Valley Transportation Plan 2030
SANTA
CLARA
RECD JUN 2 3 2005
MEMORANDUM
Writer's Direct Telephone: (408) 321-5556
TO:
, Interested Parties
FROM:
Kurt Evans
DATE:
June 16, 2005
SUBJECT:
Valley Transportation Plan(VTP)2030
Government Affai^^altSg^
For your information, I am attaching a copy of Valley Transportation Plan(VTP)2030, which is
an update of Santa Clara County's long-range, multi-modal, countrywide transportation plan.
VTP 2030 establishes a framework for the Board ofDirectors ofthe Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)to make key transportation investment decisions, and provides
strategic direction for VTA's involvement in land-use and other livability issues. The plan
includes the following elements:
> Vision, goals and objectives.
> Revenue projections-for existing transportation funding sources consistent with the San
Francisco Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTF).
> Description ofthe capital investments and services to be pursued.
> Programs to continue and expand VTA's involvement in land-use and livability
initiatives.
> Programs to better link transportation and land-use decision-making.
> Near-term implementation tasks and future transportation studies to be undertaken.
VTP 2030 includes 10 program areas:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. County expressways.
3. Local streets and county roads.
4. Public transit.
5. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
6. Soundwalls.
7. Pavement management.
8. Bicycle projects.
9. Landscape restoration and graffiti removal.
10. Pedestrian and livable communities.
3331 North First Street • Son Jose, CA 95134-1906 • Administrotion 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
if
It is important to note that VTP 2030 is a long-range transportation plan; it is not a programming
document. It does not set priorities or schedules for when projects will be implemented.
The adoption of VTP 2030 enables VTA to explore the full range of options for moving forward
with its overall investment program. In a separate process, the VTA Board ofDirectors and its
partners will determine expenditure programs for the VTP 2030 program areas, and affirm them
in short-range programming documents. Along these lines, the VTA Board has already begun
the process for developing a transit capital investment program that includes the projects
specified in the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program.
I hope VTP 2030 will be useful to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at(408)321-5556.
Summary of Proceedings
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Augusna,iuuj
* 66. Considered recommendations relating to weighing and measuring devices and price
verification systems, and took the following actions:
a. Waived reading and adopted Ordinance No. NS—300.719(preliminary)
repealing Division B30 and enacting a new Division B30 of the Santa Clara
County Ordinance Code relating to fees for weights and measures devices and
price verification system registration certificate.
Vote: Gage: Yes Alvarado: Yes McHugh: Yes Beall: Yes
Kniss: Yes
b. Adopted Resolution establishing annual registration fee for inspection of price
verification systems.
* 67. Considered recommendations relating to Comprehensive County Expressway Planning
Study Implementation Plan, and took the following actions:
a. Accepted Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study.
b. Approved Study findings relating to need for capacity and operational
improvements on expressway system.
c. Approved Study findings relating to need for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, sound walls, and landscaping on expressway system.
d. Approved recommended Funding Strategy relating to Capital Improvements and
Maintenance/Operations.
e. Directed Administration to pursue "Next Steps" outlined in Executive Summary.
f. Directed Administration to forward Implementation Plan to Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)for inclusion in Valley Transportation Plan
2020(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
22
s
a»
m
ixa>.
i*
r/
/1i!r
tf»
m
*fe
09
ISasam
3
lifc
®s
t
n^K^m
SANTA
ClABA
Wm^o Valley Transportation Authority
f
2005 Board of Directors
Joe Pii'zynsla
Chauperson
Nora Campos
Jamie Matliews
Council Member
Council Member
Coimcil Member-
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Forrest Williams
Robert Livengood
Town of Los Gatos
Cmdy Chavez
Vice Chairperson,
Vice Mayor
Coimcil Meinber
Coimcil Member-
City of San Jose
City of Milpitas
City of San Jose
Liz Kniss
Dean J.Chu
David Cortese
Chan-, Supervisor
County of Santa Clara
Mayor
City of Suimyvale
Don Gage
Supei-visor
County of Santa Clara
David Casas
Dolly Sandavol
Ken Yeager
Coimcil Member
Coimcil Member
Dennis Kennedy
Mayor
City of Cupertino
City of San Jose
City of Morgan Hill
Peter McHugh
Super-visor
County of Santa Clara
Breene Ken-
Council Member
City of San Jose
Ron Gonzales
Mayor
City of Los Altos
Mayor
City of San Jose
Board Member Alternates
Mayor Pro Tern
Town of Los Altos Hills
Ex-Officio Members
James T. Beall, Jr.
Super-visor
County of Santa Clara
Jolm McLemore
Santa Clara County
to MTC
Santa Clara Goimty Cities
Association Representative
Representative to MTC
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Peter M. Crpolla
General Manager
Carolyn M, Gonot
Chief Development Officer
Chris Augenstein
Transportation Planning Manager
Valley
Transportation
Plan 2030
February 2005
SANTA
CLARA
Valley Transportation Authority
Pait ofevery tnp you take'
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Foreword
v
FOUNDATIONS; PLAN WITH VISION
^
Looking txj Tbraorrow
4
Influences of GrowUi
6
VTP 2030 Goals and Objectives
14
Financial Foimdation
24
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The Planning and Fundiirg Process
40
42
CapitallnvestmentProgram
46
Subarea Analysis
48
VTP 2030 Program Areas
86
Highway Program
87
Expressway Program
'
Local Streets arid County Roads Progranr
Chapters
Chopter4
92
97
Tr ansit Services aird Pr ograms
103
Transportatiorr Systems Oper atiorrs and Management Piogranr
129
Bicycle Pr ogram
138
Livable Communities and Pedestrian Programs
142
Systemwide Performance Results
143
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Tr ansportation and Land Use Integration
1S2
154
Trarrsportafiort and Land Use Irrvestrnent Strategy
168
Partnerships for Livability
176
IMPLEMENTATION
Program Area Allocations arrd Fundurg Issues
184
186
Near-Term Implementatiorr Activities
188
VTP Development Process
200
Appendix
206
Glossary
226
Acknowledgements
248
VTP 2030
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Foreword
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 is the long-range countywide
transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA),in its role as the appointed Congestion Management Agency(GMA)for Santa
Clara County, is responsible for preparing and periodically updating the countywide
transportation plan.
VTP 2030 is a plan. It is a statement of the programs and projects the Board of
Directors would like to see built, and for which the Board may want to pursue State
■
and/or Federal funds,\vithin the timeframe of the plan. It is intended to provide a
planning and policy framework for developing and delivering transportation projects
and programs over the next 25 years (2005 to 2030). The Plan identifies existing and
future transportation-related needs, considers aU travel modes,links land use and
transportation funding and decision-making, examines alternative courses of action,
and identifies what can be accomplished with the projected available funding for
projects and programs.
Revenue projections and project cost estimates presented in the Plan are shown in
2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections provided
by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates
developed m 2003.
VTP 2030 is not a programming document. It does not mclude precise schedules
for unplementation and does not make assumptions regarding financing costs that may
be needed to implement specific projects in specific years. Beginning in late 2004, the
VTA Board began development of an Expenditure Plan to in\plement the 2000 Measure
A Transit Program. This process is expected to conclude m Spring/Summer 2005
with the adoption of a VTA Long-Term Ti-ansit Capital Investment Program. The
Expenditure Plan wiU provide guidance for future Board actions that may include
seeking an additional source of funding for transit or the re-evaluation of cmrent
project priorities.
VTP 2030
nn
■s
' '=1*^ '♦
-S'
■
L I
I
-ira. JS.. uiA,,-;i^v 13
~^®S£r"
■m^T.
■ _
" ms
ii
-i-.
1 V-i ■
.s^
V^a ^
.
'^. Wi
a»
IV'i
\.
■
)P^
K •
x'
•'
. . \V
f'X,'
'■^Sr
r
%
4.(11 •■
»
•K
A..
iiL
V
<
,
,
2
Valley Transportation Authority
.■
, ■■— .;
fc'.
§
chapter 1 : FOUNDATIONS: PLAN WITH VISION
ilans ore visionary. They help us to
p;
\- -V
'
understand wheio ve ore, er^vision
\v'here v/e want to go, and icy out the
slops necessary to get llicre Successful
plans are founded on an understanding of
not only the vision and goals that the plan
is designed lo achieve, but also on the
Lookmg Lo Tomorrow
-
Influences ol Growth
4
6
issues that frame them and the' resources
available to achieve them. The Valley
\'TP 2030 Goals and"Objectives'
14
Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 is both
Financial Foimdatlon
24.
visionary and piagmatic—il affirms whal
we can do and raises the bar for what we
should do.
VTP 2030
3
Looking to Tomorrow
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir the blood, and probably will themselves
not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a
noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die."—DANIEL BURHAM
Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 was
ices necessary to make successful communities
developed in an especially challenging environ
and businesses. Notable examples include the
ment. The unprecedented economic hardships
1996 Measure B 1/2 cent sales tax funding a ten-
associated with the high-technology bubble
year, $1.63 billion capital program of Irighway
burst, and the growing State and Federal budget
and transit projects, and the 2000 Measure A 1/2
deficits, have raised questions about long-range
cent sales tax providing a 30-year multi-billion-
financial forecasts. These funding realities have
dollar capital program of transit projects. With
greatly affected VTA's operatmg and capital
the leadership and people of Santa Clara County
budget projections, and have introduced addi
working together, there is every reason to
tional uncertainty regarding the future
believe we can achieve what we set out to do.
resources available to provide for and maintain
a comprehensive multimodal transportation sys
tem in Santa Clara Valley. Added to this context
are the continuing pressures of population and
job growth in the county, and in the region, over
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),
Bicj'cle and Pedestrian Facilities, and Land Use.
It is mtended to demonstrate leadership and
the life of the plan.
vision in the planning and delivery of innovative
There is, however, plenty of reason for optimism,
transportation projects, programs, and strate
and our expectations of what we can achieve
gies. Moreover, VTP 2030 provides an opportu
should be high. Silicon Valley, centered in Santa
nity for the community and the VTA Board of
Clara County, is nationally and internationally
Directors to affinn an agenda for growth and
recognized as a center of entrepreneurship,
change that:
innovation, high techirology, and creative think-
• Balances transportation resomxes, plans theh
futm'e use, and effectively improves the exist
mg. This creative and innovative spirit is not iso
lated to software engineers and venture capital
ists—it is found in every facet of govenunent
and community too. Moreover, Santa Clara
County has distinguished itself as a leading "self-
help county." Its residents have a long and suc
cessful history of taxing themselves to pay for
and implement the programs, projects, and serv
4
VTP 2030 provides policies and programs to
guide investments in; Roadways, Transit,
Valley Transportation Authority
ing countywide roadway system
• Improves the operations of the county's road
ways and transit services
• Implements new technologies and manage
ment strategies to better operate, manage,
and maintain transportation systems
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
• Improves the relationship between transporta
tion and land use planning and decision-maMng
• Responds to a heightened awareness of the
Finally, while the trairsportation system has been
maturing, there is intense latent demand for
changes in land use patterns—in a sense, matur
importance of the links between transporta
ing them to better support existing and future
tion systems, open space preservation, air
investments in transportation infrastructure and
quality, urban form, and other quahty-of-life
services. Gro^vth is coming—and the ultimate
issues
form of that growth wiU determine if we succeed
• Creates a multimodal framework for improv
ing mobOity options throughout the county
The past three decades have seen the comple
in fully utilizing our investments in transporta
tion and urban infrastructure, or if we continue
to grow outwards, spreading our investment dol
lars ever thiniier over ever-increasing areas.
tion of numerous roadway projects including
new and expanded freeways, highways, and
Chapter 1 of the VTA's Valley Transportation
expressways, new and improved interchanges,
Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) examines the influences
and upgrades and improvements to arterial and
of growth in Santa Clara County, explores plan
local roadways. The transit system has been
goals and their context, and presents an outlook
expanded and enhanced to include 54 stations
for the resources anticipated to be available to
and 37 miles of light rail, a modernized bus
implement the plan during its 25-year time-
fleet, creative service plans, and new and
frame (2005 to 2030). Together, these sections
expanded commuter rail services. A countywide
lay a foundation for the broad an-ay of invest
network of bicycle trails and facilities that links
ments, services and programs that VTA and its
with regional facihties is taking shape, and more
partnermg agencies wiU work to put into place
recently, advances in teclmology ai'e catching
over the coming decades.
up with theory to allow the practical implemen
The following sections of Chapter 1 outline;
tation of "intelligent transportation systems."
As this plan indicates, these trends are project
• Influences of Growth—engine of change
• VTP 2030 Goals—^principles of change
ed to continue into the future with sustained
investments in multimodal transportation serv
ices and Infrastructure. However, while system
• Financial Foundation—^building blocks of
change
expansion is stUl a key element of this plan, the
The VTP 2030 vision provides an opportunity
VTP 2030 vision includes a shift toward
for the VTA Board and community to demon
enhanced utilization, better modal coordination
strate leadership in moving Santa Clara County
and integration, and better operations of the
to better times, and making it a better place to
existing transportation system.
live, work, and play.
VTP 2030
Influences of Growth
The population and land use data used in VTP
dors. This scenario is very much in line
2030 is derived from the Association of Bay Area
with VTA's own Community Design and
Governments (ABAG)Projections 2003.
Transportation (CDT) Program's framework of
Projections 2003 is based on a "Smart Growth"
growth focused in cores, corridors and station
scenario derived from work conducted region-
areas'—areas where major investments in trans
wide by ABAG during 2002 and 2003. ABAG
portation and urban infrastructure have already
projections have been questioned in the past
been made. An important note here is that these
because they were built primarily on historical
assumptions about new growth can only be
growth trends, and therefore tended to perpetu
realized thi'ough actions of local governments
ate the status quo growth patterns of sprawl and
with land use authority—concerted and deliber
decentralization in their forecasts.
Released during October 2003, this new
approach to forecasting, termed a "Network of
ate efforts ai-e needed to change land use
regulations to allow these new development pat
terns to emerge.
Neighborhoods," assumes much of the new
growth in the region will be focused in existing
Growth Trends
downtovm and main street areas, around transit
Although the high-technology bubble burst has
stations, and along major transportation corri-
greatly impacted the Silicon Valley economy over
the last few years, growth projections for popula
r'/
tion and jobs remain strong for the foreseeable
future. The advantages offered by Silicon Valley's
unique concentration of high-technology firms,
Tpy n
c f< n
world-reirowned Bay Area universities, a superb
\o
'
climate, and a highly educated workforce are
expected to continue to be strong attractive
forces for the area. ABAG growth projections
rj * /■
depict a robust economy continuing tlirbugh
t
r. O -
2030, with increases in the county's population
of 27 percent, and in job growth of 37 percent,
from 2005 levels. These numbers are significant;
they represent 31 percent of the total population
growth and 29 percent of total job growth
1. The Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program is
discussed in Chapter 3.
6
Valley TronsportaNon Authority
n c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
projected for the entire nine-county Bay Area
X-
region during the same time period.
As a major employment center within the region,
wc.
--
Santa Clara County will continue to retain signifi
cantly more jobs than employed residents. Over
the next 25 years, this imbalance will become
pronounced by a 37 percent increase in new
jobs, which is expected to exceed the increase in
employed residents by nearly 44,000. As a result,
i1^:
the need for labor from surrounding counties will
increase. Growth in net in-commuting is project
.aei'i»-vn
ed to continue over the next decade and then to
level off over the longer term.
Table T-1 Growth-Trends for Sdnta.Cldra County YsoosyiraosO)'
Santo Cjora County
2005
2030
% change
1.79 million
2.27 million
27%
Households
.6 million
.77 million
28%
Employed residents
.96 million
1.31 million
36%
1.09 million
1.48 million
37%
Jobs
Source: ABAG Projections 2003
Santa Clara County will continue to lead the Bay Area in number ofjobs and amount ofjob growth over the next 25 years, adding
nearly 396,000jobs—or 29% of totaljob growth—and 68% ofgrowth in high-technology jobsforecastfor the entire Bay Area region.
VTP 2030
Jobs and Housing 2030
Milpi^as
Palo Alto
ll
ountoi
Viewy
iJL
^v^jSunnyvGl
Santa
C ara
Son Jose
Cupertino
Lil
Sarotoga
Campbell
onte
Seren
Gotos
Moraan
Jobs
Households
Gilroy
Growth Patterns Within
area from the Peninsula to the East Bay. A shift
Santa Clara County
in the countywide pattern of growth is also antic
Over the nejct 25 years, substantial growth will
ipated, with a larger share of growth occurring in
occur in the northern parts of the county, in
the southern parts of the county. In particulai',
northern San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and
high rates of grovrth are projected for southern
Milpitas, in particular. This growth will continue
San Jose, Morgan Hill, and GOi-oy, as develop
the pattern of intensive development at the
ment accelerates m those areas.
southern end of San Francisco Bay, filling in the
8
Valley Transportation Authority
n c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Population Growth, 2045t2O30
Milpitas
Cl
Palo All
El \
ountain
View }
m
L^.^_^unnyvay2 3
JtS
/1 Santa
Caro
San Jose
Cupertino
Saratoga
Campb
onte
Seren
Gatos
Moraan
Households/ Year 2005
Households/ Year 2030
m
Gilroy
Population Growth
Santa Clara County's population is estimated to be
2.27 million by 2030, air increase of nearly 486,000
residents over today's (2005) population. About
two-thii'ds of Santa Clara Countj^'s population and
household growth over the next 25 years will
occur in San Jose, which will gain nearly 324,000
new residents and 107,000 new households. San
county, 22,800 in Milpitas, 21,500 in Suraiyvale,
13,600 in Gilroy, and 13,300 in Momrtain View.
Excluding north San Jose, the cities in the north
ern parts of the county represent about 21 per
cent of total county population growth. About 4
percent of countywide population growth is
expected in the southernmost comnrunities of
Gilroy and Morgan HiU.
Jose will remain the most populous jurisdiction
The highest rates of population growth are
Within the county, the largest city in the Bay Area
projected for San Jose at 34 percent, Milpitas at
region, and the third largest city in California. The
33 percent, Gilroy at 29 percent, Santa Clara at
next largest amounts of population growt.h are
28 percent, unincorporated county areas at 25
expected in Santa Clara with 30,000 new resi
percent, and Palo Alto at 20 percent.
dents, 26,000 in uiuncorporated areas of the
VTP 2030
Milpitas
b At
view
Sunnyva!
AIlos
Santa
Hills
Claro
Cupertino
San Jose
Saratoga
Campb
onte
Seren
Gofos
Moroan
h1
Jobs, Year 2005
Jobs, Year 2030
Job Growth
by the large combined job growth projected for
Despite the recent economic downturn,job
the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas,
growth in Santa Clara County is expected to be
strong over the next 25 years, increasing by 37
percent (or nearly 400,000) to 1.48 million jobs.^
Almost half of this growth in new jobs is projected
for San Jose. Most of these wili be higher-paying
jobs (about 271,000) related to the high-technology
industry. Job growth will also remain strong for
other cities in the northern part of the county:
36,000 new jobs in Sunnyvale; 33,000 in Santa
Clara; 20,000 in Milpitas; and 20,000 in Mountain
View. The continued strength of employment in
the northern parts of the county is highlighted
10
/ GilroyrV
Valley Transportation Authority
Mountain View, Cupertino, and Palo Alto,
totaling nearly 128,000 jobs and representing 32
percent of the total job growth in the comity. In
the southern parts of the county the workforce
will also expand significantly, by approximately
93 percent for Morgan HiU, and 62 percent for
Gilroy. Together, these two cities account for
over 26,000 new jobs, or nearly 6 percent of
total countywide job growth, not including the
substantial job growth expected m the southern
San Jose/Coyote Valley area.
•'Association of Bay Area Govcnmients (ABAG), Projections 2003.
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
Congestion and
Mobility Management
Table I -2 Pppulafion, Employment bnd Freevyay Capacity
The pursmt of economic growth means that
travel demand will continue to Increase
significantly over the next 25 years. Plans are
under way to expand roadway capacity to
accommodate more trips In the coming years,
but the ability to expand the roadway system to
;■ i
accommodate more vehicles Is approaching
*
practical limits. Moreover, adding roadway
.
"iji"
>'..V5
capacity essentially "Induces" more automobile
travel as people find the "cost" of driving (I.e.,
travel time) reduced, further aggravating the
f.
problem as new capacity Is quickly gobbled up.
Population
Tills Is one of the endemic problems of trans
Freeway
Jobs
Copociiy
portation planning associated with managing
roadway congestion: build It and they ivlll come.
The estimated 5.6 percent increase m freeway
f.fable". 15^3'Vehicle, Trips (AMPkaiMou-r)
capacity"from VTP 2030 roadway projects Is far
short of the percentage Increases In residents
600,000
and jobs. The widening gap between job and
population growth and roadway capacity expan
Diverted trips
TOTAL 546,891
Tolol AM Irips
TV!
53,048
500.000
sion means that a gi'owlng pool of commuters
TOTAL 394,571
will be unable to find room on the roads during
peak periods. By 2030, there Is a demand for
travel during the morning peak hour of nearly
300.000
550,000 vehicle trips. Over 50,000 of those trips
1
will not be able to travel during the morning
pecik hour due to congestion. One result of this
Is an even greater duration of congested condi
tions, as more drivers adjust their time of travel
100,000
to avoid the most heavily congested conunute
^Increased capacity = additional lane miles.
VTP 2030
11
hours. The enonnous pent-up demand for road
Table 1-4'traffic Growth
.
(MlPeak ffqur Vgliicla MMqs-of'IiymKl)
way space will limit the ability to significantly
reduce congestion over the 25-year planning
horizon of VTP 2030.
Arlerial
5.000,000 —
k' ' 1
iM
TOTAU 4,785,245
Expressway
Freeway
The bottom line is that no matter how much we
expand and refine our roadway systems, we will
never completely eliminate congestion; nor
would we want to in all areas, since some level of
congestion—for example, in downtown business
TOTAU 3,066,126
districts or along main streets—is an indicator of
a healthy economj'. This isn't to suggest that
roadway improvements are not necessary. Quite
417,748
■TOi.
2,164,650
1.000.000
■y>.
the opposite: roadways are—and wiU continue to
be—a critical piece of delivering a balanced and
integrated transportation system in Santa Clara
County.
2000
2030
With diminishing options for expansion,
greater emphasis must be placed on throughput
enhancement tlmough systems management.
Mobility management strategies and techniques
can improve community livability and help shift
person trips from driving alone to other modes
such as shared ride, transit, biking and walldng.
VTP 2030 must thus accept and respond to these
realities and opportunities. Responses include:
• Alternative transportation modes and changes
in land uses and development patterns. These
m
are necessary to provide travel alternatives to
driving alone in the peak hours. A primary
obstacle to managing peak-hour congestion is
m
the high level of demand at the fringes of the
morning and evening peak periods. Strategies
that add peak-period roadway capacity wUl
12
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
increase peak-hour throughput but will not
relieve congestion in key corridors.
Transit improvements in congested corridors
to increase transit mode share by providing an
attractive alternative to driving alone in heavy
traffic. However, transit travel times need to be
competitive with automobile travel times. As
roads become more congested, transit service
is also impacted, and ways to maintain and
improve transit speeds become critical.
Transportation system management strate
gies and the implementation of new technolo
• Land uses and development patterns that
support transit, walking and bike trips. Highquality, irrfiU developments in downtowns,
arormd transit stations, and along main
streets and major transportation corridors
should be priorities of local jurisdictions.
These are areas where tremendous invest-'
rnents in urban and transportation infrastruc
ture have already been made, and where
changes in land uses will yield the greatest
mobility and livabUity benefits.
Urrderstanding these realities helps define a
gies. These strategies wiU have increasingly
framework for VTA and local jrrrisdictions to
important roles in future transportation plans
take actions that can improve travel conditions
due to their cost-effectiveness m improvhrg
aird the quality of life for the county's residents
roadway conditions, and to the high costs and
and workers. The next section discusses the
limited benefits of improving the transporta
goals and objectives associated with VTP 2030,
tion system through expansion. Effective sys
and how they can make a difference in sustaining
tems management requires the completion of
and improving the quality of life and economic
an intercomrected, multimodal system that
health of the region.
provides travel options for all types of trips.
VTP 2030
13
VTP 2030 Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives are fuiidamental compo
VTA Vision and Mission Statements
nents of the planning process. They help to
In 1995, VTA adopted the following Vision and
define an overall vision and the steps necessary
Mission Statements:
to move forward in attainment of that vision.
VTP 2030 is intended to fulfill several comple
mentary goals established by VTA,including
VTA's overarching Vision and Mission
Statements and its Strategic Plan Goals. This
section presents these goals within the context
of the ^TP 2030 planning process.
Vision Statement
The vision of the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA)is to
provide a transportation system that allows
anyone to go anywhere in the region easily
and efficiently.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley
w
I
M
!.?>
i!
Transportation Authority (VTA)is to provide
the public with a safe and efficient county-
wide transportation system. The system
increases access and mobility, reduces
congestion, improves the environment, and
supports economic development, thereby
enhancing the quality of life.
hi addition, the VTA Board of Directors speci
fied four key policy directions and adopted a
fifth related to the 1996 Measure B Program in
1999. Those policies are as follows:
• Integrate land use and transportation
• Use aU transportation options
• Create safe, convenient, reliable and
mi
i
high-quality bus/rail operation
• Build a regional perspective
• In partnership with the County of Santa
Clara, implement the 1996 Measure B
Transportation Improvement Program
14
Valley TransportaHon Authority
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
VTA Strategic Plan Goals
VTA recently completed a review of its services
and programs and formulated recommendations
to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, and
to enhance its ability to continue providing
quality services and programs to its customers
within the context of current Board policy, the
36!
region's current econornic realities, and financial
constraints. Subsequently, previous Strategic
Plan goals and objectives were revised and
expanded to include recommendations from
a Business Review Team" and an Ad Hoc
Financial Stability Committee.'"
These goals and objectives, presented below,
were reviewed and approved by the "VTA Board
on November 7, 2003.
Maintain Financial Stability
• Secure adequate levels of funding to sustain
the existing transportation system and secure
new fund sources for system expansion.
• Increase the transit system's operating recov
ery ratio, with a target of 20-25 percent, by
adding new riders, increasing the average
fare per passenger through a multi-year fare
policy and aimual or biennial fare reviews,
and improving cost efficiencies.
• Ensure timely maintenance, replacement
and/or rehabilitation of essential capital assets.
• Implement new capital programs only when
4. Composed of members of the business community and VTA
management and staff.
operations and maintenance costs have been
identified and revenue sources determined.
Ensure the Reserve Fund policy will sustain
sufficient future cash flow through changing
economic cycles.
Maintain a proactive State and Federal
legislative program to ensure policies and
funding allocations serve the needs of VTA's
mission and diverse communities.
Pursue joint development opportunities that
result in both ridership and development
revenues for VTA.
Ensure that expenditures of 2000 Measure A
funds are consistent with priority projects
and seivices as identified by the Board of
Directors.
5. Composed of VTA Board members and community members.
VTP 2030
15
service standards, making necessary modifi
cations to assure efficiency and effectiveness
of transit service, and expand seiwice as
allowed by financial resources.
m
• Develop plans, secm'e environmental clear
ance and begin implementation of priority
2000 Measure A transit projects as funds
become available.
i m
• Complete the 1996 Measure A transit and
highway projects as local. State and Federal
funding allows.
integrate Transportation and Land Use
• Continue to work with the cities aird County
to improve the relationship between land use
and transportation decisions,,and advocate
for the implementation of the principles and
practices contained in the Community Design
Improve Mobility and Access
• Provide transportation facilities and services
that support and enhance the qualitj' of
life for Santa Glara County residents and the
continued health of Santa Clara County's
economy.
• Manage congestion by focusing investments
to address the transportation system's great
• Develop and enhance partnerships with the
cities and the County to ensure adoption of
Transit-Oriented Development(TOD) plans
and policies along existing and future transit
corridors.
• Partner with the private sector and the cities
est roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian
to develop projects at VTA station areas to
intensify residential, commercial, and retail
needs.
uses.
• Increase the use of commute alternatives,
especially in defined key cores, transporta
tion corridors and station areas.
• Continually evaluate services through the
Service Management Plan, using revised
16
and Transportation Program.
Valley Transportation Authority
• Tlrrough the VTP 2030 Plan, strive to proxdde
certainty to cities and private developers that
priority transit projects upon which cities
base land use decisions will be implemented
in a timely marmer.
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
mmm
Enhance Customer Focus
• Increase ridership at least 1 to 3 percent
annually.
>*v
• Maintain a high level of transit system
.'V
c
reliability.
v.". j
:
• Better communicate transit service informa
tion to customers and improve customer
information resources as neai- and long-term
opportunities arise, mcluding real-time
I
i
'n
I
f
IB
is S
route and schedule information, on-line trip
4fc-r,
planning, and e-commerce for VTA passes
n
and tickets.
r
V
7A
• Maintain a proactive media relations presence
to promote services and provide awareness of
VTA benefits to the community.
• Continue to enhance transit service in order
to make VTA the travel mode of first choice.
• Ensm'e that comprehensive public participa
tion programs are a key element in developmg transportation system plans and projects.
Increase Employee Ownership
• Continue to involve employees in the refine
ment of VTA business practices, such as tran
sit routes and schedule planning.
VTP 2030 Goo! and Objecfives
The overarching goal established for VTA's longrange planning is: "To provide transportation
facilities and services that support and
enhance the county's continued success by
fostering: A high quality of lifefor Santa
Clara County's residents, and ccmtinued
health ofSanta Clara County's economy."
While this goal remains the backbone of
• Continue to respond to key areas of organiza
tional improvement identified by employees.
comitywide long-range transportation planning,
• Continue to work with employee labor repre
objectives;
sentatives to develop strategies and to imple
ment additional operational efficiencies.
• Foster an environment that demonstrates
VTA is an employer of choice.
VTP 2030 establishes the folio-wing supporting
• Pro-vide a policy framework in which the
investments made in transportation infra
structure and services are matched -with iand
use policy commitments from local jurisdic-
VTP 2030
17
Aging ofPopulation and the' '
tions that fully support those investments and
Impact on PamtransU
'
-
encourage optimal utilization and effectiveness
of all transportation modes
The 65 to 80+ population will nearly triple between 2005 ' "
• Provide a balanced transportation system that
' dnd-2030. These individuals will need health care, social, '.
supports implementation of aU modes of travel
shdppin'g and other human services, including Transportation.'
VTA anticipates that a'large percentage of'peopje' BO+'will
register for paratransit services, significantly increasing ; ,
demand over current levels. To the extent that traditional'trapsit4
can diversify and meet more of the needs'of these individuals,.
the demand for paratransit service as we kriow it Today can
• .be'iocused on those needirig if most. •
Table 1-5 Population by Age
_ •
,,
• -
• Provide projects, programs, and policies that
develop and foster proactive partnerships
between VTA and local jurisdictions
• Provide projects, programs, and policies that
encourage and support community vitality,
and economic and social prosperity
• Provide a long-range plarming framework that
supports and implements VTA's Strategic
Goals and Objectives
.Clara
Context of VTP 2030 Goals
The above goals and objectives are intended to
2030
500.000
provide overarching prmciples for VTA in the
planning process for VTP 2030. They relate to
400.000
building and maintaining a multimodal trans
300.000
and a high quality of life for residents and work
portation system that fosters a healthy economy
ers. VTP 2030 aims to achieve this by providing;
200.000
• Relief from congestion
• Better facilities and semces for off-peak trips
100.000
0-W
35-49
50-64
65-79
• Attractive travel choices
• Services for a diverse population
• Transportation for vibrant communities
• Economic dividends of transportation
investment
18
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
Relief from Congestion
work trips. Moreover, about 43 percent® of the
Time spent in traffic is time lost. Delays caused
county's population is not part of the work force
by incidents, construction and inadequate
transportation system capacity aggravate
drivers and passengers and make it harder to
VISION
(cMdren, seniors, students, etc.) and many of
these non-work trips are made during off-peak
hours. Non-work based trips accounted for about
fulfill family, work and community commit
three-quarters of the county's daily trips.®
ments. The package of multimodal programs
This underscores the importance of providing
and projects in VTP 2030 is intended to provide
transportation facilities and services for both
a range of mobility and livability improvements.
peak and off-peak trip-making. Future planning
Facilitating Both Peak and Non-Peak Trips
gestion pricing, TDM programs, and the develop
Transportation plaiming generally focuses on
ment of a well-designed, compact, mixed-use
must consider a range of options including con
managing peak-hour demand for the trip to
urban form where housing, schools, worksites,
work, and the improved transit service and
restaurants and stores are located close together.
roadway improvements described in VTP 2030
strives to do that. But people make many other
types of trips tlu-oughout the day and evening to
enjoy the region's activities and conduct their
daily lives: high-tech workers may take evening
college courses or pick up children after school
1. MTC 2000 Regional Household Survey Data
2. ABAG Projections 2003
3. VTA Goimtjnvide Models
ife tp'bl e 1 's6.!,Cu'rre'nt Tri p Typei.
sports or a karate class; teens may want to meet
friends after school or get to parks, museums or
malls during summer break; and families may
Home-bo sed
Home-based
School 9%
Shopping
26%
Non Home-based
29%
want to attend sporting events or concerts dur-.
ing evening hours or on weekends.
About half of all daily trips made in the county
are made during the morning and afternoon
peak periods. In 2000,' home-based work trips
represented about a quarter of the daily trips
made in the county, and roughly 65 percent of
these trips are made during the morning and
evening peak commute times. However, workers
also make trips before, after and in between their
Home-bgsed
Sociol/Recreotianol
13%
Home-based
Work 23%
VTP 2030
19
transit, bicycle and pedestrian services. An
f:
active and retired baby boom generation will
increasingly turn to transit for longer trips and
walkable destinations for shorter trips. These
'il
modes of transit are also viable economic
•.v*
fy
ffS
Kf
m
m
options for residents who choose not to drive.
By supporting transit- and pedestrian-friendly
land uses we can ensure high mobility and a
high quality of life for our communities.
nr
Transportation and Vibrant Communities
Key to vibrant communities is a pedestrianoriented environment, well-integrated and easyto-use transit, a mixture of land use, interesting
buildings and public spaces, and efficient street
design. However, the robust economic growth of
the past 25 years has brouglrt with it transitand pedestrian-unfriendly features such as
Attractive Travel Choices
A traiisportation system that offers multiple
modes of travel not only reduces automobile
congestion, but also allows individuals to choose
wliich mode is best for them. Pubiic transporta
tion, bicycling, walkiirg and paratransit service
offer a comfortable solution for residents who
ultra-wide streets and expansive parking lots,
and has segregated our employment cores from
our residential areas. Througlr smart infill, advo
cacy, and transportation and land use invest
ment, we can increase the number of vibrant
community spaces in Santa Clara County. VTP
2030 helps do this with:
cannot drive due to age or ability or who prefer
• Funding for local streets and roadways
the economic dividends and convenience of not
• Funding for transit projects and services
driving. As trips shift from single occupancy
vehicles (SOAO to other transportation modes,
the capacity of the overall system increases.
• Funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects
• Funding grants for planning and building
vibrant communities
Services for a Diverse Population
Over the next few decades a significant demo
graphic shift will 5deld increased demand for
20
Valley TronsportcMon Authority
n c h a p te r I
Economic Dividends of
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Rethinking Street Design n
Transportation Investment
The nature of business in Silicon Valley puts
significant demands on the transportation infra
structure. Manufactirring industries requu'e
interconnectedness with surrounding counties,
states and ports to transport freight. High-tech
companies, service providers and research parks
require easy access to airports, regional rail
lines, and interstate freeways to meet their need
for rapid travel. And we requhe high-quality
roads and transit to get to and fi-om work.
Ensuring that the transportation heeds of
business are met is a key factor in sustaining
'Tlie.growing desire to balance aufqcapacity'more ,
'■
sensitively with capacity for qlternaje modes Is leading to.a
retoxdmination of spmetoccepted approaches,to'str.eet '•
design, increasingly we-u'ndefstahd"the need for a'range of
.street types.. Conventional, auto-dominated streets'will
ircontinoeifobeiessenfipyoLserving thedowftiseibusinessfparkss
■phdtoampuses that are'among Silicon Valley's'trademarks. .
-fdowever,'Streets'emphasizing to balance among-rnddes ,
'.fath'erifhanrmaximizing-;aCitoiGap0cityjWill.'Support traditiohaliij
city-siyle downtow'ns and suburban-fieighborhoqds-where", people can-get around by foot or bicjfcle.
" ,
our employment centers and the high quality of
life we are accustomed to. Included in the many
business-friendly projects VTP 2030 calls for are
the follovring:
\
^
Vwlr
• Rapid transit improvement and additional
multimodal capacity in key commute corridors
; "u
\0
• Regional and local rail improvements
L
• Highway and expressway improvements
• Improved multimodal airport access to
Mineta San Jose International Airport
Access to Work Force
10-15'
B-10
Sidewalk
FlonI
ilrip
No Selboclu
0'
Parking
'
Travel
' "
Porking
Plant
sirip
10-15
Sidewolk
L,
Silicon Valley's future depends on access to the
largest and most diverse work force possible.
The transportation system can support this
success by getting people to their jobs quickly
and easily. Nevertheless, continued growth of
the SOicon VaUey economy and a scarcity of
VTP 2030
21
Table 1-7;-Pbpuiqtion aiid'JpJSs Ratio;"
to Employed Residents
to Residents Working
in the County
Ratio of Jobs
Net
In-commuters'
Percent of County
Population Not
Working
1990
1.10
1.25
78,585
46%
2000
1.14
1.50
133,259
43%
2010
1.22
1.57
214,260
48%
2020
1.14
1.46
168,830
43%
2030
1.13
1.44
168,270
42%
Ratio of Jobs
Year
1. Gross m-commuters minus gross out-commuters equals net in-commuters.
affordable housing will enlarge the valley's
commute shed. With the median price of a
single-family home at $590,000 in .June 2004,
1.6
providing affordable housing for Santa Clara
1.4
County workers continues to be a challenge. As
a result, many workers are forced to accept
1.2
either longer commutes or less desirable
1.0
housing, wages increase and the diversity of the
labor pool decreases. Bringing people and jobs
closer together means improving transportation,
promoting telecommuting, and expai\ding
- - - - Jobs
Employed Residents
— ■—■■I Residents Working
in Santa Clara County
access to housing, good schools, and other
essential services.
In 2010, about 64 percent of the county's work
1990
2000
2010
2030
Source; ABAG Projections 2003, Commuter Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area:
1990-2030 {based on ABAG Projections 2003 and Census 2000} (May 2004)
force is expected to live and work within Santa
Clara County. This means that about 36 percent
of jobs in the county are filled with workers
commuting in from other counties. But some
22
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
residents live in Santa Clara County and
commute to jobs in other counties. When this is
factored in, about 214,000 net in-commuters are
expected to be commuting to jobs in the county
n
ariK.
by 2010. However, if we are successful in
implementing ABAG's Smart Growth vision—by
concentratirrg higher-density housing and job
centers around major transit facilities—^the
growth in housing supply in Santa Clara County
is expected to better balance jobs and housing.
So, while about 290,000 workers in 2030 will be
living outside the county, the ratio ofjobs to
residents wih improve.
VTP 2030
23
Financial Foundation
Developing VTP 2030 requires an awareness of
of funding, historically accounting for 80
the resources that will become available during
percent of its operating revenue. Between fiscal
the plan period to inrplement the programs and
year 2001 and 2003, VTA revenues from VTA's
projects in the plan. Tins section of the plan
1/2 cent sales tax declined nearly 30 percent, or
examines the fiscal setting underlying the
about $50 million annually. VTA has also been
development of VTP 2030, the steps being taken
affected by impacts to State and Federal budgets
to ensure VTA's long-term financial stability, the
as belt tightening in those areas has steadily
sources of funding, and the funds projected to
trickled down to regional and local agencies.
become available during the 25-year timeframe
In addition, transit ridership has declined in
of the plan. These elements provide the
proportion to the loss of jobs, further affecting
foundation for the Capital Investment Program
VTA's operating budget.
discussed in Chapter 2.
All of these factors establish a fiscal setting in
which VTA is compelled to critically examine its
VTP 2030 Fiscal Setting
near- and long-term capital and operating plans.
The ebbs and flows of an economy are natural
In response to these conditions, VTA assembled
occurrences. In the late 1990s, Santa Clara
two working groups to assist it in planning its
County found itself at the center of a high-
financial future.
technology boom and unprecedented job
growth. But by the early 2000s, it found itself at
the center of the high-technology bubble burst.
This latest economic downturn has been the
most severe on record, and with it an estimated
200,000 jobs left the county between 2000 and
2003. Most of these jobs were in the higherpaying high-technology sectors concentrated in
Santa Clara County, and consequently, this area
has been more severely affected than other Bay
Area counties.
These lost jobs, and the related decline in
24
VTA Financial Stability and Efficiency
During 2002 and 2003, VTA worked with a
Business Review Team and an Ad Hoc Financial
Stability Committee to analyze and address
VTA's near- and long-term financial situation
and provide the Boai'd of Directors with recom
mendations. The Business Review Team was
composed of members of the business
community and VTA management and staff. The
Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee consisted
of VTA Board members,financial consultants,
business-to-business transactions, have signifi
and community stakeholders. Each of these
cantly affected the amount of sales tax revenue
groups prepared recommendations for
generated in the county—^VTA's primary source
improving VTA's financial foundation.
Valley Transportation Authority
c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Business Review Team Recommendations
The Business Review Team submitted five
recommendations addressing 1)farebox
recovery and average fare per boarding, 2)
health benefits costs, 3) ADA/Paratransit
m
program, 4) marketmg efforts, and 5) the role of
''
VTA in Joint Powers Authorities in approving
operating and capital budgets.
Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee
Recommendations
The Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee
developed a strategy based on the current
economic climate and the viability of obtaining
a new or broadened revenue source. The com
mittee's reconunendations were discussed at
several Board workshops and meetings between
May and November 2003. On February 19, 2004,
tain current transit service as shown in the
following fmther review and input from VTA
Adopted Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 Budget.
Board members, the VTA Board of Directors
approved the Financial Stability Strategy. The
Ad Hoc Committee recommendations were
presented in near-term (six months to one year)
and mid-term to long-term (one year and beyond)
tinreframes. A summary of the recommenda
tions pertinent to VTP 2030 is presented below:
Mid-Term to Long-Tenn
• Work in partnership with community leaders
to identify the most viable new or expanded
revenue source(s) for VTA.
• Over the next several years, lay the founda
tion to pursue limited expansion of the sales
tax base to help make up for the continuing
Near-Term
• Maximize revenues to support operations.
• Prioritize VTA's transportation projects and
improvements.
• Utilize an advance of Measure A operations
funds, only to the extent necessary to main-
erosion of this financial resource.
• Use Budgetary Operating Reserves and
authorized 2000 Measure A funds as neces
sary to maintain existing service.
• Continue to aggressively pursue joint devel
opment opportunities that wiU provide VTA a
diverse revenue stream. As appropriate, in
VTP 2030
25
partnership with applicable surrounding
communities, identify assessment district
sites that will benefit both the surrounding
community and VTA. Seek other revenue
opportunities as may be appropriate.
• Consider submitting an advisory baUot
measure for setting project priorities if no
new revenue sources are approved prior to
December 1, 2006, and projected revenue
shortfalls prevent implementation of all
Measure A projects prior to 2036. The ballot
measure should be preceded by a public
involvement cind conununity stakeholder
VTP 2030 Financial Plan
Developing the plan requires an understanding
of the resources that are expected to become
available during the life of the plan to imple
ment the programs and projects presented in
the plan. The VTP 2030 Financial Plan examines
the various sources of funding for transportation
programs in Santa Clara County, describes the
planning and funding process, the funds pro
jected to become available dui'ing the timeframe
of the plan, and the Board-adopted fund alloca
tions for each Program Area.
input process.
These recommendations add to the economic
Fund Sources
setting and financial foundation that influence
Funding for the projects, programs and sendees
the overall development of VTP 2030, and
identified in VTP 2030 comes from a number of
specifically the Financial Plan discussed next.
local, State and Federal fund sources. Generally,
the plan focuses on the larger sources that pro
vide flexibility in programming and that are
expected to provide significant revenues for
transportation projects in Santa Clara County.
n
Other less flexible funding sources, or funds
m
:**6-
that are dedicated for specific purposes such as
mi
transit operations, are also presented. While
these other funds are critically important to
ili
i
operate and maintain the transit system, their
limitations mean that the plan is not needed to
establish policy for their use, and so they are
not discussed here in detaO. Details regarding
use of these funds can be found in VTA's Short
Range Ti-ansit Plan, and in other city and county
planning documents.
m.
26
Valley Tronsportafion Authority
chapter|| PLAN WITH VISION
In addition to the more traditional fund sources,
plan, and that may become valuable sources of
VTP 2030 discusses additional funding strategies
revenue. A description of all of these fund
that will be explored during the timeframe of the
sources follows.
Table T-9 Fund Sources (^6o^-2d$0).
Revenue
Projecfions'
VTP 2030 Fund Sources
C03$MUlions)
$5,432
Section 5309 New Rail Starts—Discretionary
973
State Traffic Congestion Relief Program(TOR?)
732
Federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(STP/CMAQ)
569
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
559
Prop. 42 STIP
426
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP)
320
1996 Measure B Sales Tax Fimd (remaining through 2006)
290
TFCA40%
45
Transportation Enhancement Act 21 (TEA-21) Enhancements
43
Other Major Transportation Fund Sources
Gas Tax Subventions
4,773
Current VTA Dedicated Sales Tax (2005-2030)
4,481
Transportation Development Act(TDA)Articles 4, 4.5 and 8
2,425
Section 5307 Total San Jose & Gilroy/Morgan HUl Urbanized Area(UA)
925
Section 5309 Fixed Guideway San JoseAJA
468
State Transit Assistance (STA)Program
283
TDA Article 3—Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds
49
1. Estimates as of November 1, 2004. Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State
and Federal revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan fVansportation Commission(MTC)and with project cost estimates
developed in 2003.
Source; VTA
VTP 2030
27
Sales Tax for 30 yeai's to ftmd a specified pack
Transportation Funding Sources for
VIP 2030 Projects and Programs
age of transit projects and programs. The new
The fund sources described below provide sig
2000 Measure A begins on April 1, 2006, and
nificant revenue for transportation projects in
ends on March 30, 2036. The tax is currently
Santa Clara County, and are available for VTP
projected to generate $5,432 billion in 2003
2030 projects and programs at the VTA Board of
doUai's in that 30-year time span.
Directors' direction. A 25-year projection (in
The VTA Board has already committed $325
2003 dollars) and a general description of the
million for bonding to pay for current operating
programming processes and fund-specific limi
costs, low-floor light rail vehicles and Preliminarj'
tations are included vrith each source.
Engineering for the BART extension to San
Jose/Santa Clara; $5,107 billion remains to fund
2000 Measure A Soles Tax
the rest of the projects. This is not enough to
On November 2, 2000, the voters of Santa Clara
fund the entire project list at current cost
County voted to extend the 1996 Measure B
estimates. The VTA Board determined which
2000 Measure A projects will be considered
within the fiscally constrained portion of VTP
2030 on April 23, 2004. The VTA Board of
Directors will develop an expenditure plan to
determine priorities and scheduling of the
jfc;. A' ii. .... 4.
constrained project list.
Federal New Starts Program
(Section 5309)
The Federal New Starts program is one of the
a.
Federal transit funding programs created in
1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface
IS
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These
programs were continued in the Transportation
.-.-j
ft.
f
iS
Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century
(TEA-21) and are expected to be renewed in
the next reauthorization. The New Starts
■riL-'
f*
28
program is part of Title 49 United States Code
(USC), Section 5309. The funds are for signifi-
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
cant rail and rapid bus expansion projects.
Congress distributes these funds to projects at
its discretion, based on project evaluations by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). VTP
2030 projects $973 million from this source to
extend BART from Fremont to San Jose and
Santa Clara.
Traffic Congestion Relief Progrom
(TCRP) ond Proposition 42
In 2000, the Traffic Congestion Relief Program
(TCRP) was enacted, directing revenues gener
ated by the State sales tax on gas and diesel
fuel from the State general fund to transporta
tion. The transfer was to occur for fiscal years
2003/04 through 2007/08, then end. However, in
2002, California voters passed State Proposition
42, making the transfer permanent. These trans
fers are now referred to as "Prop. 42 funding."
Proposition 42 fmiding goes to four specific
programs:
• Traffic Congestion Relief Projects (TCRP):
establishes a list of specific congestion reliev
ing transit and highway projects designated
to receive funds. Approximately $965 million
is designated for projects in Santa Clara
County: $233 million has already been allo
cated, and the remaining $732 million is
included in VTP 2030.
The future of the TCRP is uncertahi. The
administration submitted proposals to elimi
nate the program in its 2002/03, 2003/04 and
2004/05 State Budget proposals. While the
PLAN
WITH
VISION
program itself has remained intact, the fund
transfers were suspended in 2002/03 and
2003/04. As of the writing of this plan, the
2004/05 proposal to eliminate the program
has been rescinded. As of the writing of this
plan, the 2004/05 proposal to eliminate the
program has been rescinded; however, the
proposal to suspend the transfer for 2004/05
is stiU in place. Funds to pay expenses on
existing TCRP allocations are linked to the
defeat of two November 2004 ballot measure
regai'ding Native American gaming receipts.
The legislation directing transfers to these
projects sunsets in 2008.
• Local Streets and Road Rehabilitation:
augments the gas tax receipts that the State
subvenes directly to cities and counties. The
current estimate is $621.5 million in 2003
dollars. Since the VTA Board of Directors
does not control or direct these funds, the
table incorporates them into the Gas Tax
Subventions shown in the "Other Major
Transportation Fund Sources" section.
• State Ti-ansportation Improvement Program
(STIP): mcreases the amoimt of State fmiding flowing into the State Highway account
for the STIP, subject to the distribution for
mulas that apply to the existing funds. The
current estimate is $426 million in 2003 dol
lars. More discussioir is included under the
State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP).
• State Transit Assistance (STA): increases the
amomit of State Transit Assistance to transit
operations. The current estimate is $106.6
VTP 2030
29
million for VTA and $34.0 million for Caltraiir
ing resolutions to allow transportation agencies
in 2003 dollars. The treinsfer has been sus
to continue doing business until a successor bill
pended for the last two years. STA funds ai'e
is adopted. The Metropolitan Ti-ansportation
directed to specific transit operators and
Commission (MTC) has final programming
funds are generally used for operations. More
authority for STP and CMAQ funds in the nine-
discussion of the STA program is included
under "Other Major Transportation Fund
Sources."
State Budget shortfalls in 2003 and 2004 have
county Bay Area, and dh'ects the use of these
funds through the Regional Transportation Plan.
The current estimate for Santa Clara County is
$569 million.
negatively impacted Prop. 42 funding. The State
Legislature has the ability to suspend the trans
fers when the State is in a fiscal crisis and has
State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP)
exercised that option twice in the past two
Senate Bill 45 (SB-45), enacted in 1997, consoli
years, and is expected to do so in the 2004/05
dated several State transportation fuirding
State Budget. Each suspension to date has been
programs and directed State and Federal
accompanied by a commitment to repay the
transportation funds from the State Highway
funds no later than 2008/09.
Account(SHA)into the Regional Improvement
Program (RIP) and the Interregional
Federal Surface Transportation Program/
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
Program (STP/CMAO)
The ST? and CMAQ funding programs were
created in ISTEA and continued in TEA-2I.
Improvement Program (IIP). Together, these
programs are called the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). STIP funds may
be used for road rehabilitation and capacity-
expanding capital transportation projects.
Since they are not restricted to particular
modes, ST? and CMAQ are also called "flexible
30
RIP funding is 75 percent of the STIP, and it is
funds." STP funds can be used for virtually all
distributed among the counties via a formula
transportation capital projects. CMAQ funds are
established by State legislation. In the Bay Area,
limited to implementing the transportation
Congestion Mairagement Agencies (CMAs)
provisions of the 1990 Federal Glean Air Act in
program RIP funds vrith review by MTC and
Air Quality Non-Attainment areas. The Bay Area
approval by the California Transportation
is currently a non-attainment area.
Commission (CTC).
Federal funds are authorized in six-year
The IIP is the remaining 25 percent of the STIP.
programs. TEA-21 expired on October 1, 2003;
IIP funds are programmed by Caltrans through
however. Congress has been adopting continu
the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Valley Transportation Authorily
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
Plan (ITIP) process, with final approval by the
3FP-
CTC. The STIP prograraming process occurs
every two years in "even" years. The current
1
total STIP projection for Santa Clara County is
$1,305 billion, consisting of $559 million in RIP
I
'•n
funds, $426 million in the Proposition 42 RIP
increment, and $320 million in IIP funds for
projects nominated by Caltrans.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Bit&iaLdll
Health and Safety Code Section 44223 authorizes
TA
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD)to levy a fee on motor vehicles.
Funds generated by this fee are placed In the
Transportation Fund for Clean Ah'(TFCA)
account to be used for implementing projects
and programs that reduce air pollution from
motor vehicles. Health and Safety Code Section
current TFCA 40 percent estimate for Santa
44241 limits expenditure of these funds to spec
Clara County is $45 million in 2003 dollars.
ified eligible transportation control measures
(TCMs) that are included in BAAQMD's 1991
Clean Air Plan, developed and adopted pursuant
to the requirements of the California Clean Air
Act of 1988.
Transportation Enhancement
Activities (TEA)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Enhancement Act (ISTEA) provided a 10
percent set-aside of each state's STP allocation
BAAQMD directly administers 60 percent of the
for "Transportation Enhancement Activities"
TFCA, with annual revenues ranging from $9
(TEA) above and beyond normal capital
million to $15 million. The remaining 40 percent
improvements. TEA-21 continued this program.
goes directly to TFCA Program Managers in
each Bay Area cormty. VTA, as Santa Clara's
TFCA Program Manager, works with member
TEA funds must be used for elements of a
project that are over and above what would be
termed the "normal project." They must have a
agencies to develop criteria that are then used
direct relationship to the intermodal transporta
to select projects consistent with the eligible
tion system and fit one or more of 12 activity
project categories specified in statute. The
categories described in TEA-21. These activities
VIP 2030
31
1. Funds are given directly to cities and coun
ties for local road repairs.
2. The VTA Board does not control them, and/or
they are committed to operations and rehabilita
tion purposes.
The priorities for using these funds are deter
mined by the cities, the county, VTA and
Caltrain, through local capital improvement
programs (ClPs) and short-range transit plans
(SRTPs).
Gas Tax Subventions
A portion of the State sales tax on gasoline and
diesel fuel goes directly back to the cities and
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
the counties for streets and roads maintenance.
scenic preservation, and wildlife mortality
These funds are allocated based on formulas
mitigation.
established by the State Legislature. The State
The mechanisms and responsibility for program
ming TEA funds have changed several times
since the program's inception. As of 2004, TEA
funds are programmed through the STIP
Controller's office transfers funds directly to
local agencies. These funds were augmented by
Prop. 42. The current estimate, including Prop.
42 transfers, is $4,773 billion in 2003 dollars.
process. Each of the counties receives a TEA
share estimate with its RIP share estimate. The
VTA Dedicated Sales Tax
TEA estimate for Santa Clara County is $43
In 1976, the voters of Santa Clara County enact
million in 2003 dollars.
ed a permanent 1/2 cent sales tax for local tran
sit operations and capital projects. These funds
Other Major Transportation
Fund Sources
Although the fund sources discussed in this
section provide significant funding for
transportation projects in Santa Clara County
they have not been included in VTP 2030 for
the following reasons:
32
Valley Transportation Authority
flow to VTA and are allocated by VTA for opera
tions and capital projects through VTA's aimual
budget and Short Range Transportation Plan
(SRTP). The current 25-year estimate is $4,481
billion in 2003 dollars.
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA 3)
Federal Transit Act Section Funds
TDA Article 3 funds are a portion of the sales
The Federal Transit Act (FTA) funding
tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, wliich is
programs were parts of ISTEA, and were contin
returned by the State of California to the comity
ued in TEA-21. These funds flow to transit
(Section 5307, 5309)
in which it was collected. TDA Article 3 funds
operators via MTC's regional progranuning
are for use on bicycle and pedestrian projects.
process, with earmarks for specific urbanized
MTC programs these funds hi the nine Bay Area
areas (UAs). Based on 2000 census data, Santa
counties. Each year, VTA coordinates and submits
Clara County contams two UAs—the San Jose
countywide project priorities for this fund
UA and the Gilroy/Morgan Hill UA. VTA and
source. The VTA Board has set aside 30 percent
Caltrain are the only fund recipients within
of the annual allocation for the Countywide
these two UAs. The three most significant fed
Bicycle Expenditure Program between 2000/01
eral funding programs are:
and 2010/11. The remainder is distributed
among the cities/towns and county by a VTA
Board-adopted formula. The current 25-year
projection for TDA Article 3 funds is $49 million
in 2003 dollars.
Transportation Development Act
(TDA, Articles 4, 4.5, and 8)
TDA Article 4 and TDA Article 8, also generated
from the statewide sales tax on diesel and gaso
1. Section 5307 - Transit Formula Funds:
These funds are available to VTA and Caltrain
for rolling stock purchases and paratransit
operations. Programming is determined in VTA
and Caltrain SRTPs, through the MTC region's
Transit Capital Priority process, subject to
the provisions of the Caitrain Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA). The current 30-year estimate
is $925 million in 2003 dollars.
line fuels noted above, provide transit operating,
2. Section 5309 - Fixed Guideway: These funds
maintenance, and capital funds. TDA Article 4.5
are available to VTA and Caltrain for rail or feny
is available only for paratransit operating assis
capital projects. Planning for projects occurs in
tance and capital projects. TDA funds are
VTA's and Caltrain's SRTPs. Programming is
administered by MTC and allocated annually
through MTC's Transit Capital Priority process,
based on sales tax receipts in each county.
and subject to the pro^osions of the Caltrain Joint
These funds flow to VTA and are allocated for
Powers Agreement (JPA). The current 30-yeai-
operations and capital projects via VTA's annual
estimate is $468 million in 2003 dollars.
budget and Short Range Transportation Plan
(SRTP). The combined TDA estimate (for
Articles 4, 4.5 and 8) for Santa Clara County is
$2,425 billion in 2003 dollars.
VISION
3. Section 5309 - Neio Rail Starts: This is a
discretionary program for rail, ferry and rapid
bus transit expansions, and is discussed in the
previous section under VTP 2030 Fund Sources.
VTP 2030
33
Measure B Sales Tax Funds
into STA-Revenue Based and STA-Population
In 1996, Santa Clara County voters approved
Based categories. Revenue-based funds are
Measure B, a 1/2 cent nine-year countywide gen
aliocated to transit operators based on operator
eral sales tax to be collected by the county. Tax
revenues. Population-based funds are allocated
collections began on April 1,1998, and will end on
to transit operators based on service area popu
March 31, 2006. Measure,B is expected to provide
lation. The current 25-year STA projection is
$290 million during the VTP 2030 plan period
$283 miiiion in 2003 dollars. This includes base
(July 1,2004, through March 31,2006).
funding and $140.6 million in Proposition 42 STA
increments to VTA and Caltrain. It does not
Wlren Measure B was approved, voters also
approved 1996 Measure A, a nine-year program
of transit, Ihghway, expressway, and bicycleprojects and a pavement management program
to be funded -with any new sales tax revenue and
carried out by VTA and the county. The 1996
Measure A specified the transit and highway
projects, established the pavement management
funding allocations to each of the 15 cities/towns
and the County of Santa Clara, and established a
$12 million bicycle program, without identifying
specific bicycle projects. Bicycle projects funded
by Measure B ai'e identified in the 2000 Bicycle
Expenditure Plan.
The majority of the 1996 Measure A projects and
programs are either complete or under construc
tion as of the wilting of this plan. The remaining
$249 miiiion that Measure B is expected to
produce before it expires is already dedicated
to projects and programs and is therefore not
discussed in VTP 2030.
State Transit Assistance (STA)
These funds may be used for transit capital proj
ects and transit operations, inciuding regional
transit coordination. STA funds are subdivided
34
Valley Transportation Authority
include population-based funds taken off the top
by MTC for regional paratransit coordination.
Additional Funding Strategies
Local Sales Tax
Since the voters in Santa Clara County approved
a sales tax for specified transportation projects
in 1984 and 1996, the county has successfully
constructed significant improvements to the
transportation system. The projects built under
the 1984 measure and currently under design
and construction with the 1996 measm-e dwarf
the projects programmed with State and Federal
flexible funds.
In November 2000, the Santa Clara County vot
ers approved a 30-year 1/2 cent sales tax to fund
transit projects and services in the county.
Measure A revenues are administered by VTA,
and VTA is responsible for providing the funds
necessary to sustain operations and maintenance
of the Measure A projects in perpetuity. The
recent economic recession has resulted in do-wn-
wardly revised sales tax forecasts for Santa Clara
County. As a consequence, VTA will need to
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
VISION
secure a new sales tax for transit operations
to fully implement the 2000 Measure A
Transit Program.
Local Revenue Sources
—Tt.
Local revenues can offer greater reliability and
flexibility than State or Federal sources, and may
be used strategically to leverage other funds.
I
Forecasting the amount of revenue that many of
these sources might generate is a difficult and
inexact process over the long term. These local
sources include, but are not limited to:
• Citywide or countywide development impact
fees (discussed below)
• City or county general funds
• Business tax and/or license fees
• Transient Occupancy taxes
• Gas tax subventions
• Vehicle registration fees
• Local assessment districts
• Other user fees
• Developer exactions
Twenty Percent or Higher Local Match
• Right-of-way dedication
Requirement
• California Enviroiunental Quality Act
The Capital Improvement Program of the CMP
(CEQA) mitigation
• Redevelopment tax increment financing
• Parking charges and taxes
• Payroll tax
• Pai'cel tax
• Joint development and other forms of
value capture
includes a policy requiring Member Agencies to
provide a minimum 20 percent match for local
transportation projects. This policy has been
implemented with flexibility to allow key projects
to move forward in a timely maimer. Sources of
matching funds are, for the most part, left to the
discretion of the local agency, but include those
fisted above.
VTP 2030
35
Development'Impact Fee
During the development of its draft Countywide
Development Impact Fees may be assessed to
Deficiency Plan (CDP), VTA investigated a
projects through local agency policies, or
through the Congestion Management Program
countywide development impact fee dedicated
to specific improvements on the CMP network.
(CMP) Deficiency Planning Process. The CMP
Such a fee program could have the following
statute requires Member Agencies to prepare
aspects:
deficiency pians for CMP system facilities
• Fees charged directly to developers seeking
located within their jurisdictions that exceed
the CMP Traffic Level-of-Service (LOS) stan
dard. Santa Clara County's CMP traffic LOS
standard is LOS E.
permits to build witliin the county.
• Fees charged proportional to the impact (i.e.,
vehicle trip generation) of the specific land
use type. Thus, the fee could be scaled
according to the burden new development
places on congested transportation infra
structure.
The traditional approach to instituting CDP fees
is for all local jurisdictions to adopt the plan by
'(K.
a majority vote of their city council or boai'd.
Although no legal precedent has been estab
lished, an alternative strategy may be for VTA
to institute a 60 percent matching requirement
and give each jurisdiction the option of adopting
the countywide fee as a means of generating its
local match.
"«¥■
VTA Member Agencies may develop their own
■-n
Citywide Deficiency Plans for the same purposes.
Several cities in the county have or are
developing deficiency plans or impact fees for
new development projects. VTA staff is available
SCHOOL BOS'
to assist local jurisdictions with developing
m
deficiency plans and impact fees.
"*1
36
Valley TronsportoMon Authority
chapter© PLAN WITH VISION
Roadway Pricing
Although the concept of having drivers pay for
usiitg the roadways has existed for decades, it is
now drawing more attention from local, State,
A
and Federal agencies. This increased attention is
attributable to worsening traffic congestion, the
scarcity of transportation funding, and the
improved ability to electronically collect tolls and
vary toU amomrts by tune of day and location.
Tolling is the user fee best able to directly charge
for the use of a facility at the place and time of
m
use. Such user fees address the market side of
the equation by considering the interaction
between demand for transportation services and
the available supply. This results in a direct cost
for the good—or service—^being consumed. Cost
in this context may be considered as the time
spent driving. Economic theory tells us that as
the price of a good decreases (i.e., drive time)
demand for it increases—so drive alone trips are
induced as long as the cost of driving remains
relatively low and new facilities that improve
tation of needed highway expansion or improve
ment projects. ToU roads are commonplace in
other parts of the country and in other cmmtries,
and have often been constructed to accommo
travel time are constructed.
date long distance or cormnute trips.
VTP 2030 suggests two forms of roadway pricing
ToU Roads can also be an effective congestion
for serious consideration:
management tool. Flexible pricing plans can be
1. Toll Roads. Toll Roads charge drivers in all
used to encourage ridesharing while charging for
travel lanes to use the roadway. ToU Roads have
use of the roadway. Pricing plans can also be
the admirable quaUty of being able to pay for
used to discourage trips during the peak-hour
themselves through the revenue generated from
periods and encourage drivers to shift then
toll coUection. Given the scarcity of—and the
commute to times when fewer velucles are using
high demand for—State and Federal Mghway
the facUity The revenue generated in excess of
funds. Toll Roads are considered in some cases
the amount needed to pay for construction and
as the best—or only—hope for timely implemen-
VTP 2030
37
operation of the facility can be used to provide
carpools and transit vehicles. HOT lanes are
transit services in the corridor; these efforts can
essentially toll roads where tolling is applied to
further enhance the level of rideshartng and
new or existing carpool lanes. HOT lane opera-
transit use, thereby effectively increasing the
tioirs have existed on State Route (SR) 91 in
overall carrying capacity of the corridor.
southern California since 1991. Tliis four-lane
2. High Occupancy Toll Lanes. An innovative
operational arid financial approach to imple
menting roadway pricing is High Occupancy Toll
(HOT)lanes. HOT lane facilities can be viewed
as a subset of toll roads that allow Single
Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) to use—for a fee—
what would otherwise be a preferential lane for
HOT facility constructed in the median of SR 91
allows free passage to vehicles carrying three or
more people, whOe charging a fee to SOVs and
two-person carpools. Creating HOT lanes by
converting already existing carpool lanes is cur
rently imder design for the southbound 1-680
Sunol Grade carpool lane in Alameda and Santa
Clara counties. This facility would charge SOVs
for use, but would allow free passage to vehicles
carrying two or more people.
The fee charged for using the lane is used to
manage operations and prevent congestion in
the HOT lane through "dynamic pricing." To
I'
more actively balance demand with supply dur
ing operations, dynamic pricing is considered an
.''Sfeir;
I
i
essential component of many HOT lane opera
tions. Dynamic pricing scales up the cost for
hi.
using the HOT Lane as capacity (supply)
m
decreases to provide a liigher assurance of opti
mal operations. Just as for toU roads, revenues
from HOT lanes could be used to payfor aU or a
portion of the cost of the additional lane(s) or
the lane conversions, and to pay for transit serv
ices serving the corridor or other roadway
improvements in the corridor.
38
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
VISION
In 2004, State legislation (AB 2032, Dutra) was
passed giving VTA the authority to implement
r.-
HOT lane operations in up to two corridors in
Santa Clara County. VTA is currently conducting
a HOT Lanes Study to identify candidate corri
dors for further evaluation. The HOT Lane
Fecisibility Study includes an assessment of
-
Santa Clara County's freeway system to deter
mine if the operation of HOT lanes is feasible
and to identify viable corridors for HOT lane
yi€3f
operations. In addition, future studies for new
roadways, or for adding lanes to existing road
•.-r
ways, will consider roadway pricing as a method
of financing and operating these new facilities
and to provide services in the corridors.
VTP 2030
39
%
m
- 'r
'■
'
■•
:i.
- .j- ' r. - ..
'•
3=
^ -i. ■.
=
'f- >\
-»•' ! w '! '•;: r
m
■ '. ■
k.
m
M
.
: ^ , :^:i. -
/ ,.
*
&
.'•..^
, .
■ .
m
:
^..
■, •■'
.
-'
,- > «
■ :
.4 ■ -; -
■.
i ■■
■ .I'X >: ■■ '' '
■>
#
-
••
40
Valley Tronsporfation Authority
•' ; . i
chapter 2
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Y I "^his section of the plan, is the,.core of
JL VTP 2030.. It presents a capital
investment plan for a comprehensive set of
transportation projects and programs that, ,
express a vision of Santa Clara County's
transportation future. The Investment
The Plaruiing and'Funding Process .... 42
Program will guide VTA in enhancing both
■Capital hive.stment Program .'.
46
the count/s livability and its economic
Subarea Analysis
48 ■
health over the next 25 years. The success
\'TP 2030 Progrmn iVreas ■. '. . .
86
of these investments—both short- and long-
Highway Program
87
term—requires the ongoing commitment ,
Expressway Program
92
of VTA and its partnering agencies, as
Local Streels and County Roads
97
v/cll as the support of the Silicon Valley
Transit Semces and Programs
103
Transportation Systems:, Operations
and Management Program
Bicycle Program
•Livable Communities
and RedestrianPrograins ;
Systemwide
Performance Results
■
•
community;
-
,
.
:. 129
138
•. . 142
143
VTP 2030
41
The Planning
and Funding Process
As noted in Chapter 1, the projects, programs,
The Flow of Money
and services identified in this section will be
Locally generated funds are normally governed
funded from a number of local. State and
Federal fund sources. The process for dividing
up and allocating Federal and State funds to the
local level—and then to the various program
areas—is complex and varies by fund source.'
For the purposes of this plan, a brief summary
by local initiatives—such as a sales tax or parcel
tax measure—that earmark revenues for specif
ic purposes. Federal funds flow into the State
and are divided up based on both Federal and
State statutes and guidelines. State funds are
essentially moved to the regional and local level
of how this money flows to VTA is helpful in
through the State Transportation Improvement
understanding the overall financial planning
Planning (STIP) process, and allocated for spe
process for VTP 2030 and the policy environ
cific purposes in accordance with the statutes
ment that shapes VTA Board decisions.
and guideUnes governing the STIP process.
Various organizations may be involved along the
way—^for example, the California Transportation
Commission and Caltrans—but in the end the
funds essentially arrive at the regional level
where either a Regional Transportation Planning
Agency(RPTA) or a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) or both divide them up for
various dedicated and discretionary purposes.
|.V
These regional entities may, and most often do,
have their own statutes and guidelines for
directing funds to various uses.
^ -Vw
hi our case, the Metropolitan Transportation
J
r
» :>
Commission (MTC)functions as the MPO for
the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region.
The policies for MTC to assign transportation
funds to counties occur through the develop
ment of the long-range Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), which is prepared every four years.
1. Refer to MTC's "Moving Costs: A Transportation Funding
Guide for tiie San Francisco Bay Area," for additional infoi-mation about, the funding process.
42
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The Long-Range Transportation
Planning Process
Not surprisingly, the preparation of VTP 2030
coincides with MTC's preparation of the RTP, this
year called Transportation 2030, or T2030. The
projects and progranas included in VTP 2030 are
submitted to MTC for inclusion in the RTP. Any
project that could have regional significance, particulai'ly as it pertains to air quality or transporta
tion system capacity enhancement, must be in
the RTP to receive Federal or State funding, or
to move into construction or implementation
phases. The projects contained in VTP 2030 are
sent to MTC for inclusion in the RTP.
Constrained and Unconstrained Projects
Under guidelines established by the Federal
from developer fees, an mcrease in gasoline tax,
government in the 1998 Transportation Equity
or a new sales tax measure.
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and its earli
er sibling, the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),longrange transportation plans must be financially
constrahied. The financially constramed portion
of the RTP includes projects funded with pro
jected revenues from sources that exist today—
such as approved sales tax measures, Federal
flexible formula fuirds, or gas tax subventions.^
The unconstrained portion of RTP includes
projects that would be funded from sources that
do not exist today, but couid reasonabiy be
assumed to happen or be pursued within the
timeframe of the plan; for example, revenues
2. Fund sources are discussed in Chapter 1.
Like the RTP, not all of the programs and proj
ects identified in VTP 2030 can be funded with
the fund som'ces identified, which means that
VTP 2030 also has an unconstrained portion.
Both constrained and unconstrained projects
lists are presented in the Capital Investment
Program that follows.
The Programming Process
VTP 2030 is a long-range transportation plan
ning document. Neither it, nor RTP, set priori
ties or schedules for when projects are to be
implemented. Programming documents, such as
the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), are where priorities and schedules for
VTP 2030
43
delivery of specific projects are developed.
Approximately $100 billion of $108 billion in
These are shorter-range documents with a
projected revenue for the region is "committed"
three- to six-year timeframe. The VTA Board of
over the 25-year life of the RTF. The "commit
Directors and its partners deteimine an expen
ted" revenues consist of a mixtm'e of funds fi'om
diture program that will guide project priorities
the local, State and Federal sources discussed
and schedules that are affumed in these
earlier in this plan. The remaining $8.8 billion is
shorter-range programming documents.
considered "uncommitted" revenue that is
available for discretionary allocation to regional
MTC Fund Estimates
programs and the counties. Of this $8.8 billion,
As part of the development of the RTF, MTC
about $1.46 billion is projected to come directly
conducts an assessment of aU State and Federal
to Santa Clara County for allocation to the
revenue sources and prepares revenue projec
programs and projects in VTF 2030.
tions for the 25-year timeframe of the plan. Out
of the total pot of money coming into the
VTP 2030 Fund Projections
region, MTC policies for RTF identify revenues
and Allocations
that are already committed to an established set
Fart of the $1.46 billion noted above is ali-eady
of regional programs—^including a share for
committed by VTA to cover the county share of
Seinta Clara Coimty—and revenues that are not
the Transit Capital ShortfaE ($142m), Local
committed, and thus available for allocation to
Streets and County Roads Shortfall ($202m),
other programs and projects. Table 2-1 shows
and the Santa Clara County share of the
the breakdown of "committed" and "uncommit
Transportation for Livable Communities/
ted" revenues in the region.
Housing Incentive Frogram (TLC/HIF). Setting
Table 2-1 T2030 and VTP 2030 Revenues
Total T2030
Total Uncommitted
$108.IB (region)
Committed
$79.8B
Target $1.462B
UC/HIP $37.5M
Santa Clara share
of committed
S19.SB
Uncommitted
$8.88
44
Total VTA VTP 2030
$8.8B (region)
Valley Transportation Authority
Board
VTP 2030
$1.4628
Discretron
OSiTB
Transit Capital Shortfall
$142M
Local Streets and Roods
Shortfall $202M
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-2 VTP 2030 Program Allocation by Fund Source C03$/MiUions)
VTP 2030 Program
Federal
New
Starts
2000
Measure
A'
Highways
ITIP
TCRP'
$320.0
STIP
$127.3
Expressways
Prop. 42
(STIP)
STP/
TE/
CMAQ
TFCA
Total
$766.3
$319.0
150.0
150.0
Local Streets and
County Roads
50.3
179.7
230.0
Pavement Management
92.1
SoundwaUs
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
301.5
209.4
Landscape Restoration
& Graffiti Removal
2000 Measure A
Transit Program
973.0
5,017.0
732.0
6,829.0
107.0
TSM & Operations(ITS)
Bicycle Progi'am^
80.5
28.0
28.0
10.0
90.5
Livable Communities &
Pedestriair Program^
120.1
120.1
$410.0
$88.3 $8,526.4
Amount Available for
programs/projects^
$973.0
$5,017.0
$320.0
$732.0
$560.1
$426.0
1. Based on moderate sales tax gi-owth scenario, net of bonds approved by VTA Board to date
2. Net of TCRP allocations to date
3. Includes $30.4 million from Santa Clara Couniy's share of the Regional Bike Program
4. Includes $7,025 million from Santa Clara County's share of the Pedestrian component of the Regional Bike Program
5. Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections
provided by the Metropolitan TVanspoitation Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
these commitments aside, the VTA Board can
regarding each of these Program Areas and
apply $1.08 billion in discretionaiy revenue to the
their respective lists of projects are presented in
programs and projects in VTP 2030. In addition to
the following section—^The Capital Investment
the $1.08 billion, VTP 2030 allocations include the
Program.
2000 Measm'c A revenues for transit, TCRP funds,
and Federal New Staits funds, ITIP funds, and
the additional regional target amoimts for lifeline
transit, the Bicycle Program and the Livable
Communities and Pedestrian Program.
At its April 23, 2004 meeting, the VTA Board of
The VTA Board of Directors adopted the alloca
tions ammmts for the projects shown in this
table at its April 2004 meeting. These alloca
tions were based on revenue projections devel
oped for the Short Range Ti'ansit Plan (SRTP)
adopted by the VTA Board in February 2004.
Dii-ectors approved allocations for the ten VTP
The Boai'd is currently developing a Transit
2030 Program Area, as showir in Table 2-2.
Expenditure Plan to deliver the 2000 Measure A
Table 2-2 also includes Santa Clara County's
Program that considers a more conservative
share of regional commitments.
projection for sales tax revenues. This more
The total amount availabie for VTP 2030 pro
grams and projects is $8.53 billion. Details
conservative sales tax figure is reflected in
Table 1-9 on page 27.
VTP 2030
45
Capital Investment Program
How will transportation systems respond in the
focus does not change the fact that VTA's activities
coming decades to people's evolving needs for
extend far beyond construction of roadway and
travel options and continuing pressures of local
transit projects, and include transit and paratransit
and regional growth? How can we get more out
operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, plan
of existing investments in transportation and
ning activities, and land use programs.
urban infrastructure and services? How can new
projects make alternative modes more attrac
tive? What is the best balance between transit
and roadway investments, and how can trans
portation investments address or encourage ben
eficial changes in land use patterns and commu
nity Uvability? Responding effectively to these
questions will require vision, dedication, creathnty, and innovative changes in the way we design
and manage Santa Clara County's transportation
systems and built envirorunent.
VTP 2030 Capital Investment Program is built on
a vision in which the existmg roadway network is
better managed with ITS improvements: an
expanded high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)sys
tem, improved interchanges, freeway-to-freeway
connector ramps, and some freeway upgrades.
Transit lines are expanded, and existing transit
services are refined—increasing efficiency and
productivity, and requiring fewer resources.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements augment
other modes and firmly establish walking and
'The liigh cost and lengthy delivery process for
biking as viable forms of travel. Overall, land use
major capital investments means that they are the
decisions are better mtegrated and coordinated
focus of the long-range transportation plan. Tliis
so as to complement and support transportation
projects.
?s;>i
The $8.53 billion package of progranrs and proj
ects to implement this vision are discussed in the
following sections of VTP 2030. However, much of
SB
the work that keeps the overall transportation
system going is accomplished through periodic
planning efforts such as the preparation and
agi!}
implementation of the Congestion Management
Program (CMP),the Short Range Transit Plan
(SRTP), Annual Transit Service Plans, the
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
Program, and through the progranuning of indi
vidual funding sources.
46
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Understanding the Investment
sive plamiing studies for future transit invest
Program
ments, roadway improvements, intelligent trans
The Capital Investment Program addresses trans
portation systems (ITS), bicycle facilities, pedes
portation-related projects and actions in Santa
trian facilities, and land use.
Clara County that involve participation by VTA
All of the projects presented in these lists were
and its partnering agencies, impact inter-jurisdic-
evaluated using mode-specific methodologies
tional travel, of are regional in nature. These
approved by VTA Committees and the Board of
investments are location-specific improvements
Directors. After a public review period and a
for four modes of travel: roadway (including HOY
series of public outreach meetings and YTA
and ITS), transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. The
Board Workshops, the VTA Cornmittees and
projects and programs for these modes are cov
Board approved the project lists in April 2004 for
ered in ten Program Areas:
inclusion in VTP 2030 and the RTP. The process
1.
Highway Program
2.
Expressway Program
ment program, and for future updates to the pro
3.
Local Streets and County Roads Program
gram,is presented in Chapter 4 of the plan.
4.
Pavement Management Program
5.
Sound Mitigation Program
6.
Landscape Restoration and Graffiti
Removal Program
7.
Transit Program
used as input into the countywide,.regional, and
8.
Systems Operations and Management Program
statewide planning and programming process.
9.
Bicycle Program
10. Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program
for evaluation, review, and approval of this invest
Programming Projects
Together, the plan's projects and programs will be
These iirclude the Expenditure Plan for sales tax
reauthorizations, the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), and MTC's
Developing the Project Lists
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These
Because the VTP 2030 Capital Investment
and other planning, programming, and funding
Program represents a strong commitment to
documents and authorizing legislation wiU be
specified projects and programs, forming the
consistent with the capital investments presented
project lists required extensive technical analysis
in this section.
and broad input. VTA's member and partnering
agencies have been the primary source for identi
fying the projects. In addition, since the adoption
of VTP 2020 in December 2000, VTA has devel
oped new programs and conducted comprehen
Projects and Programs
The remaining sections of the Capital Investment
Program are presented in two parts:
1) Geographic Subareas and 2) Program Areas.
VTP 2030
47
Table 2-3 Travel Demond for the Seven Suboreos
S U B A R E A
(wilhin Santa Clara Conniy;. AM peak hour person trips)
ANALYSIS
As shown in the map on page 49, seven subareas
2000
focus on travel within the county's boundaries
and four gateways focus on inter-county travel.
Each of the subarea discussions consists of a
uo.ooo
description of travel demand and growth projec
120,000
tions in that subarea over the next 25 years; a
100.000
summary of the investment program for the
subarea; and concludes with a map and Hst of
80.000
the specific projects by mode-
60,000
Km?
40,000
In order to gain an understanding of travel
patterns in the county, Table 2-3 presents the
estimated 2000 and projected 2030 person trips
Central
EatI
VoUoy
County
County
South
West
County
Volley
destined (trips to or within) for each of the
seven county subareas. As shown, all seven
Table 2-4 Person Trips Across the Gatev/ays
county subareas wiU experience growth in the
fAATpeak hour)
number of trips destined for that subarea. The
Downtown subarea will experience the highest
TOTAL
percentage of growth (74.2 percent) followed by
South County (72.7 percent). Central County
will experience the greatest growth in the
TOTAL
45.586
TOTAL:
number of trips, with 46,500 new trips coming
into the central part of the comity.
TOTAL
38.959
40.138
TOTAL
TOTAL
6.900
2000
2030
Peninsula Goteway
48
2000
2030
East Bay Gateway
Valley Transportation Authority
2000
2030 '
Southern Gaieway
TOTAL n
7,576
9.656
2000
2030
Santo Crvz Gateway
chapter O INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Geographic Study Areas
East Bay Cdnnoc tjng Al.iinodn,
Gateway foiilriiCoMii
bisn Jciiquin, aiul
Si.iiiisi.ins ron[i(U'-»
Poninsula
.
Gateway
[
r<>iinc( ling Mriiiti, f
Sail rmiioi^to,
!
Notlliv.'cst
Oaunty
Northeast
Caunly
\S.IR
Ohiiuk
I
;:cist
Vulloy
\
Qawntown
\~
S^ Woat Valluy
Mountiuiunis
Al IM
Central
County
\
"N.
South
County
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Cuiim-i'tiiiit
Saiit.i Cnir CniirUv
•\
■\
A
/
N
.
^
Southern
Gateway
i
Coiuit I'tinif frill rk'iiito;
Mcicui, and
M(inii»ri*y Cduiiiicb
VTP 2030
49
Northeast County Subarea
way, highway, transit and bicycle upgrades and
improvements. ITS improvements to US 101,1-
The Northeast County subarea consists of
880,1-680, SR 237, Lavvrence Expressway,
Western MUpitas, Northern San Jose and
Central Expressway, Bowers Avenue, Old
Northern Santa Clara. Principal roadways
Oakland Road and other major thoroughfares
include US 101,1-880,1-680, SR 237, Montague
will increase roadway efficiency and reduce
Expressway, Central Expressway and Lawrence
delay from congestion and metermg lights.
Expressway. Transit service includes the
Nearly the enthe lengths of Montague
Altamont Commuter Express train, Caltrain,
Expressway, Lawrence Expressway and Central
Mountain View, Guadalupe and Alum Rock Light
Expressway wdll undergo major upgrades
Rail lines, and express and local VTA bus lines.
including new interchanges, additional lanes
and HOV lane modifications. Highway improve
Travel Patterns in 2030
ments such as interchange improvements and
Northeast County is one of five subareas with
additional HOV lanes will speed up commutes
more inbound AM peak conunuters (77,900)
along US 101,1-680 and SR 237. Tf-ansit
than outbound (28,400). Inbound trips come
improvements include the extension of BART to
largely from the East Bay Gateway (18,600) and
San Jose and upgrades to the Altamont
the East Valley (16,200), West Valley (11,100),
Conunuter Express train. Cross-county bicycle
and Central County (11,600) subareas.
trails wiU be constructed along San Tomas
Outbound trips go mostly to the Northwest
Aquino Creek in Santa Clara and San Jose as
County (6,700), the West Valley (4,600) and
well as the extension of the Coyote Creek Trail
East Valley (4,100) subareas as well as north
to the East Bay tlmough San Jose and Milpitas.
through the East Bay Gateway (3,800).
Other improvements include the River Oaks
bicycle and pedestrian bridge that will better
Investment Program
cormect neighborhoods and shopping areas to
The capital investments in the Northeast
the Guadalupe light rail line.
County subarea center around intelligent trans
portation systems (ITS) technologies, express
50
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for Noriheasi.Comii.y Subami,in 2030)
East Bay
I&=t"!i'600»'
Pomnsula
Gateway
•
Connecting Mann, Y ^
San Francisco,
& Sah Malco
\
'* "^
Coniiociing Al.'unoda,
&mJu.w.P.i»l
SLinjslciii^(
Northwest
Co'jiity
OB-6,700
IBS9,700 ^
Counties
E'jsl
■OB=li800'':
•IB=2,OO0>'";
/
V^ert Valley
Valley
uov/htown
6b=3,700 ■
B=4,100
OB
=16,200
iB=6. 00
03=4,600
.. 16=11.100
Miiiiiiluiiiiiii.s
AiVd
Central
County
OB=2,900
16=11,600
N
South
County
6b=400
Santa Cruz
16=900-
Gateway
Coiii'LT'-iiii;
K.ini.'i Cm/ Criiiiiiy
OB=300, . ■
16=600
h
\.
Southern
Gateway
CntlMiH'llll)!S.lII lilMIIIll
Mi-rci'il, iiiul
Miinli'ivy Cniintii 'i
OB=10"0
16=1,100'
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Northeast County suborea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Northeast County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Northeast
County subarea in the a.rn. peak hour
.
i
I
m
Internal Trips
23,600
Outbound ifips
28,400 '
Inbound Trips
77,900
r
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
51
VTP 2030 Propjosed Projects, Northeast County
/
if
t. i
5-
N
52
Valley TransportoHon Authority
-
chapter
INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Table 2-5 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northeast County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTPID
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
('03$/MiUums)
T1
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
T2
BART'
$22.0
14
Caltrain Electrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
T12
Mineta San Jose International Airport
ROl
Galaveras Blvd. overpass widening with
$40.0
4,193.0
ARM Connector
400.0
HlOl-06 US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
Central Expwy.Interchange improvements
27.0
R02
Oakland Rd. widening fi-om US 101 to
Montague Expwy.
10.0
R04
Berryessa Rd. widening from US 101 to 1-680
R11
Montague Expwy./Great Mall Parkway—
Capitol Ave. grade separation
R13
Dixon Landing Rd. widening
7.0
24.5
0.6
36.0
R16
Charcot Ave. connection
10.0
R23
Lawrence Expwy.& Wildwood Ave.
roadway realignment & traffic signal
3.0
R33
Dixon Landing Rd. at North Milpitas
HlOl-11 US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dn/Fomth St,
I/C Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
Blvd. Intersection improvements
1.0
7.0
B16
Berryessa Creek "frail (Reach 3)
0.9
HlOl-12 US 101 SB auxiliary lane Great
America Pkwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
B17
Coyote Creek frail (Reach 1)
1.2
2.0
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of UPRR
tracks (near Great Mall)
5.6
B30
Coyote Creek frail(Hwy 237/Bay frail
to Story/Keyes)
6.1
B31
Guadalupe River fraU (Alviso St. to Hvt 880)
5.1
B35
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
2.8
B36
San Tomas Expwy. Aquino Greek frail
(Hwy 237 to City Limits)
17.0
S701
South Milpitas Blvd. Smart Corridor
0.5
SI 200
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
3.5
S20n
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
2.0
S3001
County of Santa Clara Traffic Operations
System Improvements
18.0
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
HlOl-07 US 101 auxiliary lane widenings: Trimble Rd.
to Montague Expwy.
HlOl-10 US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental &Preliminary Engineering
HlOl-25 US 101 SB auxiliaiy lane widening;
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
8.0
HlOl-26 US 101 MB auxiliary lane widening;
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
9.0
H237-10 SR 237 WB auxiliary lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
15.0
H680-01 1-680 HOV lanes; Calaveras Blvd.to SR 84
25.0
H680-02 I-680/I-880 cross-connector environmental
& conceptual engineering
X04
7.0
Central Ebcpwy.—convert the Measure B HOV
lane widening between San Tomas Ebcpwy. &
De La Cruz Bivd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV
queue jump lanes at Scott Blvd., if unsuccessful
after a three- to five-year trial period
X05
XI0
Central Expwy.—widen to six lanes between
Lawrence & San Toiuas Expwys. without
HOV lane operations
S4020
S4030
XI7
Montague Expwy.—baseline project consisting
mixed-flow use east of 1-880
S4060
5.7
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
3.0
0.1
1. Measure A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TGRP
of eight-lane widening & 1-880 partial do
Interchange with at-grade improvements at
Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria DrTRiver Oaks Pky.,
hinds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million
in other funds. Does not assume addition^ bonding for construction.
2. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
additional service.
Main St/Old Oakland Rd. & McCandless Dr./
TrEide Zone Blvd.
5.4
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Bucldey St,and St
Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp (not mapped) 0.5
Montague Exi)wy.—convert HOV lanes to
3.6
Caltrans 1-680 Conidor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
0.1
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave.& right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
XI6
& Ramp Metering'
10.0
Lawrence Expwy.—convert HOV to mixed
flow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
XI1
0.1
4.4
38.5
3. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
53
Northwest County Subarea
several bicycle and roadway projects. Major ITS
improvements wUl cover the entire lengths of
The Northwest County subarea consists of Palo
Lawrence, FootluU and Oregon Expres,sways.
Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Northern
Investments to aU three of these expressways
Cupertino. Principal roadways include US 101,
wUl include roadway widening aird interchange
1-280, SR 85, SR 237, Central Expressway,
improvements. Other major thoroughfares such
Oregon Expressway, Foothill Expressway,
as Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza
Lawrence Expressway, El Caraino Real and
Boulevard, Fair Oaks Avenue and Fremont
Stevens Creek Boulevard. Transit service
Avenue will be the recipients of ITS improve
includes Caltrain commuter raU, Amtrak, the
ments. Palo Alto's Smart Residential Arterials
Mountain View Light RaU line and various
roadway project wUl put in place intelligent traf
express and local VTA bus lines.
fic management and multimodal amenities on
major residential corridors such as University
Travel Patterns in 2030
Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road
Northwest County is one of five subareas with
and San Antonio Road. Caltrain will undergo
more inbound AM peak commuters (65,900)
electrification and service upgrades and bus
than outbound (41,700). Inbound trips come
rapid transit (BRT) service will improve transit
largely from the West VaUey subarea (15,500
along El Canuno Real. The Palo Alto Intermodal
commuters) as weU as the East Bay (13,300
Transit Center vrill increase train, bus, bicycle
commuters) and Peninsula (13,400 commuters)
and pedestrian interconnectivity. The extension
gateways. Outbound trips head largely to the'
of the Stevens Creek Trail, and several bicycle
Peninsula Gateway (12,200 commuters) and the
improvements along the Central
West VaUey (11,900 conunuters) and Northeast
Expressway/Caltrain corridor ■will facilitate safer
County (9,700 comnuiters) subareas.
and easier bicycle travel.
Investment Program
The capital investments in the Northwest
County subarea include major upgrades in intel
ligent transportation systems (ITS) technolo
gies, expressways and transit services as well as
54
Volley Transportation Authority
chapter
INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for NoriJmesi County Suharea in 2030)
; Peninsula
East Boy
Gateway
Connecting Alanietla,
|
contra Costi,
OB=2i500
IB=13,300
SanJoaquin, and
St<nisl,ii]s Ckiniitii.-
OB=9,700
i' Gateway
I Connecting Mann,
16=6,700,
No:
i ihecst
f San Franiasco,
county
j &San Matcoi*
Counties
Last
.|.6B^'2,20dft
.16=13,400 *
•'niley
Downtown
06=11,900
tejJSlSOOl
-
06=900
6=5,300
08=1,800
16=2.600 -
iMoiiinninmis
Aica
West
Valley
Central
Coui.ty
06=2;100
16=6,600
South
County
06=200
1 Santa Cruz
= 16=500 n
r Gateway
Conned iim
Santa ("rii/: Cniitifv
'f-jOBUOO, '
?&1B=600
: 06=100
16=1,400
- :
Southern
GatewayJf-sfIS
Cuimei InigSiiii Heiiilii.
Ml ivi tl, and
.Mi)m«-ieyC'(iiinti(-'
internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Northwest County suboreo in the a.m. peak hour
55,700
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Northwest County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
41,700 '
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Northwest
County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips
Outbound Trips
inbound Trips
65,900
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
55
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northwest County
\-
-
> -^'"' " / n - V .-" ."■ ■V'H'v'
u'.
,
^.
m
<
M
. V
*-».
i:\
56
Valley Transportation Authority
♦»-
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-6 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northwest County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
('03$/MUUo'i
('03$/Millions)
T1
Altainont Conmiuter Express Upgrade
T3
Bus Rapid Transit—El Canrino Real
R05
Mathilda at SR 237 corridor hnprovements
50.0
R07
Mathilda Caltrain bridge reconstruction
R23
Lawrence Expwy.AVildwood Ave.
roadway realignment and traffic signal
4.4
R34
Magdalerra Ave. & Country Club intersection
signalization
0.4
R37
Java Drive bicycle shared use improvements
0.4
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Project
6.2
R60
Miramonte Ave. bikeway improvements
1.0
B09
Page MiIl/I-280 Interchange bike improvements
5.0
T4
Calfrairr Electrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
T8
Dumbarton Rail
278.0
113
Palo Alto Intermodal Center"
200.0
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
H85-05
SR 85 NB to EB SR 237 cormector ramp
improvement
H85-09
Frerrront Ave. improvements at SR 85
H85-10
SR 85 auxiliary lanes between
Homestead Rd. and Fremont Ave.
7.0
22.0
2.0
19.0
HlOl-19 US 101 SB auxiliary lane improvement
between Ellis St & SR 237
intersection improvements
B14
Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Bridge replacement 0.5
B15
Steverrs Creek Trail feasibility study
0.1
B22
Stevens Creek TVail, Reach 4 Central
823
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 South
5.0
3.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Tuba Dr. to North Meadow)
3.8
18.0
B25
Bicycle Boulevard/Lanes Network
5.0
B26
California Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
9.0
B27
Homer Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
5.6
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
6.5
841
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes(Weddell to Caribbean) 0.2
3.0
H237-02 SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
cormector ramp improvements
H237-03 SR 237 widening for HOV lanes between
SR 85 and east of Mathilda Ave.
H237-04 SR 237 WB on-ramp at Middlefreid Rd.
36.0
8.0
H237-05 SR 237 WB to NB US 101 cormector ramp
improvements
8.0
B42
H237-06 SR237/US 101/MathUda Ave.
Interchange improvements
improvement
0.4
B44
Sunnyvale East Drainage Tiail(JWC
Greenway to Tasman)
0.5
B45
Sumryvale Train Station North Side Access
1.8
SI000
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
0.4
SHOT
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential Arterials
Project'
6.2
51401
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal
5.0
3.0
Central Expwy.—^widen between Lawrence
Exprvy. & Mary Ave. to provide auxiliary
an^or acceleration/deceleration lanes
X07
6.5
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes (Sunnyvale Ave. to
Reed Ave.)
B43
H237-09 Lawrence Expwy./SR 237 auxiliary lane
13.0
Foottull Exjrwy.—replace Loyola Bridge in
Los Altos. Also hsted as R15 and B07 in the
LSCR and Bicycle Program
X08
10.0
System on Major Arterials
2.8
51402
City of Suimyr'ale CCTV Camera Deployment
0.6
53001
County of Santa Clara Traffic
Operations System Improvements
54030
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
Foothill Expwy.—fraffic/signal operational
corridor improverneirts between Edith Ave.
& El Monte Ave. inchrding adjacent side street
intersectiotrs & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
1.5
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrosstngs
at US 101 &SR 237
13.0
H237-08 SR 237 EB auxiliary lanes from
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
17.4
4.0
H237-01 SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd.
X06
$50.0
$22.0
18.0
X09
Foothill Ebrpwy.—extend existing westbound
XIO
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to
xn
Lawrence Ebcpwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave.& right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Bucldey St,and St
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements
Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp(not mapped) 0.5
2. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center requires additional funds not
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor
improvements
5.0
3. Also listed as a Local Streets ai\d County Roads project.
Oregon Page MiU Expwy.—
I-280/Page Mill Interchange modification
5.0
deceleration lane at San Antorrio Rd.
mixed flow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
X18
XI9
X20
0.5
0.1
54040
5.7
Caltrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
and Ramp Meteirng"
4.8
and additional service.
identified at this time.
4. Covered by project identified in VTA Hlgh\vay Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—^Alma Bridge
Replacement Feasibility Study
& Ramp Metering"
0.3
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and wirfi project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
57
Downtown San Jose
Investment Program
Subarea
Major capital investments in new transit servic
es and sizeable roadway projects as well as sig
The Downtown subarea consists of Downtown
nificant pedestrian and bicycle projects define
San Jose. Principal roadways include US 101,
the downtown improvements. Bringing BART
1-280, SR 87, SR 17/1-880, El Camino Real/The
into downtown will connect Santa Clara
Alameda/Santa Clara Street and San Carlos
County's urban center vrith the rest of the Bay
Street. Transit service includes Guadalupe Light
Area, as well as other transit services like;
RaO, Caltrain commuter rail, Amtrak rail,
Caltrain conunuter rail, Amtrak, Altamont
Altamont Coiranuter Express, Highway 17
Coiirmuter Express, Highway 17 Express Bus
Express bus service and various express and
and VTA bus, BRT and light rail lines including
local VTA bus lines.
the new Vasona light raU line (opeiring 2005).
To improve automobOe circulation, five one-waj*^
Travel Patterns in 2030
couplets will be changed to two-way traffic
Downtown is one of five subareas with more
among other projects. The Los Gatos Creek
inbound AM peak commuters (36,800) than out
Ti'ail will be extended into downtovm San Jose
bound (24,300). Inbound trips come largely
and wiU improve the area's connection to the
from the Central County (12,200 commuters)
existing bicycle iretwork.
and East Valley (8,300 commuters) subareas.
Outbound trips go mostly to the adjacent
Northeast County (6,100 commuters). Central
County (5,800 commuters) and West Valley
(4,600 commuters) subareas.
58
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for Doiunlown San Jose Subarea in 2030)
East Bay (.'(Miiici (in;; AKinu'iLi,
Gateway C'nmrsLCfisIji
OB l,CCo\
IB *^,700
'•
Peninsula's
Gateway
Wortliv/esf
County
Connecting Mann^
\
. 1B=3.700'-
OE-o,10J
Nortiieasi
OB=2,70C
18=8,300
08=2/jC: *'**'>,Ccunry
San Ftancibco,
iiSaiiMaiuo
Conntics .
