safety problem areas. The Implementation Plan recommends all of Tier 1A be
funded as part of the VTP 2020 Expressway Program at a total cost of $1 SO million. With
only $80 million currently shown in the VTP 2020 Expressway Program, an additional $70
million must be identified during the VTP 2020 update process.
Should VTA decide not to allocate $150 million to the expressways, decisions will be
needed on which of the 28 projects will be funded within the available allocation. If it is
146
Section 11 Next Steps & Update
necessary to prioritize the Tier 1A projects, the Expressway Study's collaborative process will
be used to set the criteria and develop the priority list. The timeline will require that the
interim update lake place in 2004 prior to completion of the VTP 2020 update.
Triennial Plan Updates
The Implementation Plan's project lists, cost estimates, and other recommendations are
based on conditions known today. The plan will be revisited prior to each VTP 2020 update
so the VTP 2020 Expressway Program stays current.
The process used during each update will vary depending on the types of revisions that may
be necessary. In those years where new conditions do not affect the expressway project list
or priorities, the update is likely to be more administrative in nature with participation by the
County Roads Commission and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Should there be a
critical issue for one expressway or city, the County will set up a collaborative planning
process involving affected staff and policymakers to deal with that issue. If major revisions to
the plan are needed, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) and Technical Working Croup(TWO)
will be re-established. It is anticipated that every third or fourth update {9 to 12 years) will
require the full collaborative planning and technical analysis process.
Specific issues to be addressed in future Implementation Plan updates include the following:
v
Develop a delivery schedule for the Tier 1A list of projects during the update
immediately preceding the first availability of funds. Whether or not Tier 1A is fully
funded in the VTP 2020 update, the funds will be allocated over a 30-year period.
In addition, the first set of funds will likely become available after 2006. Therefore,
it is necessary to develop a delivery schedule for the project list to determine when
each project will receive funding once more is known about the timing of funding
availability.
v
Prioritize the Tier 1B interchange projects when enough expressway program
funding becomes available to pursue Tier 1B projects. The Funding Strategy
includes a recommended process for prioritizing the projects.
v
Incorporate any expressway-related recommendations from the South County
Circulation Study.
Section 11 Next Steps & Updates
147
Revise the HOV System Element's recommendations to reflect the results of the 3 to
5-year trial periods for the Central and Montague HOV lane segments.
Prioritize bicycle, pedestrian, and/or sound wall projects after VTA sets criteria for
existing funding sources and/or new funding sources become available. This will
help assure that the highest priority projects are the ones that will compete
successfully for funding.
Update the Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines(BAG)as may be determined
beneficial.
Update the Expressway Landscape Master Plan's block-by-block recommendations
to meet the upgraded landscaping recommended in the Implementation Plan when
funding sources are secured for systemwide installation and maintenance.
As conditions change, review feasibility of improving existing and projected LOS F
intersections and other problem areas that are currently considered impracticable or
undesirable to improve.
148
Section 11 Next Steps & Updates
Appendix A
Glossary
Under Development
Appendix B
Expressway Summary Sheets
Under Development
Appendix C
Summary of Plan Endorsement Actions
Appendix C
Summary of Plan Endorsement Actions
On March 25, 2003, the Board of Supervisors released the draft Implementation Plan for review
and comment. During the comment period, the city councils of the ten cities with existing
expressway mileage reviewed the plan. Listed below is a summary of the cities' actions and
comments. The final Implementation Plan was revised to reflect the comments received as
appropriate.
City
Date
Action Taken
Milpltas
April 1,2003
Endorsed the plan.
San Jose
Mays, 2003
The Council's Building Better Transportation committee approved the
plan with the following comments:
•
Include in the document a statement about the community's
request that the culvert adjacent to San Tomas Expressway be
covered and used as a landscaped walkway.
•
A mechanism is needed to seize opportunities that come along in
between the 3-year plan update cycles.
The full City Council received the committee's report on May 20 with no
further comments.
Campbell
May 6,2003
Approved the plan with the following comments:
•
•
Recommend that the County with VTA pursue local matching
funds for the San Tomas Expressway/Hamilton LOS improvement
project.
Reiterated the City's position of not supporting a closure of the
East Sunnyoaks Avenue on-ramp to San Tomas Expressway.
Saratoga
May 7,2003
Endorsed the plan.
Sunnyvale
May 13,2003
Endorsed the plan with the following comments:
•
Future improvements at ttie intersection of Central
Expressway/Mary Avenue and Lawrence Expressway/Tasman
Drive should be listed with the notation that local and regional LOS
standards are not projected to be violated at these locations within
the timeframe of the plan.
Cupertino
•
Encourage the County of Santa Clara to pursue shared
cooperative local match funding with adjacent local jurisdictions for
expressway capital project needs.
•
VTP 2020 Local Streets and County Roads program funds should
be made available for expressways improvements.