San.Ioiiquin.jnd
Si«iiii«*l»uis< (iiiiilii'-j
T;800,
East ■
Vcsllsy
'^8=900
■. 18=500^:"
•4>
UK'
West Valley
08=4,600
Mouiittiinoiis
"V.
Central
County
18=5,400
08=5,800
18=12,200
Soulli
County
08=300
Santa Cruz
18=500
Gateway
C c)niic(*l:ng
Sari.iC'nv C'oiinly
08=200
•V 18=300
\
/
A
'
.O8fe50^il
\_
,18=400 ■
Southern
Gateway
rk'-V-
Comicctmc, Sail IJeiiilu,
i'
jMeiced iiiid
Mulileivv CiiuiilKs
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Downtown subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Downtown subarea in
the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Downtown
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips'?'
13,100
Outbound jtrips"
Inbound Trip
36,800
24,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
59
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Dowtown Son Jose
m
m
/
9
\
\
ip
m
\
r
i
ft p
60
Valley Transportation Authority
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-7 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Downtown San Jose
VTP ID
Project
T1
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
12
BART'
13
Bus Rapid Transit—Line 22, Stevens Creek Blvd., Monterey Hwy.
14
Caltrain Eleetrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades®
171.0
T7
Downtown East Valley"
550.0
19
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
2.0
HlOl-10
US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange Environmental & Preliminaiy Engineering
3.0
HlOl-25
US 101 SB auxiliary lane widening; 1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
8.0
HlOl-26
US 101 NB auxiliary lane widening: 1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
9.0
H88003
1-880/1-280/Stevens Creek Blvd. Interchange improvements—-Phase I
14.0
R03
Coleman Ave. widening
14.0
R08
Autumn St. extension
10.0
R22
Downtown couplet conversions
20.0
R35
Park Ave. improvement
1.0
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.^
0.2
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
S4060
CaltrEuis US 101 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering"
3.0
Cost
C03$/Millions)
$22.0
4,193.0
50.0
1. Measure A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TCRP funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million in other
funds. Does not assume additional bonding for constmction.
2. Caltrain service upgrades inchide track and facility improvements and additional service.
3. DTEV includes Enhanced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an extension to
Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy will be developed as EIS and PE ai-e completed on both portions.
4. Also listed as an ITS project.
5. Covered by project identified in YTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal rev
enue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MIC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
61
East Valley Subarea
Investment Program
The capital investments in the East Valley
The East Valley subarea consists of Eastern San
Jose and Eastern MUpitas. Principal roadways
include US 101,1-680 and Capitol Expressway.
Transit service includes the Alum Rock-Santa
Teresa Light Rail line and \'TA bus lines.
efficiency and expanding transit options. New
transit services including BART and a
Downtown-East Valley Light Rail/BRT line will
better connect this subarea vnth the rest of the
county. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
Travel Patterns in 2030
technologies will better manage traffic flow and
More commuters wUl leave the East Valley sub-
light metering, reducing delays on US 101 and
area (56,100) than will enter (21,400) during
major commuter thoroughfares like Capitol
the AM peak hour. Outbound trips ■will largely
go to the Northeast County (16,200 com
muters), Central County (11,100 commuters)
and Downtown (8,300 commuters) subareas.
tobomid trips ■will come largely from the Central
County (7,300 commuters) and Northeast
County (4,100 commuters).
62
subarea are aimed at impro^ving roadway
Valley Transportation Authority
Expressway, Stoiy Road and King Road.
Interchange improvements along US 101 will
reduce delay, as well.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for East Valley Subarea in 2030)
- East Bay Connccbng AI<inieda,
Gateway CuntraCoHUi,
San Joaquin,c
OB=4,300 \ St.uiislaiis Counties.
^'Peninsula : ^
! Gataway
iConnocting Marin,
(Sail Fnuicisco,
•&Sati MaU?o
Coxmtiest
Northwest
>
County
', - '
Ncitheasi
OB=5,300'. , County '
liiMlBt.90Q ; ... OB=16,200*
^
1^1
ir 1 100,
:; iB=3oo^ ^
Mountainous
Area .
Downtown
i3Bf8|306fe
IBl2iS>0^l%!?
West Valley
,o'b=6,400!
Central
County
OBSl1171:00
IB=7,300
\
South
County
QBfiliiife)
lB=600:Sffl
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Comipc'ting'
Santa Cnr.! County
bB=5ob
■#;iB=3oo,:
'v
1
'j
;-w
OB=J0O|
, ■,v,IB=400. 1
Southern
•
Gateway
1
Connecting San Benito, i
MerceiCancI
Monterey Couni ic.-.
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
East Valley subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the East Valley subarea i
the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the East Valley
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips
26,800
Inbound Trips
Pu}p6uh:d-TriF>?
.56,100
21,400
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
63
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects^ East Valley
N
64
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-8 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, East Valley
VTP ID
Project
12
BART'
13
Bus Rapid Transit
T7
Downtown East VaUey^
HIOMO
US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St Interchange Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
H10M4
US 101/TulIy Rd. Interchange modifications
22.0
HlOl-15
US 101 SB widening from Story Rd. to Yerba Buena Rd.
11.0
HlOl-16
US 101/Capitol Expwy. Interchange improvements
20.0
H680-01
1-680 HOV Lanes; Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
25.0
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection modifications, left-tiim lane,
caipool lane adjustments & stripping modifications
2.0
R27
King Rd. pedestrian improvement at Barberry
1.0
RSI
Alum Rock School District area traffic calming elements'
2.0
B30
Coyote Creek Tiail (H-yvy 237/Bay Trail to Story Rd./Keyes St.)
6.1
32010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
33001
County of Santa Clara Traffic Operations System Improvements
34020
Caltrans 1-680 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering'
5.4
34060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering'
3.0
Cost
C03$/MUlions)
$4,193.0
50.0
550.0
3.0
18.0
1. Measm-e A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TCRP funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69
million in other funds. Does not assume additional bonding for construction.
2. DTEV includes Enlmnced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an
extension to Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy will be developed as EIS and PE are completed on both portions.
3. Covered by project identiiied in VTA Highway Program,
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections end project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State
and Federal revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MIC)and with project cost estimates developed
in 2003.
VTP 2030
65
West Valley Subarea
investment Program
The capital investments in the West Valley sub-
The West Valley subarea consists of Los Altos,
area consist of improved transit semce, highway
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
improvements, intelligent transportation systems
Southern Cupertino, Saratoga, Campbell,
(ITS) technologies, bicycle network connections
Southern Santa Clara and Western San Jose.
and expressway and roadway upgrades.
Principal roadways include 1-280, SR 85, SR 17,
Upgrades to the Highway 17 Express bus and a
Lawrence Expressway, San Tomas Expressway,
new bus rapid transit(BRT) hue along Stevens
Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard,
Saratoga Avenue and Wmchester Boulevard.
Transit service includes Caltrain commuter rail.
Highway 17 Express Bus service and various
express and local VTA bus lines.
Creek Boulevard wiH improve transit service.
Sound mitigation along the entire length of SR
85, and improvements to 1-280 at SR 85/Foothill
Expressway and SR 17 in Campbell should
alleviate commute crunches. ITS improvements
are coming to Lawrence Expressway, Foothill
Travel Patterns in 2030
66
Expressway, Winchester Boulevard, Hamilton
West Valley is one of five subai'eas with more
Avenue, Saratoga Avenue and Kiely Boulevard.
inbound AM peak commuters (57,100) than
Bicycle improvements to SR 9, the Stevens
outbound (54,200). Inbound trips come lai-gely
Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail and the
from the Central County (16,900 commuters)
Los Gatos Creek Trail wiU be constructed.
and Northwest County (11,900 commuters)
Widening and improvements to San Tomas
subareas. Outbound trips go mostly to the adja
Expressway and Lawi-ence Expressway will
cent Northwest County (15,500 commuters).
increase roadway capacity. Upgrades to De Anza
Northeast County (11,100 commuters) and
Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue will improve
Central County (10,600 commuters) subareas.
commutes along these corridors.
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapferQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Jor West. Valley Suharea,in 2030)
OB=2,000
IB=6,300
i Peninsula'
!.Gateway-
j'CuniiecUiig Mann,
San Francisco,'
OB= 5.500
IB"11,900
Nci
iliwest
•^i iliwes
County
East Bay
Mki icild.
Gateway roniia C oMa
Ssin .lontiDin, and
^iani.si:iu.s CoiinOes
OB=11,100
IB=4;60p
Nci'thcast
County
& SanMateo-
Counties j \
' . OB=1,900'?'
. - IB=6,400 .
OB=5 -iOO wgu';'
•a&=5Moii
Mounuiiiioiis
„^IB=4,600, vafiey -
iB=3,ipo;:f
Al IM
Dov/ntown
Central
County
i
GB=10,600
JB=16,900,
Soutn
Couniv
OB=700
IB=-900
Santa Cruz
Gateway
C'liniii'i'iiiu;
Santa Ciii.- I'ouiity
-
\
■OB= 1,800
1B=1,400 ■
k
fi;.OB='li800--i"l!i
,®=900
,
;
—Southern
Gateway
Coimectmg San B&fej
Meiced, and
_ ■ i
Monlcicy Counties
Inbound Trips
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end In the
West Valley subarea in the a.m. peak hour
57,100
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the West Valley subarea
in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound Trips:
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the West Valley
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
54,200
^ '
'Internal Trips^ixj
''
53,300
- '■ /
j
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
67
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, West Volley
to
»rMi
\
68
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-9 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, West Valley
VIP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MilUo7ts)
C03$/MiUions)
T3
BOl
Bus Eapid Transit—El Camino Real i
Stevens Creek Blvd.
$50.0
14
Caltrain Electrification
650.0
15
Caltraiir Service Upgrades'
171.0
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
H17-01
SR17 improvements, NB SR 17 auxiliary
lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
H85-02
SR 85 noise mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
H280-05 1-280 NB second exit lane to Foothill Expwy.
2.0
12.0
7.0
1.0
H880-03 I-880/l-280/Stevens Creek Blvd.
mrercnange unprovemenis—rnase i
xn
XI2
XI3
X14
XI5
X21
X22
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave. & right-in-and-out access at De Soto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St.,
St. Lawrence/Lawrence Station onramp
& south of Calvert Dr.
4.0
LawTence Expwy.-—optimize signal coordination
along Lawrence Expwy.-Saratoga Ave. corridor
0.1
Lawrence Expwy.—coordinate and optimize
signal phasing aird tuning plans m 1-280/
Lawrence Expwy. Interchange area
Lawrence Expwy.—prepare a Caltrans PSR
for tier IC project at the Lawrence Expwy/
Calvert Dr./l-280 Interchange area-
San Tomas Expwy.—^provide an additional
WB right-turn lane at Moruoe St.
X23
X24
R21
0.8
810
Boliinger Rd. bicycle facility improvement
0.4
811
Maiy Ave.(1-280) bike/pedestrian overcrossing
/. I
819
Hwy 9 bike lanes (Saratoga Ave.-Los Gatos Blvd.) 1.7
836
San Tomas Aquino Greek TVail
(Hwy 237 to Gity Limits)
17.0
Santa Glara Intermodal Transit Genter
bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing*
5.0
838
Gox Ave. railroad grade crossings
0.5
839
PGE De Anza Trail (Reach 3)
2.5
S101
Hamilton Ave. Intelligent Transportation System
0.3
S102
Gity of Gampbeil traffic signal system upgrade
0.3
S103
Winchester Blvd. Intelligent
Transportation System
0.3
Gity of Santa Glara Gommunications
network upgrade
3.5
51301
Gity of Saratoga citywide signal upgrade project
0.5
S1401
Gity of Sunnyvale traffic adaptive signal system
on mtqor arterials
2.8
S3001
Gounty of Santa Glara traffic operations
system improvements
0.0
1.0
S4040
18.0
Galtrans SR 85 Goi-ridor TOS elements
& ramp metering®
28.0
54050
4.8
Galtrans 1-280 Gorridor TOS elements
& ramp metering®
2D
San Tomas Expwy.—at-grade improvements at
SR 17/San Tomas
Los Gatos Greek Trail bridge
& path improvements(Mozart-Gamden)
0.1
San Tomas Expwy.—^provide 2nd EB, WB &
NB left-turn lanes at Hamilton Ave.
2.0
803
SI200
San Tomas Expwy.—widen to eight lanes
between Williams Rd. & Ei Camino Real
Los Gatos Greek Trail Expansion on
west side (Hamilton Ave.-Campbeil Ave.)
837
Lawrence Expwy.—^widen to eight ianes
between Moorpaik Ave. & Boliinger Rd.
$1.5
802
14.0
0.5
Campbell Ave. improvements at Hwy 17
& Los Gatos Creek
55004
2.2
Silicon Valley ITS program upgrades
27.0
2.0
Union Ave. widening from Los GatosAlmaden Rd. to Ross Creek
1.7
R25
Campbell Ave. bicycle/pedestrian improvements
2.0
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
R29
Winchester Blvd. streetscape improvement
4.0
2. Project cannot be timded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
R31
Qirito Rd. unprovements
1.9
R34
Magdalena Ave./Country Club Dr.
intersection signalization
additional sei-vice.
3. Also listed as an ITS project.
4. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
0.4
Program.
5. Also listed as LSOR project.
R75
Moody Rd.improvements
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. improvements
0.6
R89
Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase IF
0.5
R91
Rancho Rinconada Neighborhood
Traffic Cahnlng Project
0.1
6. Covered by project identified in VTA Higiiway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission |MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
69
South County Subarea
Investment Program
The capital investments in the South County
The South County subarea consists of Morgan
Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, South San Jose and
unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
Principcd roadways include US 101, SR 152, SR
25, SR 156 and Santa Teresa Boulevard. Transit
service includes Caltrain commuter rail, Amtrak,
and various express and local VTA bus lines.
revolve around highway expansion, new transit
'service, significant intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) technologies improvements along
commute corridors and roadway improvements.
US 101 will be widened southward to the San
Benito County line. Interchange, roadway
improvements and widening will improve SR 25
and SR 152 and better manage traffic flows
Travel Patterns in 2030
tlirough the southern gateway. The electrifica
South County is one of five subareas with more
tion of Caltrain as well as service upgrades and
inbound AM peak commuters (12,600) than
new South County service will provide a con
outbound (8,000). Inboimd trips come largely
venient and quick alternative to northbound
from Central County (3,900 commuters) and
commuters. ITS improvements along US 101, SR
the Southern Gateway (3,400 commuters).
152, Santa Teresa Boulevard and Monterey
Outbound trips will largely go to Central County
Road will reduce delay and congestion.
(1,800 commuters) and the Southern Gateway
Roadway projects wiH fiU gaps and improve
(1,400 commuters).
mterconnectedness between major corridors.
Butterfield Boulevard, DeWitt and Sunnyside
and Hill Road will all be extended.
70
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns ffoi'Sovth Coimiy Subareain SOSO)
East Bay
-Gatpway
Connocting Alamcda,
I (lllll.lCo-M,
Saa Jciiquin, ai.d
SlanisbiLs Ciinnllfi
OB=400.
IBal;300
Peninsula
Gatev/ay
^
Connprtmg Mann,,1^
Sail Francisco,
\
& ban Maico
Morlnwo'ji-
County
OBisOO
n
lBS2®i3!;yg;Ti;
Northeast
County
OB=900 ^
i
©B=600
IB= 1,700.
Connncs
OB=400
IB=200
East
\
Downtown
i Volley
.Muiiiuaiuous
Arc'ii
IBf300??^tKj
West
Valley
OB=90d
ilBsZdox
Central
County
OBaHBOO
1
lBs3!900'
M
tS!
Santa Cruz
Gateway
CoimecUng
Santa Cruz egimty
OB=700
iBiiSOO-
■pi.li' .OB=U40Oj
W.\ f_,IB=3,400
. Soulhem
Gateway '
Cunnccliiig San Ucnilii
Merced, and
Monterey Counties
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
South County subareo In the a.m. peak hour
Inbound Trips
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the South County suborea
in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound Trips
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the South County
subareo in the a.m. peak hour
12,600
8,000 —I—
Internal Trips
25,400
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
71
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, South County
\
72
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
fable 2-10 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, South County"
VTP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
('03$/Millions)
C03$/Millions)
T4
Caltrain Electrification
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
T6
Caltrain South County^
H25-02
SR 25/Santa Teresa Bivd./US 101
$650.0
R43
100.0
De Witt Ave. & Sunnyside Ave. realignment
at Edmunson Ave.
171.0
R44
$5.0
Santa Teresa Blvd. & Fitzgerald Ave.
intersection signaiization
0.3
R50
First St. roadway ■widening from
Monterey Rd. to Church St.
1.2
804
Coyote Creek Trail (Heliyer to Anderson
Lake County Park)
1.3
H101-22 US 101 conversion to fonr-iane freeway: SR 25
140.0
to Santa Ciara/San Benito County line"
812
Uvas Creek Trail (part of CUroy Sports
Park Phase 1 & 2)
HlOl-23 US 101 widening between Cochrane Rd.
B13
Uvas Creek Trail Study
(Sports Park to Cavilan College)
0.2
820
Coyote Creek Trail Connection
0.5
B21
West Little Liagas Creek Trail
1.5
S300
City of Ciiroy Adaptive Traffic Sigrrai
Control System
0.9
S301
City of Ciiroy Event Management System
0.9
3.9
Interchange construction
H25-03 SR 25 upgrade to six-iane facility design
85.0
10.0
HI01-20 US 101/Termant Ave. Interchange improvements 10.0
and Monterey Hwy.^
HI52-02 SR 152 improvements, traffic signal at Giiroy
FoodsAVn intersection, SR 152 widening from
Miller's Slough through Liagas Creek Bridges
164.0
10.0
HI52-03 SR 152 Improvements, intersection improvement
at Ferguson Rd.
1.0
HI52-04 SR 152/SR 156 Interchange improvements
11.9
27.3
S302
City of Ciiroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
R14
Giiman RdyArroyo Cir. & Camino Rd.improvements 7.0
S900
Cocirrane Avenue Corridor Traffic
R24
Butterfieid Blvd. extension
R28
Uvas Park Dr. roadway extension
(not mapped)
R30
14.0
2.2
Railroad Crossing: San Martin Ave.
at Monterey Rd.
Signal System Improvement
S3003
ITS Enhancements at Santa Teresa Blvd.
S5004
Silicon VaUey ITS Program Upgrades
0.1
1.0
27.0
1.2
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track aiid facility improvements and
additional service.
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave. reallgmnent
at Monterey Rd.
0.9
2. Caltrain upgrades in South County include double-tracking and
R36
Railroad Crossing: Church Ave. at Monterey Rd.
0.5
3. Funded by ITIP.
R40
Hill Rd. extension
5.0
station improvements.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Tronsportotion
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
73
Central County Subarea
expressway improvements. ITS improvements
along US 101, Almaden Expressway, Capitol
The Central County subarea consists of central
Expressway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, Story
San Jose. Principal roadways include US 101,
Road and Monterey Road will improve traffic
1-280, SR 87, SR 85 and Almaden and Capitol
flow and reduce delay and congestion. Caltrain
Expressways. Transit service includes
service upgrades and electrification, service
Guadalupe and Almaden Light Rail lines,
improvements to the Highway 17 Express
Caltrain and various express and local VTA
Bus, the BART extension into Downtown,
bus Unes.
Downtown-East Valley light raiVbus rapid transit
(BRT), and the addition of BRT service on
Travel Patterns in 2030
Monterey Road will improve our transit network
More commuters will leave the Central County
and reduce congestion. Roadway improvements
subarea (65,200) than will enter (40,800)
include widening of US 101 south of Story
durmg the AM peak hour. Outbound trips
Avenue, improvements to SR 17, improvements
will lai-gely go to the West Valley (16,900
to southern San Jose, and along major commute
commuters). Downtown San Jose (12,200
corridors like Story Road and Bascom Avenue.
commuters) and Northeast County (11,600
Bicycle improvements along McKean Road and
commuters). Inbound trips wll come largely
Almaden Expressway will encourage multi-
from East Valley (11,100 commuters) and West
modality, and the extension of the Los Gatos
Valley (10,600 commuters) subareas.
Creek Trail will bring bicyclists and pedestrians
into downtown San Jose.
Investment Program
The capital investments in the Central County
subarea entail significant intelligent transporta
tion systems (ITS), transit, roadway and bicycle
improvements and some modest highway and
74
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for C&iLral Couniy Subavea in 2030)
East Bay l uiiiiuiiiiii! A'liiurilci.
Gateway Coiilr.i
Ci-2 5C0 \ S.ii,Ii),u|iiii,,a:iil
IB=3,900
Peninsula '
.
&Saii
Count
OB-11,600
^
Gateway
(
CannetUiiRM;irln, r'
1 San Francisco,, 4
\ Stanislaus Counties
IB=2,900' ;
Nortkwcst
I-Jcithrast
County
■.
:
Couniy
OB=6,600
f
IB=2,000 ■
nowntovvp
Wust Valley
• "^"OB-16,900
IB-10,600' '
=a.t
.-OB= 10,200
IB=5,800l '
OB=2
BOO
Moiiiiiuinou's
Vci
L /
OB=7,'300
f C
• . 00
Area
VJ5H
South
County
08=3,900IB=1,800 ,,
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Cii.ineciin;;
Santa ( ra/. I'liiiiiiv
OB-1,300 .
IB=800
■
OB=300V4-li
18=1,000 ■
I
Southern
Gateway
Ciiiini'Ctiim San iii'iiiloj
Mcni'd, Jiiiii
Montorey.Countios
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Central County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Central County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Central
County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
'
Outbound Trips
65,200
Internal Trips;
58,400 {
Source; VTA 2004
VIP 2030
75
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Central County
m
(5
n
\
n xr
- /.
76
Valley Transportation Authority
vlaf . II ^
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-11 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Centrol County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
COSSMUlio'ns)
C'OSS/MiMions)
$o.e
13
Bus Rapid Transit—Monterey Hwy.
$50.0
R19
14
Caitrain Eiectiification
650.0
R20
Senter Rd. widemng project
15
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
R25
Campbell Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements 2.0
19
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
2.0
R26
Blossom Hill Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
6.8
H1701
SR 17Improvements, MB SR 17 AuxUiary
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
0.2
801
Campbell Ave. improvements at
Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Creek.
1.5
Lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
12.0
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between
1-280 & SR 87
7.0
B02
H101-08 US 101/Hellyer Ave. Interchange improvements^ 11.0
HlOl-09 US lOl/BlossomHillRd.
Interchange improvements-
HlOl-14 US 101/Tully Rd. Interchange Modiflcations
to Yerba Buena Rd.
XOl
X02
X03
1.3
805
Ahnaden Expwy.(Ironwood Dr. to Koch Ln.)
2.3
808
McKean Rd. shoulder improvements
(Harry Rd. to Bailey Ave.)
5.0
828
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing
5.7
829
Branham LnJ Hwy 101 Bike/
Pedestrian Overcrossing"
5.0
832
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 4)
4.8
11.0
HlOl-16 US 101/Capitoi Expwy. Interchange
Improvements
2.0
Coyote Creek Trail (Hellyer Ave. to
Anderson Lake County Park)
7.0
HI01-15 US 101 SB Widerang from Story Rd.
20.0
Almaden Expwy.—Imtiate a Caltvans Project
Study Report/Project Development Study
to reconfigure SR SS/Ahnaden Interchange"
0.0
Ahnaden Expwy.—^Provide interim operational
improvements at SR85/AImaden
2.0
Almaden Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
Los Gatos Creek Trail expansion
on west side (Hamilton Ave. to Campbell Ave.)
B04
22.0
6.8
B33
Los Gatos Greek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
S2010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
53001
County of Santa Clara Traffic
Operations System Improvements
18.0
between Coleman Rd. & Blossom Hiil Rd.
8.0
X24
At-grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas
2.0
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection
modifications, left-turn lane, carpool lane
adjustments, & stripping modifications
2.0
S5004
Almaden Expwy.—^Widen to eight lanes
1. Caltrain service upgrades include txack and facility improvements and
X30
from Blossom Hill Rd. to Branham Rd.
R06
Chynoweth Ave. extension—
east of Almaden Expwy.
R09
Story Rd. improvements between Senter Rd.
& McLaughlin Ave.
R12
Branham Ln. widemng
R17
R18
3.2
S4060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
3.0
Silicon Valley - ITS (SV-ITS) Program Upgrades
27.0
additional service.
2. Funded by San Jose.
15.1
3. Project cannot be fimded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $250,000.
4. Also listed as an ITS project.
2.0
5. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program.
6. Covei'ed by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
from Vista Park Dr. to Sneil Ave.
8.2
Sneil Ave. widenhig
from Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
3.2
Lucretia Ave. widening
from Story Rd. to Phelan Ave.
9.0
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
77
Peninsula Gateway
for inbound trips will be largely in the neighbor
The Peninsula Gateway is the northwestern
area. Conversely, trips into the peninsula coun
boundary for travel between Santa Clara County
ties wiE largely come from the Northwest
and San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin and
County, supplying 12,200 northbound com
Sonoma Counties, as weU as other origins and
muters.
ing Northwest County (13,400 commuters) sub-
destinations beyond these counties. Current
principal roadways include the 1-280 and US 101
Investment Program
freeways and El Camino Real. Transit services
The capital investments in this gateway center
Include SamTrans, Caltrain commuter rail,
around improving transit service and efficiency.
Dumbarton Express and VTA buses.
Caltrain service upgrades wEl improve perform
ance, and electrification wiE make the system
Travel Patterns in 2030
quieter and reduce pollution. Dumbarton RaE
The Peninsula Gateway handles 26 percent of
will offer cross-bay raE transit service. Adjacent
inbound traffic into Santa Clara Comrty and 50
to the gateway wiE be the Palo Alto Intermodal
percent of outbound traffic during the AM peak
Transit Center — a terminal that integrates bus,
hour. In 2030, more commuters will travel out of
pedestrian, bicycle and raU services.
Santa Clara County through this gateway
(25,300) than enter (20,300). The destmation
Table 2-12 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Peninsulo Gateway
VTPID
Project
Cost
C03$Millions)
vo .
$650.0
T4
Caltrain Electrification
15
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
IB
Dumbarton RaE
278.0
T13
Palo Alto Intermodal Center'
200.0
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Pro.ject"
.\
6.2
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
additional service.
2. Palo Alto Intermodal lYansit Center requires additional funds not identified at
this time.
3. Also listed as an ITS project.
See Appendix for more projecl detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue
projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with
project cost estimates developed in 2003.
78
Valley Transportation Authority
%
K
\
XO/
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Peninsvla. Gaieway 2030)
^stBay
see to Pcninsula=25,3C0
Peninsula to See=2O,3C0
i Peninsula
Gateway
' ConriC'.irv^ ".t.jin
San'FraiSbicc
r & SanJMateo
i
a Gway
Ctjiuiceiing /MtuiicOsi.
I'duini t'lMii,
p
and
Stanislaus Counties ^
Noriliv/est
n
County
Norihc-ast
OB=13;400'
• ib-12 20-)
' n
• .. »-'P
n ,
.:
OB 2;0D.0i
.16=1,800
CuiuJ .L'S
tiostsS.i.tC;
Downtov/n
Valloy.'r,
o6-3do:i
a5i0B=5O0alpiB32n'Od*;
W^S!
16=900^
Vallny
ti
Moiinttuiioiis
Ari'.i
06=3,100
16=5,000 •
Cnntrejifi
County
06=800'.
,'16=2,9001
Cruz
Connerting
Sa«U Cniz Coiiniy
South
County
O6-2C0
16=400 nn
A
V •
\
Southern
Gateway
C'lniiifi-liiii; Pan Boiulii,
Vomod,and
MllIlPl'IO CllLlllliC nn
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Peninsula Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Peninsula Gateway
!
OutboundJri^
25,300/
§m
inbound Trip
20,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
79
be the job-heavy subareas of Northeast County
East Bay Gateway
(18,600 commuters) and Northwest County
The East Bay Gateway is the northeastern
(13,300 commuters). Trips out of Santa Clara
boundaiy for travel between Santa Clara County
County via the East Bay Gateway will originate
and Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Napa
mostly from the neighboring East Valley (4,300
and Solano Counties as well as other origins and
commuters) and Northeast County (4,100
destinations beyond these counties. Principal
commuters) subareas.
roadways include 1-880 and 1-680, and transit
services include the Altamont Commuter
Investment Program
Express train from San Joaquin and Alameda
The capital investments along this gateway are
counties, Capitol Corridor service from
substantial. Intelligent technologies improve
Sacramento and Oakland, and VTA bus service.
ments in the 1-880 and 1-680 corridors, as well
Travel Patterns in 2030
East Bay traffic crunch. A new cross-connector
The East Bay Gateway will handle 57 percent
in Alameda County will share the traffic burden
of inbound traffic into Santa Clara Coimty and
of 1-680 to 1-880 with Mission Boulevard. The
32 percent of outbomrd traffic during the AM
extension of BART to San Jose will offer a reli
as HOV lane expansion on 1-680, will ease the
peak hour. In 2030, more morning commuters
able, high-speed alternative to driwng in the
wiU enter Santa Clara County via the gateway
corridor, and increase the interconnectedness of
(45,800) thanwiUleaveit (16,600). The destina
the South Bay with its northern neighbors.
tions for trips into Santa Clara County will largely
Table 2-13 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, East Boy Gotewoy
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
T1
Altamont Coininuter Express Upgrade
12
BART
H680-01
1-680 HOV lanes: Calaveras Blvd.
$22.0
4,193.0'
to SR 84
H680-02
25.0
I-680/I-880 cross-connector environmental
and conceptual engineering
S4010
7.0
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS
Elements and Ramp Metering
3.6^
S4020
Smart Residential Arterlals Project
5.4'
817
Coyote Creek Trail Reach 1
1.2
L Measure A need for the BART project is net of S649 million in TGRP
funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million in
other funds. Does not assume additional bonding for constmction.
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
80
Valley Transportotion Authority
o
:hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Trovel Patterns (Easi Bay Gateway 2030)
•EastjB^^Jotiitomg Alanieda,
see to East Bay=l 6,600
East Bay to SeG
800
Gateway:OpntraVsta;
ipT-
Joa^tij^hd ,
^
Sl%islaiis Coknties ,
/
'Peninsula
Qateway
Corinccting Marin,
iSan Francisco.
a Sin Matco
Mnton
&
I Goiintics
4
.
Northwest
V
' OB=13,300
'-""-I' IB=2,500'
Northeast
County
' OB=18,600
-1B=4.100- ,
Downfowrn, |valley ^
WesttValley
Mountninous
OB=3,700 . 1 n
''iB-l-OOO • n ; .'..V-i'GB=3;t00
,
1 " '■ '■•'mt
OB =3,100
IB-2,000
\ ■
•tJs; t.
''
18-4,300
Central"!!.?;-,:^: ,,'
Counh/>.w:
County
>.#
OB=4,000'7,
.
Area I'
"j
.7
' IB=2,500 d
South
County
OB=200
18=400'. ■
Santa Cruz ■
' Gateway
Connecting
Santa Cruz CouiUy
(N)
Southern -
^
xGatoway,
- Connecting San Bcnito
^ Merced/and'
Monterey Coimtica' v"
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the East Boy Gateway
inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santo elara eounty From
the East Bay Gateway
Outbound Trips
16,600
Inbound Trips
45,800
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
81
Southern Gateway
will be largely headed toward neighboring South
The Southern Gateway is the southern bound
Northwest Coimty (1,400 commuters) and
ary for travel between Santa Clara County and
Northeast County (1,100 commuters). Two-
San Benito and Monterey Counties as well as
thirds (1,400 commuters) of all southbound
other origins and destinations beyond these
trips out of Santa Clara County originate from
counties. Principal roadways include SR 25, SR
neighboring South County cities.
County (3,400 commuters) and, notably,
152, SR 156 and US 101. Transit service into the
county consists of Amtrak and commuter bus
Investment Program
services. Galtrain and VTA bus lines provide
The capital investments along tliis gateway are
service north of the gateway.
centered upon mcreasing roadway capacity and
efficiency between Santa Clara and San Benito
Travel Potterns in 2030
County. The expansion of US 101 to an eight-
The Southern Gateway handles 11 percent of
lane freeway wiU be extended to the county
inbound traffic into Santa Clara County and
line. SR 25 wiU be expanded to six lanes. SR 152
eight percent of outbound traffic in the AM
will be widened in select areas along with other
peak hour. In 2030, more morning commuters
roadway improvements. Caltrain service ■will be
will enter Santa Clara County via the gateway
expanded.
(8,600) than will leave (3,900). Outbound trips
Table 2-14 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Southern Gateway
VIP ID
Project
H25-02
SR25/Santa Teresa Blvd./US 101 Interchange
Construction (Includes US 101 widening
between Monterey Hwy. & SR 25)
H25-03
H101 -22
H152-04
Cost
('03$/MiU,wns)
$70.0
SR 25 upgrade to a six-lane
facility design
10.0
US 101 conversion to four-lane freeway:
SR25 to Santa Clara/San Benito County
line'
140.0
SR 152/SR 156 interchange improvements
(not mapped)
27.3
1. Funded by ITIP.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
82
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Southern Gateway 2030)
^
> Connecting Alanieda,t
Gatav/ay,, .rContmCosUi,:
sKn Joaquln,imrl.
I
Psrilnsula
Gateway
[Cotmecting Mann,
San Francisco.
Mateo
iStamsIaus Counties
n
Northwost
i
County
'•<
Northeast
OB=V,400
., OB=l
IB=100 '
I ,«
County"
OB=1,100
B= 00
Counties.
1y
West, ■■
^"iv Valley' .
.i4, :OB=90b.:,5
■*,1^B=I,800
Downtown -
.
Jf OB=400 • '
1 -1-f IB=JO--\f 'East
'I
'1 .
I
'1
a-
"
? 'V
'\
V
- ^ Valley
.i.
■'!
^
\.OB=400 ■
^
, t IB-100
Central
County
Mountainous
.■ Area .
,*
-/
'
OB=l,COOK'S
\ 16=300' ,
SantaCruz-..
.'Gateway
South
County
OBi3,400
.J . vConneoUng., ■ .
Santa Cruz County
IBi 1,400
i§
..Soulher.hft'
•''fAGcitowiyS^^
CannecUng San Benito,
see tolSouthern Counties=3,900 Merced, and
• S Southern eounties to'seei8',600
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Southern Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Southern Gateway
Inbound Trips
8,600
OutboundTrips2,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
83
Santa Cruz Gateway
toward the West Valley (1,400 commuters) sub-
The Santa Cruz Gateway is the boundary for
the West Valley subarea (1,800 commuters) as
travel between Santa Clara County and Santa
well as the Central County (1,300 comnmters)
Cruz County. The principal roadways are Highway
subarea.
area. Outbound trips will originate largely from
17 and SR 9. Transit service consists of Highway
Investment Program
17 Express Bus service.
The capital and service investments for this
Travel Patterns in 2030
gateway consist of modest service improve
The Santa Cruz Gateway handles six percent of
ments to Highway 17 Express Bus service and
inbound traffic and ten percent of outbound
minor safety improvements to Highway 17.
traffic in the AM peak hour. Iir 2030, more com
muters vnll leave Santa Clara County through
the Santa Cruz Gateway (5,100) than -will enter
(4,500). Outbound trips will be largely headed
Table 2-15 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Santo Cruz Gateway
VTP ID
Project
Cost
('03$/MiUi(ms)
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
H17-01
SR 17Improvements, NB SR 17
Auxiliary Lane from Camden Ave. to
Hamilton Ave.
$2.0
12.0
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
Blossom
84
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns(Smua Cmz Gateway 2030)
East Bay
Gateway
CoiULCcuni; Alnini.i1.i
S:m ilo.uiiuii, aiul
SUmisIans Counties
Peninsula
,
i Gateway
(
{CotmecLiiig Mariii, '
fSanl^ancjscOjV
Northwest
County
OB=600
-
IB=40"' ':
&Saii Moteo - ;i
Counties
N^iihuast
County
OB=600ffc
East -
Ve:lley
IB=300.'S
i t
n
OB=300
,
IB=500 •
Qov/ntov/n
OB=300
IB=200
MoiiiiI.mikiiis
Arcil
Wusi
Valley
OB=1,-400
IB=l-,'800
Centre!
County
OB=800
IB=1,300
South
Santa Cruz:H*>.'
County
"68=506■
. IB=700
:
see to Sonto'eSz eounty=5,100
Santa eruz eounty to See=4,500
k
Southorn
Gatoway
.Connecting San-BenitOj i
Morreii, and,
Monterey Counties
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Santa eruz Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Santo eruz Gateway
Inbound Trips
4y500
I
Outbound STnigl
5,100
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
85
VTP
2030
PROGRAM
AREAS
•T I iheVTP 2030 program areas represent
_L a broad range of programs and
projects covering four modes ,of travel: road
ways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian. Since
tfie adoption of VTP 2020 in December
2000, VTA and ,its partners have conducted
numerous, planning studies to jdentify
'transportation needs and define projects ,
throughout the cdunty. Results from those
siudies have-helped to define the program ',
■areas,aridito develop'the projecflists. Each., •
of the program areas and the VTP 2030
Table 2-16 Program Areas and Fund Ailocaiipn
Program >\reos .T
.
.
Fund Allocation
COSS/kKllioris) I
allocations, discussed in this section, is shown -
' in Table'_2-16.
■ _ ' V-- ;.
Highway Program
■
.
,
$766.3
,
Expressway Program
150.0."
The appendix provides- additional informa-: ; :
Local Streets & County Roads Program
230.0-
tion about the project lists presented in this
Pavement Management Program
chapter. The additional information may -. ,
Sound Mitigation Program ,
.
■
^
I
,
.
.
.
,
I
,
^
,
•
■
Removal Program r .
the project affects, and the VTP 2030 project
Transit Program ;
10.0,
1.0 .
•
. .
lYansportation Systems Operations •
& Management Program
Bicycle Program
Valley Transportation Authority
-
, ■■
6,829.0
,
■
.28.0
.
Livable Communities & Pedestrian Program
86
. -301.5
Landscape Restoration &; Graffiti
include the project sponsor, the jurisdictions
allocation.'
"
.
90.5
. .
120.1
.
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Highway Program
Planning for the next generation of state high
way improvements in Santa Clara County is an
evolving process, VTP 2030 continues this
process by building upon the highway planning
work conducted for VTP 2020.
Mr.
Tlie VTP 2030 Highway Programfund
allocation is just over $766 millionfor 40
improvements in all areas of the county.
One of the key recommendations from VTP
2020 was the need to study county gateways
and key highway corridors. As a result, part of
the work in developing VTP 2030 Highway
Projects involved an evaluation of the county
gateways and key corridors within the county to
identify, define, and prioritize improvements
that relieve congestion, alleviate bottlenecks,
and enhance safety.
• SR 85/1-280 Area Study
• SR 237 Corridor Study
Highway Planning Studies
The first three in this list are multi-county studies
A presentation to the VTA Board of Directors in
with partnering agencies from outside Santa
2001 identified a series of major freeway
Clara Coimty. The fourth listed is a focused study
corridor studies being conducted by VTA.
of the SR152 / SR156 interchange area that
These included:
includes conceptual and preliminary engineering
• I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Study
of the interchange and approaching highways.
The last four studies are for corridors located
• Southern Gateway Land Use and
Transportation Study
entirely within Santa Clara County. Each study
included traffic operations analysis of
• Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study
improvements for existing and long-term needs,
• SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Study
screening of alternatives, preparation of conceptual
• US 101 North Corridor Study
• US 101 Central Corridor Study
geometric and operational plans, preparation of
preUminary cost estimates and development of
construction phasing strategies.
VTP 2030
87
Highway Projects
-.y.
rrv
South County
'.A -
C#
:r
iV .!'
y>
N
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-17 Highway Projects (projects wUhfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03S/Millmns)
C03$/MiUions)
HOO-01
HI7-01
$5.0
Connector Ramp Intprovements
12.0
Construction (Includes US 101 Widening
between Monterey Hwy. & SR 25)
H25-03 SR 25 Upgrade to Six-Lane Facility Design
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
85.0
H85-09 Fi-emont Ave. Improvements at SR 85
H237-09 lavvrenceExpwy/SR 237AuxiliaiyLnneImprovement 3.0
H237-10 SR 237 WB Auxiliary Lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
22.0
H680-02 I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Emdronmental
19.0
& Conceptual Engineering
to Montague Expwy.
10.0
HlOl-08 US 101/Hellyer Ave,Interchange Improvements' 11.0
Interchange Improvements—Phase I
HlOl-11 US 101/Zanker Rd./Sl<yport Dr./Fomth St.
Interchange Environmental &
Preliminary Engmeering
3.0
•
to Lawrence Expwy.
'
to Yerba Buena Rd.
•.
11.0
"
40.0
71.0
:" ihter'Chahge',.Construction—Phase il'' . .
10.0
21.0
. n' Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd. ?
'
'.Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd.
21.0
HI01-21 US 101/Buena Vista Ave.'
Interchange Construction
164.0
8.0
20.0
HlOl-27 US 101 SB to EB SR 237 Connector Improvements
55.0
H237-07 SR 237 EB to Mathilda Ave. Flyover Qff-ramp
17.0
H237-11 .SR 237 EB Airxiliary Lane between'
9.0
I
10.0
. 6.0
.*,.'Footliill Expwy. S SR 85
n
-"
,
n
H280-04 1-280 Doyvmtown Access Improvemerits
. beWeen 3rd Stand 7tlr St
1.0
" -
n , "" .'Zanker Rd.'& North First St.
H280-02 1-280 NB Braided Ramps between
..
H680-03 1-680 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes
22.0
46.0
1. Funded by the City of San Jose.
2.
3.0
■34.0
■
from McKee Rd. to Benyessa Rd.,
27.3
Funded by ITIP.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shov/n in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
18.0
H237-03 SR 237 Wideiung for HOV Lanes between
SR 85 & East of Mathilda Ave.
31.0
HT01-'18 US IOI NB Braided Ramps betw;een
H237-02 SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
Connector Ramp Improvements
of Winchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
Interchange Construction—Phase I,
140.0
H237-01 SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd.
Intersection Improvements
32.0
HlOl-11- US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./FourthSt^
H152-04 SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Improvements
(not mapped)
Sunnyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave.
n -'Interchange Construction
10.0
H152-03 SR 152 Iirrprovements, Intersection
Improvement at Ferguson Rd.
25.0
H101-17 rUS101.;SB Braided Ramps between
H152-02 SR 152 Improvements, Traffic Signal at Gilroy
Foods/WTI Intersection, SR 152 Widening from
Miller's Slough through Llagas Creek Bridges
1 Creek Blvd. to Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.
HIOMO US 101/Mabuiy Rd./TayIor,St.
3.0
HlOl-26 US 101 NB Auxiliary Lane Widening:
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
41.0
H101.-11.US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./FourthSt',
H101-25 US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Widening:
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
-
.
20.0
HlOl-23 US 101 Widening between Cochrane Rd.
& Monterey Hwy.^
. Real& SR 237 & SR 85/El Camino Real •
H85-06 SR85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from Stevens •
2.0
22.0
HlOl-22 US 101 Conversion to Four-Lane Freeway:
SR 25 to Santa Clara/San Benito Coimty Line^
48.0
H85-08 SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from North n -
HI01-20 US lOl/Termant Ave. Interchange
Improvements in Morgan Hill
.
1H85-07 -SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from Saratoga ' ~
HI01-19 US 101 SB Airxiliary Lane Improvement
between Ellis St. & SR 237
'n '
' . Interchange Improvements
HlOl-15 US 101 SB Widening from Story Rd.
H101-16 US 101/Capitol Expwy. hiterchange Improvements
:'&E1 Camino Real '
H85-04 SR:85 Auxiliary Lanes between El Camino
7.0
HlOl-12 US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Great America Plrvy.
HlOl-14 US 101/Tully Rd. Interchange Modifications
14.0
(H85-03 SR 85 Aur^ary Lanes between Fremont Ave.
!
HlOl-09 US 101/Blossom HiU Rd.,Interchange Improvements' 7.0
HlOl-10 US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
7^
H880-03 1-880/1-280/ Stevens Creek Blvd.
27.0
HlOl-07 US 101 Auxiliaty Lane Widenings: Trimble Rd.
1.0
25.0
H680-01 1-680 HOV Laires: Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
HlOl-06 US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
Central Ebcpwy. Interchange Improvements
15.0
H280-05 1-280 NB: Second Exit Lane to Footlrill Expwy.
2.0
H85-10 SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes
between Homestead Ave. & Fremont Ave.
5.0
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
10.0
7.0
13.0
H237-08 SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lanes from
SR 85 NB to EB SR 237
Connector Ramp Improvement
8.0
H237-06 SR237/US101/MathildaAve.
Interchange Improvements
H25-02 SR 25/Santa Teresa BlvdAJS 101 Interchange
H85-05
H237-05 SR 237 WB to NB US 101
SR 17Improvements, NB SR 17 Auxiliaiy
Lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
$8.0
H237-04 SR 237 WB On-ramp at Middlefield Rd.
High Occupancy Toll Lane Demonstratton
Project Development(not mapped)
36.0
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
" j Projects without funding allocations, not mapped
VTP 2030
89
The findings from these studies were evaluated
development by local agencies and/or VTA, and
using Board-adopted highway project prioritiza
partner projects under development by neigh
tion criteria. These criteria provided a means to
boring counties.
evaluate projects based on congestion relief,
safety enhancement, environmental equity, geo
graphic equity, project implementability, and
ability of the project to enhance the county's
economic health. The results of these studies
fed into the development of the VTP 2030 list of
highway projects.
The resulting VTP 2030 Highway Projects list
includes a wide array of projects located along
freeway and state highway corridors. The proj
ects include freeway mainline improvements,
safetjf improvements,interchange reconstruc
tion, new interchanges, new high occupancy
vehicle (HOV)lanes, freeway-to-freeway con
nector improvements, intersection improve
Highway Projects List
ments along state highways and operational
The Highway Projects include projects remain
improvements.
ing from VTP 2020, projects studied or under
study in highway corridor and gateway studies,
projects submitted by Caltrans, projects under
Developing the Constrained and
Unconstrained Project List
A total of 62 projects totaling about $1.9 biUion
in requests were evaluated using the Board-
H'
adopted highway project prioritization criteria.
Out of a score of 100, the scoring for projects
ranged from 82 to 12, with the scoring criteria ,
sti
*11
favoring larger projects. In order to give consid
eration to low-cost improvements vnth high util
ity, a benefit-cost criterion was also evaluated.
Tlris allowed lower-cost projects with liigher
benefit-cost ratios to rank liigher on the final
listing of projects.
The constrained list of projects includes 40 proj
ects totaling $766.3 million in requests (includes
m
$319.5 million in ITIP funds; see below). Another
17 projects totaling $540 nuUion are shown as
unconstrained projects. The full list of projects
with the appropriate dividing lines is provided in
90
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-17 on page 89. The map of projects on
page 88 shows only the 40 consti'ained projects.
Special Considerations
ITIP Projects—^Three projects on the
constrained list are proposed to receive $319.5
million in Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program (ITIP) funding. These
are the following projects:
• SR 25/Santa Teresa Boulevard/US 101
Interchange construction (including US 101
between Monterey Highway and SR 25)—for
the US 101 widening portion of the project
• US 101 conversion to four-lane freeway: SR
25 to Santa Clara/San Benito County Line
• US 101 widening between Cochrane Road
and Monterey Highway
The $446 million in requests approved by the
VTA Board of Directors in April 2004 taken with
tliis ITIP request amount comprise the $766.3
mUlion stated earlier.
Projects with Known Fundingfrom Other
Sources—Three projects on the constrained list
are known to have secured funding from other
regional or local sources since this list was pre
sented to the VTA Board of Directors. As a
result, they are shown here with a $0 request
amount. These projects are:
• SR 152/SR 156 Interchange improvementsfunding from local sources, RTIP and ITIP
• US 101/Blossom Hill Road Interchange
improvements-funding from City of San Jose
• US 101/Hellyer Road Interchange improve
ments-funding from City of San Jose
Projects Not on Constrained or
Unconstrained Lists—Five projects are not on
the constrained or unconstrained lists. These are
projects with high costs that could not be lit into
the plan or have unresolved issues. These proj
ects can be evaluated and considered in the next
plan update. The five projects are the following:
• SR 152 Corridor New Toll Roadway: US 101
to SR 156-carryover listmg from VTP 2020
that has not progressed
• I-880/Kato Road Overcrossing (with connec
tions to Dixon Landing Road and Scott Creek
Road)-engineering and conceptual engineer
ing could progress through another listing in
the constrained list
• I-880/SR 237 Flyover: Northbomrd 1-880 to
Westbound SR 237-dropped from Measui'e B
project due to conflicts with slip ramp from
Calaveras Boulevard to SR 237
• 1-880 Widening for HOV Lanes from SR 237
to Old Bayshore-high-cost project in a corri
dor with recent improvements
• SR 17 Improvements: Northbound SR 17 to
Northbound SR 85 Direct Connector-former
Measure B project lacking the necessary local
support
VTP 2030
91
Expressway Program
VTP 2030 Expressway Program
Expressway Plaiming Study (CCEPS.) This
Santa Clara County is the only county in the
study took two yeai's to complete and culminat
state operating an expressway system timough
ed in the development of an Implementation
incorporated areas. The pui-pose of this system
Plan that was adopted by the County Board of
is to relieve local streets and supplement the
Supervisors in August 2003. The
fi-eeway system. VTP 2020 established the need
Implementation Plan outlines expressway sys
for conducting a comprehensive study of the
tem infrastructure needs for a 25-year time-
county's expressways system to identify proj
frame, provides a framework for roadway proj
ect prioritization, and provides a basis for
ects and establish implementation priorities.
In 2001, VTA provided the Santa Clara County
Roads and Airports Department with $2 million
to conduct a Comprehensive Countywide
includmg projects in VTP 2030 and the Regional
Transportation Plan.
The CCEPS Implementation Plan Identifies
tlu-ee tiers of roadwayprojects. The Tier 1
projects address the existing and future needs
ft ^
%
of level-of-service (LOS) F Intersections by pro
■■i
viding signal, safety, and operational lihprovements. The 28 projects Identified in Tier lA
address the top priorities for each expressway
K
and improve most of the current LOS and oper
ational problem areas. The CCEPS concluded
ij
.
S®E;ac*,v«
that most of the projects in Tier lA can be
completed in a three- to six-year timeframe. A
complete list of Tier lA projects Is provided on
page 95.
VTP 2030 Expressway Program
Fund Allocation
VTP 2030 allocates $150 million to fund the entire
Tier lA list of projects and the Capitol Expressway
Street Improvements Identified in the US 101
Central Corridor Study conducted by VTA.
92
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Expressway Projects/linproyemenTs
Almaden Expressway
Improvements to Almaden Expressway largely
involve relieving congestion near Highway 85. A
Project Study Report(PSR) will determine ways
of reconfiguring the Almaden/Highway 85 inter
SSi
change. Additional lanes will be added both
north and south of the Highway 85 interchange
to reduce congestion and increase tlnuughput.
Capitol Expressway
i
Improvements include intersection modifica
tions, left-turn lane, carpool lane adjustments,
and stripping modifications.
Centra! Expressway
Widening from four to six lanes between Mary
and San Tomas Expressways will increase
will reduce delays. Limiting the number of
capacity and safety on this heavily used stretch
neighborhood access points between Highways
of Central Expressway. Carpool lanes may also
101 and 280 will reduce delays from merging
revert to mixed flow lanes between San Tomas
Expressway and De La Cruz.
Foothill Expressway
Signal improvements between Editli and El
vehicles. Additional mixed flow lanes will be
added between Calvert and Moorparlc/Bollinger.
Additionally, a project study report wiU look
at the Lawrence Expressway/l-280/Calvert
interchange area.
Monte win reduce congestion while a host of bicy
cle, pedestrian and signal timing improvements
are added with the replacement of Loyola Bridge.
Lawrence Expressway
Montague Expressway
Improvements include converting HOV lanes
between Highways 680 and 880 to mixed flow
lanes, and a series of intersection and inter
Optimizing signal timing in the Lawrence/
change improvements between Highways 101
Saratoga area and the Highway 280 intersection
and 680.
VTP 2030
93
Expressway Projects
.'S.
\,
.X
94
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-18 Expressway Projects
YIP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
('03$/MiUions)
XOl
X02
X03
Almaden Expwy.—Initiate a Caltrans Project
Study Report/Project Development Study
to reconfigure SR 85/Aimaden Interchange'
Almaden Expwy.—Provide interim operational
improvements at SR 85/Almaden Expwy.
$0.0
2.0
8.0
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—^Alma Bridge
Replacement Feasibility Study
0.3
X21
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide additional
westbound right-turn lane at Monroe
1.0
X23
queue jump lanes at Scott Blvd., if unsuccessful
X06
Central Expwy—Widen to six lanes between
LawTence and San Tomas Expwys. without
HOV lane operations
0.1
X24
10.0
Central Expwy.^—Widen between Lawrence
Expwy & Mary Ave. to provide auxiiiaty &/or
acceleration/deceleration lanes
13.0
X07
Footliill Bhcpwy.—Replace Loyola Bridge
10.0
X08
Foothill Expwy.—^Traffic/signal operational
corridor improvements between Edith Ave. &
El Monte Ave. including aeijacent side street
intersections & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
X09
X10
XII
XI2
XI3
X14
1.5
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave. & right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St.,
& St. Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
0.1
XI5
Lawrence Expwy.—Prepare Caltrans Project Study
Report for Tier IC project at the Lawrence/
Calvert Dr./I-280 interchange area'
0.0
XI6
Montague Expwy.—Convert HOV lanes to
XI7
McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.
XI8
Expwy Signal Coordination witli City Signals'
Equipment to connect with Sumtyvale, Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Los Altos traffic signal
2.5
interconnect systems'
5.0
10.0
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow
automatic traffic count collection'
0.5
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—
intersection modifications, left-tum lane, carpool
lane adjustments, and stripping modifications
2.0
X30
Almaden Expwy.—widen to eight lanes from
3.2
Blossom Hill Rd to Branham Rd.
[xrT" n Capitol Expwy.—Interchange at Silver Greek Rd. 55.0 >
Lavuience Expwy—^Interchange at Arques Ave.
!X33
Lawrence Expwy-^lnterchange at Kifer Rd.
1X34 . ..Lawrence Expwy—Interchange at Moiuoe St.
|x35.
1x36
( _ .
1X37
1
'
Montague Expwy.—At-grade improvements
at Mission College Blvd. & partial-clover :
• mterchange at'.US 101
Montague Expwy.^McCarthy Blvd:/01Toole Ave;
.
.
45.01
45.0'
15.0)
Montague Expwy—Ifrimble Rd. Flyover
squar e loop interchange
35.0!
^
ii.ol
60.0'
1. PSR cannot be funded by fimd source. PSR estimated cost $250,000.
2. PSR cannot be funded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
0.1
Montague Expwy.—Baseline project consisting
of 8-lane widening and 1-880 partial-clover
interchange with at-grade improvements
at Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria Dr./River Oaks
Pkwy., Main St./01d Oakland Rd., &
2.0
with square loops along Kem Ave. & Titan Way
0.5
Lawrence Expwy.—Coordinate & optimize signtii
phasing & timing plans in 1-280/Lawrence
interchange area
0.1
mixed flow use east of 1-880
2.0
San Tomas Expwy.—^At-grade improvements
at SR 17/San Tomas Expwy.
X26
[X32
Lawrence Expwy—Widen to 8 lanes between
Moorpark Ave./BoIlmger Rd. & south of Calvert Dr. 4.0
Lawrence Expwy: Optimize signal coordination
along Lawrence-Saratoga Ave. corridor
at Hamilton Ave.
X27
0.5
0.1
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide 2nd eastbound,
westbound, and northbound left-tmn lanes
Expressway Traffic Information Outlets'
X28
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to mixed
flow lanes between US 101 and Elko Rd.
28.0
X25
Foothill Expwy—Extend existing westbound
deceleration lane at San Antonio Rd.
San Tomas Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
between Williams and El Camino Real
La Cruz Blvd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV
X05
$5.0
X20
X22
Central Expwy.—Convert the Measure B HOV
lane tvidening between San Tomas Expwy. & De
after a thr ee- to five-year trial period
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—1-280/
Page Mill mterchange modification
Almaden Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
between Coleman and Blossom Hill Rd.
X04
XI9
3. Project not mapped.
See Appendix tor more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
38.5
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor improvements 5.0
r.- "
Projects withoutfunding allocations, not mapped
VTP 2030
95
Oregon/Page Mill Expressway
Signal Operations for All Expressways
Replacing and optimizing signals, installing
Improvements include coordination of express
pedestrian ramps improving pedestrian and
way signals with signals on perpendicular
bicycle safety and reducing the effects of traffic
streets, electronic information signs, advisory
on adjacent streets will occur. Additionally,
radio, cable TV feeds, automatic traffic counts
improvements to the I-280/Page Mill
and a web page. These improvements are
interchange and an Alma Bridge replacement
intended to work together to reduce delay on
feasibility study are scheduled.
and around the expressways. Additionally, traf
San Tomas Expressway
intercomiected with other programs in
Widening to eight lanes between El Camino
Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los
Real and Williams Road as well as a series of
Altos.
fic signal monitoring on the expressways will be
additional turn lanes between Monroe Street
and SR 17 will increase capacity on one of the
most popular expressways.
Refer to the Comprehensive Gountywade
Expressway Planning Study, Implementation
Plan, August 19, 2003, for more information on
the Tier lA projects.
VIlMrj
96
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Local Streets and County Roads
The VTA Board of Directors created the Local
Streets and County Roads (LSCR) Fund
I
Program with the adoption of VTP 2020 in 2000.
This program addresses the difficulties Member
Agencies have with raising revenues for local
streets and county roads projects not connected
to new development projects.
The VTP 20S0 Program Area allocation iden
tifies up to $230 millionfor local streets and
county roads on the committed project list.
pII
VTA Staff, working through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) subcommittee of
the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
developed tliis list of projects usiirg program eli
gibility and scoring criteria adopted by the VTA
Board. The criteria are based on street coimec-
tivity, congestion relief, safety, and the interface
between transportation and land use. Another
$58 million in grant fund requests appear on the
uncommitted project list.
The following project types are eligible for LSCR
funds:
• New or major upgrades of sidewalk and Class
II & III bicycle facilities
• Traffic calming measures
• New grade separations at raiiroads and road
ways
• New street connections and extensions, local
road crossings of freeways and expressways
• Multimodal reconstruction of streets
• Roadway operational improvements including
• ITS projects and project elements
The complete list of LSCR projects is provided
on page 99.
new lanes, intersection turn lanes, and mod
ern roundabouts
VTP 2030
97
98
Local Street and Roadway Projects
•Vl-
^/
%
\o
South County
^c?
xarms
>. \
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-19 Local Streets and County Roods Projects (ivith allocatedfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03$/Millions)
COS$/MUlions)
ROl
Calaveras Blvd. Overpass Widening
with Operational Improvements
R02
R03
OaWand Ed. TOdening from
US 101 to Montague Expwy.
10.0
Coleman Ave. Widening
14.0
R04
Berryessa Ed. Widening from US 101 to 1-680
R05
Mathilda Ave./SE 237 Corridor Improvements
50.0
R06
Chynoweth Ave. Extension—
East of Almaden Expwy.
15.1
R07
Mathilda Ave. Galtrain Bridge Eeconstruction
17.4
R08
Autumn St. Extension
10.0
R09
Story Ed. Improvement from
Senter Ed. to McLaughlin Ave.
RIO
7.0
2.0
Eengstorff Ave. Grade Separation
Enviroirmental Documentation'
Rll
$1.0
R27
$40.0
0.3
Montague Expwy./Great Mall Plrwy.—
Capitol Ave. Grade Separation
24.5
R28
Uvas Park Dr. Eoadway Extension
2.2
R29
Winchester Blvd. Streetscape Improvement
4.0
R30
Eailroad Crossing: San Martin Ave. at Monterey Ave. 1.2
R31
Qrrito Ed. Improvements
1.9
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave. Eealigrrment
at Morrterey Ed.
0.9
R33
Dixon Landing Ed./North Milpitas
Boulevard Intersection Improvements
1.0
R34
MagdalenaAve. at Cormtry Club Dr.
Intersection Signalization
0.4
R35
Park Ave. Improvement
1.0
R36
Eailroad Crossing: Chmch St. at Morrterey Ed.
0.5
R37
Java Dr. Bicycle Shared Use Improvements
(Class n & ni Bike Lanes)
0.4
R39
Smart Eesidential Arterials Project'
6.2
5.0
Branham Ln. Widening from Vista Park to Snell Ave. 8.2
R40
Hill Ed. Extension
R13
Dixon Landing Ed. Wideruirg
R43
DeWitt Ave./Surmyside Ave. Eealigrrment
at Edmutrson Ave.
5.0
R14
Gilman Ed./Arroyo Circle
Cainino Arroyo Improvements
R44
Santa Teresa Blvd./Fltzgerald Ave.
Intersection Sigrralizatiorr
0.3
R15
Loyola Dr./Foothill Elxpwy. Intersectioir
10.0
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascorn Ave.'
0.2
R16
Charcot Ave. Connection
36.0
R50
R17
Snell Ave. Widening from
Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
First St.(SE 152)Eoadway Wlderring:
Monterey St. to Church St.
1.2
R12
R18
0.6
7.0
3.2
R51
Lucretia Ave. TOdening from Story Ed. to PhelanAve. 9.0
Alum Eock School District Area Traffic
2.0
Calming Elements
R19
Almaden Plaza Way Widening
8.0
R60
Miramonte Ave. Bikeway Improvements
1.0
R20
Senter Ed. Widening Project
6.8
R75
Moody Ed. Improvements
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. Improvements
0.6
R89
Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase IP
0.5
R91
Eancho Eincorrada Neighborhood
Traffic Calmnrg Project
0.1
R21
Union Ave. Widening from Los GatOsAlmaden Ed. to Eoss Creek
R22
Downtown Couplet Conversions
R23
Lawrerrce Expwy.AVildwood Ave. Eoadway
Eealigrrment & Trafflc Signal
R24
Butterfield Blvd. Exterrsion
R25
CampbeU Ave. Bicycle/Pedestriarr Improvements
R26
Blossom Hill Ed. Bike/Ped Improvements
1.7
20.0
4.4
14.0
2.0
6.8
1. Project not mapped.
2. Also listed as ITS project.
See Appendix for more pro|ect detail. Revenue projections end project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
99
Table'2-.20 Local Streets and County Roods Projects (projects without allocatedfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
"",""'$3:31
FR38' :" Martha St Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor.
Deimas Ave. Streetscape Improvement
R41
0.9
R45
ReediSt! Pedestrian Corridor Project •
R46
Nortli 13th St. Streetscape ft'oject
.
1.4'
- n
1.6j
,
: Uj
R47
Balbach St. Bike/Ped improvements
R48
Taylor SI;. Improvement
•
n 1.0
R52
Steflih RdTShoreline Blvd.-Intersection Modification
o.'i
R53
Suniiyvale-Saratpga Rd./Remington Dr. „
Intersection Improvement.
J.-2'
.
R54
Auzerais Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements -19
R55
ITS Improvement on Santa Teresa Blvd.
Downtown Sunnyvale/Mathilda Blvd. • , -
R57
Keyes St. Streetscape Improvement Project
n
2.4
'1.5■0.3
Mary Ave. Bicycle Improvement
• Almaden Rd. Imprbverrtent—
Malone Rd. to Curtner Ave.. ■
R59
.
. •
,
.
,
0.4
Easy St./Gladys Ave; Intersection Modification
R62
-
'
03
R63
•Mary Ave./Evelyn Ave. Intersection
0.6
R64
Mary Ave./El Camino Real Intersections
0.6
■ White Rd. Streetscape '
R65
R66
Senter Rd. Improvement Project -
R67 -
Wliite Rd. Pedestrian Improvement—
Alum Rock Ave.'to MabUry Rd.-
CO
R68
Bicycle Boulevard Network Project ■ ■
R69
McKean Rd. and Watsonville Rd.
R70
R71
'ScottSt. Pedestrian Corridor-
3.9
R83
, . Farrell Ave. Bridge Widening '
1J
R84
Gifywide Sidewalklmprovements ■
1.8
R85 •
DeWitt Ave. S-Curve Realignment "
i.o
R86
! Aborn Rd. Pedestrian Improvements.at hwindale -
R87
. Fair Oaks AveyAiques Ave. Intersection Improvement ■ 0.'6
R88, :
R90
R92
R93
Wolfe fRd./Kifer Rd. Intersection Improvement.
' W. Virginia St. Streetscape & Pedestriaif
, Crossings Project . ,
'
'
' '
R99
1.1
1:0'
' McLaughlin Ave. Streetscape Project
R95
R98
;.
Mary AveyPremont Ave. intersection Improveinents
■ Galaveras Rd. Improvements
R97
.1.2
- Washington Ave./Mathilda'Ave; IntersectionImprovement.
.
.R94
R96
1.0
.
' s
1.5
•,
■ 3.0
.
"1.0
Garden,Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements;
Metal Beam Guardralis on- County Roads
.0.5
•
. El Monte Rd./lT280 Impi-OTements >
0.3
■;
0.2
Comprehensive-Sidewalk Network for .EmploymentAreas
.V-: '.
7.2
RICO
■ Aldercrbft Greek Bridge/Old Santa Cruz Hwy. ,
R102
■ Manteili'Dr. CoiTidor Improvements:' '.l,
.
Intersections and Traffic Signals"
: T T ,■ 2.0
R103
' Jumpero Serra Blvd. Traffic Calming , •
RI04
, New, Pavement Markers and,Signs '-.T
.5.0
Gifford Ave. Streetscape
.'0.5
, . • ;
. Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor-:7-I:880 to Meridian Ave. 6.0,
R101
I^ft--Tiirn Pockets &-Shoulder Widerung; ;. ■ - , ,
, -
' $d.3|
6.8
0.8
Loyola Comers Traffic'Circle' " ■ ' . ■ " ; T
.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on Alum Rock- ' ]
■Ave.- South of Mguelita Greek Ped Bridge'
1.0
2.0
- r-
Cost
C03$/Millions)
R82
2.0
' Jmiipero Serra Blvd. Shoulder Widening
R61
R80
'1.0
R56
R58
R79"
0.9.
Bird Ave. Pedestrian Corridor,
R42
Project
VTP ID
C03$/MiUions)
.0.5i
- Citywide-Traffic CahningjProgram''
1.0
..
1.7
-
0.5
R105
Citywide Glass H & in Bicycle Route Improvements
-.0.7
0:3
,
R106
Burbank'AreaStreetlighting Project - '
0.2
R107
Countywide Pedestrian Ramps •
0.3
■ - Verde'Vista Ln. Traffic. Signal- . ' -
. •
R72
' Wolfe Rd./Red Ave./01d San'Francisco'Rd.',;'. j r
Intersection Improvement
6.0
R108
R73
Hylatnd Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Imprdvefnents
-.0.7,
R109
PedestriaiVBicycle Improvements in the fibyoh Rd Area 0.8
R110
Oak Place & Highway 9'Redestiian Signal.
West San Carlos St Streetscape Improvement Pibject>T.4
R74 .
R76
.
East Hilis/Florence-Area
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
R77
.0.2
,
Pedestrian/Bicycle improvements on " ;
McKee Rd. between White'Rd. and Staples Ave.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Irnprovements.ih the,:
Mitty Ave./Lawrence Expwy. Area
,
Valley Transportation Authority
.
0.2
.
. 0.3
,,;Rn.l r , -Herriman-.Dr. Traffic Signal Project,
o;3
■h.2
0.3
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
.-
, t l Not tnapped
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Roadway Maintenance Programs
Thi'ee VTP 2030 roadway program areas are
presented under this heading; 1) Pavement
Management, 2)Sound Mitigation, and 3)
Landscape Restoration & Graffiti Removal.
Project lists have not been developed for these
e|
SI
programs. However, VTA will work in partner
ship with its Member Agencies to identify
Vf
projects that would be eligible to fund througlr
these programs. Each of these program areas is
described below.
v;
Pavement Management Program
VTP 2030 identifies up to $301.5 million for the
Pavement Management Program (PMP). This is
based on MTC's policies for funding the Local
m
Streets and Roads Rehabilitation shortfall that
t
identified a minimum amount of $201.5
million based on Santa Clara County's share of
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roads
and $100 million from discretionary sources.
Pavement management projects are intended
to repair or replace existing roadway pavement
from outside edge of curb and gutter to
opposite outside edge of curb and gutter. The
following types of project expenditures are
Curb and gutter repak
Replacing pavement markings and striping
Incidental non-pavement repairs (e.g.,
emergency storm drain repair)
Bike facilities will be included in the final
striping wherever feasible and consistent
eligible for PMP funding:
with local plans
• Roadway reconstruction projects
Fiber-optic cable installation and other ITS
• Overlay projects
elements should be installed in conjunction
with these projects
• Pavement maintenance treatments including
seal coats and microsurfacmg
• Spot repairs
Projects should include VTA standard
concrete pads and provide ADA accessible
curbside facilities at bus stop locations
VTP 2030
101
Each city and the county must use a Pavement
Management System certiSed by the Metropolitan
oped a process for identifying projects that would
Transportation Commission (MTC)to identify
be eligible to fund through the Somid Banier
and prioritize projects and must have roadway on
Program. The policies and procedmes will:
the Metropolitan Transportation System.
• Provide basic sound mitigation for residential,
In cases where a jurisdiction has no roadway on
educational, recreational, and communitjVcul-
the MTS, they may certify that there are not
tural facilities
any roads on the MTS and the average pave
ment condition index (PCI) on the roadway
must be below a 70 rating. If it meets those cri
teria, pavement management funds may be used
on Federal aid-eligible arterials and collectors.
Due to the fact the actual funds will not be avail
able for programming until the next VTP Plan
Update, there is no pavement management list.
Sound Mitigarion Program
With the ei\actment of Senate Bill(SB) 45, the
responsibilities for programming capital projects
on State transportation facilities rests largely with
local agencies. VTA is responsible for program
ming freeway sound mitigation projects such as
soundwalls in Santa Clara County. The VTP 2030
Expenditure Plan identifies up to $10 million for a
102
the Teclmical Advisory Coimnittee, have devel
• Give priority to the most severely affected
first, based on decibel level
• Give priority to the longest affected site first,
based on the date that the need was first
formally identified and verified
• Consider geographic equity in sound
mitigation funding decisions
Eligible projects for the program are new
soundwalls on existing freeways and express
ways and new State and/or Federally eligible
sound mitigation on existing freeways and
expressways. These projects must meet VTA's
Basic Noise Mitigation Standard, must be eligi
ble for STIP funds, and a Noise Barrier
Summary Scope Report (NBSSR) or equivalent
must be complete.
Sound Mitigation Program. Funds for the sound
Landscape Restoration and
mitigation program can only be used for retrofit
Graffiti Removal
sound mitigation projects on existing freeways and
The VTP 2030 Expenditure Plan identifies up to
expressways. Retrofit projects are sound mitiga
$1 million to augment Caltrans efforts to restore
tion projects in locations where no new changes to
freeway landscaping and remove graffiti within
the freeway or expressway are planned.
the freeway riglits of way. These funds will pro
There is no compiled list of sound bai-rier and
vide "seed" money to develop public/private part
soundwaU projects. However, VTA staff, working
nerships to identify funds and develop programs
with the Capital Improvement Subcommittee of
for ongoing landscaping and maintenance efforts.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Transit Services and Programs
The Capital Investment Program identifies
funds to fuhy inrplement the 2000 Measure A
specific transit projects to be implemented dur
Ti'ansit Program of projects.
ing the timeframe of the plan. As shown in Table
2-21 on page 105, these projects include new
light rah extensions, bus rapid transit corridors,
new regional rah services, community-oriented
bus service operated with smaU vehicles, and
enhanced commuter rah service.
Existing VTA Transit Services
VTA directly provides bus, light rah, light rah
shuttles and paratransit services to Santa Clara
residents, workers and visitors. VTA also partners
with other transit operators to provide commuter
Other transit improvements and programs
rah service, inter-community and inter-county
included in VTP 2030 whl provide eihianced
express bus service, and rah shuttles. These
transit services throughout the County. This
services provide important connections to and
section discusses VTA's current services and
from Santa Clara County for residents and workers.
plans to enhance and expand them, more
VTA also funds privately operated shuttles and
defined descriptions of the specific capital
ADA paratransit services for persons with
projects in the VTP 2030 Capital Investment
disabilities. A summary of the directly operated.
Program, and the need to secure a new source of
Existing VTA Transit Services
VTA Bus/Rail System
CfosslwvfuFeedw Routes
— - Jnler-County ExprossRoutss
-—•••• Inira-Counly £xp«es*Routi»8
Umilsd Slop
—— Secondary Grid Routes
cn 3
Primary Grid Routes
VTAUgtitRad
VTAAec/Ca{Aa1
VTACallrain
SOUTH COUNTY
VTP 2030
103
VTP 2030 Proposed Transit Projects
V
•■' "--
Transit Projects and Study Corridors
VTP 2030 Transit Project
EZI Potential New Rapid
Transit Corridors
\
104
Valley Transportation Authority
V,*
"""T'*''-
;J' i.,
,-' :"/
'
'
chapter
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-21 Transit Projects
VIP ID'
TO
Project Name
Total
Estimated Cost
('OS$/Millionsf
VTP 2030 Measure A
Funding
Allocation
COSS/Millimis)''
from Other
$1,003
$1,003
Operating Assistance 2006-2036
T7
Downtown East Valley(DTEV)
T2
BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara
T3
Bus Rapid Transit(Line 22, Monterey, Stevens Creek)
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades(VTA Share)
Til
New Rail Corridors Study—conceptual alignment evaluations
112
Mineta San Jose International Airport ARM Goimector
400
222
T6
Caltrain—South County
100
61
T9
Hlgltway 17 Bus Service Improvements
T8
Source
550
550
4,193
2,453
1,740
50
33
17
171
155
16
1
1
178
39
2
2
Dumbarton Rail
278
44
234
T13
Palo Alto httermodal Center
200
50
150
11
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
TIO
New Rail Corridors—Phase 1
T4
Caltrain Electrification
T16
Zero Emission Bus(ZEB)Demonstration Program
'TIS
T16-
New Rail Corridors—^Phase 2
22
22
TBD
188
650
233
417
17
17
<
Zero Emission Buses & Facilities
'TBD
260
"l ''. {
'
' •
1,031
260
1. VTP ID numbers are assigned alphabetically and do not imply any priority order.
2. Revenue projections and project cost estimates presented In the plan are shown In 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue
projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
3. The VTA Board of Directors adopted the allocations amounts for the projects shown in this table at its April 2004 meeting. These allocations
were based on revenue projections developed for the Short Range lYansit Plan (SRTP) adopted by the VTA Board in February 2004.
See Appendix for more project detail.
In
E' I Projects withoutfuudirig allocations; not mapped.
Table 2-22 Capital for On-Going Operations
Non-Measure A Transit Investments'
2005-2030
$1,045
Operating Faculties & Equipment
159
Light RaU Way,Power & Signal
82
Passenger Facilities
51
Information Systems & Technology
109
Caltrain and ACE Capital Contributions
181
Miscellaneous Projects
Total
4
$1,631
1. Capital Projects tor Oii-Golng Operations do not use Measure A funds and are not mapped.
VTP 2030
105
iiiter-agency, and contracted transit serwces is
presented in the foilowing tables.
VTA directly operates 69 bus lines and 3 light
rail lines, with a fleet of 523 buses and 100 light
ran vehicles. About 21 million miles of bus and
light rail service is operated araiually. During FY
2002/2003, VTA carried about 45 million riders:
39 million on bus and 6 million on light rail.
deserve. While VTA has placed bus service
expansion plans on hold until the current
financial shortage is resolved, several planning
studies will be conducted to prepare for expan
sion as demand for transit services increases.
These studies will include market studies to
help VTA planners design service for particular
market segments, and operational studies
to help planners design more effective and
productive service.
Plans for Future Bus Service
Improvements
VTA is conunitted to providing the high-quality
transit service its customers expect and
The VTP 2030 vision for improving bus transit
service focuses on system refinements and
improved operating efficiency, rather than over-
Table 2-23 VTA Directly Operated Service
Service Type
Primary Bus
Light Rail
Decription
Target Market
Target Improvements
Primary Bus services include local bus,
Commuters, students,
and general purpose
trips.
System refinements and
improved operating efficiency,
improve frequency in mqjor
corridors, implement new
limited stop bus, neighborhood & feeder
routes, and express service. These routes
provide dahy local service covering the
entire service area, including commute
services to major employment zones.
and Community Bus services.
Light rail system operating in exclusive
right-of-way with trains of 1 to 3 cars,
depending Upon ridership demand. The
current light rail system is 37 miles in
length, serving 54 stations.
Commuters, students,
and general purpose
trips.
Light Rail
VTA and employers co-sponsor commute
Shuttle Bus
shuttle routes linking light rail with nearby
Employees working at
Expand program in support of
companies near light rail new rail lines/extensions,
employment sites. Includes DASH shuttle
stations. DASH serves
service in downtown San Jose.
downtown San Jose,
Caltrain and light rail.
Paratransit
Specialized door-to-door transportation for
persons who meet the eligibility require
ments established by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Paratransit service is pro
vided with taxis, sedans and accessible
vans.
106
technologies. Develop BET
Valley Transportation Authority
Several new rail lines/exten
sions: Vasona, Downtown/East
Valley, and other potentiEil cor
ridors to be studied.
Persons with disabili
ties who are unable to
use fixed route bus or
rail service.
Manage service to meet
increasing demand and contin
ue making station and stop
access improvements.
chapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
all growth. To get more from existing invest
develops its biemiiai ten-year Short Range
ments and address specific commrmlty needs,
Transit Plan (SET?), and its Annual Transit
VTA win use new technologies, innovative
Service Plans. These plans are used to imple
planning and marketing strategies, and
ment detailed transit service improvements,
smaller-sized vehicles. The vision for these
route changes and refinements, and unprove
improvements is to develop an expanding
productivity. Until a new source of additional
ridership base by providing higher-quality,
funding can be secured for operations, VTA will
market-oriented sei^dce.
have to work within the existing resources it
VTA continually monitors use of the primary
bus network to determine where and when
service improvements and expansions may be
needed. This information is considered as VTA
has for operations. This does not mean that VTA
wfii not strive to continue to improve services to
its current and potential new customers. To
improve bus transit service, VTA wiU be embark
ing on the following studies and programs;
Table 2-24 VTA Inter-Agency and Contracted Services
Service Type
Decription
Target Market
Future Improvements
Coltrain
Joint Powers Board (JPB)operating com
muter-oriented raU service providing daily
service along the Peninsula between San
Francisco and GUroy.
Comnruters and gener
al purpose trips within
Santa Clara, San
Mateo, and San
Expand service with emphasis
on Santa Clara County service
needs.
Francisco Counties.
Coltroin
Shuttle Bus
Joint Powers Board (JPB)and employers
co-sponsor commute shuttle routes linking
Caltrain stations with nearby employment
Employees working at
companies near
Expand as new sponsor com
panies are identified.
Caltrain stations.
sites.
ACE
Commuter
Rail
Highway 17
Express
Dumbarton
Express
Commuter-oriented rail service providing
daily service between Stockton, Tracy,
Livermore, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San
Jose. Four trains are operated per weekday.
Commuters.
Expand number of trains in
response to ridersliip demand.
Commuters and San
Expand program in response to
ridership growth.
Express bus service operating between
Santa Cruz/Scotts VaUey aird downtown San
Jose State students
Jose.
general purpose trips.
Express bus service operating between
Union City, Redwood City, and Palo Alto.
Commuters, general
purpose trips.
Expand program in response to
ridership growth.
VTP 2030
107
Table 2-25 Examples of Matching Markets with Services
Travel Patterns
Typical Attitudes & Preferences
Regional Travel
Sensitivity to travel time
Caltrain
Concern for the environment
Express Bus
Services
Sensitivity to use of time
Sub-Regional Travel
Community-Based Travel
Need for flexibility
Sensitivity to transportation costs
Sensitivity to crowds and personal safety
Need for flexibility
Sensitivity to transportation costs
Sensitivity to crowds and personal safety
• Market Segmentation Study
• Community Bus Service
Loctd Arterial Bus
Local Arterial Bus
Community Bus
explored for lines with high evening ridership
demand, and for lines serving major regional
activity locations such as shopping centers, key
• Bus Rapid Transit
■regional transportation hubs and locations with
If additional funding is secured in the future to
evening entertainment and cultural or educa
expand operations and restore transit service,
tional activities. These improvements also sup
some of the areas of bus service improvements
port welfare-to-work initiatives.
will potentially include the following:
Improved Commute and Regional Service—
Headway Improvetnents—When financial con
VTA operates a network of commute and
ditions allow, future service expansion wiU focus
regional express routes designed to provide
on restoring and improving service frequencies
direct service to major employment areas,
on the bus network, and future headway
operate in major commute corridors, utilize
improvements wili move toward filling in the
commuter lanes whenever possible, and provide
10/15/30-minute transit networks. It may not be
an attractive commute alternative that is time
economically feasible to fuUy achieve these
competitive to the auto. Regional Express lines
headways, but headway improvements wiU be
also link major regional points and destinations,
pursued, particularly for the grid routes, as
such as Fremont BART to downtown San Jose.
funding allows.
As employment, development, and regional
Expanded Service Hours—^When financial con
ditions allow, expanded hours of service wfil be
108
Light Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Valley Transportation Authority
travel increase, the demand for expanded
commute and regional service wiU also increase.
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The need to improve and expand this element
of transit service will become even more
'mz:
1
m
critical, and new strategies, such as BRT, need
to be explored.
Market Segmentation Study
Market segmentation is a sophisticated market
research tool used to identify distinct segments
fi
in the marketplace to help better understand
11^
the values and expectations of these popula
•■i
tions. Private sector entities have utilized this
kind of analysis for years to identify ways to
increase their market share. Using this tool in
the public sector, and specifically m transit, is a
relatively new development.
Attitudes and Preferences
Below are a few examples of attitudes and pref
From this effort we'U learn;
erences that could impact a person's decision to
• Where there are distinct groups (market seg
use transit:
ments) in the population that share the same
set of values
• Wliat attitudes and preferences these groups
have regarding different transit options
• What service delivery strategies best match
these market segments
An analysis will be conducted linking the results
from the three elements of the market segmen
tation study: identifying attitudes and prefer
ences, developing various transit service
options, and identifying travel patterns. This ■wUl
allow VTA to develop recommended changes to
the bus network aimed at capturing a larger
• What is the need for flexibility in terms of
frequency of service and hours of operation?
• How sensitive is the market segment to
travel tune?
• How sensitive is the market segment to
transportation costs?
• Is the mam reason for using transit concern
for the environment?
• Is there a sensitivity to crowds, personal
space and safety?
• Is It important to be able to use the time on
transit productively?
market share.
VTP 2030
T09
Transit Service Options
Market-Driven Services
Senace delivery alternatives will focus on the
Below are examples of mai'ket-driven services:
following travel:
• Commuter rail
• Regional—travel between VTA's service area
• Light rail
and adjoining counties
• Express bus
• Sub-Regional—medium to long distance
• Bus Rapid Transit (new)
travel witlrin the VTA service area
• Local arterial bus
• Community-Based—short trips vsdthin a
localized area
• Community bus (new)
Table 2-26 Community-Based Service Consensus-Building Planning Process
Go to the Community '!
Locol stokeholders;engage
their tommiinity."
Mail/E-jtiallodditional
Mell/E-mall additional
resources to participants
resource's to pdrlicipants
• Consensus Exercise: Engugei '.
participants in group discussions
Phase I- Meeting 3 ;
• Consensus' Exe'rcise:- Engoge „ i •
-^group discussionahout'oreas of
needs, vehicles X bus step. _
one preferred alternative from
each group.' . .
• Optionni Jour: Hovevehicle
. available to tour proposed <
participants (e.g..custamets\ .
amenities).
. f'
• VTA Homework: Develop -
individualalternatives for'
community review. . - :
Phose I - Meeting 2'
to consolidate alternatives jnta .
■VTA HomewarkiStaffuses' . .
: Geographical Information
System (GiS) to identify areas
at agreement.
Phose It .
, resideAvork near thoiproposed"
project.
Valley Transportation Authority
reutefs).
'
•Hold public open house
meetings, invitingiolf those who
110
r-
n Describe Process " i.
n Listen; Coiiect useful dutafrom
Phase I - Meeting 1 -
Phase ill
*R'oiicy'nlakBr"decisipnij)pint.&..>
))(iA:staff fallow-jhtough|* ■ i
Phase i ■ Meeting 4
(Optional)
■Continue consensus building
process end discuss other(
reloted community planning
issues such as marketing, image
development, etc. '
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Community Bus Service
The challenge is to match these basic elements
(travel, attitudes, services) in a way that VTA
Key Benefits
.1 Smaller veiiicles more easily navlgafe'Jn low to
''..medlurri" clensily areas
'
'
can prioritize the deployment of its resources
and maximize its market share. Another dimen
sion to this study will be identifying the origins
.Mobility for all riders is provided through one service,' nn
and destinations of these markets. This can be
used to implement new services and/or adjust
,' ''-reducing the need for cdmplementdiy pdratransit U',
current services to better meet the needs of the
y»>.;Lower:0perating-;Cost th0ndfaditionalifixedr routelond
'.icomplementaryporotransit'
\
'
various market segments.
'
K*:i^-£arisbeieustornized,'to;aGCommodate unique;communily<:
Community Bus Service
neecJs—not a>"bne size fifs'air"model
Current development patterns and densities,
• iCorinects.to'major drterials and other transit hubs' .• ,
multiple destinations, and an increasingly
diverse population present some unique chal
lenges to daily travels around our valley. VTA
has long recognized that a new approach to
A
'
4
fixed route services blending standard "big"
rs
buses with smaller,"community" vehicles could
provide better service for everyone.
K\,%
This community-based blend of vehicle types
r
coupled with new routings can provide the
service and convenience needed to attract
new riders. Recognizing these opportunities
I
and commimity benefits, VTA's Fiscal Year
erVi
2004-2013 Short Range Transit Plan incorpo
rates the use of smaller capacity vehicles
begirming in January 2006.
Community-Based Service
J
Unlike conventional routes serving longer
distances and multiple communities, services
designed in the Community-Based Service
concept operate with small veliicles along short.
VIP 2030
111
circuitous pathways that match the travel pat
Proven-Programs in Service
terns of specific groups in neighborhood-oriented
'
CityLink'in Abilene,'Texas, a ',108-square-mi!e community., ;.'
'of 106,000, has ten fixed routes, nine of which will de'v'i; ""
consensus-driven process that is flexible to meet
" ate to either specific places or to destinations requested''
by o rider. Riders must call to request the service 30 minutes before boarding. Most of,the.requestsfordevibtion
come from persons using wheelchairs., • "
'
varying needs in specific neighborhoods.
Route Flexibility Options
• Deviate anywhere along route
•. "Madison'Mobility in Madison, Wisconsin, has eight'' " ;
service routes)-which operate weekdays only, from Z'AM"'
)" to 6 PM in the comrfiunity of just under 250,000. The,
routes will deviate, but only,for"passengers wjth disabilities- .
who make the request ing advance: ,/
,
OmniLink in suburban Washington) DC, operates along" ''■
five flex-foute corridors' using -13 peak vehicles. Riders can' ! •
access the service like "a.fixed route bus if their origin and
'destination are,near''OmniLinkistops., If bus stops are'not'
convenient; flexible rooting (within one-mile-wide corridors)- ■'
• , '"-enables riders to call and arrange'fbr.tffe Bus to pick therrf'
'
'
"
"
C - ( -
*.
!■
f
J
V ^ r.
Potential Applications in-Santa Clara County '
• Areas in West Valley, South-County, North County '
Lower-density,areas
but not others
or circulator services
r ,'
^^,
■ ■ ■■•'
ITS Technologies
• Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) through
the use of global positioning systems
• Mobile data terminals for in-vehicle mapping
and on-time performance
• On-line reservations depending on seiMce
concept
•* Areas that would'benefit from circulator types of se/vices;, , '
[eig., a downtown setting) ,
'
.
i_
, y.
)
abled, or children C., ,
• Deviate along some parts of the route,
• No deviation, providing either fixed route
- ' ..
• Areas that hove significant populations of,seniors,-.dis-. '
(e.g., senior centers, hospitals)
between stops
. 'up or,,td drop,them off .closer to'their.de/tinofions yyithiri ; '< ;
-.their neighborhoods. Standing orde'rs'for repeat trips are.:
• Dewate only to designated stops
• Have fixed stops, but deviate anywhere in
.•,
' ;■ .
I
.
' \ also accepted
activity spaces. The Community Bus concept is a
-
• Real-time trip information for customers
Vehicles
• Smaller than in typical transit use
• "Branded" to fit the specific character
of the community
• Able to accommodate the mobility needs
of all customers
112
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Community Consensus to
Build the Service Plan
Characteristics of a
Rapid Transit Coiridor
VTA will use a step-by-step consensus-driven
process during which community members,
transit planners and other stakeholders meet m
working sessions. Each workshop culminates in
consensus decisions, first at a strategic level
<• "Addresses mulfipjediavel markets'throughbut the,day
.• Fre'quent service,of,d'5 minutes or;better
'
Upgraded passenger facilities .and amenities n
n
" f;
scheduling, and vehicle selection. The process is
• Average speed of,20 miles per'hour or.gceaferC.
' (in'cludingistopjtimes)'- 'i , ''
illustrated on page 110.
•'Stop spacing.is generally!wider,- depending oriJdnd use'
and, ultimately, at the tactical level of routing,
patterns and accessibility
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT is a newly evolving concept in the provision
v •" - /i
'Often.supported,by'exclusive rightsbf-wdy
Bus preferential-traffic treatments
of transit services. VTA has embraced the con
cept and has identified three BRT corridors in
VTP 2030. The characteristics that distinguish a
'I
BRT corridor are described in the sidebar.
r
The Measure A Transit Program identifies $33
m
Monterey Highway and Stevens Creek
-
1
1
u
Boulevard.
mm
Line 22 BRT Project—The current Line 22 pro
m
vides bus service across the east-west length of
the County. VTA supports the continued
Oi
•JIB'
enhancement of the Line 22 BRT as a participat
ing agency in the Federal Bus Rapid Transit
Demonstration Program. VTA is currently devel
■k
mm
million for these three BRT corridors: Line 22,
oping BRT in the northwest segment of the Line
f. •
I*
22 corridor in the cities of Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto. The
southeast portion of Line 22 in the Santa
Clara/Alum Rock corridor is being studied for
VTP 2030
113
BRT as part of the Downtown East Valley
Association (APTA) survey data for 30-foot, 35-
Transit Improvement Project.
foot, 40-foot and 60-foot (articulated) buses. All
Monterey Highway BRT—The Monterey
Highway BRT project is currently In the concep
tual design phase to further define specific
improvements. The Monterey Highway BRT
project includes improvements alorrg a 9.6-mile
route (primarily Monterey Highway)from the
Diridon Station to the Santa Teresa Station on
the Guadalupe Lme m South San Jose. The next
new VTA buses will be low-floor velricles using
ramps rather than lifts to provide access for the
mobility impaired. Additionally, VTA is introduc
ing Zero-Emission Buses (ZEBs). Starting in
2009,15 percent of full-size (standard) replace
ment buses wiU be zero-emission (fuel cell)
technology. ZEB costs are assumed to be sub
stantially greater than standard buses.
steps in. this process for the projects included in
the preferred investment strategy are prelimi
Zero-Emission Vehicle Program
nary engineering, final design, and constraction.
In December 2000, VTA's Board of Directors
Stevens Creek Boulevard BRT—Stevens Creek
selected the low-emissions diesel fuel path in
has been identified as a potential BRT corridor
compliance with CARB's Fleet Rule for Urban
and will need to be studied in greater detail to
Transit Operations. The Board further acted to
detennine its viability for BRT services.
implement a bus procurement program that
shifts from a low-emission diesel bus fleet to a
The improvements for these projects are
mtended to increase carrying capacity, reduce
travel times and establish a brand for BRT serv
zero-emission bus fleet (fuel cell technology)
beginning with the purchase of zero-emission
buses in 2008.
ice. Specific improvements include deploying
low-floor vehicles, queue jump lanes, signal pri
VTA is proceeding with a demonstration project
oritization, automated vehicle location technolo
of fuel cell technology to evaluate the impacts
gy, ticket vending machines, and improved pas
on operation, maintenance, and the public.
senger amenities and security.
This demonstration program will be done in
conjunction with SamTrans to increase effec
Bus Fleet Replacement
VTA has purchased three 40-foot low-floor fuel
At the writing of VTP 2030 there are no bus
cell powered buses from the Gillig Corporation.
replacement plans beyond plans stated in 2004
In addition to the fuel cell buses, the program
SRTP. Cost estimates for replacement buses
includes installation of a hydrogen fueling facility
programmed in FY 2004 and beyond are based
and modification of the Cerone maintenance
primarily on American Pubhc Transportation
114
tiveness. As part of this demonstration project,
Valley Transportation Authority
facility to accommodate the fuel cell buses.
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
the training of staff, the public and emergency
I
departments, and an evaluation of the
overall program.
The Federal Transit Administration approved a
Letter of No Prejudice (LONP)in the amount of
'y
M
$10.5 million on June 29, 2001. The LONP allows
m
VTA to expend local funds for the acquisition of
it-
up to seven 40-foot hydrogen fuel cell, zero-
i^1
emission buses. This approval permits VTA to
incur costs for the project and retain the eligibili
ty for future FTA grant reimbursement.
GARB regulations are currently undergoing
TA
review and changes may affect VTA's ZEB
□
Program. VTA will monitor this process and take
actions accordingly.
Light Rail Service Enhancements
and Expansion
Light Rail Extensions
Several of the light rail extensions presented in
VTP 2020 are either already open for revenue
service or near completion. The following is a list
• Capitol Corridor (Hostetter Station to Alum •
Rock Station, 3.5 miles) opened for service in
July 2004
• Vasona Phase I (Downtown San Jose to
Winchester Station in Campbell, 5.3 Miles)
of the LET corridors that were programmed and
under construction with an anticipated open
their status:
ing date in Summer 2005
• Tasman East Corridor Phase 1 (Baypointe
Station to I-880/MiLpitas Station, 1.9 miles)
opened for service in May 2001
• Tasman East Corridor Phase II (I-SSO/MUpitas
Station to Hostetter Station, 2.9 mhes) opened
for service in July 2004
Potential Future Light Rail Extensions
Downtown/East Valley (DTEV)
2000 Measure A identified partial funding for
DTEV projects; VTP 2030 includes an allocation
of $550 million. In 2000, the VTA Board
VTP 2030
115
approved a Preferred Investment Strategy for
DTEV as follows (project costs are shown in
an access improvements. The Environmental
2003 dollars):
Impact Report (EIR)/ Environmental Impact
• Light Rail along Santa Clara Street and Alum
Statement (EIS) covers the segments from Alum
Rock Avenue at $298 million (an Enhanced
Rock to Nieman Blvd., including the LRV storage
Bus option is estimated to cost $85 million)
facility. These segments are also undergoing
• Light Rail alorrg Capitol Expressway to
Eastridge Mall at $291 million
• Light Rail along the southern portion of
Capitol Expressway from Eastridge Mall to
Guadalupe LRT/Hwy87 at $550 million
(includes $118m to extend from Eastridge to
Nieman Blvd., $21m for a storage facility,
$204m for an extension from Nieman Blvd. to
Preliminary Engineering (PE), with anticipated
completion in early 2006. The segments from
Nieman Blvd. to Guadalupe LRT/SR 87, while not
included in the EIR/EIS, will be studied as part
of the New Light Rail Corridors Study. Approval
of the final ElR/ElS for the Capitol Expressway
Light Rail by the VTA Board of Directors is
anticipated in 2005.
Coyote Creek, and $207m to extend from
Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum
Coyote Creek to Guadalupe LRT/Hwy 87)
Rook Corridor—The Santa Clara/Alum Rock
• $33m for three BRT lines (Monterey Hwy.,
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Line 22)
The DTEV corridors are shown on the adjacent
map.
corridor extends fi-om the San Jose Diridon
Station to the Aliun Rock Station along the
Capitol LRT Line. Two alternatives were selected
by the YYk Board of Directors in May 2003 for
study in the EIR/EIS, as follows: an Enhanced
The enviroimiental work for DTEV has been
Bus alternative, which would provide special
divided into two corridors described below:
ized service (limited .stop and circulator)
Downtown East Valley Capitol Expressway
Corridor—The Capitol Expressway Light Rail
Lme would extend li^t rail approximately eight
nules from the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol
(Avenue) Line along the entire length of Capitol
Expressway to the Capitol Station on the
Guadalupe LRT Line. This hne would operate m a
semi-exclusive guide way primarily in the median
of Capitol Expressway, and would include grade
116
separations, park-and-ride facilities, and pedestri
Valley Transportation Authority
tailored to the corridor's transit needs, as well
as construction of improved bus stop areas and
other corridor enhanceihents ($85ra); and a
Single-Car Light Rail alternative, which would
provide light rail service with single-car trains in
the corridor ($290m). The VTA Board of
Directors is expected to approve the Final
EIR/EIS for the project along with a preferred
transit mode alternative m 2005.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
VTP 2030 Study Corridors
V .
j
ki. . - "
J-.
.i
;J' 7ji',
V
to/,
- s!
¥
./ ^
ci
'•^l.
\
10^
'y^'
1- '" ' k'jii
^4'c',^
^ ,i^k'p^>. i
S
,- «
\.i
"if ^
f n
■■.
. "" k
. ., ^
-,
Z
S
■ J
^
{■"
- . I"r' . X 1 - .
.2-1,
\
't ~
f
t
N
\
"~t-
\
'M;/' ■■'XS
' '
^,'X\
M
\
I
\\
^ ii'V-y '" y *
(o-y > '
^ , I b
IS
■\
"*'^n* ^n'f
i
'V
UJ
- .1
>
^
N
: V\^ ,
V•
K 'VK
\v,
'
!'V , ,
"T Vl«>.
'V
.-\ f''
xc'" V
\
r-j-4
\
*■
CCT^X • ■"'.
i''-t' S:
"
-
'
=
'W- ' r
Nvi/'
\
.
'
b:!!c.-i Ave_4>„.
cy
1.
V
South County
'/
,
rfiX
._lx
fir-
^ '''
'
r
-
' X
'
19 - , '
•¥"%,
■'
'v/
' . B|o£<f'i 1ili 'Rfis
' I'r"-'', ' ~
/
,
\
, //" ; "i ;
( . ,
.
•
vC«nf?csr»
\
^
/'?*
-
kr&..a d\'
X
^
\^'
\
\.
Study Corridors
Potential New. Rapid
Transit Corridors .,
Potential New Light Rail Corridors
Sunnjrvale/Gupertino
VTP 2030 includes $188 million in capital funds
Downtown East Valley extension to
for New Rail Corridors, and $1 million to con
Guadalupe LET Line
duct a study of the seven potential rail corridors
shown below;
Vasona LET: Winchester Boulevard to
Vasona Junction
VTP 2030
117
• Stevens Creek Boulevard
• West San Jose/Santa Clara
• Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley, and potential
extension south to Morgan HDl
• North County/Palo Alto
• Light rail platform reconstruction along the
existing Guadalupe corridor to address con
version to low-floor vehicles. As of May 2004,
stations north of downtown San Jose have
been completed. The remaining stations
south of downtown will be upgraded when
future funding has been identified.
New Rail Corridors Study
Tire New Rail Corridors study will examine the
• Light rail system rehabilitation including the
rehabilitation or replacement of the track,
potential benefits and feasibility of building
overhead contact system, substations and
these lines. Elements that may be considered in
passenger facilities and stations.
the evaluation of these lines include:
• System connectivity
• Transit improvements in downtown San Jose
to increase LRT speed and operational capac
ity of the system. Enhancements in the
• Ridership potential
downtown woiild also serve low-floor LRT
• Constructabitity and environmental impacts
vehicles and improve the integration of LRT,
• Cost
• Commimity enhancements
VTA win also be developing a Policy for System
bus transit, and future regional rail services.
Commuter and Regional Rail Services
Enhancement and Expansion
Expansion to guide future requests for new tran
VTA currently participates in three inter-county
sit service. The Transit Expansion Policy would
commuter rail services. Improvements to each
provide criteria for expanding both bus and rail
of these services are included in VTP 2030.
services.
Coltroin
LRT System Enhancement
Three primary LRT system enhancements are
discussed in this plan. They wiU provide for con
version to low-floor vehicles, overall mainte
nance of the existing LRT infrastructure and
improvement of the LRT infrastructure in the
downtown. These programs include:
Caltrain rehabilitation and electrification are
the first priority of the Joint Powers Board
(JPB) Caltrain Rapid Rail Program. This
program provides for the rehabilitation and
electrification of the rail line in Santa Clara
County from Palo Alto to Cilroy. The VTP 2030
Program Allocation includes $233 million for the
electrification of Caltrain between Cilroy and
San Francisco.
118
Valley Transportation Authority
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The 2000 Measure A program also includes an
allocation of $155 million for Caltrain service
upgrades. These upgrades are meant to increase
Caltrain service, including the purchase of new
A
locomotive train sets for increased Caltrain
service in Santa Clara County from Gilroy to
Palo Alto, and to provide additional facilities to
support the increased service. An additional $61
I
dii!-
mlUlon is allocated for South County Caltrain
service expansion, particularly to extend the
Caltrain double track from the San Jose Tamien
Station through Morgan HiU to Gilroy.
California High-Speed Rail
The California High-Speed Rail(CHSR) Project
is an intra-state rail link currently being planned
by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to
help meet the anticipated increase in travel
demand between the Bay Area and Southern
Califoriua. The initial phase of the project calls
for a 220-mile-per-houi' train to comiect the Bay
Area and the Los Angeles area. Later phases
would link Sacramento in the north and San
Diego in the south.
VTA strongly supports an aligmnent that enters
the San Francisco Bay Area from the south.
Such an alignment should pass through San
Jose/Silicon Valley as part of the mainline serv
ice. This alignment should work to maximize the
ridership of the high-speed rail service and,
therefore, its long-term economic sustainability
It should also minimize environmental impacts
to the extent practicable by following an exist
ing transportation corridor rather than creating
Yet to be determined is the Bay Ai'ea aligrunent.
a new one, and by not passing through or under
Due to public comments received after the
Henry Coe State Park. Furthermore, VTA
release of the draft Environmental Impact
believes the alignment should continue north
Report/Environmental Impact Statement in
following the Caltrain tracks along the Peninsula
January 2004, the High-Speed RaO Authority
mto San Francisco; such an aligmnent would
decided in September 2004 to re-examine all
help Caltrain achieve several of its long-term
potential alignments connecting the Central
goals such as electrification, grade-separating
Valley and the Bay Area. This review is expect
the corridor, and improved travel time.
ed to take a year and a half to complete.
VIP 2030
119
The Cdpitol Corridor
r:
VTA supports the expansion of the Capitol
Corridor rail service from the current eight trips
per weekday to the full 14 trips per day in FY
2005. Similar to the expansion in ACE service,
VTA wiU work with partnering agencies and the
cities to address the need for station improve
ments and passenger services that are required
as Capital Corridor service is expanded.
Fremonh-South Bay Corridor
The Fremont-South Bay corridor is one of the
most congested corridors in the Bay Area. This
is a heavily traveled commute corridor seiwing
people living in the East Bay and beyond, who
are accessing jobs in the Silicon Valley. Work
A bond measure to fund the construction and
operation is scheduled to come before California
voters m November 2006. VTA will be monitoring
the development of this project tod considering
it in future planning studies.(For more informa
tion, see http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.)
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
VTA provides funding toward the operating and
capital costs of ACE commuter rail service
through a cooperative agreement with the San
Joaquin County Regional Rail Commission and
the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency. VTP 2030 includes an allocation of $22
million to upgrade ACE service—particularly to
provide VTA's matching funds for additional train
sets, passenger facilities and service upgrades.
120
Valley Transportation Authority
trip growth in the corridor is expected to
increase 30 percent over the next 20 years. In
November 1996, the Santa Clara County voters
approved Measure A, an advisory ballot
measure, containing specific transportation
projects including rail improvements in the
Fremont-South Bay corridor. In November
2000, 70 percent of the voters in Santa Clara
County supported Measure B, a local sales tax
measure that commits significant local funding
to the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor,
among other transit projects.
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit
Corridor(SVRTC)
In 2000 and 2001, a Major Investment Study
(MIS) of 11 transportation alternatives was
completed for the corridor. Alternatives evaluat-
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
ed included extensions of the Bay Area Rapid
to be certified in early 2007. Prelimuiary engi
Transit(BART) system, light rail, express bus
neering for the project is under way, with a
and commuter rail. In November of 2001, the
scheduled completion date in late 2006.
VTA Board of Directors approved an extension
of BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara
as the locally preferred investment alternative
in the corridor.
The SVRTC is included in the Regional
Transportation Plan. The costs of the project
are estimated to be $4,193 billion (in year
2003 dollars). The project is scheduled to be
The SVRTC project would extend the BART
completed in 2015, depending on funding
system 16.3 miles from the future BART Warm
availability. Funding is projected to come from
Springs station in Fremont to the cities of
a variety of sources including local sales tax,
Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. The align
the governor's Traffic Congestion Relief
ment follows the Union Pacific Rail Road
Program (TCRP) and the Federal 5309 "New
(UPRR) right-of-way through Milpitas to Santa
Starts" Program.
Clara Street in San Jose. At that point the align
ment turns west and proceeds in a tunnel under
Santa Clara Street to the Duddon Caltrain
San Jose international Airport Transit
Connection
station. The alignment then turns north under
This project will provide a link to Mineta San Jose
Stockton Street, surfacing near the San
international Airport from VTA's Guadalupe Light
Jose/Santa Clara city limits and proceeding to
Rail Transit(LRT)Line on North First Street in
the Santa Clara Caltrain station.
San Jose, and from Caltrain and future BART in
The extension includes 7 stations: Montague/
Capitol, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Civic Plaza/San
Jose State University, Market Street, Diridon/
Ai'ena and Santa Clara—and one future station
(South Calaveras). in addition, a new BART
maintenance facility will be built near the Santa
Clara station.
The Draft Environmental impact Report/Draft
Santa Clara, using Automated People Mover
(APM)teclinology. it is anticipated that the con
nection to light rail will occur at the Metro station.
The connection to Caltrain and future BART is
anticipated along the airport's northern perimeter
road as an extension on the airport APM between
the centralized terminal and long-term parking
garage or in a tunnel under the existing Eiirport
runways,it is anticipated that the airport will
EnvironmentEii impact Statement (DEiS/DEiR)
operate and maintain the APM system. The
was circulated to the public in March, April and
estimated cost of the project ranges from $375
May of 2004. The final EIR was certified in
million to $425 miUion, depending upon specific
December 2004, and the final EiS is anticipated
project alignment and features. Funding for this
VTP 2030
121
system would include passenger facility charges
Bus (ZEB)fleet. Specific projects within this
at Mineta San Jose International Airport and
program include:
future sales tax revenues.
• Reconstruction and expansion of the Cerone
bus division operation and maintenance
Dumbarton Rail
facilities to support on-going operations and
This effort would implement new commuter rail
the ZEB fleet.
service over the Dumbarton Rail Bridge corridor
connecting Union City to select Galtrain stations
• Reconstruction and expansion of Chaboya
bus division operation and maintenance facili
in San Mateo, San Francisco and Santa Clara
ty, and changes to support the ZEB fleet. The
counties. The objective of this service is to
cost of tills project is under development.
address the demand for cross-bay trips, easing
the traffic congestion in the San Mateo and
Dumbarton bridge corridors. Estimated project
capital costs are $300 million, with annual operatmg costs projected at $7.5 million.
• Construction of a new LRT/bus maintenance
facility with capacity to accommodate future
LRT and the ZEB fleet. VTA will evaluate the
cost of tills project as part of a Facilities
Master Plan.
Next steps in this effort include determination
of institutional and funding ainangements, envi
ronmental compliance and preliminary engi
neering and final design, and construction.
Funding for the Dumbarton Rail Project would
include future sales tax revenues, toll bridge
revenue, and other sources from the partnering
counties of Alameda and San Mateo. The 2000
Measure A transit program includes a $44 mil
lion allocation for the Dumbarton Rail Project.
Transit Centers Program
Coordinated with the short-range transit
services enhancement and expansion plaiming
described previously, VTA will be pursuing a
Transit Centers program. Transit centers are
most often proposed as joint-venture efforts at
key activity centers.
Transit centers fall into two basic types: Major
Intermodal Facilities and Transit Centers. Major
Facility Rehabilitation and Expansion
122
intermodal facilities provide significant transfer
opportunities between commuter rail, light rail,
The VTP 2030 facility rehabilitation and
shuttles, VTA buses, other transit operator seiw-
expansion program supports the on-gomg
ices, and potentially BART. Transit Centers are
maintenance and delivery of existing services,
at locations with lower, yet still significant,
and the accommodation of the Zero-Emission
transfer demand.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Major Intermodal Transit Facilities
#5
Major intermodal facilities are to be developed
or improved at:
• Palo Alto
• Dmdon Station
• Potential future BART stations
VTP 2030 identifies only the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Center for development and
improvement with potential futm'e intermodal
transit facility improvements. The estimated
cost of this project is $50 milhon, which has
ifssw;
been identified from Measure A funds.
Construction for the Palo Alto Intermodal
Transit Center is expected to begin in late 2004.
This transit center is designed to improve links
between Caltrain and bus service, as well as
accommodate buses operated by VTA,
SamTrans, and the Dumbarton Express, which
provides service to and from the Union City
• Roadway improvements and creation of park
space
• Reconstruction and expansion of bus transit
center facilities with provisions for VTA
expanded services, Palo Alto shuttles, and the
Stanford Marguerite and Caltrain shuttles
BART station in Alameda County. The transit
With regard to Diridon Station and potential
center will also provide convenient comiections
future BART stations, these transit facilities wiD
to Stanford's Marguerite shuttle and Palo Alto's
be further studied for potential multimodal tran
local shuttle system. Project elements include
sit facility use and design as funding becomes
the following:
available.
• Reconstruction of University Avenue bridge
connecting with Palm Drive
• Reconstruction and expansion of the Caltrain
bridge over University Avenue to include fom"
tracks to allow express train service
Transit Centers
Potential locations for future, upgraded, or
expanded transit centers include the following:
• DeAnza College
• Eastridge Mall (as part of the Downtovm East
Valley Capitol Expressway LRT Project).
VTP 2030
123
Table 2-27 Projected Annual Paratransit Trips
communities throughout the San Francisco Bay
Area, and recommended community-based
transportation planning to further efforts to
2,000,000
address them. Likewise, the Environmental
1,600,000
Justice Report for the 2001 RTP also identified
1,600,000
the need for MTC to support local planning
efforts in low-income communities throughout
1,400,000
the region. Each community-based transporta
tion plan will be a collaborative effort involving
residents and community-based organizations
800.000
(CBOs) providing services within minority and
low-inconie neighborhoods.
400,000
Services and Programs for People
with Special Needs
Demographic, social and economic changes in
Other locations will be considered over the life
of the plan. The Transit Centers Program will
function in parallel with the Community Design
& Transportation Program to promote trans
portation and land use integration.
Community-Based Transportation Studies
Santa Clara County and the region between now
and 2030 will continue to urge VTA to look for
creative and cost-effective ways to provide pro
grams and services for persons with special
needs. There will be more lower-income house
holds, more elderly, and more disabled persons.
This section of the plan outlines the programs
hi partnership with MTC, VTA will conduct
and services that VTA provides and is exploring
community-based transportation planning stud
to meet the needs of these groups.
ies in the Gilroy and the East San Jose areas.
The goal of the MTC's Community-Based
Transportation Planning Program is to advance
To allow for access to medical care,jobs, com
the findings of the Lifeline Transportation
munity activities, and other personal errands
Network Report as adopted by the Commission
for persons with disabilities, VTA provides
and incorporated into the 2001 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). That report identi
fied transit needs iri economically disadvantaged
124
Paratransit Services Program
Valley Transportation Authority
paratransit seivices that operate throughout the
county. Until recently, VTA paratransit usage
surged each year, often by double-digit increases.
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
A recent drop in systemwlde ridership has
r.-.v*-
slowed the growth in paratransit ridership;
however, long-term growth is still expected to
-.'f
be signiScant. In 2000, paratransit carried
ml4>:
780,000 trips. During 2004, the Pai-atransit
n */.
Progi'am provided about 930,540 trips, and by
2030 it is expected to provide about 1.9 million
annual trips. VTA's on-going planning for para
transit seeks to continually refine and improve
the service—^from both cost efficiency and
S4LH
quality of service perspectives.
To serve this demand for paratransit services
and to meet the requirements of ADA, VTA will:
• Ensure that adequate operating funds are set
aside to address the demand for ADA para
transit services
• Continue to implement various strategies to
improve operational efficiencies and control
costs
• Ensure that the existing fixed route bus and
rail transit services are accessible, providing a
range of choices for people with disabilities
portation services, and explore opportunities
to leverage and build upon those fimds with
VTA committed resources
Planningfor Paratransit
By 2030, the demand for paratransit services
• Assist persons with determining if they are
may more than double. To plan for this need as
eligible to use the service, and help them
well as for near-term increases in demand, VTA
apply
• Look at alternative service and delivery con
will continue to develop short-range and longrange paratransit plans. Most recently, VTA
cepts that both meet the letter and intent of
developed a five-phase Paratransit Service
ADA and ensure quality accessibility for per
Business Practices Improvement (PSBPl) Plan,
sons with disabilities in Santa Clara County as
which identified multiple cost-containment
a part of the short-range planning process
strategies designed to improve VTA's ability to
• Conduct a study that looks at all the agencies
in the county that receive money for trans-
manage costs while maintaining one of the
premier paratransit services in the nation. The
VTP 2030
125
first three phases of the PSBPI Plan have been
addresses the design of transportation facilities.
implemented, and the last two are currently
The GDT Manual includes design elements that
under development. All phases of this plan
directly relate to accessibility in the pedestrian
control costs through one of the four follo^ving
environment and to transportation services.
strategies: improving productivity, reducing
vendor and broker expenses, managing demand,
Communily Bus Program
and increasing revenue.
VTA is exploring implementation strategies for
Future plans, beyond full implementation of the
PSBPI Plan, may identify operating costs and cap
ital elements such as Intelligent Transportation
Systems, as well as a financial program to address
providing a Small Bus Pi'ogram. As currently envi
sioned, the Gommmiity Bus would provide transit
services that function as neighborhood circulator
and shuttle routes. In some cases, buses may
deviate from fixed routes to pick up or drop off
the operating and capital needs.
near main lines of service. This flexible service
Finally, the need to design environments for
would have significant benefits for persons with
accessibility is key to providing safe transporta
special needs by providing improved transit
tion for the disability community. \TA's
connections with neighborhoods, activities and
Community Design and Transportation (GDT)
services, and by offering lower-cost options to
Program's Manual of Best Practices for
paratransit or taxis. VTA is currently developing
Integrating Transportation and Land Use
draft policies and a procedural framework in
preparation for implementation.
Program Funding
As a precursor to full implementation, VTA is
Vv-
pursuing funds fi'om MTG's Access to Mobility
m
Program and Regional Measure 2 funds to
implement a Pilot Program. In addition, VTA is
investigating possible funds fi'om a variety of
sources.
Facilities improvements
S
VTA has a number of programs that provide
improvements that benefit persons with special
needs.
126
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
• Bus stop improvement program. This
program implements ADA requirements at
bus stops throughout the county. This is an
'Xt
on-going effort that is continually improving
bus stop enviroranents.
3S«"
m
• Purchase of low-floor/kneeling buses. All
buses in VTA's fleet are being converted to
low-floor/kneeUng buses as part of the on
going fleet replacement program. This con
version is expected to be complete by 2015.
■>*r
• Low-floor LRVs. All new light rail vehicles
have low-floor entry that eliminates the need
for wayside lifts. Tliis improves access con
venience for wheelchair users and persons
with mobility impairments, and improves
travel times for aU riders.
• LRT Platform Retrofit. VTA is cun'ently
retrofitting its light rail passenger platforms
to accommodate the new vehicles. Retrofit is
complete on aU stations north of the
with seniors through a wide variety of communi
cation activities to encourage them to ride VTA's
fixed route service to their favorite destinations,
and to generate a favorable view of VTA's overall
service. As part of the program, VTA is available
Japantown/Ayer station on the Guadalupe
to visit the various sites to give groups a free
line, and all stations on the Tasraan/Capitol
presentation, which will include travel options
line. The platform retrofits on stations south
for seniors, fare information and trip planning
of Japantown/Ayer are scheduled for comple
assistance. As an incentive to experience public
tion by the end of 2005.
transportation, VTA is exploring the possibility
of implementing a Golden Giveaway Program.
Golden Getaway/Giveaway Program
This program would hold weekly drawings for a
This program provides door-to-door transit serv
senior non-profit organization to win a free
ice for a reduced fee to non-profit senior groups
Golden Getaway trip.
throughout Santa Clara County. Buses are
scheduled on a flrst-come, first-sensed basis on
Information Access Services
Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays. The program
VTA regularly evaluates what information peo
objective is to make meaningful comrections
ple need about its services and programs, how
VTP 2030
127
regional partnership. This system provides
§:
schedule, travel time and trip-planning infor
mation over the Internet.
• VTA provides multi-language call-in lines
*
where people can speak with live Information
Service Representatives (ISRs) that assist
them with trip planning, fai'e and schedule
information, transfers, and information about
m
the transit system network.
Community-Based Transportation Studies
SSfi:
m
a iSS
^41
-■
msi
community-based transportation studies in the
Gilroy and East San Jose areas. The goal of
these studies is to advance the findings from
people access that information, and explores
MTC's Lifeline Transportation Network Report
new ways to provide information. Below are a
adopted by the Commission and incorporated
few of the information services VTA currently
into the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan
offers or has under development.
(RTF). The Lifeline Transportation Network
• VTA has implemented a new "accessibility
hotline" to assist paratransit users with
determining their eligibility to use paratransit
and with signing up for the service.
• Real-time information systems are being
implemented in conjunction with the
Advanced Communication System (ACS) that
VTA has been implementing over the past
Report identified transit needs in economically
disadvantaged communities throughout the San
Francisco Bay Ai-ea region, and recommended
local transportation studies to further efforts to
address them. Each community-based
transportation study will involve a collaborative
approach that includes residents and commmhty-based organizations (CBOs) that provide
two years. This program wiD provide real
services within minority and low-income
time information on next bus arrival times at
neighborhoods.
stations, transit centers and key bus stops.
• VTA participates in the regional "TranStar"
trip planniirg systems sponsored by the MTC
128
In partnership with MTC, VTA vsdil conduct
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Systems Operations
and Management Program
The Transportation Systems Operations and
■Transit Management Benefit
Management CTSO&M) Program includes proj
Case Study -
ects that use technology to improve the opera
tion aiid management of the overall transporta
Systems (ITS), and include electronics, comput
i-es; povering'about 19-miles,df the line 22 corridor Other simi- '
' ' -Jar projects hove yielded trovel'tirhe reductions'for buses of up '
•,to 30 p'et;cent, requiririg fewer buses for' improved service.
2030 built on work conducted for the develop
ment of an ITS Plan for Santa Clara County as
part of VTP 2020. The VTP 2030 TSO&M
Program development included a review and
update of the list of ITS projects from VTP
2020, and the development of a fund allocation
strategy for the TSO&M Program. This work
was conducted by an ITS task force consisting
of staff from both VTA's Member Agencies and
regional agencies, including MTC and Caltrans.
Traveler Information Benefit Case Study
' .The Boy Area's 511 Transportation Information System, spon■ '• sored by MTC,and Son Francisco Bay Area Partners, includes'
. j - a feature that allows travelers to get current driving times for'the
'I freeway by calling'5'11 ;or online. This is a voicekrctiyated sys
tem'that con 'be accessed simpjy 'by dialing 511 from-any of
the nine'counties'in the Boy Area, asking for "driving times,".'.
, and then giving starting and e'nding'point information. 511 ■ '
information.is also .available o\fer the Internet at www.511 .org>
The remainder of this section provides
overviews of the following:
, • The City.'of San Jose'received'$500,000 in TEA-21'funds' .
• ITS fund allocation plan (expenditure plan)
\ I through'MTC's,Corridor Management,Program to "retime 223
• ITS projects list
I'", traffic lights along-travel corridors' in San Jose thdtialso exterid-
• Status of ITS activities
, ' ed into the cities of Campbell, Milpitas and Scinta Clard. , .
Uses and Benefits of intelligent
Transportation Systems
The Santa Clara Coimty ITS Plan organizes ITS
applications in eight program areas as follows.
^
Transportation Management
Benefit Case Study
• Uses and benefits of ITS
• Federal role in funding ITS
■
fdr^bOses at tcdffic'signals is being implemented. Equipment,
, ■ costs are estimated at just over $300,000 for the first two phas-_ :
tively referred to as Intelligent Transportation
Development of the TSO&M Program for VTP
'
'As part'of VTA's Line 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)'system, priority .
tion system. These new technologies are collec
er, and communications infrastructme.
.
:
The project resulted in a travel dejay reduction of over' 30 '
■ ".percent.'This improvement in travel time reduced annual'fuel
•
cost by over $900,000'and annual pounds of vehicle ' emissions-by over 100,000--—over 180 percent return on
irivestment inithe'firsf'year alone. ■ '
VTP 2030
,
129
Incident and Emergency Management
1. Transportation Management
Benefit Case Study ,
The purpose behind transportation management
•
.
. " '
technologies is to use local and regional road
t
n , ,'.The,Bay Area's Freeway Service'Patrol (FSP) Program ■consists^ ■ ,
way systems more efficiently by improving sys
. of'over 70 trucks patrolling over. 450 rriiies of freeway-during
tems operation and management. This program
/
^
^
j
.
' ''
- • ' the busiest times of tlie day to assist motorists'and to quickly -
'
area includes traffic signal systems, ramp meter
ing, camera systems, and variable message signs
1 clear traffic accidents.'Sucfi accidents are now responsible for'
over half of all delays on freeways. The FSP trucks feature
'
that accomplish the following:
-
■' state-of-the-art; computerized communications arid automatic ■ ' j
I • vehicle location systems that cohfribute to" making'this one of
ihe more popular services available fq'r, freeway travelers. ' .•
-<
.
• Ai'terial management—Includes traffic light
technologies that allow signal systems to
change in immediate response to traffic, and
to give priority to emergency and transit vehi
cles (also a transit management application)
• Freeway management—Systems tliat collect
information on current traffic conditions,
respond to traffic incidents and manage traf
fic flow on fi'eeways
• Roadway-raHway crossing safety—Enlianced
warning and barrier systems at rail and road
CM
crossings
I
mm
• Electronic toll collection—Systems that allow
vehicles to pay tolls electronically and avoid
delays at toll-plazas
i*V#
/ ~
■it*
'I
• Event management—Systems that manage
traffic circulation and parking associated with
special events, such as concerts and baseball'
pfioto courtesy.Qf'MTC
games
2. Transit Management
Managing and operating transit systems more
efficiently and effectively is the goal of this pro
gram area. Transit Management projects include
automatic vehicle location systems that allow
130
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
transit agencies to know the location of all vehi
cles (resulting in improved fleet management),
smart card systems that allow passengers to use
T.V-
multiple transit systems with a single fare card,
electronic fare payment systems that allow elec
tronic debit or credit processing of transit fares,
and priority for transit vehicles at ti'affic lights
to improve transit service reliability.
m
3. Traveler Information
SS'
R!
m
Providing real-time travel information to the
public allows users of the transportation system
i
to anticipate trip times accurately, and to make
route, departure time, and mode choices. Real
time information technologies include kiosks
and displays at transit stops showing next bus
arrival times, pre-trip traveler information with
the current roadway conditions on the Internet,
ty for freight traffic and reduce the cost of ship
and travel time data collection systems.
ping goods. Development is this program area
follows the lead of statevride initiatives. CVO
4. Incident and Emergency Management
applications include automatic vehicle identifi
The use of technologies for incident manage
cation systems, weigh-in motion scales, and
ment allows transportation managers to identify
satellite tracking of truck traffic.
and quickly respond to roadway incidents and
enable rapid dispatch of emergency vehicles
6. Rural Transportation Management
and personnel. Many of the instEiUations are the
Installation of ITS will follow a focused strategic
same as those for transportation management
planning effort to identify ITS for the county's
and also include Freeway Service Patrol and the
rural roadway system. The most prevalent ITS
Smart Call Box programs operated by MTG.
technologies for rural transportation systems
5. Commercial Vehicle Operations
roadway condition advisories and traveler/
Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) use ITS
tourist information.
are those providing automated weather and
technologies to improve travel time and reliabili-
VTP 2030
131
132
VTP 2030 Proposed ITS Projects
KWt*-
0
KS
hy
J
w.
N
Soum County
h'.ii
I Hdm'N tr K'
TW
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-28 Inielligent Transportation Systems Projects
VIP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTPID
Cost
C03$/Millions)
COSS/MUlkms)
S101
S600
' Town of Los GatosTYaffic Signal System Upgrade- $0.3!
Hainilton Ave. Intelligent Transportation
$0.3
System
S102
City of Campbeil TVaffic Signal System Upgrade
0.3
S103
Winchester Bivd. Intelligent
Transportation System
0.3
S300
..Gity of Milpitas TrafficiSignai System Upgrade
S703
, City of Milpitas CCTV Camera Deployment on
Major Travel Corridors
n n
S301
City of Giiroy Event Management System
0.9
S302
City of Giiroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
3.9
S701
South Milpitas Blvd. Smart Corridor
0.5
S900
Cochrane Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
System Improvement
SI000
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic
Signal System Improvement
51202 :City of Santa Clara Transportation;-.
0,1
51404
-City of Sunnyvaie Count &,Speed Monitoring,
Stations
. '
' !
0.9;
0.4
'$1405
6.2
0.2j
City.of San Jose Proactive Signal .'
Timing Program Phase II
1.0
Silicon Valley Sub-Regional Transportation.
Management.Center
7.5
City of Sunnyvale CCTV Camera Deployment
0.6
S2010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
152005
2.0
$2006
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
0.2
S3003
rrs Enhancements on Santa Teresa Blvd.
1.0
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
3.6
Caitrans 1-680 Conidor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4030
5.4
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4040
5.7
Caitrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4050
4.8
Caltrairs 1-280 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4060
2.2
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Meteiing"
S5004
3.0
Silicon Vailey-ITS (SV-ITS)Program Upgrades
§303 . n Ciliy of Giiroy Flood Watch Gairieras
•.
27.0
0.5
.1.5;
.
City of Surinyvale TMC Integration
S1402
S3002
. , n
$2001
f" ' 'r
: City of San Jose H ansportation & Incident
Management Center CTIMG)/PD CAD Integration
52003
18.0
• n
•
151406
2.8
S4020
City,of Sunnyvale ITS Communications
■52002
& Ramp Metering"
0.4;
0.5:
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal
System on Major Arterials
County of Santa Ciara Ti-affic Operations
System Improvements
3.2;
-City oftSunnyvale-TVaffic Signal ControUerUpdate
0.5
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
)
*51403
City of Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade
Project—^Phase IP
S3001
.
.
. 1-
Management Center Upgrade
Infrastructure
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential
Arteiials Project'
S2011
n
- Cabinet and Controller Replacement: -
3.5
S1401
• 0.3!
0.4-
City of Santa Clara Traffic Signal System
51201
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
S1301
1
Improvement
0.9
SI200
0.8'
City of Morgan Hill Traffic Signal Sykem
S901
City of Giiroy Adaptive Traffic Signal
Control System
SllOl
$702
Communications Network
-r . -
'.
, ,
City of San Jose Transportation
j52008
j
4.0
. City of San Jose Field Equipment Upgrade
"r
-
152009
$2012
District (NBD) ITS Deployment ■ i
: rr-
City of San Jose Downtown Freeway &
Incident Management System
,,
. ''
-
,.
2.0
1.4
City of San Jose Red Light Running : - . .
; Enforcement Program
1 ';
f
City of San Jose Advanced Parking
• Management System .
"
■
■3.0
City of San Jose Motorists Information System
j
[52013
3.0
-9.8
••
;52007 . City of San'Jose Neighborhood Business
1
2.0
City of San Jose Smart Intersections ; -
52004
:;
- •
'0.5
,
■
,
1.5
■56000
County wide Ramp Metering Study
0.5
i56010
Transit ITS
5.0
1. Also listed as a Local Streets and County Roads project
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided, by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC| and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
I;.
,
I Mot Tnapped
VTP 2030
133
Federal Role in ITS Funding;
private industry development of teclmology
u,
applications for vehicles.
On January 8, 2001, the.U.S. Department of Transportation V", 0
8. ITS Planning
• published two new documents related to ITS: FHWA's>Findl,Rule
Countywide planning efforts are requu'ed to
and FTA's Policy on the National ITS Architecture. The intent of'v.
continue defining and developing ITS. ITS plan
these documents I(Rule/Policy) is to "foster integration of the '
ning efforts include the development of a
deployment of regional ITS'systems."
'n
.
. '* _ 1
T..- ' •», ., y
The Rule Policy^essentially implernents section-5206(e] of.TEA"
' rn
*
1 1.
'
1-
'"t
21, which requires that all ITS pfo'iects funded from the - ■''
•
■
' ' ' <
'T , ,
ITS Projects
'
Notional ITS Architecture and appropriate standards. So what < '
does this mean for Santo Clara County?"
'
The VTP 2030 ITS Plan includes 50 listings of
j
"projects" totaling over $146 million. "Projects"
is in quotes here because some projects may be
j The two nioin requirements concerning ITSTn Sontq Clara ^ V;
County ore the following: the Bay Area needs to have a '
' ,(/
regional fTS architecture .in place* by April 8,*2p05Jand majdr,^
regibrjol ITS projects must be'consistentiwitHThis-architecture),''-
'
and all ITS projects must follow a systems'ehgineering process. >
MTC completed work on 0 Bay Area regional'ITS
■
included in whole or in part in projects found in
other program areas, and as such do not repre
sent individual projects in the usual sense.
A map and project listing are provided on pages
130-131. Please refer to the Local Streets and
-
County Roads Program map for the four proj
orchitecture'in June 2004. A copy'of the planjs_availabje
online'ot, http .//yvvvw.iteris corh/mtcits/. ^
gies to transportation, and focused studies of
future "smart" corridors.
tdighwoy Trust Fund (which includes transit,projects funded ' ,
from the Mass Tronsit'Accbuht) be' in "conform'once with the ..
Strategic ITS Master Plan to address institution
al issues regarding the application of technolo
,
' ' /
ects that are included under that program. The
cost shown in the listing is the full cost. The list
ing includes the following:
• Project listmgs ai'e shown for 11 of the 15
7. Advanced Vehicle Control
local cities and towns in the county (the
In-vehicle technologies can provide safety and
operational improvements for the transportation
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale,
system. Efforts mclude evaluation of on-board
and the Town of Los Gatos).
and Safety Systems
technologies for transit veliicles and supporting
134
Valley Transportation Authority
cities/towns of Campbell, GUroy, Milpitas,
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-29 Examples of Matching Markets with Services
Activity
VTP 2020 Description
VTP 2030 Status
Planning
integration
ITS planning should continue to be integrated in the
overall transportation planning process. This will
lead to improved opportunities to mainstream ITS
and to better coordinate ITS implementation.
[Progressing] ITS integration
into highway plaiming started;
transit planning includes ITS;
integration in local roadway
projects is less consistent.
Mainstream
ITS in Other
Projects
Opportunities to include ITS implementation as
part of a capital improvement project should be
identified. One example would be the installation of
communications infrastructure (e.g., conduits, fiber
optics cabling and wireless commmiications sys
tems) as part of a roadway improvement project.
[Progressing] Maii\streaming of
ITS in regional highway and
transit projects is under way;
ITS projects at the local level
are still mainly standalone
Near-term
In the next five years, basic systems management
Emphasis of
and operations elements for roadways and transit
[Continuing] VTP 2030 funding
allocation strategy emphasizes;
projects that improve traffic
flow through improved signal
operations (e.g., signal sys
tems, ramp meters, signal pri
ority for transit and bicycle
detection), countywide opera
tions, maintenance and man
agement program, and systems
integration and connectivity.
Basic Elements
and communications infrastructure should be
implemented and/or upgraded. Examples of such
efforts include VTA's installation of a vehicle loca
tion system based on a global positioning system
(GPS), Santa Clara County's plan to install commu
nications infrastructure on area expressways, and
traffic signal system upgrade efforts by local agen-
ITS Policy
A forum for discussing ITS policy issues should be
Discussion
Forum
established. The current proposal is to reconstitute
the LGS/Modeling Subcommittee of VTA's Technical
Advisory Committee(TAC) as the Systems
Management Subcommittee. The Systems
Management Subcommittee would be responsible
for recommending actions on ITS policy to the TAC.
This would be in addition to the current responsi
bilities of the LOS/Modeling Subcommittee. Other
options should be explored.
efforts.
[Completed] VTA's
LOS/Modeling Subcommittee
has been reconstituted as the
Systems Operations and
Management(SOM)
Subcommittee. This subcom
mittee has taken on the task of
recommending countywide
actions related to ITS planning.
VTP 2030
135
. Table 2-30 Examples of Matching Markets with Services (aoniinucd)
Activity
VTP 2020 Description
Funding for
Operations
and
Management
Providing funding for systems operations and management is key to successfully implementing ITS.
New technologies and the implementation of integrated ITS elements bring with them new require
ments in skills, in the training of personnel, in oper
ations, and in maintenance. The specific needs in
these areas as they pertain to ITS are still being
identiSed, but it should be expected that new
requirements would need to be considered.
Expand
Silicon Vailey
A partnership formed to implement the Silicon
Valley Smart Corridor project has expanded into
ITS Program
Coalition
the Silicon Valley-ITS (SV-ITS) Program. The SV-ITS
Program is currently working to implement three
additiond ITS projects. The project delivery
process supported by the SV-ITS Program could
be used to implement future ITS projects. This
could include projects that cross county lines and
involve integration of transit operations with
VTP 2030 Status
[Early Planning] VTP 2030 rec
ommendation includes an allo
cation of $5.6m for a countywide ITS operations, manage
ment and maintenance pro
gram managed by VTA.
[No Progress] Due to budget
constraints, main emphasis has
been to complete projects
alresidy under way. New work
has mainly focused on devel
oping a Communications
System Master Plan for the
program.
roadway systems.
Develop
Partnerships
Development of partnerships with private and other
public sector entities is encouraged. Partnerships
with the private sector can provide financial and
technical resources that may not be otherwise avail
able to a public agency.
[No Progress] OUTREACH,
VTA's Gountywide paratransit
service provider, has a demon
stration project for providing
traveler information. It is
scheduled to be showcased at
the 2005 ITS World Congress
held in the Bay Area.
Resolve
Institutional
Questions
136
Valley Transportation Authority
Create or designate an organization, recognized by
the participating public agencies, to manage the
overall planning and deployment of ITS in Santa
Clara Comity.
[No Progress] Institutional
issues are still resolved by indi
vidual agencies on a case-bycase and as-needed basis.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
• Project listings are also shown for the County
of Santa Clara, VTA, Caltrans, and the Silicon
t-f
iy.
ifl
Valley ITS (SV-ITS) Progi'am.
• The county, SV-ITS Program, and VTA entries
each contain multiple projects.
• The Caltrans entry is composed of multiple
1 . "If
s
projects that are incorporated into highway
..
projects listed in the Highway Program.
:
L •%;:»
• Four ITS projects appear under the Local ,
Streets and County Roads Program, where
they were selected for programming.
When ITS projects in other program areas are
considered, the cost of all remaining projects in
mi
A'
i
-"i !
w.
Sit
the plan is just over $114 million. Assuming a
a—
local matcliing contribution of 20 percent, the
request amount is just over $91 million.
The VTP 2030 allocation amount for the TSO&M
Program is $28 million. The approved allocation
strategy for this funding level is as follows:
• Projects'that improve traffic flow through
improved signal operations for local road
• Use the remainder ($8.4m) of the proposed
allocation on other ITS projects that empha
size systems integration and connectivity.
ways/expressways,freeways (ramp meters),
transit (priority treatment at traffic signals)
VTA will work with staff from the cities, towns,
and bicycle traffic (bicycle detection and sig
and county to identify a project list that uses the
nal timmg) are the first priority. Half of the
above strategy and meets the allocation target.
proposed allocation ($14m) should be
reserved for these projects.
• Reserve 20 percent ($5.6m) of the proposed
allocation to fund a countywide ITS opera
tions, management and maintenance program
managed by VTA.
Status of ITS Activities
Key ITS activities were sketched out by the ITS
task force during the development of VTP 2020.
The table on pages 135-136 describes these
activities and prowdes a summary of the status
of each one.
VTP 2030
137
Bicycle Program
In 1998, VTA launched a Bicycle Program that is
committed to improving the bicycle infrastruc
ture in Santa Clara County, to enable and
encourage people to bike to work, school,
errands and for recreation. Three major compo
• 1996 Measure B sales tax
• Transportation funds for clean air
• Transportation Development Act Aiticle 3
funds
nents of the Bicycle Program have been estab
• Transportation Enhancements funds
lished:
• Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Program fmids
• Bicycle Expenditure Program
As projects sponsors. Member Agencies are
• Countywide Bicycle Plan
required to provide a minimum 20 percent
match to the BEP funding for implementation.
• Cross-County Bicycle Network
The BEP projects list is reviewed and re-adopt
ed every three years, for project changes and
Bicycle Expenditure Program
cost increases.
There is $90.5 mOlion in the Bicycle
Expenditure Program (BEP) to fund bicycle
projects over the 2001-2030 time period. The
funding is a combination of:
Several projects on the BEP list ai'e also includ
ed in the Local Streets and County Roads
Program and the Livable Conununities and
Pedestrian Program.
AY
Countywide Bicycle Plan
IWHSSS
In 2000, VTA adopted the Santa Clara
Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP), a stand-alone
document that served as the Bicycle Element of
m
VTP 2020, and also serves as the Bicycle
Element of VTP 2030. The Countywide Bicycle
Plair will be updated in 2005.
The CBP guides the development of major bicy
cling facilities, prioritizing projects for funding
tlu'ough the BEP. Tire plan documents the CrossCounty Bicycle Network and the Bicycle
Expenditure Program (BEP). Tire CBP comple
ments Member Agencies' bicycle plans, which are
more focused on improvements at the local level.
138
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapfer0 BICYCLE PROGRAM
Cross-County Bicycle Network
The Cross-County Bicycle Network maps out 16
bicycle corridors. The network includes onstreet bikeways and off-street trails, combining
existing, planned, and undeveloped segments.
The network also coordinates facilities that
Bikeways Map
1. VTA-also' produces and distfibutesfthe :Santa ClaraWalley-.,
Bifeways Map;- which shows- existing- bikeways.as well,as•
,T transit'facilities,* to help cyclists.navigate-around;the county.
tThe map is free. It can'also be viewed at-;-wwwwta-.org.
straddle jurisdictional boundaries. When com
pleted, they will be the most direct and conven
ant
ora
ient routes for extended bike trips.
9BI> ■■I
V^T
■^r' J'
m
^
77B
A. Ills*-;
-—rrrSiMrlSi-
VTP 2030
T39
VTP 2030 Bicycle Projects
'J
\
\
SouthxCounty \
140
X.. j.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-31 Bicycle Projects
VIP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
C03$/MiUions)
B01
Campbell Ave. Improvements at Hwy. 17
at Los Gatos Greek
$1.5
2.0
Los Gatos Creek Trail Bridge and Path
Improvements(Mozart-Camden)
0.8
Coyote Creek Trail(Hellyer-Anderson Lake
County Park)
1.3
BOS
Almaden Expwy.(Ironwood-Koch)
2.3
B06
Bicycle Shoulder Delineation Along
Expressways(not mapped)
0.6
B03
B04
Homer Ave. Caltiain Undercrossing
B2B
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian
B29
Branliam Ln./US 101 Bike/Pedestrian
$5.6
5.7
Overcrossing
Los Gatos Creek Trail Expansion on West Side
(Hamiiton-Campbell)
B02
B27
Overcrossing'
5.0
Coyote Creek Trail(SR 237/Bay TrailStory Rd./Keyes St.)
6.1
B31
Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso St.-I-880)
5.1
B32
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 4)
4.8
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
2.8
B30
835
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
10.0
B36
McKean Rd. Shoulder Improvements
(Harry Rd.-Bailey Ave.)
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail(SR 237 to
City Limits)
5.0
B37
Santa Clara Intermodal Transit Center
Page Mill Rd./I-280 Interchange
Bike Improvements^
5.0
BIO
Boliinger Rd. Bicycle Facility Improvement
0.4
B11
Mary Ave.(1-280) Bike/Pedestrian
B07
Footliill/Loyola Structural Improvements in
Los Altos'
BOB
B09
CK'ercrossmg
B12
7.1
Uvas Creek Trail (part of Gilroy Sports
Park Phase 1 and 2)
B14
Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Replacement
0.5
BIS
Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study
0.1
B16
Berryessa Creek Trail(Reach 3)
0.9
B17
Coyote Creek TYail (Reach I)
1.2
Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing over UPRR
Tracks (near Great MaR)
5.0
B3B
Cox Ave. Railroad Grade Crossings
0.5
B39
PGE De Anza Trail(Reach 3)
2.5
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
6.5
B41
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes
(WeddeU Dr. to Caribbean Dr.)
B42
0.2
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing'
11.9
Uvas Creek Trail Study (Sports ParkGavilan College)
B13
5.6
17.0
0.15
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossings
at US 101 & SR 237
6.5
B43
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes (Sunnyvale Ave.
to Reed Ave.)
0.4
B44
Sunnyvale East Drainage Trail(JWC
Greenway-Tasmarr Dr.)
0.5
B45
Sunnyvale Train Station North Side Access'
1.8
B46
Pilot Bicycle Parking Program (not mapped)
0.2
1. Also included in the VTP 2030 Loctd Streets and County Roads Program.
Hwy.9 Bike Lanes (Sai-atoga Ave.Los Gatos Blvd.)
1.7
B20
Coyote Creek Trail Coimection
0.5
3. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
B21
West Little Uagas Creek Trail
1.5
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and projwt cost
B22
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Central
4.0
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
B23
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 South
4.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Yuba Dr. to North Meadow)
3.8
B2S
Bicycle Boulevaid/Lanes Network (not mapped) 5.0
B26
California Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing'
B19
2. Also included in the VTP 2030 Expressway Program.
Program.
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
9.0
VTP 2030
141
Livable Communities and Pedestrian Programs
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Other ftmd som-ces that could be administered
(LOP) Program provides capital fuirds for
through the LCP Program.
transportation-related projects that improve
community access to transit, provide multi-
modal transportation facilities, and enhance the
pedestrian environment along transportation
corridors, in core areas, and around transit
The project list will target $113 million of the
TLC funds. One-third ($37.5 million) of this is
guaranteed to VTA for programming, and two-
thirds ($75.6 mOlion) is a target share of the
regional discretionary TLC Program.
stations.
MTG's policies for funding regional programs
identify the amount to be used for this program,
allocated through Its Transportation for Livable
Communities (TLC) Program. This allocation is
based on Santa Clara County's population share
of the regional total and on the amount MTC
requires for dedication to the county share
(currently split on a 1/3 share for counties and a
2/3 share for MTC). In addition, VTA will pursue
Developing a Project List
VTA and its Member Agencies are currently
developing the project evaluation criteria to
select and rank LCP Program projects. In
2004/2005, VTA wiU issue to Member Agencies
a call-for-projects for the LCP Program. To allow
VTA and Member Agencies greater flexibility in
utilizing these funds, some projects may appear
on both the Bicycle Program and LCP Program
lists of projects.
Community Design and
Transportation Program
The LCPP supports the goals of VTA's
1021
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
Program, VTA's Board-adopted program for
integrating transportation and land use. The
CDT program also offers planning and capital
grants to Member Agencies.
lim
The Community Design and Transportation
Program and other VTA land use programs and
activities are discussed in the following section.
142
Valley Transporfation Authority
chapferQ I N V E S T AA E N T PROGRAM
Systemwide Performance Results
Performance measures provide a common
framework in which to evaluate investments and
\
r'.'> H
strategies. They also provide an indication of
how well Santa Clara County's transportation
system serves the traveling public. In 1999, the
VTA Board adopted a set of multimodal per
formance measures as part of the Santa Clara
901
County Congestion Management Program
(CMP). These performance measures are used
to evaluate the impacts of land use decisions
and projections on the county's transportation
system. This section estimates how well the
m
transportation system will perform in 2030,
given the additional growth in and out of the
comrty and the implementation of the VTP
2030 projects.
Tire transportation system's performance may
be evaluated usiirg a 2000 base condition, a
2030 No Project scenario and a year 2030
Project scenario. The "base" refers to improve
not the VTP 2030 projects. The 2030 Project
ments included in the current Measure B pro
scenario includes all of the base projects, plus
gram as well as projects anticipated to be fund
the VTP 2030 Investment Program. This analysis
ed from current funding programs (STIP,
scenario includes projects funded with 25 years
STP/CMAQ, etc.). The No Project scenario
of State and Federal programming, as weU as
includes the VTP 2030 land use conditions but
the 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue. It also
Table 2-32 Deficient Freeway and Expressway Miles
Year 2030
Year 2030
No Project
Project
Cfionge
Net
(miles)
(miles)
(miles)
AM Peak Hour
202.2
182.6
-19.6
-9.7%
PM Peak Hour
215.4
205.3
-10.1
-4.7%
Percent
Cfiange
VTP 2030
143
Freeway and Expressway LOS F (wiih Projeai, PM Peak How)
presumes that VTA is able to secure adequate
funding to be able to fully implement and oper
ate the 2000 Measure A program of projects.
\
Traffic Level of Service
Traffic level of service (LOS) measures the
South CmuIt
interrelationship between travel demand (vol
ume) and supply (capacity) of the transporta
OK
litnl ofScnic*
tion system. LOS is a quantitative measure cate
gorized into six levels, A through P—with LOS
A representmg ideal conditions and LOS F representmg poor conditions or congested flow.
Roadways at LOS F are considered deficient.
The Santa Clara County CMP considers freeway
Ti««< C^uuai]s«>a>a
segments with a speed less than 35 miles per
hour and expressway segments less than 13
mUes per hom to be deficient (LOS F). Due to
Freeway and Expressway LOS F (with No Pwjec.i,
the growth witlrin the county as well as the
PM Peak Hour)
increase in travelers coming into the county, the
number of roadways operating at LOS F will
increase between 2000 and 2030. Nevertheless,
r
the VTP 2030 Project scenario shows some
inrprovement over a No Project scenario in the
<
SMih Count)'
miles of deficient roadway segments.
By year 2030, mUes of deficient fi'eeways and
L4«^o(Sml(«
expressways are projected to be 202.2 mUes in
the AM peak hour and 215.4 miles in the PM
peak hour. With completion of the VTP 2030
■4I
I
scenario, these are projected to decrease by
I
*
) Ml...
19.6 miles in the AM peak and 10.1 miles in the
PM peak, a decrease of 9.7 percent and 4.7
percent, respectively.
144
Valley Transportation Authority
■
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Modal Split
ments will allow more alternative mode use, as
indicated by the pie charts below. The percent
Modal split measures the extent to which
travelers use the various available transporta
age of drive-alone work trips decreases nearly 5
tion modes. It is measured as the proportion of
percent from 2000 to 2030. The drive-alone
mode share for all purposes is also expected to
people making a trip using a given mode. Modal
split values shown here are for daily person
decrease. The proportion of commute trips for
trips in 2030.
the shared-ride (HOV) mode is expected to
increase by about 4.5 percent, representing
The 2030 scenario increases the viability of
approximately 140,000 more commuter
alternatives to driving alone with investments in
carpools. Transit experiences the greatest
transit and HOV improvements. These invest
improvement m commute mode share, increas-
Table 2-33 Home-Based Work Trips
2000
2030
1.7%
1.5%
0.9%
0.9%
2.9%
6.3%
3%
6%
n
Drive Alone
□
Shored Ride
■
Tronsil
■
Bike
■
Walk
■
Drive Alone
Table 2-34 Total Trip Purpose
2030
2000
7.1%
5.2%
1.2%
0.9%
2.1%
3.2%
32.7%
56.9%
34.8%
□
Shored Ride
■
Tronsil
■
Bike
Walk
VTP 2030
T45
Table 2-35 Vehicle Miles of Travel and Vehicle Hours of Travel
2030
2030
Net
Percent
No Project
Project
Change
Difference
-122,166
-2.5%
0.9%
AM Peck
VHT
395,948
399,525
3,577
Vehicle Trips
545,523
546,891
1,368
0.3%
-2.7%
VMT/Trips
9.00
8.75
-0.25
VHT/Trips
0.74
0.73
0.00
0.7%
VMT
5,308,370
5,167,929
-140,441
-2.6%
VHT
518,948
517,122
-1,826
-0.4%
Vehicle Trips
634,289
635,988
1,699
0.3%
-2.9%
-0.6%
Peak
VMT/Trips
8.37
8.13
-0.24
VHT/Trips
0.82
0.81
-0.01
ing from 2.9 percent in 2000 to 6.3 percent in
of travel per vehicle trip (VHTW-T) is an indica
the 2030 scenario. This 117 percent increase
tor of the average amount of time travelers
over 2000 represents approximately 105,000
spend getting to their destination. A decrease in
more transit trips. Bicycle mode stays about the
these measures indicates people are traveling
same and the walk mode share decreases slight
more efficiently and mobility is improving.
ly for both commuters and ah travelers.
As shown in Table 2-35, more people will travel
more efficiently in the Project Scenario than in
146
Vehicle Miles of Travel and
Vehicle Hours of Travel
the No Project Scenario, even though there
Vehicle miles of travel per vehicle trip (yMT/V-
Systemwide VMT decreases about 2.5 percent
are more vehicle trips in the Project Scenario.
T)identifies the number of roadway vehicle
during both AM and PM peak hours. VMTW-T
miles of travel requhed to satisfy the demand
decreases from 9.0 to 8.8 miles for the AM peak
for travel by vehicles, measured in vehicle trips.
hour (2.7 percent reduction) and from 8.4 to
When monitored over time, it is an indicator of
8.1 miles during the PM peak hour (2.9 percent
the level of utilization for high-occupancy
reduction), wluch shows improved travel effi
modes (carpooling, transit, etc.). Vehicle hours
ciency. People will spend about the same time
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
on the road in both scenarios, as shown by
VHTA^-T.
Transit Accessibility 2000
iT \
Transit Accessibility
The transit accessibility measure uses a specific
form of transit performance: peak-hour work
trips with walk access. This specific trip type is
then used as a proxy for overall system per
formance. Accessibility is an abstract measure
that can inform planners on the effect of
changes in two quantities: travel time to jobs
(transit system performance) and the number
ofjobs available (land use). The higher an area's
accessibility, the better job the transit system is
doing in getting its residents to large concentra
tions of employment in minimal time.
Transit accessibility is anticipated to significantly
improve over the next 25 years for two reasons:
Legend
Transit Accessibility.
CI]Lcw
I lotedum'
{ M'd.iu[n High
"V
l-High
V
Transit Access 2030
• Transit improvements, particularly along the
BART corridor through Milpitas, San Jose
and Santa Clara, as well as around the airport
and in the East Valley area. Improvements
are also visible along the Vasona LRT exten
sion from downtown Campbell to Winchester
?-
Boulevard. In Coyote Valley, transit accessi
bility is expected to increase from medium
low in the 2000 scenario to medium high in
U.
the 2030 scenario. Improvements are also vis
ible in the Northwest County area, potentially
a result of the Dumbarton Rail, Line 22
Legend
Transit Accessibility
improvements, and Caltrain upgrades.
• Lcmd use pattern changes concentrating
greater numbers of households and jobs near
I Mediuni
L
I Medum High
I .H^h
trcinsit services.
VTP2030
147
Table 2-36 Systemwide Air Quality Civ. Tons)
Type
Hydrocarbons |HC)
Carbon Monoxide(CO)
Nitrous Oxides(NOx)
Particulates (PM)
Time
2000
2030
% Change
AM
5.143
0.599
-88%
PM
6.209
0.711
-89%
AM
64.865
9.811
-85%
PM
76.43
11.223
-85%
AM
4.35
0.613
-86%
PM
5.052
0.703
-86%
AM
0.143
0.329
130%
PM
0.17
0.387
128%
Air Quality
Duration of Congestion
Vehicle emissions of air pollutants are estimated
Dm'ation of congestion measures the length of
for conformance with state CMP guidelines and
time that particular links are subject to congest
are related to several factors, including cold and
ed conditions. Tliis is a measure of peak spread
hot starts and stops, speed changes, and idling
ing, and it provides a way of showing the length
time. Improvements in air quality may indicate
of time over which congested traffic conditions
the benefits of an efficient multimodal trans
persist. Duration of congestion can be affected
portation system. As shown in Table 2-36, air
by changes in travel demand or changes m
quality is expected to dramatically improve
transportation capacity such as adding highway
between year 2000 and year 2030 in hydrocai'-
lanes, improving intersections, transit improve
bons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxides as a
ments, and ITS strategies. The selected loca
result of the introduction of no/low emission
tions shown represent freeway segments where
vehicles and the retirement of early-year high
congestion occurred for more than 0.5 hours as
emission veWcles as assumed by the California
reported in VTA's 2002 Annual Monitoring and
Air Resoui'ces Board. Particulates increase due
Conformance Report. As shown in the table,
to the 38 percent increase in AM peak period
most of the freeway segments (44 of 50) ana
trips and 36 percent increase in PM peak period
lyzed show improvement with the VTP 2030
trips between 2000 and 2030.
Project scenario when Compared with the No
Project scenario. Duration of congestion for one
segment remains the same and five get worse.
148
Valley Transportation Authority
chapferQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-37 Duration of Congestion (in Hours)
Facility
Direction
Segment
2000
2030
Changi
i Peak Hour
NB
Hartulton Ave. to 1-280
4.0
3.9
-0.1
SB
SR 85 to Lark Ave.
0.8
0.5
-0.3
NB
Cottle Rd. to Blossom Hill Rd.
0.5
0.3
-0.3
NB
2.1
1.8
-0.3
NB
SR 87 to Almaden Expwy.
Saratoga Ave. to Saratoga-Surmyvale Rd.
4.0
2.9
-1.1
NB
Homestead Rd. to Fremont Ave.
4.0
2.4
-1.6
SR87
NB
Capitol Expwy. to Curtner Ave.
2.9
3.1
0.3
US 101
NB
Sair Martin Ave. to Tennant Ave.
3.4
2.1
-1.3
NB
Tennant Ave. to Dunne Ave.
3.1
2.1
-1.0
NB
1.6
0.8
-0.8
3.9
2.1
-1.8
NB
Silver Creek Valley Rd. to Hellyer Ave.
Hellyer Ave. to Yerba Buena Rd.
Montague Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
2.9
2.4
-0.5
NB
Fair Oeiks Ave. to Mathilda Ave.
1.6
1.3
-0.3
NB
MathUda Ave. to SR 237
1.1
0.0
-1.1
SB
Cochrane Rd. to Dunne Ave.
2.4
0.3
-2.1
SB
Tully Rd. to Capitol Expwy.
1.6
0.0
-1.6
EB
MatMda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
0.8
0.0
-0.8
EB
Lawrence Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
Saratoga Ave. to Lawrence Expwy.
Lawrence Expwy. to Wolfe Rd.
McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd.
Berryessa Rd. to Hostetter Rd.
Berryessa Rd. to McKee Rd.
1.8
2.4
0.5
4.0
3.1
-0.9
SR17
SR85
NB
SR237
1-280
NB
NB
1-680
NB
NB
SB
1-880
1.1
1.6
0.5
2.6
0.3
-2.3
2.4
2.6
0.3
1.3
0.0
-1.3
NB
Coleman Ave. to SR 87
2.6
1.6
-1.0
NB
SR 87 to North First St.
2.6
1.6
-1.0
1 Peak Hour
SR 17
SR 85
SR87
US 101
SB
Camden Ave. to SR 85
1.1
0.8
-0.3
SB
Hamilton Ave. to Camden Ave.
3.1
2.4
-0.8
-1.6
NB
VWnchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
1.6
0.0
SB
SR 237 to El Camino Real
4.0
3.1
-0.9
NB
Alma Ave. to 1-280
1.6
0.3
-1.3
-0.6
SB
Almaden Expwy. to Curtner Ave.
4.0
3.4
SB
Coleman Ave. to Julian St.
1.1
0.0
-1.1
NB
Great America Plcwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
0.3
0.0
-0.3
NB
EUis St. to Moffett Blvd.
3.9
3.4
-0.5
SB
Dunne Ave. to Tennant Ave.
3.6
2.1
-1.5
SB
Cochrane Rd. to Dimne Ave.
4.0
3.9
-0.1
SB
4.0
3.4
-0.6
4.0
1.3
-2.7
SB
TuUy Rd. to Capitol Expwy.
Lawrence Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
Fair Oaks Ave.to Lawi-ence Expwy.
1.8
2.6
0.8
SB
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
4.0
3.6
-0.4
EB
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
0.5
0.0
-0.5
EB
North First St. to Zanker Rd.
4.0
1.8
-2.2
SB
SR237
1-280
WB
Maude Ave. to Central Expwy.
2.4
US 101 to Maude Ave.
3.6
0.0
0.0
-2.4
WB
NB
Magdalena Ave. to El Monte Ave.
Lawrence Expwy. to Saratoga Ave.
Wolfe Rd. to Lawrence Expwy.
McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd.
Capitol Expwy. to King Rd.
SR 237 to Dixon Landing Rd.
3.1
2.9
-0.3
3.9
3.1
-0.8
3.1
1.8
-1.3
0.8
0.0
-0.8
2.9
1.8
-1.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
SB
SB
1-680
NB
SB
1-880
NB
-3.6
VrP2030
149
Travel Time
This measure is an estimate of average travel
peak hour, substantial increases in travel time
time across modes for several origin/destination
for some origin/destination pairs can be expected,
pairs. The difference over time or between sce
given the significant increases in both morning
narios indicates changes in congestion over
and afternoon peak-hour vehicle trips. Lastly,
time. It tends to be more intuitive than delay
although a significant portion of these trips will
because the traveling public thinks more about
shift from drive-alone to shared-ride and transit
how long a trip takes than how much delay they
modes,the additional congestion is expected to
experience. The travel time measures shown
impact some transit and shared-ride travel
include seven origin/destination pairs. Values for
times as well.
2000 are based on actual travel time runs con
Overall, this measure indicates that we carmot
ducted for the VTA's 2000 Monitoring and
build our way out of congested conditions. It
Conformance Report.
imderscores the need for VTA to pursue a
The following tables show travel time improve
balanced program of multimodal transportation
ments for some origin/destination pairs and
declines for others from year 2000 to year 2030.
As described in previous sections, between 2000
and 2030 population is expected to grow by 27
percent and jobs by 37 percent, but freeway
capacity wiU grow by only 5.6 percent. In addi
tion, over the same period total Vehicle trips will
increase from about 394,600 to 546,900 (or 39
percent) during the morning peak hour and
from about 467,100 to 636,000 (or 36 percent)
during the afternoon peak hour. Since a slight
increase in traffic volume may cause a large
150
increase in travel time during the congested
Valley Transportation Authority
improvements and changes to land use
developmeirt policies.
:hapter9 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-38 AM Peak-Hour Average Travel Times by Modes (in Minutes)
Orlgln/Desrinatlon Pair
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
2000
2030
2000
2030
2000
2030
54
42
33
37
97
111
Morgan Hill Residential Area to Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara 70
74
47
55
76
79
Los Gates Residential Area to Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara
41
34
31
34
92
88
Palo Alto Residential Area to Apple Computer in Cupertino
37
25
28
23
80
71
Evergreen Residentitil Area to Downtown San Jose
37
35
N/A
34
47
63
County Line to Cisco Site near Tasman/Zanker
28
70
N/A
50
38
36
Coimtv Line to Lockheed in Sunnyvale
22
86
17
55
48
54
Los Gates Residential Area to Lockheed in Sunnyvale
Table 2-39 PM Peak-Hour Average Travel Times by Modes (in Minutes)
Origin/Destination Pair
Lockheed in Surmyvale to Los Gatos Residential Area
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
2000
2030
2000
2030
2000
2030
37
54
N/A
43
107
89
104
55
53
83
77
Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara to Morgan Hill Residential Area 58
Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara to Los Gatos Residential Area
35
44
32
41
107
85
Apple Computer in Cupertino to Palo Alto Residential Area
31
26
25
21
86
68
Downtown San Jose to Evergreen Residential Area
22
38
N/A
31
55
73
Cisco Site near Tasman/Zanker to County Line
21
75
15
41
34
33
Lockheed m Stmnyvale to Sunol Road in Coimty line
40
91
28
49
56
60
VTP 2030
151
i: -.
M
i
Sr
MS
r
Si
'
|W9 n
w
SHHTHTEffiSn
f
S)1
III
. ..f
'mA
.nm"
n n 'Vfc
'.p.,
Si
, - .s;:e .;:•
152
Valley Transportation Authority
/
,
:
.-j
G h a p t e r 3 ; LAN D U 5 IAN D TRANSPORTATION
'ere we highlight efforts by VTA and its'
,'
H'
JL XMember Agencies to better integrate.
11/^
V' ftrdhsportation systems and land use. These.
'efforts include policy objectives and pro' grams that recognize changes must occur in .
n how:our.cities and transportation systems . i
'are planned and built. Efforts to strengthen. '
these linkages between transportation,and
"
'
.Transportation and Land Use Integration:
Transportationand •
Land UseIiitegi-ation =.
.
154
'.IV
t..
Paitneiships for Livability,
Sets.forth the need fpr'dnd benefits ofmte- .
n ; . grated transportation and land use planning,
Thinsportation and Land Use ,,
Investment Strate^.
.land use encompass;
.
r63
.
176
. . *. • .the vision, goals, and objectives.lor VTA's
land use programs, and the Ways we will.
. work to achieve them.-
I - Transportation and Land Use investment
, 1?:. .{Strategy: Sets forth strdtegies and policy •
n 1,; ; • objectives to link transjDortdtion investments.;
with .land use decisions.
. : . , • • ,V,.
n ..( . . t
v ." n
-IParWerships for Livability: Highlights
WS'Vfestablished and innovative.ways that.VTA is-
.
-
^
n i
^
i
jiVj , fi:.yi>wbrking with other agencies to achieve goals.
. .'related to transportation,'quality of life,.
.'T; W, sustainability;;,and ecdnprhic.h^lth.
VTP2030
1 53
Transportation and
Land Use Integration
VTA's Role in Land Use Policy
Wlule VTA's interest in land use is clear, the
Because of the fundamental link between urban
agency's ability to influence development pat
form and the travel needs of individuals, VTA
terns, urban design, conseivation, and reuse is
has a vital and compelling interest in land use
less clear. The local governments in Santa Clara
and the design of communities. The form of
County—^VTA's member agencies—^liold authori
development not only shapes the places in
ty for land use approvals and related regula
which we live, work and play, it also defines the
tions. VTA's land use programs will not chairge
spaces we move around in and the travel modes
this. However, VTP 2030 presents two related
we use. The transportation/land use connection
programs designed to create a more effective
is becoming increasingly more important to
partnership between VTA and Member Agencies
VTA's ability to deliver and maintain a high-qual
in coordinating land use and transportation
ity, multimodal transportation system. With
decision-making: The Community Design
practical opportunities for system expansion
& Transportation (CDT)Program, and the
diminishing, our maturing transportation system
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy.
now demands greater attention be given to the
These programs are described later in this section.
land uses that support its use and maintenance.
The VTP 2030 Land Use Vision
The VTP 2030 land use and transportation
vision sees a shift in development patterns from
spreading out to grovring up in key locations.
Future development is clustered in core areas
and downtowns, along Main Streets and major
I W
I
«!
m
ii
'"b
transportation corridors, and ai'ound rail transit
stations. Development in these areas is more
i
compact, diverse, and pedestrian-oriented and
less reliant on the automobile.
The benefits of this vision are many. As an
amenity-rich and synergy-rich urban form
emerges, concentrated in areas where major
m
•55:
investments in transportation and urban
infrastructure have already been made, the
<3^
value and productivity of those investments is
greatly enhanced. More intensive and diversified
154
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
development supports a greater range of local
LAND
USE
AND TRANSPORTATION
Visimi for Sta tion Areas
services and facilities, making transit service
more productive, increasing opportunities for
safe walking and biking, and reducing trip
lengths. Automobile use, energy consumption
Transit station areas have become "places to be," and
'•cieslipafions in<thelr-owrf right,Residerits an'd,workers located
'near these stations enjoy-many benefits, having access to q ^
and natural areas are preserved. Human-scale
ftwide,varietfiolactlvities^withoubneeding aidafe,ilTiiS'mixIng dfiitoctivities'bringstogether^lherstationrand surrounding'rareos-,-and;,
architectural and urban design details define
«the..statloii :areaYenierqes assbihiahlv valued<communitV'asset.
and pollution are reduced, and open spaces
attractive public spaces, rekindling interest in
public life and stimulating renewed social and
economic growth. Some streets take on new life
too, shedding the reign of the car and connecting
with adjacent land uses, emerging as multipur
pose corridors friendly to transit, pedestrians
and bicyclists.
VTP 2030 Land Use Goal and
Objectives
L'v''
iVi/f '
The VTP 2030 land use goal and objectives
reflect this vision and VTA's role as a transporta
tion provider, not a land use agency. The goal
tion that the VTP 2030 land use programs
VTP 2030 Objectives for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
expect from member agencies when setting
• Concentrate development in cores, commu
and objectives define the high level of coordina
priorities for transportation investment.
nity corridors, and station areas to support
alternate transportation modes and maxi
VTP 2030 Goal for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
mize the productivity of transit investmerits.
• Design and manage the transportation system
"To provide transportation investments and
to support concentrated development in
services that support the maintenance and
selected locations.
creation of vibrant urban communities and
protect the Santa Clara County's natural
• Provide connectivity in road, bike, and pedes
trian networks so travelers can choose among
resources."
VTP 2030
155
n Smarter Suburbs
routes linking theii' origins and destinations.
,
Provide for future transportation system
The A/TP 2030-*land,'Use: vision-inGludes-.a new,- smarter vision".
needs by coordinating land development and
forisuburbon areas.,Pockets oh mixed;use;-higher-density'
capital project planning.
development are strategicdily placed throughout:suburbia^ , ^ ^
Design and construct transportation facilities
providing neighborhood services Lond social and recreational.
activities close- to homes.' They also,contain a yariely;of.i
to enhance the aesthetic quality of the built
n
environment.
Housing types that better*seri/e changing demographics and
support a ionge.of.incomes and.'oge groups.- Interconnected-•-
!:• n
Use land efficiently and support concentrated
development with strategies including land
.streets—some;designed specifically:to support'-transitaservice—
'support bike paths and attractive sidewglksi- offering.residentsi
options other.than thelcardor moving -orpund their,community.
n This new suburban-form^^together'with,more compact
use intensification and reuse, transportation
development in-'core.areas—^brks to ;CGmplement-urban. -:--
Support development that expands housing
centers and,halt the common'pattern of-sprawling, lowvintensity
developrnent; separation-and^de-centralizption..
■- .
investments that minimize right-of-way
requirements, and limiting land area dedicat
ed to surface parking.
i
accessibility relative to transportation alter
natives, proximity to job centers, cliild cai-e
and other essential services, range of afford-
ability, and opportunities for both rental
housing and home ownership.
Foster an urban design vision that creates a
sense of place, human-scale buUdings, vibrant
public spaces, and as many activities as
¥
possible ■within easy walking distance of each
other and transit stops.
Plan and design whole communities that inte
m
grate housing, work places, shops, schools,
parks, entertainment and public facilities so
that residents can meet their essential needs
close to home.
Promote street design standai'ds that consid
er function and land use context, and provide
Evergreen Vitlages: a.smdrter.suburb-in Sanjjose.-
156
Valley Trcnsportotion Authority
intercoimected multimodal options where
possible.
chapterfl LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Quailties 'of Concentrated Development: •
While many of the objectives refer to concen
trated, mixed-use development, other objectives
—particularly those relating to urban design,
walkability, street connectivity, transit integra^
;-V\Mdsf of. the aties-in-Santo Clara Courify desire,city-or village'style.development in strategic locations'. Although these places '.
will vary greatly,indorm'and .character, the vision for all '
'< includes people':being able..to,get'arpuhd cgmfortably withpyt
a car..'This requires developments that are compacf.and.
n diverse,:and.capable of supplying the-whole spectrum of : n n
tion, right-of-way preservation, and multimodal
street design that accommodates pedestrians
and bicyclists—are not limited to areas of con
centrated development, but may also be appro
priate in suburban and even rural settings (see
sidebar).
To implement this vision and achieve its land
use goal and objectives, VTA has established a
new comprehensive land use program—the
^ daily cctiyifies'Within easy wdlk distances. ', '
,
, The qualities that create these'places differ-in'scdle and
T emphasis, buticonsistently include: '
,
' ...
kk
;V ,;A mix of land uses that, enables.residents and;workers to,.;' '
complefedheir errands. and-obtatn .services.-without driving. - ,
The mixancludes retail, entertainment,, a variety-raf-housingtypes, offices, and civic activities such.as libraries and n
'• 1 ' post offices
', '
"
> '. Human-scale urban- design that creates a.-vibr'ant environ- T'
ment and'-promotes walking and transit.use.through appro.'■■'priatelntensity.of use, o' dyridmic mix of .land.uses, site
design,conducive.for.pedeyribhs', and located^within ' '
Commmiity Design and Transportation Program,
which is discussed in the following sections.
' . :'/walking:.distance,;of frequent trdrisit.service
Community Design and
Transportation—A Program for
Integrating Transportation and
Land Use
In 2002, the VTA Board of Directors adopted
the Community Design and Transportation
CGDT) Program as its primary program for inte
grating transportation and land use. It was cre
ated to help achieve VTA's land use vision and
implement its goal and objectives. It is also
intended to unite with common objectives VTA
planning, design, programming and construction
activities. Formulated as an outgrowth of the
VTP 2020 planning process, it was developed in
partnership with VTA's member agencies—^the
16 cities, towns, and coimty governments within
,, "d.
'
. ,
' ■
•).' Building.design that,,crea.te^'^safe and.attroctive.pedestrian:.
■ , .envirohmentsTthrdugh'djDprbp'ridte, setbacks,'jbuilding
,
,t - heights,, and ground floor uses. ,
" ,
"
Street design that balances the use of all modes of trans- , '
' - sportationfrather than maximizing outp capacity; and as a
■ ■ result Tacilitafes.amenity-rich compact, development, vyhich,- , ; -Mn turn-supports transit, walking and bicycling.,- ,
.
j
Concentrations of'rnajorcornmunityattrq'ctiqns that serve -• .
i
■ ras destinations for people who live in .ahdtqufside the dred. .These include education-and hedltb'care facjlities'- ;
s
OS vyell.as'places for cultyfal.activitjes and.entertainment; ■
• - .Attractive; .safe, and.efficient transpdrtationr.facilities for .all- ,.*
f. -'-modes: of,travel that enhance-public-spaces; .along with
J-..;; t -appropriate accommodqtipns-.forrautos vyhereithey are- C,',"'?;;'
necessary '
,
;
, •
f
Each of these-elements is dddressed in VJAs £ommun'ity ' , <
Design ancl Transportation,Program: A'Manuahof Best
■ '■ Practices'for Integrating Trdnspdrtatiori and LgndAJse.
Santa Clara County.
VTP 2030
157
lYansportaUon hnpUcnl'ions of
Concentrated Development
•"
,
.i
A recent Portland study noted,thot a -IQ percent reduction In.
Fundamentally, CDT calls for change: across
multiple disciplines, from design to finance to
i'vehicle-miies traveled (VMT)'cdald»beiachieved with a region--';
engineering, each of which has overlapping
'.wjide.iricrease in:^the qugiily of- therpedestfidri ert'Jirc nment.
The local features shown to contributejto.reducing VMT are:
importance to the other disciplines. CDT chal
lenges us to critically re-examine our current
pattern of outward growth, and begin working
• 'Egse'bf street crossings based'f0n:itreet width/: gndfizd; '
tion, and traffic volumes
n
- • ,. _
' ;
toward creating places that invite pedestrism
• Presence of sidewalks on streets with.transit'service'
activity, support transit, and build on the dis
.
•„Local street grid" patterns and'short Block distani es
• Topography with minimal ch0ng6s,.ih.slope '
tinct qualities of each community. Through the
CDT program, VTA is engagmg its partners in a
countywide dialogue to develop strategies for
wA
IT
changing planning and development processes
to more consistently support alternative travel
modes and efficient automobile use.
CDT Program Approach
The approach of the CDT program reflects
VTA's role as a multimodal transportation
provider. It considers all transportation modes
and stresses the importance of a healthy pedes
trian envii'onment, concentrated mixed-use
development, integrated transit service, innova
tive street design, and the interrelationships of
buildings and sites with transportation facilities
and services. It is concerned with how policies
The CDT program is designed to inspire new
shape these pieces, and how the pieces can be
thinking about the form and function of growth,
fitted together to create an attractive, safe, and
broaden the range of viable transportation
choices and make the most efficient use of
transportation and other resources in the
county. The CDT program has been formally
endorsed by each member agency, and
continues to function as an active partnership
for pursuing transportation and land use goals.
158
Volley Transportation Authority
sustainable urban form.
The CDT program is designed around a
framework for application, at least initially, in
community cores, along the major transporta
tion corridors, and surrounding transit station
areas. The map on page 161 shows the cores.
c h a p te r I
« * r"
I
c
^
^^
^
^^
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
li
Table 3-1 Transit Use in^Cores'qnd.Corridors /
Callrain
Caitroin
All-Day
Commute
Light Rail
Rapid
BART
Bus Transit'
VTA
Bus
Local
Shuttle
ifXTTiWi
fRegionaljCores'
iMi
San Jose
Palo Alto/Stanford
E
Campbell
Cupertino
Milpitas
Mountaiir View
Sunnyvale
E
E
Santana Row/ Valley Fair
Santa Clara
E
Morgan Hill
E
Gilroy
E
Local.Cotes
Los Altos
E
P
Los Gatos
E
P
Saratoga
E
P
E
Willow Glen
E
E
Communications Hill
E
Eastridge
P
Japan Town
E
E
E
E
E
Gilroy
E
E
E
Morgan Hill
E
E
E
1. Enhanced/Rapid Bus
E = Existing; C = Under Construction; P = Planned or Proposed
t I
Neiv Frontieisfor Growth
'
"
''
'
becausejhey, are already connected with,"utbanf services end'"
UntpVGbeq'londs at the .urban'iringe •havesgenerally been/" , .infrastructure. Moreover, oceommodqting-growth jn urbanB'- "'s
though}'of.ds ieadingicandidotes for growth and develop:'- -r' n coresjplays.a-more critical role in protecting-valuable open
menf^fHpwever, Santo Cicra'County's mature urbantareas.are:- -.spaGe;at-tHe edge; These sites^structured"around a frame: '■ .
.diso'.prime development:opportunities-..Tn,,fact,- vacant or
underutilized urban sites offer advantages- over outlying areas
^ -work of cores, corridors and'Statipn areas—:tGonstitute"the.new
=- frontiers for growth; and are the-focus of the CDT program.
VTP 2030
159
Manual of Best Practices for Integrating
5.^' 3
rFSuTOf.!, r
•nliatti
I
Transportation and Land Use
The CDT Manual of Best Practices for
Integrating Transportation and Land Use is a
DcJ1dH=lH3
□
key product of the CDT program aird was devel
r\
^ The dantltyofadjocenl
devolopmeni thou'd inci
of 'nodej,* where tha
' corridor rrccrj loco! co'c} o
ether aigniheanl corridors.
oped to. support the implementation of VTA's
land use objective and goals. It documents
proven and innovative best practices in urban
design and transportation planning that support
and enhance both VTA's and its Member
Agencies' investments in the commmrity. It
corridors and station areas designated.by local
agencies and VTA for the CDT program. These
are areas most likely to benefit from land use
intensification and implementation of the CDT
best practices principles (discussed in following
sections), and are key land use opportunity
areas for providing multimodal transportation
alternatives that can serve the needs of both
existing and new residents and workers.
Cores, Corndors and Station Jh-eas
• Cores are distrjcts that contairi concentrations of
resideritiaToreas, employment.'sites, and,other
) destinations such as retaij, .eritertain'meht,.acar
• , , defnic and cultural activities. 'They qre'fyrther. dis
tinguished ds regjondl'cores, such as downtown " ■
, Son Jose, county cores such as downtown ■
*, Mountain View or Suti'nyvole, or locofcores such '
h. ■.oS'Son Jose'sf^iilow:Glenfarea;and,dqwntown3:»'
- Los Gotos.
160
Valley Transportation Authority
provides planning and design guidance for how
to develop in the cores, corridors and station
areas. It also provides policy guidance and out
lines steps that communities and local govern
ments can take to identify and overcome barriers
to developing more livable and sustainable
communities. Moreover, it articulates VTA's
vision for how communities and a multimodal
transportation system can grow together, their
s-
•"''■'■it • '■
A;:?'
Corr/cfors ore linear in shape, centered on^o
."■street of'transit line, and often function as a ,
•"'bockbdrfe fd.r..surroundihg cornmunities.'Corridors
'■offer'oppdrtuhijies similar to cores for intenhfied
;r "?:mixed:use development,#but«usually.:in;ta:!morev': ^ ■
..defined area within ,d Block'-or so of the corridor.;
; '"'Corridors also (preseriMrerhendoosiopportunities ■ .
it*.for»ereating urban: pr.ivillage-like 'nodes)siespeGiaIly.;;;
;t :.dt.:maior intersectiohsfwhere severahiransltdineski';
i.v>-crossCWith. enhancedssibouievard-iikelCpede'slrian<':;tenvironrnents,ands©therKfnoltimodal-:irnprovennents* I
c li a p t e r I
LAND
USE
AND
^ ■«* ■
m■
Ik
VTA Cores, Corridors
& Station Areas
\\
,
/vc
'Paloslllo/y
- ►til !
"'"V
\
-..■■■-<y
Local
■ SlanForcl
•
•
Core
V ~
*'./■
\ -;.!
TRANSPORTATION
i'
■'■N; . yjrl
^ li.
I, , . Do«nic«i.
r-»>-^ K «'««
-'i V,"" -
/■-
Mountain yic
• V,
'.' ! . jfI Down-oiin
H
'
'
J
_■^
, -■
/»—<—J-,,- /•
»- *
i
County
Regional
Core
Core
Corridors
lotion Areas
,\ . .
- Lit <» • »
U,-'-Y
■y.
>/\<ar ^ \, >
--V-
Ucihrtown
,J.
,..1
^
''s..
LRT Stalions
"oltraln ond/or
' .L Stotions
Rcoionol Roil Transit Lines
/TA light Roil Lines
Lo,. Altos ■
3 Stations
■>%v:,:,,
. ■\
- .| •
v^'
■"
■,'■
'^^ConjmUrtlcallon^
DoAiilj^n ■"
Cr-'piirll .
hill
. \
\
V
P.- «v»
loicco^ ".
oil
WjtjjO.iro,. i^r; r
-x;, ■^
. .
m
:;fcr4v:
Image by USGS, Earthstar Geographies. © Thomas Brothers map. All rights reserved.
.'*
j
such,as,transit preferential treatments and bike".,
. lanes, corridors hove,real potential for becoming
cohesive comrfiunily elements; offering a'multitude .
of activities, a range of pleasant'environments,
and several choices of ways to move along.its
• .. ' length,_
. .
y
. ' '
_
' urban'design; rriultimodal transportation improve-
_ •
. .ments, and a variety of dll-doy activities at station
;areos can'creote vibrant cente'rs of activily. '■ . ■
.,'
• ,
. Station 'areas-become destinations In'their own
' . • ^'Stations areas are locations ad|ocent td'rapid*"'
> ,
transit stations that already serve, or,will 'serve,'!* ;
OS focal points for,new infill development and'
, redevelopment. Station.dreos.hdve opportunities ,
■ "similar to cores .and corridors for .intensified"
, mixed-use development, and offer unique oppor- , ,
"tunities fqr.communily/'plccemakingd"Attractive ■-
'
right'and odd value to surrounding communities."
•If'located'within'g local core'area, such ds near '
a downtown 'or Moin Street, the station area
*t. _
i design can complement'ond'enhance the overall ' urban experience'of those areas.
' > .
VTP 2030
■
161
CDTMa'irual Topics
'
'
The CDT Manual addresses critical topics by illustrating best _
practices and identifying^implementatipn,strategies'cind'meth.ods-for propagating bek practices throughout the county..The
rtianudl is intended to be a living'document th~at/evolvesJn."
'response to new information ond,^ opportunities. ,
...
., '
' '
'
^
^
^'
street, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, ti-an-
,> n
BestI'proctices,topics covered in-th'e CDT Manual ^include:'
.t
'
,
'i.
,
I' • .
•; Supporting concentrated development
Development density recommendations for cores
„ 'and corridors
•
■
-
•
L
'
. ' ■ -
.
Alternative use of level-.of service standards' '
'• h Rethinking parking requirements
'
■
, '
5, ,
-r
• Flexible zoning strategies•Community'plahning for bus transit, rail transit,-
-y
• -Attracting developers to best^practices-projeb'ts •
.
Transportation demand management
---'i
'
elements of the built environment that create
uniqueness and Identity, and that make
and lasting.
!
'
■ y"
• Place-making—focuses on the human-scale
places attractive, comfortable, memorable,
•, Model placesrand visualizing best practices , ' ' <
• The role of local governments in best'practices
'' '
• Buildihg'community.suppoft.for best,ptcictices. . "
and station.areas,
slt modes, buildings, and activity centers to get
more from transportation resources, and to
form distinct districts and more livable places.
\
•' Site dhd-building design- ' ' \ . '
"•
• Street connectivity .and multirfibdai street design . ,
•"'Innovative and efficient uses of land ■:
• Interconnection—focuses on Interconnecting
,,
'ci „
• Access-by-Proximity—focuses on clustering
complementary land uses and compact, well-
designed development to make the types of
amenlty-rlch places that allow trips to be
combined, reduced or eliminated, and made
by transit, walking or blldng; and accordingly,
this helps achieve the kind of critical mass
that makes vibrant public life possible.
• Choice—^focuses on the notion that one-
slze-does-not-flt-all, and seeks to expand
respective roles, and how the actions of each
can be mutually supportive and beneficial.
This vision Is outlined in four key concepts and
ten principles that provide the basis for the
the range of choices about the design of
developments that we live and work In,
where activities are located, the character
of the conununlty, and the means of
getting around.
CDT program.
Key Concepts and Principles for
Integrating Transportation
and Land Use
162
CDT Principles for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
These time-proven planning and design princi
ples build upon and expand the blg-plcture key
The Key Concepts, suirmtarlzed below, underlie
concepts described previously, and create a
all aspects of the CDT Program and form the
foundation for more detailed practices and
foundation upon which the principles, practices,
actions covered In the CDT Manual. An
and actions are built:
overview of each principle is provided below.
Valley Transportation Authority
ch a pter I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
iii.<
dll
1. Target growth is cores, corridors and
nn
m
station areas. Focusing growth on estab
lished cores, corridors, and station areas is
about doing more with less. New growth in
I
these areas capitalizes on existing infrastruc
ture and allows cities to avoid the costs of
expanding and maintaining new infrastruc
ture. InfiU growth thwarts m'ban fringe
development, conserving open space,
resources and natural areas. Transit service
Targeting growth in cores, corridors and statio^i areas.
in these areas is more fully utilized and pro
ductive.
m
K1
2. Intensify land uses and activities.
'.-.'li? I !■ Ill"' ' I F
Compact, amenity-rich development is
essential to developing vibrant and function
mg
al places. Higher-intensity land use in cores,
corridors and station areas facilitates walka-
m
bihty, creates viable transportation options,
promotes thriving businesses, and develops a
sense of place. High-quality urban design
and architecture must accompany intensified
development to make communities feel com
>■-
'
■■
ii
nm
mi
1^
fortable, attractive, and safe.
3. Provide a diverse mix of uses. Mixed-use
Intensifying land uses and activities.
developments offer users various combina
destinations. This principle, coupled with a
tions of conunercial, office, and residential
diverse mix of uses and high-quality project
land uses within close proximity. A variety of
design, helps to create synergies that
uses attracts people during all times of the
day and creates synergies that help these
encourage walking, enliven public spaces,
and bring vitality to urban areas. Being able
areas reduce the need for automobile trips,
to walk to destinations also takes automobile
make transit, walking, and biking viable
trips off the roadway network, and reduces
energy consumption and pollution.
options, enhance conununity livabUity, and
thrive both economically and socially.
4. Design for pedestrians. The hallmark of
5. Design in context. Designing in context
focuses on the materials, design details, and
great places is the ability to walk between
VTP 2030
163
architectural styles that establish and
reinforce a unique community character.
Designing in context is also about sensitivity
to the relationships between buildings,
streets, aird public spaces.
6. Focus on existing areas. Before consum
ing additional land and resources in outlying
areas, greater attention should be given to
using land already dedicated to the urban
Providing a diverse mix ofuses.
fabric more efficiently. This also means that
sustaining the community is just as impor
;a
3i
n
tant as improving it—and that after-care and
ff
H
maintenance programs are as vital as good
planning and design are in creating a sense
of place and community.
7. Create a multimodal transportation
i
system. Great places offer a multitude of
ways to get aroimd. Provision of viable trans
portation alternatives is not about destroying
the automobUe; rather, it is about balancing
the needs of vehicle movement with the
needs of transit, walking, and biking.
Designfor pedestrians.
8. Establish streets as places. In addition to
JVS
being part of the multimodal transportation
system that moves people and goods, streets
are the most abundant public space in cities.
Rather than being viewed as just a thorough
fare for cars, street design should also reflect
the context of adjacent land uses and the
n
needs of people.
9. Integrate transit. Transit service benefits
everyone; but transit can only function effec
tively when it is fuUy integrated with the com
munity. Integration can be achieved either by
Designing in context.
164
Valley Transportation Authority
: h a p It e r I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
■T
i
■ kZS) kOTiOrOK
iMrrcJAi^s
llSL"■T.CMTirKATES
extending the community fabric out to
connect with transit facilities, or by bringing
transit service directly into the heart of the
community. Transit stops and stations should
be viewed as valuable civic spaces warranting
public resources and high-quality design.
10. Manage parking. Parking takes up enor
mous amounts of land and is today perhaps
Establishh\g streets as places.
the single most important element influencing
the design of ui'ban areas. As such,the design
and placement of parking helps dictate the
.character of a place, determining whether it
wiH feel isolated from adjacent uses or inte
Jr /■;'
grated into a continuous urban fabric.
These concepts and principles are intended for
%
implementation together in fulfillment of a longrange vision for growth and development.
Consistent and incremental implementation will
create the types of synergy-rich and amenitythrive, and bring wholesale positive results to
the transportation system and our communities.
Implementing the CDT Program
m
T-
rich enviroiunents that make urban spaces
Integrate transit v/ith development.
49^
VTA wiU facilitate countywide implementation of
the CDT program through the following activities:
• Supporting Member Agency Efforts. VTA
rP.
will continue to work with the cities, towns
and the County of Santa Clara, and support
ill
their endorsements of the CDT program by
providing project review, planning, design,
and technical assistance.
Manage parking.
VTP 2030
165
DociimeyUs Supportiny ihe CDT Manual * •
'The CDT Manual was.conceived as a.,comprehensive "toolkit,"
Continuing Development of the CDT
but some areas of planning and design covered in' the manual
Program. VTA will update the CDT program
warrant greater detail. So in addition to updates of the '
and manual to keep abreast of the latest
planning, design, and development practices.
manual, the GDI-program includes the.development of other- '
' 'supporting documents. For example, a quality pedestrian' .
New mairuals aird documents ■will be created
h
environment is critical to the vitality and success'of communities,
CDT Planning Grants. Provides grants to
and'to.the productivity of transit.'To help plan'and build'betten
pedestrian environments, VTA recently released,a Manual of '
Pedestrian Technical Design Guidelines.' n
'.
as needed to support the on-going efforts of
the CDT program.
,
Member Agencies to plan for specific projects
or changes in local plans or regulations that
implement CDT concepts and principles. The
Initial fund amount is $1.4 million, distributed
over three years.
.-.Future CDT 'program publications providing additionalisdetail.'i.i n
may include; ,
.
CDT Capital Grants. Administered through
% n '-
the Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Parking polices, strategies and design guidejines
n •. Station area"design guidelines
n • Street a'nd site design guidelines
• Strategies for community and economic sustbinability ,
n --1!
' 111.
,
Program, capital grants will be awarded to
Member Agencies to assist them with imple
menting transportation-related projects that
improve community access to transit, provide
multimodal transportation facilities, and
enhance the pedestrian environment along
transportation corridors, in core areas, and
around transit stations. VTA 2030 allocates
approximately $10 million every two years for
capital grants.
Technical Standards and Procedures. VTA
■will re^vise the materials that set forth
requirements for local compliance ■with the
Congestion Management Program in accord
with the CDT program.
Outreach and Training. Building commimi-
ty and political support for innovative, highquality development through continuing edu-
166
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter!
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
cation, outreach, and advocacy. VTA will
sponsor outreach and training programs on
topics including planniitg, design, and policy
strategies oriented to county decision-makers,
>v
planning and public works staffs, and stake
holders from the development and business
communities eis well as civic leaders.
• Advancing Established Land Use
Programs. On-going programs that support
transit-oriented development, development
review, and CMP programs will continue, with
modifications as needed to complement the
continued development of the GDT program.
• Establishing New Programs. VTA will
continue investigating new programs that
facilitate the implementation of its land use
goal and objectives. New programs, such as
the Joint Development Program (discussed m
the foUowuig section), will incorporate GDT
concepts and principles.
becoming increasingly important factors m
VTA's decision-making process for transporta
tion improvements. VTA will expect to see its
The Role of Member Agencies
VTA can't do it alone. To get the highest and
best use from transportation investments, and
deliver a world-class multimodal transportation
commitments of billions of dollars in capital and
on-going operatmg funds work in concert with
coordinated iand use and policy commitments
from Member Agencies that support those
mvestments.
system, VTA must rely on the concerted efforts
of its Member Agencies. Since opportunities to
add capacity to roadways and expand fixed-rail
transit are limited and costly, the land use
pohcies and decisions of Member Agencies are
VTP 2030
167
Transportation and Land Use
Investment Strategy
The more than $8.5 billion capital program
ideas and to prepare those plans, projects, and
included in VTP 2030 is VTA's most powerful
policies for implementation or adoption. The
instrument for achieving its goals. The
CDT Planning Grant Fimd Program toU make
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy
available approximately $475,000 per annual
coiranits VTA to making investments in facilities
cycle to VTA Member Agencies, and is currently
and sei-vices that will support VTA's land use
funded for three annual programming cycles
objectives, and the on-going operations and
scheduled for FY 2004, 2005 and 2006. During
maintenance of the transportation system. This
this time VTA will work to identify and secure
section describes strategies and policy objec
additional funds to continue progranuning in
tives for more closely linking transportation
future years. Two categories of planning grants
investments with the land use decisions made
are offered:
by Member Agencies.
Policy Planning Grants—^up to $150,000 for
projects that revise existing, or create new,
Funding for Projects to Enhance
Livability—CDT Program Grants
design standards that encourage changes in
Linking the CDT program and the
community form that result in multimodal,
policies, codes, ordinances, or enforceable
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy,
pedestrian-friendly streets and transit-oriented,
VTA has created two new grant fund programs
compact, mixed-use developments along major
to support Member Agencies, efforts to imple
transportation corridors and in core areas such
ment the concepts and principles of the CDT
as downtovms, main streets, commercial nodes,
program. These funds are a key component of
and station areas.
the overall investment strategy, demonstrating
VTA's on-going commitment to supporting its
land use objectives with significant local invest
ments in improving the quality of life in our
commmiities. Grants will be awarded on a
competitive beisis to provide strong incentives
for Member Agencies to implement the precepts
of the CDT program.
Capital Planning Grants—up to $75,000 for
capital planning projects that integrate high-
quality, pedestrian and multimodal transporta
tion design elements into a public street,
corridor, commercial node or station area, and
ready those projects for implementation.
Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program Capital Grants (CDT Capital Grants)
CDT Planning Grants
168
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian
CDT planning grairts are intended to help VTA
(LCP)Program provides capital funds for
Member Agencies refine and build on promising
transportation-related projects that improve
Valley Transportation Authority
c h a pte r I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
community access to transit, provide multimodal
transportation facilities, and enhance the
'•'J
pedestrian environment along transportation
coiTidors, in comnrunity cores, and around tran
sit stations. The LCP Program is designed to
support the goals of CDT program, and the land
use/transportation goals of Member Agencies.
The LCP Program is expected to provide
about $10 nuUion every two years for Member
an
Agency capital projects. WhUe a new evaluation
methodology ■will be developed for these
■'■f
-
projects, the CDT Manual, Pedestrian Technical
Design Guidelines, and other CDT documents
wiO provide a fi'amework for project evaluation,
selection, and implementation.
If
1
;L. ■ ^
Capital Proiect Evaluation Criteria
i
/.I,
The process for choosing among candidate
projects attracts enormous attention, and with
projects. Progranr areas in which project
each investment costing hundreds of millions of
evaluation criteria currently consider land use
doUars, decision-makers and community mem
characteristics include;
bers correctly feel that the stakes are high. Due
• Transit corridors
to the reciprocal relationship between the
productivity of the transportation system and
• Highways
the land uses it serves, making informed and
• Local streets and county roads
rational decisions about investments in future
• Bicycles
transit projects requires information about the
land use characteristics they wiU serve.
The inclusion of land use points in the scoring
process results in a significant improvement in
The VTP 2030 Capital Investment Program
the overall ranking for projects judged as
presented in Chapter 2 reflects the first-round
advancing the achievement of land use objec
implementation of the investment strategy, in
tives. While these judgments are necessarily
wliich land use characteristics have influenced
subjective, they provide an initial way for the
the selection of both rapid transit and roadway
VTP 2030
169
investment strategy to bring land use considera
development of VTA-owned property at and
tions into the decision-making process for transit
adjacent to transit stations and corridors. VTA
and roadways. The result of including land use
envisions its station ai'eas and transit corridors
considerations with roadway projects was the
as vibrant, prosperous community assets that
ability of local roadway projects to compete with
create a strong sense of place for transit,
freeway projects in the evaluation. The result of
pedestrians, and the surrounding community,
including land use considerations with transit
and which are destinations in their own right.
corridor projects helps to predict whether there
will be aU-day demand for transit and a sufficient
ridership base to warrant the high capital
investments in rapid transit technologies.
The Joint Development Policy provides a frame
work for creating and pursuing the highest and
best opportunities for development around sta
tion areas and along corridors. The policy is
intended to establish guidelines and procedures
Joint Development Program
for identifying such opportunities to optimize
VTA's Joint Development Program furthers the
return on investment to VTA. Joint
VTP 2030 land use goal and objectives and
Development also includes coordination with
supports VTA's strategic and fiscal goals. The
local jurisdictions m station area land use plan
program was adopted by the VTA Board m
ning to establish development patterns that
January 2005. It is designed to secure the
enhance transit use.
most appropriate private and public sector
Goals
The VTA's Joint Development Progi'am seeks to:
1. Comprehensively plan and develop the high
est and best housing, office and retail uses
around station sites and along-transit corri
dors.'
2. Increase transportation system capacitj' by
increasing transit use.
3. Generate both a long-term source of revenue
for VTA, and allow VTA to participate in the
fi
w
increase in the value of its real property
assets over time.
i-;
170
Valley Transportation Authority
:h a p t e r
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
Joint Development Policy
VTA shall, to the greatest extent possible, tahe
advantage of opportunities for development on
VTA property. VTA shall support and complete
projects that have the greatest potential to
contribute financially to VTA, to improve transit
ridership, reduce dependence on the automobile,
and enhance community livability and prosperity.
Joint deveiopment projects shail:
• Create both a long-term source of revenue
for VTA, and shall allow VTA to participate in
s
the increase in the value of its reai estate
assets over time.
K /!.
CSK
• Encourage transit utilization and ridership.
• Exhibit higli urban design standards and quality.
• Be consistent with local jurisdiction land use
j, If
t
.■*.
goals and shall be developed vTith a public
participation process that respects neighbor
hood concerns.
• Provide for efficient and safe vehicular and
pedestrian circulation and shall provide ade
quate parkmg to serve both private and pub
lic demand, while maximizing shared parking
opportunities.
• Implement the concepts, principles, and
• Address conuhunity needs in joint develop
ment consistent with VTA policy, encouraging
revenue generation and impiementing TOD
design principies.
Statutory Support for VTA Joint
Development
The following legislative summaries are presented
practices outlined in VTA's Community
to illustrate VTA's unique position with regard
Design and Transportation (CDT) Program
to potential joint development projects and the
and shall include the elements of transit-ori
ented design (TOD).
• Enhance and maintain existing or future
development of real property in both direct
proximity to VTA transit services and other
locations.
transportation systems, operations, and infra
structure.
VTP 2030
171
positioned to develop and implement a Joint
Hi
Development Program.
Assembly Bill (AB) No. 935, Diaz, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority:
Benefits Assessments (enacted October 2003)
i?
r
. -'Wi:-
~M H
^
i-"-' :', n I vJWHjC'
0, .
.••, WEBsW/
1'>
I
•jK-..
.-1
ai ¥6.> ;-»
3V»r
iliijijil
AB 935 (Diaz) authorizes VTA to establish
Benefit Assessment Districts relative to its rail
lines, and to issue revenue bonds in that regard.