May 19.2003
Endorsed the plan.
' May 20.2003
Endorsed the plan.
Los Aitos
May 27.2003
Endorsed the plan.
Mountain View
July 8,2003
Endorsed the plan.
Palo Alto
August 14(tentative) '
TBD
Santa Clara
Appendix C
Page 1 of 2
Additional Endorsement
The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group endorsed the plan in July 2003 with a request that the
County consider making some of the funds in the Signals & Traffic Operations System Element
discretionary to enable the County to take advantage of new technologies that become available
during the life of this planning document.
Appendix C
Page 2 of 2
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Policy Advisory Board and Technical Working Group for their
commitment, time and efforts.
c
Policy Advisory Board
Left to right: Dave Cortese(San Jose Councilmember), Matt Pear(Mountain View Vice Mayor), Don Burr(Campbell Vice Mayor),
Dave Fadness(County Roads Commissioner), Ted Brown (County Roads Commissioner), Aldyth Fade(Santa Clara Councilmember),
Linda LeZotte(San Jose Councilmember), Tim Risch (Sunnyvale Vice Mayor), Sandra James(Cupertino Vice Mayor), Ann Waltonsmith
(Saratoga Vice Mayor), James T. Beall, Jr. (County Supervisor), Patricia Dixon (Milpitas Vice Mayor), Yoriko Kishimoto
(Palo Alto Councilmember), Don Gage (County Supervisor)
Technical Working Group
Zachary Chop
Caltrans
Matthew fue
City of Campbell
Ben Tripousis
City of San Jose
David Pitton
City of Santa Clara
Ralph Quails
Morgan Kessler
City of Cupertino
City of Saratoga
Kristi Abrams
City of Gilroy
Jack Witthaus
City of Sunnyvale
Jim Porter
Marc Roddin
City of Los Altos
MTC
Tom Ho
Doug Johnson
City of Los Altos
MTC
Joseph (Joe)J. Oliva
Carolyn Gonot
City of Milpitas
VTA
Jim Rowe
Jim Lightbody
City of Morgan Hill
VTA
Dennis Belluomini
Julie Render
City of Mountain View
VTA
Joseph Kott
City of Palo Alto
VTA
Chris Ching
City of San Jose
Casey Emoto
Acknowledgements
County of Santa Clara
Project Staff
Contributing Staff
Michael Murdter, Director
Roads & Airports Department
Rollo Parsons, Branch Manager
Dan Collen, Senior Civil Engineer
Study Project Manager
fon Elson, Branch Manager
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Dawn Cameron
Alan Jones, Branch Manager
Consulting Transportation Planner
Roads & Fleet Operations
Design & Construction
Masoud Akbarzadeh, Traffic Engineer
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Ananth Prasad, Associate Civil Engineer
Traffic & Electrical Operations
Bernardine Caceres, Civil Engineer
Design & Construction
Ruth Marston, Deputy Clerk
Clerk of the Board
Consultant Staff
Chwen Siripocanont
Ruth Bernstein
Team Project Manager
Public Outreach
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Evans/McDonough Company, Inc.
Betty Caudle
Project Assistant
Travel Forecast
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Dowling Associates, Inc.
Mike Aronson
Steve Fitzsimons
Keith Higgins
Pedestrian/ITS
Traffic
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Higgins Associates, Inc.
Kevin Picanco
Mike O'Connor
Civil/Roadway Design
Noise
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
MO'C Physics Applied
David Kobayashi
Traffic/Bicycle
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Chris Metzger
Civil/Roadway Design
Tim McKimson
Steven Grover
Landscaping
Pedestrian Overcrossing
SCA Architecture & Engineering
AAM Design, Inc.
Eileen Goodwin
Public Outreach/Funding
Apex Strategies, Inc.
Robert Burkhalter
Photographer
Robert Burkhalter Photography
Nolte and Associates, Inc.
John Ciccarelli
Bicycle
TransSight/Bicycle Solutions LLC
Document
Memorandum from Michael Murdter, Director of the Roads and Airports Department, to the Board of Supervisors to consider recommendations relating to the comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan Accept Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study documents. Approve the study findings with respect to the need for capacity and operational improvements on the expressway system as contained in the Roadway Projects Tier Summary. Approve the study findings with respect to the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, sound walls and Land Usescaping on the expressway system as shown in the Other Capital Improvements Summary. Approve the recommended Funding Strategy related to Capital Improvements and Maintenance/OperationsDirect staff to pursue the Next Steps outlined in the Executive Summary. Direct staff to forward the Implementation Plan to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for inclusion in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP2020) 2003/2004 update
Initiative
Collection
James T. Beall, Jr.
Content Type
Recommendations
Resource Type
Document
Date
08/19/2003
District
District 4
Creator
Michael Murdter
Language
English
Rights
No Copyright: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/