In addition to VTA, the Los Angeles County
■srw!
n
n
i"-
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is the only other transit operator in
California to be granted this authority. This law
allows VTA to levy "benefit assessments" on cer
tain property within a half mile of an existmg or
proposed rail transit station, with the proceeds
to be used for the rail transit station or transit-
Assembly Bill (AB) No. 670, Papan
(enacted Febfuary 1999)
benefit assessment district. In its decision, the
AB 670 CPapan) allows VTA, the San Mateo
State Legislature declared that "it is in the best
County Transit District (SamTrans), and the Bay
interest of the citizens of the state to authorize
Area Rapid Ti-ansit District (BART), to acquire
land entirely for the purpose of transit-oriented
development (TOD). TOD, in this context, is
defmed as "a project that is a commercial,
residential, or mixed-use development that is
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
to levy special benefit assessments needed for
public rail rapid transit facilities and services on
the property that benefits from those facilities
and services." An Assessment District must
undertaken m connection with existing, planned,
be approved by a majority of the impacted
or proposed transit facilities and is located 1/4
property owners.
mile or less from the external boundaries of that
The ability to generate revenue, and participate
facility." VTA, SamTrEins and BART are the only
in the economic benefits of its transit improve
transit operators in California with this authority.
ments through Benefit Assessment Districts,
Accordingly, since VTA can acquii'e properties
has many potential benefits for VTA. For
specifically for the pm'pose of development—■
example, it enables VTA to potentially share the
including land assembly purposes—it is uniquely
172
related facilities within the boundaries Of the
Valley Transportation Authority
:h a p t e r i
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
cost of providing rail transit services with the
required transit districts to meet 13 specific
properties that benefit from those improve
benefits. Demonstrating that a district could
ments. These savings could then fund additional
meet all,13 specific benefits set the bai' too high
amenities for transit patrons and the communi
for most jurisdictions to get over—only one
ties adjacent to transit facilities, or other capital
such district has been established in the State
improvements that serve the larger community.
since the act was passed in 1994. As a result of
Assembly Bill(AB)No. 1937, Dutra
to form transit village development districts.
(enacted February 2002)
The AB 1320 amendment streamlines the
AB 1937 (Dutra) ahows a transit operator to
process for creating transit village development
AB 1320, more local juiisdictions are expected
enter into agreements with a public agency,
districts and makes it easier for local jurisdic
public utility, or person or entity for the purpose
tions to implement them by allowing cities and
ofjoint development. This legislation essentially
counties to meet any five of the specified
gives VTA the ability to develop and manage
demonstrable public benefits.
real property for transit-oriented development
purposes. For example, VTA can, if it deter
mines that it is in its best interests, enter into a
This amendment expands VTA potential part
nership opportunities for joint development
development a^eement with a private developer
to construct a project on land that VTA owns or
pf'i- :;iSs
purchases, and retain ovmership and manage
ment of that project as an on-going source of
t' •-
revenue for the agency.
" - •-r-. -
Assembly Bill(AB)No. 1320, Dutra, Transit
Village Plan (enacted Febmary 2003)
\
*
II
AB 1320 amends the Transit Village Development
Planning Act of 1994 to allow cities and counties
greater flexibility for preparing Transit Village
Plans for land within a quarter mile of major
transit facilities. The primary significance of this
1
amendment is in the definition of transit facilities,
which changed from simply "a rail transit station"
n
to include "a rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub,
I
f
or bus transfer station." In addition, the 1994 act
VTP 2030
173
transit expansion and improvements including
with member agencies by including bus hubs
and bus transfer stations in the list of potential
annual service plans and corridors studies. With
locations, and by aUowing member agencies and
its responsibility as trustee of public transit
VTA to focus greater attention on a smaller list
funds in Santa Clai-a County, the TEP will assist
of public benefits.
VTA with continuing to:
• Protect taxpayer and Agency investments in
Transit Expansion Policy
transit infrastructure and services
To help ensure that VTA's investments in cur
• Protect the financial health and sustainabihty
of the Agency
rent and future transit services are supported
by local land use and policy decisions, VTA will
• Contribute to enhancing the livabUity
develop a Transit Expansion Policy (TEP).
and sustainability of Santa Clara County
Capital project funding and service expansion
communities
will be linked with the TEP, and apply to both
bus and rail projects and services. The TEP will
provide a policy framework for transit expan
Tilings that VTA may consider in developing its
Transit Expansion Policy include:
• Ridership generation
sion, and establish thresholds for minimum
conunitments from local govermnents. The TEP
will also support future planning studies for
> Farebox recovery goals/standards
> New transit riders
> Supportive land uses—-plaraied, approved
and existing residential, commercial, office
1
areas and activity centers with close prox
imity to transit
> Enhanced connections with existing local,
sub-regional, and regional transit services
• Financial constraints and opportunities
ex.
> Capital capacity—VTA's ability to provide
capital funds for the expansion
At
> Operational capacity—^VTA's ability to
provide operating funds and efficiently
ten
n M
-n
:.-m:
A-
^ 7A
Valley Transportation Authority
i.»
I'lS-v.'
chapter® LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
accommodate the service withiir the
existing transit network/system
> Opportunities for joint development and
partnersliips with other agencies and
private business, and the level of local
government conuuitments supporting joint
1
development projects
Implementation
m
As part of implementing the TEP, VTA will seek
specific commitments from local governments
to support the proposed transit service. In
partnership with local governments, actions may
K-.
li i
include, but will not be limited to, one or a
combination of the following:
• General Plan changes or approved
Specific Plans
• Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
• Developer Conditions of Approval
• Tax Increment Financing
• Transit Benefit Assessment District
• Dedication of land
• Local funding
VTP 2030
175
Partnerships for Livability
Improving the livability of Santa Clai'a County
Santa Clara with the 1995 merger of the Santa
requires meaningful cooperation and coordina
Clara County Transit District and the
tion between all groups and jurisdictions in the
Conge,stion Management Agency of Santa Clara
county—^with everyone working toward mutual
County. VTA also absorbed the responsibilities
goals. While working to address transportation
of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority,
issues in the county is VTA's primary responsi
which dissolved at the end of 1997 after suc
bility, om- goals cannot be addressed by VTA
cessful completion of its mandate.
alone. Many of the programs presented in this
document require meaningful and collaborative
partnerships to be truly successful.
VTA was created to address the transportation
issues of Santa Clara County, and functions as a
multimodal transportation planning agency
Partnerships are essential to VTA's success in
involved with transit, highways, roadways, bike-
implementing the CDT program, linking land
ways, and pedestrian facilities. The VTA Board
use and transportation iiwestments, improving
of Directors is composed of 12 elected officials
transit ridership, managing the transportation
appointed by Member Agencies, and all mem
system, and in meeting the goals of enhanced
bers of this partnership work together to
livability and economic prosperity in Silicon
address the transportation needs of Santa Clara
Valley. VTA itself was developed as a partner
County. As demonstrated by the significant
ship among the cities, towns, and County of
strides made smce VTA's inception, this partner
ship can truly be called one of the most success
ful in the valley.,
mm
The remainder of this section discusses VTA's
work -with other partners in our community and
the future role of VTA leadership on issues
related to transportation.
Partnerships for livability considers two basic
types of partnerships:
i
• Public/Public. Enhanced cooperation
between public entities is essential—better
using public funds and having greater success
with programs involving countywide issues
such as housing, park space and traffic. Even
better cooperation between different entities
176
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
LAMD
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
within an agenda can yield substantial public
benefits.
• Public/Private. Examples include joint
m
-ft
S-H
development, provision of shuttle services,
'W
Si«l
and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) programs.
Land Use Partnerships
imd
Since VTA does not hold land use approval
authority, successfully implementing its land use
programs will require dynamic partnerships
r.
with Member Agencies. In addition to the
CDT program and the transportation/land use
investment strategies previously discussed, VTA
engages in other land use activities to further its
Management Agency for Santa Clara Coimty,
goals for concentrated mixed-use development.
VTA is charged with ensuring that regional
Current efforts mclude:
roadways operate at acceptable levels of con
• Development Review. The cities and
county already forward many of their
proposals for land development to VTA, usu
ally in the form of environmental documents,
site plans, and transportation studies. VTA
reviews the proposals to ensure that trans
gestion. VTA reviews development proposals
to ensure that transportation impacts are
minimized, and that opportunities to facilitate
use of transportation alternatives are taken.
The CDT program is a fundamental compo
nent of this review process.
portation is adequately integrated into the
Transit-Oriented Development(TOD).
plans, and then submits suggestions to
Through the CDT program, VTA also has an
Member Agencies, who may work with the
established TOD program in which VTA plays
development community to incorporate
a role in conducting research and providing
VTA's concerns. In addition, VTA staff are
expertise and resources to help achieve transit-
also assisting Member Agencies tlmough
oriented development. Elements of the TOD
the CDT program with the early review of
program involve concept-level station area
development proposals.
planning,joint development, and outreach and
education efforts advocating development that
• Proactive Congestion Management
Program (CMP). As the Congestion
complements VTAs transit system.
VTP 2030
177
Public/Private Partnerships
Center with downtown employment and activi
VTA works extensively with area employers and
ties. In addition to shuttles provided by agencies
developers to establish partnerships and pro
grams that encourage transit use and alterna
tives to single-occupant vehicle travel.
or through public/private partnerships, a num
ber of employers provide their own shuttles to
meet the demand and flexible work hours of
their employees.
Shuttle Services
VTA partners with Santa Clara County employ
Eco Pass
ers and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
Eco Pass is a partnership between Santa Clara
District(BAAQMD)to provide shuttles from
Valley employers and VTA. Eco Pass is good for
light rail stations to surrounding employment
unlimited use of VTA bus and light rail services,
sites. In addition, working through the Altamont
Commuter Express (ACE) cooperative agree
ment, VTA provides shuttles from the Great
America Station in Santa Clara to businesses
seven days a week. Employers purchase amual
Eco Pass stickers for all full-time employees at a
given work site, paying one low cost. Pricing
levels are based on proximity to VTA services
throughout Silicon Valley. VTA also operates the
and the number of employees.
DASH shuttle service in downtown San Jose,
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
which links the Diridon Caltrain Station/Transit
and the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of
Conunerce endorse the Eco Pass program, and
the Bay Area Clean Air Partnership (BayCAP)
has recognized Eco Pass as an effective strategy
for reducing air pollution. In addition, Eco Pass
CM:
was awarded the 1999 Outstanding Public
Environmental Program Award from the Santa
Clara Valley Chapter of the American Society
for Public Administration (ASPA) and the 1997
m
Governor's Environmental and Economic
.4:1
Leadership Award for Environmental
Management.
VTA also offers a residential Eco Pass to hous
ing developments like condominiums, apart
ments, townhouses, and to neighborhood and
conamunity associations. This program helps to
178
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
enhance conunimity liyability by encouraging
use of alternative forms of transportation.
J.l-
Joint Development Partnerships
As discussed previously, VTA is establishing a
program for developing VTA-owned land. In
nn
vmars
addition to partnerships with Member Agencies
Yotfvesoili;
•■siihBtoPoB
to secure favorable land use designations, this
effort will require active partnerships with pri
vate developers. Such public/private partner
' Wih fcb rSyou hove onlWed
(iiidVK.
eG#,|^S5^005
■ -loVrABusdnillijtaliaiL'Tiy.itiBlilllsnsi
vWto 0 oteV,' mil m'm are ywi'I led fa iSHeisiitB.
ships can secure the highest and best use of
land around station areas and transit long corri
dors. By delivering high-quality development
projects specifically designed to make maximum
use of transit-rich sites, joint development can
deliver catalytic projects that stimulate further
m
development that reinvigorates commimities.
r
ji J'l y
Silicon Valley Community
Partnerships
ES
As Silicon Valley prospers and grows, VTA has
■
%
■t r 1
msw
■
joined with many business and communitybased organizations to ensure a coordinated
*1
xr;.
=?ar.-j
' -
^
effort in improving the quality of life in Silicon
Valley. These partnerships constitute a critical
component to the future accomplishment of
VTA's goals. For example, VTA actively partici
pates in programs and functions held by the
following organizations: SVLG, Greenbelt
Alliance, Joint Ventm'e Silicon Valley, and the
Housing Action Coalition.
JS
On a project planning or program level, VTA
also involves numerous other community
groups. These groups provide ideas, insights,
perspective, and concerns at the local neighbor
hood level and may represent specific communi-
VTP 2030
179
Environmental Justice Study; n
ties, housing associations, or businesses. Their
VTA, in c9operalion withitKeiMetropolitQn.Transportatlon -
meet the community's needs.
input often leads to better-defined projects that
, Commission (MTCl,-ancl with a grant from Cojtfans, is'devel- n
/
,
oping-jronsportation evoludtionieciteria for use inj.environmen-
In addition, TTTA coordinates with a wide range
of other governmental agencies and non-profit
organizations on an expansive array of topics
tol justice plonning appllcatipns',within«the framework of VTA's'
from emergency preparedness, to transportation
counlywide transportation'modeling;ptpcess. This project will-
options for residents moving from welfare to
establish-practical, environmentalsjustiee'piannihg'.procedures. n
work, to the implementation of Smart Corridor
technology.
- using a rriultidlsciplinary af5proach. It, will make extensive use^
of VTA existing public participationrstrahsit-planning, copges-'
Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships
tion" management, and travel.demand prograrns to identify '
Since transportation problems rarely disappear
potential impacted communities'early-in thejplanning process..
at city or county boundaries, many solutions
Qualitative measures vvilhb'e developedi within the.framework'
''of.cbuntywide travel dernand-irhodels to. measure.and" predict,
require workiiig mth agencies in adjoining
counties and our regional partners. VTA works
with the following agencies on a wide range
of activities, from planning improvements to
environmental justice'elements.
project delivery;
• VTA Member Agencies (the 16 city,
town and county governments in Santa
■i^i
Clara County)
• Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)
• Association of Bay Area
Govermnents (ABAC)
• Bay Area Air Quality Management
<^A -jvTr
District (BAAQMD)
■ -"ii*," >
•
Caltrans
• Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA)
180
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
• San Mateo County Transportation
Authoritj'(SMCTA)
• Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)
• Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
• Transportation Agency for Monterey
County (TAMC)
• San Benito Council of Governments
/
liegioncd Tmnsii-Coordination
V,
: '-j ;
&5'6oV(dinatingnregipnalsprojectsiis4rnportant'for'sensuring4nGru
iipro|ects»qrefpl0nn'ed.and:implemented' efflcieRtly.'qnd effec?..
»itively.5-VTAts»effprts with; regionabcoordlnatipnainclude:;' -rg
. Coordinated Training Partners^
''
•.
Transportation for-Livable'Corrimunities ' ,
■tRegionaliDiscount-Cdrd!lmpr.ovements?Rartners:;;»r;iA _ ;
In addition, VTA participates in partnerships
Transit Labor'Management Workshops Partners
with other transit operators in the region to pro
-Commuter Check Partners,
vide transit services mrder joint operating
• Interagency Paratransit^Sejyice'Partners'
agreements. These organizations include;
• Caltrain Peninsula Joint Powers Board
• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
Cooperative Service Agreement
• Dumbarton Express Transit Consortium
' . ' .
.
,
'Regional Transit System of Routes and'
'.Transfer Points Update
_
,
Paratransit-Te'chnicql Assistance Program . '- .'C,
(PTAP) Partners '
'
Incident Response'Tjanhihg Partners
Fare/Transfer-Agreements Partners
- '
'ADA'Paratransit Eligibility Program Partners
I'RegionahTransit Guide,Update'Partners'-I
.Tegiqndl Trarisif A/ldrketing Partners;
•
-
.
'
, .(■ -
These partnerships enable VTA to provide
' Clean Fuel-Bus Initiative-Partne'rs;
regional rail and express bus connections with
surrounding counties, and provide an extensive
'-'Transit Trip,Planning and .Regional 'Transit ,
Database (RTD) ; , .
network of shuttles linking light rail, ACE and
t-Tra'vlnfo™|Regionql-Transportationdnformatlon.»:;h-.
the county. VTA also works with the regional
commute information service—RIDES for Bay
Area Commuters—^to maximize the capacity of
'
. -
• Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Caltrain with key employment sites throughout
t
■'
• Highway 17 Express Bus
(Amtrak)
\
, .
' \
Systems Partners'
.TransLink® Partners,
) x, - ' '
Regional Links Partners, -
'Trans Response Plan (TRP)'Partners
,
x-
I "
i'' '
.
the system by supportiirg carpool and vanpool
options.
VIP 2030
T81
Smart Corridors.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
and Systems Operations Management
The Smart Corridors program stems frorh the^recognition that,"
(SOM)
major transportation corridors often span many jurisdictionol
. boundaries. A Smart Corridor is-one where various public ,,
agencies' traffic management activities,are coordm0ted;to
rnore effectively rrianqge traffic in.that corridor, 'While-this'is
in large port achieved by usingtqdvanced fechnologies'';.i:p.arfe
nerships,between the jurisdictionsiare neededstoldevelop pro-.
Roadways and transit lines usually serve more
than one jurisdiction, so the funding and impiementation of ITS and SOM projects in these cor
ridors often require the mutual cooperation of
multiple agencies. VTA works with its Member
Agencies and its regional partners to identify,
evaluate, fund and implement these projects.
cedures'ond measures for coordinating.agency activities.
The Future Role of Partnerships
il>r
Enhanciiig the livabOity of Santa Clara County
/
requires meaningful coordination and coopera
tion between all gi'oups in the county working
toward this goal. More than ever, successful solu
tions win invoive very creative cooperative efforts
among all of the stakeholders in the cities, the
counties surrounding Santa Clara County, and
the region as a whole. The inclusion of a iand use
w
mlii
component in VTA's long-range planning program
.tfi
is an important step in acknowledging the need
to address land use-related transportation
m
xae
problems as part of a comprehensive interrelated
system of relationships. Traditional definitions
ofjurisdiction and responsibility shouid be
redefined to identify opportunities for integrating
transportation as a component of improving
livability in Santa Clara County.
The promotion and development of these part
nerships wiU require several key elements;
182
Volley Transportation Authority
:h a p ter I
A^sion in understanding that business as
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
Transportalion Demand Management
usual will not achieve our transportation and
UvabUity goals, and that there are alternative
courses of action.
Leadership in the identification of issues
and in the development of the conditions and
coalitions to address them.
Boundary Crossing—The CDT program
advocates looking beyond the bormdaries of
jurisdiction and discipline, and challenges a
critical examination of our current patterns
of growth. Doing this wfll require active
partnerships between local governments,
public agencies, businesses, community
groups, advocacy groups and individuals.
Moreover, cross training between the various
departments in public agencies—^from policy
to planning to engineering—^is needed to
increase rmderstanding and unify pubKc
:, Transportation'D'emdny Management(TDM|js'one response
' to the many challenges'associated with increasing'traffic con-^
; ,gestidn and the'realization that road funding cannot,keep,",
n pace.with demand. The purpose of TDM is to_ increase the
, efficiency,of existlng\raadway systems by'reducing the ;':
,;demand,for vehicular'travel'.,,TDM strategies and ■•Initiatives
■are multimodal and'aimed at reducing peak-hour travel . ' j
. demands.
»''' ^ y,
^
-i'TDM'stfategies ehcdrnpqss a-range of programs and initia- •
..fives,including carpoolihg and,^vanpooling, flexible .work
' ''hqurs/. telecommuting, use'of dlterriaJiyeTrahsportation m'odes'
(e.gr,-transit, walking'qnd biking),"parking controls,'Cost' ■ % i
, jnce'ntiyes, and advanced technologies.. As urban growth'cph•<' tinues, TDM strategies will become-Increasingly irnportant for ■
• meeting the needs of.a growing and changing society.- . •
efforts toward common goals.
Inclusion ensures that the creativity and
brilliance of the entire commmiity is brought
to bear in the development of solutions to the
issues that will arise.
Education and Communication are impor
tant elements in ensuring that the solutions
that are brought about through these partnerslrips are implemented.
Commitment to bringing new ideas and
solutions to fruition.
VTP 2030
183
1
%
184
Valley Transportation Authority
%
.
chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION
\-
mplementing the projects and programs:
Idescribed.in Chapters 2 and 3 of the
\
plan involves multi-stepped processes and
decision-making stages. This chapter
provides an overview of how.the VTP
imfjlementation process.works. It begins
x>/ith a brief review of the program area
Program Area AlloGatioris
and Funding Issues
allocations described in Chapter 2, and
186
some of the key funding issues that need
Neai-Temi Implementation Activitres .. 188
resolution before some projects can be
VTP Development Process
implemented. This is followed by a
200
summary of the near-term projects and. '
programs and next steps for mid- and.
long-term implementation horizons.
The chapter concludes with an overview
of rhe VTP 2030 processes for project
selection, planning, programming and
delivery, and for amending and updating
the plan.
VTP 2030
185
Program Area Allocations
and Funding Issues
As presented in Chapter 2, VTP 2030 outlines
implementation schedules for 2000 Measure A
a 25-year, $8.5-billion plan of programs and
projects. If VTA is unable to secure a new source
projects. These program areas provide a frame
of revenue for ti'ansit by the end of 2006, the
work for the overall VTP work program that the
VTA Board of Directors vrill re-evaluate projects
VTA Board ^vill work to implement durmg the
and priorities for the Measure A Transit
25-year timeframe of the plan.
The Board-adopted program area allocations are
presented in Table 4.1. In some cases, such as
with the Countywide Expressway Program, the
VTP 2030 allocations cover aU project costs. In
Program. In addition, some transit projects
include funding from multiple partners. The
ability of all partners to contribute then full
share will deterniine when those projects can .
move forward.
other cases, funding from other sources must
be assembled to fully fund specific projects.
implementalion Process
Full implementation of the Measure A Transit
Project programming does not occur in VTP
Program of projects is contingent on VTA's ability
2030. The VTA Board and its partnering
to secure a new dedicated source of funding
agencies determine project programming and
for transit.
implementation schedules for inclusion in
programming documents such as the Capital
Availability of Funds Identified
186
Improvement Program section of the
in VTP 2030
Congestion Management Program (CMP) and
The timing and availability of State and Federal
the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Obviously,
—and in some cases local—transportation
not all projects can be implemented quickly, and
dollars will be the primary factors determining
many will be phased in over time and started in
when many of the VTP 2030 liighway and road
outlying years. However, the projects receiving
way projects can move forward. At the writing
the highest scores based on the Board-adopted
of this document, new State funds are not
project evaluation criteria \vill generally be
expected to be available for progranuning
considered first for implementation.
before 2008. On the Federal side, the ultimate
Once the programs and project lists are devel
form of the Federal budget and the re-authori
oped, and funding sources and schedules are
zation of TEA-21 will determine how much
identified, VTP 2030 next looks toward the
funding wiU be available in the near- and mid
steps for implementation. Some projects are
term horizons. Locally, VTA's success in securing
already under way in design; others are in
an additional dedicated source of funding for
planning stages; and stiU others are waiting to
transit is a key factor in developing practical
be further defined or identified through studies.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterO IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-1 VIP 2030 Program Areas and AllocaKons
Allocations
Program Areas
C03$/MilUons)
$766.3
Highways
Expressways
150.0
Local Streets & County Roads
230.0
Pavement Management
301.5
10.0
Sound Mitigation
1.0
Landscape Restoration & Graffiti Removal
6,829.0
Transit
TSM & Operations
28.0
Bicycle
90.5
120.1
Livable Communities & Pedestrians
$8,526.4
Total
Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections provided by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
The following section outlines the implementa
3. Preliminary Engineering. Identifies alter
tion processes of VTA and other project-related
natives for attaining the specified goal(s); for
activities that need to occur for project delivery in
each alternative, describes benefits and devel
the near term (i.e, before the next VTP update),
ops engineering drawings with sufficient detail
and during the mid-term and long-term horizons.
to perform environmental analysis and estimate
construction feasibility.
ImplementaHon Process
for Capital Projects
Most capital projects move through eight basic
steps from plan to completion, shoAvn below.
Some of these tasks can be completed concur
rently, such as the Preliminary Engineering and
4. Environmental. Analyzes each alternative
for environmental impacts, identifies possible
mitigations to reduce impacts, and obtains legally
mandated State and/or Federal environmental
clearance for a chosen preferred alternative.
Environmental tasks, and Final Engineering and
5. Final Engineering. Finalizes design draw
Right-of-Way tasks.
ings and produces construction documents for
1. Planning. Defines the transportation need
and project goal.
2. Programming. Through a formal process,
funds are identified and specified for a project
scope and schedule.
the preferred alternative.
6. Right-of-Way. Obtains necessary right-ofway for project construction.
7. Construction. Builds the project.
8. Operations. Finished project is placed in
operation.
VTP 2030
187
Near-Term Implementation
Activities
This section focuses on the implementation
freeway-to-freeway connections, and adding
activities that are anticipated to occur over the
auxiliary lanes. The project replaces the Route
next fom- years of the plan—until the next
85/US 101 connector, modifies interchange
update of tins plan. VTA will continue planning
ramps at Moffett Boulevard, North Shoreline
and design efforts to ready other projects for
Avenue and Old Middlefield Way, and constructs
implementation in outlying years. VTA will work
auxiliary lanes and HOV direct connector ramps
with Member Agencies and other partners to
from northbound Route 85 to northbound US
deliver the projects and programs by focusing
101 and from southbound US 101 to south
first on the planning and programming efforts
bound Route 85. Opening date in spring 2006.
required for implementation.
The following provides a summary of the activi
Highway 237/1-880 Intercharige Project. This
project improves traffic operations and safety by
ties expected to occur within the near term.
providing direct coimector HOV lanes from
Each section is organized into Highway/
southbound 1-880 to westbound Route 237 and
Roadway, Transit, and other categories, and
from eastbound Route 237 to northbound 1-880,
further divided into Plaraung/Study and
and a southbound braided exit ramp from 1-880
Construction sections. The projects, programs,
to Tasman Drive. Opening date in May 2005.
and studies listed below have identified funding
and will move forward and be completed withm
the next four years. Some of these projects are
contingent on the availability of State or
Federal funds witliin the next three years, and
consequently may be delayed if the State's fiscal
condition does not improve.
Coleman Avenue/I-880 Interchange. This
project reconfigures and widens the existing
ramps of the 1-880/Coleman Avenue inter
change, and adds a new direct comrector ramp
from Airport Boulevard to southbound 1-880. It
replaces the Coleman Avenue over-crossing at
1-880 and widens Coleman Avenue to six lanes
from North Airport Boulevard to Hedding
Highway/Roadway Projects
Street. Opening date in late summer 2006.
Projects Under Construction (as of
October 2004).
Bailey Avenue/US 101 Interchange. This
Route 85/Highway 101 North Interchange
Project. This project improves traffic operations
and safety by reducing weaving between velricles entering and exiting the freeway, increasing
the capacity of the interchange, providing new
188
Valley Transportation Authority
project constructs a new fuU mterchange on US
101 in south San Jose, extending Bailey Avenue
east of Monterey Road cormecting to Malech
Road across Coyote Creek. Opening date late
December 2004.
chapterO IMPLEMENTATION
Montague Expressway Wideningfrom 1-880 to
funded with $16.2m in Measure B local sales
US 101. The County of Santa Clara has secured
tax, $5.5m from the City of GDroy, and $0.25m
funding to complete eastbound widening to four
from Federal funds.
lanes, including crossing the south portion of
the Guadalupe River Bridge. The eastbomid
portion of the project is under construction and
will be completed by early 2006. While funding
is available for certain segments of the west
bound widening, a complete funding package
has not been secured for the westbound lanes,
including widening of the Guadalupe River
Route 17-E Auxiliary Lane, Camden to
Hamilton Avenue. This project will add north
bound auxiliary lanes between Camden Avenue
and Hamilton Avenue to provide more room for
traffic merging onto and off Route 17, and modify
the off-ramp from southbound Route 17 to
Hamilton Avenue to improve traffic operations.
Bridge. The Countj' may choose to pursue the
Highway 87HOVLanes. This project will
westbound segments for which funds are avail
provide high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes on
able, or wait until a complete funding package
Highway 87 between Branham Lane near
can be assembled; therefore, a schedule for
Highway 85 and Julian Street. The project is
westbound widening is not currently available.
being constructed in two segments: 1) 1-280 to
just north of Julian Street, and 2) Branham
Projects Scheduled for Construction
Lane to 1-280. Segment 1 is scheduled to begin
Before 2008
1996 Measure B Projects
Route 152-B, Llagas Creek to Gilroy Foods.
This project provides safety and operational
improvements on Route 152 between US 101
^ A
?<5c.
and Route 156 in Gilroy and Santa Clara Coimty.
The project widens Route 152 from two to four
lanes from immediately west of Gilroy Foods
thi'ough the Llagas Creek Bridge. Additional
HWlil
\
improvements mclude improvements to the
m
m
intersection at the Gilroy Foods east entrance
by installing a traffic signal and aligning it with
%
the existing Westside Transport Inc., entrance.
m
Construction is scheduled to begin in spring
2005, with a completion date of late smnmer
2006. The $21.9-mlllion cost of the project is
w.
( .»
VTP 2030
189
and a reconfigured at-grade direct connector
'tfi bii; V
ramp from eastbound SR 156 to eastbound SR
•aBiifc. vt
152. All other at-grade movements will be
upgraded and highway standards lighting wiU be
'ti'-
added. The project is currently at the 65 per
cent design phase. Construction is scheduled to
begin on the $27.25 million project in early 2006
and be completed by mid- to late 2008. The
f-sSrP'"'
•# /'
jiLiSi 'Jill
'
project Is contingent on STIP and ITIP being
-•
available in 2005/06.
H
Planning Studies and Design Projects
The following studies and design projects are
gearing up or already under way;
US 101 Central Corridor Study. This study
examined operational and safety improvements
along US 101 in central Santa Clara County
ill summer 2004 and be completed summer
between the 1-280/680 interchange on the north
2006; segment 2 is scheduled to begin in fall
to the Yerba Buena Road interchange on the
2006 and be completed by summer 2007.
south. The study identified a list of improve
Project cost for both segments is $121.0m, with
ments that includes construction of an additional
$76.9m coming from GARVEE bonds, $25.6m
lane in the southbound direction in the median
from Measure B sales tax, and $18.5m from the
from south of Story Road to south of the Capitol
State Highway Operations and Safety Program
Expressway interchange; modification of the
(SHOPP funds on segment 2 only). Segment 1
US 101/Tully Road interchange to a partial
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2006, fol
cloverleaf interchange; modification of the US
lowed by segment 2 in early 2007.
101/Capitol Expressway interchange to a partial
VTP 2030 Projects
Route 152/156. Through a joint VTA/Caltrans
paidnership, this project wiU enhance safety by
constructing a direct connector separation ramp
from westbound SR 152 to westbound SR 156,
190
Valley Transportation Authority
cloverleaf interchange; construction an auxiliary
lane in the southbound direction of US 101
between the TuUy Road and Capitol Expressway
interchanges; modification of the collectordistributor (C-D) system on northbound US
101 between Yerba Buena Road and Capitol
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Expressway; and construction of a new on-ramp
ation of demand for HOT lane operations, HOT
from the C-D road to northbound US 101 south
lane operations pricing, and HOT lane traffic
of Capitol Expressway Overcrossing. The proj
operations including revenue projections. Based
ect is currently completing an Environmental
on this analysis, recommendations ■wUl be made
Impact Report (EIR) and Preliminary
for each of the candidate corridors for further
Engineering (PE.) The EIR is scheduled for
study beyond the scope of this study. Each can
adoption in May 2005, and PE is scheduled for
didate con-idor will be considered not only in
completion in June 2005.
terms of its potential as an individual project,
Hellyer and Blossom Hill Road Design. Design
work for his project is 95 percent complete.
but also in terms of its potential as part of a
regional HOT or managed lane network.
However,funding shortfalls experienced by the
Project planning and development will continue
City of San Jose have stalled further design. The
to occur on various projects contained in the
city is workmg to identify funding to complete
Highway, Expressway, and Local Streets /
design and ready the project for construction.
County Roads project lists. The planning and
South County Circidation Study. This study
wiU conduct a comprehensive review and analy
design work from these efforts will Inform the
next VTP update.
sis of existing and projected traffic conditions in
south Santa Clara County, including the cities of
Transit Projects
Morgan HUl and Gilroy, mid the community of
Following are projects imder construction.
San Martin. The results of tliis study will include
a list of preferred roadway improvement proj
ects to be considered with the next VTP update.
Vasona Light Rail Line. The project is current
ly under construction with an anticipated open
ing date of summer 2005. The project con
High Occupancy Toll(HOT)Lanes
structs a 5.3-mile addition to the 37-mile VTA
Feasibility Study. This study will assess the
light rail system between downtown San Jose
freeway system in Santa Clara County to deter
and the Winchester station in Campbell, includ
mine if the operation of a HOT lane system is
ing eight stations and a tunnel segment at the
feasible, and, if so, identify feasible corridors for
Diridon station in San Jose.
HOT lane operations. The study includes an ini
tial assessment of freeway corridors in the
county and identification of two or three corri
dors for detailed evaluation. A detailed analysis
of each candidate corridor wiU include an evalu
Palo Alto Caltrain Transit Center
Reconstruction. Construction is expected to
begin in late 2004 and be completed by summer
2005. This project wiU completely reconstruct
the Palo Alto Transit Center to improve links
VTP 2030
191
between Caltrain aiid bus service, as well as
or Design
VTA, SamTrans, and the Dumbarton Express,
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
and provide convenient connections with
(BART). Project is currently conducting
Stanford's Marguerite shuttle and Palo Alto's
Preliminary Engineering (PE) and completing
local shuttle system. The project adds two new
envirorunental clearance with an Environmental
bus bays for Line 22 articulated buses and pro
Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental
vides improved passenger shelters. Project ele
Impact Statement O^IS). The VTA Board of
ments include the recorrstruction of the
Dkectors certified the final Environmental
University Avenue Bridge connecting ■with Palm
Impact Report (EIR) in December 2004. The
Drive, reconstruction and expansion of the
certification of the En'vironmental Impact
Caltrain Bridge over University Avenue to
Statement (EIS) is anticipated in early 2007,
include four tracks to allow express train serv
and may be tied to approval of the EIS for the
ice, roadway improvements, and the creation of
Warm Spring BART extension. Preliminary
community park space.
Engineering is scheduled for completion by late
LRT Platform Retrofit. This project completes
reconstruction of the remaming station
platforms on the Guadalupe Line south of down
2006. This project cannot proceed into final
design and construction until a new dedicated
source of funding for transit is secured.
town San Jose to accommodate low-floor Light
Downtown East Valley. Prelimhiary
Rail Vehicles (LRVs). Design work is completed.
Engureering and Environmental Clearance for
Completion date is dependent on identification
the Capitol Expressway segment between
of capital funding.
Wilbur Streets and Nieman Avenue will begin in
Cerov£ Phase 1. Improvements include con
struction of a new hydrogen refueling facility to
support the Zero Emission Bus Demonstration
Program, and new yard entrance and road call
building.
Chaboya Bus Division Improvements. Include
192
Transit Projects In Environmental
accommodate additional buses operated by
September 2004. Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Clearance for the Alum Rock
segment will begin with the VTA Board adoption
of either the Eirhanced Bus or Light Rail tech
nology. A decision on technology is currently
scheduled for sun'uner 2005. This project cannot
proceed into final design and construction until
the installation of a new vacuum system and a new
a new dedicated source of funding for transit is
bus -wash and waste water treatment system.
secured, or a reprioritization of projects occurs.
Valley Transportofion Aufhority
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Caltrain Electrification EIR/EA. Caltrain has
prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)/ Environmental
Assessment(EA)for electrifying Caltrain from
Gilroy to San Francisco. Caltrain is currently in
the process of responding to comments received
and preparing a fmal EIR with an expected
issue date of late 2004 or early 2005. Caltrain's
mi
adopted 2004-23 Strategic Plan outlines four
scenarios for the future of Caltrain, vrtth the
schedule for completion of electrification vary
ing under each scenario: Status Quo (no electri
fication), Moderate Grovrth (electrified service
begins in 2018), Enhanced (electrified service
begins 2008), and Build Out (electrified service
begins in 2014, assuming construction of High
Speed Rail between Gilroy, San Jose and San
Francisco). Due to funding schedule uncertain
ties, Caltrain's recently adopted 2004-2013
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) does not
include capital fmids for implementation of
electrification tlu-ough 2013. Prior to initiation
of the design and implementation of the electri
fication project, the local and regional fmrding
Transit Planning Studies
Measure A Expenditure Plan. VTA is currently
developing scenarios for implementing the 2000
Measure A program of projects. Expenditure
scenarios mclude consideration of variables
such as project schedules, and with and without
a new permanent source of funding for transit.
The Expenditure Plan is scheduled for
completion by early 2005.
partners must reach agreement on a schedule
for the allocation of funding commitments from
New Rail Corridors Feasibility Study. This
VTA, Mmii, Samtrans and MTC. The Caltrain
$1.3 million study is scheduled to begin in late
SRTP win be updated in two years to reflect
2004 and take 12-18 months to complete. It will
policy decisions and additional actions over the
examine seven potential rail corridors to evalu
next two years that will provide the information
ate the feasibility, operational efficiency, and
needed to develop a firmer schedule for the
cost-effectiveness, and clear a Progranunatic
electrification project. VTA wiU continue to
EIR. New rail corridors to be considered include
work with Caltrain and MTC to develop an
Vasona extension to Vasona Junction, DTEV
implementation schedule.
Eastridge Area to Hwy 87, Santa Teresa
VTP 2030
193
3) which service delivery strategies best match
13301 1
11
these market segments. An analysis will be
Ms
ifi
H
1
i
conducted to link these results with identified
mm
rr==j
travel patterns and develop various transit
service options. The end result will allow VTA
to develop recommended changes to the bus
network that are aimed at capturing a larger
ill
market share while conserving resources.
Community Bus Study. Current development
m
M
patterns and densities, multiple destinations,
and an increasingly diverse population present
some unique challenges to daily travels around
our valley. Tills study will develop a new
approach to fixed route services by blending
-■KUifijasmMif
,•te.iSS'-T.
•
T- '
standard buses with smaDer, "community
buses." This community-based blend of vehicle
types coupled with new routings is envisioned
extension to Coyote Valley, and extensions to
Morgan Hill, Stevens Creek Blvd., West San
Jose/Santa Clara, and North County/Palo Alto.
Light RaO from Capitol Expressway/Nieman
Avenue to Highway 87 will be included in this
study.
Community Bus Study will be used in the devel
opment of Annual and Rail Integration Service
Plans. Recognizing these opportunities and
community benefits, VTA's Fiscal Yeai2004-2013 Short Range Transit Plan incorpo
Market Segmentation Study. This study will
rates the use of smaUer-capacity vehicles
utilize sophisticated market research techniques
beginning in January 2006.
developed for private industry to identify dis
tinct market segments for transit services.
Study objectives include: 1) a better under
standing of distinct groups (market segments)
in the population that share similar values,
2) which attitudes and preferences these groups
have regarding different transit options, and
194
to provide the service and convenience
needed to attract new riders. The results of the
Volley Tronsportation Authority
Btis Rapid Transit (BRT) Studies. BRT is a
newly evolving concept in the provision of tran
sit services. The VTP 2030 Measure A Transit
Program identifies $33 million for three BRT
corridors: Line 22, Monterey Highway and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. A key attribute of
BRT service is the reduced need for capital
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
infrastmcutre investments, and the ability to
Dumbarton Rail Corridor EIR/EIS. This proj
add BRT features incrementally as demand for
ect commits VTA to providing up to $1 million
service and availability of funding warrants.
in funding as VTA's one-third local share of the
Results from the BRT studies vrill guide the
cost of preparing a project Environmental
implementation of new BRT services. The fol
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
lowing BRT efforts are currently under way:
(ElR/ElS). The lead project sponsor is the San
• Line 22 BRT Project. VTA is participating in
the Federal Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration
Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA), who will also act as the implementing
Program to provide BRT enhancements for
agency for the overall project. Other project
Line 22. BRT is currently being developed in
sponsors include the Alameda County
the northwest segment of the Line 22 corri
Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), the
dor in the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
Alameda County Ti'ansportation Improvement
Mountain View and Palo Alto. The southeast
Authority (ACTIA), and the Capitol Corridor
portion of Line 22 in the Santa Clara/Alum
Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA).
Rock corridor is being studied for BRT as
part of the Downtown East VaUey Transit
Improvement Project.
• Monterey Highway BRT. The Monterey
Highway BRT project is cun-ently in the con
ceptual design phase to further define specific
improvements. The Monterey Highway BRT
project includes improvements along a 9.6mile route (primarily Monterey Highway)
Caltrain to Monterey/Salinas. The
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) is cmrently conducting plamimg work
to deternune the feasibility of, and funding
strategies for, linking Caltranr with Monterey
County. VTA staff is working with TAMC and
Monterey County staff to coordinate planning
efforts.
from the Diridon station to the Santa Teresa
In partnership with MTC, VTA vrill conduct
station on the Guadalupe line in south San
community-based transportation studies in the
Jose. Next steps include developing a strategy
to move into prellminaiy engineering, final
design, construction, and operations.
• Stevens Creek Boulevard BRT. Stevens
Greek ■\viil be studied in greater detail to
determine its potential as a BRT corridor.
Study findings wiU be considered with the
development of operating and capital
improvement plans.
Gilroy and east San Jose areas. The goal of
these studies is to advance the findings from
MTC's Lifeline Transportation Network Report
adopted by the Commission and incorporated
into the 2001 Regional Ti'ansportation Plan
(RTP). The Lifeline Transportation Network
Report identified transit needs in economically
disadvantaged communities throughout the San
VTP 2030
195
Francisco Bay Area region, and recommended
Other Programs and Projects
local transportation studies to further efforts
to address them. Each community-based
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
transportation study will involve a collaborative
As described m the Transportation Systems
approach that includes residents and community-
Operations and Management Progi-am section
based organizations (CEOs) that provide services
in Chapter 2, project planning and development
within minority and low-income neighborhoods.
in the near term will focus on projects that
The first of these studies will be In the Gilroy
improve traffic flow thi'ough unproved signal
area, scheduled to begin in summer 2005.
operations. This includes improvements in
traffic signal operations for transit, pedestrians,
bicychsts and vehicles on local roadways,
expressways,freeways and transit. Examples of
projects that ■will be completed in the near term
include the following:
Silicon Valley Intelligent Transportation
Systems (SV-ITS) Program Enhancements.
i
A
A
I
Through a partnership of local, regional and
State agencies, work continues on the Integra
tion of technology-based systems to provide
a
improved operations of the transportation sys
tem. Building on the original Smart Corridor
project along 1-880, the program Is completing
fom- projects that expand camera surveiEance,
coordinate traffic signal operations, and share
traffic information in areas covering Los Gatos
north to Fremont m Alameda County, around
the San Jose Mineta International Airport, and
westward from downtown San Jose to
Cupertino.
Transit Signal Priority Implementations for
BRT One element of VTA's BRT program
includes the deplojmient of priority treatment at
traffic signals for buses. Such bus signal priority
196
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
(BSP) is expected to be in operation in 2005
along VTA's Line 22 corridor aird also along
I
Bascora Avenue as a result of a signal system
improvement project by the City of San Jose.
A
County Expressway Traffic Operations
System. The County of Santa Clara Roads and
Airports Department is completing deployment
15
of fiber-optic communications, traffic signal
'
.*
system improvements and surveillance cameras
l
along all eight expressways. Much of this
improvement project has been funded by the
1996 Measure B sales tax.
kSi
Dynamic Passenger Information Project. The
K
Dynamic Passenger Information Project incor
m»r
porates various state-of-the-art Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technologies into
light rail/bus transit centers and pai-k and ride
lots. This project has been expanded to include
Internet-based information, real-time electronic
m
m
transit schedules linking to Automated Veliicle
Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects
Location (AVL) on buses and light raD, transit
Guadalupe Bridge at River Oaks. This bridge
mformation signs, electroruc signs on the Silicon
connects the River Oaks light raO station in San
Valley Smart Comdors, and other on-site transit
Jose to the residentiaPretah Rivermark neigh
user amenities. A specific element funded with
borhood in Santa Clara. Scheduled for comple
$1.57 million in Federal Section 5308 ITS funds
tion in September 2005.
vi® help implement real-time transit information
Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Bridge at 1-280
components at key locations. Future funding
in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The bridge will
will expand the number of real-time information
displays to all transit centers and other key
bus stops.
provide a safe and convenient connection
between De Anza GoUege in Cupertino and
Homestead High School in Sumiyvale along the
Mary Avenue corridor. Scheduled for completion
in spring 2006.
VTP 2030
197
Los Gates Creek Trail Bridge/Path
Mountain View High School, and includes the
Improvements in Campbell. Provides a bridge
under-crossing of El Gamino Real. Scheduled for
and other path improvements neai" Camden
completion in December 2007.
Avenue in Campbell. Scheduled for completion
in summer 2005.
Almaden Expressway Improvements Between
Ironwood Drive and Foxworthy Avenue.
Includes the installation of sidewallcs, bike
shoulders, and crosswalks providing residents
with safer coraiections to local services and
shops. Scheduled for completion in sprmg/
summer 2006.
Programs
Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian (LOP)
Program prowdes capital funds for transporta
tion-related projects that improve community
access to transit, provide multimodal trans
Uvas Creek Trail, Phase I, Gilroy. Provides
portation facilities, and enhance the pedestrian
creek trail improvements as part of the new
environment along transportation corridors, in
Gilroy Sports Park connectmg with Luchessa
community cores, and around transit stations.
Avenue. Scheduled for completion in summer
During wmter 2006, VTA vnll develop specific
2006.
evaluation and scoring criteria for LOP Program
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Reach 2 in
Santa Clara. This project extends the creek
trail from Agnew Road to Scott Blvd., and
includes an under-crossing of US 101.
Scheduled for completion in summer 2005.
Los Gates Creek Trail Reach 4(Lincoln
Avenue-Auzerais Avenue)in San Jose. This
project provides an extension of the existmg
trail, and includes on-street sections. Scheduled
for completion in fall 2007.
Stevens Creek Trail(between Yuba Drive and
North Meadow Lane)in Mountain View. This
project extends the trail southwards toward
198
Implementation of VTA Land Use
Valley Transportation Authority
projects using the GDT Manual, Pedestrian
Techmcal Design Guidelmes, and other GDT
documents as a framework. Begiiming m 2006,
the LGP Program is expected to provide about
$10 million eveiy two years for Member Agency
capital projects.
Table 4-2 shows the implementation activities
associated with VTA's Land Use programs,
including both on-going efforts and new programs.
chapterQ IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-2 Implementation of VTA Land Use Pragrams'
Program or Plan
Short-term Activities
Mid- to Long-term Activities
CDT Program
• Continued program development
• Work with Member Agencies
• CDT Plaraiing and Capital Grants Program
• On-going
• Integrate CDT principles and practices
into VTA programs, and Member Agency
programs and policies
Proactive CMP/
• Incorporate CDT principles and practices
• On-going
• On-going; incorporate CDT prmciples and
practices
• On-going
Review
Transit-oriented
• On-going; assist Member Agencies with TOD
• On-going as part of the CDT Program
Transportation
Impact Analysis
Review (TIA]
Development
Development
(TOD) Program
Deficiency
Plans
projects
• Implement CDT prmciples and best practices
Assist cities TOth the development of citywide plans
Revise guidelines to include CDT principles
and best practices
On-goiirg
Consider countywide deficiency plan
* Land Use Transportation Investment Strategies
CDT Planning
• Administer program; annual call-for-projects
On-going
Monitor projects
Pursue additional strategies to keep the
program funded
Develop project evaluation criteria and selec
tion process
On-going
Monitor projects
Pursue additional strategies to keep the
Grants
CDT/Livable
Communities
and Pedestrian
Program
Capital Grants
Administer program
program funded
Coordinate with MTC TLC and
bike/pedestrian program
Joint
Development
Program
Establish formal program
Pursue one to five projects
Coordinate with other progi'ams
Continue with project deveiopment and
management
Maintain on-going revenue stream
VTP 2030
199
VTP Development Process
VTP 2030 uses a systematic approach for
envii'onmental and business communities, and
planning and programming capital projects
the general public. These decisions are based
developed as part of VTP 2020. Tliis process
on consistent, technicaDy sound evaluation of
was used to create the cmi-ent list of projects
project proposals and preceded by clear and
described in the Capital Investments section,
consistent communications with outside organi
and wiU be maintained thi'ough the 25+ year
zations and the community. After programming
VTP 2030 plamiing horizon. It is also intended
decisions are made, the VTP 2030 approach
for use in future updates to VTP 2030.
includes sustained commitments to major
The VTP approach establishes processes in
which, under the leadership of the VTA Board
of Directors, VTA can make planning and
In order to establish this plamring approach,
programnung decisions with input from VTA's
VTP 2030 defines three processes to govern
advisory committees. Member Agencies, the
how projects move from planning documents to
construction:
4
■;
■ .'ly 'i .*'■
■V ' .hf;:, v54:;. , m.
'A
AS
planned projects in order to secm'e funding and
proceed successfully to project delivery.
A-'W
m
• VTP Project Selection
• Project Planning, Programming, and Delivery
• Updating and Amending the VTP
VTP Project Selection Process
Figure 4-1 illustrates the process of selecting
projects for inclusion in VTP 2030. This process
1.
1
^
puts oversight of the planning process with the
VTA Board of Directors and allows for broad
m
community input. The flowchart of the Project
Selection Process is described in following text.
To begin the process, VTA solicits proposals
from interested agencies and the general public,
and may include a formal call-for-projects. VTA's
Member Agencies solicit further input from
their constituents, and then present project Usts
to their elected officials for approval before sub-
200
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 4-1 Project Selection Process'
iMeniibeiv.
Agencies'
[
K j f City Council /
y iBbdrd of Supervisors!
,
0
0
General.
public,'
0"
VTA
^List of candidate
projects for
countywide!
!X
X,
;CaltranS/ i
. Coltrain/ "j
ACE, other I
approval-
BOD* review
of
Fi>l i
project lists**
I V TLC funding*
i VTA performs
fechniccil
public '
agenciesf
!
^
evaluation
jusing approved
! methodologies
^
VTP 2030
BOD* meets to:4
[Projects for:TDA
r Article 3;-TFCA;
,25-Year
Hear input on
evaluation results::
Xi
Finalize and
approve
jX
Identification 1
of,funding- ' j
/sources
Capital
- ,Investment':
n Program^;-
i
prioritized list''
.of projects^ -
Separate
Evaluation and
.Programming .
tr
Processes,
subject to BOD* •
Approval - -
*
. Eya!uationTesultSs>:- presented to.city.councils,-; Board of Supervisors/
J' public workshops
VTA Board of Director (BOD) action will follow review and action by VTA advisory committees
Proposed for Major Funding Sources such as STIR, TEA-21, Major Earmarks, Future Sales Tax or Bonds
*• Transit Program covers 30 years
mitting the lists to VTA. This step ensures local
Evaluation results are presented to Member
knowledge of, and commitment to, proposed
Agencies and at public workshops. This step
projects. Projects are next submitted to 'VTA for
functions as a feedback loop to provide for
consideration in one or more of the ten program
public comment on VTA's evaluation. Based on
areas identified in VTP 2030.
evaluation scores, the 'VTA Board then finalizes
'VTA then evaluates the proposed projects using
technical methodologies that are approved by
■VTA's Technical Advisory Committee and Board.
and approves the list of projects. Once the
VTA Board of Directors approves the list of
projects, individual projects can proceed into
programming phases.
VTP 2030
201
Projecf Planning, Programming,
and Delivery
these project studies, the VTA Board places
the top-ranked projects in the Congestion
This section describes what happens to a
Management Program's Capital Improvement
project once it emerges from VTP 2030 as an
Program (CIP). Top-ranl<ed projects are deter
agency priority. Figure 4-2 below presents a
mined by using a set of evaluation criteria similar
flowchart of the process by which a transporta
to those developed for initial project evaluation
tion project moves from VTP 2030 through
but more focused on project delivery. The VTA
project deliveiy. A description of the flowchart
Boai'd can then make decisions to program
is described in following text.
funding for specific projects.
At the local level, projects appearing in VTP
Beyond the local level, the Metropolitan
2030 will generally undergo project studies. In
Transportation Commission (MTC) takes
cases where project plaiming or engineering
projects appearing in VTP 2030's Capital
studies have already been completed, those
Investment Program and places them in MTC's
studies will provide the startmg point for more
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) where they
advanced studies or engineering. Based on
may appear in the constrained or unconstrained
Figure 4-2 Project Planning, Programming and Delivery
fV
'MTC Regional
MTC includes ! ^
I' projects In Federal
TransporfaHon
Plan
t
Tronsportation
I. ; /' Improvement;
(i . Program (FTIP)
Consistency
_ (25*year horizon)
Required
■ Project ■ 1
obligatesr-l I
Projects
expecting to
receive State
and Federal Funds
VTP 2030;
Capital •
Investment,
Program
|- (25-year base . ]
^nding
|
' .Project I
- VTP 2030
Impiemeritationl i—\ studies for i
schedules for:
|" "V top-ranked
■top-ranked hi
projects •
!
' Transit Program covers a 30-year base
202
Valley Transportation Authority
projects
/...Congesrion
rMonogement:
Program ^
Capital
improvement
. ..Program ; :
1
.() p^edr' hdrlzM);^
j ■ Funds avaiiobio
obiigoting
o ^!' to' for
specific.project's
^hA BOD
'makes,decision
program^:
1"^
If ^Tundsito
—i/
c
^specific projects
funds
S
K
>
" Project
Delivery
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Updating the VTP
portion of the RTP. Once the VTA Board votes
to program funds to specific projects from spe
Notwithstanding VTP 2030's process of analysis
cific sources, MTC places those projects in its
and evaluation, tiungs change, and VTA expects
Federal Transportation Improvement Program
to update the plan every four years. Plan
(FTIP). Only projects in the RTP can be placed
updates ■will include the project selection
in the FTIP. Funds from State and Federal
process, and the process for project planning,
sources are then made available to be obligated
programming, and delivery shown above.
to these projects. Finally, the agencies' sponsors
However, VTA recognizes that special
of the projects obligate the funds in order to
circumstances may arise that require an update
finance construction.
during an off-year. VTP 2030 therefore estab
lishes a process for amending the plan that
Figure 4-3 Updates and Additions
tYearO
Year 2
Year 1
VTP 2030 Implemenfollon activities;
no scheduled updates
VTP 2030
Approved
i for submittol
by city
.Goals & objectives^
council or
Board of
25-Year Capitol*'
Investment Program'
Transporfotipn end ■
Land Use Program i
Near-term
implementationiv'f V
program"
' ' ,''
i
Special circumstance NO
requiring quick
action?
Supervisors
Tyes
Locally
proposed
project
Technical
evaluation
£
■ Public
participation
Full project
evaluation,
selection and
approval
process
using
approved
methodology
Updated
VTP 2030
iad'dpte-d 2005) "
I
BOD decision by
majority to cimend
VTP 2030 during
odd year
Locally
Proposed
Projects
NO
YES
Project added to VTP
' Transit Program covers a 30-year base
VTP 2030
203
project proposals wiU be subjected to the same
technical analysis required during full updates,
and a majority vote of the VTA Board of
Directors still will be required to approve plan
amendments. Project proposals not accepted
dm'ing off-years can be reconsidered during the
¥MSt.
subsequent update of the entire plan. VTA will
conduct a public participation process for the
&a>
proposed amendment, the level of which wiH be
^■sm,™
m
m
*c
m
#Ss
mm
^•'':
based on the scale of the proposed amendment.
V %i ' '
r«i
Projects Without VTP 2030
Allocated Funding
aSif
Projects appeai-ing in the VTP 2030 Capital
m
a
Investment Program that do not have allocated
funding for constmction are considered in the
"unconstrained" portion of the VTP 2030 and
the RTP. Funding options for these projects wUl
be re-evaluated with the next update of VTP
2030.
i
m
If funding for a project is identified before VTP
2030 is updated, and the sponsoring agency
allows for off-year changes. A flowchart of the
determines the project has become a top priori
process for amending VTP 2030 is shown in
ty, the project may move into plaiuiing and pre
Figure 4-3 on the previous page. A description
liminary design phases without needing to be
of the flowchart is provided in following text.
included in the financially constrained portion
Special cii'cumstances such as time-limited
funding availability, or contributions from a local
developer, may require quick action. In these
cases, there will be opportunity for projects to
be added to the VTP in off-years. Off-year
204
Valley Tronsporfotion Authority
of VTP 2030 or the RTP. If the project needs to
acquire right-of-way or move into engineering
and construction phases before the next VTP
update, VTP 2030 and the RTP need to be
amended, requiring at nainimum regional trans
portation systems and air quaiity conformance
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
analysis involving significant staff time and
resources. In these cases, Member Agencies
should notify VTA as soon as possible so staff
may explore a range of possible actions.
Implementation Process for
Non-Capitoi Programs
Non-capital programs include the Community
Design and Transportation (CDT)Program and
the Joint Development Program. Activities in
('.i
these programs may include administrative,
planning, design and programming-related func
'■■w-a-rti-
tions. VTP 2030 identifies a lump sum amormt
for several of these program areas, and lists of
specific projects may not be identified before
the next VTP update.
VTP 2030
205
APPENDIX
PROGRAM
AREA
DETAI LED
PROJECT
LISTS
fT^his appendix provides additional infor-
_L motion about the project lists presented
in the Program Areas in Chapter 2, "TheCapital Investment Program." Additional
-•information may include tiie project sponsor,
the jurisdictions the project affects, and the
VIP 2030 project allocation amount. The
reader should consult the Program Area
maps in Chapter 2 to locate projects
geographically. All dollar amounts are shown
in 2003 dollars.
Projects lists for the following Program Areas ;
p.' n •• n n
• Highways
•
'
^
c n.
,
.
n -
•
I - ,' " I.
T
•
*
,
I
J
!
nnn
. n n • • • Bicycles .
"
'.
. .
• nn n .
.-
n '
Project lists for Pavement Management,
. '
'I
,
I
• T
Sound Mitigation-, Landscape Restoration .
,
.•
•
-. ..w
f
,
and Graffiti Removal, and the Livable
.
n n
not developed during the VTP-2030 planning"
r-;"... •
n .
206
process.
.
•'
Valley Transportation Authority
• '• •
>
-
- .
.
.
' n
" !
•
n
i
'C', n
i
.
.. „
V
i.
>
' ,
.
• .
n '
n - .' •
-
n
-
. Communities and Pedestrian Program were .
f .•
•.
n
. '1
•, "
n ;n '
i - n 'n
'
i
•
n
• Systems Operations Management/ITS
f
i
•• .
. n
• Local Streets and County Roads
.
j
i:.
*
.
• Expressways
f
-
n
are presented:
n
[
•
.
.
'
-
l
1
j
|
_
. j
APPENDIX
Highway Program
(HOV)lanes, freeway-to-freeway comiector
The VTP 2030 Highway Projects list includes a
State tughways and operational improvements.
improvements, intersection improvements along
wide array of projects located along freeway and
AH projects submitted to MTC and incorporated
State highway corridors. The projects include
in the RTP are included in this list, as well as
freeway mainline improvements, safety
some additional projects resulting from recent
improvements,interchange reconstruction, new
studies.
interchanges, new liigh occupancy vehicle
Highway Projects—Allocation Amount $766,3 million
VTP ID
H17-01
H25-02
H25-03
H85-02
Project
Total Estimated
VTP 2030
Location/Sponsor
Project Cost
Allocation
('OSS/Millunis)
('OSS/Millions)
Project Name
SR 17 Improvements, NB SR 17
Auxiliary Lane from Camden Ave.
San Jose,
to Hamilton Ave.
Los Gatos
SR 25/Santa Teresa Blvd./US 101 Interchange
Construction (Includes US 101 Widening
between Monterey Highway & SR 25)
$.12.0
$12.0
Gilroy
85.0
70.0
SR 25 Upgrade to Six-Lane Facility Design
County
10.0
10.0
SR 85 Noise Mitigation between
Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Gatos, San Jose,
Saratoga, Sunnyvale,
Campbell
7.0
7.0
22.0
22.0
1-280 & SR 87
H85-05
SR 85 Northbound to EB SR 237
Connector Ramp Improvement
Mountain Wiew
H85-09
Fremont Ave. Improvements at SR 85
Sunnyvale
2.0
2.0
H85-10
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between
Sunnyvale,
Cupertino
19.0
19.0
Central Bxpwy. Interchange Improvements
San Jose
27.0
27.0
US 101 Auxiliary Lane Widenings—
Trimble Rd. to Montague Expwy.
San Jose,
Santa Clara
10.0
10.0
US 101/Hellyer Ave. Interchange Improvements'
San Jose
11.0
0.0
HlOl-09
US 101/Blossom Hill Rd. hiterchange Improvements'
San Jose
7.0
0.0
HIOMO
US 101/Mabvuy Road/Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
San Jose
3.0
3.0
Homestead Ave. & Fremont Ave.
H101-06
HlOl-07
HlOl-08
US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
1. Funded by the City of San Jose.
VTP 2030
207
Highway Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
H101-n
Project Nome
Project
Location/Sponsor
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
COSS/Mill'ions)
('03$/Millions)
us 10l/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr/Fourtl\ St Intercliange
San Jose
$7.0
$7.0
2.0
2.0
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Great America
Pkwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
Santa Clara
HlOl-14
US 101/Tully Road Interchange Modifications
San Jose
22.0
22.0
HlOl-15
US 101 SB Widening firom
Story Rd. to Yerba Buena Rd.
San Jose
11.0
11.0
US 101/Capitol Expwy. Interchange Improvements
(mcludes New NB On-ramp from Yerba Bueira Rd.)
San Jose
20.0
20.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
140.0
0.0
164.0
0.0
San Jose
8.0
8.0
San Jose
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
H101-i2
HlOl-16
HlOl-19
Sunnyvale,
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Improvement
Between Ellis St.and SR 237
Sunnyvale
US 101/Teimant Ave. Interchange
Improvements in Morgan Hill
Morgan Hill
HlOl-22
US 101 Conversion to Four-Lane Freeway: SR 25
to Santa Clara/San Benito Coimty Line^
County
HlOl-23
US 101 Widening between Cochrane
Rd. and Monterey Highway®
H101-20
HlOl-25
HlOl-26
Morgan Hill
US 101 NB Auxilieiry Lane Widening—
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
HI 52-02
Gilroy, County,
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Widening—
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
SR 152 Improvements, Traffic Signal at Gihoy Foods/
WTI Intersection, SR 152 Widening from MUler's
Slough througlr Llagas Creek Bridges
Gilroy
HI 52-03
SR 152 Improvements, Intersection
Improvement at Ferguson Rd.
County
1.0
1.0
HI52-04
SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Improvements®
Coimty
27.3
0.0
Mountain View
3.0
3.0
H237-01
SR 237/El Camino Real/Gr£int Rd.
Intersection Improvements
H237-02
SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
Connector Ramp Improvements
Moimtain View
18.0
18.0
H237-03
SR 237 Widening for HOY Lanes
between SR 85 & east of Mathilda Ave.
Mountain View,
Sunnyvale
36.0
36.0
H237-04
SR 237 WB On-Ramp at Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View
8.0
8.0
H237-05
SR 237 WB to NB US 101
Sunnyvale
8.0
8.0
Sunnyvale
13.0
13.0
Connector Ramp Improvements
H237-06
SR 237/US 101/Mathilda Ave.
Interchange hnprovements
2. Funded by ITIP.
208
Total Estimated
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Highway Projects (cont.j
VTP ID
H237-08
Project Name
Project
Location/Sponsor
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
C03$/Millions)
('OS$/MUlkms)
SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lanes from
MatMlda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
Sunnyvale
$5.0
$5.0
Lawrence Expwy./SR 237
Auxiliary Lane Improvement
Sunnyvale
3.0
3.0
H237-10
SR 237 WB Auxiliary Lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
Milpitas, San Jose
15.0
15.0
H280-05
1-280 NB—Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expwy.
Cupertino, Los Altos
1.0
1.0
H680-01
1-680 HOY Lanes—
Milpitas, San Jose,
Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
Fremont
25.0
25.0
H237-09
H680-02
H880-03
I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Environmental
Milpitas, San Jose,
& Conceptual Engineering
Fremont
7.0
7.0
San Jose
14.0
14.0
5.0
5.0
Los Altos, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale
$48.0
$48.0
1-880/1-280/ Stevens Creek Blvd.
Interchange Improvements—^Phase I
HOO-01
High Occupancy Toll Lane
Demonstration Project Development
Countywide
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
H85-03
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between
Fremont Ave. & El Camino Real
H85-04
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between El Camino Real
& SR 237 & SR 85/El Camino Real
Interchange Improvements
Mountain View
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from
Stevens Creek Blvd. to Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.
Cupertino,
41.0
41.0
San Jose
25.0
25.0
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from
Saratoga/Sumiyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave.
San Jose,
Saratoga
32.0
32.0
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from North of
Winchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
Saratoga, San Jose,
Campbell,
Los Gatos
31.0
31.0
San Jose
40.0
40.0
Interchange Construction—Phase I
San Jose
71.0
71.0
moi-ii
US lOI/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St.
Interchange Construction—Phase 11
San Jose
10.0
10.0
H10M7
US 101 SB Braided Ramps between
San Jose
21.0
21.0
H85-06
H85-07
H85-08
HlOl-10
H101-11
US lOI/Mabury Rd./Taylor St.
Interchange Construction
US lOI/Zariker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St.
Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd.
VTP 2030
209
Highway Projects (conh)
VTPID
Project Name
Project
Location/Sponsor
Total Estimated
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocation
('OS$/MiUions)
COS$/MiUions)
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cont.)
HlOl-18
US 101 NB Braided Ramps between
San Jose
$21.0
$21.0
HlOl-21
US 101/Buena Vista Ave. Interchange Construction Gilroy
20.0
20.0
HlOl-27
US 101 SB to EB SR 237 Connector Improvements Sunnyvale
55.0
55.0
H237-07
SR 237 EB to Mathilda Ave. Flyover Off-Ramp
Surmyvale
17.0
17.0
H237-11
SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lane between
Zanker Rd. & North First St.
San Jose,
Coimty
6.0
6.0
1-280 NB Braided Ramps
between Foothill Expwy. & SR 85
Cupertino,
Los Altos
34.0
34.0
between 3rd St. & 7th St.
San Jose
22.0
22.0
1-680 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes
from McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd..
San Jose
46.0
46.0
$9.0
$9.0
300.0
300.0
65.0
65.0
272.0
272.0
10.0
10.0
H280-02
H280-04
H680-03
1-280 Downtown Access Improvements
Projects That Were Not Submitted to MTC
HI7-02
HI 52-05
H880-04
SR 17 Improvements, NB SR 17 to
San Jose,
NB SR 85 Direct Connector
Los Gatos
Limited access four-lane facility and partial
new alignment between 1-5 & US 101;
possible toll road
Gilroy,
Santa Clai'a County,
San Benito County,
Merced Coimty
I-880/SR 237 Flyover—
NB 1-880 to WB SR 237
H880-05
H880-06
1-880 Widening for HOY Lanes
Milpitas,
from SR 237 to Old Bayshore
San Jose
I-880/Kato Rd. Overcrossing (with
Cormections to Dixon Landing Rd.
& Scott Creek Rd.)
210
MUpitas
Valley Transportation Authority
Fremont,
Milpitas
APPENDIX
Expressway Projects
(fiscally constrained) and Tier lb (fiscally
The projects m this list are taken directly from
for the County Expressway Program covers the
the Comprehensive Countywide Expressway
total project costs for all Tier la projects. Cost
Planning Study (GGEPS) conducted by the
savings due to local contributions to Tier la
Santa Clara County Roads and Airports
projects may be applied to Tier lb projects.
unconstrained) projects. The $150m allocation
Department m 2001. The list includes Tier la
, Expressway Projects—^Allocation Amount $150.0 million
VTPID
Project Name
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
('OS$/Milli<ms)
Tier 1A Projects (Fiscally Constrained)
XOl
Almaden Expwy.—Initiate a Caltrans Project Study Report/
$0.0
X02
Almaden Expwy.—Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Aimaden Expwy.
2.0
X03
Aimaden Expwy.—Widen to eight ianes between Coleman Ave. & Biossom Hill Rd.
8.0
X04
Central Expwy.—Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas Expwy.
& De La Cruz Bivd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV queue jutnp ianes at Scott Blvd.,
if unsuccessful after a three- to five-year trial period
0.1
X05
X06
Central Expwy.—Widen to six lanes between Lawrence & San Tomas Expvirys.
without HOV lane operations
10.0
Central Expwy.—Widen between Lawrence Expwy. & Mary Ave. to provide auxiiiary
and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes
13.0
X07
Foothill Expwy.—Replace Loyola Bridge
10.0
X08
Footliill Expwy..—^Traffic/signal operational corridor improvements between Edith Ave.
& El Monte Ave. including adjacent side street intersections & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
1.5
X09
FoothUl Expwy.—Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio
0.5
XI0
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to mixed fiow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
0.1
xn
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar Ave. & right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St., & St. Lawrence/Laivrence Station Rd. on-ramp
0.5
XI2
La-wrence Expwy.—Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark Ave./BoUinger Rd.& south of Calvert Dr.
4.0
X13
Lawrence Expwy.—Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Ave. corridor
0.1
XU
Lawrence Expwy.—Coordinate & optimize signal phasing & timing plans
in 1-280/Lawrence Interchange area
0.1
1. PSR cannol be funded by fund source. PSE estimated cost $250,000.
VTP 2030
211
Expressway Projects (cent.)
VTPID
Project Name
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
('OSS/Millmu)
X15
Lawrence Expwy.—Prepare Caltrans Project Study Report for Tier IC project
$0.0
X16
Montague Expwy.^Conveft HOV lanes to mixed-flow use east of 1-880
X17
Montague Expwy.—^Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening & 1-880 partial-clover
Interchange with at-grade improvements at Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria Dr./River Oaks Pkwy.,
Main St./01d Oaldand Rd., & McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.
0.1
38.5
X18
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor improvements
X19
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—I-280/Page Mill Interchange modification
5.0
X20
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
0.3
X21
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide additional WB right-turn lane at Monroe St.
1.0
X22
San Tomas Expwy.—Widen to eight Itmes between Willituns Rd. & El Camino Real
X23
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide 2nd EB, WB,& NB left-tiun lanes at Hamilton Ave.
2.0
X24
Sein Tomas Exp-wy.—At-grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas Expwy.
2.0
X25
Expressway Traffic Information Outlets
5.0
X26
Expressway Signal Coordination with City Signals
X27
5.0
28.0
10.0
Equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Moimtaln View,& Los Altos traffic
signal interconnect systems
2.5
X28
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
0.5
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection modifications, left-turn lane,
carpool lane adjustments, and stripping modifications
2.0
X30
Widen Almaden Expwy. to eight lanes firom Blossom HUl Rd. to Branham Rd.
Measure B LOS Project, not included in the CCPES
3.2
Tier 1B Projects (Fiscally Unconstrained)
X31
Capitol Expwy.—Interchange at Silver Creek Rd.
X32
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at Arques Ave. with Square loops along Kern Ave.& Titan Way
35.0
X33
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at KLfer Rd.
45.0
X34
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at Monroe St.
45.0
X35
Montague Expwy.—^Trimble Rd. Flyover
15.0
2. PSR cannot be funded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
212
55.0
Valley Transporfation Authority
APPENDIX
Expressway Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Nome
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
COSS/Millions)
X36
X37
Montague Expwy.—At-grade improvements at Mission College Blvd.
& partial clover Interchange at US 101
$11.0
Montague Expvyy.—^McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Ave. square loop Interchange
60.0
Local Streets and County Roads Projects
The Local Streets and County Roads Fund
projects not connected to new development
Program was created to address the
projects. A rninimum 20-percent local match is
difficulties Member Agencies have with raising
required for LSOR projects.
revenues for local streets and county roads
Local Streets and County Roads Projects—Allocation Amount $230.0 million
VTP ID
ROl
Project
Total
Sponsor/Location
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
C03$/MiUims)
C03$/Milli<ms)
Project Name
Calaveras Blvd. Overpass Widening
with Operational Improvements
Milpitas
Oakland Rd. Widening from US 101 to Montague
R03
R04
R02
R05
$40.0
$32.0
San Jose
10.0
3.7
Coleman Ave. Widening
San Jose
14.0
11.2
Berryessa Rd. Widening—^US 101 to 1-680
San Jose
7.0
5.6
Mathilda Ave./SR 237 Corridor Improvements
(Mary Ave. Extension)
Sunnjwale
50.0
25.0
Chynoweth Ave. Extension from
East of Almaden Expwy.
San Jose
15.1
6.3
R07
Mathilda Ave. Caltrain Bridge Reconstruction
Sunnyvale
17.4
3.5
R08
Autumn St. Extension
San Jose
10.0
8.0
R09
Story Rd. Improvement from Senter Rd.
to McLaughlin Ave.
San Jose
2.0
0.4
R06
VTP 2030
213
Local Streets and County Roods Projects (cont.)
VIP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocation
('03$/MilUoms)
RIO
R11
Rengstorff Ave. Grade Separation
Environmental Documentation
Mountain View
$0.3
$0.2
Montague Expwy./Great Mall
Parkway-Capitol Ave. Grade Separation
Milpitas
24.5
17.5
8.2
3.9
R12
Branham Ln. Widening from Wsta Park Dr.to Snell Ave. San Jose
R13
Dixon Landing Rd. Widening
Milpitas
0.6
0.5
R14
Gilman Rd/Arroyo Circle/
Camino Arroyo Improvements
Gilroy
7.0
5.6
R15
Loyola Dr./Foothill Expwy. Intersection
Coimty
10.0
8.0
R16
Charcot Ave. Connection
San Jose
36.0
23.2
R17
Snell Ave. Widening from
San Jose
3.2
2.8
Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
R18
Lucretia Ave. Widening from Story Rd.to Phelan Ave. San Jose
R19
Almaden Plaza Way Widening
R20
Senter Rd. Widening Project
9.0
3.5
County
0.8
0.6
San Jose
6.8
5.4
Los Gatos-Almaden Rd. to Ross Creek
San Jose
1.7
1.4
R22
Downtown Couplet Conversions
San Jose
20.0
16.0
R23
Lawrence Expwy./Wildwood Ave.
Roadway Realignment & Traffic Si^al
Sunnyvale
4.4
3.5
R24
Butterfield Blvd. Extension
Morgan Hill
14.0
7.2
R25
Campbell Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
Campbell
R21
Union Ave. Widening from
2.0
1.6
R26
Blossom HUl Rd. Bike/Ped Improvements
San Jose
6.8
5.4
R27
King Rd. Pedestrian Improvement at Barberry Ln.
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R28
Uvas Park Dr. Roadway Extension
Gilroy
2.2
1.8
R29
Winchester Blvd. Streetscape Improvement
San Jose
4.0
0.8
at Monterey Hwy.
County
1.2
0.5
R31
Quito Rd. Improvements
San Jose
1.9
1.5
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave.
Realignment at Monterey Rd.
County
0.9
0.8
R33
Dixon Landing Rd./North Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas
1.0
0.8
Intersection Signahzation
County
0.4
0.3
Park Ave. Improvement
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R30
Railroad Crossing; San Martin Ave.
Intersection Improvements
R34
R35
214
('OSS/Million
Magdalena Ave. at Country Club Dr.
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Local Streets and County Roads Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
Project Cost
('03$/Mill'ions)
R36
Railroad Crossing—
Church St. at Monterey Rd.(San Martin)
Cormty
R37
Java Dr. Bicycle Shared Use Improvements
(Class II & III Bike Lanes)
VTP 2030
Allocation
('OSS/MilHon
$0.5
$0.4
Sunnyvale
0.4
0.3
5.0
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Project
Palo Alto
6.2
R40
HiU Road Extension
County
5.0
4.0
at Edmunson Ave.
Coimty
5.0
4.0
Santa Teresa Blvd./Fitzgerald Ave.
Intersection Signalization
County
0.3
0.2
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.
County
0.2
0.2
R50
First St.(SR 152) Roadway Widening—
Monterey St. to Church St.
Gilroy
1.2
0.9
Traffic Calming Elements
County
2.0
1.6
R60
Miramonte Ave. Bikeway Improvements
Los Altos
1.0
0.8
R75
Moody Rd. Improvements
Los Altos HUls
0.2
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. Improvements
Los Gatos
0.6
0.4
R89
Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase II
Saratoga
0.5
0.4
R91
Rancho RinconadaTTaffic Calming Project
Cupertino
0.1
0.1
R43
R44
R51
DeWitt Ave./Sunnyside Ave. Realignment
Alum Rock School District Area
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
R38
Martha St. Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor
San Jose
$3.3
$2.7
R41
Dehnas Ave. Streetscape Improvement
San Jose
0.9
0.7
R42
Bird Ave. Pedestrian Corridor
San Jose
0.9
0.7
R4S
Reed St. Pedestrian Corridor Project
San Jose
1.4
0.7
R46
North 13th St. Streetscape Project
San Jose
1.6
0.5
R47
Balbach St. Bike/Ped Improvements
San Jose
1.4
1.1
R48
Taylor St. Improvement
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R52
Sterlin Rd./Shoreline Blvd. Intersection Modification
Mountain View
0.2
0.2
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.2
1.0
R54
Auzerais Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
San Jose
1.9
0.4
R55
ITS Improvement on Santa Teresa Blvd.
County
1.0
0.8
R53
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd./Remmington Dr.
VTP 2030
215
Local Streets and County Roads Projects (corit.)
VIP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocotion
COSS/Millions)
('OSS/Million.
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cent.)
R56
Downtown Sunnyvale/Mathilda Blvd.
Sunnyvale
R57
Keyes St. Streetscape Improvement Project
San Jose
R58
Mary Ave. Bicycle Improvement
Sunnyvale
R59
Almaden Rd.Improvement—
Malone Rd. to Curtner Ave.
$1.9
1.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
San Jose
2.0
1.6
0.3
R61
Junipero Serra Blvd. Shoulder Widening
County
0.4
R62
Easy St./Gladys Ave. Intersection Modification
Mountain View
0.3
0.2
R63
Mary Ave./Evelyn Ave. Intersection
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R64
Mary Ave./El Camino Real Intersections
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R65
White Rd. Streetscape
County
1.0
0.8
R66
Senter Rd. Improvement Project
San Jose
6.8
2.5
Alum Rock Ave. to Mabury Rd.
San Jose
2.0
1.5
Bicycle Blvd. Network Project
Palo Alto
0.8
0.6
Pockets and Shoulder Widening
County
5.0
4.0
R70
Gifford Ave. Streetscape
San Jose
0.5
0.4
R71
Loyola Comers Traffic Circle
County
0.5
0.4
Intersection Improvement
Simnyvale
6.0
0.5
R73
Hyland Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
County
0.7
0.6
R74
West San Carlos St. Streetscape
Improvement Project
San Jose
1.4
0.7
County
0.2
0.1
County
0.2
0.1
Ave./Lawrence Expwy. Area
County
0.3
0.2
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on Alum Rock
Ave. South of Migueiita Creek Ped Bridge
Covmty
0.3
0.2
1-880 to Meridian Ave.
San Jose
6.0
4.8
R82
Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor
County
3.9
3.2
R83
Farrell Ave. Bridge Widening
Gilroy
1.5
1.2
R67
R68
R69
R72
R76
White Rd. Pedestrian Improvement—
McKean Rd. and Watsonvfile Rd. Left-Tum
Wolfe Rd./Red Ave. Old San Francisco Rd.
East HiUs/Florence Area Bicycle/
Pedestrian Improvements
R77
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on McKee Rd.
between White Rd. & Staples Ave.
R78
R79
R80
216
$2.4
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements in the Mitty
Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor—
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Local Streets and County Roods Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Total
Sponsor/Location
Project Cost
COSS/MilUaiis)
VTP 2030
Allocation
('OSS/Million
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cont.)
R84
Citywide Sidewalk Improvements
Gilroy
R85
DeWitt Ave. S-Curve Realignment
County
R86
R87
$1.8
$1.5
1.0
0.8
Abom Rd. Pedestrian Improvements at Irwindale Dr. San Jose
1.0 n
0;8
Fair Oaks Ave./Arques Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R88
Wolfe Rd./Kifer Rd. Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.2
1.0
R90
Washington Ave./Mathilda Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.1
0.4
Intersection Improvements
Sunnyvale
1.0
0.8
R93
McLaughlin Ave. Streetscape Project
San Jose
1.5
1.0
R94
Calaveras Rd. Improvements(Rural Area)
County
3.0
2.4
R95
West Virginia St. Streetscape &
Pedestrian Crossings Project
Stm Jose
1.0
0.4
R96
Garden Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
County
0.5
0.4
R97
Metal Beam Guardrails on County Roads
County
0.3
0.2
R98
El Monte Rd./I-280 Improvements
Los Altos Hills
0.2
0.2
for Employment Areas
Sunnyvale
7.2
5.8
RlOO
Citywide Traffic Calming Program
Sunnyvale
1.0
0.8
R101
Aldercroft Creek Bridge/Old Santa Cioiz Hwy.
Cmmty
1.7
1.3
Intersections & Traffic Signals
Gilroy
2.0
1.6
R103
Junipero Serra Blvd. Traffic Calming
Coimty
0.5
0.4
R104
New Pavement Markers and Signs
County
0.3
0.2
Improvements
Gilroy
0.7
0.6
R106
Burbank Area StreetJighting Project
County
0.2
0.1
R107
Countywide Pedestrian Ramps
County
0.3
0.2
R108
Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal
Saratoga
0.3
0.2
R109
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements in
the Toyon Rd. Area
Coimty
0.8
0.6
R92
R99
R102
R105
Mary Ave./Fremont Ave.
Comprehensive Sidewalk Network
Mantelli Dr. Corridor Improvements:
Citywide Class n & in Bicycle Route
R110
Oak Place & Highway 9 Pedestrian Signal
Saratoga
0.2
0.2
R111
Herriman Dr. Traffic Signal Project
Saratoga
0.3
0.2
VTP 2030
217
Transit Projects
new regional rail services, community-oriented
The Transit Program identifies specific transit
enhanced commuter rail service. Funds for this
bus service operated with small vehicles, and
projects to be implemented during the time-
program come from the 2000 Measm-e A and
frame of the plan. These projects include new
from other local. State and Federal sources.
light rail extensions, bus rapid transit corridors,
Transit Projects—Allocation Amount $6,829.0 million'
VTP ID
TO
T1
T2
T3
T4
Project Name
City
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030 Measure A
Allocation
('03$/Millkms)
('OSS/Mill-iom)
Operating Assistance
2006-2036"
All Cities
ACE Upgrade
Santa Clara, San Jose
$1,003.0
$1,003.0
22.0
22.0
BART to MUpitas, San Jose
MUpitas, San Jose,
& Santa Clara"
Santa Clara
4,193.0
2,453.0
1,740.0
Bus Rapid Transit(Line 22,
Stevens Creek)
Monterey, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Surmyvale,
Santa Clara, San Jose,
Cupertino
50.0
33.0
17.0
233.0
417.0
171.0
155.0
16.0
GUroy
100.0
61.0
39.0
Caltrain Electrification''
Palo Alto,
Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara,
San Jose, Morgan Hill,
GUroy
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades
(VTA Share)"
Caltrain-South County"
San Jose, Morgan HUl,
T7
Downtown East Valley(DTEV)'
San Jose
550.0
550.0
T8
Dumbarton RaU
Palo Alto
278.0
44.0
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service
Improvements
Los Gatos,
Campbell, Sair Jose
2.0
2.0
TBD
188.0
1.0
1.0
TIO
New Rail Corridors—Phase U
Til
New Rail Corridors Study—
conceptual alignment
evaluations"
218
650.0
Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara,
San Jose, Morgain Hill,
Gilroy
T6
Funding from
Other Sources
COSS/MMiovs)
Valley Transportation Authority
234.0
APPENDIX
Transit Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
T12
Project Name
City
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030 Measure A
Allocation
COS$/Millions)
(•OSS/Millicms)
Funding from
Other Sources
C03$/Milli<ms)
Mineta San Jose International
$400.0
$222.0
$178.0
Palo Alto
200.0
50.0
150.0
All Cities
17.0
Airport APM Connector
Srm Jose
T13
Palo Alto Intermodal Center'"
T16
Zero Enrission Bus(ZEB)
Demonstration Program
17.0
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
T15
T16
New Rail Corridors—
Phase 2"
1,031.0
TBD
Zero Emission Buses(ZEBs)
& Facilities"
AU Cities
260.0
260.0
1. Includes $973 million in Federal New Starts Fuitds, $5,017 billion from 2000 Measure A, $732 million from TCRP, and $107 million fi'om
Proposition 42 (STIP).
2. 2000 Measure A funds dedicated to future transit operations representing 18.45% of Measure A revenues.
3. Measure A need for BART project is net of $649m in TCRP funds, $834m Federal New Starts, $107m Prop. 42 STIP.and $69m in other funds.
Does not assume additional bonding for construction.
4. Full funding for Caltrain electrification is dependent on full funding front Caltrain JPB partners.
6. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility'; improvements and additional service.
6. Caltrain upgrades in South County include double-tracking and station improvements.
7. DTBV includes Enhanced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an extension to
Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy to be developed as EIR/EIS and PE are completed on both portions.
8. The costs and phasing of new rail corridor projects will be determined as part of the planning study (see note 6).
9. Long-range planning study would evaluate the feasibility, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of several light rail extensions and lines.
New rail corridors to be considered include Vasona extension to Vasona Junction, DTEV Eastridge Area to Hwy 87, Santa Teresa extension to
Coyote Valley, extensions to Morgan Hill, Stevens Creek Blvd., West San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale/Cupertino, and North Coimty/Palo Alto.
10. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center I'equires additional funds not identlTied at this time.
11. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) assumes 15% Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs). Currently, VTA is testing ZEE technology with a demonstration
project. Based on the results of this project, the viability of the technology will be reassessed. The ZBB program may move up in the Measure A
program with future VTP updates.
VTP 2030
219
operation and management of the overall
Transportation Systems
Operations and
Management Projects
transportation system. These new technologies
are collectively referred to as hitelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), and include
electronics, computer, and communications
The Transportation Systenas Operations and
infrastructure. These projects are subject to the
Management(TSOM)Program includes
CMP CiP 20-percent local match.
projects that use technology to improve the
ITS Projects —Allocation Amount $28.0 million
VTPID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Totol Project
VIP 2030
Cost
Allocation
COS$/Millio)is)
('OSS/Millions)
$0.2
S102
City of Campbell Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Campbell
0.3
0.2
S103
Winchester Blvd. Intelligent Transportation System
Campbell
0.3
0.3
S300
City of Gihoy Adaptive TVafBc Signal Control System
Gilroy
0.9
0.7
S301
City of Gilroy Event Management System
Gilroy
0.9
0.7
S302
City of Gilroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Gilroy
3.9
3.1
S303
City of Gilroy Flood Watch Cameras
Gilroy
0.5
0.4
S600
Town of Los Gatos Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Los Gatos
0.3
0.2
S701
South Milpitas Boulevard Smart Corridor
Milpitas
0.5
0.4
S702
City of Milpitas Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Milpitas
0.8
0.6
S703
City of Milpitas CCTV Camera Deployment
on Major TVavel Corridors
Milpitas
0.3
0.2
Morgan Hill
0.1
0.04
Morgan Hill
0.4
0.3
Moimtain View
0.4
0.3
Palo Alto
6.2
5.0
Santa Clara
3.5
2.8
S900
Cochrane Ave. Corridor Traffic
Signal System Improvement
S901
City of Morgan HUl Traffic Signal
System Improvement
SIOOO
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
System Improvement
Slid
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential
Arterlals Project'
S1200
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
1. Ako listed a-s a Local Streets and County Roads Project,
220
$0.3
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
ITS Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP 20
Cost
Allocoti
COS$/MUlicms)
S1201
SI 202
51301
51401
(■OSS/Mill.
City of Santa Clara Traffic Signal System
Cabinet & Controller Replacement
Santa Clara
$3.2
$2.6
City of Santa Clara Transportation Management
Center Upgrade
Santa Clara
0.4
0.3
Upgrade Project—Phase IP
Saratoga
0.5
0.4
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal System
on Mru'or Arterials
Sunnyvale
2.8
2.2
City of Saratoga Citywide Signal
51402
City of Sunnyvale CCTV Camera Deployment
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
51403
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Signal Controller Update
Sunnyvale
0.5
0.4
51404
City of Suimyvale Count &
Speed Monitoring Stations
Smmyvale
0.9
0.7
51405
City of Sunnyvale ITS Communications Infi astructure Sunnyvale
1.5
1.2
51406
City of Suimyvale TMC Integration
Sunnyvale
0.2
0.2
52001
City of San Jose Proactive Signal Timing
Program Phase II
San Jose
1.0
0.8
Sihcon Valley Sub-Regional Transportation
Management Center
San Jose
7.5
6.0
City of Sem Jose Transportation & Incident
Management Center (TIMC)/PD CAD Integration
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52004
City of San Jose Smart Intersections
San Jose
4.0
3.2
52005
City of San Jose Field Equipment Upgrade
San Jose
3.0
2.4
Communications Network
San Jose
9.8
7.8
City of San Jose Neighborhood Business District
(NED) ITS Deployment
San Jose
3.0
2.4
Incident Management System
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52009
City of San Jose Motorists Information System
San Jose
1.4
1.1
52010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
San Jose
3.0
2.4
52011
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52002
52003
52006
52007
52008
City of San Jose Transportation
City of San Jose Downtown Freeway &
VTP 2030
221
ITS Projects (cent.)
VTPID
Project Nome
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP20;
Cost
Allocail(
('03$/Millkms)
S2012
City of San Jose Red Light Running
Enforcement Program
San Jose
$0.5
$0.4
City of San Jose Advanced Parking
Management System
San Jose
1.5
1.2
County of Santa Ciara Traffic Operations
System Improvements
County
18.0
14.4
S3002
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
Cotmty
0.2
0.2
S3003
ITS Enhancements on Santa Teresa Blvd.
County
1.0
0.8
Caltrans
3.6
2.9
Caltrans
5.4
4.3
Caltrans
5.7
4.6
Caltrans
4.8
3.8
Calti'ans
2.2
1.8
S2013
S3001
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering^
S4020
Caltrans 1-680 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp MeteiingS4030
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Eiements
C&; Ramp MeteringS4040
Caltrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
& Reimp Metering^
S4050
Caltrans 1-280 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering''
S4060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering^
Caltrans
3.0
2.4
S5004
Silicon Valley—^ITS (SV-ITS) Program Upgrades
San Jose
27.0
21.6
S6000
Countywide Ramp Metering Study
VTA/Countywide
0.5
0.4
S6010
Ti'ansit ITS
VTA/Countywide
5.0
4.0
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
222
('03$/Milli
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Bicycle Projects
document that served as the Bicycle Element
In 2000, VTA adopted the Santa Clara
Element of VTP 2030. The Countywide Bicycle
Goimtywide Bicycle Plan (CEP), a stand-alone
Plan will be updated in 2005.
of VTP 2020, and also serves as the Bicycle
Bicycle Projects —Allocation Amount $90.5 million
VTP ID
BOl
Project Nome
Project
Total Project
Sponsor/Location
Cost
Allocation/
C03$/MiUions)
(WS/MiMu
Campbell Ave. improvements at Hwy 17
VTP 202
& Los Gatos Creek
Campbell
$1.5
$1.2
Los Gatos Creek Trail expansion on west side
(Hamilton to Campbell)
Campbell
2.0
1.6
Los Gatos Creek Trail bridge & path
improvements (Mozart Ave. to Camden Ave.)
Campbell
0.8
0.6
Coyote Creek Trail (Hellyer Ave. to
Anderson Lake County Park)
County Parks
1.3
1.0
Almaden Expwy.
(Ironwood Dr. to Koch Ln.)
County Roads
and Airports
2.3
1.8
Bicycle shoulder delineation
along expressways
Coimty Roads
and Airports
0.6
0.5
Foothill Expwy./Loyola Dr. structural
improvements m Los Altos'
and Airports
10.0
2.0
McKean Rd. shoulder improvements
(Harry Rd. to Bailey Ave.)
County Roads
and Airports
5.0
4.0
Page Mill Expwy,/l-280 interchange
bike improvements^
Cotmty Roads
and Airports .
n 5.0
1.0
BIO
Bellinger Rd. bicycle facility improvement
Cupertino
0.4
0.2
Bit
Mary Ave.(1-280) Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing
Cupertino
7.1
6.8
Park Phase I & 2)
Gilroy
11.9
0.5
Uvas Creek Trail Study (Sports Park to
Gavilan College)
Gilroy
0.2
0.1
Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Bridge replacement
Los Altos
0.5
0.4
B02
BOG
B04
BOS
BOS
B07
BOB
B09
B12
BIG
B14
County Roads
Uvas Creek Trail (part of Gilroy Sports
1. Also included in the VTP 2030 Local Streets and County Roads and Expressway Programs.
2. Also included m the VTP 2030 Expressway Program.
VTP 2030
223
Bicycle Projects (cdnt.)
VTP ID
Project Nome
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP 2030
Cost
Allocation/BEP
('03$/Millions)
COSS/Millions)
BIS
Stevens Creek Trail feasibility study
Los Altos
$0.1
$0.1
B16
Berryessa Creek Trail(Reach 3)
Mhpitas
0.9
0.4
B17
Coyote Creek Trail (Reach 1)
MUpitas
1.2
0.6
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of UPRR tracks
(near Great Mall)
MUpitas
5.6
4.5
B19
Hwy.9 Bike Lanes(Saratoga Ave. to Los Gatos Blvd.) Monte Sereno
1.4
Coyote Creek Trail Connection
Morgan Hill
0.5
0.4
B21
West Little Llagas Creek Trail
Morgan HUl
1.5
1.2
B22
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Central
Moimtain View
4.0
3.2
B23
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Soutlt
Mountain View
5.0
4.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Yuba Drive to North Meadow)
Mountain View
3.8
1.2
B20
B25
Bicycle Blvd./Lanes Network
Palo Alto
5.0
4.0
9.0
4.0
B26
California Ave. Caitrain Undercrossing®
Palo Alto
B27
Homer Ave. Caitrain Undercrossing
Palo Alto
5.6
1.0
B28
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing'
San Jose
5.7
4.6
Pedestrian Overcrossmg'
San Jose
5.0
4.0
Coyote Creek Trail
(SR 237/Bay Trail to Story/Keyes)
San Jose
6.1
4.9
B29
B30
Branham Lane/US 101 Bike/
B31
Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso to 1-880)
San Jose
5.1
4.1
B32
Los Gatos Creek Trail (Reach 4)
San Jose
4.8
3.6
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
San Jose
6.4
5.1
B35
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
San Jose,
Santa Clara, VTA
2.8
1.8
Santa Clara
17.0
5.0
Santa Clara
5.0
4.0
B36
B37
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail
(SR 237 to City Limits)
Santa Clara Intermodal Transit Center
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing^
3. Also included In the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program, currently under development.
224
1.7
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Bicycle Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Total Project
VTP 2030
Sponsor/Location
Cost
Allocotion/BEP
COSS/Millicms)
('03$/Millums)
B38
Cox Ave. Railroad Grade Crossings
Saratoga
$0.5
$0.4
B39
PGE De Anza Trail CReach 3)
Saratoga
2.5
2.0
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
Sunnyvale
6.5
5.2
B41
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes
(Weddell Dr. to Caribbean Dr.)
Sunnyvale
0.2
0.1
at US 101 &SR 237
Sunnyvale
6.5
5.2
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes
(Sunnyvale Ave. to Reed Ave.)
Sunnyvale
0.4
0.3
Sunnyvale East Drainage Trail
(JWC Greenv^ay to Tasman Dr.)
Sunnyvale
0.5
0.4
B45
Surmyvale Train Station North Side Access"
Sunnyvale
1.8
1.4
B46
Pilot Bicycle Parking Program
VTA
0.2
0.1
B42
B43
B44
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossings
VTP 2030
225
Glossary
ABAG—Association of Boy Area
cent sales tax and use the money for a specific
Governments A regional agency responsible for
list of transportation projects and programs in
regional planning (exclucling transportation).
Alameda County.
ABAG publishes forecasts of projected growth
for the region.
26,1990, ADA was signed into law, requiring
Access The facilities and services that make it
public transit systems to make their services
possible to get to any destination, measured by
fuUy accessible to persons with disabilities as
the availability of physical connections (roads,
well as to underwrite a parallel network of
sidewalks, etc.), travel options, ease of move
paratransit service for those who are unable to
ment, and nearness of destinations.
use the regular transit system. In addition, VTA
Access-by-proximity A key concept of the GDT
Program. Focuses on clustering complementary
land uses and well-designed compact develop
ment to combine, reduce or eliminate trips,
reduce automobile trips, and to help achieve the
kind of critical mass that makes vibrant public
life possible.
ACCAAA—Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency The agency responsible
for transportation planning and programming of
transportation funds in Alameda County.
ACE—Altamont Commuter Express A com
muter rail service that nms between the City of
Stockton in San Joaquin County and the City of
San Jose in Santa Clara County. The service is a
must meet the new ADA accessibility design
guidelines for all newly constructed transit
facilities such as light rail stations, bus stops, and
transit centers. All procurement of bus and rail
vehicles must also meet the ADA accessibility
design guidelines.
APIS—^Advanced Parking Information System
APIS provides real-time parking availability infor
mation to drivers. The system provides motorists
with electronic message signs located at key
locations on major streets and freeway ramps
informing motorists where to park.
ASPA—American Society for Public
Administration A professional association in the
field of public administration.
partnership involving VTA, the San Joaquin
ATMS—Advanced Traffic Management
Regional Rail Commission, and the Alameda
System ATMS is a category of intelligent
County Congestion Management Agency.
transportation systems that focuses on the
ACTIA—Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority A special government
agency authorized by State law and created by
the voters of Alameda County to coUect a half-
226
ADA—Americans With Disabilities Act On July
Valley Transportation Authority
management of traffic. It typically includes ramp
metering, traffic management centers (TMCs),
HOV lanes, integrated corridor management,
CCTVs, arterial management, and/or incident
management.
GLOSSARY
Auxiliary Lanes A lane from one on-ramp to
overseeing the work of the VTA staff associated
the next off-ramp to allow vehicles coming on
with bicycle plans, guidelines, and programs.
the freeway or getting off the freeway to have
more time to merge with the through lanes.
These lanes are often installed for safety pur
poses (reduce merging accidents).
BART—Boy Area Rapid Transit The San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Bart Transit District
(BART) prowdes heavy passenger rail service in
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San
AVL—Automated Vehicle Location AVL is the
Francisco counties, between the cities of
use of electronic technologies to aUow fleet
Fremont,Pleasanton, Richmond, Pittsburg, and
managers to know where vehicles are located at
San Francisco.
a given time. Several different types of AVL
technologies exist. The Department of Defense's
Global Positioning System (GPS) is the basis for
several recent transit industry AVL projects. In
addition to its primary use by transit dispatch
BoyCAP—Boy Area Clean Air Partnership
BayCAP is a consensus initiative established by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
the Bay Area Council, the Silicon VaUey
Manufacturing Croup, and other interested
ers and supervisors, AVL can be linked into
organizations to promote greater awareness of
other systems and used to provide real-time
air quality issues, particularly during the critical
arrival information for transit customers, to
ozone season; provide extra encouragement on
support paratransit services, and for a variety
"Spare the Air" days to limiting air.pollution
of other applications.
tlu-ough reduced use of cars, products, equip
BAAQMD—Bay Area Air Qualify
ment or activities that can cause smog; permit
Management District The regional agency cre
businesses and organizations to get credit for
ated by the State legislature for the Bay Area air
emission reductions achieved through volimtary
basin (Alameda, Contra Costa, half of Solano,
programs; and prevent future violations of the
half of Sonoma, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Federal ozone standard.
Mateo, and Santa Clara cormties) that develops,
in conjunction with MTC and ABAC,the air
quality plan for the region. BAAQMD has an
active role in approving the TCM plan for the
region, as well as in controlling stationary and
indirect sources of air pollution.
BEP—Bicycle Expenditure Plan The ten-year
funding program dedicated for the implementa
tion of bicycle projects in Tier 1 of the Santa
Clara Countywide Plan (Bicycle Element of VTP
2030). It includes funding from various local.
State and Federal sources. Projects in the
BAC—Bicycle Advisory Committee An adviso
Bicycle Expenditure Program are required to
ry committee to the VTA that is responsible for
provide a minimum 20 percent local match.
VTP 2030
227
Bicycle Technical Guidelines VTA document
made up of representatives from the comities of
that pro\'ides a uniform set of optimum stan
San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara,
dards for the planning, design, and construction
oversees this commuter rail service.
of bicycle projects in Santa Clara County.
BOD—Board of Directors VTA Board of
Transportation The responsible owner/operator
Directors is composed of 12 elected officials
of the State highway system. Caltrans is respon
appointed by the member cities and County of
sible for the safe operation and maintenance of
Santa Clara. The members of this partnership
roadways.
work together to address the transportation
needs of Santa Clara County.
ColWORKs In response to Federal welfare
reform legislation, the legislature created the
Bottleneck A location on a roadway where the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
traffic demand tends to be greater than its
to Kids (CalWORKs) program, enacted by
capacity. "IVpically, tliis occurs where the num
Chapter 270, Statutes of 1997(AB 1542,
ber of lanes decrease on congested or near-con
Ducheny, Ashburn, Thompson, andMaddy).
gested roadways.
Like its predecessor, Aid to Families with
Braided Ramp Type of freeway on/off-ramp
that consists of grade separated ramp(s) that
keep two major traffic movements from crossing
one another.
BRT—Bus Rapid Transit BRT combines the
Dependent Children, the new program provides
cash grants and welfare-to-work services to
families whose incomes are not adequate to
meet their basic needs. Under CalWORKs, able-
bodied adult recipients (1) must meet participa
tion mandates,(2) are limited to five years of
quality of rail transit and the flexibOity of buses.
cash assistance, and (3) must begin community
It can operate oh exclusive transit-ways, HOV
service employment after no more than 24
lanes, expressways, or ordinary streets. A BRT
months on aid.
system combines mtelligent transportation sys
tems technology, priority for transit, cleaner and
quieter velucles, rapid and convenient fare col
lection, and integration with land use policy.
Capacity The maximum rate of flow that can be
accommodated on a facility segment under pre
vailing conditions. Rate of flow is the number of
vehicles passing a point on a facility during
Caltrain/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
some period of time, expressed in veliicles per
Board Commuter raU service running between
hour or persons per hour.
Gilroy and San Francisco through San Jose. The
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB),
228
Caltrans—California Department of
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Capitol Corridor Intercity Roil Service A 150-
California's public agencies to 1)identify the sig
mile intercity rail service along the Union
nificant environmental effects of their actions;
Pacific ROW Capitol Corridor, which runs
and either 2) avoid those significant environmen
between San Jose and Auburn, tluough Oakland
tal effects where feasible or 3) mitigate those sig
and Sacramento.
nificant environmental effects where feasible.
Carpooling An arrangement in which commuters
Choice—A Key Concept of the CDT Program
share driving and the cost of commuting. A car-
Focuses on the notion that one-size-does-not-
pool is formed with a minimum of two people
fit-aU. A transportation system that is dominated
who commute on a regular basis. The members
by a single mode fosters development patterns
generally share conunon residential and employ
and policies that encourage sprawl, decentral
ment locations as well as common commuting
ization and separation of uses. Choice seeks to
patterns and schedules.
expand the range of options about what kind of
CCTV—Closed-Circuit Television This ITS com
ponent is used for traffic surveillance, where the
signal is transmitted by wire. A CCTV system
home to live in, where that home is located, the
character of the community, and the means of
getting around.
usually commmricates with a centralized facility
CIP—Capital Improvement Program A multi-
such as a TMC or OCC.
year program of projects to maintain or improve
CDP—Count/wide Deficiency Plon A docu
ment that will address deficiencies on Santa
Clara County's freeways and expressways and
include a set of improvements, programs and
actions that are designated to both improve
service on the overall transportation system and
cause a significant improvement m air quality.
COT Program See Community Design and
Transportation Program
CEQA—California Environmental Quality Act
the traffic level-of-service and transit perform
ance standards developed by the CMP, and to
mitigate regional transportation impacts identi
fied by the CMP Land Use Analysis Program,
which conforms to State and Federal air quality
requii'ements. It is updated every other year as
part of the Congestion Management Program
update. The CIP is a ten-year program.
Clean Air Act The Federal law that requires
urban areas with high pollution to modify trans
portation policies in order to reduce emissions.
The basic goal of CEQA is to develop and main
This law makes air quality a primary concern in
tain a high-quality environment now and in the
transportation decisions.
future, while the specific goals of CEQA are for
VfP 2030
229
CMA—Congestion Management Agency The
CMP Roadway Network A network of
CMA is a countywide organization responsible
roadways witliin a CMA that are of regional
for preparing and implementing the county's
significance. The CMP roadway network in
CMP (see definition below). CMAs came into
Santa Clara County consists of freeways,
existence as a result of State legislation and
expressways, urban arterials (six-lane facilities
voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990 (later
or non-residential arterials with average daily
legislation removed the statutory requirements
traffic (ADT) of 30,000 vehicles per day), and
of Proposition 111, making CMAs optional). In
imral highways.
Santa Clara County, VTA is the designated CMA.
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation and Air
Program A partnership between the VTA and
Quality Improvement Program A Federal
the 15 cities/towns and the comity to develop
funding program established by ISTEA and con
and promote strategies for improving transporta
tinued in TEA-21 specifically for projects and
tion systems and community livability. This
programs that will contribute to the attainment
involves creating areas with high-quality plamiing
of a national ambient air quality standard. The
and design that support walking, biking, and local
funds are available to non-attainment areas for
auto trips. It also promotes concentrated devel
ozone and carbon monoxide based on popula
opment, good access to transit services, multi-
tion and the degree of severity of pollution.
modal street design, and efficient use of land.
Eligible projects wiB be defined by the approved
The CDT program is VTA's primary program for
State Implementation Program (SIP) and the
integrating transportation and land use, and has
State's air quality plan.
CMP—Congestion Management Program
been adopted by each of the 16 city, town and
county governments in Santa Clam County.
A comprehensive program designed to reduce
Commute A home-to-work or work-to-home
traffic congestion, to enhance the effectiveness
trip.
of land use decisions, and to improve air quality.
The program must comply with CMP State
statutes, and vyith State and Federal Clean Air
Acts. Unless otherwise specified, CMP means
Santa Clara Comity's Congestion Management
Program.
Concentrated Development Usually synony
mous with higher-density development than
is the average for the area. Among land use
planners, concentrated development implies a
minimum of multistory, attached residentiai
condominiums or apartments, mid- to high-rise
office or retail, or some mix of these land uses.
230
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Usually, concentrated development comiotes an
Corridors Linear areas, typically centered on a
urban setting located around some type of
single street, that function as the spine of the
transit station, downtown commercial center, or
surrormding coimnunity.
other attraction or amenity. Concentrated devel
opment generally contrasts with "clustered"
development, which may describe a grouping of
detached residential units in a rural or suburban
setting and intended to preserve open space in
a large parcel.
CSS—Commute Services Study A VTA study
document updated every two to three years to
ensure commute services are responsive to
changing commute patterns in Santa Clara
County. The study is an analysis of commute
trips, to assess the viability of existing commute
Congestion The condition of any transportation
bus services and to identify new commute bus
facility in which the use of the facility is so great
service concepts and routes.
that there are delays for the users of that facili
ty. Usually this happens when traffic approaches
or exceeds facility capacity.
CTC—California Transportation Commission
A State agency that sets State spending
priorities for highway and transit and allocates
Connectivity Generally defines how weU a
funding. Members are appointed by the
street network allows pedestrians, bicyclists,
governor.
and non-auto modes to travel in a straight line
(i.e., shortest path) between two points.
Improvement to coimectivity, such as extending
dead-end streets or continuing mterials under
freeways, encourages walking and bicycling.
Planners would contend that a perfect grid or
radial street pattern maximizes connectivity
while cul-de-sacs, at-grade freeways, rail tracks,
and other impediments or intimidating structures
CVO—Commercial Vehicle Operations Use of
ITS technologies to improve travel time and
reliability for freight traffic and reduce the cost
of shipping goods. CVO applications include
satellite tracking of truck traffic, automated
weigh-in-motion scales, and automatic vehicle
identification systems.
Deficiency Deficiencies occur where the
diminish cOimectmty. For auto travel, coimectivity
transportation facilities provided do not confonn
may apply to extending arterial roadways that
to the standards that the area has adopted as
will allow autos to avoid using congested flreeway
minimally acceptable. A deficient roadway in
segments to make short trips.
Santa Clai-a County is one with a Level of
Cores District areas that include many streets
Service (LOS) of F.
and blocks characterized by concentrated devel
opment features.
VIP 2030
231
Delay A measure of the amount of time spent
during a trip due to congestion. It is measured
vacancy rates, and a high cost of living. Long
as the difference in travel time between
term, however, these indicators could presage
congested and free-flow conditions.
Developer Exaction A contribution or payment
required as an authorized precondition for
receiving a development permit; usually refers
to mandatory dedication (or fee in lieu of dedi
cation) requirements foimd in many subdivision
regulations.
Development Impact Fees A fee, also called a
development fee, levied on the developer of a
project by a city, comity, or other public agency
as compensation for otherwise unmitigated
impacts the project wili produce. California
Govermnent Code Section 66000 et seq. speci
fies that development fees shall not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the seiw-
ice for which the fee is charged. To lawfully
economic decline if not addi-essed. It may also
include long-term indicators that measure a
region relative to the State or nation in regard
to wages, construction of high-end housing,
demand for skilled labor, diversity of the indus
trial mix, the share of economic activity related
to new or robust industry sectors (e.g., biotech,
telecommunications, etc.).
Eeo Pass Partnership between Santa Clara
Valley employers and the VTA. Eco Pass is a
transit card with unlimited use of VTA bus and
light rail services. Employers purchase aimual
Eco Pass stickers for full-time employees at a
given site, at one low cost. Pricing levels are
based on proximity to VTA transit services and
the number of employees.
impose a development fee, the public agency
EIR/EIS—Environmental Impact Report/
must verify its method of calculation and docu
Environmental Impact Statement A study
ment proper restrictions on use of the fund.
which analyzes various alternatives for environ
Economic Health A term used to describe the
fundamental and long-term strength of the
economy. The most common measures of a
region's economic health include unemplo5mient
mental impacts, identifies possible mitigations
to reduce impacts, and obtains legally mandated
State and/or Federal environmental clearance
for a chosen preferred alternative.
rate, business output, personal income, the
Electrification To equip rail or bus transit sys
sales growth of indigenous business, and the
tems for use of electric power.
attraction of new business to the area. Short-
term indicators of economic health may include
congestion, lustoricaUy higli cost of housing.
232
parking shortages, low commercial and retail
Valley Transportofion Authority
Evaluation Criteria factors that help to distin
guish the relative value of alternative actions.
GLOSSARY
Final Engineering Finalizes design drawings
and congestion, frequent accidents or stalls, and
and produces construction documents for the
lack of shoulder space for disabled vehicles.
preferred alternative.
FTA—Federal Transit Administration A
Fixed-Route Transit Transit sendee provided
component of the U.S. DepaiTment of
on a repetitive, fixed-schedule basis along a spe
Transportation, delegated by the Secretary of
cific route, vidth vehicles stopping to pick up
Transportation to administer the Federal transit
passengers at and deliver passengers to specific
program under the Urban Mass Transportation
locations.
Flexible Work Hours This is a form of alterna
Act of 1964, as amended, and various other
statutes.
tive work schedule. It Is a policy that gives
FTIP—Federal Transportation Improvement
employees the option of varying their start and
Program All Federally funded projects are
end times each workday. The intent is to allow
required to be included in the FTIP. The FTIP is
employees more flexibility to adjust work hom's
a document that mcludes key information
to meet individual needs and proidde incentive
regarding all Federally ftmded and "regionally
to use commute alternatives.
significant" projects. This document is used as
Flyover Ramp A ramp connecting two roadway
facilities that provides a dhect connection to
avoid congestion, merguig, and/or an intersec
tion.
a common reference point for review and
approval of processes (such as funding, air
quality conformity, etc.) by various State and
Federal agencies. The FTIP is actually a
composition of select projects from State,
Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)The Bay Area
regional and local sources. Each "level" also has
FSP is a joint project of the Metropolitan
its own transportation improvement progi'am
Transportation Commission Service Authority
(TIP). Therefore, in order for a project to be
for Freeways and Expressways(MTC SAFE),
included in the FTIP, it must first be included in
the California Highway Patrol(CHP) and the
a local TIP, then in the RTIP, then in the STIR
California Department of Transportation
Each TIP will require a review and approval
(Caltrans). The seiwice is provided by a fleet of
process by the agency responsible for adminis
74 trucks provided by private tow truck
tering the TIP.
companies under contract with MTC SAFE, and
patrols some 450 miles of the Bay Area's
freeways. Patrol routes are selected based on
several factors, including a high rate of traffic
Golden Triangle The area bounded by US 101,
SR 237, and 1-880 that experienced large job
growth in the 1980s and 1990s.
VTP 2030
233
Grade Separation A grade separation is a
Interconnection - A Key Concept of the CDT
structure necessary to provide for either the
Program Focuses on interconnecting streets,
passage of a roadway or bicycle or pedestrian
pedestrian emd bicycle networks, transit modes,
facUity under or over a rail line.
buildings and developments to get more from
HOT Lanes—High-Occupancy Toll Lanes
Combines the characteristics of HOV lanes and
toll roads by allowing carpools, vanpools, and
tiue, and to form coherent districts and more
livable places.
buses free access, while charging for single
Intermodal The term "mode" refers to and dis
occupant vehicle (SOV) or drive alone use.
tinguishes the various forms of transportation,
HOV Lanes—High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Lanes on heavily congested roadways that are
used exclusively by carpools, vanpools, buses or
any vehicle that transports multiple passengers.
IIP—Interregional Improvement Program A
such as automobile, transit, ship, bicycling and
walking. Intermodal refers specifically to the
connections between modes.
Inter-Agency Indicates cooperation between or
among two or more discrete agencies.
State funding program created by SB-45. IIP
Inter-County Existing or occurring between two
funds may be programmed to projects outside
or more counties.
of the urbanized areas and/or interregional proj
ects. All IIP funds are programmed by Galtrans,
via the Interregional Transportation
Inter-Jurisdictional Existing or occurring
between two or more jurisdictions.
Improvement Plan (ITIP) process, with final
Intra-County Existirrg or occurring within the
approval by CTG.
county boundaries.
Incidents Accidents and other problems that
ISTEA—Intermodal Surface Transportation
cause increased congestion on our roads.
Intensification For residential uses, the
increase in the actual number or the range of
dwelling units per net or gross acre. For nonresidential uses, an increase in the actual or the
maximum permitted floor area ratios CFARs).
234
transportation resources and urban infrastruc-
Valley Transportation Authority
Efficiency Act Federal legislation passed in 1991
and expired in 1997 which restructured much of
the basis for funding highway projections, and
made some of these funds available to urban
areas for transit projects. A key ISTEA compo
nent is increased flexibility in the programming
of projects.
GLOSSARY
ITIP—Interregional Transportation
Livabillty Wlfile this term may encompass as
Improvement Program The ITIP is a four-year
many different meanings as there are workers
planning and expenditure program adopted by
and residents m Santa Clara County, it is used
the CTC and updated in even numbered years.
in the VTP 2030 as a more broadly defined
The ITIP covers rural highway and key interre
synonym for "quality of life" to describe the
gional improvements, including intercity rail.
plan's support for four types of transportation
ITS—Intelligent Transportation Systems
Technologies that improve the management and
efficiency of our transportation system, such as
electronic fare payment systems, ramp meter
ing, timed traffic signals and on-board naviga
tion systems.
investments and services: relief from conges
tion, better facilities and services for non-work
and off-peak trips, attractive travel choices, and
services for a diverse and changing population.
Livabifity describes a resident's satisfaction with
the transportation system in such terms as its
ease of use, convenience, reliability, cost, range
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio
of travel choices, and interference in non-
The availability of housing for employees in a
transportation-related activities.
particular area. The jobs/housing ratio divides
the number of jobs in an area by the number of
employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a
balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net
in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net outcommute.
Long-Range Plan A transportation plan cover
ing a time span of 20 or more years. While the
VTP 2030 is a living docmnent that will be
updated every two to five years, the plan's
methodologies are intended to create perform
ance-based processes that wfil be used to select
LAN—Local Area Network A computer net
projects and design programs over the plan's
work that spans a relatively smaU area. Most
20-year horizon.
LANs are confined to a single building or group
of buildings. However, one LAN can be cormected to other LANs over any distance via tele
phone fines and radio waves.
LOS—Level-of-Service LOS measures the inter
relationship between travel demand (volume)
and supply (capacity) of the transportation sys
tem. LOS is a quantitative measure categorized
Land Use Activities and structures on the land,
into six levels, A through F, with A representing
such as housing, shopping centers, farms, and
ideal conditions—or no congestion—and LOS F
office buildings.
representing poor conditions or congested flow.
The VTA Congestion Management Program has
a standard of LOS E; roadways at LOS F are
considered deficient.
VTP 2030
235
LRT—light Rail Transit LRT operates on an
electrical system powered from an overhead
must include all reasonable alternatives to
wii-e on a dedicated track. The system is
address defined trairsportation problems, and the
capable of operating at high speeds in dedicated
study process must include all affected agencies,
rights of way and at lower speeds on arterial
local governments, MTC, and the public.
streets and downtown environments.
Mitigation An action to reduce or eliminate the
Measure A (1996) A Santa Clara County adri-
impacts of another action.
sory ballot measure passed in 1996 that identi
Mixed Use Refers to a variety of land uses and
fied a specific program of priority transportation
improvement projects in Santa Clara County to
be undertaken as funding became available.
acti-vities "with a mixture of different types of
development, in contrast to separating uses,
such as job sites, retail and housing; multiple
Measure B (1996) A 1996 ballot measure in
land uses m the same structure or same general
Santa Clara County that raised the local sales
area of a community; used to describe buildings
tax by one-half cent for a nine-year period, with
■with different types of use On different floors,
the proceeds being deposited into the county's
particularly commercial uses (such as shops or
General Fund.
banks) on the ground floor ■with flats above.
Measure A (2000)A 2000 ballot measure in
Mobility The movement of people or goods
Santa Clara County that provides a one-half
throughout our communities and across the
cent sales tax for 30 years, beginning in April
region. Mobility is measured in terms of travel
2006. The proceeds would be used to fund
time, comfort, convenience, safety and cost.
several transit projects throughout the coimty.
Modal Split or Mode Shore Modal split
The Measure passed in November 2000.
measures the extent to which travelers use the
Member Agencies Local jurisdictions that are
various available transportation modes. It is
signatories to the CMA's Joint Powers
measured as the proportion of people making a
Agreement. Tins includes all cities and towns
trip using a given mode.
■within the county, Santa Clara County, and the
MPO-^Metropolitan Planning Organization
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
236
project can be included in the RTF. The study
A Federally required transportation planning
MIS—Major Investment Study A study
body responsible for the Regional Transportation
required for major Federally funded transporta
Plan (RTF) and the Transportation Improvement
tion projects (highway and transit) before a
Program (TIP) in its region; the governor
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
designates an MPO in eveiy urbanized area with
means of coimnutmg to work, such as public
a population of over 50,000.
transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or
MTC—Metropolitan Transportation
Commission The metropolitan planning
organization (MPO)for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area.
.Multimodai Of or relating to more than one
walking. Parking cash-out offers the opportunity
to improve air quality and reduce traffic conges
tion by reducing vehicle trips and emissions.
For years, negative tax implications limited the
implementation of the law. But in 1998, the
Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
mode of transportation.
Century (TEA-21) included amendments to the
NEXTEA The next evolution of TBA-21.
Internal Revenue Code that fixed this problem.
OCC—Operations Control Center Centralized
location where transportation operations (traffic
and/or transit) are monitored and conducted.
The parking cash-out law does not apply to all
employers or aU employees. Employers with
over 50 employees in an air basin designated
non-attainment for any State air quality stan
Parotransit Paratransit services are specialized
dard must offer a parking cash-out program to
systems of transportation operated for people
those employees who have the availability of
who are unable to use conventional fixed-route
subsidized parking that meets certain criteria.
transit. Paratransit services provide trips
between a rider's origin and destination, usually
Peak Hour The peak hour of traffic volumes in
an area.
door-to-door. ADA requires that the service be
comparable to the fixed-route service available.
Parking Cash-Out Program State law requires
certain employers who provide subsidized park
ing for their employees to offer a cash allowance
Peak Spreading A ler\gthening of the peak
period of traffic congestion, usually accompa
nied by a flattening of the peak.
Performance Measure A means to measure
in lieu of a parking space. This law is caUed the
whether an objective has been achieved or
parking cash-out program (Assembly Bill 2109,
whether investments or strategies improve over
Katz; Chapter 554, Statutes of 1992), and the
time or across alternatives.
main provision of the law is California Health &
Person Trip A trip made by one person irre
Safety Code Section 43845. It was enacted after
spective of mode.
studies showed cash aliowances in lieu of park
ing encom-age employees to find alternate
VIP 2030
237
Place-making—A Key Concept of the CDT
the Statutes of 1987 requires that any capacity-
Program Focuses on the human-scale elements
increasing project on the State highway system,
of the built environment that create uniqueness
prior to programming in the STIP, have a
and identity and make places attractive, com
completed PSR. The PSR must include a
fortable, and memorable.
detailed description of the project scope and
PMP—Pavement Management Program
Funding program intended to repair or replace
the existing roadway pavement. Funds are
distributed using a population-based and laneirule formula. The cities and county must use a
Pavement Management System certified by the
MTC to identify and prioritize pavement needs.
Preliminary Engineering A study that identi
fies alternatives for attahiing a specified goal.
For each alternative, the document describes
benefits and contains engineering drawings with
enough detail to perform environmental analysis
and gauge construction feasibility.
PR—Project Report Refers to the report used
estimated costs. The intent of this legislation
was to improve the accuracy of the schedule
and costs shown in the STIP, and thus improve
the overall accuracy of the estimates of STIP
delivery and costs.
PSR/PR Combined The Combined Project
Study Report/Project Report (Combined
PSR/PR) was deveioped to streamiine the
project development process for non-complex,
non-controversial projects on State highways
that are 100 percent funded by others. It applies
to projects that have an estimated construction
cost over $1,000,000 for work within the
existing or to be dedicated State right of way. hr
addition, the project must comply with the stated
by Caltrans to recommend approval of a project.
criteria itemized in Chapter 9 of the Caltrans
The term "Draft Project Report"(Draft PR)
Project Development Procedures Manual
refers to a draft version of this report that must
(PDPM). It may also be used as a project report
be prepared for projects with environmental
for some projects costing more than $300,000
documents.
that are too complex to use a Permit
PSR—Project Study Report A PSR is an engi
Engineering Evaluation Report(PEER)format.
neering report, the purpose of which is to docu
The Combined PSR/PR may also be used for
ment agreement on the scope, schedule, and
Caltrans projects that meet the same stated
estimated cost of a project so that the project
criteria in Chapter 9, Article 12, of the PDPM,
can be included in a future State Transportation
provided they also meet the criteria necessary
Improvement Program (STIP). Chapter 878 of
for programming of the project, i.e., justification
for the project, a good cost estimate, identifica-
238
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
tion of support costs, and proposed funding. In
diverse and changing population. Some specific
both cases, the District Directors have approval
measures include high-quality design and
authority of the document.
planning that support walking, biking, and local
PTA—Public Transportation Account These
auto trips.
revenues are derived from the sales tax on
R&D—Research and Development Work
gasoline and diesel fuel. Under the provisions of
engaged in study,' testing, design, analysis,
SB-45, 50 percent of PTA revenues are distrib
and experimental development of products,
uted to the State Assistance Program (STA)
processes, or services.
with the other 50 percent used for funding plan
ning activities of Caltrans, the CTC,intercity rail
purposes and for the operations of the new
California High-Speed Rail Authority. Part of the
revenues are for uses formerly covered by the
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program
(TCI has been eliminated as a separate program
and folded into the PTA), wlrich include transit
vehicle purchases.
Redevelopment Tax Increment This source of
local revenues comes from property taxes
within a defined redevelopment area. The
county assessor freezes the assessed value of ail
real property within the redevelopment area as
of a base year. As property values appreciate
over the life of the redevelopment area (usually
about 20 years), the same proportion of the
increment of tax revenues above the base year
PTAP—Paratransit Technical Assistance
value is paid into the redevelopment agency
Program A regional effort to focus training in
special fund and used for designated projects.
the ai'eas of paratransit operations.
In theory, these specific projects help the area's
Quality of Life The first of the two goals of the
VTP 2030, the plan seeks, "...to provide trans
portation facilities and services that support
and enhance the coimty's continued success by
fostering a high quality of life for Santa Clara
County's residents." The VTP 2030 goes on to
define quality of life as the plan's support for
four tyiDes of transportation investments and
services: relief from congestion, better facilities
and services for non-work and off-peak trips,
attractive travel alternatives, and services for a
property to increase in value beyond the
appreciation rate of what would have occurred
without these projects. Proposition 13 restricts
the appreciation of property values to 2 percent
per year (or less if the market appreciates at
a lower rate). Other agencies that normally
receive property taxes may negotiate "pass-
through" agreements with the redevelopment
agency to avoid losing their share of the
increment to the agency. Tax increments are
bondable revenue streams that have leveraged
large amounts of local bond for all types of
public improvements.
VTP 2030
239
RIDES for Bay Area Commuters The Bay
Area's regional commute information service.
The RTIP has a four-year planning horizon and
RIDES supports carpool and vanpool options.
is updated every two yeai's.
Right-of-Way A strip of land occupied or
RTP—Regional Transportation Plan A multi-
intended to be occupied by certain transporta
modal blueprint to guide the region's trans
tion and public use facilities, such as roadways,
portation development for a 20-year period.
railroads, and utility lines.
Updated every two to three years, it is based on
Roadway Pricing "Road pricing" is an umbrella
phrase that covers aU charges imposed on those
who use roadways. The term includes such tra
projections of growth and travel demand cou
pled with financial assumptions. Required by
State and Federal law.
ditional revenue sources as fuel taxes and
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan Plan
license fees as well as charges that vary with
developed by the VTA to guide the development
time of day, the specific road used, and vehicle
of bicycle facOities in order to promote safe and
size and weight.
convenient bicycling throughout the comrty. It
RTD—Regional Transit Database MTC is
developing a public transportation database that
also provides coordination of facilities that cross
jurisdictional boundai'i'es.
encompasses seven major transit operators in
SB-45—Senate Bill 45 Governor Wilson signed
the Bay Area: AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid
SB-45 into law at the end of the 1997 legislative
Transit (BART), Central Contra Costa Transit,
session. This legislation consolidated several
Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, VTA, and San
State transportation funding programs into
Francisco Muni. The database will include each
three funding programs and devolved State
operator's routes, schedules, and stop locations.
transportation programming responsibility to
RTIP—Regional Transportation Improvement
Program A list of proposed transportation
projects submitted to the CTC by the regional
transportation plarming agency (for the Bay
Area— MTC), as a request for State funding.
The individual projects are first proposed by
local jurisdictions, then submitted by the CMA
to the regional agency, and then submitted by
240
the regional agency for submission to the CTC.
Valley Transportation Authority
the county and MPO level. Funds consolidated
by SB-45 include the Flexible Congestion Relief
(FCR), Transit Capital Improvement (TCI),
Trmisportation Systems Management(TSM)
and Regional Traffic Signalization and
Operations Program (RTSOP) Programs.
GLOSSARY
SCCRTC—Santa Cruz County Regional
Section 5311 FTA funds available for rural/
Transportation Commission The SCCRTC
intercity bus projects includmg purchases of
consists of ten members representing the Santa
buses and related equipment, and bus opera
Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the four
tions in rural areas.
cities, the Transit District Board, and a non-
voting member of Caltrans. One of the
Conmiission's primary roles is to distribute
vai'ious tjrpes of State and Federal funds to
transportation projects throughout the county.
The Commission also conducts long-range
planning activities, including the RTF.
SHOPP—State Highway Operations and
Protection Plan A program created by State
legislation that includes State liighway safety
and rehabilitation projects, seismic retrofit
projects, landscaping, some operational
improvements, and bridge replacement. SHOPP
is a four-year program of projects adopted sepa
Section 5307 Funds provided through FTA
rately from the STIP cycle. Both new (Prop.
through a complex formula. These funds are not
Ill) and old State.gas tax revenues and Federal
available for operating assistance in Urbanized
funds are the basis for funding tliis program.
Areas (UZAs) with a population over 200,000;
The legislature and governor have made
however, they can be used for preventive main
seismic retrofit the State's highest priority and
tenance piu-poses. Additionally, m UZAs with
in practice have used other STIP monies for
populations greater than 200,000, 1 percent of
these projects.
the UZA formula funds are to be spent on tran
SJC—Mineta San Jase international Airport
sit enhancements, which mclude rehabilitation,
(sometimes referred to as SJIA) The airport
coimections to parks, signage, pedestrian and
sei-ving the Santa Clara Valley area. It is a self-
bicycle access and enhanced access for those
persons with disabflities, and 1 percent must be
supporting enterprise, owned and operated by
the City of San Jose.
spent on security.
Smart Corridor A Smart Corridor is one where
Section 5309 This includes both discretionary
and formula transit capital funds provided
through the FTA. New rail starts and extensions
are funded through this program, which oper
ates through earmarking at the congressional
level. Other categories are fixed guideway mod
ernization (formula based), and bus and bus
various public agencies' traffic management
activities are coordinated to more effectively
manage traffic in that corridor. These are
typically acliieved using advanced technologies
or ITS, while partnerships between jurisdictions
are necessary to develop procedures and
measures for coordination.
facilities (discretionary).
VTP 2030
241
SMCTA—San Mateo County Transportation
according to population and 2) 50 percent are
Authority Tlie SMCTA is an independent
distributed on a basis proportional to operator
agency formed to administer the proceeds of
revenues in the region for the prior year. The
a countywide half-cent sales tax measure
Bay Ai-ea region usually receives about 38 per
approved by voters in June 1988. The tax wU
cent of State STA funds.
expire on December 31, 2008. The measure
included a specific expenditure plan with a
broad spectrum of projects and programs,
including Galtrain upgrades and improvements,
Station Areas Locations immediately proximate
to rapid transit stations that already serve or
will serve as central elements in a transit-orient
ed development (TOD).
highway and street projects, 20 percent alloca
tion for local streets and roads and paratransit
STIP—State Transportation improvement
service for people with disabilities. The
Program The STIP is a multi-year plamiing and
Transportation Authority also has allocated
expenditure plan adopted by the CTC for the
fundhig for transportation systems management
State Transportation System, and is updated in
programs, aimed at reducing traffic through
even-numbered years. The STIP is composed of
various means,including funding for a
the approved RTlPs and the Galtrans ITIP. The
countywide bicycle map.
2000 STIP is a four-year program. New State
SRTP—Short Range Transit Plan This docu
legislation passed in 2000 vrill extend the STIP
timeframe to a five-year program.
ments the VTA's on-gomg transit development
and planning process for a ten-year planning
STP—Surface Transportation Program A
horizon. It is used to support projects in the
flexible funding program established by ISTEA.
RTF and VTP.
Many mass transit and highway projects are
eligible for funding under this program. Ten
STA—State Transit Assistance Provides fund
ing for mass transit, transit coordination projec
tion and transportation planning. Half of the
percent of the projects in this program must be
transportation enhancement projects, and ten
percent must be safety projects.
revenues budgeted for the PTA are appropriat
242
ed to STA. STA apportionments to regional
SVITS—Silicon Valley ITS Program Expanded
transportation planning agencies (MTC in the
partnership formed to implement the Silicon
Bay Area region) are determined by two formu
Valley Smart Gorridor project to work toward
las: 1) 50 percent of funds are distributed
implementing three additional ITS projects in
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Santa Clara aird southern Alameda County.
upgrades, Vasona LRT to Winchester, and
The original Smart Corridor was focused on the
Fremont-South Bay Commuter Rail.
1-880 and SR 17 corridor.
TDA—Transportation Development Account
TAC—^Technical Advisory Committee An advi
Created in 1972, this account receives 1/2 cent
sory committee to the VTA that is responsible
of the 6-cent Statevnde sales tax. The 1/2 cent
for overseeing the technical work of the VTA
Is apportioned to the county of origin according
staff and developing recommendations to the
to the amount of sales tax generated by that
Board of Directors on projects and programs.
county, and allocated by MTC to the county's
TCM—^Transportation Control Measure A
measure intended to reduce pollutant emissions
from motor veliicles. Examples of TCMs include
programs to encourage ridesharmg or public
transit usage, city or county trip reduction
ordinances, and the use of cleaner-burning fuels
in motor vehicles. MTC has adopted specific
TCMs,in compliance with the Federal and State
Clean Air Acts.
eligible applicants. In Santa Clara County, the
transit agency is the only eligible applicant for
Article 4 allocations. In addition to Article 4,
allocations from TDA are also made under
Article 4.5 for community and pai'atransit serv
ices. This provision allows MTC to allocate up to
5 percent of the total TDA allocation for Santa
Clara County for these types of services, which
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
claims for ADA pai'atransit seraces.
TCRP—California Governor's 2000 Traffic
Additionally, Article 3 funds (4 percent of the
Congestion Relief Program A program estab
total) are allocated amiually for bicycle/pedes
lished in 2000 to provide $2 billion in funding
trian projects, which are nominated by the VTA.
for traffic relief and local street and road
maintenance projects throughout California.
Specific transit and highway projects were
identified to receive some funding from this
plan mcludmg 1-680 HOV lanes, US 101
vidderung to accommodate SR 85 direct HOV
connectors in San Jose, SR 85AJS 101 direct
HOV connectors in Mountain View and San
Jose, I-880/Coleman Avenue mterchange
improvements, BART to San Jose, Caltrain
TDM—^Transportation Demand Management
The purpose of TDM is to increase the efficien
cy of existing roadway systems by reducing the
demand for vehicular travel. TDM strategies and
initiatives are multimodal and aimed at reducing
peak-hour travel demands. Example TDM
strategies include carpooling or vanpooling,
flexible work hours, teleconunuting, parking
controls, and use of alternative transportation
modes such as transit.
VTP 2030
243
TE—^Transportation Enhancements Program
the fee are used to implement projects and
VTA established the TE with the Santa Clai'a
programs to reduce air pollution from motor
TEA funds. Approximately 37 percent of the
vehicles. Health and Safety Code Section 44241
TEA funds from TEA-21 will be dedicated to
limits expenditure of these funds to specified
Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program
eligible transportation control measures (TCMs)
projects and the remainder will be available for
that are included in BAAQMD's 1991 Clean Air
projects in aU TEA funding categories.
Plan, developed and adopted pursuant to the
TEA—^Transportation Enhancement Activities
ISTEA provided for a ten percent set-aside of
each state's ST? allocation to be used for TEA
projects above and beyond normal capital
improvements. Enhancement funds must be
1988. BAAQMD manages 60 percent of the
funds via a regional discretionary program. The
remaining 40 percent are returned to each
county based on aimual vehicle registrations.
used for elements of a project that have a direct
TIP—TransportaHon Improvement Program A
relationship to the intermodal transportation
federally required document produced by a
system and fit one or more of 12 activities
regional transportation planning agency(MTC
categories described m TEA-21.
in the Bay Area) that states investment priori
TEA-21—^Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century TEA-21 is the successor legisla
tion to ISTEA. Congress enacted TEA-21 in
mid-1997. The legislation covers the six-year
period 1997/98 to 2002/03, and extends and
ties for trairsit and transit-related improve
ments, mass transit guideways, general aviation,
and liighways. The TIP is the MTC's principal
means of implementing long-term plamiing
objectives through specific projects.
expands many of the funding programs devel
TLC—Transportation Livable Communities
oped under ISTEA.
Program MTC created a new regional discre
Telecommuting A system of working at home or
at an off-site workstation with computer facilities
that link to the worksite.
tionary funding program called TLC with some
of the TEA funds. Sponsors of projects must
apply directly to MTC for these funds. Funds
are to be used for cities to help them develop
TFCA—^Transportation Fund for Clean Air
transportation-related projects aimed at
TFGA funds ai'e generated by a $4.00 surcharge
improving quality of life.
on vehicle registrations. The funds generated by
244
requirements of the California Clean Air Act of
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
TMC—^Traffic Management Center TMCs help
often been used to subsidize the construction of
in the real-time management of traffic, including
convention centers and downtown improve
monitoring and controlling roadway access,
ments.
responding to and managing incidents, rerout
ing trafOc, and communicating and coordinating
with the public and the media. They perform
these functions with advanced ITS technology
such as sophisticated sensors; data fusion,
information processing, and communications
Transit Passenger service provided to the public
along established routes. Pai'atransit is a variety
of smaller, often flexibly scheduled and routed
transit services serving the needs of persons
that standard transit would serve with difficulty
or not at all.
equipment; and technology to automate routine
decision-making and other activities.
TOS—^TraKic Operations System A system
made up of various ITS components that
improve and monitor traffic operations for an
area. Components typically include surveillance
(loop detectors, GGTV, etc.), monitoririg
equipment, highway advisory radio, changeable
message signs (CMS), and ramp metering.
Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented
development(TOD)is characterized by a com
pact layout that encomages use of public transit
sei-vice and walking or bicycling instead of auto
mobile use for many trip purposes. "Typically, it
places higher-density development within an
easy walking distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a
public transit station or stop and is accessible
by all other modes. It is compact, typically
Transient Occupancy Taxes These taxes are
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, and has a transit
also knovm as hotel taxes and are charged for
stop or station as an activity center.
any overnight stay at a commercial lodging.
They typically run between 8 and 15 percent
but may be higher. Some proportion of the
transient occupancy tax revenues is sometimes
dedicated for convention and visitor promotions
or special projects. The balance is usually paid
into the county's General Fund. The revenue
stream from these taxes is bondable and has
Transit Streets VTA is considering developing a
network of "transit streets" which would include
thoroughfares where resources could be direct
ed to enhance transit operations, the pedestrian
environment, passenger waiting facilities, and
pedestriari comiections between stops and
activity centers. This is supportive of the GDT
program.
VTP 2030
245
TransLink The Bay Area's regional electronic
fai'e payment collection system.
Travlnfo The Bay Area's advanced traveler
information system.
TRP—Trans Response Plan The TRP concept
creates a multimodal transportation response
that is integrated into overall emergency
response for the nine-county Bay Area.
ments of urban plaiming, architecture, and land
scape architecture.
UA—Urbanized Area An area defmed by the
United States Census Bureau that includes one
or more incorporated cities, villages and towns
(or "central place") and the adjacent densely
settled surrounding territories (or "urban
fringe") that together have a minimum of 50,000
ISM—^Transportation Systems Management
persons. The urban frmge generally consists of
The use of low-cost capital inrprovements to
contiguous territory having a density of at least
iircrease the efficiency of road transportation
1,000 persons per square mile. UZAs do not
and transit services. Sometimes the term is also
conform to congressional districts or any other
applied to techniques used to reduce the
political boundaries, but are set by the Census
demand for travel in an area. Other TSM meas
Bureau on demographics, numbers and defini
ures are engineering-oriented, such as timing
tions. Non-Urbanized Areas are demographically
traffic signals to smooth the flow of traffic, and
rural in population.
ramp meteiing, which regulates the entrance
of vehicles onto a freeway, thus increasing the
efficiency of the freeway.
Universe of Projeete The compilation of proj
Vanpooling Commuting in a 7- to 15-passenger
van, with driving undertaken by conunuters.
Some portion of the van's ownership and
operating cost is usually paid by the riders on a
ects in the VTP 2030 which were proposed by
monthly basis. The van may be privately owned,
mterested agencies aird the general public. The
employer-sponsored with the company owning
projects proposed by mdividual cities and the
and maintaining the vehicle, or it may be
county required City Council or Board approval
provided through a private company that
prior to submittal to the VTA for inclusion in
leases vehicles.
the plan.
VHT/P-T—Vehicle Hours of Travel per Person
Urban Design The attempt to give form, m
Trip A measiue of the average amount of time
terms of both beauty and function, to selected
travelers spend getting to their destination.
urban areas or to whole cities. Urban design is
concerned with the location, mass, and design
246
of various uihan components and combines ele
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Vision A brief description of what we want the
pedestrian facilities, and land use.
region to be for the next generation. A vision
VTP—Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan
statement should be expansive and inspirational.
A 25-year plan developed by VTA which pro
VMT—Vehicle Miles of Travel A standard
vides policies and programs for transportation
areavride measure of travel activity, calculated
in the Santa Clara Valley including roadways,
by multiplying average trip length by the total
transit, ITS, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, and
number of trips.
VTA—Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority The Santa Clara Valley
Ti'ansportation Authority (VTA)is an independ
land use. The VTP is updated every tlu-ee to
four years to coincide with the update of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
ZEB—Zero Emission Bus The VTA's plan to
ent special district responsible for bus and light
purchase and deploy a zero emission bus fleet.
rail operations, congestion management,
ZEB is defined as an urban bus certified to zero
specific highway improvement projects, and
exhaust emissions of any pollutant under any
countywide transportation planning. As such,
and all conditions and operations. This includes
VTA is both a transit provider, and a multimodal
hydrogen-powered fuel ceU buses, electric
transportation planning organization involved
trolley buses, and battery electric buses.
with ti'ansit, higliways and roadways, bikeways.
VfP 2030
247
Acknowledgments
Project Staff
Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning
Manager, Development and Congestion
Management, Project Manager
Adam Burger, Transportation Planner
Ya Wang, Transportation Planner III
Contributing Staff
Gelia Chung,Senior Transportation Planner
Casey Emoto, Transportation Engineering
Manager
George Naylor,Principal Transportation
Planner
Jeff Qin,Senior Transportation Planner
Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning
Manager, Grants and Programmhig
Julie Render, Deputy Director, Transit
Planning and Programming
Steve Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner
Eugene Meada, Transportation Planner III
Mike Arc, Deputy Director, Service Planning
Bill Capps, Manager, Service Planning
Consultant Staff
Moore lacofairo Goltsmaii, Inc.(MIG)
Berkeley, Ccdifomia
248
Valley Transportation Authority
' S' A
tl 1 A
C I A B
A
« Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
Son Jose, Colifornio 951-34-1906
408.321.3000
-
.
TDD only 408.321.2330
v/ww.vta.org
CLARA
RECD JUN 2 3 2005
MEMORANDUM
Writer's Direct Telephone: (408) 321-5556
TO:
, Interested Parties
FROM:
Kurt Evans
DATE:
June 16, 2005
SUBJECT:
Valley Transportation Plan(VTP)2030
Government Affai^^altSg^
For your information, I am attaching a copy of Valley Transportation Plan(VTP)2030, which is
an update of Santa Clara County's long-range, multi-modal, countrywide transportation plan.
VTP 2030 establishes a framework for the Board ofDirectors ofthe Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)to make key transportation investment decisions, and provides
strategic direction for VTA's involvement in land-use and other livability issues. The plan
includes the following elements:
> Vision, goals and objectives.
> Revenue projections-for existing transportation funding sources consistent with the San
Francisco Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTF).
> Description ofthe capital investments and services to be pursued.
> Programs to continue and expand VTA's involvement in land-use and livability
initiatives.
> Programs to better link transportation and land-use decision-making.
> Near-term implementation tasks and future transportation studies to be undertaken.
VTP 2030 includes 10 program areas:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. County expressways.
3. Local streets and county roads.
4. Public transit.
5. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
6. Soundwalls.
7. Pavement management.
8. Bicycle projects.
9. Landscape restoration and graffiti removal.
10. Pedestrian and livable communities.
3331 North First Street • Son Jose, CA 95134-1906 • Administrotion 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
if
It is important to note that VTP 2030 is a long-range transportation plan; it is not a programming
document. It does not set priorities or schedules for when projects will be implemented.
The adoption of VTP 2030 enables VTA to explore the full range of options for moving forward
with its overall investment program. In a separate process, the VTA Board ofDirectors and its
partners will determine expenditure programs for the VTP 2030 program areas, and affirm them
in short-range programming documents. Along these lines, the VTA Board has already begun
the process for developing a transit capital investment program that includes the projects
specified in the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program.
I hope VTP 2030 will be useful to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at(408)321-5556.
Summary of Proceedings
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Augusna,iuuj
* 66. Considered recommendations relating to weighing and measuring devices and price
verification systems, and took the following actions:
a. Waived reading and adopted Ordinance No. NS—300.719(preliminary)
repealing Division B30 and enacting a new Division B30 of the Santa Clara
County Ordinance Code relating to fees for weights and measures devices and
price verification system registration certificate.
Vote: Gage: Yes Alvarado: Yes McHugh: Yes Beall: Yes
Kniss: Yes
b. Adopted Resolution establishing annual registration fee for inspection of price
verification systems.
* 67. Considered recommendations relating to Comprehensive County Expressway Planning
Study Implementation Plan, and took the following actions:
a. Accepted Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study.
b. Approved Study findings relating to need for capacity and operational
improvements on expressway system.
c. Approved Study findings relating to need for bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, sound walls, and landscaping on expressway system.
d. Approved recommended Funding Strategy relating to Capital Improvements and
Maintenance/Operations.
e. Directed Administration to pursue "Next Steps" outlined in Executive Summary.
f. Directed Administration to forward Implementation Plan to Valley
Transportation Authority(VTA)for inclusion in Valley Transportation Plan
2020(VTP2020)2003/2004 update.
22
s
a»
m
ixa>.
i*
r/
/1i!r
tf»
m
*fe
09
ISasam
3
lifc
®s
t
n^K^m
SANTA
ClABA
Wm^o Valley Transportation Authority
f
2005 Board of Directors
Joe Pii'zynsla
Chauperson
Nora Campos
Jamie Matliews
Council Member
Council Member
Coimcil Member-
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
Forrest Williams
Robert Livengood
Town of Los Gatos
Cmdy Chavez
Vice Chairperson,
Vice Mayor
Coimcil Meinber
Coimcil Member-
City of San Jose
City of Milpitas
City of San Jose
Liz Kniss
Dean J.Chu
David Cortese
Chan-, Supervisor
County of Santa Clara
Mayor
City of Suimyvale
Don Gage
Supei-visor
County of Santa Clara
David Casas
Dolly Sandavol
Ken Yeager
Coimcil Member
Coimcil Member
Dennis Kennedy
Mayor
City of Cupertino
City of San Jose
City of Morgan Hill
Peter McHugh
Super-visor
County of Santa Clara
Breene Ken-
Council Member
City of San Jose
Ron Gonzales
Mayor
City of Los Altos
Mayor
City of San Jose
Board Member Alternates
Mayor Pro Tern
Town of Los Altos Hills
Ex-Officio Members
James T. Beall, Jr.
Super-visor
County of Santa Clara
Jolm McLemore
Santa Clara County
to MTC
Santa Clara Goimty Cities
Association Representative
Representative to MTC
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Peter M. Crpolla
General Manager
Carolyn M, Gonot
Chief Development Officer
Chris Augenstein
Transportation Planning Manager
Valley
Transportation
Plan 2030
February 2005
SANTA
CLARA
Valley Transportation Authority
Pait ofevery tnp you take'
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Foreword
v
FOUNDATIONS; PLAN WITH VISION
^
Looking txj Tbraorrow
4
Influences of GrowUi
6
VTP 2030 Goals and Objectives
14
Financial Foimdation
24
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The Planning and Fundiirg Process
40
42
CapitallnvestmentProgram
46
Subarea Analysis
48
VTP 2030 Program Areas
86
Highway Program
87
Expressway Program
'
Local Streets arid County Roads Progranr
Chapters
Chopter4
92
97
Tr ansit Services aird Pr ograms
103
Transportatiorr Systems Oper atiorrs and Management Piogranr
129
Bicycle Pr ogram
138
Livable Communities and Pedestrian Programs
142
Systemwide Performance Results
143
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Tr ansportation and Land Use Integration
1S2
154
Trarrsportafiort and Land Use Irrvestrnent Strategy
168
Partnerships for Livability
176
IMPLEMENTATION
Program Area Allocations arrd Fundurg Issues
184
186
Near-Term Implementatiorr Activities
188
VTP Development Process
200
Appendix
206
Glossary
226
Acknowledgements
248
VTP 2030
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Foreword
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 is the long-range countywide
transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA),in its role as the appointed Congestion Management Agency(GMA)for Santa
Clara County, is responsible for preparing and periodically updating the countywide
transportation plan.
VTP 2030 is a plan. It is a statement of the programs and projects the Board of
Directors would like to see built, and for which the Board may want to pursue State
■
and/or Federal funds,\vithin the timeframe of the plan. It is intended to provide a
planning and policy framework for developing and delivering transportation projects
and programs over the next 25 years (2005 to 2030). The Plan identifies existing and
future transportation-related needs, considers aU travel modes,links land use and
transportation funding and decision-making, examines alternative courses of action,
and identifies what can be accomplished with the projected available funding for
projects and programs.
Revenue projections and project cost estimates presented in the Plan are shown in
2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections provided
by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates
developed m 2003.
VTP 2030 is not a programming document. It does not mclude precise schedules
for unplementation and does not make assumptions regarding financing costs that may
be needed to implement specific projects in specific years. Beginning in late 2004, the
VTA Board began development of an Expenditure Plan to in\plement the 2000 Measure
A Transit Program. This process is expected to conclude m Spring/Summer 2005
with the adoption of a VTA Long-Term Ti-ansit Capital Investment Program. The
Expenditure Plan wiU provide guidance for future Board actions that may include
seeking an additional source of funding for transit or the re-evaluation of cmrent
project priorities.
VTP 2030
nn
■s
' '=1*^ '♦
-S'
■
L I
I
-ira. JS.. uiA,,-;i^v 13
~^®S£r"
■m^T.
■ _
" ms
ii
-i-.
1 V-i ■
.s^
V^a ^
.
'^. Wi
a»
IV'i
\.
■
)P^
K •
x'
•'
. . \V
f'X,'
'■^Sr
r
%
4.(11 •■
»
•K
A..
iiL
V
<
,
,
2
Valley Transportation Authority
.■
, ■■— .;
fc'.
§
chapter 1 : FOUNDATIONS: PLAN WITH VISION
ilans ore visionary. They help us to
p;
\- -V
'
understand wheio ve ore, er^vision
\v'here v/e want to go, and icy out the
slops necessary to get llicre Successful
plans are founded on an understanding of
not only the vision and goals that the plan
is designed lo achieve, but also on the
Lookmg Lo Tomorrow
-
Influences ol Growth
4
6
issues that frame them and the' resources
available to achieve them. The Valley
\'TP 2030 Goals and"Objectives'
14
Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 is both
Financial Foimdatlon
24.
visionary and piagmatic—il affirms whal
we can do and raises the bar for what we
should do.
VTP 2030
3
Looking to Tomorrow
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir the blood, and probably will themselves
not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a
noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die."—DANIEL BURHAM
Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 was
ices necessary to make successful communities
developed in an especially challenging environ
and businesses. Notable examples include the
ment. The unprecedented economic hardships
1996 Measure B 1/2 cent sales tax funding a ten-
associated with the high-technology bubble
year, $1.63 billion capital program of Irighway
burst, and the growing State and Federal budget
and transit projects, and the 2000 Measure A 1/2
deficits, have raised questions about long-range
cent sales tax providing a 30-year multi-billion-
financial forecasts. These funding realities have
dollar capital program of transit projects. With
greatly affected VTA's operatmg and capital
the leadership and people of Santa Clara County
budget projections, and have introduced addi
working together, there is every reason to
tional uncertainty regarding the future
believe we can achieve what we set out to do.
resources available to provide for and maintain
a comprehensive multimodal transportation sys
tem in Santa Clara Valley. Added to this context
are the continuing pressures of population and
job growth in the county, and in the region, over
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),
Bicj'cle and Pedestrian Facilities, and Land Use.
It is mtended to demonstrate leadership and
the life of the plan.
vision in the planning and delivery of innovative
There is, however, plenty of reason for optimism,
transportation projects, programs, and strate
and our expectations of what we can achieve
gies. Moreover, VTP 2030 provides an opportu
should be high. Silicon Valley, centered in Santa
nity for the community and the VTA Board of
Clara County, is nationally and internationally
Directors to affinn an agenda for growth and
recognized as a center of entrepreneurship,
change that:
innovation, high techirology, and creative think-
• Balances transportation resomxes, plans theh
futm'e use, and effectively improves the exist
mg. This creative and innovative spirit is not iso
lated to software engineers and venture capital
ists—it is found in every facet of govenunent
and community too. Moreover, Santa Clara
County has distinguished itself as a leading "self-
help county." Its residents have a long and suc
cessful history of taxing themselves to pay for
and implement the programs, projects, and serv
4
VTP 2030 provides policies and programs to
guide investments in; Roadways, Transit,
Valley Transportation Authority
ing countywide roadway system
• Improves the operations of the county's road
ways and transit services
• Implements new technologies and manage
ment strategies to better operate, manage,
and maintain transportation systems
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
• Improves the relationship between transporta
tion and land use planning and decision-maMng
• Responds to a heightened awareness of the
Finally, while the trairsportation system has been
maturing, there is intense latent demand for
changes in land use patterns—in a sense, matur
importance of the links between transporta
ing them to better support existing and future
tion systems, open space preservation, air
investments in transportation infrastructure and
quality, urban form, and other quahty-of-life
services. Gro^vth is coming—and the ultimate
issues
form of that growth wiU determine if we succeed
• Creates a multimodal framework for improv
ing mobOity options throughout the county
The past three decades have seen the comple
in fully utilizing our investments in transporta
tion and urban infrastructure, or if we continue
to grow outwards, spreading our investment dol
lars ever thiniier over ever-increasing areas.
tion of numerous roadway projects including
new and expanded freeways, highways, and
Chapter 1 of the VTA's Valley Transportation
expressways, new and improved interchanges,
Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) examines the influences
and upgrades and improvements to arterial and
of growth in Santa Clara County, explores plan
local roadways. The transit system has been
goals and their context, and presents an outlook
expanded and enhanced to include 54 stations
for the resources anticipated to be available to
and 37 miles of light rail, a modernized bus
implement the plan during its 25-year time-
fleet, creative service plans, and new and
frame (2005 to 2030). Together, these sections
expanded commuter rail services. A countywide
lay a foundation for the broad an-ay of invest
network of bicycle trails and facilities that links
ments, services and programs that VTA and its
with regional facihties is taking shape, and more
partnermg agencies wiU work to put into place
recently, advances in teclmology ai'e catching
over the coming decades.
up with theory to allow the practical implemen
The following sections of Chapter 1 outline;
tation of "intelligent transportation systems."
As this plan indicates, these trends are project
• Influences of Growth—engine of change
• VTP 2030 Goals—^principles of change
ed to continue into the future with sustained
investments in multimodal transportation serv
ices and Infrastructure. However, while system
• Financial Foundation—^building blocks of
change
expansion is stUl a key element of this plan, the
The VTP 2030 vision provides an opportunity
VTP 2030 vision includes a shift toward
for the VTA Board and community to demon
enhanced utilization, better modal coordination
strate leadership in moving Santa Clara County
and integration, and better operations of the
to better times, and making it a better place to
existing transportation system.
live, work, and play.
VTP 2030
Influences of Growth
The population and land use data used in VTP
dors. This scenario is very much in line
2030 is derived from the Association of Bay Area
with VTA's own Community Design and
Governments (ABAG)Projections 2003.
Transportation (CDT) Program's framework of
Projections 2003 is based on a "Smart Growth"
growth focused in cores, corridors and station
scenario derived from work conducted region-
areas'—areas where major investments in trans
wide by ABAG during 2002 and 2003. ABAG
portation and urban infrastructure have already
projections have been questioned in the past
been made. An important note here is that these
because they were built primarily on historical
assumptions about new growth can only be
growth trends, and therefore tended to perpetu
realized thi'ough actions of local governments
ate the status quo growth patterns of sprawl and
with land use authority—concerted and deliber
decentralization in their forecasts.
Released during October 2003, this new
approach to forecasting, termed a "Network of
ate efforts ai-e needed to change land use
regulations to allow these new development pat
terns to emerge.
Neighborhoods," assumes much of the new
growth in the region will be focused in existing
Growth Trends
downtovm and main street areas, around transit
Although the high-technology bubble burst has
stations, and along major transportation corri-
greatly impacted the Silicon Valley economy over
the last few years, growth projections for popula
r'/
tion and jobs remain strong for the foreseeable
future. The advantages offered by Silicon Valley's
unique concentration of high-technology firms,
Tpy n
c f< n
world-reirowned Bay Area universities, a superb
\o
'
climate, and a highly educated workforce are
expected to continue to be strong attractive
forces for the area. ABAG growth projections
rj * /■
depict a robust economy continuing tlirbugh
t
r. O -
2030, with increases in the county's population
of 27 percent, and in job growth of 37 percent,
from 2005 levels. These numbers are significant;
they represent 31 percent of the total population
growth and 29 percent of total job growth
1. The Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program is
discussed in Chapter 3.
6
Valley TronsportaNon Authority
n c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
projected for the entire nine-county Bay Area
X-
region during the same time period.
As a major employment center within the region,
wc.
--
Santa Clara County will continue to retain signifi
cantly more jobs than employed residents. Over
the next 25 years, this imbalance will become
pronounced by a 37 percent increase in new
jobs, which is expected to exceed the increase in
employed residents by nearly 44,000. As a result,
i1^:
the need for labor from surrounding counties will
increase. Growth in net in-commuting is project
.aei'i»-vn
ed to continue over the next decade and then to
level off over the longer term.
Table T-1 Growth-Trends for Sdnta.Cldra County YsoosyiraosO)'
Santo Cjora County
2005
2030
% change
1.79 million
2.27 million
27%
Households
.6 million
.77 million
28%
Employed residents
.96 million
1.31 million
36%
1.09 million
1.48 million
37%
Jobs
Source: ABAG Projections 2003
Santa Clara County will continue to lead the Bay Area in number ofjobs and amount ofjob growth over the next 25 years, adding
nearly 396,000jobs—or 29% of totaljob growth—and 68% ofgrowth in high-technology jobsforecastfor the entire Bay Area region.
VTP 2030
Jobs and Housing 2030
Milpi^as
Palo Alto
ll
ountoi
Viewy
iJL
^v^jSunnyvGl
Santa
C ara
Son Jose
Cupertino
Lil
Sarotoga
Campbell
onte
Seren
Gotos
Moraan
Jobs
Households
Gilroy
Growth Patterns Within
area from the Peninsula to the East Bay. A shift
Santa Clara County
in the countywide pattern of growth is also antic
Over the nejct 25 years, substantial growth will
ipated, with a larger share of growth occurring in
occur in the northern parts of the county, in
the southern parts of the county. In particulai',
northern San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and
high rates of grovrth are projected for southern
Milpitas, in particular. This growth will continue
San Jose, Morgan Hill, and GOi-oy, as develop
the pattern of intensive development at the
ment accelerates m those areas.
southern end of San Francisco Bay, filling in the
8
Valley Transportation Authority
n c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Population Growth, 2045t2O30
Milpitas
Cl
Palo All
El \
ountain
View }
m
L^.^_^unnyvay2 3
JtS
/1 Santa
Caro
San Jose
Cupertino
Saratoga
Campb
onte
Seren
Gatos
Moraan
Households/ Year 2005
Households/ Year 2030
m
Gilroy
Population Growth
Santa Clara County's population is estimated to be
2.27 million by 2030, air increase of nearly 486,000
residents over today's (2005) population. About
two-thii'ds of Santa Clara Countj^'s population and
household growth over the next 25 years will
occur in San Jose, which will gain nearly 324,000
new residents and 107,000 new households. San
county, 22,800 in Milpitas, 21,500 in Suraiyvale,
13,600 in Gilroy, and 13,300 in Momrtain View.
Excluding north San Jose, the cities in the north
ern parts of the county represent about 21 per
cent of total county population growth. About 4
percent of countywide population growth is
expected in the southernmost comnrunities of
Gilroy and Morgan HiU.
Jose will remain the most populous jurisdiction
The highest rates of population growth are
Within the county, the largest city in the Bay Area
projected for San Jose at 34 percent, Milpitas at
region, and the third largest city in California. The
33 percent, Gilroy at 29 percent, Santa Clara at
next largest amounts of population growt.h are
28 percent, unincorporated county areas at 25
expected in Santa Clara with 30,000 new resi
percent, and Palo Alto at 20 percent.
dents, 26,000 in uiuncorporated areas of the
VTP 2030
Milpitas
b At
view
Sunnyva!
AIlos
Santa
Hills
Claro
Cupertino
San Jose
Saratoga
Campb
onte
Seren
Gofos
Moroan
h1
Jobs, Year 2005
Jobs, Year 2030
Job Growth
by the large combined job growth projected for
Despite the recent economic downturn,job
the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas,
growth in Santa Clara County is expected to be
strong over the next 25 years, increasing by 37
percent (or nearly 400,000) to 1.48 million jobs.^
Almost half of this growth in new jobs is projected
for San Jose. Most of these wili be higher-paying
jobs (about 271,000) related to the high-technology
industry. Job growth will also remain strong for
other cities in the northern part of the county:
36,000 new jobs in Sunnyvale; 33,000 in Santa
Clara; 20,000 in Milpitas; and 20,000 in Mountain
View. The continued strength of employment in
the northern parts of the county is highlighted
10
/ GilroyrV
Valley Transportation Authority
Mountain View, Cupertino, and Palo Alto,
totaling nearly 128,000 jobs and representing 32
percent of the total job growth in the comity. In
the southern parts of the county the workforce
will also expand significantly, by approximately
93 percent for Morgan HiU, and 62 percent for
Gilroy. Together, these two cities account for
over 26,000 new jobs, or nearly 6 percent of
total countywide job growth, not including the
substantial job growth expected m the southern
San Jose/Coyote Valley area.
•'Association of Bay Area Govcnmients (ABAG), Projections 2003.
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
Congestion and
Mobility Management
Table I -2 Pppulafion, Employment bnd Freevyay Capacity
The pursmt of economic growth means that
travel demand will continue to Increase
significantly over the next 25 years. Plans are
under way to expand roadway capacity to
accommodate more trips In the coming years,
but the ability to expand the roadway system to
;■ i
accommodate more vehicles Is approaching
*
practical limits. Moreover, adding roadway
.
"iji"
>'..V5
capacity essentially "Induces" more automobile
travel as people find the "cost" of driving (I.e.,
travel time) reduced, further aggravating the
f.
problem as new capacity Is quickly gobbled up.
Population
Tills Is one of the endemic problems of trans
Freeway
Jobs
Copociiy
portation planning associated with managing
roadway congestion: build It and they ivlll come.
The estimated 5.6 percent increase m freeway
f.fable". 15^3'Vehicle, Trips (AMPkaiMou-r)
capacity"from VTP 2030 roadway projects Is far
short of the percentage Increases In residents
600,000
and jobs. The widening gap between job and
population growth and roadway capacity expan
Diverted trips
TOTAL 546,891
Tolol AM Irips
TV!
53,048
500.000
sion means that a gi'owlng pool of commuters
TOTAL 394,571
will be unable to find room on the roads during
peak periods. By 2030, there Is a demand for
travel during the morning peak hour of nearly
300.000
550,000 vehicle trips. Over 50,000 of those trips
1
will not be able to travel during the morning
pecik hour due to congestion. One result of this
Is an even greater duration of congested condi
tions, as more drivers adjust their time of travel
100,000
to avoid the most heavily congested conunute
^Increased capacity = additional lane miles.
VTP 2030
11
hours. The enonnous pent-up demand for road
Table 1-4'traffic Growth
.
(MlPeak ffqur Vgliicla MMqs-of'IiymKl)
way space will limit the ability to significantly
reduce congestion over the 25-year planning
horizon of VTP 2030.
Arlerial
5.000,000 —
k' ' 1
iM
TOTAU 4,785,245
Expressway
Freeway
The bottom line is that no matter how much we
expand and refine our roadway systems, we will
never completely eliminate congestion; nor
would we want to in all areas, since some level of
congestion—for example, in downtown business
TOTAU 3,066,126
districts or along main streets—is an indicator of
a healthy economj'. This isn't to suggest that
roadway improvements are not necessary. Quite
417,748
■TOi.
2,164,650
1.000.000
■y>.
the opposite: roadways are—and wiU continue to
be—a critical piece of delivering a balanced and
integrated transportation system in Santa Clara
County.
2000
2030
With diminishing options for expansion,
greater emphasis must be placed on throughput
enhancement tlmough systems management.
Mobility management strategies and techniques
can improve community livability and help shift
person trips from driving alone to other modes
such as shared ride, transit, biking and walldng.
VTP 2030 must thus accept and respond to these
realities and opportunities. Responses include:
• Alternative transportation modes and changes
in land uses and development patterns. These
m
are necessary to provide travel alternatives to
driving alone in the peak hours. A primary
obstacle to managing peak-hour congestion is
m
the high level of demand at the fringes of the
morning and evening peak periods. Strategies
that add peak-period roadway capacity wUl
12
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
increase peak-hour throughput but will not
relieve congestion in key corridors.
Transit improvements in congested corridors
to increase transit mode share by providing an
attractive alternative to driving alone in heavy
traffic. However, transit travel times need to be
competitive with automobile travel times. As
roads become more congested, transit service
is also impacted, and ways to maintain and
improve transit speeds become critical.
Transportation system management strate
gies and the implementation of new technolo
• Land uses and development patterns that
support transit, walking and bike trips. Highquality, irrfiU developments in downtowns,
arormd transit stations, and along main
streets and major transportation corridors
should be priorities of local jurisdictions.
These are areas where tremendous invest-'
rnents in urban and transportation infrastruc
ture have already been made, and where
changes in land uses will yield the greatest
mobility and livabUity benefits.
Urrderstanding these realities helps define a
gies. These strategies wiU have increasingly
framework for VTA and local jrrrisdictions to
important roles in future transportation plans
take actions that can improve travel conditions
due to their cost-effectiveness m improvhrg
aird the quality of life for the county's residents
roadway conditions, and to the high costs and
and workers. The next section discusses the
limited benefits of improving the transporta
goals and objectives associated with VTP 2030,
tion system through expansion. Effective sys
and how they can make a difference in sustaining
tems management requires the completion of
and improving the quality of life and economic
an intercomrected, multimodal system that
health of the region.
provides travel options for all types of trips.
VTP 2030
13
VTP 2030 Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives are fuiidamental compo
VTA Vision and Mission Statements
nents of the planning process. They help to
In 1995, VTA adopted the following Vision and
define an overall vision and the steps necessary
Mission Statements:
to move forward in attainment of that vision.
VTP 2030 is intended to fulfill several comple
mentary goals established by VTA,including
VTA's overarching Vision and Mission
Statements and its Strategic Plan Goals. This
section presents these goals within the context
of the ^TP 2030 planning process.
Vision Statement
The vision of the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA)is to
provide a transportation system that allows
anyone to go anywhere in the region easily
and efficiently.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley
w
I
M
!.?>
i!
Transportation Authority (VTA)is to provide
the public with a safe and efficient county-
wide transportation system. The system
increases access and mobility, reduces
congestion, improves the environment, and
supports economic development, thereby
enhancing the quality of life.
hi addition, the VTA Board of Directors speci
fied four key policy directions and adopted a
fifth related to the 1996 Measure B Program in
1999. Those policies are as follows:
• Integrate land use and transportation
• Use aU transportation options
• Create safe, convenient, reliable and
mi
i
high-quality bus/rail operation
• Build a regional perspective
• In partnership with the County of Santa
Clara, implement the 1996 Measure B
Transportation Improvement Program
14
Valley TransportaHon Authority
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
VTA Strategic Plan Goals
VTA recently completed a review of its services
and programs and formulated recommendations
to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, and
to enhance its ability to continue providing
quality services and programs to its customers
within the context of current Board policy, the
36!
region's current econornic realities, and financial
constraints. Subsequently, previous Strategic
Plan goals and objectives were revised and
expanded to include recommendations from
a Business Review Team" and an Ad Hoc
Financial Stability Committee.'"
These goals and objectives, presented below,
were reviewed and approved by the "VTA Board
on November 7, 2003.
Maintain Financial Stability
• Secure adequate levels of funding to sustain
the existing transportation system and secure
new fund sources for system expansion.
• Increase the transit system's operating recov
ery ratio, with a target of 20-25 percent, by
adding new riders, increasing the average
fare per passenger through a multi-year fare
policy and aimual or biennial fare reviews,
and improving cost efficiencies.
• Ensure timely maintenance, replacement
and/or rehabilitation of essential capital assets.
• Implement new capital programs only when
4. Composed of members of the business community and VTA
management and staff.
operations and maintenance costs have been
identified and revenue sources determined.
Ensure the Reserve Fund policy will sustain
sufficient future cash flow through changing
economic cycles.
Maintain a proactive State and Federal
legislative program to ensure policies and
funding allocations serve the needs of VTA's
mission and diverse communities.
Pursue joint development opportunities that
result in both ridership and development
revenues for VTA.
Ensure that expenditures of 2000 Measure A
funds are consistent with priority projects
and seivices as identified by the Board of
Directors.
5. Composed of VTA Board members and community members.
VTP 2030
15
service standards, making necessary modifi
cations to assure efficiency and effectiveness
of transit service, and expand seiwice as
allowed by financial resources.
m
• Develop plans, secm'e environmental clear
ance and begin implementation of priority
2000 Measure A transit projects as funds
become available.
i m
• Complete the 1996 Measure A transit and
highway projects as local. State and Federal
funding allows.
integrate Transportation and Land Use
• Continue to work with the cities aird County
to improve the relationship between land use
and transportation decisions,,and advocate
for the implementation of the principles and
practices contained in the Community Design
Improve Mobility and Access
• Provide transportation facilities and services
that support and enhance the qualitj' of
life for Santa Glara County residents and the
continued health of Santa Clara County's
economy.
• Manage congestion by focusing investments
to address the transportation system's great
• Develop and enhance partnerships with the
cities and the County to ensure adoption of
Transit-Oriented Development(TOD) plans
and policies along existing and future transit
corridors.
• Partner with the private sector and the cities
est roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian
to develop projects at VTA station areas to
intensify residential, commercial, and retail
needs.
uses.
• Increase the use of commute alternatives,
especially in defined key cores, transporta
tion corridors and station areas.
• Continually evaluate services through the
Service Management Plan, using revised
16
and Transportation Program.
Valley Transportation Authority
• Tlrrough the VTP 2030 Plan, strive to proxdde
certainty to cities and private developers that
priority transit projects upon which cities
base land use decisions will be implemented
in a timely marmer.
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
mmm
Enhance Customer Focus
• Increase ridership at least 1 to 3 percent
annually.
>*v
• Maintain a high level of transit system
.'V
c
reliability.
v.". j
:
• Better communicate transit service informa
tion to customers and improve customer
information resources as neai- and long-term
opportunities arise, mcluding real-time
I
i
'n
I
f
IB
is S
route and schedule information, on-line trip
4fc-r,
planning, and e-commerce for VTA passes
n
and tickets.
r
V
7A
• Maintain a proactive media relations presence
to promote services and provide awareness of
VTA benefits to the community.
• Continue to enhance transit service in order
to make VTA the travel mode of first choice.
• Ensm'e that comprehensive public participa
tion programs are a key element in developmg transportation system plans and projects.
Increase Employee Ownership
• Continue to involve employees in the refine
ment of VTA business practices, such as tran
sit routes and schedule planning.
VTP 2030 Goo! and Objecfives
The overarching goal established for VTA's longrange planning is: "To provide transportation
facilities and services that support and
enhance the county's continued success by
fostering: A high quality of lifefor Santa
Clara County's residents, and ccmtinued
health ofSanta Clara County's economy."
While this goal remains the backbone of
• Continue to respond to key areas of organiza
tional improvement identified by employees.
comitywide long-range transportation planning,
• Continue to work with employee labor repre
objectives;
sentatives to develop strategies and to imple
ment additional operational efficiencies.
• Foster an environment that demonstrates
VTA is an employer of choice.
VTP 2030 establishes the folio-wing supporting
• Pro-vide a policy framework in which the
investments made in transportation infra
structure and services are matched -with iand
use policy commitments from local jurisdic-
VTP 2030
17
Aging ofPopulation and the' '
tions that fully support those investments and
Impact on PamtransU
'
-
encourage optimal utilization and effectiveness
of all transportation modes
The 65 to 80+ population will nearly triple between 2005 ' "
• Provide a balanced transportation system that
' dnd-2030. These individuals will need health care, social, '.
supports implementation of aU modes of travel
shdppin'g and other human services, including Transportation.'
VTA anticipates that a'large percentage of'peopje' BO+'will
register for paratransit services, significantly increasing ; ,
demand over current levels. To the extent that traditional'trapsit4
can diversify and meet more of the needs'of these individuals,.
the demand for paratransit service as we kriow it Today can
• .be'iocused on those needirig if most. •
Table 1-5 Population by Age
_ •
,,
• -
• Provide projects, programs, and policies that
develop and foster proactive partnerships
between VTA and local jurisdictions
• Provide projects, programs, and policies that
encourage and support community vitality,
and economic and social prosperity
• Provide a long-range plarming framework that
supports and implements VTA's Strategic
Goals and Objectives
.Clara
Context of VTP 2030 Goals
The above goals and objectives are intended to
2030
500.000
provide overarching prmciples for VTA in the
planning process for VTP 2030. They relate to
400.000
building and maintaining a multimodal trans
300.000
and a high quality of life for residents and work
portation system that fosters a healthy economy
ers. VTP 2030 aims to achieve this by providing;
200.000
• Relief from congestion
• Better facilities and semces for off-peak trips
100.000
0-W
35-49
50-64
65-79
• Attractive travel choices
• Services for a diverse population
• Transportation for vibrant communities
• Economic dividends of transportation
investment
18
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
Relief from Congestion
work trips. Moreover, about 43 percent® of the
Time spent in traffic is time lost. Delays caused
county's population is not part of the work force
by incidents, construction and inadequate
transportation system capacity aggravate
drivers and passengers and make it harder to
VISION
(cMdren, seniors, students, etc.) and many of
these non-work trips are made during off-peak
hours. Non-work based trips accounted for about
fulfill family, work and community commit
three-quarters of the county's daily trips.®
ments. The package of multimodal programs
This underscores the importance of providing
and projects in VTP 2030 is intended to provide
transportation facilities and services for both
a range of mobility and livability improvements.
peak and off-peak trip-making. Future planning
Facilitating Both Peak and Non-Peak Trips
gestion pricing, TDM programs, and the develop
Transportation plaiming generally focuses on
ment of a well-designed, compact, mixed-use
must consider a range of options including con
managing peak-hour demand for the trip to
urban form where housing, schools, worksites,
work, and the improved transit service and
restaurants and stores are located close together.
roadway improvements described in VTP 2030
strives to do that. But people make many other
types of trips tlu-oughout the day and evening to
enjoy the region's activities and conduct their
daily lives: high-tech workers may take evening
college courses or pick up children after school
1. MTC 2000 Regional Household Survey Data
2. ABAG Projections 2003
3. VTA Goimtjnvide Models
ife tp'bl e 1 's6.!,Cu'rre'nt Tri p Typei.
sports or a karate class; teens may want to meet
friends after school or get to parks, museums or
malls during summer break; and families may
Home-bo sed
Home-based
School 9%
Shopping
26%
Non Home-based
29%
want to attend sporting events or concerts dur-.
ing evening hours or on weekends.
About half of all daily trips made in the county
are made during the morning and afternoon
peak periods. In 2000,' home-based work trips
represented about a quarter of the daily trips
made in the county, and roughly 65 percent of
these trips are made during the morning and
evening peak commute times. However, workers
also make trips before, after and in between their
Home-bgsed
Sociol/Recreotianol
13%
Home-based
Work 23%
VTP 2030
19
transit, bicycle and pedestrian services. An
f:
active and retired baby boom generation will
increasingly turn to transit for longer trips and
walkable destinations for shorter trips. These
'il
modes of transit are also viable economic
•.v*
fy
ffS
Kf
m
m
options for residents who choose not to drive.
By supporting transit- and pedestrian-friendly
land uses we can ensure high mobility and a
high quality of life for our communities.
nr
Transportation and Vibrant Communities
Key to vibrant communities is a pedestrianoriented environment, well-integrated and easyto-use transit, a mixture of land use, interesting
buildings and public spaces, and efficient street
design. However, the robust economic growth of
the past 25 years has brouglrt with it transitand pedestrian-unfriendly features such as
Attractive Travel Choices
A traiisportation system that offers multiple
modes of travel not only reduces automobile
congestion, but also allows individuals to choose
wliich mode is best for them. Pubiic transporta
tion, bicycling, walkiirg and paratransit service
offer a comfortable solution for residents who
ultra-wide streets and expansive parking lots,
and has segregated our employment cores from
our residential areas. Througlr smart infill, advo
cacy, and transportation and land use invest
ment, we can increase the number of vibrant
community spaces in Santa Clara County. VTP
2030 helps do this with:
cannot drive due to age or ability or who prefer
• Funding for local streets and roadways
the economic dividends and convenience of not
• Funding for transit projects and services
driving. As trips shift from single occupancy
vehicles (SOAO to other transportation modes,
the capacity of the overall system increases.
• Funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects
• Funding grants for planning and building
vibrant communities
Services for a Diverse Population
Over the next few decades a significant demo
graphic shift will 5deld increased demand for
20
Valley TronsportcMon Authority
n c h a p te r I
Economic Dividends of
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Rethinking Street Design n
Transportation Investment
The nature of business in Silicon Valley puts
significant demands on the transportation infra
structure. Manufactirring industries requu'e
interconnectedness with surrounding counties,
states and ports to transport freight. High-tech
companies, service providers and research parks
require easy access to airports, regional rail
lines, and interstate freeways to meet their need
for rapid travel. And we requhe high-quality
roads and transit to get to and fi-om work.
Ensuring that the transportation heeds of
business are met is a key factor in sustaining
'Tlie.growing desire to balance aufqcapacity'more ,
'■
sensitively with capacity for qlternaje modes Is leading to.a
retoxdmination of spmetoccepted approaches,to'str.eet '•
design, increasingly we-u'ndefstahd"the need for a'range of
.street types.. Conventional, auto-dominated streets'will
ircontinoeifobeiessenfipyoLserving thedowftiseibusinessfparkss
■phdtoampuses that are'among Silicon Valley's'trademarks. .
-fdowever,'Streets'emphasizing to balance among-rnddes ,
'.fath'erifhanrmaximizing-;aCitoiGap0cityjWill.'Support traditiohaliij
city-siyle downtow'ns and suburban-fieighborhoqds-where", people can-get around by foot or bicjfcle.
" ,
our employment centers and the high quality of
life we are accustomed to. Included in the many
business-friendly projects VTP 2030 calls for are
the follovring:
\
^
Vwlr
• Rapid transit improvement and additional
multimodal capacity in key commute corridors
; "u
\0
• Regional and local rail improvements
L
• Highway and expressway improvements
• Improved multimodal airport access to
Mineta San Jose International Airport
Access to Work Force
10-15'
B-10
Sidewalk
FlonI
ilrip
No Selboclu
0'
Parking
'
Travel
' "
Porking
Plant
sirip
10-15
Sidewolk
L,
Silicon Valley's future depends on access to the
largest and most diverse work force possible.
The transportation system can support this
success by getting people to their jobs quickly
and easily. Nevertheless, continued growth of
the SOicon VaUey economy and a scarcity of
VTP 2030
21
Table 1-7;-Pbpuiqtion aiid'JpJSs Ratio;"
to Employed Residents
to Residents Working
in the County
Ratio of Jobs
Net
In-commuters'
Percent of County
Population Not
Working
1990
1.10
1.25
78,585
46%
2000
1.14
1.50
133,259
43%
2010
1.22
1.57
214,260
48%
2020
1.14
1.46
168,830
43%
2030
1.13
1.44
168,270
42%
Ratio of Jobs
Year
1. Gross m-commuters minus gross out-commuters equals net in-commuters.
affordable housing will enlarge the valley's
commute shed. With the median price of a
single-family home at $590,000 in .June 2004,
1.6
providing affordable housing for Santa Clara
1.4
County workers continues to be a challenge. As
a result, many workers are forced to accept
1.2
either longer commutes or less desirable
1.0
housing, wages increase and the diversity of the
labor pool decreases. Bringing people and jobs
closer together means improving transportation,
promoting telecommuting, and expai\ding
- - - - Jobs
Employed Residents
— ■—■■I Residents Working
in Santa Clara County
access to housing, good schools, and other
essential services.
In 2010, about 64 percent of the county's work
1990
2000
2010
2030
Source; ABAG Projections 2003, Commuter Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area:
1990-2030 {based on ABAG Projections 2003 and Census 2000} (May 2004)
force is expected to live and work within Santa
Clara County. This means that about 36 percent
of jobs in the county are filled with workers
commuting in from other counties. But some
22
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ PLAN WITH VISION
residents live in Santa Clara County and
commute to jobs in other counties. When this is
factored in, about 214,000 net in-commuters are
expected to be commuting to jobs in the county
n
ariK.
by 2010. However, if we are successful in
implementing ABAG's Smart Growth vision—by
concentratirrg higher-density housing and job
centers around major transit facilities—^the
growth in housing supply in Santa Clara County
is expected to better balance jobs and housing.
So, while about 290,000 workers in 2030 will be
living outside the county, the ratio ofjobs to
residents wih improve.
VTP 2030
23
Financial Foundation
Developing VTP 2030 requires an awareness of
of funding, historically accounting for 80
the resources that will become available during
percent of its operating revenue. Between fiscal
the plan period to inrplement the programs and
year 2001 and 2003, VTA revenues from VTA's
projects in the plan. Tins section of the plan
1/2 cent sales tax declined nearly 30 percent, or
examines the fiscal setting underlying the
about $50 million annually. VTA has also been
development of VTP 2030, the steps being taken
affected by impacts to State and Federal budgets
to ensure VTA's long-term financial stability, the
as belt tightening in those areas has steadily
sources of funding, and the funds projected to
trickled down to regional and local agencies.
become available during the 25-year timeframe
In addition, transit ridership has declined in
of the plan. These elements provide the
proportion to the loss of jobs, further affecting
foundation for the Capital Investment Program
VTA's operating budget.
discussed in Chapter 2.
All of these factors establish a fiscal setting in
which VTA is compelled to critically examine its
VTP 2030 Fiscal Setting
near- and long-term capital and operating plans.
The ebbs and flows of an economy are natural
In response to these conditions, VTA assembled
occurrences. In the late 1990s, Santa Clara
two working groups to assist it in planning its
County found itself at the center of a high-
financial future.
technology boom and unprecedented job
growth. But by the early 2000s, it found itself at
the center of the high-technology bubble burst.
This latest economic downturn has been the
most severe on record, and with it an estimated
200,000 jobs left the county between 2000 and
2003. Most of these jobs were in the higherpaying high-technology sectors concentrated in
Santa Clara County, and consequently, this area
has been more severely affected than other Bay
Area counties.
These lost jobs, and the related decline in
24
VTA Financial Stability and Efficiency
During 2002 and 2003, VTA worked with a
Business Review Team and an Ad Hoc Financial
Stability Committee to analyze and address
VTA's near- and long-term financial situation
and provide the Boai'd of Directors with recom
mendations. The Business Review Team was
composed of members of the business
community and VTA management and staff. The
Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee consisted
of VTA Board members,financial consultants,
business-to-business transactions, have signifi
and community stakeholders. Each of these
cantly affected the amount of sales tax revenue
groups prepared recommendations for
generated in the county—^VTA's primary source
improving VTA's financial foundation.
Valley Transportation Authority
c h a p te r I
PLAN
WITH
VISION
Business Review Team Recommendations
The Business Review Team submitted five
recommendations addressing 1)farebox
recovery and average fare per boarding, 2)
health benefits costs, 3) ADA/Paratransit
m
program, 4) marketmg efforts, and 5) the role of
''
VTA in Joint Powers Authorities in approving
operating and capital budgets.
Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee
Recommendations
The Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee
developed a strategy based on the current
economic climate and the viability of obtaining
a new or broadened revenue source. The com
mittee's reconunendations were discussed at
several Board workshops and meetings between
May and November 2003. On February 19, 2004,
tain current transit service as shown in the
following fmther review and input from VTA
Adopted Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 Budget.
Board members, the VTA Board of Directors
approved the Financial Stability Strategy. The
Ad Hoc Committee recommendations were
presented in near-term (six months to one year)
and mid-term to long-term (one year and beyond)
tinreframes. A summary of the recommenda
tions pertinent to VTP 2030 is presented below:
Mid-Term to Long-Tenn
• Work in partnership with community leaders
to identify the most viable new or expanded
revenue source(s) for VTA.
• Over the next several years, lay the founda
tion to pursue limited expansion of the sales
tax base to help make up for the continuing
Near-Term
• Maximize revenues to support operations.
• Prioritize VTA's transportation projects and
improvements.
• Utilize an advance of Measure A operations
funds, only to the extent necessary to main-
erosion of this financial resource.
• Use Budgetary Operating Reserves and
authorized 2000 Measure A funds as neces
sary to maintain existing service.
• Continue to aggressively pursue joint devel
opment opportunities that wiU provide VTA a
diverse revenue stream. As appropriate, in
VTP 2030
25
partnership with applicable surrounding
communities, identify assessment district
sites that will benefit both the surrounding
community and VTA. Seek other revenue
opportunities as may be appropriate.
• Consider submitting an advisory baUot
measure for setting project priorities if no
new revenue sources are approved prior to
December 1, 2006, and projected revenue
shortfalls prevent implementation of all
Measure A projects prior to 2036. The ballot
measure should be preceded by a public
involvement cind conununity stakeholder
VTP 2030 Financial Plan
Developing the plan requires an understanding
of the resources that are expected to become
available during the life of the plan to imple
ment the programs and projects presented in
the plan. The VTP 2030 Financial Plan examines
the various sources of funding for transportation
programs in Santa Clara County, describes the
planning and funding process, the funds pro
jected to become available dui'ing the timeframe
of the plan, and the Board-adopted fund alloca
tions for each Program Area.
input process.
These recommendations add to the economic
Fund Sources
setting and financial foundation that influence
Funding for the projects, programs and sendees
the overall development of VTP 2030, and
identified in VTP 2030 comes from a number of
specifically the Financial Plan discussed next.
local, State and Federal fund sources. Generally,
the plan focuses on the larger sources that pro
vide flexibility in programming and that are
expected to provide significant revenues for
transportation projects in Santa Clara County.
n
Other less flexible funding sources, or funds
m
:**6-
that are dedicated for specific purposes such as
mi
transit operations, are also presented. While
these other funds are critically important to
ili
i
operate and maintain the transit system, their
limitations mean that the plan is not needed to
establish policy for their use, and so they are
not discussed here in detaO. Details regarding
use of these funds can be found in VTA's Short
Range Ti-ansit Plan, and in other city and county
planning documents.
m.
26
Valley Tronsportafion Authority
chapter|| PLAN WITH VISION
In addition to the more traditional fund sources,
plan, and that may become valuable sources of
VTP 2030 discusses additional funding strategies
revenue. A description of all of these fund
that will be explored during the timeframe of the
sources follows.
Table T-9 Fund Sources (^6o^-2d$0).
Revenue
Projecfions'
VTP 2030 Fund Sources
C03$MUlions)
$5,432
Section 5309 New Rail Starts—Discretionary
973
State Traffic Congestion Relief Program(TOR?)
732
Federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(STP/CMAQ)
569
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
559
Prop. 42 STIP
426
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP)
320
1996 Measure B Sales Tax Fimd (remaining through 2006)
290
TFCA40%
45
Transportation Enhancement Act 21 (TEA-21) Enhancements
43
Other Major Transportation Fund Sources
Gas Tax Subventions
4,773
Current VTA Dedicated Sales Tax (2005-2030)
4,481
Transportation Development Act(TDA)Articles 4, 4.5 and 8
2,425
Section 5307 Total San Jose & Gilroy/Morgan HUl Urbanized Area(UA)
925
Section 5309 Fixed Guideway San JoseAJA
468
State Transit Assistance (STA)Program
283
TDA Article 3—Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds
49
1. Estimates as of November 1, 2004. Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State
and Federal revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan fVansportation Commission(MTC)and with project cost estimates
developed in 2003.
Source; VTA
VTP 2030
27
Sales Tax for 30 yeai's to ftmd a specified pack
Transportation Funding Sources for
VIP 2030 Projects and Programs
age of transit projects and programs. The new
The fund sources described below provide sig
2000 Measure A begins on April 1, 2006, and
nificant revenue for transportation projects in
ends on March 30, 2036. The tax is currently
Santa Clara County, and are available for VTP
projected to generate $5,432 billion in 2003
2030 projects and programs at the VTA Board of
doUai's in that 30-year time span.
Directors' direction. A 25-year projection (in
The VTA Board has already committed $325
2003 dollars) and a general description of the
million for bonding to pay for current operating
programming processes and fund-specific limi
costs, low-floor light rail vehicles and Preliminarj'
tations are included vrith each source.
Engineering for the BART extension to San
Jose/Santa Clara; $5,107 billion remains to fund
2000 Measure A Soles Tax
the rest of the projects. This is not enough to
On November 2, 2000, the voters of Santa Clara
fund the entire project list at current cost
County voted to extend the 1996 Measure B
estimates. The VTA Board determined which
2000 Measure A projects will be considered
within the fiscally constrained portion of VTP
2030 on April 23, 2004. The VTA Board of
Directors will develop an expenditure plan to
determine priorities and scheduling of the
jfc;. A' ii. .... 4.
constrained project list.
Federal New Starts Program
(Section 5309)
The Federal New Starts program is one of the
a.
Federal transit funding programs created in
1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface
IS
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These
programs were continued in the Transportation
.-.-j
ft.
f
iS
Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century
(TEA-21) and are expected to be renewed in
the next reauthorization. The New Starts
■riL-'
f*
28
program is part of Title 49 United States Code
(USC), Section 5309. The funds are for signifi-
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
cant rail and rapid bus expansion projects.
Congress distributes these funds to projects at
its discretion, based on project evaluations by
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). VTP
2030 projects $973 million from this source to
extend BART from Fremont to San Jose and
Santa Clara.
Traffic Congestion Relief Progrom
(TCRP) ond Proposition 42
In 2000, the Traffic Congestion Relief Program
(TCRP) was enacted, directing revenues gener
ated by the State sales tax on gas and diesel
fuel from the State general fund to transporta
tion. The transfer was to occur for fiscal years
2003/04 through 2007/08, then end. However, in
2002, California voters passed State Proposition
42, making the transfer permanent. These trans
fers are now referred to as "Prop. 42 funding."
Proposition 42 fmiding goes to four specific
programs:
• Traffic Congestion Relief Projects (TCRP):
establishes a list of specific congestion reliev
ing transit and highway projects designated
to receive funds. Approximately $965 million
is designated for projects in Santa Clara
County: $233 million has already been allo
cated, and the remaining $732 million is
included in VTP 2030.
The future of the TCRP is uncertahi. The
administration submitted proposals to elimi
nate the program in its 2002/03, 2003/04 and
2004/05 State Budget proposals. While the
PLAN
WITH
VISION
program itself has remained intact, the fund
transfers were suspended in 2002/03 and
2003/04. As of the writing of this plan, the
2004/05 proposal to eliminate the program
has been rescinded. As of the writing of this
plan, the 2004/05 proposal to eliminate the
program has been rescinded; however, the
proposal to suspend the transfer for 2004/05
is stiU in place. Funds to pay expenses on
existing TCRP allocations are linked to the
defeat of two November 2004 ballot measure
regai'ding Native American gaming receipts.
The legislation directing transfers to these
projects sunsets in 2008.
• Local Streets and Road Rehabilitation:
augments the gas tax receipts that the State
subvenes directly to cities and counties. The
current estimate is $621.5 million in 2003
dollars. Since the VTA Board of Directors
does not control or direct these funds, the
table incorporates them into the Gas Tax
Subventions shown in the "Other Major
Transportation Fund Sources" section.
• State Ti-ansportation Improvement Program
(STIP): mcreases the amoimt of State fmiding flowing into the State Highway account
for the STIP, subject to the distribution for
mulas that apply to the existing funds. The
current estimate is $426 million in 2003 dol
lars. More discussioir is included under the
State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP).
• State Transit Assistance (STA): increases the
amomit of State Transit Assistance to transit
operations. The current estimate is $106.6
VTP 2030
29
million for VTA and $34.0 million for Caltraiir
ing resolutions to allow transportation agencies
in 2003 dollars. The treinsfer has been sus
to continue doing business until a successor bill
pended for the last two years. STA funds ai'e
is adopted. The Metropolitan Ti-ansportation
directed to specific transit operators and
Commission (MTC) has final programming
funds are generally used for operations. More
authority for STP and CMAQ funds in the nine-
discussion of the STA program is included
under "Other Major Transportation Fund
Sources."
State Budget shortfalls in 2003 and 2004 have
county Bay Area, and dh'ects the use of these
funds through the Regional Transportation Plan.
The current estimate for Santa Clara County is
$569 million.
negatively impacted Prop. 42 funding. The State
Legislature has the ability to suspend the trans
fers when the State is in a fiscal crisis and has
State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP)
exercised that option twice in the past two
Senate Bill 45 (SB-45), enacted in 1997, consoli
years, and is expected to do so in the 2004/05
dated several State transportation fuirding
State Budget. Each suspension to date has been
programs and directed State and Federal
accompanied by a commitment to repay the
transportation funds from the State Highway
funds no later than 2008/09.
Account(SHA)into the Regional Improvement
Program (RIP) and the Interregional
Federal Surface Transportation Program/
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
Program (STP/CMAO)
The ST? and CMAQ funding programs were
created in ISTEA and continued in TEA-2I.
Improvement Program (IIP). Together, these
programs are called the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). STIP funds may
be used for road rehabilitation and capacity-
expanding capital transportation projects.
Since they are not restricted to particular
modes, ST? and CMAQ are also called "flexible
30
RIP funding is 75 percent of the STIP, and it is
funds." STP funds can be used for virtually all
distributed among the counties via a formula
transportation capital projects. CMAQ funds are
established by State legislation. In the Bay Area,
limited to implementing the transportation
Congestion Mairagement Agencies (CMAs)
provisions of the 1990 Federal Glean Air Act in
program RIP funds vrith review by MTC and
Air Quality Non-Attainment areas. The Bay Area
approval by the California Transportation
is currently a non-attainment area.
Commission (CTC).
Federal funds are authorized in six-year
The IIP is the remaining 25 percent of the STIP.
programs. TEA-21 expired on October 1, 2003;
IIP funds are programmed by Caltrans through
however. Congress has been adopting continu
the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Valley Transportation Authorily
:hapter0 PLAN WITH VISION
Plan (ITIP) process, with final approval by the
3FP-
CTC. The STIP prograraming process occurs
every two years in "even" years. The current
1
total STIP projection for Santa Clara County is
$1,305 billion, consisting of $559 million in RIP
I
'•n
funds, $426 million in the Proposition 42 RIP
increment, and $320 million in IIP funds for
projects nominated by Caltrans.
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Bit&iaLdll
Health and Safety Code Section 44223 authorizes
TA
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD)to levy a fee on motor vehicles.
Funds generated by this fee are placed In the
Transportation Fund for Clean Ah'(TFCA)
account to be used for implementing projects
and programs that reduce air pollution from
motor vehicles. Health and Safety Code Section
current TFCA 40 percent estimate for Santa
44241 limits expenditure of these funds to spec
Clara County is $45 million in 2003 dollars.
ified eligible transportation control measures
(TCMs) that are included in BAAQMD's 1991
Clean Air Plan, developed and adopted pursuant
to the requirements of the California Clean Air
Act of 1988.
Transportation Enhancement
Activities (TEA)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Enhancement Act (ISTEA) provided a 10
percent set-aside of each state's STP allocation
BAAQMD directly administers 60 percent of the
for "Transportation Enhancement Activities"
TFCA, with annual revenues ranging from $9
(TEA) above and beyond normal capital
million to $15 million. The remaining 40 percent
improvements. TEA-21 continued this program.
goes directly to TFCA Program Managers in
each Bay Area cormty. VTA, as Santa Clara's
TFCA Program Manager, works with member
TEA funds must be used for elements of a
project that are over and above what would be
termed the "normal project." They must have a
agencies to develop criteria that are then used
direct relationship to the intermodal transporta
to select projects consistent with the eligible
tion system and fit one or more of 12 activity
project categories specified in statute. The
categories described in TEA-21. These activities
VIP 2030
31
1. Funds are given directly to cities and coun
ties for local road repairs.
2. The VTA Board does not control them, and/or
they are committed to operations and rehabilita
tion purposes.
The priorities for using these funds are deter
mined by the cities, the county, VTA and
Caltrain, through local capital improvement
programs (ClPs) and short-range transit plans
(SRTPs).
Gas Tax Subventions
A portion of the State sales tax on gasoline and
diesel fuel goes directly back to the cities and
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
the counties for streets and roads maintenance.
scenic preservation, and wildlife mortality
These funds are allocated based on formulas
mitigation.
established by the State Legislature. The State
The mechanisms and responsibility for program
ming TEA funds have changed several times
since the program's inception. As of 2004, TEA
funds are programmed through the STIP
Controller's office transfers funds directly to
local agencies. These funds were augmented by
Prop. 42. The current estimate, including Prop.
42 transfers, is $4,773 billion in 2003 dollars.
process. Each of the counties receives a TEA
share estimate with its RIP share estimate. The
VTA Dedicated Sales Tax
TEA estimate for Santa Clara County is $43
In 1976, the voters of Santa Clara County enact
million in 2003 dollars.
ed a permanent 1/2 cent sales tax for local tran
sit operations and capital projects. These funds
Other Major Transportation
Fund Sources
Although the fund sources discussed in this
section provide significant funding for
transportation projects in Santa Clara County
they have not been included in VTP 2030 for
the following reasons:
32
Valley Transportation Authority
flow to VTA and are allocated by VTA for opera
tions and capital projects through VTA's aimual
budget and Short Range Transportation Plan
(SRTP). The current 25-year estimate is $4,481
billion in 2003 dollars.
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA 3)
Federal Transit Act Section Funds
TDA Article 3 funds are a portion of the sales
The Federal Transit Act (FTA) funding
tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, wliich is
programs were parts of ISTEA, and were contin
returned by the State of California to the comity
ued in TEA-21. These funds flow to transit
(Section 5307, 5309)
in which it was collected. TDA Article 3 funds
operators via MTC's regional progranuning
are for use on bicycle and pedestrian projects.
process, with earmarks for specific urbanized
MTC programs these funds hi the nine Bay Area
areas (UAs). Based on 2000 census data, Santa
counties. Each year, VTA coordinates and submits
Clara County contams two UAs—the San Jose
countywide project priorities for this fund
UA and the Gilroy/Morgan Hill UA. VTA and
source. The VTA Board has set aside 30 percent
Caltrain are the only fund recipients within
of the annual allocation for the Countywide
these two UAs. The three most significant fed
Bicycle Expenditure Program between 2000/01
eral funding programs are:
and 2010/11. The remainder is distributed
among the cities/towns and county by a VTA
Board-adopted formula. The current 25-year
projection for TDA Article 3 funds is $49 million
in 2003 dollars.
Transportation Development Act
(TDA, Articles 4, 4.5, and 8)
TDA Article 4 and TDA Article 8, also generated
from the statewide sales tax on diesel and gaso
1. Section 5307 - Transit Formula Funds:
These funds are available to VTA and Caltrain
for rolling stock purchases and paratransit
operations. Programming is determined in VTA
and Caltrain SRTPs, through the MTC region's
Transit Capital Priority process, subject to
the provisions of the Caitrain Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA). The current 30-year estimate
is $925 million in 2003 dollars.
line fuels noted above, provide transit operating,
2. Section 5309 - Fixed Guideway: These funds
maintenance, and capital funds. TDA Article 4.5
are available to VTA and Caltrain for rail or feny
is available only for paratransit operating assis
capital projects. Planning for projects occurs in
tance and capital projects. TDA funds are
VTA's and Caltrain's SRTPs. Programming is
administered by MTC and allocated annually
through MTC's Transit Capital Priority process,
based on sales tax receipts in each county.
and subject to the pro^osions of the Caltrain Joint
These funds flow to VTA and are allocated for
Powers Agreement (JPA). The current 30-yeai-
operations and capital projects via VTA's annual
estimate is $468 million in 2003 dollars.
budget and Short Range Transportation Plan
(SRTP). The combined TDA estimate (for
Articles 4, 4.5 and 8) for Santa Clara County is
$2,425 billion in 2003 dollars.
VISION
3. Section 5309 - Neio Rail Starts: This is a
discretionary program for rail, ferry and rapid
bus transit expansions, and is discussed in the
previous section under VTP 2030 Fund Sources.
VTP 2030
33
Measure B Sales Tax Funds
into STA-Revenue Based and STA-Population
In 1996, Santa Clara County voters approved
Based categories. Revenue-based funds are
Measure B, a 1/2 cent nine-year countywide gen
aliocated to transit operators based on operator
eral sales tax to be collected by the county. Tax
revenues. Population-based funds are allocated
collections began on April 1,1998, and will end on
to transit operators based on service area popu
March 31, 2006. Measure,B is expected to provide
lation. The current 25-year STA projection is
$290 million during the VTP 2030 plan period
$283 miiiion in 2003 dollars. This includes base
(July 1,2004, through March 31,2006).
funding and $140.6 million in Proposition 42 STA
increments to VTA and Caltrain. It does not
Wlren Measure B was approved, voters also
approved 1996 Measure A, a nine-year program
of transit, Ihghway, expressway, and bicycleprojects and a pavement management program
to be funded -with any new sales tax revenue and
carried out by VTA and the county. The 1996
Measure A specified the transit and highway
projects, established the pavement management
funding allocations to each of the 15 cities/towns
and the County of Santa Clara, and established a
$12 million bicycle program, without identifying
specific bicycle projects. Bicycle projects funded
by Measure B ai'e identified in the 2000 Bicycle
Expenditure Plan.
The majority of the 1996 Measure A projects and
programs are either complete or under construc
tion as of the wilting of this plan. The remaining
$249 miiiion that Measure B is expected to
produce before it expires is already dedicated
to projects and programs and is therefore not
discussed in VTP 2030.
State Transit Assistance (STA)
These funds may be used for transit capital proj
ects and transit operations, inciuding regional
transit coordination. STA funds are subdivided
34
Valley Transportation Authority
include population-based funds taken off the top
by MTC for regional paratransit coordination.
Additional Funding Strategies
Local Sales Tax
Since the voters in Santa Clara County approved
a sales tax for specified transportation projects
in 1984 and 1996, the county has successfully
constructed significant improvements to the
transportation system. The projects built under
the 1984 measure and currently under design
and construction with the 1996 measm-e dwarf
the projects programmed with State and Federal
flexible funds.
In November 2000, the Santa Clara County vot
ers approved a 30-year 1/2 cent sales tax to fund
transit projects and services in the county.
Measure A revenues are administered by VTA,
and VTA is responsible for providing the funds
necessary to sustain operations and maintenance
of the Measure A projects in perpetuity. The
recent economic recession has resulted in do-wn-
wardly revised sales tax forecasts for Santa Clara
County. As a consequence, VTA will need to
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
VISION
secure a new sales tax for transit operations
to fully implement the 2000 Measure A
Transit Program.
Local Revenue Sources
—Tt.
Local revenues can offer greater reliability and
flexibility than State or Federal sources, and may
be used strategically to leverage other funds.
I
Forecasting the amount of revenue that many of
these sources might generate is a difficult and
inexact process over the long term. These local
sources include, but are not limited to:
• Citywide or countywide development impact
fees (discussed below)
• City or county general funds
• Business tax and/or license fees
• Transient Occupancy taxes
• Gas tax subventions
• Vehicle registration fees
• Local assessment districts
• Other user fees
• Developer exactions
Twenty Percent or Higher Local Match
• Right-of-way dedication
Requirement
• California Enviroiunental Quality Act
The Capital Improvement Program of the CMP
(CEQA) mitigation
• Redevelopment tax increment financing
• Parking charges and taxes
• Payroll tax
• Pai'cel tax
• Joint development and other forms of
value capture
includes a policy requiring Member Agencies to
provide a minimum 20 percent match for local
transportation projects. This policy has been
implemented with flexibility to allow key projects
to move forward in a timely maimer. Sources of
matching funds are, for the most part, left to the
discretion of the local agency, but include those
fisted above.
VTP 2030
35
Development'Impact Fee
During the development of its draft Countywide
Development Impact Fees may be assessed to
Deficiency Plan (CDP), VTA investigated a
projects through local agency policies, or
through the Congestion Management Program
countywide development impact fee dedicated
to specific improvements on the CMP network.
(CMP) Deficiency Planning Process. The CMP
Such a fee program could have the following
statute requires Member Agencies to prepare
aspects:
deficiency pians for CMP system facilities
• Fees charged directly to developers seeking
located within their jurisdictions that exceed
the CMP Traffic Level-of-Service (LOS) stan
dard. Santa Clara County's CMP traffic LOS
standard is LOS E.
permits to build witliin the county.
• Fees charged proportional to the impact (i.e.,
vehicle trip generation) of the specific land
use type. Thus, the fee could be scaled
according to the burden new development
places on congested transportation infra
structure.
The traditional approach to instituting CDP fees
is for all local jurisdictions to adopt the plan by
'(K.
a majority vote of their city council or boai'd.
Although no legal precedent has been estab
lished, an alternative strategy may be for VTA
to institute a 60 percent matching requirement
and give each jurisdiction the option of adopting
the countywide fee as a means of generating its
local match.
"«¥■
VTA Member Agencies may develop their own
■-n
Citywide Deficiency Plans for the same purposes.
Several cities in the county have or are
developing deficiency plans or impact fees for
new development projects. VTA staff is available
SCHOOL BOS'
to assist local jurisdictions with developing
m
deficiency plans and impact fees.
"*1
36
Valley TronsportoMon Authority
chapter© PLAN WITH VISION
Roadway Pricing
Although the concept of having drivers pay for
usiitg the roadways has existed for decades, it is
now drawing more attention from local, State,
A
and Federal agencies. This increased attention is
attributable to worsening traffic congestion, the
scarcity of transportation funding, and the
improved ability to electronically collect tolls and
vary toU amomrts by tune of day and location.
Tolling is the user fee best able to directly charge
for the use of a facility at the place and time of
m
use. Such user fees address the market side of
the equation by considering the interaction
between demand for transportation services and
the available supply. This results in a direct cost
for the good—or service—^being consumed. Cost
in this context may be considered as the time
spent driving. Economic theory tells us that as
the price of a good decreases (i.e., drive time)
demand for it increases—so drive alone trips are
induced as long as the cost of driving remains
relatively low and new facilities that improve
tation of needed highway expansion or improve
ment projects. ToU roads are commonplace in
other parts of the country and in other cmmtries,
and have often been constructed to accommo
travel time are constructed.
date long distance or cormnute trips.
VTP 2030 suggests two forms of roadway pricing
ToU Roads can also be an effective congestion
for serious consideration:
management tool. Flexible pricing plans can be
1. Toll Roads. Toll Roads charge drivers in all
used to encourage ridesharing while charging for
travel lanes to use the roadway. ToU Roads have
use of the roadway. Pricing plans can also be
the admirable quaUty of being able to pay for
used to discourage trips during the peak-hour
themselves through the revenue generated from
periods and encourage drivers to shift then
toll coUection. Given the scarcity of—and the
commute to times when fewer velucles are using
high demand for—State and Federal Mghway
the facUity The revenue generated in excess of
funds. Toll Roads are considered in some cases
the amount needed to pay for construction and
as the best—or only—hope for timely implemen-
VTP 2030
37
operation of the facility can be used to provide
carpools and transit vehicles. HOT lanes are
transit services in the corridor; these efforts can
essentially toll roads where tolling is applied to
further enhance the level of rideshartng and
new or existing carpool lanes. HOT lane opera-
transit use, thereby effectively increasing the
tioirs have existed on State Route (SR) 91 in
overall carrying capacity of the corridor.
southern California since 1991. Tliis four-lane
2. High Occupancy Toll Lanes. An innovative
operational arid financial approach to imple
menting roadway pricing is High Occupancy Toll
(HOT)lanes. HOT lane facilities can be viewed
as a subset of toll roads that allow Single
Occupant Vehicles (SOVs) to use—for a fee—
what would otherwise be a preferential lane for
HOT facility constructed in the median of SR 91
allows free passage to vehicles carrying three or
more people, whOe charging a fee to SOVs and
two-person carpools. Creating HOT lanes by
converting already existing carpool lanes is cur
rently imder design for the southbound 1-680
Sunol Grade carpool lane in Alameda and Santa
Clara counties. This facility would charge SOVs
for use, but would allow free passage to vehicles
carrying two or more people.
The fee charged for using the lane is used to
manage operations and prevent congestion in
the HOT lane through "dynamic pricing." To
I'
more actively balance demand with supply dur
ing operations, dynamic pricing is considered an
.''Sfeir;
I
i
essential component of many HOT lane opera
tions. Dynamic pricing scales up the cost for
hi.
using the HOT Lane as capacity (supply)
m
decreases to provide a liigher assurance of opti
mal operations. Just as for toU roads, revenues
from HOT lanes could be used to payfor aU or a
portion of the cost of the additional lane(s) or
the lane conversions, and to pay for transit serv
ices serving the corridor or other roadway
improvements in the corridor.
38
Valley Transportation Authority
■chapter!
PLAN
WITH
VISION
In 2004, State legislation (AB 2032, Dutra) was
passed giving VTA the authority to implement
r.-
HOT lane operations in up to two corridors in
Santa Clara County. VTA is currently conducting
a HOT Lanes Study to identify candidate corri
dors for further evaluation. The HOT Lane
Fecisibility Study includes an assessment of
-
Santa Clara County's freeway system to deter
mine if the operation of HOT lanes is feasible
and to identify viable corridors for HOT lane
yi€3f
operations. In addition, future studies for new
roadways, or for adding lanes to existing road
•.-r
ways, will consider roadway pricing as a method
of financing and operating these new facilities
and to provide services in the corridors.
VTP 2030
39
%
m
- 'r
'■
'
■•
:i.
- .j- ' r. - ..
'•
3=
^ -i. ■.
=
'f- >\
-»•' ! w '! '•;: r
m
■ '. ■
k.
m
M
.
: ^ , :^:i. -
/ ,.
*
&
.'•..^
, .
■ .
m
:
^..
■, •■'
.
-'
,- > «
■ :
.4 ■ -; -
■.
i ■■
■ .I'X >: ■■ '' '
■>
#
-
••
40
Valley Tronsporfation Authority
•' ; . i
chapter 2
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Y I "^his section of the plan, is the,.core of
JL VTP 2030.. It presents a capital
investment plan for a comprehensive set of
transportation projects and programs that, ,
express a vision of Santa Clara County's
transportation future. The Investment
The Plaruiing and'Funding Process .... 42
Program will guide VTA in enhancing both
■Capital hive.stment Program .'.
46
the count/s livability and its economic
Subarea Analysis
48 ■
health over the next 25 years. The success
\'TP 2030 Progrmn iVreas ■. '. . .
86
of these investments—both short- and long-
Highway Program
87
term—requires the ongoing commitment ,
Expressway Program
92
of VTA and its partnering agencies, as
Local Streels and County Roads
97
v/cll as the support of the Silicon Valley
Transit Semces and Programs
103
Transportation Systems:, Operations
and Management Program
Bicycle Program
•Livable Communities
and RedestrianPrograins ;
Systemwide
Performance Results
■
•
community;
-
,
.
:. 129
138
•. . 142
143
VTP 2030
41
The Planning
and Funding Process
As noted in Chapter 1, the projects, programs,
The Flow of Money
and services identified in this section will be
Locally generated funds are normally governed
funded from a number of local. State and
Federal fund sources. The process for dividing
up and allocating Federal and State funds to the
local level—and then to the various program
areas—is complex and varies by fund source.'
For the purposes of this plan, a brief summary
by local initiatives—such as a sales tax or parcel
tax measure—that earmark revenues for specif
ic purposes. Federal funds flow into the State
and are divided up based on both Federal and
State statutes and guidelines. State funds are
essentially moved to the regional and local level
of how this money flows to VTA is helpful in
through the State Transportation Improvement
understanding the overall financial planning
Planning (STIP) process, and allocated for spe
process for VTP 2030 and the policy environ
cific purposes in accordance with the statutes
ment that shapes VTA Board decisions.
and guideUnes governing the STIP process.
Various organizations may be involved along the
way—^for example, the California Transportation
Commission and Caltrans—but in the end the
funds essentially arrive at the regional level
where either a Regional Transportation Planning
Agency(RPTA) or a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) or both divide them up for
various dedicated and discretionary purposes.
|.V
These regional entities may, and most often do,
have their own statutes and guidelines for
directing funds to various uses.
^ -Vw
hi our case, the Metropolitan Transportation
J
r
» :>
Commission (MTC)functions as the MPO for
the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region.
The policies for MTC to assign transportation
funds to counties occur through the develop
ment of the long-range Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), which is prepared every four years.
1. Refer to MTC's "Moving Costs: A Transportation Funding
Guide for tiie San Francisco Bay Area," for additional infoi-mation about, the funding process.
42
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The Long-Range Transportation
Planning Process
Not surprisingly, the preparation of VTP 2030
coincides with MTC's preparation of the RTP, this
year called Transportation 2030, or T2030. The
projects and progranas included in VTP 2030 are
submitted to MTC for inclusion in the RTP. Any
project that could have regional significance, particulai'ly as it pertains to air quality or transporta
tion system capacity enhancement, must be in
the RTP to receive Federal or State funding, or
to move into construction or implementation
phases. The projects contained in VTP 2030 are
sent to MTC for inclusion in the RTP.
Constrained and Unconstrained Projects
Under guidelines established by the Federal
from developer fees, an mcrease in gasoline tax,
government in the 1998 Transportation Equity
or a new sales tax measure.
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and its earli
er sibling, the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),longrange transportation plans must be financially
constrahied. The financially constramed portion
of the RTP includes projects funded with pro
jected revenues from sources that exist today—
such as approved sales tax measures, Federal
flexible formula fuirds, or gas tax subventions.^
The unconstrained portion of RTP includes
projects that would be funded from sources that
do not exist today, but couid reasonabiy be
assumed to happen or be pursued within the
timeframe of the plan; for example, revenues
2. Fund sources are discussed in Chapter 1.
Like the RTP, not all of the programs and proj
ects identified in VTP 2030 can be funded with
the fund som'ces identified, which means that
VTP 2030 also has an unconstrained portion.
Both constrained and unconstrained projects
lists are presented in the Capital Investment
Program that follows.
The Programming Process
VTP 2030 is a long-range transportation plan
ning document. Neither it, nor RTP, set priori
ties or schedules for when projects are to be
implemented. Programming documents, such as
the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), are where priorities and schedules for
VTP 2030
43
delivery of specific projects are developed.
Approximately $100 billion of $108 billion in
These are shorter-range documents with a
projected revenue for the region is "committed"
three- to six-year timeframe. The VTA Board of
over the 25-year life of the RTF. The "commit
Directors and its partners deteimine an expen
ted" revenues consist of a mixtm'e of funds fi'om
diture program that will guide project priorities
the local, State and Federal sources discussed
and schedules that are affumed in these
earlier in this plan. The remaining $8.8 billion is
shorter-range programming documents.
considered "uncommitted" revenue that is
available for discretionary allocation to regional
MTC Fund Estimates
programs and the counties. Of this $8.8 billion,
As part of the development of the RTF, MTC
about $1.46 billion is projected to come directly
conducts an assessment of aU State and Federal
to Santa Clara County for allocation to the
revenue sources and prepares revenue projec
programs and projects in VTF 2030.
tions for the 25-year timeframe of the plan. Out
of the total pot of money coming into the
VTP 2030 Fund Projections
region, MTC policies for RTF identify revenues
and Allocations
that are already committed to an established set
Fart of the $1.46 billion noted above is ali-eady
of regional programs—^including a share for
committed by VTA to cover the county share of
Seinta Clara Coimty—and revenues that are not
the Transit Capital ShortfaE ($142m), Local
committed, and thus available for allocation to
Streets and County Roads Shortfall ($202m),
other programs and projects. Table 2-1 shows
and the Santa Clara County share of the
the breakdown of "committed" and "uncommit
Transportation for Livable Communities/
ted" revenues in the region.
Housing Incentive Frogram (TLC/HIF). Setting
Table 2-1 T2030 and VTP 2030 Revenues
Total T2030
Total Uncommitted
$108.IB (region)
Committed
$79.8B
Target $1.462B
UC/HIP $37.5M
Santa Clara share
of committed
S19.SB
Uncommitted
$8.88
44
Total VTA VTP 2030
$8.8B (region)
Valley Transportation Authority
Board
VTP 2030
$1.4628
Discretron
OSiTB
Transit Capital Shortfall
$142M
Local Streets and Roods
Shortfall $202M
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-2 VTP 2030 Program Allocation by Fund Source C03$/MiUions)
VTP 2030 Program
Federal
New
Starts
2000
Measure
A'
Highways
ITIP
TCRP'
$320.0
STIP
$127.3
Expressways
Prop. 42
(STIP)
STP/
TE/
CMAQ
TFCA
Total
$766.3
$319.0
150.0
150.0
Local Streets and
County Roads
50.3
179.7
230.0
Pavement Management
92.1
SoundwaUs
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
301.5
209.4
Landscape Restoration
& Graffiti Removal
2000 Measure A
Transit Program
973.0
5,017.0
732.0
6,829.0
107.0
TSM & Operations(ITS)
Bicycle Progi'am^
80.5
28.0
28.0
10.0
90.5
Livable Communities &
Pedestriair Program^
120.1
120.1
$410.0
$88.3 $8,526.4
Amount Available for
programs/projects^
$973.0
$5,017.0
$320.0
$732.0
$560.1
$426.0
1. Based on moderate sales tax gi-owth scenario, net of bonds approved by VTA Board to date
2. Net of TCRP allocations to date
3. Includes $30.4 million from Santa Clara Couniy's share of the Regional Bike Program
4. Includes $7,025 million from Santa Clara County's share of the Pedestrian component of the Regional Bike Program
5. Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections
provided by the Metropolitan TVanspoitation Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
these commitments aside, the VTA Board can
regarding each of these Program Areas and
apply $1.08 billion in discretionaiy revenue to the
their respective lists of projects are presented in
programs and projects in VTP 2030. In addition to
the following section—^The Capital Investment
the $1.08 billion, VTP 2030 allocations include the
Program.
2000 Measm'c A revenues for transit, TCRP funds,
and Federal New Staits funds, ITIP funds, and
the additional regional target amoimts for lifeline
transit, the Bicycle Program and the Livable
Communities and Pedestrian Program.
At its April 23, 2004 meeting, the VTA Board of
The VTA Board of Directors adopted the alloca
tions ammmts for the projects shown in this
table at its April 2004 meeting. These alloca
tions were based on revenue projections devel
oped for the Short Range Ti'ansit Plan (SRTP)
adopted by the VTA Board in February 2004.
Dii-ectors approved allocations for the ten VTP
The Boai'd is currently developing a Transit
2030 Program Area, as showir in Table 2-2.
Expenditure Plan to deliver the 2000 Measure A
Table 2-2 also includes Santa Clara County's
Program that considers a more conservative
share of regional commitments.
projection for sales tax revenues. This more
The total amount availabie for VTP 2030 pro
grams and projects is $8.53 billion. Details
conservative sales tax figure is reflected in
Table 1-9 on page 27.
VTP 2030
45
Capital Investment Program
How will transportation systems respond in the
focus does not change the fact that VTA's activities
coming decades to people's evolving needs for
extend far beyond construction of roadway and
travel options and continuing pressures of local
transit projects, and include transit and paratransit
and regional growth? How can we get more out
operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, plan
of existing investments in transportation and
ning activities, and land use programs.
urban infrastructure and services? How can new
projects make alternative modes more attrac
tive? What is the best balance between transit
and roadway investments, and how can trans
portation investments address or encourage ben
eficial changes in land use patterns and commu
nity Uvability? Responding effectively to these
questions will require vision, dedication, creathnty, and innovative changes in the way we design
and manage Santa Clara County's transportation
systems and built envirorunent.
VTP 2030 Capital Investment Program is built on
a vision in which the existmg roadway network is
better managed with ITS improvements: an
expanded high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)sys
tem, improved interchanges, freeway-to-freeway
connector ramps, and some freeway upgrades.
Transit lines are expanded, and existing transit
services are refined—increasing efficiency and
productivity, and requiring fewer resources.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements augment
other modes and firmly establish walking and
'The liigh cost and lengthy delivery process for
biking as viable forms of travel. Overall, land use
major capital investments means that they are the
decisions are better mtegrated and coordinated
focus of the long-range transportation plan. Tliis
so as to complement and support transportation
projects.
?s;>i
The $8.53 billion package of progranrs and proj
ects to implement this vision are discussed in the
following sections of VTP 2030. However, much of
SB
the work that keeps the overall transportation
system going is accomplished through periodic
planning efforts such as the preparation and
agi!}
implementation of the Congestion Management
Program (CMP),the Short Range Transit Plan
(SRTP), Annual Transit Service Plans, the
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
Program, and through the progranuning of indi
vidual funding sources.
46
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Understanding the Investment
sive plamiing studies for future transit invest
Program
ments, roadway improvements, intelligent trans
The Capital Investment Program addresses trans
portation systems (ITS), bicycle facilities, pedes
portation-related projects and actions in Santa
trian facilities, and land use.
Clara County that involve participation by VTA
All of the projects presented in these lists were
and its partnering agencies, impact inter-jurisdic-
evaluated using mode-specific methodologies
tional travel, of are regional in nature. These
approved by VTA Committees and the Board of
investments are location-specific improvements
Directors. After a public review period and a
for four modes of travel: roadway (including HOY
series of public outreach meetings and YTA
and ITS), transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. The
Board Workshops, the VTA Cornmittees and
projects and programs for these modes are cov
Board approved the project lists in April 2004 for
ered in ten Program Areas:
inclusion in VTP 2030 and the RTP. The process
1.
Highway Program
2.
Expressway Program
ment program, and for future updates to the pro
3.
Local Streets and County Roads Program
gram,is presented in Chapter 4 of the plan.
4.
Pavement Management Program
5.
Sound Mitigation Program
6.
Landscape Restoration and Graffiti
Removal Program
7.
Transit Program
used as input into the countywide,.regional, and
8.
Systems Operations and Management Program
statewide planning and programming process.
9.
Bicycle Program
10. Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program
for evaluation, review, and approval of this invest
Programming Projects
Together, the plan's projects and programs will be
These iirclude the Expenditure Plan for sales tax
reauthorizations, the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), and MTC's
Developing the Project Lists
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These
Because the VTP 2030 Capital Investment
and other planning, programming, and funding
Program represents a strong commitment to
documents and authorizing legislation wiU be
specified projects and programs, forming the
consistent with the capital investments presented
project lists required extensive technical analysis
in this section.
and broad input. VTA's member and partnering
agencies have been the primary source for identi
fying the projects. In addition, since the adoption
of VTP 2020 in December 2000, VTA has devel
oped new programs and conducted comprehen
Projects and Programs
The remaining sections of the Capital Investment
Program are presented in two parts:
1) Geographic Subareas and 2) Program Areas.
VTP 2030
47
Table 2-3 Travel Demond for the Seven Suboreos
S U B A R E A
(wilhin Santa Clara Conniy;. AM peak hour person trips)
ANALYSIS
As shown in the map on page 49, seven subareas
2000
focus on travel within the county's boundaries
and four gateways focus on inter-county travel.
Each of the subarea discussions consists of a
uo.ooo
description of travel demand and growth projec
120,000
tions in that subarea over the next 25 years; a
100.000
summary of the investment program for the
subarea; and concludes with a map and Hst of
80.000
the specific projects by mode-
60,000
Km?
40,000
In order to gain an understanding of travel
patterns in the county, Table 2-3 presents the
estimated 2000 and projected 2030 person trips
Central
EatI
VoUoy
County
County
South
West
County
Volley
destined (trips to or within) for each of the
seven county subareas. As shown, all seven
Table 2-4 Person Trips Across the Gatev/ays
county subareas wiU experience growth in the
fAATpeak hour)
number of trips destined for that subarea. The
Downtown subarea will experience the highest
TOTAL
percentage of growth (74.2 percent) followed by
South County (72.7 percent). Central County
will experience the greatest growth in the
TOTAL
45.586
TOTAL:
number of trips, with 46,500 new trips coming
into the central part of the comity.
TOTAL
38.959
40.138
TOTAL
TOTAL
6.900
2000
2030
Peninsula Goteway
48
2000
2030
East Bay Gateway
Valley Transportation Authority
2000
2030 '
Southern Gaieway
TOTAL n
7,576
9.656
2000
2030
Santo Crvz Gateway
chapter O INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Geographic Study Areas
East Bay Cdnnoc tjng Al.iinodn,
Gateway foiilriiCoMii
bisn Jciiquin, aiul
Si.iiiisi.ins ron[i(U'-»
Poninsula
.
Gateway
[
r<>iinc( ling Mriiiti, f
Sail rmiioi^to,
!
Notlliv.'cst
Oaunty
Northeast
Caunly
\S.IR
Ohiiuk
I
;:cist
Vulloy
\
Qawntown
\~
S^ Woat Valluy
Mountiuiunis
Al IM
Central
County
\
"N.
South
County
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Cuiim-i'tiiiit
Saiit.i Cnir CniirUv
•\
■\
A
/
N
.
^
Southern
Gateway
i
Coiuit I'tinif frill rk'iiito;
Mcicui, and
M(inii»ri*y Cduiiiicb
VTP 2030
49
Northeast County Subarea
way, highway, transit and bicycle upgrades and
improvements. ITS improvements to US 101,1-
The Northeast County subarea consists of
880,1-680, SR 237, Lavvrence Expressway,
Western MUpitas, Northern San Jose and
Central Expressway, Bowers Avenue, Old
Northern Santa Clara. Principal roadways
Oakland Road and other major thoroughfares
include US 101,1-880,1-680, SR 237, Montague
will increase roadway efficiency and reduce
Expressway, Central Expressway and Lawrence
delay from congestion and metermg lights.
Expressway. Transit service includes the
Nearly the enthe lengths of Montague
Altamont Commuter Express train, Caltrain,
Expressway, Lawrence Expressway and Central
Mountain View, Guadalupe and Alum Rock Light
Expressway wdll undergo major upgrades
Rail lines, and express and local VTA bus lines.
including new interchanges, additional lanes
and HOV lane modifications. Highway improve
Travel Patterns in 2030
ments such as interchange improvements and
Northeast County is one of five subareas with
additional HOV lanes will speed up commutes
more inbound AM peak conunuters (77,900)
along US 101,1-680 and SR 237. Tf-ansit
than outbound (28,400). Inbound trips come
improvements include the extension of BART to
largely from the East Bay Gateway (18,600) and
San Jose and upgrades to the Altamont
the East Valley (16,200), West Valley (11,100),
Conunuter Express train. Cross-county bicycle
and Central County (11,600) subareas.
trails wiU be constructed along San Tomas
Outbound trips go mostly to the Northwest
Aquino Creek in Santa Clara and San Jose as
County (6,700), the West Valley (4,600) and
well as the extension of the Coyote Creek Trail
East Valley (4,100) subareas as well as north
to the East Bay tlmough San Jose and Milpitas.
through the East Bay Gateway (3,800).
Other improvements include the River Oaks
bicycle and pedestrian bridge that will better
Investment Program
cormect neighborhoods and shopping areas to
The capital investments in the Northeast
the Guadalupe light rail line.
County subarea center around intelligent trans
portation systems (ITS) technologies, express
50
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for Noriheasi.Comii.y Subami,in 2030)
East Bay
I&=t"!i'600»'
Pomnsula
Gateway
•
Connecting Mann, Y ^
San Francisco,
& Sah Malco
\
'* "^
Coniiociing Al.'unoda,
&mJu.w.P.i»l
SLinjslciii^(
Northwest
Co'jiity
OB-6,700
IBS9,700 ^
Counties
E'jsl
■OB=li800'':
•IB=2,OO0>'";
/
V^ert Valley
Valley
uov/htown
6b=3,700 ■
B=4,100
OB
=16,200
iB=6. 00
03=4,600
.. 16=11.100
Miiiiiiluiiiiiii.s
AiVd
Central
County
OB=2,900
16=11,600
N
South
County
6b=400
Santa Cruz
16=900-
Gateway
Coiii'LT'-iiii;
K.ini.'i Cm/ Criiiiiiy
OB=300, . ■
16=600
h
\.
Southern
Gateway
CntlMiH'llll)!S.lII lilMIIIll
Mi-rci'il, iiiul
Miinli'ivy Cniintii 'i
OB=10"0
16=1,100'
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Northeast County suborea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Northeast County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Northeast
County subarea in the a.rn. peak hour
.
i
I
m
Internal Trips
23,600
Outbound ifips
28,400 '
Inbound Trips
77,900
r
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
51
VTP 2030 Propjosed Projects, Northeast County
/
if
t. i
5-
N
52
Valley TransportoHon Authority
-
chapter
INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Table 2-5 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northeast County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTPID
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
('03$/MiUums)
T1
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
T2
BART'
$22.0
14
Caltrain Electrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
T12
Mineta San Jose International Airport
ROl
Galaveras Blvd. overpass widening with
$40.0
4,193.0
ARM Connector
400.0
HlOl-06 US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
Central Expwy.Interchange improvements
27.0
R02
Oakland Rd. widening fi-om US 101 to
Montague Expwy.
10.0
R04
Berryessa Rd. widening from US 101 to 1-680
R11
Montague Expwy./Great Mall Parkway—
Capitol Ave. grade separation
R13
Dixon Landing Rd. widening
7.0
24.5
0.6
36.0
R16
Charcot Ave. connection
10.0
R23
Lawrence Expwy.& Wildwood Ave.
roadway realignment & traffic signal
3.0
R33
Dixon Landing Rd. at North Milpitas
HlOl-11 US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dn/Fomth St,
I/C Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
Blvd. Intersection improvements
1.0
7.0
B16
Berryessa Creek "frail (Reach 3)
0.9
HlOl-12 US 101 SB auxiliary lane Great
America Pkwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
B17
Coyote Creek frail (Reach 1)
1.2
2.0
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of UPRR
tracks (near Great Mall)
5.6
B30
Coyote Creek frail(Hwy 237/Bay frail
to Story/Keyes)
6.1
B31
Guadalupe River fraU (Alviso St. to Hvt 880)
5.1
B35
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
2.8
B36
San Tomas Expwy. Aquino Greek frail
(Hwy 237 to City Limits)
17.0
S701
South Milpitas Blvd. Smart Corridor
0.5
SI 200
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
3.5
S20n
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
2.0
S3001
County of Santa Clara Traffic Operations
System Improvements
18.0
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
HlOl-07 US 101 auxiliary lane widenings: Trimble Rd.
to Montague Expwy.
HlOl-10 US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental &Preliminary Engineering
HlOl-25 US 101 SB auxiliaiy lane widening;
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
8.0
HlOl-26 US 101 MB auxiliary lane widening;
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
9.0
H237-10 SR 237 WB auxiliary lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
15.0
H680-01 1-680 HOV lanes; Calaveras Blvd.to SR 84
25.0
H680-02 I-680/I-880 cross-connector environmental
& conceptual engineering
X04
7.0
Central Ebcpwy.—convert the Measure B HOV
lane widening between San Tomas Ebcpwy. &
De La Cruz Bivd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV
queue jump lanes at Scott Blvd., if unsuccessful
after a three- to five-year trial period
X05
XI0
Central Expwy.—widen to six lanes between
Lawrence & San Toiuas Expwys. without
HOV lane operations
S4020
S4030
XI7
Montague Expwy.—baseline project consisting
mixed-flow use east of 1-880
S4060
5.7
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
3.0
0.1
1. Measure A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TGRP
of eight-lane widening & 1-880 partial do
Interchange with at-grade improvements at
Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria DrTRiver Oaks Pky.,
hinds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million
in other funds. Does not assume addition^ bonding for construction.
2. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
additional service.
Main St/Old Oakland Rd. & McCandless Dr./
TrEide Zone Blvd.
5.4
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Bucldey St,and St
Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp (not mapped) 0.5
Montague Exi)wy.—convert HOV lanes to
3.6
Caltrans 1-680 Conidor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering'
0.1
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave.& right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
XI6
& Ramp Metering'
10.0
Lawrence Expwy.—convert HOV to mixed
flow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
XI1
0.1
4.4
38.5
3. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
53
Northwest County Subarea
several bicycle and roadway projects. Major ITS
improvements wUl cover the entire lengths of
The Northwest County subarea consists of Palo
Lawrence, FootluU and Oregon Expres,sways.
Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Northern
Investments to aU three of these expressways
Cupertino. Principal roadways include US 101,
wUl include roadway widening aird interchange
1-280, SR 85, SR 237, Central Expressway,
improvements. Other major thoroughfares such
Oregon Expressway, Foothill Expressway,
as Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza
Lawrence Expressway, El Caraino Real and
Boulevard, Fair Oaks Avenue and Fremont
Stevens Creek Boulevard. Transit service
Avenue will be the recipients of ITS improve
includes Caltrain commuter raU, Amtrak, the
ments. Palo Alto's Smart Residential Arterials
Mountain View Light RaU line and various
roadway project wUl put in place intelligent traf
express and local VTA bus lines.
fic management and multimodal amenities on
major residential corridors such as University
Travel Patterns in 2030
Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road
Northwest County is one of five subareas with
and San Antonio Road. Caltrain will undergo
more inbound AM peak commuters (65,900)
electrification and service upgrades and bus
than outbound (41,700). Inbound trips come
rapid transit (BRT) service will improve transit
largely from the West VaUey subarea (15,500
along El Canuno Real. The Palo Alto Intermodal
commuters) as weU as the East Bay (13,300
Transit Center vrill increase train, bus, bicycle
commuters) and Peninsula (13,400 commuters)
and pedestrian interconnectivity. The extension
gateways. Outbound trips head largely to the'
of the Stevens Creek Trail, and several bicycle
Peninsula Gateway (12,200 commuters) and the
improvements along the Central
West VaUey (11,900 conunuters) and Northeast
Expressway/Caltrain corridor ■will facilitate safer
County (9,700 comnuiters) subareas.
and easier bicycle travel.
Investment Program
The capital investments in the Northwest
County subarea include major upgrades in intel
ligent transportation systems (ITS) technolo
gies, expressways and transit services as well as
54
Volley Transportation Authority
chapter
INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for NoriJmesi County Suharea in 2030)
; Peninsula
East Boy
Gateway
Connecting Alanietla,
|
contra Costi,
OB=2i500
IB=13,300
SanJoaquin, and
St<nisl,ii]s Ckiniitii.-
OB=9,700
i' Gateway
I Connecting Mann,
16=6,700,
No:
i ihecst
f San Franiasco,
county
j &San Matcoi*
Counties
Last
.|.6B^'2,20dft
.16=13,400 *
•'niley
Downtown
06=11,900
tejJSlSOOl
-
06=900
6=5,300
08=1,800
16=2.600 -
iMoiiinninmis
Aica
West
Valley
Central
Coui.ty
06=2;100
16=6,600
South
County
06=200
1 Santa Cruz
= 16=500 n
r Gateway
Conned iim
Santa ("rii/: Cniitifv
'f-jOBUOO, '
?&1B=600
: 06=100
16=1,400
- :
Southern
GatewayJf-sfIS
Cuimei InigSiiii Heiiilii.
Ml ivi tl, and
.Mi)m«-ieyC'(iiinti(-'
internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Northwest County suboreo in the a.m. peak hour
55,700
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Northwest County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
41,700 '
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Northwest
County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips
Outbound Trips
inbound Trips
65,900
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
55
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northwest County
\-
-
> -^'"' " / n - V .-" ."■ ■V'H'v'
u'.
,
^.
m
<
M
. V
*-».
i:\
56
Valley Transportation Authority
♦»-
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-6 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Northwest County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
('03$/MUUo'i
('03$/Millions)
T1
Altainont Conmiuter Express Upgrade
T3
Bus Rapid Transit—El Canrino Real
R05
Mathilda at SR 237 corridor hnprovements
50.0
R07
Mathilda Caltrain bridge reconstruction
R23
Lawrence Expwy.AVildwood Ave.
roadway realignment and traffic signal
4.4
R34
Magdalerra Ave. & Country Club intersection
signalization
0.4
R37
Java Drive bicycle shared use improvements
0.4
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Project
6.2
R60
Miramonte Ave. bikeway improvements
1.0
B09
Page MiIl/I-280 Interchange bike improvements
5.0
T4
Calfrairr Electrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
T8
Dumbarton Rail
278.0
113
Palo Alto Intermodal Center"
200.0
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
H85-05
SR 85 NB to EB SR 237 cormector ramp
improvement
H85-09
Frerrront Ave. improvements at SR 85
H85-10
SR 85 auxiliary lanes between
Homestead Rd. and Fremont Ave.
7.0
22.0
2.0
19.0
HlOl-19 US 101 SB auxiliary lane improvement
between Ellis St & SR 237
intersection improvements
B14
Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Bridge replacement 0.5
B15
Steverrs Creek Trail feasibility study
0.1
B22
Stevens Creek TVail, Reach 4 Central
823
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 South
5.0
3.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Tuba Dr. to North Meadow)
3.8
18.0
B25
Bicycle Boulevard/Lanes Network
5.0
B26
California Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
9.0
B27
Homer Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
5.6
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
6.5
841
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes(Weddell to Caribbean) 0.2
3.0
H237-02 SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
cormector ramp improvements
H237-03 SR 237 widening for HOV lanes between
SR 85 and east of Mathilda Ave.
H237-04 SR 237 WB on-ramp at Middlefreid Rd.
36.0
8.0
H237-05 SR 237 WB to NB US 101 cormector ramp
improvements
8.0
B42
H237-06 SR237/US 101/MathUda Ave.
Interchange improvements
improvement
0.4
B44
Sunnyvale East Drainage Tiail(JWC
Greenway to Tasman)
0.5
B45
Sumryvale Train Station North Side Access
1.8
SI000
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
0.4
SHOT
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential Arterials
Project'
6.2
51401
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal
5.0
3.0
Central Expwy.—^widen between Lawrence
Exprvy. & Mary Ave. to provide auxiliary
an^or acceleration/deceleration lanes
X07
6.5
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes (Sunnyvale Ave. to
Reed Ave.)
B43
H237-09 Lawrence Expwy./SR 237 auxiliary lane
13.0
Foottull Exjrwy.—replace Loyola Bridge in
Los Altos. Also hsted as R15 and B07 in the
LSCR and Bicycle Program
X08
10.0
System on Major Arterials
2.8
51402
City of Suimyr'ale CCTV Camera Deployment
0.6
53001
County of Santa Clara Traffic
Operations System Improvements
54030
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
Foothill Expwy.—fraffic/signal operational
corridor improverneirts between Edith Ave.
& El Monte Ave. inchrding adjacent side street
intersectiotrs & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
1.5
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrosstngs
at US 101 &SR 237
13.0
H237-08 SR 237 EB auxiliary lanes from
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
17.4
4.0
H237-01 SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd.
X06
$50.0
$22.0
18.0
X09
Foothill Ebrpwy.—extend existing westbound
XIO
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to
xn
Lawrence Ebcpwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave.& right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Bucldey St,and St
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements
Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp(not mapped) 0.5
2. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center requires additional funds not
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor
improvements
5.0
3. Also listed as a Local Streets ai\d County Roads project.
Oregon Page MiU Expwy.—
I-280/Page Mill Interchange modification
5.0
deceleration lane at San Antorrio Rd.
mixed flow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
X18
XI9
X20
0.5
0.1
54040
5.7
Caltrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
and Ramp Meteirng"
4.8
and additional service.
identified at this time.
4. Covered by project identified in VTA Hlgh\vay Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—^Alma Bridge
Replacement Feasibility Study
& Ramp Metering"
0.3
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and wirfi project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
57
Downtown San Jose
Investment Program
Subarea
Major capital investments in new transit servic
es and sizeable roadway projects as well as sig
The Downtown subarea consists of Downtown
nificant pedestrian and bicycle projects define
San Jose. Principal roadways include US 101,
the downtown improvements. Bringing BART
1-280, SR 87, SR 17/1-880, El Camino Real/The
into downtown will connect Santa Clara
Alameda/Santa Clara Street and San Carlos
County's urban center vrith the rest of the Bay
Street. Transit service includes Guadalupe Light
Area, as well as other transit services like;
RaO, Caltrain commuter rail, Amtrak rail,
Caltrain conunuter rail, Amtrak, Altamont
Altamont Coiranuter Express, Highway 17
Coiirmuter Express, Highway 17 Express Bus
Express bus service and various express and
and VTA bus, BRT and light rail lines including
local VTA bus lines.
the new Vasona light raU line (opeiring 2005).
To improve automobOe circulation, five one-waj*^
Travel Patterns in 2030
couplets will be changed to two-way traffic
Downtown is one of five subareas with more
among other projects. The Los Gatos Creek
inbound AM peak commuters (36,800) than out
Ti'ail will be extended into downtovm San Jose
bound (24,300). Inbound trips come largely
and wiU improve the area's connection to the
from the Central County (12,200 commuters)
existing bicycle iretwork.
and East Valley (8,300 commuters) subareas.
Outbound trips go mostly to the adjacent
Northeast County (6,100 commuters). Central
County (5,800 commuters) and West Valley
(4,600 commuters) subareas.
58
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for Doiunlown San Jose Subarea in 2030)
East Bay (.'(Miiici (in;; AKinu'iLi,
Gateway C'nmrsLCfisIji
OB l,CCo\
IB *^,700
'•
Peninsula's
Gateway
Wortliv/esf
County
Connecting Mann^
\
. 1B=3.700'-
OE-o,10J
Nortiieasi
OB=2,70C
18=8,300
08=2/jC: *'**'>,Ccunry
San Ftancibco,
iiSaiiMaiuo
Conntics .
San.Ioiiquin.jnd
Si«iiii«*l»uis< (iiiiilii'-j
T;800,
East ■
Vcsllsy
'^8=900
■. 18=500^:"
•4>
UK'
West Valley
08=4,600
Mouiittiinoiis
"V.
Central
County
18=5,400
08=5,800
18=12,200
Soulli
County
08=300
Santa Cruz
18=500
Gateway
C c)niic(*l:ng
Sari.iC'nv C'oiinly
08=200
•V 18=300
\
/
A
'
.O8fe50^il
\_
,18=400 ■
Southern
Gateway
rk'-V-
Comicctmc, Sail IJeiiilu,
i'
jMeiced iiiid
Mulileivv CiiuiilKs
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Downtown subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Downtown subarea in
the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Downtown
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips'?'
13,100
Outbound jtrips"
Inbound Trip
36,800
24,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
59
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Dowtown Son Jose
m
m
/
9
\
\
ip
m
\
r
i
ft p
60
Valley Transportation Authority
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-7 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Downtown San Jose
VTP ID
Project
T1
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
12
BART'
13
Bus Rapid Transit—Line 22, Stevens Creek Blvd., Monterey Hwy.
14
Caltrain Eleetrification
650.0
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades®
171.0
T7
Downtown East Valley"
550.0
19
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
2.0
HlOl-10
US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange Environmental & Preliminaiy Engineering
3.0
HlOl-25
US 101 SB auxiliary lane widening; 1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
8.0
HlOl-26
US 101 NB auxiliary lane widening: 1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
9.0
H88003
1-880/1-280/Stevens Creek Blvd. Interchange improvements—-Phase I
14.0
R03
Coleman Ave. widening
14.0
R08
Autumn St. extension
10.0
R22
Downtown couplet conversions
20.0
R35
Park Ave. improvement
1.0
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.^
0.2
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
S4060
CaltrEuis US 101 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering"
3.0
Cost
C03$/Millions)
$22.0
4,193.0
50.0
1. Measure A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TCRP funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million in other
funds. Does not assume additional bonding for constmction.
2. Caltrain service upgrades inchide track and facility improvements and additional service.
3. DTEV includes Enhanced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an extension to
Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy will be developed as EIS and PE ai-e completed on both portions.
4. Also listed as an ITS project.
5. Covered by project identified in YTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal rev
enue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MIC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
61
East Valley Subarea
Investment Program
The capital investments in the East Valley
The East Valley subarea consists of Eastern San
Jose and Eastern MUpitas. Principal roadways
include US 101,1-680 and Capitol Expressway.
Transit service includes the Alum Rock-Santa
Teresa Light Rail line and \'TA bus lines.
efficiency and expanding transit options. New
transit services including BART and a
Downtown-East Valley Light Rail/BRT line will
better connect this subarea vnth the rest of the
county. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
Travel Patterns in 2030
technologies will better manage traffic flow and
More commuters wUl leave the East Valley sub-
light metering, reducing delays on US 101 and
area (56,100) than will enter (21,400) during
major commuter thoroughfares like Capitol
the AM peak hour. Outbound trips ■will largely
go to the Northeast County (16,200 com
muters), Central County (11,100 commuters)
and Downtown (8,300 commuters) subareas.
tobomid trips ■will come largely from the Central
County (7,300 commuters) and Northeast
County (4,100 commuters).
62
subarea are aimed at impro^ving roadway
Valley Transportation Authority
Expressway, Stoiy Road and King Road.
Interchange improvements along US 101 will
reduce delay, as well.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for East Valley Subarea in 2030)
- East Bay Connccbng AI<inieda,
Gateway CuntraCoHUi,
San Joaquin,c
OB=4,300 \ St.uiislaiis Counties.
^'Peninsula : ^
! Gataway
iConnocting Marin,
(Sail Fnuicisco,
•&Sati MaU?o
Coxmtiest
Northwest
>
County
', - '
Ncitheasi
OB=5,300'. , County '
liiMlBt.90Q ; ... OB=16,200*
^
1^1
ir 1 100,
:; iB=3oo^ ^
Mountainous
Area .
Downtown
i3Bf8|306fe
IBl2iS>0^l%!?
West Valley
,o'b=6,400!
Central
County
OBSl1171:00
IB=7,300
\
South
County
QBfiliiife)
lB=600:Sffl
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Comipc'ting'
Santa Cnr.! County
bB=5ob
■#;iB=3oo,:
'v
1
'j
;-w
OB=J0O|
, ■,v,IB=400. 1
Southern
•
Gateway
1
Connecting San Benito, i
MerceiCancI
Monterey Couni ic.-.
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
East Valley subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the East Valley subarea i
the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the East Valley
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Internal Trips
26,800
Inbound Trips
Pu}p6uh:d-TriF>?
.56,100
21,400
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
63
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects^ East Valley
N
64
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-8 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, East Valley
VTP ID
Project
12
BART'
13
Bus Rapid Transit
T7
Downtown East VaUey^
HIOMO
US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St Interchange Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
H10M4
US 101/TulIy Rd. Interchange modifications
22.0
HlOl-15
US 101 SB widening from Story Rd. to Yerba Buena Rd.
11.0
HlOl-16
US 101/Capitol Expwy. Interchange improvements
20.0
H680-01
1-680 HOV Lanes; Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
25.0
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection modifications, left-tiim lane,
caipool lane adjustments & stripping modifications
2.0
R27
King Rd. pedestrian improvement at Barberry
1.0
RSI
Alum Rock School District area traffic calming elements'
2.0
B30
Coyote Creek Tiail (H-yvy 237/Bay Trail to Story Rd./Keyes St.)
6.1
32010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
33001
County of Santa Clara Traffic Operations System Improvements
34020
Caltrans 1-680 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering'
5.4
34060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements & Ramp Metering'
3.0
Cost
C03$/MUlions)
$4,193.0
50.0
550.0
3.0
18.0
1. Measm-e A need for the BART project is net of $649 million in TCRP funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69
million in other funds. Does not assume additional bonding for construction.
2. DTEV includes Enlmnced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an
extension to Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy will be developed as EIS and PE are completed on both portions.
3. Covered by project identiiied in VTA Highway Program,
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections end project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State
and Federal revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MIC)and with project cost estimates developed
in 2003.
VTP 2030
65
West Valley Subarea
investment Program
The capital investments in the West Valley sub-
The West Valley subarea consists of Los Altos,
area consist of improved transit semce, highway
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
improvements, intelligent transportation systems
Southern Cupertino, Saratoga, Campbell,
(ITS) technologies, bicycle network connections
Southern Santa Clara and Western San Jose.
and expressway and roadway upgrades.
Principal roadways include 1-280, SR 85, SR 17,
Upgrades to the Highway 17 Express bus and a
Lawrence Expressway, San Tomas Expressway,
new bus rapid transit(BRT) hue along Stevens
Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard,
Saratoga Avenue and Wmchester Boulevard.
Transit service includes Caltrain commuter rail.
Highway 17 Express Bus service and various
express and local VTA bus lines.
Creek Boulevard wiH improve transit service.
Sound mitigation along the entire length of SR
85, and improvements to 1-280 at SR 85/Foothill
Expressway and SR 17 in Campbell should
alleviate commute crunches. ITS improvements
are coming to Lawrence Expressway, Foothill
Travel Patterns in 2030
66
Expressway, Winchester Boulevard, Hamilton
West Valley is one of five subai'eas with more
Avenue, Saratoga Avenue and Kiely Boulevard.
inbound AM peak commuters (57,100) than
Bicycle improvements to SR 9, the Stevens
outbound (54,200). Inbound trips come lai-gely
Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail and the
from the Central County (16,900 commuters)
Los Gatos Creek Trail wiU be constructed.
and Northwest County (11,900 commuters)
Widening and improvements to San Tomas
subareas. Outbound trips go mostly to the adja
Expressway and Lawi-ence Expressway will
cent Northwest County (15,500 commuters).
increase roadway capacity. Upgrades to De Anza
Northeast County (11,100 commuters) and
Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue will improve
Central County (10,600 commuters) subareas.
commutes along these corridors.
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapferQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Jor West. Valley Suharea,in 2030)
OB=2,000
IB=6,300
i Peninsula'
!.Gateway-
j'CuniiecUiig Mann,
San Francisco,'
OB= 5.500
IB"11,900
Nci
iliwest
•^i iliwes
County
East Bay
Mki icild.
Gateway roniia C oMa
Ssin .lontiDin, and
^iani.si:iu.s CoiinOes
OB=11,100
IB=4;60p
Nci'thcast
County
& SanMateo-
Counties j \
' . OB=1,900'?'
. - IB=6,400 .
OB=5 -iOO wgu';'
•a&=5Moii
Mounuiiiioiis
„^IB=4,600, vafiey -
iB=3,ipo;:f
Al IM
Dov/ntown
Central
County
i
GB=10,600
JB=16,900,
Soutn
Couniv
OB=700
IB=-900
Santa Cruz
Gateway
C'liniii'i'iiiu;
Santa Ciii.- I'ouiity
-
\
■OB= 1,800
1B=1,400 ■
k
fi;.OB='li800--i"l!i
,®=900
,
;
—Southern
Gateway
Coimectmg San B&fej
Meiced, and
_ ■ i
Monlcicy Counties
Inbound Trips
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end In the
West Valley subarea in the a.m. peak hour
57,100
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the West Valley subarea
in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound Trips:
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the West Valley
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
54,200
^ '
'Internal Trips^ixj
''
53,300
- '■ /
j
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
67
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, West Volley
to
»rMi
\
68
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-9 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, West Valley
VIP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MilUo7ts)
C03$/MiUions)
T3
BOl
Bus Eapid Transit—El Camino Real i
Stevens Creek Blvd.
$50.0
14
Caltrain Electrification
650.0
15
Caltraiir Service Upgrades'
171.0
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
H17-01
SR17 improvements, NB SR 17 auxiliary
lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
H85-02
SR 85 noise mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
H280-05 1-280 NB second exit lane to Foothill Expwy.
2.0
12.0
7.0
1.0
H880-03 I-880/l-280/Stevens Creek Blvd.
mrercnange unprovemenis—rnase i
xn
XI2
XI3
X14
XI5
X21
X22
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave. & right-in-and-out access at De Soto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St.,
St. Lawrence/Lawrence Station onramp
& south of Calvert Dr.
4.0
LawTence Expwy.-—optimize signal coordination
along Lawrence Expwy.-Saratoga Ave. corridor
0.1
Lawrence Expwy.—coordinate and optimize
signal phasing aird tuning plans m 1-280/
Lawrence Expwy. Interchange area
Lawrence Expwy.—prepare a Caltrans PSR
for tier IC project at the Lawrence Expwy/
Calvert Dr./l-280 Interchange area-
San Tomas Expwy.—^provide an additional
WB right-turn lane at Moruoe St.
X23
X24
R21
0.8
810
Boliinger Rd. bicycle facility improvement
0.4
811
Maiy Ave.(1-280) bike/pedestrian overcrossing
/. I
819
Hwy 9 bike lanes (Saratoga Ave.-Los Gatos Blvd.) 1.7
836
San Tomas Aquino Greek TVail
(Hwy 237 to Gity Limits)
17.0
Santa Glara Intermodal Transit Genter
bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing*
5.0
838
Gox Ave. railroad grade crossings
0.5
839
PGE De Anza Trail (Reach 3)
2.5
S101
Hamilton Ave. Intelligent Transportation System
0.3
S102
Gity of Gampbeil traffic signal system upgrade
0.3
S103
Winchester Blvd. Intelligent
Transportation System
0.3
Gity of Santa Glara Gommunications
network upgrade
3.5
51301
Gity of Saratoga citywide signal upgrade project
0.5
S1401
Gity of Sunnyvale traffic adaptive signal system
on mtqor arterials
2.8
S3001
Gounty of Santa Glara traffic operations
system improvements
0.0
1.0
S4040
18.0
Galtrans SR 85 Goi-ridor TOS elements
& ramp metering®
28.0
54050
4.8
Galtrans 1-280 Gorridor TOS elements
& ramp metering®
2D
San Tomas Expwy.—at-grade improvements at
SR 17/San Tomas
Los Gatos Greek Trail bridge
& path improvements(Mozart-Gamden)
0.1
San Tomas Expwy.—^provide 2nd EB, WB &
NB left-turn lanes at Hamilton Ave.
2.0
803
SI200
San Tomas Expwy.—widen to eight lanes
between Williams Rd. & Ei Camino Real
Los Gatos Greek Trail Expansion on
west side (Hamilton Ave.-Campbeil Ave.)
837
Lawrence Expwy.—^widen to eight ianes
between Moorpaik Ave. & Boliinger Rd.
$1.5
802
14.0
0.5
Campbell Ave. improvements at Hwy 17
& Los Gatos Creek
55004
2.2
Silicon Valley ITS program upgrades
27.0
2.0
Union Ave. widening from Los GatosAlmaden Rd. to Ross Creek
1.7
R25
Campbell Ave. bicycle/pedestrian improvements
2.0
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
R29
Winchester Blvd. streetscape improvement
4.0
2. Project cannot be timded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
R31
Qirito Rd. unprovements
1.9
R34
Magdalena Ave./Country Club Dr.
intersection signalization
additional sei-vice.
3. Also listed as an ITS project.
4. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
0.4
Program.
5. Also listed as LSOR project.
R75
Moody Rd.improvements
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. improvements
0.6
R89
Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase IF
0.5
R91
Rancho Rinconada Neighborhood
Traffic Cahnlng Project
0.1
6. Covered by project identified in VTA Higiiway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission |MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
69
South County Subarea
Investment Program
The capital investments in the South County
The South County subarea consists of Morgan
Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, South San Jose and
unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
Principcd roadways include US 101, SR 152, SR
25, SR 156 and Santa Teresa Boulevard. Transit
service includes Caltrain commuter rail, Amtrak,
and various express and local VTA bus lines.
revolve around highway expansion, new transit
'service, significant intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) technologies improvements along
commute corridors and roadway improvements.
US 101 will be widened southward to the San
Benito County line. Interchange, roadway
improvements and widening will improve SR 25
and SR 152 and better manage traffic flows
Travel Patterns in 2030
tlirough the southern gateway. The electrifica
South County is one of five subareas with more
tion of Caltrain as well as service upgrades and
inbound AM peak commuters (12,600) than
new South County service will provide a con
outbound (8,000). Inboimd trips come largely
venient and quick alternative to northbound
from Central County (3,900 commuters) and
commuters. ITS improvements along US 101, SR
the Southern Gateway (3,400 commuters).
152, Santa Teresa Boulevard and Monterey
Outbound trips will largely go to Central County
Road will reduce delay and congestion.
(1,800 commuters) and the Southern Gateway
Roadway projects wiH fiU gaps and improve
(1,400 commuters).
mterconnectedness between major corridors.
Butterfield Boulevard, DeWitt and Sunnyside
and Hill Road will all be extended.
70
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns ffoi'Sovth Coimiy Subareain SOSO)
East Bay
-Gatpway
Connocting Alamcda,
I (lllll.lCo-M,
Saa Jciiquin, ai.d
SlanisbiLs Ciinnllfi
OB=400.
IBal;300
Peninsula
Gatev/ay
^
Connprtmg Mann,,1^
Sail Francisco,
\
& ban Maico
Morlnwo'ji-
County
OBisOO
n
lBS2®i3!;yg;Ti;
Northeast
County
OB=900 ^
i
©B=600
IB= 1,700.
Connncs
OB=400
IB=200
East
\
Downtown
i Volley
.Muiiiuaiuous
Arc'ii
IBf300??^tKj
West
Valley
OB=90d
ilBsZdox
Central
County
OBaHBOO
1
lBs3!900'
M
tS!
Santa Cruz
Gateway
CoimecUng
Santa Cruz egimty
OB=700
iBiiSOO-
■pi.li' .OB=U40Oj
W.\ f_,IB=3,400
. Soulhem
Gateway '
Cunnccliiig San Ucnilii
Merced, and
Monterey Counties
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
South County subareo In the a.m. peak hour
Inbound Trips
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the South County suborea
in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound Trips
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the South County
subareo in the a.m. peak hour
12,600
8,000 —I—
Internal Trips
25,400
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
71
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, South County
\
72
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
fable 2-10 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, South County"
VTP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
('03$/Millions)
C03$/Millions)
T4
Caltrain Electrification
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
T6
Caltrain South County^
H25-02
SR 25/Santa Teresa Bivd./US 101
$650.0
R43
100.0
De Witt Ave. & Sunnyside Ave. realignment
at Edmunson Ave.
171.0
R44
$5.0
Santa Teresa Blvd. & Fitzgerald Ave.
intersection signaiization
0.3
R50
First St. roadway ■widening from
Monterey Rd. to Church St.
1.2
804
Coyote Creek Trail (Heliyer to Anderson
Lake County Park)
1.3
H101-22 US 101 conversion to fonr-iane freeway: SR 25
140.0
to Santa Ciara/San Benito County line"
812
Uvas Creek Trail (part of CUroy Sports
Park Phase 1 & 2)
HlOl-23 US 101 widening between Cochrane Rd.
B13
Uvas Creek Trail Study
(Sports Park to Cavilan College)
0.2
820
Coyote Creek Trail Connection
0.5
B21
West Little Liagas Creek Trail
1.5
S300
City of Ciiroy Adaptive Traffic Sigrrai
Control System
0.9
S301
City of Ciiroy Event Management System
0.9
3.9
Interchange construction
H25-03 SR 25 upgrade to six-iane facility design
85.0
10.0
HI01-20 US 101/Termant Ave. Interchange improvements 10.0
and Monterey Hwy.^
HI52-02 SR 152 improvements, traffic signal at Giiroy
FoodsAVn intersection, SR 152 widening from
Miller's Slough through Liagas Creek Bridges
164.0
10.0
HI52-03 SR 152 Improvements, intersection improvement
at Ferguson Rd.
1.0
HI52-04 SR 152/SR 156 Interchange improvements
11.9
27.3
S302
City of Ciiroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
R14
Giiman RdyArroyo Cir. & Camino Rd.improvements 7.0
S900
Cocirrane Avenue Corridor Traffic
R24
Butterfieid Blvd. extension
R28
Uvas Park Dr. roadway extension
(not mapped)
R30
14.0
2.2
Railroad Crossing: San Martin Ave.
at Monterey Rd.
Signal System Improvement
S3003
ITS Enhancements at Santa Teresa Blvd.
S5004
Silicon VaUey ITS Program Upgrades
0.1
1.0
27.0
1.2
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track aiid facility improvements and
additional service.
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave. reallgmnent
at Monterey Rd.
0.9
2. Caltrain upgrades in South County include double-tracking and
R36
Railroad Crossing: Church Ave. at Monterey Rd.
0.5
3. Funded by ITIP.
R40
Hill Rd. extension
5.0
station improvements.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Tronsportotion
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
73
Central County Subarea
expressway improvements. ITS improvements
along US 101, Almaden Expressway, Capitol
The Central County subarea consists of central
Expressway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, Story
San Jose. Principal roadways include US 101,
Road and Monterey Road will improve traffic
1-280, SR 87, SR 85 and Almaden and Capitol
flow and reduce delay and congestion. Caltrain
Expressways. Transit service includes
service upgrades and electrification, service
Guadalupe and Almaden Light Rail lines,
improvements to the Highway 17 Express
Caltrain and various express and local VTA
Bus, the BART extension into Downtown,
bus Unes.
Downtown-East Valley light raiVbus rapid transit
(BRT), and the addition of BRT service on
Travel Patterns in 2030
Monterey Road will improve our transit network
More commuters will leave the Central County
and reduce congestion. Roadway improvements
subarea (65,200) than will enter (40,800)
include widening of US 101 south of Story
durmg the AM peak hour. Outbound trips
Avenue, improvements to SR 17, improvements
will lai-gely go to the West Valley (16,900
to southern San Jose, and along major commute
commuters). Downtown San Jose (12,200
corridors like Story Road and Bascom Avenue.
commuters) and Northeast County (11,600
Bicycle improvements along McKean Road and
commuters). Inbound trips wll come largely
Almaden Expressway will encourage multi-
from East Valley (11,100 commuters) and West
modality, and the extension of the Los Gatos
Valley (10,600 commuters) subareas.
Creek Trail will bring bicyclists and pedestrians
into downtown San Jose.
Investment Program
The capital investments in the Central County
subarea entail significant intelligent transporta
tion systems (ITS), transit, roadway and bicycle
improvements and some modest highway and
74
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (for C&iLral Couniy Subavea in 2030)
East Bay l uiiiiuiiiiii! A'liiurilci.
Gateway Coiilr.i
Ci-2 5C0 \ S.ii,Ii),u|iiii,,a:iil
IB=3,900
Peninsula '
.
&Saii
Count
OB-11,600
^
Gateway
(
CannetUiiRM;irln, r'
1 San Francisco,, 4
\ Stanislaus Counties
IB=2,900' ;
Nortkwcst
I-Jcithrast
County
■.
:
Couniy
OB=6,600
f
IB=2,000 ■
nowntovvp
Wust Valley
• "^"OB-16,900
IB-10,600' '
=a.t
.-OB= 10,200
IB=5,800l '
OB=2
BOO
Moiiiiiuinou's
Vci
L /
OB=7,'300
f C
• . 00
Area
VJ5H
South
County
08=3,900IB=1,800 ,,
Santa Cruz
Gateway
Cii.ineciin;;
Santa ( ra/. I'liiiiiiv
OB-1,300 .
IB=800
■
OB=300V4-li
18=1,000 ■
I
Southern
Gateway
Ciiiini'Ctiim San iii'iiiloj
Mcni'd, Jiiiii
Montorey.Countios
Internal (I) Trips: trips that both start and end in the
Central County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving the Central County
subarea in the a.m. peak hour
Inbound (IB) Trips: with destinations in the Central
County subarea in the a.m. peak hour
'
Outbound Trips
65,200
Internal Trips;
58,400 {
Source; VTA 2004
VIP 2030
75
VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Central County
m
(5
n
\
n xr
- /.
76
Valley Transportation Authority
vlaf . II ^
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-11 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Centrol County
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
COSSMUlio'ns)
C'OSS/MiMions)
$o.e
13
Bus Rapid Transit—Monterey Hwy.
$50.0
R19
14
Caitrain Eiectiification
650.0
R20
Senter Rd. widemng project
15
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
R25
Campbell Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements 2.0
19
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
2.0
R26
Blossom Hill Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
6.8
H1701
SR 17Improvements, MB SR 17 AuxUiary
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
0.2
801
Campbell Ave. improvements at
Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Creek.
1.5
Lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
12.0
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between
1-280 & SR 87
7.0
B02
H101-08 US 101/Hellyer Ave. Interchange improvements^ 11.0
HlOl-09 US lOl/BlossomHillRd.
Interchange improvements-
HlOl-14 US 101/Tully Rd. Interchange Modiflcations
to Yerba Buena Rd.
XOl
X02
X03
1.3
805
Ahnaden Expwy.(Ironwood Dr. to Koch Ln.)
2.3
808
McKean Rd. shoulder improvements
(Harry Rd. to Bailey Ave.)
5.0
828
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing
5.7
829
Branham LnJ Hwy 101 Bike/
Pedestrian Overcrossing"
5.0
832
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 4)
4.8
11.0
HlOl-16 US 101/Capitoi Expwy. Interchange
Improvements
2.0
Coyote Creek Trail (Hellyer Ave. to
Anderson Lake County Park)
7.0
HI01-15 US 101 SB Widerang from Story Rd.
20.0
Almaden Expwy.—Imtiate a Caltvans Project
Study Report/Project Development Study
to reconfigure SR SS/Ahnaden Interchange"
0.0
Ahnaden Expwy.—^Provide interim operational
improvements at SR85/AImaden
2.0
Almaden Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
Los Gatos Creek Trail expansion
on west side (Hamilton Ave. to Campbell Ave.)
B04
22.0
6.8
B33
Los Gatos Greek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
S2010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
53001
County of Santa Clara Traffic
Operations System Improvements
18.0
between Coleman Rd. & Blossom Hiil Rd.
8.0
X24
At-grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas
2.0
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection
modifications, left-turn lane, carpool lane
adjustments, & stripping modifications
2.0
S5004
Almaden Expwy.—^Widen to eight lanes
1. Caltrain service upgrades include txack and facility improvements and
X30
from Blossom Hill Rd. to Branham Rd.
R06
Chynoweth Ave. extension—
east of Almaden Expwy.
R09
Story Rd. improvements between Senter Rd.
& McLaughlin Ave.
R12
Branham Ln. widemng
R17
R18
3.2
S4060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
3.0
Silicon Valley - ITS (SV-ITS) Program Upgrades
27.0
additional service.
2. Funded by San Jose.
15.1
3. Project cannot be fimded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $250,000.
4. Also listed as an ITS project.
2.0
5. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program.
6. Covei'ed by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
from Vista Park Dr. to Sneil Ave.
8.2
Sneil Ave. widenhig
from Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
3.2
Lucretia Ave. widening
from Story Rd. to Phelan Ave.
9.0
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
77
Peninsula Gateway
for inbound trips will be largely in the neighbor
The Peninsula Gateway is the northwestern
area. Conversely, trips into the peninsula coun
boundary for travel between Santa Clara County
ties wiE largely come from the Northwest
and San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin and
County, supplying 12,200 northbound com
Sonoma Counties, as weU as other origins and
muters.
ing Northwest County (13,400 commuters) sub-
destinations beyond these counties. Current
principal roadways include the 1-280 and US 101
Investment Program
freeways and El Camino Real. Transit services
The capital investments in this gateway center
Include SamTrans, Caltrain commuter rail,
around improving transit service and efficiency.
Dumbarton Express and VTA buses.
Caltrain service upgrades wEl improve perform
ance, and electrification wiE make the system
Travel Patterns in 2030
quieter and reduce pollution. Dumbarton RaE
The Peninsula Gateway handles 26 percent of
will offer cross-bay raE transit service. Adjacent
inbound traffic into Santa Clara Comrty and 50
to the gateway wiE be the Palo Alto Intermodal
percent of outbound traffic during the AM peak
Transit Center — a terminal that integrates bus,
hour. In 2030, more commuters will travel out of
pedestrian, bicycle and raU services.
Santa Clara County through this gateway
(25,300) than enter (20,300). The destmation
Table 2-12 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Peninsulo Gateway
VTPID
Project
Cost
C03$Millions)
vo .
$650.0
T4
Caltrain Electrification
15
Caltrain Service Upgrades'
171.0
IB
Dumbarton RaE
278.0
T13
Palo Alto Intermodal Center'
200.0
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Pro.ject"
.\
6.2
1. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility improvements and
additional service.
2. Palo Alto Intermodal lYansit Center requires additional funds not identified at
this time.
3. Also listed as an ITS project.
See Appendix for more projecl detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue
projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with
project cost estimates developed in 2003.
78
Valley Transportation Authority
%
K
\
XO/
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Peninsvla. Gaieway 2030)
^stBay
see to Pcninsula=25,3C0
Peninsula to See=2O,3C0
i Peninsula
Gateway
' ConriC'.irv^ ".t.jin
San'FraiSbicc
r & SanJMateo
i
a Gway
Ctjiuiceiing /MtuiicOsi.
I'duini t'lMii,
p
and
Stanislaus Counties ^
Noriliv/est
n
County
Norihc-ast
OB=13;400'
• ib-12 20-)
' n
• .. »-'P
n ,
.:
OB 2;0D.0i
.16=1,800
CuiuJ .L'S
tiostsS.i.tC;
Downtov/n
Valloy.'r,
o6-3do:i
a5i0B=5O0alpiB32n'Od*;
W^S!
16=900^
Vallny
ti
Moiinttuiioiis
Ari'.i
06=3,100
16=5,000 •
Cnntrejifi
County
06=800'.
,'16=2,9001
Cruz
Connerting
Sa«U Cniz Coiiniy
South
County
O6-2C0
16=400 nn
A
V •
\
Southern
Gateway
C'lniiifi-liiii; Pan Boiulii,
Vomod,and
MllIlPl'IO CllLlllliC nn
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Peninsula Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Peninsula Gateway
!
OutboundJri^
25,300/
§m
inbound Trip
20,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
79
be the job-heavy subareas of Northeast County
East Bay Gateway
(18,600 commuters) and Northwest County
The East Bay Gateway is the northeastern
(13,300 commuters). Trips out of Santa Clara
boundaiy for travel between Santa Clara County
County via the East Bay Gateway will originate
and Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Napa
mostly from the neighboring East Valley (4,300
and Solano Counties as well as other origins and
commuters) and Northeast County (4,100
destinations beyond these counties. Principal
commuters) subareas.
roadways include 1-880 and 1-680, and transit
services include the Altamont Commuter
Investment Program
Express train from San Joaquin and Alameda
The capital investments along this gateway are
counties, Capitol Corridor service from
substantial. Intelligent technologies improve
Sacramento and Oakland, and VTA bus service.
ments in the 1-880 and 1-680 corridors, as well
Travel Patterns in 2030
East Bay traffic crunch. A new cross-connector
The East Bay Gateway will handle 57 percent
in Alameda County will share the traffic burden
of inbound traffic into Santa Clara Coimty and
of 1-680 to 1-880 with Mission Boulevard. The
32 percent of outbomrd traffic during the AM
extension of BART to San Jose will offer a reli
as HOV lane expansion on 1-680, will ease the
peak hour. In 2030, more morning commuters
able, high-speed alternative to driwng in the
wiU enter Santa Clara County via the gateway
corridor, and increase the interconnectedness of
(45,800) thanwiUleaveit (16,600). The destina
the South Bay with its northern neighbors.
tions for trips into Santa Clara County will largely
Table 2-13 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, East Boy Gotewoy
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
T1
Altamont Coininuter Express Upgrade
12
BART
H680-01
1-680 HOV lanes: Calaveras Blvd.
$22.0
4,193.0'
to SR 84
H680-02
25.0
I-680/I-880 cross-connector environmental
and conceptual engineering
S4010
7.0
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS
Elements and Ramp Metering
3.6^
S4020
Smart Residential Arterlals Project
5.4'
817
Coyote Creek Trail Reach 1
1.2
L Measure A need for the BART project is net of S649 million in TGRP
funds, $834 Federal New Starts, $107 Prop. 42, STIP and $69 million in
other funds. Does not assume additional bonding for constmction.
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
80
Valley Transportotion Authority
o
:hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Trovel Patterns (Easi Bay Gateway 2030)
•EastjB^^Jotiitomg Alanieda,
see to East Bay=l 6,600
East Bay to SeG
800
Gateway:OpntraVsta;
ipT-
Joa^tij^hd ,
^
Sl%islaiis Coknties ,
/
'Peninsula
Qateway
Corinccting Marin,
iSan Francisco.
a Sin Matco
Mnton
&
I Goiintics
4
.
Northwest
V
' OB=13,300
'-""-I' IB=2,500'
Northeast
County
' OB=18,600
-1B=4.100- ,
Downfowrn, |valley ^
WesttValley
Mountninous
OB=3,700 . 1 n
''iB-l-OOO • n ; .'..V-i'GB=3;t00
,
1 " '■ '■•'mt
OB =3,100
IB-2,000
\ ■
•tJs; t.
''
18-4,300
Central"!!.?;-,:^: ,,'
Counh/>.w:
County
>.#
OB=4,000'7,
.
Area I'
"j
.7
' IB=2,500 d
South
County
OB=200
18=400'. ■
Santa Cruz ■
' Gateway
Connecting
Santa Cruz CouiUy
(N)
Southern -
^
xGatoway,
- Connecting San Bcnito
^ Merced/and'
Monterey Coimtica' v"
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the East Boy Gateway
inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santo elara eounty From
the East Bay Gateway
Outbound Trips
16,600
Inbound Trips
45,800
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
81
Southern Gateway
will be largely headed toward neighboring South
The Southern Gateway is the southern bound
Northwest Coimty (1,400 commuters) and
ary for travel between Santa Clara County and
Northeast County (1,100 commuters). Two-
San Benito and Monterey Counties as well as
thirds (1,400 commuters) of all southbound
other origins and destinations beyond these
trips out of Santa Clara County originate from
counties. Principal roadways include SR 25, SR
neighboring South County cities.
County (3,400 commuters) and, notably,
152, SR 156 and US 101. Transit service into the
county consists of Amtrak and commuter bus
Investment Program
services. Galtrain and VTA bus lines provide
The capital investments along tliis gateway are
service north of the gateway.
centered upon mcreasing roadway capacity and
efficiency between Santa Clara and San Benito
Travel Potterns in 2030
County. The expansion of US 101 to an eight-
The Southern Gateway handles 11 percent of
lane freeway wiU be extended to the county
inbound traffic into Santa Clara County and
line. SR 25 wiU be expanded to six lanes. SR 152
eight percent of outbound traffic in the AM
will be widened in select areas along with other
peak hour. In 2030, more morning commuters
roadway improvements. Caltrain service ■will be
will enter Santa Clara County via the gateway
expanded.
(8,600) than will leave (3,900). Outbound trips
Table 2-14 VIP 2030 Proposed Projects, Southern Gateway
VIP ID
Project
H25-02
SR25/Santa Teresa Blvd./US 101 Interchange
Construction (Includes US 101 widening
between Monterey Hwy. & SR 25)
H25-03
H101 -22
H152-04
Cost
('03$/MiU,wns)
$70.0
SR 25 upgrade to a six-lane
facility design
10.0
US 101 conversion to four-lane freeway:
SR25 to Santa Clara/San Benito County
line'
140.0
SR 152/SR 156 interchange improvements
(not mapped)
27.3
1. Funded by ITIP.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
82
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns (Southern Gateway 2030)
^
> Connecting Alanieda,t
Gatav/ay,, .rContmCosUi,:
sKn Joaquln,imrl.
I
Psrilnsula
Gateway
[Cotmecting Mann,
San Francisco.
Mateo
iStamsIaus Counties
n
Northwost
i
County
'•<
Northeast
OB=V,400
., OB=l
IB=100 '
I ,«
County"
OB=1,100
B= 00
Counties.
1y
West, ■■
^"iv Valley' .
.i4, :OB=90b.:,5
■*,1^B=I,800
Downtown -
.
Jf OB=400 • '
1 -1-f IB=JO--\f 'East
'I
'1 .
I
'1
a-
"
? 'V
'\
V
- ^ Valley
.i.
■'!
^
\.OB=400 ■
^
, t IB-100
Central
County
Mountainous
.■ Area .
,*
-/
'
OB=l,COOK'S
\ 16=300' ,
SantaCruz-..
.'Gateway
South
County
OBi3,400
.J . vConneoUng., ■ .
Santa Cruz County
IBi 1,400
i§
..Soulher.hft'
•''fAGcitowiyS^^
CannecUng San Benito,
see tolSouthern Counties=3,900 Merced, and
• S Southern eounties to'seei8',600
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Southern Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Southern Gateway
Inbound Trips
8,600
OutboundTrips2,300
Source: VTA 2004
VTP 2030
83
Santa Cruz Gateway
toward the West Valley (1,400 commuters) sub-
The Santa Cruz Gateway is the boundary for
the West Valley subarea (1,800 commuters) as
travel between Santa Clara County and Santa
well as the Central County (1,300 comnmters)
Cruz County. The principal roadways are Highway
subarea.
area. Outbound trips will originate largely from
17 and SR 9. Transit service consists of Highway
Investment Program
17 Express Bus service.
The capital and service investments for this
Travel Patterns in 2030
gateway consist of modest service improve
The Santa Cruz Gateway handles six percent of
ments to Highway 17 Express Bus service and
inbound traffic and ten percent of outbound
minor safety improvements to Highway 17.
traffic in the AM peak hour. Iir 2030, more com
muters vnll leave Santa Clara County through
the Santa Cruz Gateway (5,100) than -will enter
(4,500). Outbound trips will be largely headed
Table 2-15 VTP 2030 Proposed Projects, Santo Cruz Gateway
VTP ID
Project
Cost
('03$/MiUi(ms)
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements
H17-01
SR 17Improvements, NB SR 17
Auxiliary Lane from Camden Ave. to
Hamilton Ave.
$2.0
12.0
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
Blossom
84
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
AM Peak Hour Travel Patterns(Smua Cmz Gateway 2030)
East Bay
Gateway
CoiULCcuni; Alnini.i1.i
S:m ilo.uiiuii, aiul
SUmisIans Counties
Peninsula
,
i Gateway
(
{CotmecLiiig Mariii, '
fSanl^ancjscOjV
Northwest
County
OB=600
-
IB=40"' ':
&Saii Moteo - ;i
Counties
N^iihuast
County
OB=600ffc
East -
Ve:lley
IB=300.'S
i t
n
OB=300
,
IB=500 •
Qov/ntov/n
OB=300
IB=200
MoiiiiI.mikiiis
Arcil
Wusi
Valley
OB=1,-400
IB=l-,'800
Centre!
County
OB=800
IB=1,300
South
Santa Cruz:H*>.'
County
"68=506■
. IB=700
:
see to Sonto'eSz eounty=5,100
Santa eruz eounty to See=4,500
k
Southorn
Gatoway
.Connecting San-BenitOj i
Morreii, and,
Monterey Counties
Outbound (OB) Trips: leaving Santa elara eounty
going through the Santa eruz Gateway
Inbound (IB) Trips: entering Santa elara eounty from
the Santo eruz Gateway
Inbound Trips
4y500
I
Outbound STnigl
5,100
Source; VTA 2004
VTP 2030
85
VTP
2030
PROGRAM
AREAS
•T I iheVTP 2030 program areas represent
_L a broad range of programs and
projects covering four modes ,of travel: road
ways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian. Since
tfie adoption of VTP 2020 in December
2000, VTA and ,its partners have conducted
numerous, planning studies to jdentify
'transportation needs and define projects ,
throughout the cdunty. Results from those
siudies have-helped to define the program ',
■areas,aridito develop'the projecflists. Each., •
of the program areas and the VTP 2030
Table 2-16 Program Areas and Fund Ailocaiipn
Program >\reos .T
.
.
Fund Allocation
COSS/kKllioris) I
allocations, discussed in this section, is shown -
' in Table'_2-16.
■ _ ' V-- ;.
Highway Program
■
.
,
$766.3
,
Expressway Program
150.0."
The appendix provides- additional informa-: ; :
Local Streets & County Roads Program
230.0-
tion about the project lists presented in this
Pavement Management Program
chapter. The additional information may -. ,
Sound Mitigation Program ,
.
■
^
I
,
.
.
.
,
I
,
^
,
•
■
Removal Program r .
the project affects, and the VTP 2030 project
Transit Program ;
10.0,
1.0 .
•
. .
lYansportation Systems Operations •
& Management Program
Bicycle Program
Valley Transportation Authority
-
, ■■
6,829.0
,
■
.28.0
.
Livable Communities & Pedestrian Program
86
. -301.5
Landscape Restoration &; Graffiti
include the project sponsor, the jurisdictions
allocation.'
"
.
90.5
. .
120.1
.
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Highway Program
Planning for the next generation of state high
way improvements in Santa Clara County is an
evolving process, VTP 2030 continues this
process by building upon the highway planning
work conducted for VTP 2020.
Mr.
Tlie VTP 2030 Highway Programfund
allocation is just over $766 millionfor 40
improvements in all areas of the county.
One of the key recommendations from VTP
2020 was the need to study county gateways
and key highway corridors. As a result, part of
the work in developing VTP 2030 Highway
Projects involved an evaluation of the county
gateways and key corridors within the county to
identify, define, and prioritize improvements
that relieve congestion, alleviate bottlenecks,
and enhance safety.
• SR 85/1-280 Area Study
• SR 237 Corridor Study
Highway Planning Studies
The first three in this list are multi-county studies
A presentation to the VTA Board of Directors in
with partnering agencies from outside Santa
2001 identified a series of major freeway
Clara Coimty. The fourth listed is a focused study
corridor studies being conducted by VTA.
of the SR152 / SR156 interchange area that
These included:
includes conceptual and preliminary engineering
• I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Study
of the interchange and approaching highways.
The last four studies are for corridors located
• Southern Gateway Land Use and
Transportation Study
entirely within Santa Clara County. Each study
included traffic operations analysis of
• Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study
improvements for existing and long-term needs,
• SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Study
screening of alternatives, preparation of conceptual
• US 101 North Corridor Study
• US 101 Central Corridor Study
geometric and operational plans, preparation of
preUminary cost estimates and development of
construction phasing strategies.
VTP 2030
87
Highway Projects
-.y.
rrv
South County
'.A -
C#
:r
iV .!'
y>
N
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-17 Highway Projects (projects wUhfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03S/Millmns)
C03$/MiUions)
HOO-01
HI7-01
$5.0
Connector Ramp Intprovements
12.0
Construction (Includes US 101 Widening
between Monterey Hwy. & SR 25)
H25-03 SR 25 Upgrade to Six-Lane Facility Design
H85-02 SR 85 Noise Mitigation between 1-280 & SR 87
85.0
H85-09 Fi-emont Ave. Improvements at SR 85
H237-09 lavvrenceExpwy/SR 237AuxiliaiyLnneImprovement 3.0
H237-10 SR 237 WB Auxiliary Lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
22.0
H680-02 I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Emdronmental
19.0
& Conceptual Engineering
to Montague Expwy.
10.0
HlOl-08 US 101/Hellyer Ave,Interchange Improvements' 11.0
Interchange Improvements—Phase I
HlOl-11 US 101/Zanker Rd./Sl<yport Dr./Fomth St.
Interchange Environmental &
Preliminary Engmeering
3.0
•
to Lawrence Expwy.
'
to Yerba Buena Rd.
•.
11.0
"
40.0
71.0
:" ihter'Chahge',.Construction—Phase il'' . .
10.0
21.0
. n' Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd. ?
'
'.Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd.
21.0
HI01-21 US 101/Buena Vista Ave.'
Interchange Construction
164.0
8.0
20.0
HlOl-27 US 101 SB to EB SR 237 Connector Improvements
55.0
H237-07 SR 237 EB to Mathilda Ave. Flyover Qff-ramp
17.0
H237-11 .SR 237 EB Airxiliary Lane between'
9.0
I
10.0
. 6.0
.*,.'Footliill Expwy. S SR 85
n
-"
,
n
H280-04 1-280 Doyvmtown Access Improvemerits
. beWeen 3rd Stand 7tlr St
1.0
" -
n , "" .'Zanker Rd.'& North First St.
H280-02 1-280 NB Braided Ramps between
..
H680-03 1-680 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes
22.0
46.0
1. Funded by the City of San Jose.
2.
3.0
■34.0
■
from McKee Rd. to Benyessa Rd.,
27.3
Funded by ITIP.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shov/n in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
18.0
H237-03 SR 237 Wideiung for HOV Lanes between
SR 85 & East of Mathilda Ave.
31.0
HT01-'18 US IOI NB Braided Ramps betw;een
H237-02 SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
Connector Ramp Improvements
of Winchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
Interchange Construction—Phase I,
140.0
H237-01 SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd.
Intersection Improvements
32.0
HlOl-11- US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./FourthSt^
H152-04 SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Improvements
(not mapped)
Sunnyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave.
n -'Interchange Construction
10.0
H152-03 SR 152 Iirrprovements, Intersection
Improvement at Ferguson Rd.
25.0
H101-17 rUS101.;SB Braided Ramps between
H152-02 SR 152 Improvements, Traffic Signal at Gilroy
Foods/WTI Intersection, SR 152 Widening from
Miller's Slough through Llagas Creek Bridges
1 Creek Blvd. to Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.
HIOMO US 101/Mabuiy Rd./TayIor,St.
3.0
HlOl-26 US 101 NB Auxiliary Lane Widening:
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
41.0
H101.-11.US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./FourthSt',
H101-25 US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Widening:
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
-
.
20.0
HlOl-23 US 101 Widening between Cochrane Rd.
& Monterey Hwy.^
. Real& SR 237 & SR 85/El Camino Real •
H85-06 SR85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from Stevens •
2.0
22.0
HlOl-22 US 101 Conversion to Four-Lane Freeway:
SR 25 to Santa Clara/San Benito Coimty Line^
48.0
H85-08 SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from North n -
HI01-20 US lOl/Termant Ave. Interchange
Improvements in Morgan Hill
.
1H85-07 -SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from Saratoga ' ~
HI01-19 US 101 SB Airxiliary Lane Improvement
between Ellis St. & SR 237
'n '
' . Interchange Improvements
HlOl-15 US 101 SB Widening from Story Rd.
H101-16 US 101/Capitol Expwy. hiterchange Improvements
:'&E1 Camino Real '
H85-04 SR:85 Auxiliary Lanes between El Camino
7.0
HlOl-12 US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Great America Plrvy.
HlOl-14 US 101/Tully Rd. Interchange Modifications
14.0
(H85-03 SR 85 Aur^ary Lanes between Fremont Ave.
!
HlOl-09 US 101/Blossom HiU Rd.,Interchange Improvements' 7.0
HlOl-10 US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
7^
H880-03 1-880/1-280/ Stevens Creek Blvd.
27.0
HlOl-07 US 101 Auxiliaty Lane Widenings: Trimble Rd.
1.0
25.0
H680-01 1-680 HOV Laires: Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
HlOl-06 US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
Central Ebcpwy. Interchange Improvements
15.0
H280-05 1-280 NB: Second Exit Lane to Footlrill Expwy.
2.0
H85-10 SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes
between Homestead Ave. & Fremont Ave.
5.0
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
10.0
7.0
13.0
H237-08 SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lanes from
SR 85 NB to EB SR 237
Connector Ramp Improvement
8.0
H237-06 SR237/US101/MathildaAve.
Interchange Improvements
H25-02 SR 25/Santa Teresa BlvdAJS 101 Interchange
H85-05
H237-05 SR 237 WB to NB US 101
SR 17Improvements, NB SR 17 Auxiliaiy
Lane from Camden Ave. to Hamilton Ave.
$8.0
H237-04 SR 237 WB On-ramp at Middlefield Rd.
High Occupancy Toll Lane Demonstratton
Project Development(not mapped)
36.0
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
" j Projects without funding allocations, not mapped
VTP 2030
89
The findings from these studies were evaluated
development by local agencies and/or VTA, and
using Board-adopted highway project prioritiza
partner projects under development by neigh
tion criteria. These criteria provided a means to
boring counties.
evaluate projects based on congestion relief,
safety enhancement, environmental equity, geo
graphic equity, project implementability, and
ability of the project to enhance the county's
economic health. The results of these studies
fed into the development of the VTP 2030 list of
highway projects.
The resulting VTP 2030 Highway Projects list
includes a wide array of projects located along
freeway and state highway corridors. The proj
ects include freeway mainline improvements,
safetjf improvements,interchange reconstruc
tion, new interchanges, new high occupancy
vehicle (HOV)lanes, freeway-to-freeway con
nector improvements, intersection improve
Highway Projects List
ments along state highways and operational
The Highway Projects include projects remain
improvements.
ing from VTP 2020, projects studied or under
study in highway corridor and gateway studies,
projects submitted by Caltrans, projects under
Developing the Constrained and
Unconstrained Project List
A total of 62 projects totaling about $1.9 biUion
in requests were evaluated using the Board-
H'
adopted highway project prioritization criteria.
Out of a score of 100, the scoring for projects
ranged from 82 to 12, with the scoring criteria ,
sti
*11
favoring larger projects. In order to give consid
eration to low-cost improvements vnth high util
ity, a benefit-cost criterion was also evaluated.
Tlris allowed lower-cost projects with liigher
benefit-cost ratios to rank liigher on the final
listing of projects.
The constrained list of projects includes 40 proj
ects totaling $766.3 million in requests (includes
m
$319.5 million in ITIP funds; see below). Another
17 projects totaling $540 nuUion are shown as
unconstrained projects. The full list of projects
with the appropriate dividing lines is provided in
90
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-17 on page 89. The map of projects on
page 88 shows only the 40 consti'ained projects.
Special Considerations
ITIP Projects—^Three projects on the
constrained list are proposed to receive $319.5
million in Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program (ITIP) funding. These
are the following projects:
• SR 25/Santa Teresa Boulevard/US 101
Interchange construction (including US 101
between Monterey Highway and SR 25)—for
the US 101 widening portion of the project
• US 101 conversion to four-lane freeway: SR
25 to Santa Clara/San Benito County Line
• US 101 widening between Cochrane Road
and Monterey Highway
The $446 million in requests approved by the
VTA Board of Directors in April 2004 taken with
tliis ITIP request amount comprise the $766.3
mUlion stated earlier.
Projects with Known Fundingfrom Other
Sources—Three projects on the constrained list
are known to have secured funding from other
regional or local sources since this list was pre
sented to the VTA Board of Directors. As a
result, they are shown here with a $0 request
amount. These projects are:
• SR 152/SR 156 Interchange improvementsfunding from local sources, RTIP and ITIP
• US 101/Blossom Hill Road Interchange
improvements-funding from City of San Jose
• US 101/Hellyer Road Interchange improve
ments-funding from City of San Jose
Projects Not on Constrained or
Unconstrained Lists—Five projects are not on
the constrained or unconstrained lists. These are
projects with high costs that could not be lit into
the plan or have unresolved issues. These proj
ects can be evaluated and considered in the next
plan update. The five projects are the following:
• SR 152 Corridor New Toll Roadway: US 101
to SR 156-carryover listmg from VTP 2020
that has not progressed
• I-880/Kato Road Overcrossing (with connec
tions to Dixon Landing Road and Scott Creek
Road)-engineering and conceptual engineer
ing could progress through another listing in
the constrained list
• I-880/SR 237 Flyover: Northbomrd 1-880 to
Westbound SR 237-dropped from Measui'e B
project due to conflicts with slip ramp from
Calaveras Boulevard to SR 237
• 1-880 Widening for HOV Lanes from SR 237
to Old Bayshore-high-cost project in a corri
dor with recent improvements
• SR 17 Improvements: Northbound SR 17 to
Northbound SR 85 Direct Connector-former
Measure B project lacking the necessary local
support
VTP 2030
91
Expressway Program
VTP 2030 Expressway Program
Expressway Plaiming Study (CCEPS.) This
Santa Clara County is the only county in the
study took two yeai's to complete and culminat
state operating an expressway system timough
ed in the development of an Implementation
incorporated areas. The pui-pose of this system
Plan that was adopted by the County Board of
is to relieve local streets and supplement the
Supervisors in August 2003. The
fi-eeway system. VTP 2020 established the need
Implementation Plan outlines expressway sys
for conducting a comprehensive study of the
tem infrastructure needs for a 25-year time-
county's expressways system to identify proj
frame, provides a framework for roadway proj
ect prioritization, and provides a basis for
ects and establish implementation priorities.
In 2001, VTA provided the Santa Clara County
Roads and Airports Department with $2 million
to conduct a Comprehensive Countywide
includmg projects in VTP 2030 and the Regional
Transportation Plan.
The CCEPS Implementation Plan Identifies
tlu-ee tiers of roadwayprojects. The Tier 1
projects address the existing and future needs
ft ^
%
of level-of-service (LOS) F Intersections by pro
■■i
viding signal, safety, and operational lihprovements. The 28 projects Identified in Tier lA
address the top priorities for each expressway
K
and improve most of the current LOS and oper
ational problem areas. The CCEPS concluded
ij
.
S®E;ac*,v«
that most of the projects in Tier lA can be
completed in a three- to six-year timeframe. A
complete list of Tier lA projects Is provided on
page 95.
VTP 2030 Expressway Program
Fund Allocation
VTP 2030 allocates $150 million to fund the entire
Tier lA list of projects and the Capitol Expressway
Street Improvements Identified in the US 101
Central Corridor Study conducted by VTA.
92
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Expressway Projects/linproyemenTs
Almaden Expressway
Improvements to Almaden Expressway largely
involve relieving congestion near Highway 85. A
Project Study Report(PSR) will determine ways
of reconfiguring the Almaden/Highway 85 inter
SSi
change. Additional lanes will be added both
north and south of the Highway 85 interchange
to reduce congestion and increase tlnuughput.
Capitol Expressway
i
Improvements include intersection modifica
tions, left-turn lane, carpool lane adjustments,
and stripping modifications.
Centra! Expressway
Widening from four to six lanes between Mary
and San Tomas Expressways will increase
will reduce delays. Limiting the number of
capacity and safety on this heavily used stretch
neighborhood access points between Highways
of Central Expressway. Carpool lanes may also
101 and 280 will reduce delays from merging
revert to mixed flow lanes between San Tomas
Expressway and De La Cruz.
Foothill Expressway
Signal improvements between Editli and El
vehicles. Additional mixed flow lanes will be
added between Calvert and Moorparlc/Bollinger.
Additionally, a project study report wiU look
at the Lawrence Expressway/l-280/Calvert
interchange area.
Monte win reduce congestion while a host of bicy
cle, pedestrian and signal timing improvements
are added with the replacement of Loyola Bridge.
Lawrence Expressway
Montague Expressway
Improvements include converting HOV lanes
between Highways 680 and 880 to mixed flow
lanes, and a series of intersection and inter
Optimizing signal timing in the Lawrence/
change improvements between Highways 101
Saratoga area and the Highway 280 intersection
and 680.
VTP 2030
93
Expressway Projects
.'S.
\,
.X
94
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-18 Expressway Projects
YIP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
('03$/MiUions)
XOl
X02
X03
Almaden Expwy.—Initiate a Caltrans Project
Study Report/Project Development Study
to reconfigure SR 85/Aimaden Interchange'
Almaden Expwy.—Provide interim operational
improvements at SR 85/Almaden Expwy.
$0.0
2.0
8.0
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—^Alma Bridge
Replacement Feasibility Study
0.3
X21
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide additional
westbound right-turn lane at Monroe
1.0
X23
queue jump lanes at Scott Blvd., if unsuccessful
X06
Central Expwy—Widen to six lanes between
LawTence and San Tomas Expwys. without
HOV lane operations
0.1
X24
10.0
Central Expwy.^—Widen between Lawrence
Expwy & Mary Ave. to provide auxiiiaty &/or
acceleration/deceleration lanes
13.0
X07
Footliill Bhcpwy.—Replace Loyola Bridge
10.0
X08
Foothill Expwy.—^Traffic/signal operational
corridor improvements between Edith Ave. &
El Monte Ave. including aeijacent side street
intersections & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
X09
X10
XII
XI2
XI3
X14
1.5
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar
Ave. & right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St.,
& St. Lawrence/Lawrence Station on-ramp
0.1
XI5
Lawrence Expwy.—Prepare Caltrans Project Study
Report for Tier IC project at the Lawrence/
Calvert Dr./I-280 interchange area'
0.0
XI6
Montague Expwy.—Convert HOV lanes to
XI7
McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.
XI8
Expwy Signal Coordination witli City Signals'
Equipment to connect with Sumtyvale, Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Los Altos traffic signal
2.5
interconnect systems'
5.0
10.0
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow
automatic traffic count collection'
0.5
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—
intersection modifications, left-tum lane, carpool
lane adjustments, and stripping modifications
2.0
X30
Almaden Expwy.—widen to eight lanes from
3.2
Blossom Hill Rd to Branham Rd.
[xrT" n Capitol Expwy.—Interchange at Silver Greek Rd. 55.0 >
Lavuience Expwy—^Interchange at Arques Ave.
!X33
Lawrence Expwy-^lnterchange at Kifer Rd.
1X34 . ..Lawrence Expwy—Interchange at Moiuoe St.
|x35.
1x36
( _ .
1X37
1
'
Montague Expwy.—At-grade improvements
at Mission College Blvd. & partial-clover :
• mterchange at'.US 101
Montague Expwy.^McCarthy Blvd:/01Toole Ave;
.
.
45.01
45.0'
15.0)
Montague Expwy—Ifrimble Rd. Flyover
squar e loop interchange
35.0!
^
ii.ol
60.0'
1. PSR cannot be funded by fimd source. PSR estimated cost $250,000.
2. PSR cannot be funded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
0.1
Montague Expwy.—Baseline project consisting
of 8-lane widening and 1-880 partial-clover
interchange with at-grade improvements
at Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria Dr./River Oaks
Pkwy., Main St./01d Oakland Rd., &
2.0
with square loops along Kem Ave. & Titan Way
0.5
Lawrence Expwy.—Coordinate & optimize signtii
phasing & timing plans in 1-280/Lawrence
interchange area
0.1
mixed flow use east of 1-880
2.0
San Tomas Expwy.—^At-grade improvements
at SR 17/San Tomas Expwy.
X26
[X32
Lawrence Expwy—Widen to 8 lanes between
Moorpark Ave./BoIlmger Rd. & south of Calvert Dr. 4.0
Lawrence Expwy: Optimize signal coordination
along Lawrence-Saratoga Ave. corridor
at Hamilton Ave.
X27
0.5
0.1
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide 2nd eastbound,
westbound, and northbound left-tmn lanes
Expressway Traffic Information Outlets'
X28
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to mixed
flow lanes between US 101 and Elko Rd.
28.0
X25
Foothill Expwy—Extend existing westbound
deceleration lane at San Antonio Rd.
San Tomas Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
between Williams and El Camino Real
La Cruz Blvd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV
X05
$5.0
X20
X22
Central Expwy.—Convert the Measure B HOV
lane tvidening between San Tomas Expwy. & De
after a thr ee- to five-year trial period
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—1-280/
Page Mill mterchange modification
Almaden Expwy.—Widen to eight lanes
between Coleman and Blossom Hill Rd.
X04
XI9
3. Project not mapped.
See Appendix tor more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
38.5
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor improvements 5.0
r.- "
Projects withoutfunding allocations, not mapped
VTP 2030
95
Oregon/Page Mill Expressway
Signal Operations for All Expressways
Replacing and optimizing signals, installing
Improvements include coordination of express
pedestrian ramps improving pedestrian and
way signals with signals on perpendicular
bicycle safety and reducing the effects of traffic
streets, electronic information signs, advisory
on adjacent streets will occur. Additionally,
radio, cable TV feeds, automatic traffic counts
improvements to the I-280/Page Mill
and a web page. These improvements are
interchange and an Alma Bridge replacement
intended to work together to reduce delay on
feasibility study are scheduled.
and around the expressways. Additionally, traf
San Tomas Expressway
intercomiected with other programs in
Widening to eight lanes between El Camino
Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los
Real and Williams Road as well as a series of
Altos.
fic signal monitoring on the expressways will be
additional turn lanes between Monroe Street
and SR 17 will increase capacity on one of the
most popular expressways.
Refer to the Comprehensive Gountywade
Expressway Planning Study, Implementation
Plan, August 19, 2003, for more information on
the Tier lA projects.
VIlMrj
96
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Local Streets and County Roads
The VTA Board of Directors created the Local
Streets and County Roads (LSCR) Fund
I
Program with the adoption of VTP 2020 in 2000.
This program addresses the difficulties Member
Agencies have with raising revenues for local
streets and county roads projects not connected
to new development projects.
The VTP 20S0 Program Area allocation iden
tifies up to $230 millionfor local streets and
county roads on the committed project list.
pII
VTA Staff, working through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) subcommittee of
the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
developed tliis list of projects usiirg program eli
gibility and scoring criteria adopted by the VTA
Board. The criteria are based on street coimec-
tivity, congestion relief, safety, and the interface
between transportation and land use. Another
$58 million in grant fund requests appear on the
uncommitted project list.
The following project types are eligible for LSCR
funds:
• New or major upgrades of sidewalk and Class
II & III bicycle facilities
• Traffic calming measures
• New grade separations at raiiroads and road
ways
• New street connections and extensions, local
road crossings of freeways and expressways
• Multimodal reconstruction of streets
• Roadway operational improvements including
• ITS projects and project elements
The complete list of LSCR projects is provided
on page 99.
new lanes, intersection turn lanes, and mod
ern roundabouts
VTP 2030
97
98
Local Street and Roadway Projects
•Vl-
^/
%
\o
South County
^c?
xarms
>. \
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-19 Local Streets and County Roods Projects (ivith allocatedfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTP ID
Cost
C03$/Millions)
COS$/MUlions)
ROl
Calaveras Blvd. Overpass Widening
with Operational Improvements
R02
R03
OaWand Ed. TOdening from
US 101 to Montague Expwy.
10.0
Coleman Ave. Widening
14.0
R04
Berryessa Ed. Widening from US 101 to 1-680
R05
Mathilda Ave./SE 237 Corridor Improvements
50.0
R06
Chynoweth Ave. Extension—
East of Almaden Expwy.
15.1
R07
Mathilda Ave. Galtrain Bridge Eeconstruction
17.4
R08
Autumn St. Extension
10.0
R09
Story Ed. Improvement from
Senter Ed. to McLaughlin Ave.
RIO
7.0
2.0
Eengstorff Ave. Grade Separation
Enviroirmental Documentation'
Rll
$1.0
R27
$40.0
0.3
Montague Expwy./Great Mall Plrwy.—
Capitol Ave. Grade Separation
24.5
R28
Uvas Park Dr. Eoadway Extension
2.2
R29
Winchester Blvd. Streetscape Improvement
4.0
R30
Eailroad Crossing: San Martin Ave. at Monterey Ave. 1.2
R31
Qrrito Ed. Improvements
1.9
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave. Eealigrrment
at Morrterey Ed.
0.9
R33
Dixon Landing Ed./North Milpitas
Boulevard Intersection Improvements
1.0
R34
MagdalenaAve. at Cormtry Club Dr.
Intersection Signalization
0.4
R35
Park Ave. Improvement
1.0
R36
Eailroad Crossing: Chmch St. at Morrterey Ed.
0.5
R37
Java Dr. Bicycle Shared Use Improvements
(Class n & ni Bike Lanes)
0.4
R39
Smart Eesidential Arterials Project'
6.2
5.0
Branham Ln. Widening from Vista Park to Snell Ave. 8.2
R40
Hill Ed. Extension
R13
Dixon Landing Ed. Wideruirg
R43
DeWitt Ave./Surmyside Ave. Eealigrrment
at Edmutrson Ave.
5.0
R14
Gilman Ed./Arroyo Circle
Cainino Arroyo Improvements
R44
Santa Teresa Blvd./Fltzgerald Ave.
Intersection Sigrralizatiorr
0.3
R15
Loyola Dr./Foothill Elxpwy. Intersectioir
10.0
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascorn Ave.'
0.2
R16
Charcot Ave. Connection
36.0
R50
R17
Snell Ave. Widening from
Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
First St.(SE 152)Eoadway Wlderring:
Monterey St. to Church St.
1.2
R12
R18
0.6
7.0
3.2
R51
Lucretia Ave. TOdening from Story Ed. to PhelanAve. 9.0
Alum Eock School District Area Traffic
2.0
Calming Elements
R19
Almaden Plaza Way Widening
8.0
R60
Miramonte Ave. Bikeway Improvements
1.0
R20
Senter Ed. Widening Project
6.8
R75
Moody Ed. Improvements
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. Improvements
0.6
R89
Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase IP
0.5
R91
Eancho Eincorrada Neighborhood
Traffic Calmnrg Project
0.1
R21
Union Ave. Widening from Los GatOsAlmaden Ed. to Eoss Creek
R22
Downtown Couplet Conversions
R23
Lawrerrce Expwy.AVildwood Ave. Eoadway
Eealigrrment & Trafflc Signal
R24
Butterfield Blvd. Exterrsion
R25
CampbeU Ave. Bicycle/Pedestriarr Improvements
R26
Blossom Hill Ed. Bike/Ped Improvements
1.7
20.0
4.4
14.0
2.0
6.8
1. Project not mapped.
2. Also listed as ITS project.
See Appendix for more pro|ect detail. Revenue projections end project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
VTP 2030
99
Table'2-.20 Local Streets and County Roods Projects (projects without allocatedfunding)
VTP ID
Project
Cost
"",""'$3:31
FR38' :" Martha St Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor.
Deimas Ave. Streetscape Improvement
R41
0.9
R45
ReediSt! Pedestrian Corridor Project •
R46
Nortli 13th St. Streetscape ft'oject
.
1.4'
- n
1.6j
,
: Uj
R47
Balbach St. Bike/Ped improvements
R48
Taylor SI;. Improvement
•
n 1.0
R52
Steflih RdTShoreline Blvd.-Intersection Modification
o.'i
R53
Suniiyvale-Saratpga Rd./Remington Dr. „
Intersection Improvement.
J.-2'
.
R54
Auzerais Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements -19
R55
ITS Improvement on Santa Teresa Blvd.
Downtown Sunnyvale/Mathilda Blvd. • , -
R57
Keyes St. Streetscape Improvement Project
n
2.4
'1.5■0.3
Mary Ave. Bicycle Improvement
• Almaden Rd. Imprbverrtent—
Malone Rd. to Curtner Ave.. ■
R59
.
. •
,
.
,
0.4
Easy St./Gladys Ave; Intersection Modification
R62
-
'
03
R63
•Mary Ave./Evelyn Ave. Intersection
0.6
R64
Mary Ave./El Camino Real Intersections
0.6
■ White Rd. Streetscape '
R65
R66
Senter Rd. Improvement Project -
R67 -
Wliite Rd. Pedestrian Improvement—
Alum Rock Ave.'to MabUry Rd.-
CO
R68
Bicycle Boulevard Network Project ■ ■
R69
McKean Rd. and Watsonville Rd.
R70
R71
'ScottSt. Pedestrian Corridor-
3.9
R83
, . Farrell Ave. Bridge Widening '
1J
R84
Gifywide Sidewalklmprovements ■
1.8
R85 •
DeWitt Ave. S-Curve Realignment "
i.o
R86
! Aborn Rd. Pedestrian Improvements.at hwindale -
R87
. Fair Oaks AveyAiques Ave. Intersection Improvement ■ 0.'6
R88, :
R90
R92
R93
Wolfe fRd./Kifer Rd. Intersection Improvement.
' W. Virginia St. Streetscape & Pedestriaif
, Crossings Project . ,
'
'
' '
R99
1.1
1:0'
' McLaughlin Ave. Streetscape Project
R95
R98
;.
Mary AveyPremont Ave. intersection Improveinents
■ Galaveras Rd. Improvements
R97
.1.2
- Washington Ave./Mathilda'Ave; IntersectionImprovement.
.
.R94
R96
1.0
.
' s
1.5
•,
■ 3.0
.
"1.0
Garden,Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements;
Metal Beam Guardralis on- County Roads
.0.5
•
. El Monte Rd./lT280 Impi-OTements >
0.3
■;
0.2
Comprehensive-Sidewalk Network for .EmploymentAreas
.V-: '.
7.2
RICO
■ Aldercrbft Greek Bridge/Old Santa Cruz Hwy. ,
R102
■ Manteili'Dr. CoiTidor Improvements:' '.l,
.
Intersections and Traffic Signals"
: T T ,■ 2.0
R103
' Jumpero Serra Blvd. Traffic Calming , •
RI04
, New, Pavement Markers and,Signs '-.T
.5.0
Gifford Ave. Streetscape
.'0.5
, . • ;
. Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor-:7-I:880 to Meridian Ave. 6.0,
R101
I^ft--Tiirn Pockets &-Shoulder Widerung; ;. ■ - , ,
, -
' $d.3|
6.8
0.8
Loyola Comers Traffic'Circle' " ■ ' . ■ " ; T
.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on Alum Rock- ' ]
■Ave.- South of Mguelita Greek Ped Bridge'
1.0
2.0
- r-
Cost
C03$/Millions)
R82
2.0
' Jmiipero Serra Blvd. Shoulder Widening
R61
R80
'1.0
R56
R58
R79"
0.9.
Bird Ave. Pedestrian Corridor,
R42
Project
VTP ID
C03$/MiUions)
.0.5i
- Citywide-Traffic CahningjProgram''
1.0
..
1.7
-
0.5
R105
Citywide Glass H & in Bicycle Route Improvements
-.0.7
0:3
,
R106
Burbank'AreaStreetlighting Project - '
0.2
R107
Countywide Pedestrian Ramps •
0.3
■ - Verde'Vista Ln. Traffic. Signal- . ' -
. •
R72
' Wolfe Rd./Red Ave./01d San'Francisco'Rd.',;'. j r
Intersection Improvement
6.0
R108
R73
Hylatnd Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Imprdvefnents
-.0.7,
R109
PedestriaiVBicycle Improvements in the fibyoh Rd Area 0.8
R110
Oak Place & Highway 9'Redestiian Signal.
West San Carlos St Streetscape Improvement Pibject>T.4
R74 .
R76
.
East Hilis/Florence-Area
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
R77
.0.2
,
Pedestrian/Bicycle improvements on " ;
McKee Rd. between White'Rd. and Staples Ave.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Irnprovements.ih the,:
Mitty Ave./Lawrence Expwy. Area
,
Valley Transportation Authority
.
0.2
.
. 0.3
,,;Rn.l r , -Herriman-.Dr. Traffic Signal Project,
o;3
■h.2
0.3
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates ore shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
.-
, t l Not tnapped
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Roadway Maintenance Programs
Thi'ee VTP 2030 roadway program areas are
presented under this heading; 1) Pavement
Management, 2)Sound Mitigation, and 3)
Landscape Restoration & Graffiti Removal.
Project lists have not been developed for these
e|
SI
programs. However, VTA will work in partner
ship with its Member Agencies to identify
Vf
projects that would be eligible to fund througlr
these programs. Each of these program areas is
described below.
v;
Pavement Management Program
VTP 2030 identifies up to $301.5 million for the
Pavement Management Program (PMP). This is
based on MTC's policies for funding the Local
m
Streets and Roads Rehabilitation shortfall that
t
identified a minimum amount of $201.5
million based on Santa Clara County's share of
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roads
and $100 million from discretionary sources.
Pavement management projects are intended
to repair or replace existing roadway pavement
from outside edge of curb and gutter to
opposite outside edge of curb and gutter. The
following types of project expenditures are
Curb and gutter repak
Replacing pavement markings and striping
Incidental non-pavement repairs (e.g.,
emergency storm drain repair)
Bike facilities will be included in the final
striping wherever feasible and consistent
eligible for PMP funding:
with local plans
• Roadway reconstruction projects
Fiber-optic cable installation and other ITS
• Overlay projects
elements should be installed in conjunction
with these projects
• Pavement maintenance treatments including
seal coats and microsurfacmg
• Spot repairs
Projects should include VTA standard
concrete pads and provide ADA accessible
curbside facilities at bus stop locations
VTP 2030
101
Each city and the county must use a Pavement
Management System certiSed by the Metropolitan
oped a process for identifying projects that would
Transportation Commission (MTC)to identify
be eligible to fund through the Somid Banier
and prioritize projects and must have roadway on
Program. The policies and procedmes will:
the Metropolitan Transportation System.
• Provide basic sound mitigation for residential,
In cases where a jurisdiction has no roadway on
educational, recreational, and communitjVcul-
the MTS, they may certify that there are not
tural facilities
any roads on the MTS and the average pave
ment condition index (PCI) on the roadway
must be below a 70 rating. If it meets those cri
teria, pavement management funds may be used
on Federal aid-eligible arterials and collectors.
Due to the fact the actual funds will not be avail
able for programming until the next VTP Plan
Update, there is no pavement management list.
Sound Mitigarion Program
With the ei\actment of Senate Bill(SB) 45, the
responsibilities for programming capital projects
on State transportation facilities rests largely with
local agencies. VTA is responsible for program
ming freeway sound mitigation projects such as
soundwalls in Santa Clara County. The VTP 2030
Expenditure Plan identifies up to $10 million for a
102
the Teclmical Advisory Coimnittee, have devel
• Give priority to the most severely affected
first, based on decibel level
• Give priority to the longest affected site first,
based on the date that the need was first
formally identified and verified
• Consider geographic equity in sound
mitigation funding decisions
Eligible projects for the program are new
soundwalls on existing freeways and express
ways and new State and/or Federally eligible
sound mitigation on existing freeways and
expressways. These projects must meet VTA's
Basic Noise Mitigation Standard, must be eligi
ble for STIP funds, and a Noise Barrier
Summary Scope Report (NBSSR) or equivalent
must be complete.
Sound Mitigation Program. Funds for the sound
Landscape Restoration and
mitigation program can only be used for retrofit
Graffiti Removal
sound mitigation projects on existing freeways and
The VTP 2030 Expenditure Plan identifies up to
expressways. Retrofit projects are sound mitiga
$1 million to augment Caltrans efforts to restore
tion projects in locations where no new changes to
freeway landscaping and remove graffiti within
the freeway or expressway are planned.
the freeway riglits of way. These funds will pro
There is no compiled list of sound bai-rier and
vide "seed" money to develop public/private part
soundwaU projects. However, VTA staff, working
nerships to identify funds and develop programs
with the Capital Improvement Subcommittee of
for ongoing landscaping and maintenance efforts.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Transit Services and Programs
The Capital Investment Program identifies
funds to fuhy inrplement the 2000 Measure A
specific transit projects to be implemented dur
Ti'ansit Program of projects.
ing the timeframe of the plan. As shown in Table
2-21 on page 105, these projects include new
light rah extensions, bus rapid transit corridors,
new regional rah services, community-oriented
bus service operated with smaU vehicles, and
enhanced commuter rah service.
Existing VTA Transit Services
VTA directly provides bus, light rah, light rah
shuttles and paratransit services to Santa Clara
residents, workers and visitors. VTA also partners
with other transit operators to provide commuter
Other transit improvements and programs
rah service, inter-community and inter-county
included in VTP 2030 whl provide eihianced
express bus service, and rah shuttles. These
transit services throughout the County. This
services provide important connections to and
section discusses VTA's current services and
from Santa Clara County for residents and workers.
plans to enhance and expand them, more
VTA also funds privately operated shuttles and
defined descriptions of the specific capital
ADA paratransit services for persons with
projects in the VTP 2030 Capital Investment
disabilities. A summary of the directly operated.
Program, and the need to secure a new source of
Existing VTA Transit Services
VTA Bus/Rail System
CfosslwvfuFeedw Routes
— - Jnler-County ExprossRoutss
-—•••• Inira-Counly £xp«es*Routi»8
Umilsd Slop
—— Secondary Grid Routes
cn 3
Primary Grid Routes
VTAUgtitRad
VTAAec/Ca{Aa1
VTACallrain
SOUTH COUNTY
VTP 2030
103
VTP 2030 Proposed Transit Projects
V
•■' "--
Transit Projects and Study Corridors
VTP 2030 Transit Project
EZI Potential New Rapid
Transit Corridors
\
104
Valley Transportation Authority
V,*
"""T'*''-
;J' i.,
,-' :"/
'
'
chapter
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-21 Transit Projects
VIP ID'
TO
Project Name
Total
Estimated Cost
('OS$/Millionsf
VTP 2030 Measure A
Funding
Allocation
COSS/Millimis)''
from Other
$1,003
$1,003
Operating Assistance 2006-2036
T7
Downtown East Valley(DTEV)
T2
BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara
T3
Bus Rapid Transit(Line 22, Monterey, Stevens Creek)
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades(VTA Share)
Til
New Rail Corridors Study—conceptual alignment evaluations
112
Mineta San Jose International Airport ARM Goimector
400
222
T6
Caltrain—South County
100
61
T9
Hlgltway 17 Bus Service Improvements
T8
Source
550
550
4,193
2,453
1,740
50
33
17
171
155
16
1
1
178
39
2
2
Dumbarton Rail
278
44
234
T13
Palo Alto httermodal Center
200
50
150
11
Altamont Commuter Express Upgrade
TIO
New Rail Corridors—Phase 1
T4
Caltrain Electrification
T16
Zero Emission Bus(ZEB)Demonstration Program
'TIS
T16-
New Rail Corridors—^Phase 2
22
22
TBD
188
650
233
417
17
17
<
Zero Emission Buses & Facilities
'TBD
260
"l ''. {
'
' •
1,031
260
1. VTP ID numbers are assigned alphabetically and do not imply any priority order.
2. Revenue projections and project cost estimates presented In the plan are shown In 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue
projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
3. The VTA Board of Directors adopted the allocations amounts for the projects shown in this table at its April 2004 meeting. These allocations
were based on revenue projections developed for the Short Range lYansit Plan (SRTP) adopted by the VTA Board in February 2004.
See Appendix for more project detail.
In
E' I Projects withoutfuudirig allocations; not mapped.
Table 2-22 Capital for On-Going Operations
Non-Measure A Transit Investments'
2005-2030
$1,045
Operating Faculties & Equipment
159
Light RaU Way,Power & Signal
82
Passenger Facilities
51
Information Systems & Technology
109
Caltrain and ACE Capital Contributions
181
Miscellaneous Projects
Total
4
$1,631
1. Capital Projects tor Oii-Golng Operations do not use Measure A funds and are not mapped.
VTP 2030
105
iiiter-agency, and contracted transit serwces is
presented in the foilowing tables.
VTA directly operates 69 bus lines and 3 light
rail lines, with a fleet of 523 buses and 100 light
ran vehicles. About 21 million miles of bus and
light rail service is operated araiually. During FY
2002/2003, VTA carried about 45 million riders:
39 million on bus and 6 million on light rail.
deserve. While VTA has placed bus service
expansion plans on hold until the current
financial shortage is resolved, several planning
studies will be conducted to prepare for expan
sion as demand for transit services increases.
These studies will include market studies to
help VTA planners design service for particular
market segments, and operational studies
to help planners design more effective and
productive service.
Plans for Future Bus Service
Improvements
VTA is conunitted to providing the high-quality
transit service its customers expect and
The VTP 2030 vision for improving bus transit
service focuses on system refinements and
improved operating efficiency, rather than over-
Table 2-23 VTA Directly Operated Service
Service Type
Primary Bus
Light Rail
Decription
Target Market
Target Improvements
Primary Bus services include local bus,
Commuters, students,
and general purpose
trips.
System refinements and
improved operating efficiency,
improve frequency in mqjor
corridors, implement new
limited stop bus, neighborhood & feeder
routes, and express service. These routes
provide dahy local service covering the
entire service area, including commute
services to major employment zones.
and Community Bus services.
Light rail system operating in exclusive
right-of-way with trains of 1 to 3 cars,
depending Upon ridership demand. The
current light rail system is 37 miles in
length, serving 54 stations.
Commuters, students,
and general purpose
trips.
Light Rail
VTA and employers co-sponsor commute
Shuttle Bus
shuttle routes linking light rail with nearby
Employees working at
Expand program in support of
companies near light rail new rail lines/extensions,
employment sites. Includes DASH shuttle
stations. DASH serves
service in downtown San Jose.
downtown San Jose,
Caltrain and light rail.
Paratransit
Specialized door-to-door transportation for
persons who meet the eligibility require
ments established by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Paratransit service is pro
vided with taxis, sedans and accessible
vans.
106
technologies. Develop BET
Valley Transportation Authority
Several new rail lines/exten
sions: Vasona, Downtown/East
Valley, and other potentiEil cor
ridors to be studied.
Persons with disabili
ties who are unable to
use fixed route bus or
rail service.
Manage service to meet
increasing demand and contin
ue making station and stop
access improvements.
chapter0 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
all growth. To get more from existing invest
develops its biemiiai ten-year Short Range
ments and address specific commrmlty needs,
Transit Plan (SET?), and its Annual Transit
VTA win use new technologies, innovative
Service Plans. These plans are used to imple
planning and marketing strategies, and
ment detailed transit service improvements,
smaller-sized vehicles. The vision for these
route changes and refinements, and unprove
improvements is to develop an expanding
productivity. Until a new source of additional
ridership base by providing higher-quality,
funding can be secured for operations, VTA will
market-oriented sei^dce.
have to work within the existing resources it
VTA continually monitors use of the primary
bus network to determine where and when
service improvements and expansions may be
needed. This information is considered as VTA
has for operations. This does not mean that VTA
wfii not strive to continue to improve services to
its current and potential new customers. To
improve bus transit service, VTA wiU be embark
ing on the following studies and programs;
Table 2-24 VTA Inter-Agency and Contracted Services
Service Type
Decription
Target Market
Future Improvements
Coltrain
Joint Powers Board (JPB)operating com
muter-oriented raU service providing daily
service along the Peninsula between San
Francisco and GUroy.
Comnruters and gener
al purpose trips within
Santa Clara, San
Mateo, and San
Expand service with emphasis
on Santa Clara County service
needs.
Francisco Counties.
Coltroin
Shuttle Bus
Joint Powers Board (JPB)and employers
co-sponsor commute shuttle routes linking
Caltrain stations with nearby employment
Employees working at
companies near
Expand as new sponsor com
panies are identified.
Caltrain stations.
sites.
ACE
Commuter
Rail
Highway 17
Express
Dumbarton
Express
Commuter-oriented rail service providing
daily service between Stockton, Tracy,
Livermore, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San
Jose. Four trains are operated per weekday.
Commuters.
Expand number of trains in
response to ridersliip demand.
Commuters and San
Expand program in response to
ridership growth.
Express bus service operating between
Santa Cruz/Scotts VaUey aird downtown San
Jose State students
Jose.
general purpose trips.
Express bus service operating between
Union City, Redwood City, and Palo Alto.
Commuters, general
purpose trips.
Expand program in response to
ridership growth.
VTP 2030
107
Table 2-25 Examples of Matching Markets with Services
Travel Patterns
Typical Attitudes & Preferences
Regional Travel
Sensitivity to travel time
Caltrain
Concern for the environment
Express Bus
Services
Sensitivity to use of time
Sub-Regional Travel
Community-Based Travel
Need for flexibility
Sensitivity to transportation costs
Sensitivity to crowds and personal safety
Need for flexibility
Sensitivity to transportation costs
Sensitivity to crowds and personal safety
• Market Segmentation Study
• Community Bus Service
Loctd Arterial Bus
Local Arterial Bus
Community Bus
explored for lines with high evening ridership
demand, and for lines serving major regional
activity locations such as shopping centers, key
• Bus Rapid Transit
■regional transportation hubs and locations with
If additional funding is secured in the future to
evening entertainment and cultural or educa
expand operations and restore transit service,
tional activities. These improvements also sup
some of the areas of bus service improvements
port welfare-to-work initiatives.
will potentially include the following:
Improved Commute and Regional Service—
Headway Improvetnents—When financial con
VTA operates a network of commute and
ditions allow, future service expansion wiU focus
regional express routes designed to provide
on restoring and improving service frequencies
direct service to major employment areas,
on the bus network, and future headway
operate in major commute corridors, utilize
improvements wili move toward filling in the
commuter lanes whenever possible, and provide
10/15/30-minute transit networks. It may not be
an attractive commute alternative that is time
economically feasible to fuUy achieve these
competitive to the auto. Regional Express lines
headways, but headway improvements wiU be
also link major regional points and destinations,
pursued, particularly for the grid routes, as
such as Fremont BART to downtown San Jose.
funding allows.
As employment, development, and regional
Expanded Service Hours—^When financial con
ditions allow, expanded hours of service wfil be
108
Light Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Valley Transportation Authority
travel increase, the demand for expanded
commute and regional service wiU also increase.
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The need to improve and expand this element
of transit service will become even more
'mz:
1
m
critical, and new strategies, such as BRT, need
to be explored.
Market Segmentation Study
Market segmentation is a sophisticated market
research tool used to identify distinct segments
fi
in the marketplace to help better understand
11^
the values and expectations of these popula
•■i
tions. Private sector entities have utilized this
kind of analysis for years to identify ways to
increase their market share. Using this tool in
the public sector, and specifically m transit, is a
relatively new development.
Attitudes and Preferences
Below are a few examples of attitudes and pref
From this effort we'U learn;
erences that could impact a person's decision to
• Where there are distinct groups (market seg
use transit:
ments) in the population that share the same
set of values
• Wliat attitudes and preferences these groups
have regarding different transit options
• What service delivery strategies best match
these market segments
An analysis will be conducted linking the results
from the three elements of the market segmen
tation study: identifying attitudes and prefer
ences, developing various transit service
options, and identifying travel patterns. This ■wUl
allow VTA to develop recommended changes to
the bus network aimed at capturing a larger
• What is the need for flexibility in terms of
frequency of service and hours of operation?
• How sensitive is the market segment to
travel tune?
• How sensitive is the market segment to
transportation costs?
• Is the mam reason for using transit concern
for the environment?
• Is there a sensitivity to crowds, personal
space and safety?
• Is It important to be able to use the time on
transit productively?
market share.
VTP 2030
T09
Transit Service Options
Market-Driven Services
Senace delivery alternatives will focus on the
Below are examples of mai'ket-driven services:
following travel:
• Commuter rail
• Regional—travel between VTA's service area
• Light rail
and adjoining counties
• Express bus
• Sub-Regional—medium to long distance
• Bus Rapid Transit (new)
travel witlrin the VTA service area
• Local arterial bus
• Community-Based—short trips vsdthin a
localized area
• Community bus (new)
Table 2-26 Community-Based Service Consensus-Building Planning Process
Go to the Community '!
Locol stokeholders;engage
their tommiinity."
Mail/E-jtiallodditional
Mell/E-mall additional
resources to participants
resource's to pdrlicipants
• Consensus Exercise: Engugei '.
participants in group discussions
Phase I- Meeting 3 ;
• Consensus' Exe'rcise:- Engoge „ i •
-^group discussionahout'oreas of
needs, vehicles X bus step. _
one preferred alternative from
each group.' . .
• Optionni Jour: Hovevehicle
. available to tour proposed <
participants (e.g..custamets\ .
amenities).
. f'
• VTA Homework: Develop -
individualalternatives for'
community review. . - :
Phose I - Meeting 2'
to consolidate alternatives jnta .
■VTA HomewarkiStaffuses' . .
: Geographical Information
System (GiS) to identify areas
at agreement.
Phose It .
, resideAvork near thoiproposed"
project.
Valley Transportation Authority
reutefs).
'
•Hold public open house
meetings, invitingiolf those who
110
r-
n Describe Process " i.
n Listen; Coiiect useful dutafrom
Phase I - Meeting 1 -
Phase ill
*R'oiicy'nlakBr"decisipnij)pint.&..>
))(iA:staff fallow-jhtough|* ■ i
Phase i ■ Meeting 4
(Optional)
■Continue consensus building
process end discuss other(
reloted community planning
issues such as marketing, image
development, etc. '
;hapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Community Bus Service
The challenge is to match these basic elements
(travel, attitudes, services) in a way that VTA
Key Benefits
.1 Smaller veiiicles more easily navlgafe'Jn low to
''..medlurri" clensily areas
'
'
can prioritize the deployment of its resources
and maximize its market share. Another dimen
sion to this study will be identifying the origins
.Mobility for all riders is provided through one service,' nn
and destinations of these markets. This can be
used to implement new services and/or adjust
,' ''-reducing the need for cdmplementdiy pdratransit U',
current services to better meet the needs of the
y»>.;Lower:0perating-;Cost th0ndfaditionalifixedr routelond
'.icomplementaryporotransit'
\
'
various market segments.
'
K*:i^-£arisbeieustornized,'to;aGCommodate unique;communily<:
Community Bus Service
neecJs—not a>"bne size fifs'air"model
Current development patterns and densities,
• iCorinects.to'major drterials and other transit hubs' .• ,
multiple destinations, and an increasingly
diverse population present some unique chal
lenges to daily travels around our valley. VTA
has long recognized that a new approach to
A
'
4
fixed route services blending standard "big"
rs
buses with smaller,"community" vehicles could
provide better service for everyone.
K\,%
This community-based blend of vehicle types
r
coupled with new routings can provide the
service and convenience needed to attract
new riders. Recognizing these opportunities
I
and commimity benefits, VTA's Fiscal Year
erVi
2004-2013 Short Range Transit Plan incorpo
rates the use of smaller capacity vehicles
begirming in January 2006.
Community-Based Service
J
Unlike conventional routes serving longer
distances and multiple communities, services
designed in the Community-Based Service
concept operate with small veliicles along short.
VIP 2030
111
circuitous pathways that match the travel pat
Proven-Programs in Service
terns of specific groups in neighborhood-oriented
'
CityLink'in Abilene,'Texas, a ',108-square-mi!e community., ;.'
'of 106,000, has ten fixed routes, nine of which will de'v'i; ""
consensus-driven process that is flexible to meet
" ate to either specific places or to destinations requested''
by o rider. Riders must call to request the service 30 minutes before boarding. Most of,the.requestsfordevibtion
come from persons using wheelchairs., • "
'
varying needs in specific neighborhoods.
Route Flexibility Options
• Deviate anywhere along route
•. "Madison'Mobility in Madison, Wisconsin, has eight'' " ;
service routes)-which operate weekdays only, from Z'AM"'
)" to 6 PM in the comrfiunity of just under 250,000. The,
routes will deviate, but only,for"passengers wjth disabilities- .
who make the request ing advance: ,/
,
OmniLink in suburban Washington) DC, operates along" ''■
five flex-foute corridors' using -13 peak vehicles. Riders can' ! •
access the service like "a.fixed route bus if their origin and
'destination are,near''OmniLinkistops., If bus stops are'not'
convenient; flexible rooting (within one-mile-wide corridors)- ■'
• , '"-enables riders to call and arrange'fbr.tffe Bus to pick therrf'
'
'
"
"
C - ( -
*.
!■
f
J
V ^ r.
Potential Applications in-Santa Clara County '
• Areas in West Valley, South-County, North County '
Lower-density,areas
but not others
or circulator services
r ,'
^^,
■ ■ ■■•'
ITS Technologies
• Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) through
the use of global positioning systems
• Mobile data terminals for in-vehicle mapping
and on-time performance
• On-line reservations depending on seiMce
concept
•* Areas that would'benefit from circulator types of se/vices;, , '
[eig., a downtown setting) ,
'
.
i_
, y.
)
abled, or children C., ,
• Deviate along some parts of the route,
• No deviation, providing either fixed route
- ' ..
• Areas that hove significant populations of,seniors,-.dis-. '
(e.g., senior centers, hospitals)
between stops
. 'up or,,td drop,them off .closer to'their.de/tinofions yyithiri ; '< ;
-.their neighborhoods. Standing orde'rs'for repeat trips are.:
• Dewate only to designated stops
• Have fixed stops, but deviate anywhere in
.•,
' ;■ .
I
.
' \ also accepted
activity spaces. The Community Bus concept is a
-
• Real-time trip information for customers
Vehicles
• Smaller than in typical transit use
• "Branded" to fit the specific character
of the community
• Able to accommodate the mobility needs
of all customers
112
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Community Consensus to
Build the Service Plan
Characteristics of a
Rapid Transit Coiridor
VTA will use a step-by-step consensus-driven
process during which community members,
transit planners and other stakeholders meet m
working sessions. Each workshop culminates in
consensus decisions, first at a strategic level
<• "Addresses mulfipjediavel markets'throughbut the,day
.• Fre'quent service,of,d'5 minutes or;better
'
Upgraded passenger facilities .and amenities n
n
" f;
scheduling, and vehicle selection. The process is
• Average speed of,20 miles per'hour or.gceaferC.
' (in'cludingistopjtimes)'- 'i , ''
illustrated on page 110.
•'Stop spacing.is generally!wider,- depending oriJdnd use'
and, ultimately, at the tactical level of routing,
patterns and accessibility
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT is a newly evolving concept in the provision
v •" - /i
'Often.supported,by'exclusive rightsbf-wdy
Bus preferential-traffic treatments
of transit services. VTA has embraced the con
cept and has identified three BRT corridors in
VTP 2030. The characteristics that distinguish a
'I
BRT corridor are described in the sidebar.
r
The Measure A Transit Program identifies $33
m
Monterey Highway and Stevens Creek
-
1
1
u
Boulevard.
mm
Line 22 BRT Project—The current Line 22 pro
m
vides bus service across the east-west length of
the County. VTA supports the continued
Oi
•JIB'
enhancement of the Line 22 BRT as a participat
ing agency in the Federal Bus Rapid Transit
Demonstration Program. VTA is currently devel
■k
mm
million for these three BRT corridors: Line 22,
oping BRT in the northwest segment of the Line
f. •
I*
22 corridor in the cities of Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto. The
southeast portion of Line 22 in the Santa
Clara/Alum Rock corridor is being studied for
VTP 2030
113
BRT as part of the Downtown East Valley
Association (APTA) survey data for 30-foot, 35-
Transit Improvement Project.
foot, 40-foot and 60-foot (articulated) buses. All
Monterey Highway BRT—The Monterey
Highway BRT project is currently In the concep
tual design phase to further define specific
improvements. The Monterey Highway BRT
project includes improvements alorrg a 9.6-mile
route (primarily Monterey Highway)from the
Diridon Station to the Santa Teresa Station on
the Guadalupe Lme m South San Jose. The next
new VTA buses will be low-floor velricles using
ramps rather than lifts to provide access for the
mobility impaired. Additionally, VTA is introduc
ing Zero-Emission Buses (ZEBs). Starting in
2009,15 percent of full-size (standard) replace
ment buses wiU be zero-emission (fuel cell)
technology. ZEB costs are assumed to be sub
stantially greater than standard buses.
steps in. this process for the projects included in
the preferred investment strategy are prelimi
Zero-Emission Vehicle Program
nary engineering, final design, and constraction.
In December 2000, VTA's Board of Directors
Stevens Creek Boulevard BRT—Stevens Creek
selected the low-emissions diesel fuel path in
has been identified as a potential BRT corridor
compliance with CARB's Fleet Rule for Urban
and will need to be studied in greater detail to
Transit Operations. The Board further acted to
detennine its viability for BRT services.
implement a bus procurement program that
shifts from a low-emission diesel bus fleet to a
The improvements for these projects are
mtended to increase carrying capacity, reduce
travel times and establish a brand for BRT serv
zero-emission bus fleet (fuel cell technology)
beginning with the purchase of zero-emission
buses in 2008.
ice. Specific improvements include deploying
low-floor vehicles, queue jump lanes, signal pri
VTA is proceeding with a demonstration project
oritization, automated vehicle location technolo
of fuel cell technology to evaluate the impacts
gy, ticket vending machines, and improved pas
on operation, maintenance, and the public.
senger amenities and security.
This demonstration program will be done in
conjunction with SamTrans to increase effec
Bus Fleet Replacement
VTA has purchased three 40-foot low-floor fuel
At the writing of VTP 2030 there are no bus
cell powered buses from the Gillig Corporation.
replacement plans beyond plans stated in 2004
In addition to the fuel cell buses, the program
SRTP. Cost estimates for replacement buses
includes installation of a hydrogen fueling facility
programmed in FY 2004 and beyond are based
and modification of the Cerone maintenance
primarily on American Pubhc Transportation
114
tiveness. As part of this demonstration project,
Valley Transportation Authority
facility to accommodate the fuel cell buses.
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
the training of staff, the public and emergency
I
departments, and an evaluation of the
overall program.
The Federal Transit Administration approved a
Letter of No Prejudice (LONP)in the amount of
'y
M
$10.5 million on June 29, 2001. The LONP allows
m
VTA to expend local funds for the acquisition of
it-
up to seven 40-foot hydrogen fuel cell, zero-
i^1
emission buses. This approval permits VTA to
incur costs for the project and retain the eligibili
ty for future FTA grant reimbursement.
GARB regulations are currently undergoing
TA
review and changes may affect VTA's ZEB
□
Program. VTA will monitor this process and take
actions accordingly.
Light Rail Service Enhancements
and Expansion
Light Rail Extensions
Several of the light rail extensions presented in
VTP 2020 are either already open for revenue
service or near completion. The following is a list
• Capitol Corridor (Hostetter Station to Alum •
Rock Station, 3.5 miles) opened for service in
July 2004
• Vasona Phase I (Downtown San Jose to
Winchester Station in Campbell, 5.3 Miles)
of the LET corridors that were programmed and
under construction with an anticipated open
their status:
ing date in Summer 2005
• Tasman East Corridor Phase 1 (Baypointe
Station to I-880/MiLpitas Station, 1.9 miles)
opened for service in May 2001
• Tasman East Corridor Phase II (I-SSO/MUpitas
Station to Hostetter Station, 2.9 mhes) opened
for service in July 2004
Potential Future Light Rail Extensions
Downtown/East Valley (DTEV)
2000 Measure A identified partial funding for
DTEV projects; VTP 2030 includes an allocation
of $550 million. In 2000, the VTA Board
VTP 2030
115
approved a Preferred Investment Strategy for
DTEV as follows (project costs are shown in
an access improvements. The Environmental
2003 dollars):
Impact Report (EIR)/ Environmental Impact
• Light Rail along Santa Clara Street and Alum
Statement (EIS) covers the segments from Alum
Rock Avenue at $298 million (an Enhanced
Rock to Nieman Blvd., including the LRV storage
Bus option is estimated to cost $85 million)
facility. These segments are also undergoing
• Light Rail alorrg Capitol Expressway to
Eastridge Mall at $291 million
• Light Rail along the southern portion of
Capitol Expressway from Eastridge Mall to
Guadalupe LRT/Hwy87 at $550 million
(includes $118m to extend from Eastridge to
Nieman Blvd., $21m for a storage facility,
$204m for an extension from Nieman Blvd. to
Preliminary Engineering (PE), with anticipated
completion in early 2006. The segments from
Nieman Blvd. to Guadalupe LRT/SR 87, while not
included in the EIR/EIS, will be studied as part
of the New Light Rail Corridors Study. Approval
of the final ElR/ElS for the Capitol Expressway
Light Rail by the VTA Board of Directors is
anticipated in 2005.
Coyote Creek, and $207m to extend from
Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum
Coyote Creek to Guadalupe LRT/Hwy 87)
Rook Corridor—The Santa Clara/Alum Rock
• $33m for three BRT lines (Monterey Hwy.,
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Line 22)
The DTEV corridors are shown on the adjacent
map.
corridor extends fi-om the San Jose Diridon
Station to the Aliun Rock Station along the
Capitol LRT Line. Two alternatives were selected
by the YYk Board of Directors in May 2003 for
study in the EIR/EIS, as follows: an Enhanced
The enviroimiental work for DTEV has been
Bus alternative, which would provide special
divided into two corridors described below:
ized service (limited .stop and circulator)
Downtown East Valley Capitol Expressway
Corridor—The Capitol Expressway Light Rail
Lme would extend li^t rail approximately eight
nules from the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol
(Avenue) Line along the entire length of Capitol
Expressway to the Capitol Station on the
Guadalupe LRT Line. This hne would operate m a
semi-exclusive guide way primarily in the median
of Capitol Expressway, and would include grade
116
separations, park-and-ride facilities, and pedestri
Valley Transportation Authority
tailored to the corridor's transit needs, as well
as construction of improved bus stop areas and
other corridor enhanceihents ($85ra); and a
Single-Car Light Rail alternative, which would
provide light rail service with single-car trains in
the corridor ($290m). The VTA Board of
Directors is expected to approve the Final
EIR/EIS for the project along with a preferred
transit mode alternative m 2005.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
VTP 2030 Study Corridors
V .
j
ki. . - "
J-.
.i
;J' 7ji',
V
to/,
- s!
¥
./ ^
ci
'•^l.
\
10^
'y^'
1- '" ' k'jii
^4'c',^
^ ,i^k'p^>. i
S
,- «
\.i
"if ^
f n
■■.
. "" k
. ., ^
-,
Z
S
■ J
^
{■"
- . I"r' . X 1 - .
.2-1,
\
't ~
f
t
N
\
"~t-
\
'M;/' ■■'XS
' '
^,'X\
M
\
I
\\
^ ii'V-y '" y *
(o-y > '
^ , I b
IS
■\
"*'^n* ^n'f
i
'V
UJ
- .1
>
^
N
: V\^ ,
V•
K 'VK
\v,
'
!'V , ,
"T Vl«>.
'V
.-\ f''
xc'" V
\
r-j-4
\
*■
CCT^X • ■"'.
i''-t' S:
"
-
'
=
'W- ' r
Nvi/'
\
.
'
b:!!c.-i Ave_4>„.
cy
1.
V
South County
'/
,
rfiX
._lx
fir-
^ '''
'
r
-
' X
'
19 - , '
•¥"%,
■'
'v/
' . B|o£<f'i 1ili 'Rfis
' I'r"-'', ' ~
/
,
\
, //" ; "i ;
( . ,
.
•
vC«nf?csr»
\
^
/'?*
-
kr&..a d\'
X
^
\^'
\
\.
Study Corridors
Potential New. Rapid
Transit Corridors .,
Potential New Light Rail Corridors
Sunnjrvale/Gupertino
VTP 2030 includes $188 million in capital funds
Downtown East Valley extension to
for New Rail Corridors, and $1 million to con
Guadalupe LET Line
duct a study of the seven potential rail corridors
shown below;
Vasona LET: Winchester Boulevard to
Vasona Junction
VTP 2030
117
• Stevens Creek Boulevard
• West San Jose/Santa Clara
• Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley, and potential
extension south to Morgan HDl
• North County/Palo Alto
• Light rail platform reconstruction along the
existing Guadalupe corridor to address con
version to low-floor vehicles. As of May 2004,
stations north of downtown San Jose have
been completed. The remaining stations
south of downtown will be upgraded when
future funding has been identified.
New Rail Corridors Study
Tire New Rail Corridors study will examine the
• Light rail system rehabilitation including the
rehabilitation or replacement of the track,
potential benefits and feasibility of building
overhead contact system, substations and
these lines. Elements that may be considered in
passenger facilities and stations.
the evaluation of these lines include:
• System connectivity
• Transit improvements in downtown San Jose
to increase LRT speed and operational capac
ity of the system. Enhancements in the
• Ridership potential
downtown woiild also serve low-floor LRT
• Constructabitity and environmental impacts
vehicles and improve the integration of LRT,
• Cost
• Commimity enhancements
VTA win also be developing a Policy for System
bus transit, and future regional rail services.
Commuter and Regional Rail Services
Enhancement and Expansion
Expansion to guide future requests for new tran
VTA currently participates in three inter-county
sit service. The Transit Expansion Policy would
commuter rail services. Improvements to each
provide criteria for expanding both bus and rail
of these services are included in VTP 2030.
services.
Coltroin
LRT System Enhancement
Three primary LRT system enhancements are
discussed in this plan. They wiU provide for con
version to low-floor vehicles, overall mainte
nance of the existing LRT infrastructure and
improvement of the LRT infrastructure in the
downtown. These programs include:
Caltrain rehabilitation and electrification are
the first priority of the Joint Powers Board
(JPB) Caltrain Rapid Rail Program. This
program provides for the rehabilitation and
electrification of the rail line in Santa Clara
County from Palo Alto to Cilroy. The VTP 2030
Program Allocation includes $233 million for the
electrification of Caltrain between Cilroy and
San Francisco.
118
Valley Transportation Authority
ihapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The 2000 Measure A program also includes an
allocation of $155 million for Caltrain service
upgrades. These upgrades are meant to increase
Caltrain service, including the purchase of new
A
locomotive train sets for increased Caltrain
service in Santa Clara County from Gilroy to
Palo Alto, and to provide additional facilities to
support the increased service. An additional $61
I
dii!-
mlUlon is allocated for South County Caltrain
service expansion, particularly to extend the
Caltrain double track from the San Jose Tamien
Station through Morgan HiU to Gilroy.
California High-Speed Rail
The California High-Speed Rail(CHSR) Project
is an intra-state rail link currently being planned
by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to
help meet the anticipated increase in travel
demand between the Bay Area and Southern
Califoriua. The initial phase of the project calls
for a 220-mile-per-houi' train to comiect the Bay
Area and the Los Angeles area. Later phases
would link Sacramento in the north and San
Diego in the south.
VTA strongly supports an aligmnent that enters
the San Francisco Bay Area from the south.
Such an alignment should pass through San
Jose/Silicon Valley as part of the mainline serv
ice. This alignment should work to maximize the
ridership of the high-speed rail service and,
therefore, its long-term economic sustainability
It should also minimize environmental impacts
to the extent practicable by following an exist
ing transportation corridor rather than creating
Yet to be determined is the Bay Ai'ea aligrunent.
a new one, and by not passing through or under
Due to public comments received after the
Henry Coe State Park. Furthermore, VTA
release of the draft Environmental Impact
believes the alignment should continue north
Report/Environmental Impact Statement in
following the Caltrain tracks along the Peninsula
January 2004, the High-Speed RaO Authority
mto San Francisco; such an aligmnent would
decided in September 2004 to re-examine all
help Caltrain achieve several of its long-term
potential alignments connecting the Central
goals such as electrification, grade-separating
Valley and the Bay Area. This review is expect
the corridor, and improved travel time.
ed to take a year and a half to complete.
VIP 2030
119
The Cdpitol Corridor
r:
VTA supports the expansion of the Capitol
Corridor rail service from the current eight trips
per weekday to the full 14 trips per day in FY
2005. Similar to the expansion in ACE service,
VTA wiU work with partnering agencies and the
cities to address the need for station improve
ments and passenger services that are required
as Capital Corridor service is expanded.
Fremonh-South Bay Corridor
The Fremont-South Bay corridor is one of the
most congested corridors in the Bay Area. This
is a heavily traveled commute corridor seiwing
people living in the East Bay and beyond, who
are accessing jobs in the Silicon Valley. Work
A bond measure to fund the construction and
operation is scheduled to come before California
voters m November 2006. VTA will be monitoring
the development of this project tod considering
it in future planning studies.(For more informa
tion, see http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.)
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
VTA provides funding toward the operating and
capital costs of ACE commuter rail service
through a cooperative agreement with the San
Joaquin County Regional Rail Commission and
the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency. VTP 2030 includes an allocation of $22
million to upgrade ACE service—particularly to
provide VTA's matching funds for additional train
sets, passenger facilities and service upgrades.
120
Valley Transportation Authority
trip growth in the corridor is expected to
increase 30 percent over the next 20 years. In
November 1996, the Santa Clara County voters
approved Measure A, an advisory ballot
measure, containing specific transportation
projects including rail improvements in the
Fremont-South Bay corridor. In November
2000, 70 percent of the voters in Santa Clara
County supported Measure B, a local sales tax
measure that commits significant local funding
to the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor,
among other transit projects.
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit
Corridor(SVRTC)
In 2000 and 2001, a Major Investment Study
(MIS) of 11 transportation alternatives was
completed for the corridor. Alternatives evaluat-
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
ed included extensions of the Bay Area Rapid
to be certified in early 2007. Prelimuiary engi
Transit(BART) system, light rail, express bus
neering for the project is under way, with a
and commuter rail. In November of 2001, the
scheduled completion date in late 2006.
VTA Board of Directors approved an extension
of BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara
as the locally preferred investment alternative
in the corridor.
The SVRTC is included in the Regional
Transportation Plan. The costs of the project
are estimated to be $4,193 billion (in year
2003 dollars). The project is scheduled to be
The SVRTC project would extend the BART
completed in 2015, depending on funding
system 16.3 miles from the future BART Warm
availability. Funding is projected to come from
Springs station in Fremont to the cities of
a variety of sources including local sales tax,
Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. The align
the governor's Traffic Congestion Relief
ment follows the Union Pacific Rail Road
Program (TCRP) and the Federal 5309 "New
(UPRR) right-of-way through Milpitas to Santa
Starts" Program.
Clara Street in San Jose. At that point the align
ment turns west and proceeds in a tunnel under
Santa Clara Street to the Duddon Caltrain
San Jose international Airport Transit
Connection
station. The alignment then turns north under
This project will provide a link to Mineta San Jose
Stockton Street, surfacing near the San
international Airport from VTA's Guadalupe Light
Jose/Santa Clara city limits and proceeding to
Rail Transit(LRT)Line on North First Street in
the Santa Clara Caltrain station.
San Jose, and from Caltrain and future BART in
The extension includes 7 stations: Montague/
Capitol, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Civic Plaza/San
Jose State University, Market Street, Diridon/
Ai'ena and Santa Clara—and one future station
(South Calaveras). in addition, a new BART
maintenance facility will be built near the Santa
Clara station.
The Draft Environmental impact Report/Draft
Santa Clara, using Automated People Mover
(APM)teclinology. it is anticipated that the con
nection to light rail will occur at the Metro station.
The connection to Caltrain and future BART is
anticipated along the airport's northern perimeter
road as an extension on the airport APM between
the centralized terminal and long-term parking
garage or in a tunnel under the existing Eiirport
runways,it is anticipated that the airport will
EnvironmentEii impact Statement (DEiS/DEiR)
operate and maintain the APM system. The
was circulated to the public in March, April and
estimated cost of the project ranges from $375
May of 2004. The final EIR was certified in
million to $425 miUion, depending upon specific
December 2004, and the final EiS is anticipated
project alignment and features. Funding for this
VTP 2030
121
system would include passenger facility charges
Bus (ZEB)fleet. Specific projects within this
at Mineta San Jose International Airport and
program include:
future sales tax revenues.
• Reconstruction and expansion of the Cerone
bus division operation and maintenance
Dumbarton Rail
facilities to support on-going operations and
This effort would implement new commuter rail
the ZEB fleet.
service over the Dumbarton Rail Bridge corridor
connecting Union City to select Galtrain stations
• Reconstruction and expansion of Chaboya
bus division operation and maintenance facili
in San Mateo, San Francisco and Santa Clara
ty, and changes to support the ZEB fleet. The
counties. The objective of this service is to
cost of tills project is under development.
address the demand for cross-bay trips, easing
the traffic congestion in the San Mateo and
Dumbarton bridge corridors. Estimated project
capital costs are $300 million, with annual operatmg costs projected at $7.5 million.
• Construction of a new LRT/bus maintenance
facility with capacity to accommodate future
LRT and the ZEB fleet. VTA will evaluate the
cost of tills project as part of a Facilities
Master Plan.
Next steps in this effort include determination
of institutional and funding ainangements, envi
ronmental compliance and preliminary engi
neering and final design, and construction.
Funding for the Dumbarton Rail Project would
include future sales tax revenues, toll bridge
revenue, and other sources from the partnering
counties of Alameda and San Mateo. The 2000
Measure A transit program includes a $44 mil
lion allocation for the Dumbarton Rail Project.
Transit Centers Program
Coordinated with the short-range transit
services enhancement and expansion plaiming
described previously, VTA will be pursuing a
Transit Centers program. Transit centers are
most often proposed as joint-venture efforts at
key activity centers.
Transit centers fall into two basic types: Major
Intermodal Facilities and Transit Centers. Major
Facility Rehabilitation and Expansion
122
intermodal facilities provide significant transfer
opportunities between commuter rail, light rail,
The VTP 2030 facility rehabilitation and
shuttles, VTA buses, other transit operator seiw-
expansion program supports the on-gomg
ices, and potentially BART. Transit Centers are
maintenance and delivery of existing services,
at locations with lower, yet still significant,
and the accommodation of the Zero-Emission
transfer demand.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Major Intermodal Transit Facilities
#5
Major intermodal facilities are to be developed
or improved at:
• Palo Alto
• Dmdon Station
• Potential future BART stations
VTP 2030 identifies only the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Center for development and
improvement with potential futm'e intermodal
transit facility improvements. The estimated
cost of this project is $50 milhon, which has
ifssw;
been identified from Measure A funds.
Construction for the Palo Alto Intermodal
Transit Center is expected to begin in late 2004.
This transit center is designed to improve links
between Caltrain and bus service, as well as
accommodate buses operated by VTA,
SamTrans, and the Dumbarton Express, which
provides service to and from the Union City
• Roadway improvements and creation of park
space
• Reconstruction and expansion of bus transit
center facilities with provisions for VTA
expanded services, Palo Alto shuttles, and the
Stanford Marguerite and Caltrain shuttles
BART station in Alameda County. The transit
With regard to Diridon Station and potential
center will also provide convenient comiections
future BART stations, these transit facilities wiD
to Stanford's Marguerite shuttle and Palo Alto's
be further studied for potential multimodal tran
local shuttle system. Project elements include
sit facility use and design as funding becomes
the following:
available.
• Reconstruction of University Avenue bridge
connecting with Palm Drive
• Reconstruction and expansion of the Caltrain
bridge over University Avenue to include fom"
tracks to allow express train service
Transit Centers
Potential locations for future, upgraded, or
expanded transit centers include the following:
• DeAnza College
• Eastridge Mall (as part of the Downtovm East
Valley Capitol Expressway LRT Project).
VTP 2030
123
Table 2-27 Projected Annual Paratransit Trips
communities throughout the San Francisco Bay
Area, and recommended community-based
transportation planning to further efforts to
2,000,000
address them. Likewise, the Environmental
1,600,000
Justice Report for the 2001 RTP also identified
1,600,000
the need for MTC to support local planning
efforts in low-income communities throughout
1,400,000
the region. Each community-based transporta
tion plan will be a collaborative effort involving
residents and community-based organizations
800.000
(CBOs) providing services within minority and
low-inconie neighborhoods.
400,000
Services and Programs for People
with Special Needs
Demographic, social and economic changes in
Other locations will be considered over the life
of the plan. The Transit Centers Program will
function in parallel with the Community Design
& Transportation Program to promote trans
portation and land use integration.
Community-Based Transportation Studies
Santa Clara County and the region between now
and 2030 will continue to urge VTA to look for
creative and cost-effective ways to provide pro
grams and services for persons with special
needs. There will be more lower-income house
holds, more elderly, and more disabled persons.
This section of the plan outlines the programs
hi partnership with MTC, VTA will conduct
and services that VTA provides and is exploring
community-based transportation planning stud
to meet the needs of these groups.
ies in the Gilroy and the East San Jose areas.
The goal of the MTC's Community-Based
Transportation Planning Program is to advance
To allow for access to medical care,jobs, com
the findings of the Lifeline Transportation
munity activities, and other personal errands
Network Report as adopted by the Commission
for persons with disabilities, VTA provides
and incorporated into the 2001 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). That report identi
fied transit needs iri economically disadvantaged
124
Paratransit Services Program
Valley Transportation Authority
paratransit seivices that operate throughout the
county. Until recently, VTA paratransit usage
surged each year, often by double-digit increases.
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
A recent drop in systemwlde ridership has
r.-.v*-
slowed the growth in paratransit ridership;
however, long-term growth is still expected to
-.'f
be signiScant. In 2000, paratransit carried
ml4>:
780,000 trips. During 2004, the Pai-atransit
n */.
Progi'am provided about 930,540 trips, and by
2030 it is expected to provide about 1.9 million
annual trips. VTA's on-going planning for para
transit seeks to continually refine and improve
the service—^from both cost efficiency and
S4LH
quality of service perspectives.
To serve this demand for paratransit services
and to meet the requirements of ADA, VTA will:
• Ensure that adequate operating funds are set
aside to address the demand for ADA para
transit services
• Continue to implement various strategies to
improve operational efficiencies and control
costs
• Ensure that the existing fixed route bus and
rail transit services are accessible, providing a
range of choices for people with disabilities
portation services, and explore opportunities
to leverage and build upon those fimds with
VTA committed resources
Planningfor Paratransit
By 2030, the demand for paratransit services
• Assist persons with determining if they are
may more than double. To plan for this need as
eligible to use the service, and help them
well as for near-term increases in demand, VTA
apply
• Look at alternative service and delivery con
will continue to develop short-range and longrange paratransit plans. Most recently, VTA
cepts that both meet the letter and intent of
developed a five-phase Paratransit Service
ADA and ensure quality accessibility for per
Business Practices Improvement (PSBPl) Plan,
sons with disabilities in Santa Clara County as
which identified multiple cost-containment
a part of the short-range planning process
strategies designed to improve VTA's ability to
• Conduct a study that looks at all the agencies
in the county that receive money for trans-
manage costs while maintaining one of the
premier paratransit services in the nation. The
VTP 2030
125
first three phases of the PSBPI Plan have been
addresses the design of transportation facilities.
implemented, and the last two are currently
The GDT Manual includes design elements that
under development. All phases of this plan
directly relate to accessibility in the pedestrian
control costs through one of the four follo^ving
environment and to transportation services.
strategies: improving productivity, reducing
vendor and broker expenses, managing demand,
Communily Bus Program
and increasing revenue.
VTA is exploring implementation strategies for
Future plans, beyond full implementation of the
PSBPI Plan, may identify operating costs and cap
ital elements such as Intelligent Transportation
Systems, as well as a financial program to address
providing a Small Bus Pi'ogram. As currently envi
sioned, the Gommmiity Bus would provide transit
services that function as neighborhood circulator
and shuttle routes. In some cases, buses may
deviate from fixed routes to pick up or drop off
the operating and capital needs.
near main lines of service. This flexible service
Finally, the need to design environments for
would have significant benefits for persons with
accessibility is key to providing safe transporta
special needs by providing improved transit
tion for the disability community. \TA's
connections with neighborhoods, activities and
Community Design and Transportation (GDT)
services, and by offering lower-cost options to
Program's Manual of Best Practices for
paratransit or taxis. VTA is currently developing
Integrating Transportation and Land Use
draft policies and a procedural framework in
preparation for implementation.
Program Funding
As a precursor to full implementation, VTA is
Vv-
pursuing funds fi'om MTG's Access to Mobility
m
Program and Regional Measure 2 funds to
implement a Pilot Program. In addition, VTA is
investigating possible funds fi'om a variety of
sources.
Facilities improvements
S
VTA has a number of programs that provide
improvements that benefit persons with special
needs.
126
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
• Bus stop improvement program. This
program implements ADA requirements at
bus stops throughout the county. This is an
'Xt
on-going effort that is continually improving
bus stop enviroranents.
3S«"
m
• Purchase of low-floor/kneeling buses. All
buses in VTA's fleet are being converted to
low-floor/kneeUng buses as part of the on
going fleet replacement program. This con
version is expected to be complete by 2015.
■>*r
• Low-floor LRVs. All new light rail vehicles
have low-floor entry that eliminates the need
for wayside lifts. Tliis improves access con
venience for wheelchair users and persons
with mobility impairments, and improves
travel times for aU riders.
• LRT Platform Retrofit. VTA is cun'ently
retrofitting its light rail passenger platforms
to accommodate the new vehicles. Retrofit is
complete on aU stations north of the
with seniors through a wide variety of communi
cation activities to encourage them to ride VTA's
fixed route service to their favorite destinations,
and to generate a favorable view of VTA's overall
service. As part of the program, VTA is available
Japantown/Ayer station on the Guadalupe
to visit the various sites to give groups a free
line, and all stations on the Tasraan/Capitol
presentation, which will include travel options
line. The platform retrofits on stations south
for seniors, fare information and trip planning
of Japantown/Ayer are scheduled for comple
assistance. As an incentive to experience public
tion by the end of 2005.
transportation, VTA is exploring the possibility
of implementing a Golden Giveaway Program.
Golden Getaway/Giveaway Program
This program would hold weekly drawings for a
This program provides door-to-door transit serv
senior non-profit organization to win a free
ice for a reduced fee to non-profit senior groups
Golden Getaway trip.
throughout Santa Clara County. Buses are
scheduled on a flrst-come, first-sensed basis on
Information Access Services
Thursdays, Saturdays, or Sundays. The program
VTA regularly evaluates what information peo
objective is to make meaningful comrections
ple need about its services and programs, how
VTP 2030
127
regional partnership. This system provides
§:
schedule, travel time and trip-planning infor
mation over the Internet.
• VTA provides multi-language call-in lines
*
where people can speak with live Information
Service Representatives (ISRs) that assist
them with trip planning, fai'e and schedule
information, transfers, and information about
m
the transit system network.
Community-Based Transportation Studies
SSfi:
m
a iSS
^41
-■
msi
community-based transportation studies in the
Gilroy and East San Jose areas. The goal of
these studies is to advance the findings from
people access that information, and explores
MTC's Lifeline Transportation Network Report
new ways to provide information. Below are a
adopted by the Commission and incorporated
few of the information services VTA currently
into the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan
offers or has under development.
(RTF). The Lifeline Transportation Network
• VTA has implemented a new "accessibility
hotline" to assist paratransit users with
determining their eligibility to use paratransit
and with signing up for the service.
• Real-time information systems are being
implemented in conjunction with the
Advanced Communication System (ACS) that
VTA has been implementing over the past
Report identified transit needs in economically
disadvantaged communities throughout the San
Francisco Bay Ai-ea region, and recommended
local transportation studies to further efforts to
address them. Each community-based
transportation study will involve a collaborative
approach that includes residents and commmhty-based organizations (CBOs) that provide
two years. This program wiD provide real
services within minority and low-income
time information on next bus arrival times at
neighborhoods.
stations, transit centers and key bus stops.
• VTA participates in the regional "TranStar"
trip planniirg systems sponsored by the MTC
128
In partnership with MTC, VTA vsdil conduct
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Systems Operations
and Management Program
The Transportation Systems Operations and
■Transit Management Benefit
Management CTSO&M) Program includes proj
Case Study -
ects that use technology to improve the opera
tion aiid management of the overall transporta
Systems (ITS), and include electronics, comput
i-es; povering'about 19-miles,df the line 22 corridor Other simi- '
' ' -Jar projects hove yielded trovel'tirhe reductions'for buses of up '
•,to 30 p'et;cent, requiririg fewer buses for' improved service.
2030 built on work conducted for the develop
ment of an ITS Plan for Santa Clara County as
part of VTP 2020. The VTP 2030 TSO&M
Program development included a review and
update of the list of ITS projects from VTP
2020, and the development of a fund allocation
strategy for the TSO&M Program. This work
was conducted by an ITS task force consisting
of staff from both VTA's Member Agencies and
regional agencies, including MTC and Caltrans.
Traveler Information Benefit Case Study
' .The Boy Area's 511 Transportation Information System, spon■ '• sored by MTC,and Son Francisco Bay Area Partners, includes'
. j - a feature that allows travelers to get current driving times for'the
'I freeway by calling'5'11 ;or online. This is a voicekrctiyated sys
tem'that con 'be accessed simpjy 'by dialing 511 from-any of
the nine'counties'in the Boy Area, asking for "driving times,".'.
, and then giving starting and e'nding'point information. 511 ■ '
information.is also .available o\fer the Internet at www.511 .org>
The remainder of this section provides
overviews of the following:
, • The City.'of San Jose'received'$500,000 in TEA-21'funds' .
• ITS fund allocation plan (expenditure plan)
\ I through'MTC's,Corridor Management,Program to "retime 223
• ITS projects list
I'", traffic lights along-travel corridors' in San Jose thdtialso exterid-
• Status of ITS activities
, ' ed into the cities of Campbell, Milpitas and Scinta Clard. , .
Uses and Benefits of intelligent
Transportation Systems
The Santa Clara Coimty ITS Plan organizes ITS
applications in eight program areas as follows.
^
Transportation Management
Benefit Case Study
• Uses and benefits of ITS
• Federal role in funding ITS
■
fdr^bOses at tcdffic'signals is being implemented. Equipment,
, ■ costs are estimated at just over $300,000 for the first two phas-_ :
tively referred to as Intelligent Transportation
Development of the TSO&M Program for VTP
'
'As part'of VTA's Line 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)'system, priority .
tion system. These new technologies are collec
er, and communications infrastructme.
.
:
The project resulted in a travel dejay reduction of over' 30 '
■ ".percent.'This improvement in travel time reduced annual'fuel
•
cost by over $900,000'and annual pounds of vehicle ' emissions-by over 100,000--—over 180 percent return on
irivestment inithe'firsf'year alone. ■ '
VTP 2030
,
129
Incident and Emergency Management
1. Transportation Management
Benefit Case Study ,
The purpose behind transportation management
•
.
. " '
technologies is to use local and regional road
t
n , ,'.The,Bay Area's Freeway Service'Patrol (FSP) Program ■consists^ ■ ,
way systems more efficiently by improving sys
. of'over 70 trucks patrolling over. 450 rriiies of freeway-during
tems operation and management. This program
/
^
^
j
.
' ''
- • ' the busiest times of tlie day to assist motorists'and to quickly -
'
area includes traffic signal systems, ramp meter
ing, camera systems, and variable message signs
1 clear traffic accidents.'Sucfi accidents are now responsible for'
over half of all delays on freeways. The FSP trucks feature
'
that accomplish the following:
-
■' state-of-the-art; computerized communications arid automatic ■ ' j
I • vehicle location systems that cohfribute to" making'this one of
ihe more popular services available fq'r, freeway travelers. ' .•
-<
.
• Ai'terial management—Includes traffic light
technologies that allow signal systems to
change in immediate response to traffic, and
to give priority to emergency and transit vehi
cles (also a transit management application)
• Freeway management—Systems tliat collect
information on current traffic conditions,
respond to traffic incidents and manage traf
fic flow on fi'eeways
• Roadway-raHway crossing safety—Enlianced
warning and barrier systems at rail and road
CM
crossings
I
mm
• Electronic toll collection—Systems that allow
vehicles to pay tolls electronically and avoid
delays at toll-plazas
i*V#
/ ~
■it*
'I
• Event management—Systems that manage
traffic circulation and parking associated with
special events, such as concerts and baseball'
pfioto courtesy.Qf'MTC
games
2. Transit Management
Managing and operating transit systems more
efficiently and effectively is the goal of this pro
gram area. Transit Management projects include
automatic vehicle location systems that allow
130
Valley Transportation Authority
;hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
transit agencies to know the location of all vehi
cles (resulting in improved fleet management),
smart card systems that allow passengers to use
T.V-
multiple transit systems with a single fare card,
electronic fare payment systems that allow elec
tronic debit or credit processing of transit fares,
and priority for transit vehicles at ti'affic lights
to improve transit service reliability.
m
3. Traveler Information
SS'
R!
m
Providing real-time travel information to the
public allows users of the transportation system
i
to anticipate trip times accurately, and to make
route, departure time, and mode choices. Real
time information technologies include kiosks
and displays at transit stops showing next bus
arrival times, pre-trip traveler information with
the current roadway conditions on the Internet,
ty for freight traffic and reduce the cost of ship
and travel time data collection systems.
ping goods. Development is this program area
follows the lead of statevride initiatives. CVO
4. Incident and Emergency Management
applications include automatic vehicle identifi
The use of technologies for incident manage
cation systems, weigh-in motion scales, and
ment allows transportation managers to identify
satellite tracking of truck traffic.
and quickly respond to roadway incidents and
enable rapid dispatch of emergency vehicles
6. Rural Transportation Management
and personnel. Many of the instEiUations are the
Installation of ITS will follow a focused strategic
same as those for transportation management
planning effort to identify ITS for the county's
and also include Freeway Service Patrol and the
rural roadway system. The most prevalent ITS
Smart Call Box programs operated by MTG.
technologies for rural transportation systems
5. Commercial Vehicle Operations
roadway condition advisories and traveler/
Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) use ITS
tourist information.
are those providing automated weather and
technologies to improve travel time and reliabili-
VTP 2030
131
132
VTP 2030 Proposed ITS Projects
KWt*-
0
KS
hy
J
w.
N
Soum County
h'.ii
I Hdm'N tr K'
TW
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-28 Inielligent Transportation Systems Projects
VIP ID
Project
Cost
Project
VTPID
Cost
C03$/Millions)
COSS/MUlkms)
S101
S600
' Town of Los GatosTYaffic Signal System Upgrade- $0.3!
Hainilton Ave. Intelligent Transportation
$0.3
System
S102
City of Campbeil TVaffic Signal System Upgrade
0.3
S103
Winchester Bivd. Intelligent
Transportation System
0.3
S300
..Gity of Milpitas TrafficiSignai System Upgrade
S703
, City of Milpitas CCTV Camera Deployment on
Major Travel Corridors
n n
S301
City of Giiroy Event Management System
0.9
S302
City of Giiroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
3.9
S701
South Milpitas Blvd. Smart Corridor
0.5
S900
Cochrane Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
System Improvement
SI000
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic
Signal System Improvement
51202 :City of Santa Clara Transportation;-.
0,1
51404
-City of Sunnyvaie Count &,Speed Monitoring,
Stations
. '
' !
0.9;
0.4
'$1405
6.2
0.2j
City.of San Jose Proactive Signal .'
Timing Program Phase II
1.0
Silicon Valley Sub-Regional Transportation.
Management.Center
7.5
City of Sunnyvale CCTV Camera Deployment
0.6
S2010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
3.0
152005
2.0
$2006
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
0.2
S3003
rrs Enhancements on Santa Teresa Blvd.
1.0
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
3.6
Caitrans 1-680 Conidor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4030
5.4
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4040
5.7
Caitrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4050
4.8
Caltrairs 1-280 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering"
S4060
2.2
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Meteiing"
S5004
3.0
Silicon Vailey-ITS (SV-ITS)Program Upgrades
§303 . n Ciliy of Giiroy Flood Watch Gairieras
•.
27.0
0.5
.1.5;
.
City of Surinyvale TMC Integration
S1402
S3002
. , n
$2001
f" ' 'r
: City of San Jose H ansportation & Incident
Management Center CTIMG)/PD CAD Integration
52003
18.0
• n
•
151406
2.8
S4020
City,of Sunnyvale ITS Communications
■52002
& Ramp Metering"
0.4;
0.5:
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal
System on Major Arterials
County of Santa Ciara Ti-affic Operations
System Improvements
3.2;
-City oftSunnyvale-TVaffic Signal ControUerUpdate
0.5
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
)
*51403
City of Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade
Project—^Phase IP
S3001
.
.
. 1-
Management Center Upgrade
Infrastructure
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential
Arteiials Project'
S2011
n
- Cabinet and Controller Replacement: -
3.5
S1401
• 0.3!
0.4-
City of Santa Clara Traffic Signal System
51201
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
S1301
1
Improvement
0.9
SI200
0.8'
City of Morgan Hill Traffic Signal Sykem
S901
City of Giiroy Adaptive Traffic Signal
Control System
SllOl
$702
Communications Network
-r . -
'.
, ,
City of San Jose Transportation
j52008
j
4.0
. City of San Jose Field Equipment Upgrade
"r
-
152009
$2012
District (NBD) ITS Deployment ■ i
: rr-
City of San Jose Downtown Freeway &
Incident Management System
,,
. ''
-
,.
2.0
1.4
City of San Jose Red Light Running : - . .
; Enforcement Program
1 ';
f
City of San Jose Advanced Parking
• Management System .
"
■
■3.0
City of San Jose Motorists Information System
j
[52013
3.0
-9.8
••
;52007 . City of San'Jose Neighborhood Business
1
2.0
City of San Jose Smart Intersections ; -
52004
:;
- •
'0.5
,
■
,
1.5
■56000
County wide Ramp Metering Study
0.5
i56010
Transit ITS
5.0
1. Also listed as a Local Streets and County Roads project
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and project cost
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
revenue projections provided, by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC| and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
I;.
,
I Mot Tnapped
VTP 2030
133
Federal Role in ITS Funding;
private industry development of teclmology
u,
applications for vehicles.
On January 8, 2001, the.U.S. Department of Transportation V", 0
8. ITS Planning
• published two new documents related to ITS: FHWA's>Findl,Rule
Countywide planning efforts are requu'ed to
and FTA's Policy on the National ITS Architecture. The intent of'v.
continue defining and developing ITS. ITS plan
these documents I(Rule/Policy) is to "foster integration of the '
ning efforts include the development of a
deployment of regional ITS'systems."
'n
.
. '* _ 1
T..- ' •», ., y
The Rule Policy^essentially implernents section-5206(e] of.TEA"
' rn
*
1 1.
'
1-
'"t
21, which requires that all ITS pfo'iects funded from the - ■''
•
■
' ' ' <
'T , ,
ITS Projects
'
Notional ITS Architecture and appropriate standards. So what < '
does this mean for Santo Clara County?"
'
The VTP 2030 ITS Plan includes 50 listings of
j
"projects" totaling over $146 million. "Projects"
is in quotes here because some projects may be
j The two nioin requirements concerning ITSTn Sontq Clara ^ V;
County ore the following: the Bay Area needs to have a '
' ,(/
regional fTS architecture .in place* by April 8,*2p05Jand majdr,^
regibrjol ITS projects must be'consistentiwitHThis-architecture),''-
'
and all ITS projects must follow a systems'ehgineering process. >
MTC completed work on 0 Bay Area regional'ITS
■
included in whole or in part in projects found in
other program areas, and as such do not repre
sent individual projects in the usual sense.
A map and project listing are provided on pages
130-131. Please refer to the Local Streets and
-
County Roads Program map for the four proj
orchitecture'in June 2004. A copy'of the planjs_availabje
online'ot, http .//yvvvw.iteris corh/mtcits/. ^
gies to transportation, and focused studies of
future "smart" corridors.
tdighwoy Trust Fund (which includes transit,projects funded ' ,
from the Mass Tronsit'Accbuht) be' in "conform'once with the ..
Strategic ITS Master Plan to address institution
al issues regarding the application of technolo
,
' ' /
ects that are included under that program. The
cost shown in the listing is the full cost. The list
ing includes the following:
• Project listmgs ai'e shown for 11 of the 15
7. Advanced Vehicle Control
local cities and towns in the county (the
In-vehicle technologies can provide safety and
operational improvements for the transportation
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale,
system. Efforts mclude evaluation of on-board
and the Town of Los Gatos).
and Safety Systems
technologies for transit veliicles and supporting
134
Valley Transportation Authority
cities/towns of Campbell, GUroy, Milpitas,
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-29 Examples of Matching Markets with Services
Activity
VTP 2020 Description
VTP 2030 Status
Planning
integration
ITS planning should continue to be integrated in the
overall transportation planning process. This will
lead to improved opportunities to mainstream ITS
and to better coordinate ITS implementation.
[Progressing] ITS integration
into highway plaiming started;
transit planning includes ITS;
integration in local roadway
projects is less consistent.
Mainstream
ITS in Other
Projects
Opportunities to include ITS implementation as
part of a capital improvement project should be
identified. One example would be the installation of
communications infrastructure (e.g., conduits, fiber
optics cabling and wireless commmiications sys
tems) as part of a roadway improvement project.
[Progressing] Maii\streaming of
ITS in regional highway and
transit projects is under way;
ITS projects at the local level
are still mainly standalone
Near-term
In the next five years, basic systems management
Emphasis of
and operations elements for roadways and transit
[Continuing] VTP 2030 funding
allocation strategy emphasizes;
projects that improve traffic
flow through improved signal
operations (e.g., signal sys
tems, ramp meters, signal pri
ority for transit and bicycle
detection), countywide opera
tions, maintenance and man
agement program, and systems
integration and connectivity.
Basic Elements
and communications infrastructure should be
implemented and/or upgraded. Examples of such
efforts include VTA's installation of a vehicle loca
tion system based on a global positioning system
(GPS), Santa Clara County's plan to install commu
nications infrastructure on area expressways, and
traffic signal system upgrade efforts by local agen-
ITS Policy
A forum for discussing ITS policy issues should be
Discussion
Forum
established. The current proposal is to reconstitute
the LGS/Modeling Subcommittee of VTA's Technical
Advisory Committee(TAC) as the Systems
Management Subcommittee. The Systems
Management Subcommittee would be responsible
for recommending actions on ITS policy to the TAC.
This would be in addition to the current responsi
bilities of the LOS/Modeling Subcommittee. Other
options should be explored.
efforts.
[Completed] VTA's
LOS/Modeling Subcommittee
has been reconstituted as the
Systems Operations and
Management(SOM)
Subcommittee. This subcom
mittee has taken on the task of
recommending countywide
actions related to ITS planning.
VTP 2030
135
. Table 2-30 Examples of Matching Markets with Services (aoniinucd)
Activity
VTP 2020 Description
Funding for
Operations
and
Management
Providing funding for systems operations and management is key to successfully implementing ITS.
New technologies and the implementation of integrated ITS elements bring with them new require
ments in skills, in the training of personnel, in oper
ations, and in maintenance. The specific needs in
these areas as they pertain to ITS are still being
identiSed, but it should be expected that new
requirements would need to be considered.
Expand
Silicon Vailey
A partnership formed to implement the Silicon
Valley Smart Corridor project has expanded into
ITS Program
Coalition
the Silicon Valley-ITS (SV-ITS) Program. The SV-ITS
Program is currently working to implement three
additiond ITS projects. The project delivery
process supported by the SV-ITS Program could
be used to implement future ITS projects. This
could include projects that cross county lines and
involve integration of transit operations with
VTP 2030 Status
[Early Planning] VTP 2030 rec
ommendation includes an allo
cation of $5.6m for a countywide ITS operations, manage
ment and maintenance pro
gram managed by VTA.
[No Progress] Due to budget
constraints, main emphasis has
been to complete projects
alresidy under way. New work
has mainly focused on devel
oping a Communications
System Master Plan for the
program.
roadway systems.
Develop
Partnerships
Development of partnerships with private and other
public sector entities is encouraged. Partnerships
with the private sector can provide financial and
technical resources that may not be otherwise avail
able to a public agency.
[No Progress] OUTREACH,
VTA's Gountywide paratransit
service provider, has a demon
stration project for providing
traveler information. It is
scheduled to be showcased at
the 2005 ITS World Congress
held in the Bay Area.
Resolve
Institutional
Questions
136
Valley Transportation Authority
Create or designate an organization, recognized by
the participating public agencies, to manage the
overall planning and deployment of ITS in Santa
Clara Comity.
[No Progress] Institutional
issues are still resolved by indi
vidual agencies on a case-bycase and as-needed basis.
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
• Project listings are also shown for the County
of Santa Clara, VTA, Caltrans, and the Silicon
t-f
iy.
ifl
Valley ITS (SV-ITS) Progi'am.
• The county, SV-ITS Program, and VTA entries
each contain multiple projects.
• The Caltrans entry is composed of multiple
1 . "If
s
projects that are incorporated into highway
..
projects listed in the Highway Program.
:
L •%;:»
• Four ITS projects appear under the Local ,
Streets and County Roads Program, where
they were selected for programming.
When ITS projects in other program areas are
considered, the cost of all remaining projects in
mi
A'
i
-"i !
w.
Sit
the plan is just over $114 million. Assuming a
a—
local matcliing contribution of 20 percent, the
request amount is just over $91 million.
The VTP 2030 allocation amount for the TSO&M
Program is $28 million. The approved allocation
strategy for this funding level is as follows:
• Projects'that improve traffic flow through
improved signal operations for local road
• Use the remainder ($8.4m) of the proposed
allocation on other ITS projects that empha
size systems integration and connectivity.
ways/expressways,freeways (ramp meters),
transit (priority treatment at traffic signals)
VTA will work with staff from the cities, towns,
and bicycle traffic (bicycle detection and sig
and county to identify a project list that uses the
nal timmg) are the first priority. Half of the
above strategy and meets the allocation target.
proposed allocation ($14m) should be
reserved for these projects.
• Reserve 20 percent ($5.6m) of the proposed
allocation to fund a countywide ITS opera
tions, management and maintenance program
managed by VTA.
Status of ITS Activities
Key ITS activities were sketched out by the ITS
task force during the development of VTP 2020.
The table on pages 135-136 describes these
activities and prowdes a summary of the status
of each one.
VTP 2030
137
Bicycle Program
In 1998, VTA launched a Bicycle Program that is
committed to improving the bicycle infrastruc
ture in Santa Clara County, to enable and
encourage people to bike to work, school,
errands and for recreation. Three major compo
• 1996 Measure B sales tax
• Transportation funds for clean air
• Transportation Development Act Aiticle 3
funds
nents of the Bicycle Program have been estab
• Transportation Enhancements funds
lished:
• Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Program fmids
• Bicycle Expenditure Program
As projects sponsors. Member Agencies are
• Countywide Bicycle Plan
required to provide a minimum 20 percent
match to the BEP funding for implementation.
• Cross-County Bicycle Network
The BEP projects list is reviewed and re-adopt
ed every three years, for project changes and
Bicycle Expenditure Program
cost increases.
There is $90.5 mOlion in the Bicycle
Expenditure Program (BEP) to fund bicycle
projects over the 2001-2030 time period. The
funding is a combination of:
Several projects on the BEP list ai'e also includ
ed in the Local Streets and County Roads
Program and the Livable Conununities and
Pedestrian Program.
AY
Countywide Bicycle Plan
IWHSSS
In 2000, VTA adopted the Santa Clara
Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP), a stand-alone
document that served as the Bicycle Element of
m
VTP 2020, and also serves as the Bicycle
Element of VTP 2030. The Countywide Bicycle
Plair will be updated in 2005.
The CBP guides the development of major bicy
cling facilities, prioritizing projects for funding
tlu'ough the BEP. Tire plan documents the CrossCounty Bicycle Network and the Bicycle
Expenditure Program (BEP). Tire CBP comple
ments Member Agencies' bicycle plans, which are
more focused on improvements at the local level.
138
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapfer0 BICYCLE PROGRAM
Cross-County Bicycle Network
The Cross-County Bicycle Network maps out 16
bicycle corridors. The network includes onstreet bikeways and off-street trails, combining
existing, planned, and undeveloped segments.
The network also coordinates facilities that
Bikeways Map
1. VTA-also' produces and distfibutesfthe :Santa ClaraWalley-.,
Bifeways Map;- which shows- existing- bikeways.as well,as•
,T transit'facilities,* to help cyclists.navigate-around;the county.
tThe map is free. It can'also be viewed at-;-wwwwta-.org.
straddle jurisdictional boundaries. When com
pleted, they will be the most direct and conven
ant
ora
ient routes for extended bike trips.
9BI> ■■I
V^T
■^r' J'
m
^
77B
A. Ills*-;
-—rrrSiMrlSi-
VTP 2030
T39
VTP 2030 Bicycle Projects
'J
\
\
SouthxCounty \
140
X.. j.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-31 Bicycle Projects
VIP ID
Project
Cost
VTP ID
Project
Cost
C03$/MiUions)
C03$/MiUions)
B01
Campbell Ave. Improvements at Hwy. 17
at Los Gatos Greek
$1.5
2.0
Los Gatos Creek Trail Bridge and Path
Improvements(Mozart-Camden)
0.8
Coyote Creek Trail(Hellyer-Anderson Lake
County Park)
1.3
BOS
Almaden Expwy.(Ironwood-Koch)
2.3
B06
Bicycle Shoulder Delineation Along
Expressways(not mapped)
0.6
B03
B04
Homer Ave. Caltiain Undercrossing
B2B
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian
B29
Branliam Ln./US 101 Bike/Pedestrian
$5.6
5.7
Overcrossing
Los Gatos Creek Trail Expansion on West Side
(Hamiiton-Campbell)
B02
B27
Overcrossing'
5.0
Coyote Creek Trail(SR 237/Bay TrailStory Rd./Keyes St.)
6.1
B31
Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso St.-I-880)
5.1
B32
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 4)
4.8
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
6.4
2.8
B30
835
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
10.0
B36
McKean Rd. Shoulder Improvements
(Harry Rd.-Bailey Ave.)
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail(SR 237 to
City Limits)
5.0
B37
Santa Clara Intermodal Transit Center
Page Mill Rd./I-280 Interchange
Bike Improvements^
5.0
BIO
Boliinger Rd. Bicycle Facility Improvement
0.4
B11
Mary Ave.(1-280) Bike/Pedestrian
B07
Footliill/Loyola Structural Improvements in
Los Altos'
BOB
B09
CK'ercrossmg
B12
7.1
Uvas Creek Trail (part of Gilroy Sports
Park Phase 1 and 2)
B14
Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Replacement
0.5
BIS
Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study
0.1
B16
Berryessa Creek Trail(Reach 3)
0.9
B17
Coyote Creek TYail (Reach I)
1.2
Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing over UPRR
Tracks (near Great MaR)
5.0
B3B
Cox Ave. Railroad Grade Crossings
0.5
B39
PGE De Anza Trail(Reach 3)
2.5
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
6.5
B41
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes
(WeddeU Dr. to Caribbean Dr.)
B42
0.2
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing'
11.9
Uvas Creek Trail Study (Sports ParkGavilan College)
B13
5.6
17.0
0.15
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossings
at US 101 & SR 237
6.5
B43
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes (Sunnyvale Ave.
to Reed Ave.)
0.4
B44
Sunnyvale East Drainage Trail(JWC
Greenway-Tasmarr Dr.)
0.5
B45
Sunnyvale Train Station North Side Access'
1.8
B46
Pilot Bicycle Parking Program (not mapped)
0.2
1. Also included in the VTP 2030 Loctd Streets and County Roads Program.
Hwy.9 Bike Lanes (Sai-atoga Ave.Los Gatos Blvd.)
1.7
B20
Coyote Creek Trail Coimection
0.5
3. Also included in the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian
B21
West Little Uagas Creek Trail
1.5
See Appendix for more project detail. Revenue projections and projwt cost
B22
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Central
4.0
estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal
B23
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 South
4.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Yuba Dr. to North Meadow)
3.8
B2S
Bicycle Boulevaid/Lanes Network (not mapped) 5.0
B26
California Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing'
B19
2. Also included in the VTP 2030 Expressway Program.
Program.
revenue projections provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MIC) and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
9.0
VTP 2030
141
Livable Communities and Pedestrian Programs
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Other ftmd som-ces that could be administered
(LOP) Program provides capital fuirds for
through the LCP Program.
transportation-related projects that improve
community access to transit, provide multi-
modal transportation facilities, and enhance the
pedestrian environment along transportation
corridors, in core areas, and around transit
The project list will target $113 million of the
TLC funds. One-third ($37.5 million) of this is
guaranteed to VTA for programming, and two-
thirds ($75.6 mOlion) is a target share of the
regional discretionary TLC Program.
stations.
MTG's policies for funding regional programs
identify the amount to be used for this program,
allocated through Its Transportation for Livable
Communities (TLC) Program. This allocation is
based on Santa Clara County's population share
of the regional total and on the amount MTC
requires for dedication to the county share
(currently split on a 1/3 share for counties and a
2/3 share for MTC). In addition, VTA will pursue
Developing a Project List
VTA and its Member Agencies are currently
developing the project evaluation criteria to
select and rank LCP Program projects. In
2004/2005, VTA wiU issue to Member Agencies
a call-for-projects for the LCP Program. To allow
VTA and Member Agencies greater flexibility in
utilizing these funds, some projects may appear
on both the Bicycle Program and LCP Program
lists of projects.
Community Design and
Transportation Program
The LCPP supports the goals of VTA's
1021
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
Program, VTA's Board-adopted program for
integrating transportation and land use. The
CDT program also offers planning and capital
grants to Member Agencies.
lim
The Community Design and Transportation
Program and other VTA land use programs and
activities are discussed in the following section.
142
Valley Transporfation Authority
chapferQ I N V E S T AA E N T PROGRAM
Systemwide Performance Results
Performance measures provide a common
framework in which to evaluate investments and
\
r'.'> H
strategies. They also provide an indication of
how well Santa Clara County's transportation
system serves the traveling public. In 1999, the
VTA Board adopted a set of multimodal per
formance measures as part of the Santa Clara
901
County Congestion Management Program
(CMP). These performance measures are used
to evaluate the impacts of land use decisions
and projections on the county's transportation
system. This section estimates how well the
m
transportation system will perform in 2030,
given the additional growth in and out of the
comrty and the implementation of the VTP
2030 projects.
Tire transportation system's performance may
be evaluated usiirg a 2000 base condition, a
2030 No Project scenario and a year 2030
Project scenario. The "base" refers to improve
not the VTP 2030 projects. The 2030 Project
ments included in the current Measure B pro
scenario includes all of the base projects, plus
gram as well as projects anticipated to be fund
the VTP 2030 Investment Program. This analysis
ed from current funding programs (STIP,
scenario includes projects funded with 25 years
STP/CMAQ, etc.). The No Project scenario
of State and Federal programming, as weU as
includes the VTP 2030 land use conditions but
the 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue. It also
Table 2-32 Deficient Freeway and Expressway Miles
Year 2030
Year 2030
No Project
Project
Cfionge
Net
(miles)
(miles)
(miles)
AM Peak Hour
202.2
182.6
-19.6
-9.7%
PM Peak Hour
215.4
205.3
-10.1
-4.7%
Percent
Cfiange
VTP 2030
143
Freeway and Expressway LOS F (wiih Projeai, PM Peak How)
presumes that VTA is able to secure adequate
funding to be able to fully implement and oper
ate the 2000 Measure A program of projects.
\
Traffic Level of Service
Traffic level of service (LOS) measures the
South CmuIt
interrelationship between travel demand (vol
ume) and supply (capacity) of the transporta
OK
litnl ofScnic*
tion system. LOS is a quantitative measure cate
gorized into six levels, A through P—with LOS
A representmg ideal conditions and LOS F representmg poor conditions or congested flow.
Roadways at LOS F are considered deficient.
The Santa Clara County CMP considers freeway
Ti««< C^uuai]s«>a>a
segments with a speed less than 35 miles per
hour and expressway segments less than 13
mUes per hom to be deficient (LOS F). Due to
Freeway and Expressway LOS F (with No Pwjec.i,
the growth witlrin the county as well as the
PM Peak Hour)
increase in travelers coming into the county, the
number of roadways operating at LOS F will
increase between 2000 and 2030. Nevertheless,
r
the VTP 2030 Project scenario shows some
inrprovement over a No Project scenario in the
<
SMih Count)'
miles of deficient roadway segments.
By year 2030, mUes of deficient fi'eeways and
L4«^o(Sml(«
expressways are projected to be 202.2 mUes in
the AM peak hour and 215.4 miles in the PM
peak hour. With completion of the VTP 2030
■4I
I
scenario, these are projected to decrease by
I
*
) Ml...
19.6 miles in the AM peak and 10.1 miles in the
PM peak, a decrease of 9.7 percent and 4.7
percent, respectively.
144
Valley Transportation Authority
■
:hapter^ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Modal Split
ments will allow more alternative mode use, as
indicated by the pie charts below. The percent
Modal split measures the extent to which
travelers use the various available transporta
age of drive-alone work trips decreases nearly 5
tion modes. It is measured as the proportion of
percent from 2000 to 2030. The drive-alone
mode share for all purposes is also expected to
people making a trip using a given mode. Modal
split values shown here are for daily person
decrease. The proportion of commute trips for
trips in 2030.
the shared-ride (HOV) mode is expected to
increase by about 4.5 percent, representing
The 2030 scenario increases the viability of
approximately 140,000 more commuter
alternatives to driving alone with investments in
carpools. Transit experiences the greatest
transit and HOV improvements. These invest
improvement m commute mode share, increas-
Table 2-33 Home-Based Work Trips
2000
2030
1.7%
1.5%
0.9%
0.9%
2.9%
6.3%
3%
6%
n
Drive Alone
□
Shored Ride
■
Tronsil
■
Bike
■
Walk
■
Drive Alone
Table 2-34 Total Trip Purpose
2030
2000
7.1%
5.2%
1.2%
0.9%
2.1%
3.2%
32.7%
56.9%
34.8%
□
Shored Ride
■
Tronsil
■
Bike
Walk
VTP 2030
T45
Table 2-35 Vehicle Miles of Travel and Vehicle Hours of Travel
2030
2030
Net
Percent
No Project
Project
Change
Difference
-122,166
-2.5%
0.9%
AM Peck
VHT
395,948
399,525
3,577
Vehicle Trips
545,523
546,891
1,368
0.3%
-2.7%
VMT/Trips
9.00
8.75
-0.25
VHT/Trips
0.74
0.73
0.00
0.7%
VMT
5,308,370
5,167,929
-140,441
-2.6%
VHT
518,948
517,122
-1,826
-0.4%
Vehicle Trips
634,289
635,988
1,699
0.3%
-2.9%
-0.6%
Peak
VMT/Trips
8.37
8.13
-0.24
VHT/Trips
0.82
0.81
-0.01
ing from 2.9 percent in 2000 to 6.3 percent in
of travel per vehicle trip (VHTW-T) is an indica
the 2030 scenario. This 117 percent increase
tor of the average amount of time travelers
over 2000 represents approximately 105,000
spend getting to their destination. A decrease in
more transit trips. Bicycle mode stays about the
these measures indicates people are traveling
same and the walk mode share decreases slight
more efficiently and mobility is improving.
ly for both commuters and ah travelers.
As shown in Table 2-35, more people will travel
more efficiently in the Project Scenario than in
146
Vehicle Miles of Travel and
Vehicle Hours of Travel
the No Project Scenario, even though there
Vehicle miles of travel per vehicle trip (yMT/V-
Systemwide VMT decreases about 2.5 percent
are more vehicle trips in the Project Scenario.
T)identifies the number of roadway vehicle
during both AM and PM peak hours. VMTW-T
miles of travel requhed to satisfy the demand
decreases from 9.0 to 8.8 miles for the AM peak
for travel by vehicles, measured in vehicle trips.
hour (2.7 percent reduction) and from 8.4 to
When monitored over time, it is an indicator of
8.1 miles during the PM peak hour (2.9 percent
the level of utilization for high-occupancy
reduction), wluch shows improved travel effi
modes (carpooling, transit, etc.). Vehicle hours
ciency. People will spend about the same time
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
on the road in both scenarios, as shown by
VHTA^-T.
Transit Accessibility 2000
iT \
Transit Accessibility
The transit accessibility measure uses a specific
form of transit performance: peak-hour work
trips with walk access. This specific trip type is
then used as a proxy for overall system per
formance. Accessibility is an abstract measure
that can inform planners on the effect of
changes in two quantities: travel time to jobs
(transit system performance) and the number
ofjobs available (land use). The higher an area's
accessibility, the better job the transit system is
doing in getting its residents to large concentra
tions of employment in minimal time.
Transit accessibility is anticipated to significantly
improve over the next 25 years for two reasons:
Legend
Transit Accessibility.
CI]Lcw
I lotedum'
{ M'd.iu[n High
"V
l-High
V
Transit Access 2030
• Transit improvements, particularly along the
BART corridor through Milpitas, San Jose
and Santa Clara, as well as around the airport
and in the East Valley area. Improvements
are also visible along the Vasona LRT exten
sion from downtown Campbell to Winchester
?-
Boulevard. In Coyote Valley, transit accessi
bility is expected to increase from medium
low in the 2000 scenario to medium high in
U.
the 2030 scenario. Improvements are also vis
ible in the Northwest County area, potentially
a result of the Dumbarton Rail, Line 22
Legend
Transit Accessibility
improvements, and Caltrain upgrades.
• Lcmd use pattern changes concentrating
greater numbers of households and jobs near
I Mediuni
L
I Medum High
I .H^h
trcinsit services.
VTP2030
147
Table 2-36 Systemwide Air Quality Civ. Tons)
Type
Hydrocarbons |HC)
Carbon Monoxide(CO)
Nitrous Oxides(NOx)
Particulates (PM)
Time
2000
2030
% Change
AM
5.143
0.599
-88%
PM
6.209
0.711
-89%
AM
64.865
9.811
-85%
PM
76.43
11.223
-85%
AM
4.35
0.613
-86%
PM
5.052
0.703
-86%
AM
0.143
0.329
130%
PM
0.17
0.387
128%
Air Quality
Duration of Congestion
Vehicle emissions of air pollutants are estimated
Dm'ation of congestion measures the length of
for conformance with state CMP guidelines and
time that particular links are subject to congest
are related to several factors, including cold and
ed conditions. Tliis is a measure of peak spread
hot starts and stops, speed changes, and idling
ing, and it provides a way of showing the length
time. Improvements in air quality may indicate
of time over which congested traffic conditions
the benefits of an efficient multimodal trans
persist. Duration of congestion can be affected
portation system. As shown in Table 2-36, air
by changes in travel demand or changes m
quality is expected to dramatically improve
transportation capacity such as adding highway
between year 2000 and year 2030 in hydrocai'-
lanes, improving intersections, transit improve
bons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxides as a
ments, and ITS strategies. The selected loca
result of the introduction of no/low emission
tions shown represent freeway segments where
vehicles and the retirement of early-year high
congestion occurred for more than 0.5 hours as
emission veWcles as assumed by the California
reported in VTA's 2002 Annual Monitoring and
Air Resoui'ces Board. Particulates increase due
Conformance Report. As shown in the table,
to the 38 percent increase in AM peak period
most of the freeway segments (44 of 50) ana
trips and 36 percent increase in PM peak period
lyzed show improvement with the VTP 2030
trips between 2000 and 2030.
Project scenario when Compared with the No
Project scenario. Duration of congestion for one
segment remains the same and five get worse.
148
Valley Transportation Authority
chapferQ INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-37 Duration of Congestion (in Hours)
Facility
Direction
Segment
2000
2030
Changi
i Peak Hour
NB
Hartulton Ave. to 1-280
4.0
3.9
-0.1
SB
SR 85 to Lark Ave.
0.8
0.5
-0.3
NB
Cottle Rd. to Blossom Hill Rd.
0.5
0.3
-0.3
NB
2.1
1.8
-0.3
NB
SR 87 to Almaden Expwy.
Saratoga Ave. to Saratoga-Surmyvale Rd.
4.0
2.9
-1.1
NB
Homestead Rd. to Fremont Ave.
4.0
2.4
-1.6
SR87
NB
Capitol Expwy. to Curtner Ave.
2.9
3.1
0.3
US 101
NB
Sair Martin Ave. to Tennant Ave.
3.4
2.1
-1.3
NB
Tennant Ave. to Dunne Ave.
3.1
2.1
-1.0
NB
1.6
0.8
-0.8
3.9
2.1
-1.8
NB
Silver Creek Valley Rd. to Hellyer Ave.
Hellyer Ave. to Yerba Buena Rd.
Montague Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
2.9
2.4
-0.5
NB
Fair Oeiks Ave. to Mathilda Ave.
1.6
1.3
-0.3
NB
MathUda Ave. to SR 237
1.1
0.0
-1.1
SB
Cochrane Rd. to Dunne Ave.
2.4
0.3
-2.1
SB
Tully Rd. to Capitol Expwy.
1.6
0.0
-1.6
EB
MatMda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
0.8
0.0
-0.8
EB
Lawrence Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
Saratoga Ave. to Lawrence Expwy.
Lawrence Expwy. to Wolfe Rd.
McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd.
Berryessa Rd. to Hostetter Rd.
Berryessa Rd. to McKee Rd.
1.8
2.4
0.5
4.0
3.1
-0.9
SR17
SR85
NB
SR237
1-280
NB
NB
1-680
NB
NB
SB
1-880
1.1
1.6
0.5
2.6
0.3
-2.3
2.4
2.6
0.3
1.3
0.0
-1.3
NB
Coleman Ave. to SR 87
2.6
1.6
-1.0
NB
SR 87 to North First St.
2.6
1.6
-1.0
1 Peak Hour
SR 17
SR 85
SR87
US 101
SB
Camden Ave. to SR 85
1.1
0.8
-0.3
SB
Hamilton Ave. to Camden Ave.
3.1
2.4
-0.8
-1.6
NB
VWnchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
1.6
0.0
SB
SR 237 to El Camino Real
4.0
3.1
-0.9
NB
Alma Ave. to 1-280
1.6
0.3
-1.3
-0.6
SB
Almaden Expwy. to Curtner Ave.
4.0
3.4
SB
Coleman Ave. to Julian St.
1.1
0.0
-1.1
NB
Great America Plcwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
0.3
0.0
-0.3
NB
EUis St. to Moffett Blvd.
3.9
3.4
-0.5
SB
Dunne Ave. to Tennant Ave.
3.6
2.1
-1.5
SB
Cochrane Rd. to Dimne Ave.
4.0
3.9
-0.1
SB
4.0
3.4
-0.6
4.0
1.3
-2.7
SB
TuUy Rd. to Capitol Expwy.
Lawrence Expwy. to Great America Pkwy.
Fair Oaks Ave.to Lawi-ence Expwy.
1.8
2.6
0.8
SB
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
4.0
3.6
-0.4
EB
Mathilda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
0.5
0.0
-0.5
EB
North First St. to Zanker Rd.
4.0
1.8
-2.2
SB
SR237
1-280
WB
Maude Ave. to Central Expwy.
2.4
US 101 to Maude Ave.
3.6
0.0
0.0
-2.4
WB
NB
Magdalena Ave. to El Monte Ave.
Lawrence Expwy. to Saratoga Ave.
Wolfe Rd. to Lawrence Expwy.
McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd.
Capitol Expwy. to King Rd.
SR 237 to Dixon Landing Rd.
3.1
2.9
-0.3
3.9
3.1
-0.8
3.1
1.8
-1.3
0.8
0.0
-0.8
2.9
1.8
-1.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
SB
SB
1-680
NB
SB
1-880
NB
-3.6
VrP2030
149
Travel Time
This measure is an estimate of average travel
peak hour, substantial increases in travel time
time across modes for several origin/destination
for some origin/destination pairs can be expected,
pairs. The difference over time or between sce
given the significant increases in both morning
narios indicates changes in congestion over
and afternoon peak-hour vehicle trips. Lastly,
time. It tends to be more intuitive than delay
although a significant portion of these trips will
because the traveling public thinks more about
shift from drive-alone to shared-ride and transit
how long a trip takes than how much delay they
modes,the additional congestion is expected to
experience. The travel time measures shown
impact some transit and shared-ride travel
include seven origin/destination pairs. Values for
times as well.
2000 are based on actual travel time runs con
Overall, this measure indicates that we carmot
ducted for the VTA's 2000 Monitoring and
build our way out of congested conditions. It
Conformance Report.
imderscores the need for VTA to pursue a
The following tables show travel time improve
balanced program of multimodal transportation
ments for some origin/destination pairs and
declines for others from year 2000 to year 2030.
As described in previous sections, between 2000
and 2030 population is expected to grow by 27
percent and jobs by 37 percent, but freeway
capacity wiU grow by only 5.6 percent. In addi
tion, over the same period total Vehicle trips will
increase from about 394,600 to 546,900 (or 39
percent) during the morning peak hour and
from about 467,100 to 636,000 (or 36 percent)
during the afternoon peak hour. Since a slight
increase in traffic volume may cause a large
150
increase in travel time during the congested
Valley Transportation Authority
improvements and changes to land use
developmeirt policies.
:hapter9 INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Table 2-38 AM Peak-Hour Average Travel Times by Modes (in Minutes)
Orlgln/Desrinatlon Pair
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
2000
2030
2000
2030
2000
2030
54
42
33
37
97
111
Morgan Hill Residential Area to Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara 70
74
47
55
76
79
Los Gates Residential Area to Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara
41
34
31
34
92
88
Palo Alto Residential Area to Apple Computer in Cupertino
37
25
28
23
80
71
Evergreen Residentitil Area to Downtown San Jose
37
35
N/A
34
47
63
County Line to Cisco Site near Tasman/Zanker
28
70
N/A
50
38
36
Coimtv Line to Lockheed in Sunnyvale
22
86
17
55
48
54
Los Gates Residential Area to Lockheed in Sunnyvale
Table 2-39 PM Peak-Hour Average Travel Times by Modes (in Minutes)
Origin/Destination Pair
Lockheed in Surmyvale to Los Gatos Residential Area
Drive Alone
Shared Ride
Transit
2000
2030
2000
2030
2000
2030
37
54
N/A
43
107
89
104
55
53
83
77
Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara to Morgan Hill Residential Area 58
Sun/RiverMark in Santa Clara to Los Gatos Residential Area
35
44
32
41
107
85
Apple Computer in Cupertino to Palo Alto Residential Area
31
26
25
21
86
68
Downtown San Jose to Evergreen Residential Area
22
38
N/A
31
55
73
Cisco Site near Tasman/Zanker to County Line
21
75
15
41
34
33
Lockheed m Stmnyvale to Sunol Road in Coimty line
40
91
28
49
56
60
VTP 2030
151
i: -.
M
i
Sr
MS
r
Si
'
|W9 n
w
SHHTHTEffiSn
f
S)1
III
. ..f
'mA
.nm"
n n 'Vfc
'.p.,
Si
, - .s;:e .;:•
152
Valley Transportation Authority
/
,
:
.-j
G h a p t e r 3 ; LAN D U 5 IAN D TRANSPORTATION
'ere we highlight efforts by VTA and its'
,'
H'
JL XMember Agencies to better integrate.
11/^
V' ftrdhsportation systems and land use. These.
'efforts include policy objectives and pro' grams that recognize changes must occur in .
n how:our.cities and transportation systems . i
'are planned and built. Efforts to strengthen. '
these linkages between transportation,and
"
'
.Transportation and Land Use Integration:
Transportationand •
Land UseIiitegi-ation =.
.
154
'.IV
t..
Paitneiships for Livability,
Sets.forth the need fpr'dnd benefits ofmte- .
n ; . grated transportation and land use planning,
Thinsportation and Land Use ,,
Investment Strate^.
.land use encompass;
.
r63
.
176
. . *. • .the vision, goals, and objectives.lor VTA's
land use programs, and the Ways we will.
. work to achieve them.-
I - Transportation and Land Use investment
, 1?:. .{Strategy: Sets forth strdtegies and policy •
n 1,; ; • objectives to link transjDortdtion investments.;
with .land use decisions.
. : . , • • ,V,.
n ..( . . t
v ." n
-IParWerships for Livability: Highlights
WS'Vfestablished and innovative.ways that.VTA is-
.
-
^
n i
^
i
jiVj , fi:.yi>wbrking with other agencies to achieve goals.
. .'related to transportation,'quality of life,.
.'T; W, sustainability;;,and ecdnprhic.h^lth.
VTP2030
1 53
Transportation and
Land Use Integration
VTA's Role in Land Use Policy
Wlule VTA's interest in land use is clear, the
Because of the fundamental link between urban
agency's ability to influence development pat
form and the travel needs of individuals, VTA
terns, urban design, conseivation, and reuse is
has a vital and compelling interest in land use
less clear. The local governments in Santa Clara
and the design of communities. The form of
County—^VTA's member agencies—^liold authori
development not only shapes the places in
ty for land use approvals and related regula
which we live, work and play, it also defines the
tions. VTA's land use programs will not chairge
spaces we move around in and the travel modes
this. However, VTP 2030 presents two related
we use. The transportation/land use connection
programs designed to create a more effective
is becoming increasingly more important to
partnership between VTA and Member Agencies
VTA's ability to deliver and maintain a high-qual
in coordinating land use and transportation
ity, multimodal transportation system. With
decision-making: The Community Design
practical opportunities for system expansion
& Transportation (CDT)Program, and the
diminishing, our maturing transportation system
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy.
now demands greater attention be given to the
These programs are described later in this section.
land uses that support its use and maintenance.
The VTP 2030 Land Use Vision
The VTP 2030 land use and transportation
vision sees a shift in development patterns from
spreading out to grovring up in key locations.
Future development is clustered in core areas
and downtowns, along Main Streets and major
I W
I
«!
m
ii
'"b
transportation corridors, and ai'ound rail transit
stations. Development in these areas is more
i
compact, diverse, and pedestrian-oriented and
less reliant on the automobile.
The benefits of this vision are many. As an
amenity-rich and synergy-rich urban form
emerges, concentrated in areas where major
m
•55:
investments in transportation and urban
infrastructure have already been made, the
<3^
value and productivity of those investments is
greatly enhanced. More intensive and diversified
154
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
development supports a greater range of local
LAND
USE
AND TRANSPORTATION
Visimi for Sta tion Areas
services and facilities, making transit service
more productive, increasing opportunities for
safe walking and biking, and reducing trip
lengths. Automobile use, energy consumption
Transit station areas have become "places to be," and
'•cieslipafions in<thelr-owrf right,Residerits an'd,workers located
'near these stations enjoy-many benefits, having access to q ^
and natural areas are preserved. Human-scale
ftwide,varietfiolactlvities^withoubneeding aidafe,ilTiiS'mixIng dfiitoctivities'bringstogether^lherstationrand surrounding'rareos-,-and;,
architectural and urban design details define
«the..statloii :areaYenierqes assbihiahlv valued<communitV'asset.
and pollution are reduced, and open spaces
attractive public spaces, rekindling interest in
public life and stimulating renewed social and
economic growth. Some streets take on new life
too, shedding the reign of the car and connecting
with adjacent land uses, emerging as multipur
pose corridors friendly to transit, pedestrians
and bicyclists.
VTP 2030 Land Use Goal and
Objectives
L'v''
iVi/f '
The VTP 2030 land use goal and objectives
reflect this vision and VTA's role as a transporta
tion provider, not a land use agency. The goal
tion that the VTP 2030 land use programs
VTP 2030 Objectives for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
expect from member agencies when setting
• Concentrate development in cores, commu
and objectives define the high level of coordina
priorities for transportation investment.
nity corridors, and station areas to support
alternate transportation modes and maxi
VTP 2030 Goal for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
mize the productivity of transit investmerits.
• Design and manage the transportation system
"To provide transportation investments and
to support concentrated development in
services that support the maintenance and
selected locations.
creation of vibrant urban communities and
protect the Santa Clara County's natural
• Provide connectivity in road, bike, and pedes
trian networks so travelers can choose among
resources."
VTP 2030
155
n Smarter Suburbs
routes linking theii' origins and destinations.
,
Provide for future transportation system
The A/TP 2030-*land,'Use: vision-inGludes-.a new,- smarter vision".
needs by coordinating land development and
forisuburbon areas.,Pockets oh mixed;use;-higher-density'
capital project planning.
development are strategicdily placed throughout:suburbia^ , ^ ^
Design and construct transportation facilities
providing neighborhood services Lond social and recreational.
activities close- to homes.' They also,contain a yariely;of.i
to enhance the aesthetic quality of the built
n
environment.
Housing types that better*seri/e changing demographics and
support a ionge.of.incomes and.'oge groups.- Interconnected-•-
!:• n
Use land efficiently and support concentrated
development with strategies including land
.streets—some;designed specifically:to support'-transitaservice—
'support bike paths and attractive sidewglksi- offering.residentsi
options other.than thelcardor moving -orpund their,community.
n This new suburban-form^^together'with,more compact
use intensification and reuse, transportation
development in-'core.areas—^brks to ;CGmplement-urban. -:--
Support development that expands housing
centers and,halt the common'pattern of-sprawling, lowvintensity
developrnent; separation-and^de-centralizption..
■- .
investments that minimize right-of-way
requirements, and limiting land area dedicat
ed to surface parking.
i
accessibility relative to transportation alter
natives, proximity to job centers, cliild cai-e
and other essential services, range of afford-
ability, and opportunities for both rental
housing and home ownership.
Foster an urban design vision that creates a
sense of place, human-scale buUdings, vibrant
public spaces, and as many activities as
¥
possible ■within easy walking distance of each
other and transit stops.
Plan and design whole communities that inte
m
grate housing, work places, shops, schools,
parks, entertainment and public facilities so
that residents can meet their essential needs
close to home.
Promote street design standai'ds that consid
er function and land use context, and provide
Evergreen Vitlages: a.smdrter.suburb-in Sanjjose.-
156
Valley Trcnsportotion Authority
intercoimected multimodal options where
possible.
chapterfl LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Quailties 'of Concentrated Development: •
While many of the objectives refer to concen
trated, mixed-use development, other objectives
—particularly those relating to urban design,
walkability, street connectivity, transit integra^
;-V\Mdsf of. the aties-in-Santo Clara Courify desire,city-or village'style.development in strategic locations'. Although these places '.
will vary greatly,indorm'and .character, the vision for all '
'< includes people':being able..to,get'arpuhd cgmfortably withpyt
a car..'This requires developments that are compacf.and.
n diverse,:and.capable of supplying the-whole spectrum of : n n
tion, right-of-way preservation, and multimodal
street design that accommodates pedestrians
and bicyclists—are not limited to areas of con
centrated development, but may also be appro
priate in suburban and even rural settings (see
sidebar).
To implement this vision and achieve its land
use goal and objectives, VTA has established a
new comprehensive land use program—the
^ daily cctiyifies'Within easy wdlk distances. ', '
,
, The qualities that create these'places differ-in'scdle and
T emphasis, buticonsistently include: '
,
' ...
kk
;V ,;A mix of land uses that, enables.residents and;workers to,.;' '
complefedheir errands. and-obtatn .services.-without driving. - ,
The mixancludes retail, entertainment,, a variety-raf-housingtypes, offices, and civic activities such.as libraries and n
'• 1 ' post offices
', '
"
> '. Human-scale urban- design that creates a.-vibr'ant environ- T'
ment and'-promotes walking and transit.use.through appro.'■■'priatelntensity.of use, o' dyridmic mix of .land.uses, site
design,conducive.for.pedeyribhs', and located^within ' '
Commmiity Design and Transportation Program,
which is discussed in the following sections.
' . :'/walking:.distance,;of frequent trdrisit.service
Community Design and
Transportation—A Program for
Integrating Transportation and
Land Use
In 2002, the VTA Board of Directors adopted
the Community Design and Transportation
CGDT) Program as its primary program for inte
grating transportation and land use. It was cre
ated to help achieve VTA's land use vision and
implement its goal and objectives. It is also
intended to unite with common objectives VTA
planning, design, programming and construction
activities. Formulated as an outgrowth of the
VTP 2020 planning process, it was developed in
partnership with VTA's member agencies—^the
16 cities, towns, and coimty governments within
,, "d.
'
. ,
' ■
•).' Building.design that,,crea.te^'^safe and.attroctive.pedestrian:.
■ , .envirohmentsTthrdugh'djDprbp'ridte, setbacks,'jbuilding
,
,t - heights,, and ground floor uses. ,
" ,
"
Street design that balances the use of all modes of trans- , '
' - sportationfrather than maximizing outp capacity; and as a
■ ■ result Tacilitafes.amenity-rich compact, development, vyhich,- , ; -Mn turn-supports transit, walking and bicycling.,- ,
.
j
Concentrations of'rnajorcornmunityattrq'ctiqns that serve -• .
i
■ ras destinations for people who live in .ahdtqufside the dred. .These include education-and hedltb'care facjlities'- ;
s
OS vyell.as'places for cultyfal.activitjes and.entertainment; ■
• - .Attractive; .safe, and.efficient transpdrtationr.facilities for .all- ,.*
f. -'-modes: of,travel that enhance-public-spaces; .along with
J-..;; t -appropriate accommodqtipns-.forrautos vyhereithey are- C,',"'?;;'
necessary '
,
;
, •
f
Each of these-elements is dddressed in VJAs £ommun'ity ' , <
Design ancl Transportation,Program: A'Manuahof Best
■ '■ Practices'for Integrating Trdnspdrtatiori and LgndAJse.
Santa Clara County.
VTP 2030
157
lYansportaUon hnpUcnl'ions of
Concentrated Development
•"
,
.i
A recent Portland study noted,thot a -IQ percent reduction In.
Fundamentally, CDT calls for change: across
multiple disciplines, from design to finance to
i'vehicle-miies traveled (VMT)'cdald»beiachieved with a region--';
engineering, each of which has overlapping
'.wjide.iricrease in:^the qugiily of- therpedestfidri ert'Jirc nment.
The local features shown to contributejto.reducing VMT are:
importance to the other disciplines. CDT chal
lenges us to critically re-examine our current
pattern of outward growth, and begin working
• 'Egse'bf street crossings based'f0n:itreet width/: gndfizd; '
tion, and traffic volumes
n
- • ,. _
' ;
toward creating places that invite pedestrism
• Presence of sidewalks on streets with.transit'service'
activity, support transit, and build on the dis
.
•„Local street grid" patterns and'short Block distani es
• Topography with minimal ch0ng6s,.ih.slope '
tinct qualities of each community. Through the
CDT program, VTA is engagmg its partners in a
countywide dialogue to develop strategies for
wA
IT
changing planning and development processes
to more consistently support alternative travel
modes and efficient automobile use.
CDT Program Approach
The approach of the CDT program reflects
VTA's role as a multimodal transportation
provider. It considers all transportation modes
and stresses the importance of a healthy pedes
trian envii'onment, concentrated mixed-use
development, integrated transit service, innova
tive street design, and the interrelationships of
buildings and sites with transportation facilities
and services. It is concerned with how policies
The CDT program is designed to inspire new
shape these pieces, and how the pieces can be
thinking about the form and function of growth,
fitted together to create an attractive, safe, and
broaden the range of viable transportation
choices and make the most efficient use of
transportation and other resources in the
county. The CDT program has been formally
endorsed by each member agency, and
continues to function as an active partnership
for pursuing transportation and land use goals.
158
Volley Transportation Authority
sustainable urban form.
The CDT program is designed around a
framework for application, at least initially, in
community cores, along the major transporta
tion corridors, and surrounding transit station
areas. The map on page 161 shows the cores.
c h a p te r I
« * r"
I
c
^
^^
^
^^
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
li
Table 3-1 Transit Use in^Cores'qnd.Corridors /
Callrain
Caitroin
All-Day
Commute
Light Rail
Rapid
BART
Bus Transit'
VTA
Bus
Local
Shuttle
ifXTTiWi
fRegionaljCores'
iMi
San Jose
Palo Alto/Stanford
E
Campbell
Cupertino
Milpitas
Mountaiir View
Sunnyvale
E
E
Santana Row/ Valley Fair
Santa Clara
E
Morgan Hill
E
Gilroy
E
Local.Cotes
Los Altos
E
P
Los Gatos
E
P
Saratoga
E
P
E
Willow Glen
E
E
Communications Hill
E
Eastridge
P
Japan Town
E
E
E
E
E
Gilroy
E
E
E
Morgan Hill
E
E
E
1. Enhanced/Rapid Bus
E = Existing; C = Under Construction; P = Planned or Proposed
t I
Neiv Frontieisfor Growth
'
"
''
'
becausejhey, are already connected with,"utbanf services end'"
UntpVGbeq'londs at the .urban'iringe •havesgenerally been/" , .infrastructure. Moreover, oceommodqting-growth jn urbanB'- "'s
though}'of.ds ieadingicandidotes for growth and develop:'- -r' n coresjplays.a-more critical role in protecting-valuable open
menf^fHpwever, Santo Cicra'County's mature urbantareas.are:- -.spaGe;at-tHe edge; These sites^structured"around a frame: '■ .
.diso'.prime development:opportunities-..Tn,,fact,- vacant or
underutilized urban sites offer advantages- over outlying areas
^ -work of cores, corridors and'Statipn areas—:tGonstitute"the.new
=- frontiers for growth; and are the-focus of the CDT program.
VTP 2030
159
Manual of Best Practices for Integrating
5.^' 3
rFSuTOf.!, r
•nliatti
I
Transportation and Land Use
The CDT Manual of Best Practices for
Integrating Transportation and Land Use is a
DcJ1dH=lH3
□
key product of the CDT program aird was devel
r\
^ The dantltyofadjocenl
devolopmeni thou'd inci
of 'nodej,* where tha
' corridor rrccrj loco! co'c} o
ether aigniheanl corridors.
oped to. support the implementation of VTA's
land use objective and goals. It documents
proven and innovative best practices in urban
design and transportation planning that support
and enhance both VTA's and its Member
Agencies' investments in the commmrity. It
corridors and station areas designated.by local
agencies and VTA for the CDT program. These
are areas most likely to benefit from land use
intensification and implementation of the CDT
best practices principles (discussed in following
sections), and are key land use opportunity
areas for providing multimodal transportation
alternatives that can serve the needs of both
existing and new residents and workers.
Cores, Corndors and Station Jh-eas
• Cores are distrjcts that contairi concentrations of
resideritiaToreas, employment.'sites, and,other
) destinations such as retaij, .eritertain'meht,.acar
• , , defnic and cultural activities. 'They qre'fyrther. dis
tinguished ds regjondl'cores, such as downtown " ■
, Son Jose, county cores such as downtown ■
*, Mountain View or Suti'nyvole, or locofcores such '
h. ■.oS'Son Jose'sf^iilow:Glenfarea;and,dqwntown3:»'
- Los Gotos.
160
Valley Transportation Authority
provides planning and design guidance for how
to develop in the cores, corridors and station
areas. It also provides policy guidance and out
lines steps that communities and local govern
ments can take to identify and overcome barriers
to developing more livable and sustainable
communities. Moreover, it articulates VTA's
vision for how communities and a multimodal
transportation system can grow together, their
s-
•"''■'■it • '■
A;:?'
Corr/cfors ore linear in shape, centered on^o
."■street of'transit line, and often function as a ,
•"'bockbdrfe fd.r..surroundihg cornmunities.'Corridors
'■offer'oppdrtuhijies similar to cores for intenhfied
;r "?:mixed:use development,#but«usually.:in;ta:!morev': ^ ■
..defined area within ,d Block'-or so of the corridor.;
; '"'Corridors also (preseriMrerhendoosiopportunities ■ .
it*.for»ereating urban: pr.ivillage-like 'nodes)siespeGiaIly.;;;
;t :.dt.:maior intersectiohsfwhere severahiransltdineski';
i.v>-crossCWith. enhancedssibouievard-iikelCpede'slrian<':;tenvironrnents,ands©therKfnoltimodal-:irnprovennents* I
c li a p t e r I
LAND
USE
AND
^ ■«* ■
m■
Ik
VTA Cores, Corridors
& Station Areas
\\
,
/vc
'Paloslllo/y
- ►til !
"'"V
\
-..■■■-<y
Local
■ SlanForcl
•
•
Core
V ~
*'./■
\ -;.!
TRANSPORTATION
i'
■'■N; . yjrl
^ li.
I, , . Do«nic«i.
r-»>-^ K «'««
-'i V,"" -
/■-
Mountain yic
• V,
'.' ! . jfI Down-oiin
H
'
'
J
_■^
, -■
/»—<—J-,,- /•
»- *
i
County
Regional
Core
Core
Corridors
lotion Areas
,\ . .
- Lit <» • »
U,-'-Y
■y.
>/\<ar ^ \, >
--V-
Ucihrtown
,J.
,..1
^
''s..
LRT Stalions
"oltraln ond/or
' .L Stotions
Rcoionol Roil Transit Lines
/TA light Roil Lines
Lo,. Altos ■
3 Stations
■>%v:,:,,
. ■\
- .| •
v^'
■"
■,'■
'^^ConjmUrtlcallon^
DoAiilj^n ■"
Cr-'piirll .
hill
. \
\
V
P.- «v»
loicco^ ".
oil
WjtjjO.iro,. i^r; r
-x;, ■^
. .
m
:;fcr4v:
Image by USGS, Earthstar Geographies. © Thomas Brothers map. All rights reserved.
.'*
j
such,as,transit preferential treatments and bike".,
. lanes, corridors hove,real potential for becoming
cohesive comrfiunily elements; offering a'multitude .
of activities, a range of pleasant'environments,
and several choices of ways to move along.its
• .. ' length,_
. .
y
. ' '
_
' urban'design; rriultimodal transportation improve-
_ •
. .ments, and a variety of dll-doy activities at station
;areos can'creote vibrant cente'rs of activily. '■ . ■
.,'
• ,
. Station 'areas-become destinations In'their own
' . • ^'Stations areas are locations ad|ocent td'rapid*"'
> ,
transit stations that already serve, or,will 'serve,'!* ;
OS focal points for,new infill development and'
, redevelopment. Station.dreos.hdve opportunities ,
■ "similar to cores .and corridors for .intensified"
, mixed-use development, and offer unique oppor- , ,
"tunities fqr.communily/'plccemakingd"Attractive ■-
'
right'and odd value to surrounding communities."
•If'located'within'g local core'area, such ds near '
a downtown 'or Moin Street, the station area
*t. _
i design can complement'ond'enhance the overall ' urban experience'of those areas.
' > .
VTP 2030
■
161
CDTMa'irual Topics
'
'
The CDT Manual addresses critical topics by illustrating best _
practices and identifying^implementatipn,strategies'cind'meth.ods-for propagating bek practices throughout the county..The
rtianudl is intended to be a living'document th~at/evolvesJn."
'response to new information ond,^ opportunities. ,
...
., '
' '
'
^
^
^'
street, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, ti-an-
,> n
BestI'proctices,topics covered in-th'e CDT Manual ^include:'
.t
'
,
'i.
,
I' • .
•; Supporting concentrated development
Development density recommendations for cores
„ 'and corridors
•
■
-
•
L
'
. ' ■ -
.
Alternative use of level-.of service standards' '
'• h Rethinking parking requirements
'
■
, '
5, ,
-r
• Flexible zoning strategies•Community'plahning for bus transit, rail transit,-
-y
• -Attracting developers to best^practices-projeb'ts •
.
Transportation demand management
---'i
'
elements of the built environment that create
uniqueness and Identity, and that make
and lasting.
!
'
■ y"
• Place-making—focuses on the human-scale
places attractive, comfortable, memorable,
•, Model placesrand visualizing best practices , ' ' <
• The role of local governments in best'practices
'' '
• Buildihg'community.suppoft.for best,ptcictices. . "
and station.areas,
slt modes, buildings, and activity centers to get
more from transportation resources, and to
form distinct districts and more livable places.
\
•' Site dhd-building design- ' ' \ . '
"•
• Street connectivity .and multirfibdai street design . ,
•"'Innovative and efficient uses of land ■:
• Interconnection—focuses on Interconnecting
,,
'ci „
• Access-by-Proximity—focuses on clustering
complementary land uses and compact, well-
designed development to make the types of
amenlty-rlch places that allow trips to be
combined, reduced or eliminated, and made
by transit, walking or blldng; and accordingly,
this helps achieve the kind of critical mass
that makes vibrant public life possible.
• Choice—^focuses on the notion that one-
slze-does-not-flt-all, and seeks to expand
respective roles, and how the actions of each
can be mutually supportive and beneficial.
This vision Is outlined in four key concepts and
ten principles that provide the basis for the
the range of choices about the design of
developments that we live and work In,
where activities are located, the character
of the conununlty, and the means of
getting around.
CDT program.
Key Concepts and Principles for
Integrating Transportation
and Land Use
162
CDT Principles for Integrating
Transportation and Land Use
These time-proven planning and design princi
ples build upon and expand the blg-plcture key
The Key Concepts, suirmtarlzed below, underlie
concepts described previously, and create a
all aspects of the CDT Program and form the
foundation for more detailed practices and
foundation upon which the principles, practices,
actions covered In the CDT Manual. An
and actions are built:
overview of each principle is provided below.
Valley Transportation Authority
ch a pter I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
iii.<
dll
1. Target growth is cores, corridors and
nn
m
station areas. Focusing growth on estab
lished cores, corridors, and station areas is
about doing more with less. New growth in
I
these areas capitalizes on existing infrastruc
ture and allows cities to avoid the costs of
expanding and maintaining new infrastruc
ture. InfiU growth thwarts m'ban fringe
development, conserving open space,
resources and natural areas. Transit service
Targeting growth in cores, corridors and statio^i areas.
in these areas is more fully utilized and pro
ductive.
m
K1
2. Intensify land uses and activities.
'.-.'li? I !■ Ill"' ' I F
Compact, amenity-rich development is
essential to developing vibrant and function
mg
al places. Higher-intensity land use in cores,
corridors and station areas facilitates walka-
m
bihty, creates viable transportation options,
promotes thriving businesses, and develops a
sense of place. High-quality urban design
and architecture must accompany intensified
development to make communities feel com
>■-
'
■■
ii
nm
mi
1^
fortable, attractive, and safe.
3. Provide a diverse mix of uses. Mixed-use
Intensifying land uses and activities.
developments offer users various combina
destinations. This principle, coupled with a
tions of conunercial, office, and residential
diverse mix of uses and high-quality project
land uses within close proximity. A variety of
design, helps to create synergies that
uses attracts people during all times of the
day and creates synergies that help these
encourage walking, enliven public spaces,
and bring vitality to urban areas. Being able
areas reduce the need for automobile trips,
to walk to destinations also takes automobile
make transit, walking, and biking viable
trips off the roadway network, and reduces
energy consumption and pollution.
options, enhance conununity livabUity, and
thrive both economically and socially.
4. Design for pedestrians. The hallmark of
5. Design in context. Designing in context
focuses on the materials, design details, and
great places is the ability to walk between
VTP 2030
163
architectural styles that establish and
reinforce a unique community character.
Designing in context is also about sensitivity
to the relationships between buildings,
streets, aird public spaces.
6. Focus on existing areas. Before consum
ing additional land and resources in outlying
areas, greater attention should be given to
using land already dedicated to the urban
Providing a diverse mix ofuses.
fabric more efficiently. This also means that
sustaining the community is just as impor
;a
3i
n
tant as improving it—and that after-care and
ff
H
maintenance programs are as vital as good
planning and design are in creating a sense
of place and community.
7. Create a multimodal transportation
i
system. Great places offer a multitude of
ways to get aroimd. Provision of viable trans
portation alternatives is not about destroying
the automobUe; rather, it is about balancing
the needs of vehicle movement with the
needs of transit, walking, and biking.
Designfor pedestrians.
8. Establish streets as places. In addition to
JVS
being part of the multimodal transportation
system that moves people and goods, streets
are the most abundant public space in cities.
Rather than being viewed as just a thorough
fare for cars, street design should also reflect
the context of adjacent land uses and the
n
needs of people.
9. Integrate transit. Transit service benefits
everyone; but transit can only function effec
tively when it is fuUy integrated with the com
munity. Integration can be achieved either by
Designing in context.
164
Valley Transportation Authority
: h a p It e r I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
■T
i
■ kZS) kOTiOrOK
iMrrcJAi^s
llSL"■T.CMTirKATES
extending the community fabric out to
connect with transit facilities, or by bringing
transit service directly into the heart of the
community. Transit stops and stations should
be viewed as valuable civic spaces warranting
public resources and high-quality design.
10. Manage parking. Parking takes up enor
mous amounts of land and is today perhaps
Establishh\g streets as places.
the single most important element influencing
the design of ui'ban areas. As such,the design
and placement of parking helps dictate the
.character of a place, determining whether it
wiH feel isolated from adjacent uses or inte
Jr /■;'
grated into a continuous urban fabric.
These concepts and principles are intended for
%
implementation together in fulfillment of a longrange vision for growth and development.
Consistent and incremental implementation will
create the types of synergy-rich and amenitythrive, and bring wholesale positive results to
the transportation system and our communities.
Implementing the CDT Program
m
T-
rich enviroiunents that make urban spaces
Integrate transit v/ith development.
49^
VTA wiU facilitate countywide implementation of
the CDT program through the following activities:
• Supporting Member Agency Efforts. VTA
rP.
will continue to work with the cities, towns
and the County of Santa Clara, and support
ill
their endorsements of the CDT program by
providing project review, planning, design,
and technical assistance.
Manage parking.
VTP 2030
165
DociimeyUs Supportiny ihe CDT Manual * •
'The CDT Manual was.conceived as a.,comprehensive "toolkit,"
Continuing Development of the CDT
but some areas of planning and design covered in' the manual
Program. VTA will update the CDT program
warrant greater detail. So in addition to updates of the '
and manual to keep abreast of the latest
planning, design, and development practices.
manual, the GDI-program includes the.development of other- '
' 'supporting documents. For example, a quality pedestrian' .
New mairuals aird documents ■will be created
h
environment is critical to the vitality and success'of communities,
CDT Planning Grants. Provides grants to
and'to.the productivity of transit.'To help plan'and build'betten
pedestrian environments, VTA recently released,a Manual of '
Pedestrian Technical Design Guidelines.' n
'.
as needed to support the on-going efforts of
the CDT program.
,
Member Agencies to plan for specific projects
or changes in local plans or regulations that
implement CDT concepts and principles. The
Initial fund amount is $1.4 million, distributed
over three years.
.-.Future CDT 'program publications providing additionalisdetail.'i.i n
may include; ,
.
CDT Capital Grants. Administered through
% n '-
the Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Parking polices, strategies and design guidejines
n •. Station area"design guidelines
n • Street a'nd site design guidelines
• Strategies for community and economic sustbinability ,
n --1!
' 111.
,
Program, capital grants will be awarded to
Member Agencies to assist them with imple
menting transportation-related projects that
improve community access to transit, provide
multimodal transportation facilities, and
enhance the pedestrian environment along
transportation corridors, in core areas, and
around transit stations. VTA 2030 allocates
approximately $10 million every two years for
capital grants.
Technical Standards and Procedures. VTA
■will re^vise the materials that set forth
requirements for local compliance ■with the
Congestion Management Program in accord
with the CDT program.
Outreach and Training. Building commimi-
ty and political support for innovative, highquality development through continuing edu-
166
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter!
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
cation, outreach, and advocacy. VTA will
sponsor outreach and training programs on
topics including planniitg, design, and policy
strategies oriented to county decision-makers,
>v
planning and public works staffs, and stake
holders from the development and business
communities eis well as civic leaders.
• Advancing Established Land Use
Programs. On-going programs that support
transit-oriented development, development
review, and CMP programs will continue, with
modifications as needed to complement the
continued development of the GDT program.
• Establishing New Programs. VTA will
continue investigating new programs that
facilitate the implementation of its land use
goal and objectives. New programs, such as
the Joint Development Program (discussed m
the foUowuig section), will incorporate GDT
concepts and principles.
becoming increasingly important factors m
VTA's decision-making process for transporta
tion improvements. VTA will expect to see its
The Role of Member Agencies
VTA can't do it alone. To get the highest and
best use from transportation investments, and
deliver a world-class multimodal transportation
commitments of billions of dollars in capital and
on-going operatmg funds work in concert with
coordinated iand use and policy commitments
from Member Agencies that support those
mvestments.
system, VTA must rely on the concerted efforts
of its Member Agencies. Since opportunities to
add capacity to roadways and expand fixed-rail
transit are limited and costly, the land use
pohcies and decisions of Member Agencies are
VTP 2030
167
Transportation and Land Use
Investment Strategy
The more than $8.5 billion capital program
ideas and to prepare those plans, projects, and
included in VTP 2030 is VTA's most powerful
policies for implementation or adoption. The
instrument for achieving its goals. The
CDT Planning Grant Fimd Program toU make
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy
available approximately $475,000 per annual
coiranits VTA to making investments in facilities
cycle to VTA Member Agencies, and is currently
and sei-vices that will support VTA's land use
funded for three annual programming cycles
objectives, and the on-going operations and
scheduled for FY 2004, 2005 and 2006. During
maintenance of the transportation system. This
this time VTA will work to identify and secure
section describes strategies and policy objec
additional funds to continue progranuning in
tives for more closely linking transportation
future years. Two categories of planning grants
investments with the land use decisions made
are offered:
by Member Agencies.
Policy Planning Grants—^up to $150,000 for
projects that revise existing, or create new,
Funding for Projects to Enhance
Livability—CDT Program Grants
design standards that encourage changes in
Linking the CDT program and the
community form that result in multimodal,
policies, codes, ordinances, or enforceable
Transportation/Land Use Investment Strategy,
pedestrian-friendly streets and transit-oriented,
VTA has created two new grant fund programs
compact, mixed-use developments along major
to support Member Agencies, efforts to imple
transportation corridors and in core areas such
ment the concepts and principles of the CDT
as downtovms, main streets, commercial nodes,
program. These funds are a key component of
and station areas.
the overall investment strategy, demonstrating
VTA's on-going commitment to supporting its
land use objectives with significant local invest
ments in improving the quality of life in our
commmiities. Grants will be awarded on a
competitive beisis to provide strong incentives
for Member Agencies to implement the precepts
of the CDT program.
Capital Planning Grants—up to $75,000 for
capital planning projects that integrate high-
quality, pedestrian and multimodal transporta
tion design elements into a public street,
corridor, commercial node or station area, and
ready those projects for implementation.
Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program Capital Grants (CDT Capital Grants)
CDT Planning Grants
168
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian
CDT planning grairts are intended to help VTA
(LCP)Program provides capital funds for
Member Agencies refine and build on promising
transportation-related projects that improve
Valley Transportation Authority
c h a pte r I
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
community access to transit, provide multimodal
transportation facilities, and enhance the
'•'J
pedestrian environment along transportation
coiTidors, in comnrunity cores, and around tran
sit stations. The LCP Program is designed to
support the goals of CDT program, and the land
use/transportation goals of Member Agencies.
The LCP Program is expected to provide
about $10 nuUion every two years for Member
an
Agency capital projects. WhUe a new evaluation
methodology ■will be developed for these
■'■f
-
projects, the CDT Manual, Pedestrian Technical
Design Guidelines, and other CDT documents
wiO provide a fi'amework for project evaluation,
selection, and implementation.
If
1
;L. ■ ^
Capital Proiect Evaluation Criteria
i
/.I,
The process for choosing among candidate
projects attracts enormous attention, and with
projects. Progranr areas in which project
each investment costing hundreds of millions of
evaluation criteria currently consider land use
doUars, decision-makers and community mem
characteristics include;
bers correctly feel that the stakes are high. Due
• Transit corridors
to the reciprocal relationship between the
productivity of the transportation system and
• Highways
the land uses it serves, making informed and
• Local streets and county roads
rational decisions about investments in future
• Bicycles
transit projects requires information about the
land use characteristics they wiU serve.
The inclusion of land use points in the scoring
process results in a significant improvement in
The VTP 2030 Capital Investment Program
the overall ranking for projects judged as
presented in Chapter 2 reflects the first-round
advancing the achievement of land use objec
implementation of the investment strategy, in
tives. While these judgments are necessarily
wliich land use characteristics have influenced
subjective, they provide an initial way for the
the selection of both rapid transit and roadway
VTP 2030
169
investment strategy to bring land use considera
development of VTA-owned property at and
tions into the decision-making process for transit
adjacent to transit stations and corridors. VTA
and roadways. The result of including land use
envisions its station ai'eas and transit corridors
considerations with roadway projects was the
as vibrant, prosperous community assets that
ability of local roadway projects to compete with
create a strong sense of place for transit,
freeway projects in the evaluation. The result of
pedestrians, and the surrounding community,
including land use considerations with transit
and which are destinations in their own right.
corridor projects helps to predict whether there
will be aU-day demand for transit and a sufficient
ridership base to warrant the high capital
investments in rapid transit technologies.
The Joint Development Policy provides a frame
work for creating and pursuing the highest and
best opportunities for development around sta
tion areas and along corridors. The policy is
intended to establish guidelines and procedures
Joint Development Program
for identifying such opportunities to optimize
VTA's Joint Development Program furthers the
return on investment to VTA. Joint
VTP 2030 land use goal and objectives and
Development also includes coordination with
supports VTA's strategic and fiscal goals. The
local jurisdictions m station area land use plan
program was adopted by the VTA Board m
ning to establish development patterns that
January 2005. It is designed to secure the
enhance transit use.
most appropriate private and public sector
Goals
The VTA's Joint Development Progi'am seeks to:
1. Comprehensively plan and develop the high
est and best housing, office and retail uses
around station sites and along-transit corri
dors.'
2. Increase transportation system capacitj' by
increasing transit use.
3. Generate both a long-term source of revenue
for VTA, and allow VTA to participate in the
fi
w
increase in the value of its real property
assets over time.
i-;
170
Valley Transportation Authority
:h a p t e r
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
Joint Development Policy
VTA shall, to the greatest extent possible, tahe
advantage of opportunities for development on
VTA property. VTA shall support and complete
projects that have the greatest potential to
contribute financially to VTA, to improve transit
ridership, reduce dependence on the automobile,
and enhance community livability and prosperity.
Joint deveiopment projects shail:
• Create both a long-term source of revenue
for VTA, and shall allow VTA to participate in
s
the increase in the value of its reai estate
assets over time.
K /!.
CSK
• Encourage transit utilization and ridership.
• Exhibit higli urban design standards and quality.
• Be consistent with local jurisdiction land use
j, If
t
.■*.
goals and shall be developed vTith a public
participation process that respects neighbor
hood concerns.
• Provide for efficient and safe vehicular and
pedestrian circulation and shall provide ade
quate parkmg to serve both private and pub
lic demand, while maximizing shared parking
opportunities.
• Implement the concepts, principles, and
• Address conuhunity needs in joint develop
ment consistent with VTA policy, encouraging
revenue generation and impiementing TOD
design principies.
Statutory Support for VTA Joint
Development
The following legislative summaries are presented
practices outlined in VTA's Community
to illustrate VTA's unique position with regard
Design and Transportation (CDT) Program
to potential joint development projects and the
and shall include the elements of transit-ori
ented design (TOD).
• Enhance and maintain existing or future
development of real property in both direct
proximity to VTA transit services and other
locations.
transportation systems, operations, and infra
structure.
VTP 2030
171
positioned to develop and implement a Joint
Hi
Development Program.
Assembly Bill (AB) No. 935, Diaz, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority:
Benefits Assessments (enacted October 2003)
i?
r
. -'Wi:-
~M H
^
i-"-' :', n I vJWHjC'
0, .
.••, WEBsW/
1'>
I
•jK-..
.-1
ai ¥6.> ;-»
3V»r
iliijijil
AB 935 (Diaz) authorizes VTA to establish
Benefit Assessment Districts relative to its rail
lines, and to issue revenue bonds in that regard.
In addition to VTA, the Los Angeles County
■srw!
n
n
i"-
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is the only other transit operator in
California to be granted this authority. This law
allows VTA to levy "benefit assessments" on cer
tain property within a half mile of an existmg or
proposed rail transit station, with the proceeds
to be used for the rail transit station or transit-
Assembly Bill (AB) No. 670, Papan
(enacted Febfuary 1999)
benefit assessment district. In its decision, the
AB 670 CPapan) allows VTA, the San Mateo
State Legislature declared that "it is in the best
County Transit District (SamTrans), and the Bay
interest of the citizens of the state to authorize
Area Rapid Ti-ansit District (BART), to acquire
land entirely for the purpose of transit-oriented
development (TOD). TOD, in this context, is
defmed as "a project that is a commercial,
residential, or mixed-use development that is
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
to levy special benefit assessments needed for
public rail rapid transit facilities and services on
the property that benefits from those facilities
and services." An Assessment District must
undertaken m connection with existing, planned,
be approved by a majority of the impacted
or proposed transit facilities and is located 1/4
property owners.
mile or less from the external boundaries of that
The ability to generate revenue, and participate
facility." VTA, SamTrEins and BART are the only
in the economic benefits of its transit improve
transit operators in California with this authority.
ments through Benefit Assessment Districts,
Accordingly, since VTA can acquii'e properties
has many potential benefits for VTA. For
specifically for the pm'pose of development—■
example, it enables VTA to potentially share the
including land assembly purposes—it is uniquely
172
related facilities within the boundaries Of the
Valley Transportation Authority
:h a p t e r i
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
cost of providing rail transit services with the
required transit districts to meet 13 specific
properties that benefit from those improve
benefits. Demonstrating that a district could
ments. These savings could then fund additional
meet all,13 specific benefits set the bai' too high
amenities for transit patrons and the communi
for most jurisdictions to get over—only one
ties adjacent to transit facilities, or other capital
such district has been established in the State
improvements that serve the larger community.
since the act was passed in 1994. As a result of
Assembly Bill(AB)No. 1937, Dutra
to form transit village development districts.
(enacted February 2002)
The AB 1320 amendment streamlines the
AB 1937 (Dutra) ahows a transit operator to
process for creating transit village development
AB 1320, more local juiisdictions are expected
enter into agreements with a public agency,
districts and makes it easier for local jurisdic
public utility, or person or entity for the purpose
tions to implement them by allowing cities and
ofjoint development. This legislation essentially
counties to meet any five of the specified
gives VTA the ability to develop and manage
demonstrable public benefits.
real property for transit-oriented development
purposes. For example, VTA can, if it deter
mines that it is in its best interests, enter into a
This amendment expands VTA potential part
nership opportunities for joint development
development a^eement with a private developer
to construct a project on land that VTA owns or
pf'i- :;iSs
purchases, and retain ovmership and manage
ment of that project as an on-going source of
t' •-
revenue for the agency.
" - •-r-. -
Assembly Bill(AB)No. 1320, Dutra, Transit
Village Plan (enacted Febmary 2003)
\
*
II
AB 1320 amends the Transit Village Development
Planning Act of 1994 to allow cities and counties
greater flexibility for preparing Transit Village
Plans for land within a quarter mile of major
transit facilities. The primary significance of this
1
amendment is in the definition of transit facilities,
which changed from simply "a rail transit station"
n
to include "a rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub,
I
f
or bus transfer station." In addition, the 1994 act
VTP 2030
173
transit expansion and improvements including
with member agencies by including bus hubs
and bus transfer stations in the list of potential
annual service plans and corridors studies. With
locations, and by aUowing member agencies and
its responsibility as trustee of public transit
VTA to focus greater attention on a smaller list
funds in Santa Clai-a County, the TEP will assist
of public benefits.
VTA with continuing to:
• Protect taxpayer and Agency investments in
Transit Expansion Policy
transit infrastructure and services
To help ensure that VTA's investments in cur
• Protect the financial health and sustainabihty
of the Agency
rent and future transit services are supported
by local land use and policy decisions, VTA will
• Contribute to enhancing the livabUity
develop a Transit Expansion Policy (TEP).
and sustainability of Santa Clara County
Capital project funding and service expansion
communities
will be linked with the TEP, and apply to both
bus and rail projects and services. The TEP will
provide a policy framework for transit expan
Tilings that VTA may consider in developing its
Transit Expansion Policy include:
• Ridership generation
sion, and establish thresholds for minimum
conunitments from local govermnents. The TEP
will also support future planning studies for
> Farebox recovery goals/standards
> New transit riders
> Supportive land uses—-plaraied, approved
and existing residential, commercial, office
1
areas and activity centers with close prox
imity to transit
> Enhanced connections with existing local,
sub-regional, and regional transit services
• Financial constraints and opportunities
ex.
> Capital capacity—VTA's ability to provide
capital funds for the expansion
At
> Operational capacity—^VTA's ability to
provide operating funds and efficiently
ten
n M
-n
:.-m:
A-
^ 7A
Valley Transportation Authority
i.»
I'lS-v.'
chapter® LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
accommodate the service withiir the
existing transit network/system
> Opportunities for joint development and
partnersliips with other agencies and
private business, and the level of local
government conuuitments supporting joint
1
development projects
Implementation
m
As part of implementing the TEP, VTA will seek
specific commitments from local governments
to support the proposed transit service. In
partnership with local governments, actions may
K-.
li i
include, but will not be limited to, one or a
combination of the following:
• General Plan changes or approved
Specific Plans
• Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
• Developer Conditions of Approval
• Tax Increment Financing
• Transit Benefit Assessment District
• Dedication of land
• Local funding
VTP 2030
175
Partnerships for Livability
Improving the livability of Santa Clai'a County
Santa Clara with the 1995 merger of the Santa
requires meaningful cooperation and coordina
Clara County Transit District and the
tion between all groups and jurisdictions in the
Conge,stion Management Agency of Santa Clara
county—^with everyone working toward mutual
County. VTA also absorbed the responsibilities
goals. While working to address transportation
of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority,
issues in the county is VTA's primary responsi
which dissolved at the end of 1997 after suc
bility, om- goals cannot be addressed by VTA
cessful completion of its mandate.
alone. Many of the programs presented in this
document require meaningful and collaborative
partnerships to be truly successful.
VTA was created to address the transportation
issues of Santa Clara County, and functions as a
multimodal transportation planning agency
Partnerships are essential to VTA's success in
involved with transit, highways, roadways, bike-
implementing the CDT program, linking land
ways, and pedestrian facilities. The VTA Board
use and transportation iiwestments, improving
of Directors is composed of 12 elected officials
transit ridership, managing the transportation
appointed by Member Agencies, and all mem
system, and in meeting the goals of enhanced
bers of this partnership work together to
livability and economic prosperity in Silicon
address the transportation needs of Santa Clara
Valley. VTA itself was developed as a partner
County. As demonstrated by the significant
ship among the cities, towns, and County of
strides made smce VTA's inception, this partner
ship can truly be called one of the most success
ful in the valley.,
mm
The remainder of this section discusses VTA's
work -with other partners in our community and
the future role of VTA leadership on issues
related to transportation.
Partnerships for livability considers two basic
types of partnerships:
i
• Public/Public. Enhanced cooperation
between public entities is essential—better
using public funds and having greater success
with programs involving countywide issues
such as housing, park space and traffic. Even
better cooperation between different entities
176
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
LAMD
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
within an agenda can yield substantial public
benefits.
• Public/Private. Examples include joint
m
-ft
S-H
development, provision of shuttle services,
'W
Si«l
and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) programs.
Land Use Partnerships
imd
Since VTA does not hold land use approval
authority, successfully implementing its land use
programs will require dynamic partnerships
r.
with Member Agencies. In addition to the
CDT program and the transportation/land use
investment strategies previously discussed, VTA
engages in other land use activities to further its
Management Agency for Santa Clara Coimty,
goals for concentrated mixed-use development.
VTA is charged with ensuring that regional
Current efforts mclude:
roadways operate at acceptable levels of con
• Development Review. The cities and
county already forward many of their
proposals for land development to VTA, usu
ally in the form of environmental documents,
site plans, and transportation studies. VTA
reviews the proposals to ensure that trans
gestion. VTA reviews development proposals
to ensure that transportation impacts are
minimized, and that opportunities to facilitate
use of transportation alternatives are taken.
The CDT program is a fundamental compo
nent of this review process.
portation is adequately integrated into the
Transit-Oriented Development(TOD).
plans, and then submits suggestions to
Through the CDT program, VTA also has an
Member Agencies, who may work with the
established TOD program in which VTA plays
development community to incorporate
a role in conducting research and providing
VTA's concerns. In addition, VTA staff are
expertise and resources to help achieve transit-
also assisting Member Agencies tlmough
oriented development. Elements of the TOD
the CDT program with the early review of
program involve concept-level station area
development proposals.
planning,joint development, and outreach and
education efforts advocating development that
• Proactive Congestion Management
Program (CMP). As the Congestion
complements VTAs transit system.
VTP 2030
177
Public/Private Partnerships
Center with downtown employment and activi
VTA works extensively with area employers and
ties. In addition to shuttles provided by agencies
developers to establish partnerships and pro
grams that encourage transit use and alterna
tives to single-occupant vehicle travel.
or through public/private partnerships, a num
ber of employers provide their own shuttles to
meet the demand and flexible work hours of
their employees.
Shuttle Services
VTA partners with Santa Clara County employ
Eco Pass
ers and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
Eco Pass is a partnership between Santa Clara
District(BAAQMD)to provide shuttles from
Valley employers and VTA. Eco Pass is good for
light rail stations to surrounding employment
unlimited use of VTA bus and light rail services,
sites. In addition, working through the Altamont
Commuter Express (ACE) cooperative agree
ment, VTA provides shuttles from the Great
America Station in Santa Clara to businesses
seven days a week. Employers purchase amual
Eco Pass stickers for all full-time employees at a
given work site, paying one low cost. Pricing
levels are based on proximity to VTA services
throughout Silicon Valley. VTA also operates the
and the number of employees.
DASH shuttle service in downtown San Jose,
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
which links the Diridon Caltrain Station/Transit
and the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of
Conunerce endorse the Eco Pass program, and
the Bay Area Clean Air Partnership (BayCAP)
has recognized Eco Pass as an effective strategy
for reducing air pollution. In addition, Eco Pass
CM:
was awarded the 1999 Outstanding Public
Environmental Program Award from the Santa
Clara Valley Chapter of the American Society
for Public Administration (ASPA) and the 1997
m
Governor's Environmental and Economic
.4:1
Leadership Award for Environmental
Management.
VTA also offers a residential Eco Pass to hous
ing developments like condominiums, apart
ments, townhouses, and to neighborhood and
conamunity associations. This program helps to
178
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
enhance conunimity liyability by encouraging
use of alternative forms of transportation.
J.l-
Joint Development Partnerships
As discussed previously, VTA is establishing a
program for developing VTA-owned land. In
nn
vmars
addition to partnerships with Member Agencies
Yotfvesoili;
•■siihBtoPoB
to secure favorable land use designations, this
effort will require active partnerships with pri
vate developers. Such public/private partner
' Wih fcb rSyou hove onlWed
(iiidVK.
eG#,|^S5^005
■ -loVrABusdnillijtaliaiL'Tiy.itiBlilllsnsi
vWto 0 oteV,' mil m'm are ywi'I led fa iSHeisiitB.
ships can secure the highest and best use of
land around station areas and transit long corri
dors. By delivering high-quality development
projects specifically designed to make maximum
use of transit-rich sites, joint development can
deliver catalytic projects that stimulate further
m
development that reinvigorates commimities.
r
ji J'l y
Silicon Valley Community
Partnerships
ES
As Silicon Valley prospers and grows, VTA has
■
%
■t r 1
msw
■
joined with many business and communitybased organizations to ensure a coordinated
*1
xr;.
=?ar.-j
' -
^
effort in improving the quality of life in Silicon
Valley. These partnerships constitute a critical
component to the future accomplishment of
VTA's goals. For example, VTA actively partici
pates in programs and functions held by the
following organizations: SVLG, Greenbelt
Alliance, Joint Ventm'e Silicon Valley, and the
Housing Action Coalition.
JS
On a project planning or program level, VTA
also involves numerous other community
groups. These groups provide ideas, insights,
perspective, and concerns at the local neighbor
hood level and may represent specific communi-
VTP 2030
179
Environmental Justice Study; n
ties, housing associations, or businesses. Their
VTA, in c9operalion withitKeiMetropolitQn.Transportatlon -
meet the community's needs.
input often leads to better-defined projects that
, Commission (MTCl,-ancl with a grant from Cojtfans, is'devel- n
/
,
oping-jronsportation evoludtionieciteria for use inj.environmen-
In addition, TTTA coordinates with a wide range
of other governmental agencies and non-profit
organizations on an expansive array of topics
tol justice plonning appllcatipns',within«the framework of VTA's'
from emergency preparedness, to transportation
counlywide transportation'modeling;ptpcess. This project will-
options for residents moving from welfare to
establish-practical, environmentalsjustiee'piannihg'.procedures. n
work, to the implementation of Smart Corridor
technology.
- using a rriultidlsciplinary af5proach. It, will make extensive use^
of VTA existing public participationrstrahsit-planning, copges-'
Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships
tion" management, and travel.demand prograrns to identify '
Since transportation problems rarely disappear
potential impacted communities'early-in thejplanning process..
at city or county boundaries, many solutions
Qualitative measures vvilhb'e developedi within the.framework'
''of.cbuntywide travel dernand-irhodels to. measure.and" predict,
require workiiig mth agencies in adjoining
counties and our regional partners. VTA works
with the following agencies on a wide range
of activities, from planning improvements to
environmental justice'elements.
project delivery;
• VTA Member Agencies (the 16 city,
town and county governments in Santa
■i^i
Clara County)
• Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)
• Association of Bay Area
Govermnents (ABAC)
• Bay Area Air Quality Management
<^A -jvTr
District (BAAQMD)
■ -"ii*," >
•
Caltrans
• Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA)
180
Valley Transportation Authority
chapter^ LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
• San Mateo County Transportation
Authoritj'(SMCTA)
• Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)
• Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
• Transportation Agency for Monterey
County (TAMC)
• San Benito Council of Governments
/
liegioncd Tmnsii-Coordination
V,
: '-j ;
&5'6oV(dinatingnregipnalsprojectsiis4rnportant'for'sensuring4nGru
iipro|ects»qrefpl0nn'ed.and:implemented' efflcieRtly.'qnd effec?..
»itively.5-VTAts»effprts with; regionabcoordlnatipnainclude:;' -rg
. Coordinated Training Partners^
''
•.
Transportation for-Livable'Corrimunities ' ,
■tRegionaliDiscount-Cdrd!lmpr.ovements?Rartners:;;»r;iA _ ;
In addition, VTA participates in partnerships
Transit Labor'Management Workshops Partners
with other transit operators in the region to pro
-Commuter Check Partners,
vide transit services mrder joint operating
• Interagency Paratransit^Sejyice'Partners'
agreements. These organizations include;
• Caltrain Peninsula Joint Powers Board
• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
Cooperative Service Agreement
• Dumbarton Express Transit Consortium
' . ' .
.
,
'Regional Transit System of Routes and'
'.Transfer Points Update
_
,
Paratransit-Te'chnicql Assistance Program . '- .'C,
(PTAP) Partners '
'
Incident Response'Tjanhihg Partners
Fare/Transfer-Agreements Partners
- '
'ADA'Paratransit Eligibility Program Partners
I'RegionahTransit Guide,Update'Partners'-I
.Tegiqndl Trarisif A/ldrketing Partners;
•
-
.
'
, .(■ -
These partnerships enable VTA to provide
' Clean Fuel-Bus Initiative-Partne'rs;
regional rail and express bus connections with
surrounding counties, and provide an extensive
'-'Transit Trip,Planning and .Regional 'Transit ,
Database (RTD) ; , .
network of shuttles linking light rail, ACE and
t-Tra'vlnfo™|Regionql-Transportationdnformatlon.»:;h-.
the county. VTA also works with the regional
commute information service—RIDES for Bay
Area Commuters—^to maximize the capacity of
'
. -
• Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Caltrain with key employment sites throughout
t
■'
• Highway 17 Express Bus
(Amtrak)
\
, .
' \
Systems Partners'
.TransLink® Partners,
) x, - ' '
Regional Links Partners, -
'Trans Response Plan (TRP)'Partners
,
x-
I "
i'' '
.
the system by supportiirg carpool and vanpool
options.
VIP 2030
T81
Smart Corridors.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
and Systems Operations Management
The Smart Corridors program stems frorh the^recognition that,"
(SOM)
major transportation corridors often span many jurisdictionol
. boundaries. A Smart Corridor is-one where various public ,,
agencies' traffic management activities,are coordm0ted;to
rnore effectively rrianqge traffic in.that corridor, 'While-this'is
in large port achieved by usingtqdvanced fechnologies'';.i:p.arfe
nerships,between the jurisdictionsiare neededstoldevelop pro-.
Roadways and transit lines usually serve more
than one jurisdiction, so the funding and impiementation of ITS and SOM projects in these cor
ridors often require the mutual cooperation of
multiple agencies. VTA works with its Member
Agencies and its regional partners to identify,
evaluate, fund and implement these projects.
cedures'ond measures for coordinating.agency activities.
The Future Role of Partnerships
il>r
Enhanciiig the livabOity of Santa Clara County
/
requires meaningful coordination and coopera
tion between all gi'oups in the county working
toward this goal. More than ever, successful solu
tions win invoive very creative cooperative efforts
among all of the stakeholders in the cities, the
counties surrounding Santa Clara County, and
the region as a whole. The inclusion of a iand use
w
mlii
component in VTA's long-range planning program
.tfi
is an important step in acknowledging the need
to address land use-related transportation
m
xae
problems as part of a comprehensive interrelated
system of relationships. Traditional definitions
ofjurisdiction and responsibility shouid be
redefined to identify opportunities for integrating
transportation as a component of improving
livability in Santa Clara County.
The promotion and development of these part
nerships wiU require several key elements;
182
Volley Transportation Authority
:h a p ter I
A^sion in understanding that business as
LAND
USE
AND
TRANSPORTATION
Transportalion Demand Management
usual will not achieve our transportation and
UvabUity goals, and that there are alternative
courses of action.
Leadership in the identification of issues
and in the development of the conditions and
coalitions to address them.
Boundary Crossing—The CDT program
advocates looking beyond the bormdaries of
jurisdiction and discipline, and challenges a
critical examination of our current patterns
of growth. Doing this wfll require active
partnerships between local governments,
public agencies, businesses, community
groups, advocacy groups and individuals.
Moreover, cross training between the various
departments in public agencies—^from policy
to planning to engineering—^is needed to
increase rmderstanding and unify pubKc
:, Transportation'D'emdny Management(TDM|js'one response
' to the many challenges'associated with increasing'traffic con-^
; ,gestidn and the'realization that road funding cannot,keep,",
n pace.with demand. The purpose of TDM is to_ increase the
, efficiency,of existlng\raadway systems by'reducing the ;':
,;demand,for vehicular'travel'.,,TDM strategies and ■•Initiatives
■are multimodal and'aimed at reducing peak-hour travel . ' j
. demands.
»''' ^ y,
^
-i'TDM'stfategies ehcdrnpqss a-range of programs and initia- •
..fives,including carpoolihg and,^vanpooling, flexible .work
' ''hqurs/. telecommuting, use'of dlterriaJiyeTrahsportation m'odes'
(e.gr,-transit, walking'qnd biking),"parking controls,'Cost' ■ % i
, jnce'ntiyes, and advanced technologies.. As urban growth'cph•<' tinues, TDM strategies will become-Increasingly irnportant for ■
• meeting the needs of.a growing and changing society.- . •
efforts toward common goals.
Inclusion ensures that the creativity and
brilliance of the entire commmiity is brought
to bear in the development of solutions to the
issues that will arise.
Education and Communication are impor
tant elements in ensuring that the solutions
that are brought about through these partnerslrips are implemented.
Commitment to bringing new ideas and
solutions to fruition.
VTP 2030
183
1
%
184
Valley Transportation Authority
%
.
chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION
\-
mplementing the projects and programs:
Idescribed.in Chapters 2 and 3 of the
\
plan involves multi-stepped processes and
decision-making stages. This chapter
provides an overview of how.the VTP
imfjlementation process.works. It begins
x>/ith a brief review of the program area
Program Area AlloGatioris
and Funding Issues
allocations described in Chapter 2, and
186
some of the key funding issues that need
Neai-Temi Implementation Activitres .. 188
resolution before some projects can be
VTP Development Process
implemented. This is followed by a
200
summary of the near-term projects and. '
programs and next steps for mid- and.
long-term implementation horizons.
The chapter concludes with an overview
of rhe VTP 2030 processes for project
selection, planning, programming and
delivery, and for amending and updating
the plan.
VTP 2030
185
Program Area Allocations
and Funding Issues
As presented in Chapter 2, VTP 2030 outlines
implementation schedules for 2000 Measure A
a 25-year, $8.5-billion plan of programs and
projects. If VTA is unable to secure a new source
projects. These program areas provide a frame
of revenue for ti'ansit by the end of 2006, the
work for the overall VTP work program that the
VTA Board of Directors vrill re-evaluate projects
VTA Board ^vill work to implement durmg the
and priorities for the Measure A Transit
25-year timeframe of the plan.
The Board-adopted program area allocations are
presented in Table 4.1. In some cases, such as
with the Countywide Expressway Program, the
VTP 2030 allocations cover aU project costs. In
Program. In addition, some transit projects
include funding from multiple partners. The
ability of all partners to contribute then full
share will deterniine when those projects can .
move forward.
other cases, funding from other sources must
be assembled to fully fund specific projects.
implementalion Process
Full implementation of the Measure A Transit
Project programming does not occur in VTP
Program of projects is contingent on VTA's ability
2030. The VTA Board and its partnering
to secure a new dedicated source of funding
agencies determine project programming and
for transit.
implementation schedules for inclusion in
programming documents such as the Capital
Availability of Funds Identified
186
Improvement Program section of the
in VTP 2030
Congestion Management Program (CMP) and
The timing and availability of State and Federal
the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Obviously,
—and in some cases local—transportation
not all projects can be implemented quickly, and
dollars will be the primary factors determining
many will be phased in over time and started in
when many of the VTP 2030 liighway and road
outlying years. However, the projects receiving
way projects can move forward. At the writing
the highest scores based on the Board-adopted
of this document, new State funds are not
project evaluation criteria \vill generally be
expected to be available for progranuning
considered first for implementation.
before 2008. On the Federal side, the ultimate
Once the programs and project lists are devel
form of the Federal budget and the re-authori
oped, and funding sources and schedules are
zation of TEA-21 will determine how much
identified, VTP 2030 next looks toward the
funding wiU be available in the near- and mid
steps for implementation. Some projects are
term horizons. Locally, VTA's success in securing
already under way in design; others are in
an additional dedicated source of funding for
planning stages; and stiU others are waiting to
transit is a key factor in developing practical
be further defined or identified through studies.
Valley Transportation Authority
chapterO IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-1 VIP 2030 Program Areas and AllocaKons
Allocations
Program Areas
C03$/MilUons)
$766.3
Highways
Expressways
150.0
Local Streets & County Roads
230.0
Pavement Management
301.5
10.0
Sound Mitigation
1.0
Landscape Restoration & Graffiti Removal
6,829.0
Transit
TSM & Operations
28.0
Bicycle
90.5
120.1
Livable Communities & Pedestrians
$8,526.4
Total
Revenue projections and project cost estimates are shown in 2003 dollars to be consistent with State and Federal revenue projections provided by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)and with project cost estimates developed in 2003.
The following section outlines the implementa
3. Preliminary Engineering. Identifies alter
tion processes of VTA and other project-related
natives for attaining the specified goal(s); for
activities that need to occur for project delivery in
each alternative, describes benefits and devel
the near term (i.e, before the next VTP update),
ops engineering drawings with sufficient detail
and during the mid-term and long-term horizons.
to perform environmental analysis and estimate
construction feasibility.
ImplementaHon Process
for Capital Projects
Most capital projects move through eight basic
steps from plan to completion, shoAvn below.
Some of these tasks can be completed concur
rently, such as the Preliminary Engineering and
4. Environmental. Analyzes each alternative
for environmental impacts, identifies possible
mitigations to reduce impacts, and obtains legally
mandated State and/or Federal environmental
clearance for a chosen preferred alternative.
Environmental tasks, and Final Engineering and
5. Final Engineering. Finalizes design draw
Right-of-Way tasks.
ings and produces construction documents for
1. Planning. Defines the transportation need
and project goal.
2. Programming. Through a formal process,
funds are identified and specified for a project
scope and schedule.
the preferred alternative.
6. Right-of-Way. Obtains necessary right-ofway for project construction.
7. Construction. Builds the project.
8. Operations. Finished project is placed in
operation.
VTP 2030
187
Near-Term Implementation
Activities
This section focuses on the implementation
freeway-to-freeway connections, and adding
activities that are anticipated to occur over the
auxiliary lanes. The project replaces the Route
next fom- years of the plan—until the next
85/US 101 connector, modifies interchange
update of tins plan. VTA will continue planning
ramps at Moffett Boulevard, North Shoreline
and design efforts to ready other projects for
Avenue and Old Middlefield Way, and constructs
implementation in outlying years. VTA will work
auxiliary lanes and HOV direct connector ramps
with Member Agencies and other partners to
from northbound Route 85 to northbound US
deliver the projects and programs by focusing
101 and from southbound US 101 to south
first on the planning and programming efforts
bound Route 85. Opening date in spring 2006.
required for implementation.
The following provides a summary of the activi
Highway 237/1-880 Intercharige Project. This
project improves traffic operations and safety by
ties expected to occur within the near term.
providing direct coimector HOV lanes from
Each section is organized into Highway/
southbound 1-880 to westbound Route 237 and
Roadway, Transit, and other categories, and
from eastbound Route 237 to northbound 1-880,
further divided into Plaraung/Study and
and a southbound braided exit ramp from 1-880
Construction sections. The projects, programs,
to Tasman Drive. Opening date in May 2005.
and studies listed below have identified funding
and will move forward and be completed withm
the next four years. Some of these projects are
contingent on the availability of State or
Federal funds witliin the next three years, and
consequently may be delayed if the State's fiscal
condition does not improve.
Coleman Avenue/I-880 Interchange. This
project reconfigures and widens the existing
ramps of the 1-880/Coleman Avenue inter
change, and adds a new direct comrector ramp
from Airport Boulevard to southbound 1-880. It
replaces the Coleman Avenue over-crossing at
1-880 and widens Coleman Avenue to six lanes
from North Airport Boulevard to Hedding
Highway/Roadway Projects
Street. Opening date in late summer 2006.
Projects Under Construction (as of
October 2004).
Bailey Avenue/US 101 Interchange. This
Route 85/Highway 101 North Interchange
Project. This project improves traffic operations
and safety by reducing weaving between velricles entering and exiting the freeway, increasing
the capacity of the interchange, providing new
188
Valley Transportation Authority
project constructs a new fuU mterchange on US
101 in south San Jose, extending Bailey Avenue
east of Monterey Road cormecting to Malech
Road across Coyote Creek. Opening date late
December 2004.
chapterO IMPLEMENTATION
Montague Expressway Wideningfrom 1-880 to
funded with $16.2m in Measure B local sales
US 101. The County of Santa Clara has secured
tax, $5.5m from the City of GDroy, and $0.25m
funding to complete eastbound widening to four
from Federal funds.
lanes, including crossing the south portion of
the Guadalupe River Bridge. The eastbomid
portion of the project is under construction and
will be completed by early 2006. While funding
is available for certain segments of the west
bound widening, a complete funding package
has not been secured for the westbound lanes,
including widening of the Guadalupe River
Route 17-E Auxiliary Lane, Camden to
Hamilton Avenue. This project will add north
bound auxiliary lanes between Camden Avenue
and Hamilton Avenue to provide more room for
traffic merging onto and off Route 17, and modify
the off-ramp from southbound Route 17 to
Hamilton Avenue to improve traffic operations.
Bridge. The Countj' may choose to pursue the
Highway 87HOVLanes. This project will
westbound segments for which funds are avail
provide high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes on
able, or wait until a complete funding package
Highway 87 between Branham Lane near
can be assembled; therefore, a schedule for
Highway 85 and Julian Street. The project is
westbound widening is not currently available.
being constructed in two segments: 1) 1-280 to
just north of Julian Street, and 2) Branham
Projects Scheduled for Construction
Lane to 1-280. Segment 1 is scheduled to begin
Before 2008
1996 Measure B Projects
Route 152-B, Llagas Creek to Gilroy Foods.
This project provides safety and operational
improvements on Route 152 between US 101
^ A
?<5c.
and Route 156 in Gilroy and Santa Clara Coimty.
The project widens Route 152 from two to four
lanes from immediately west of Gilroy Foods
thi'ough the Llagas Creek Bridge. Additional
HWlil
\
improvements mclude improvements to the
m
m
intersection at the Gilroy Foods east entrance
by installing a traffic signal and aligning it with
%
the existing Westside Transport Inc., entrance.
m
Construction is scheduled to begin in spring
2005, with a completion date of late smnmer
2006. The $21.9-mlllion cost of the project is
w.
( .»
VTP 2030
189
and a reconfigured at-grade direct connector
'tfi bii; V
ramp from eastbound SR 156 to eastbound SR
•aBiifc. vt
152. All other at-grade movements will be
upgraded and highway standards lighting wiU be
'ti'-
added. The project is currently at the 65 per
cent design phase. Construction is scheduled to
begin on the $27.25 million project in early 2006
and be completed by mid- to late 2008. The
f-sSrP'"'
•# /'
jiLiSi 'Jill
'
project Is contingent on STIP and ITIP being
-•
available in 2005/06.
H
Planning Studies and Design Projects
The following studies and design projects are
gearing up or already under way;
US 101 Central Corridor Study. This study
examined operational and safety improvements
along US 101 in central Santa Clara County
ill summer 2004 and be completed summer
between the 1-280/680 interchange on the north
2006; segment 2 is scheduled to begin in fall
to the Yerba Buena Road interchange on the
2006 and be completed by summer 2007.
south. The study identified a list of improve
Project cost for both segments is $121.0m, with
ments that includes construction of an additional
$76.9m coming from GARVEE bonds, $25.6m
lane in the southbound direction in the median
from Measure B sales tax, and $18.5m from the
from south of Story Road to south of the Capitol
State Highway Operations and Safety Program
Expressway interchange; modification of the
(SHOPP funds on segment 2 only). Segment 1
US 101/Tully Road interchange to a partial
is scheduled for completion in Fall 2006, fol
cloverleaf interchange; modification of the US
lowed by segment 2 in early 2007.
101/Capitol Expressway interchange to a partial
VTP 2030 Projects
Route 152/156. Through a joint VTA/Caltrans
paidnership, this project wiU enhance safety by
constructing a direct connector separation ramp
from westbound SR 152 to westbound SR 156,
190
Valley Transportation Authority
cloverleaf interchange; construction an auxiliary
lane in the southbound direction of US 101
between the TuUy Road and Capitol Expressway
interchanges; modification of the collectordistributor (C-D) system on northbound US
101 between Yerba Buena Road and Capitol
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Expressway; and construction of a new on-ramp
ation of demand for HOT lane operations, HOT
from the C-D road to northbound US 101 south
lane operations pricing, and HOT lane traffic
of Capitol Expressway Overcrossing. The proj
operations including revenue projections. Based
ect is currently completing an Environmental
on this analysis, recommendations ■wUl be made
Impact Report (EIR) and Preliminary
for each of the candidate corridors for further
Engineering (PE.) The EIR is scheduled for
study beyond the scope of this study. Each can
adoption in May 2005, and PE is scheduled for
didate con-idor will be considered not only in
completion in June 2005.
terms of its potential as an individual project,
Hellyer and Blossom Hill Road Design. Design
work for his project is 95 percent complete.
but also in terms of its potential as part of a
regional HOT or managed lane network.
However,funding shortfalls experienced by the
Project planning and development will continue
City of San Jose have stalled further design. The
to occur on various projects contained in the
city is workmg to identify funding to complete
Highway, Expressway, and Local Streets /
design and ready the project for construction.
County Roads project lists. The planning and
South County Circidation Study. This study
wiU conduct a comprehensive review and analy
design work from these efforts will Inform the
next VTP update.
sis of existing and projected traffic conditions in
south Santa Clara County, including the cities of
Transit Projects
Morgan HUl and Gilroy, mid the community of
Following are projects imder construction.
San Martin. The results of tliis study will include
a list of preferred roadway improvement proj
ects to be considered with the next VTP update.
Vasona Light Rail Line. The project is current
ly under construction with an anticipated open
ing date of summer 2005. The project con
High Occupancy Toll(HOT)Lanes
structs a 5.3-mile addition to the 37-mile VTA
Feasibility Study. This study will assess the
light rail system between downtown San Jose
freeway system in Santa Clara County to deter
and the Winchester station in Campbell, includ
mine if the operation of a HOT lane system is
ing eight stations and a tunnel segment at the
feasible, and, if so, identify feasible corridors for
Diridon station in San Jose.
HOT lane operations. The study includes an ini
tial assessment of freeway corridors in the
county and identification of two or three corri
dors for detailed evaluation. A detailed analysis
of each candidate corridor wiU include an evalu
Palo Alto Caltrain Transit Center
Reconstruction. Construction is expected to
begin in late 2004 and be completed by summer
2005. This project wiU completely reconstruct
the Palo Alto Transit Center to improve links
VTP 2030
191
between Caltrain aiid bus service, as well as
or Design
VTA, SamTrans, and the Dumbarton Express,
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
and provide convenient connections with
(BART). Project is currently conducting
Stanford's Marguerite shuttle and Palo Alto's
Preliminary Engineering (PE) and completing
local shuttle system. The project adds two new
envirorunental clearance with an Environmental
bus bays for Line 22 articulated buses and pro
Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental
vides improved passenger shelters. Project ele
Impact Statement O^IS). The VTA Board of
ments include the recorrstruction of the
Dkectors certified the final Environmental
University Avenue Bridge connecting ■with Palm
Impact Report (EIR) in December 2004. The
Drive, reconstruction and expansion of the
certification of the En'vironmental Impact
Caltrain Bridge over University Avenue to
Statement (EIS) is anticipated in early 2007,
include four tracks to allow express train serv
and may be tied to approval of the EIS for the
ice, roadway improvements, and the creation of
Warm Spring BART extension. Preliminary
community park space.
Engineering is scheduled for completion by late
LRT Platform Retrofit. This project completes
reconstruction of the remaming station
platforms on the Guadalupe Line south of down
2006. This project cannot proceed into final
design and construction until a new dedicated
source of funding for transit is secured.
town San Jose to accommodate low-floor Light
Downtown East Valley. Prelimhiary
Rail Vehicles (LRVs). Design work is completed.
Engureering and Environmental Clearance for
Completion date is dependent on identification
the Capitol Expressway segment between
of capital funding.
Wilbur Streets and Nieman Avenue will begin in
Cerov£ Phase 1. Improvements include con
struction of a new hydrogen refueling facility to
support the Zero Emission Bus Demonstration
Program, and new yard entrance and road call
building.
Chaboya Bus Division Improvements. Include
192
Transit Projects In Environmental
accommodate additional buses operated by
September 2004. Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Clearance for the Alum Rock
segment will begin with the VTA Board adoption
of either the Eirhanced Bus or Light Rail tech
nology. A decision on technology is currently
scheduled for sun'uner 2005. This project cannot
proceed into final design and construction until
the installation of a new vacuum system and a new
a new dedicated source of funding for transit is
bus -wash and waste water treatment system.
secured, or a reprioritization of projects occurs.
Valley Transportofion Aufhority
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Caltrain Electrification EIR/EA. Caltrain has
prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)/ Environmental
Assessment(EA)for electrifying Caltrain from
Gilroy to San Francisco. Caltrain is currently in
the process of responding to comments received
and preparing a fmal EIR with an expected
issue date of late 2004 or early 2005. Caltrain's
mi
adopted 2004-23 Strategic Plan outlines four
scenarios for the future of Caltrain, vrtth the
schedule for completion of electrification vary
ing under each scenario: Status Quo (no electri
fication), Moderate Grovrth (electrified service
begins in 2018), Enhanced (electrified service
begins 2008), and Build Out (electrified service
begins in 2014, assuming construction of High
Speed Rail between Gilroy, San Jose and San
Francisco). Due to funding schedule uncertain
ties, Caltrain's recently adopted 2004-2013
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) does not
include capital fmids for implementation of
electrification tlu-ough 2013. Prior to initiation
of the design and implementation of the electri
fication project, the local and regional fmrding
Transit Planning Studies
Measure A Expenditure Plan. VTA is currently
developing scenarios for implementing the 2000
Measure A program of projects. Expenditure
scenarios mclude consideration of variables
such as project schedules, and with and without
a new permanent source of funding for transit.
The Expenditure Plan is scheduled for
completion by early 2005.
partners must reach agreement on a schedule
for the allocation of funding commitments from
New Rail Corridors Feasibility Study. This
VTA, Mmii, Samtrans and MTC. The Caltrain
$1.3 million study is scheduled to begin in late
SRTP win be updated in two years to reflect
2004 and take 12-18 months to complete. It will
policy decisions and additional actions over the
examine seven potential rail corridors to evalu
next two years that will provide the information
ate the feasibility, operational efficiency, and
needed to develop a firmer schedule for the
cost-effectiveness, and clear a Progranunatic
electrification project. VTA wiU continue to
EIR. New rail corridors to be considered include
work with Caltrain and MTC to develop an
Vasona extension to Vasona Junction, DTEV
implementation schedule.
Eastridge Area to Hwy 87, Santa Teresa
VTP 2030
193
3) which service delivery strategies best match
13301 1
11
these market segments. An analysis will be
Ms
ifi
H
1
i
conducted to link these results with identified
mm
rr==j
travel patterns and develop various transit
service options. The end result will allow VTA
to develop recommended changes to the bus
network that are aimed at capturing a larger
ill
market share while conserving resources.
Community Bus Study. Current development
m
M
patterns and densities, multiple destinations,
and an increasingly diverse population present
some unique challenges to daily travels around
our valley. Tills study will develop a new
approach to fixed route services by blending
-■KUifijasmMif
,•te.iSS'-T.
•
T- '
standard buses with smaDer, "community
buses." This community-based blend of vehicle
types coupled with new routings is envisioned
extension to Coyote Valley, and extensions to
Morgan Hill, Stevens Creek Blvd., West San
Jose/Santa Clara, and North County/Palo Alto.
Light RaO from Capitol Expressway/Nieman
Avenue to Highway 87 will be included in this
study.
Community Bus Study will be used in the devel
opment of Annual and Rail Integration Service
Plans. Recognizing these opportunities and
community benefits, VTA's Fiscal Yeai2004-2013 Short Range Transit Plan incorpo
Market Segmentation Study. This study will
rates the use of smaUer-capacity vehicles
utilize sophisticated market research techniques
beginning in January 2006.
developed for private industry to identify dis
tinct market segments for transit services.
Study objectives include: 1) a better under
standing of distinct groups (market segments)
in the population that share similar values,
2) which attitudes and preferences these groups
have regarding different transit options, and
194
to provide the service and convenience
needed to attract new riders. The results of the
Volley Tronsportation Authority
Btis Rapid Transit (BRT) Studies. BRT is a
newly evolving concept in the provision of tran
sit services. The VTP 2030 Measure A Transit
Program identifies $33 million for three BRT
corridors: Line 22, Monterey Highway and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. A key attribute of
BRT service is the reduced need for capital
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
infrastmcutre investments, and the ability to
Dumbarton Rail Corridor EIR/EIS. This proj
add BRT features incrementally as demand for
ect commits VTA to providing up to $1 million
service and availability of funding warrants.
in funding as VTA's one-third local share of the
Results from the BRT studies vrill guide the
cost of preparing a project Environmental
implementation of new BRT services. The fol
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
lowing BRT efforts are currently under way:
(ElR/ElS). The lead project sponsor is the San
• Line 22 BRT Project. VTA is participating in
the Federal Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration
Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA), who will also act as the implementing
Program to provide BRT enhancements for
agency for the overall project. Other project
Line 22. BRT is currently being developed in
sponsors include the Alameda County
the northwest segment of the Line 22 corri
Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), the
dor in the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
Alameda County Ti'ansportation Improvement
Mountain View and Palo Alto. The southeast
Authority (ACTIA), and the Capitol Corridor
portion of Line 22 in the Santa Clara/Alum
Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA).
Rock corridor is being studied for BRT as
part of the Downtown East VaUey Transit
Improvement Project.
• Monterey Highway BRT. The Monterey
Highway BRT project is cun-ently in the con
ceptual design phase to further define specific
improvements. The Monterey Highway BRT
project includes improvements along a 9.6mile route (primarily Monterey Highway)
Caltrain to Monterey/Salinas. The
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) is cmrently conducting plamimg work
to deternune the feasibility of, and funding
strategies for, linking Caltranr with Monterey
County. VTA staff is working with TAMC and
Monterey County staff to coordinate planning
efforts.
from the Diridon station to the Santa Teresa
In partnership with MTC, VTA vrill conduct
station on the Guadalupe line in south San
community-based transportation studies in the
Jose. Next steps include developing a strategy
to move into prellminaiy engineering, final
design, construction, and operations.
• Stevens Creek Boulevard BRT. Stevens
Greek ■\viil be studied in greater detail to
determine its potential as a BRT corridor.
Study findings wiU be considered with the
development of operating and capital
improvement plans.
Gilroy and east San Jose areas. The goal of
these studies is to advance the findings from
MTC's Lifeline Transportation Network Report
adopted by the Commission and incorporated
into the 2001 Regional Ti'ansportation Plan
(RTP). The Lifeline Transportation Network
Report identified transit needs in economically
disadvantaged communities throughout the San
VTP 2030
195
Francisco Bay Area region, and recommended
Other Programs and Projects
local transportation studies to further efforts
to address them. Each community-based
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
transportation study will involve a collaborative
As described m the Transportation Systems
approach that includes residents and community-
Operations and Management Progi-am section
based organizations (CEOs) that provide services
in Chapter 2, project planning and development
within minority and low-income neighborhoods.
in the near term will focus on projects that
The first of these studies will be In the Gilroy
improve traffic flow thi'ough unproved signal
area, scheduled to begin in summer 2005.
operations. This includes improvements in
traffic signal operations for transit, pedestrians,
bicychsts and vehicles on local roadways,
expressways,freeways and transit. Examples of
projects that ■will be completed in the near term
include the following:
Silicon Valley Intelligent Transportation
Systems (SV-ITS) Program Enhancements.
i
A
A
I
Through a partnership of local, regional and
State agencies, work continues on the Integra
tion of technology-based systems to provide
a
improved operations of the transportation sys
tem. Building on the original Smart Corridor
project along 1-880, the program Is completing
fom- projects that expand camera surveiEance,
coordinate traffic signal operations, and share
traffic information in areas covering Los Gatos
north to Fremont m Alameda County, around
the San Jose Mineta International Airport, and
westward from downtown San Jose to
Cupertino.
Transit Signal Priority Implementations for
BRT One element of VTA's BRT program
includes the deplojmient of priority treatment at
traffic signals for buses. Such bus signal priority
196
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
(BSP) is expected to be in operation in 2005
along VTA's Line 22 corridor aird also along
I
Bascora Avenue as a result of a signal system
improvement project by the City of San Jose.
A
County Expressway Traffic Operations
System. The County of Santa Clara Roads and
Airports Department is completing deployment
15
of fiber-optic communications, traffic signal
'
.*
system improvements and surveillance cameras
l
along all eight expressways. Much of this
improvement project has been funded by the
1996 Measure B sales tax.
kSi
Dynamic Passenger Information Project. The
K
Dynamic Passenger Information Project incor
m»r
porates various state-of-the-art Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technologies into
light rail/bus transit centers and pai-k and ride
lots. This project has been expanded to include
Internet-based information, real-time electronic
m
m
transit schedules linking to Automated Veliicle
Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects
Location (AVL) on buses and light raD, transit
Guadalupe Bridge at River Oaks. This bridge
mformation signs, electroruc signs on the Silicon
connects the River Oaks light raO station in San
Valley Smart Comdors, and other on-site transit
Jose to the residentiaPretah Rivermark neigh
user amenities. A specific element funded with
borhood in Santa Clara. Scheduled for comple
$1.57 million in Federal Section 5308 ITS funds
tion in September 2005.
vi® help implement real-time transit information
Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Bridge at 1-280
components at key locations. Future funding
in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The bridge will
will expand the number of real-time information
displays to all transit centers and other key
bus stops.
provide a safe and convenient connection
between De Anza GoUege in Cupertino and
Homestead High School in Sumiyvale along the
Mary Avenue corridor. Scheduled for completion
in spring 2006.
VTP 2030
197
Los Gates Creek Trail Bridge/Path
Mountain View High School, and includes the
Improvements in Campbell. Provides a bridge
under-crossing of El Gamino Real. Scheduled for
and other path improvements neai" Camden
completion in December 2007.
Avenue in Campbell. Scheduled for completion
in summer 2005.
Almaden Expressway Improvements Between
Ironwood Drive and Foxworthy Avenue.
Includes the installation of sidewallcs, bike
shoulders, and crosswalks providing residents
with safer coraiections to local services and
shops. Scheduled for completion in sprmg/
summer 2006.
Programs
Livable Communities and Pedestrian
Program
The Livable Communities and Pedestrian (LOP)
Program prowdes capital funds for transporta
tion-related projects that improve community
access to transit, provide multimodal trans
Uvas Creek Trail, Phase I, Gilroy. Provides
portation facilities, and enhance the pedestrian
creek trail improvements as part of the new
environment along transportation corridors, in
Gilroy Sports Park connectmg with Luchessa
community cores, and around transit stations.
Avenue. Scheduled for completion in summer
During wmter 2006, VTA vnll develop specific
2006.
evaluation and scoring criteria for LOP Program
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Reach 2 in
Santa Clara. This project extends the creek
trail from Agnew Road to Scott Blvd., and
includes an under-crossing of US 101.
Scheduled for completion in summer 2005.
Los Gates Creek Trail Reach 4(Lincoln
Avenue-Auzerais Avenue)in San Jose. This
project provides an extension of the existmg
trail, and includes on-street sections. Scheduled
for completion in fall 2007.
Stevens Creek Trail(between Yuba Drive and
North Meadow Lane)in Mountain View. This
project extends the trail southwards toward
198
Implementation of VTA Land Use
Valley Transportation Authority
projects using the GDT Manual, Pedestrian
Techmcal Design Guidelmes, and other GDT
documents as a framework. Begiiming m 2006,
the LGP Program is expected to provide about
$10 million eveiy two years for Member Agency
capital projects.
Table 4-2 shows the implementation activities
associated with VTA's Land Use programs,
including both on-going efforts and new programs.
chapterQ IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-2 Implementation of VTA Land Use Pragrams'
Program or Plan
Short-term Activities
Mid- to Long-term Activities
CDT Program
• Continued program development
• Work with Member Agencies
• CDT Plaraiing and Capital Grants Program
• On-going
• Integrate CDT principles and practices
into VTA programs, and Member Agency
programs and policies
Proactive CMP/
• Incorporate CDT principles and practices
• On-going
• On-going; incorporate CDT prmciples and
practices
• On-going
Review
Transit-oriented
• On-going; assist Member Agencies with TOD
• On-going as part of the CDT Program
Transportation
Impact Analysis
Review (TIA]
Development
Development
(TOD) Program
Deficiency
Plans
projects
• Implement CDT prmciples and best practices
Assist cities TOth the development of citywide plans
Revise guidelines to include CDT principles
and best practices
On-goiirg
Consider countywide deficiency plan
* Land Use Transportation Investment Strategies
CDT Planning
• Administer program; annual call-for-projects
On-going
Monitor projects
Pursue additional strategies to keep the
program funded
Develop project evaluation criteria and selec
tion process
On-going
Monitor projects
Pursue additional strategies to keep the
Grants
CDT/Livable
Communities
and Pedestrian
Program
Capital Grants
Administer program
program funded
Coordinate with MTC TLC and
bike/pedestrian program
Joint
Development
Program
Establish formal program
Pursue one to five projects
Coordinate with other progi'ams
Continue with project deveiopment and
management
Maintain on-going revenue stream
VTP 2030
199
VTP Development Process
VTP 2030 uses a systematic approach for
envii'onmental and business communities, and
planning and programming capital projects
the general public. These decisions are based
developed as part of VTP 2020. Tliis process
on consistent, technicaDy sound evaluation of
was used to create the cmi-ent list of projects
project proposals and preceded by clear and
described in the Capital Investments section,
consistent communications with outside organi
and wiU be maintained thi'ough the 25+ year
zations and the community. After programming
VTP 2030 plamiing horizon. It is also intended
decisions are made, the VTP 2030 approach
for use in future updates to VTP 2030.
includes sustained commitments to major
The VTP approach establishes processes in
which, under the leadership of the VTA Board
of Directors, VTA can make planning and
In order to establish this plamring approach,
programnung decisions with input from VTA's
VTP 2030 defines three processes to govern
advisory committees. Member Agencies, the
how projects move from planning documents to
construction:
4
■;
■ .'ly 'i .*'■
■V ' .hf;:, v54:;. , m.
'A
AS
planned projects in order to secm'e funding and
proceed successfully to project delivery.
A-'W
m
• VTP Project Selection
• Project Planning, Programming, and Delivery
• Updating and Amending the VTP
VTP Project Selection Process
Figure 4-1 illustrates the process of selecting
projects for inclusion in VTP 2030. This process
1.
1
^
puts oversight of the planning process with the
VTA Board of Directors and allows for broad
m
community input. The flowchart of the Project
Selection Process is described in following text.
To begin the process, VTA solicits proposals
from interested agencies and the general public,
and may include a formal call-for-projects. VTA's
Member Agencies solicit further input from
their constituents, and then present project Usts
to their elected officials for approval before sub-
200
Valley Transportation Authority
:hapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 4-1 Project Selection Process'
iMeniibeiv.
Agencies'
[
K j f City Council /
y iBbdrd of Supervisors!
,
0
0
General.
public,'
0"
VTA
^List of candidate
projects for
countywide!
!X
X,
;CaltranS/ i
. Coltrain/ "j
ACE, other I
approval-
BOD* review
of
Fi>l i
project lists**
I V TLC funding*
i VTA performs
fechniccil
public '
agenciesf
!
^
evaluation
jusing approved
! methodologies
^
VTP 2030
BOD* meets to:4
[Projects for:TDA
r Article 3;-TFCA;
,25-Year
Hear input on
evaluation results::
Xi
Finalize and
approve
jX
Identification 1
of,funding- ' j
/sources
Capital
- ,Investment':
n Program^;-
i
prioritized list''
.of projects^ -
Separate
Evaluation and
.Programming .
tr
Processes,
subject to BOD* •
Approval - -
*
. Eya!uationTesultSs>:- presented to.city.councils,-; Board of Supervisors/
J' public workshops
VTA Board of Director (BOD) action will follow review and action by VTA advisory committees
Proposed for Major Funding Sources such as STIR, TEA-21, Major Earmarks, Future Sales Tax or Bonds
*• Transit Program covers 30 years
mitting the lists to VTA. This step ensures local
Evaluation results are presented to Member
knowledge of, and commitment to, proposed
Agencies and at public workshops. This step
projects. Projects are next submitted to 'VTA for
functions as a feedback loop to provide for
consideration in one or more of the ten program
public comment on VTA's evaluation. Based on
areas identified in VTP 2030.
evaluation scores, the 'VTA Board then finalizes
'VTA then evaluates the proposed projects using
technical methodologies that are approved by
■VTA's Technical Advisory Committee and Board.
and approves the list of projects. Once the
VTA Board of Directors approves the list of
projects, individual projects can proceed into
programming phases.
VTP 2030
201
Projecf Planning, Programming,
and Delivery
these project studies, the VTA Board places
the top-ranked projects in the Congestion
This section describes what happens to a
Management Program's Capital Improvement
project once it emerges from VTP 2030 as an
Program (CIP). Top-ranl<ed projects are deter
agency priority. Figure 4-2 below presents a
mined by using a set of evaluation criteria similar
flowchart of the process by which a transporta
to those developed for initial project evaluation
tion project moves from VTP 2030 through
but more focused on project delivery. The VTA
project deliveiy. A description of the flowchart
Boai'd can then make decisions to program
is described in following text.
funding for specific projects.
At the local level, projects appearing in VTP
Beyond the local level, the Metropolitan
2030 will generally undergo project studies. In
Transportation Commission (MTC) takes
cases where project plaiming or engineering
projects appearing in VTP 2030's Capital
studies have already been completed, those
Investment Program and places them in MTC's
studies will provide the startmg point for more
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) where they
advanced studies or engineering. Based on
may appear in the constrained or unconstrained
Figure 4-2 Project Planning, Programming and Delivery
fV
'MTC Regional
MTC includes ! ^
I' projects In Federal
TransporfaHon
Plan
t
Tronsportation
I. ; /' Improvement;
(i . Program (FTIP)
Consistency
_ (25*year horizon)
Required
■ Project ■ 1
obligatesr-l I
Projects
expecting to
receive State
and Federal Funds
VTP 2030;
Capital •
Investment,
Program
|- (25-year base . ]
^nding
|
' .Project I
- VTP 2030
Impiemeritationl i—\ studies for i
schedules for:
|" "V top-ranked
■top-ranked hi
projects •
!
' Transit Program covers a 30-year base
202
Valley Transportation Authority
projects
/...Congesrion
rMonogement:
Program ^
Capital
improvement
. ..Program ; :
1
.() p^edr' hdrlzM);^
j ■ Funds avaiiobio
obiigoting
o ^!' to' for
specific.project's
^hA BOD
'makes,decision
program^:
1"^
If ^Tundsito
—i/
c
^specific projects
funds
S
K
>
" Project
Delivery
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
Updating the VTP
portion of the RTP. Once the VTA Board votes
to program funds to specific projects from spe
Notwithstanding VTP 2030's process of analysis
cific sources, MTC places those projects in its
and evaluation, tiungs change, and VTA expects
Federal Transportation Improvement Program
to update the plan every four years. Plan
(FTIP). Only projects in the RTP can be placed
updates ■will include the project selection
in the FTIP. Funds from State and Federal
process, and the process for project planning,
sources are then made available to be obligated
programming, and delivery shown above.
to these projects. Finally, the agencies' sponsors
However, VTA recognizes that special
of the projects obligate the funds in order to
circumstances may arise that require an update
finance construction.
during an off-year. VTP 2030 therefore estab
lishes a process for amending the plan that
Figure 4-3 Updates and Additions
tYearO
Year 2
Year 1
VTP 2030 Implemenfollon activities;
no scheduled updates
VTP 2030
Approved
i for submittol
by city
.Goals & objectives^
council or
Board of
25-Year Capitol*'
Investment Program'
Transporfotipn end ■
Land Use Program i
Near-term
implementationiv'f V
program"
' ' ,''
i
Special circumstance NO
requiring quick
action?
Supervisors
Tyes
Locally
proposed
project
Technical
evaluation
£
■ Public
participation
Full project
evaluation,
selection and
approval
process
using
approved
methodology
Updated
VTP 2030
iad'dpte-d 2005) "
I
BOD decision by
majority to cimend
VTP 2030 during
odd year
Locally
Proposed
Projects
NO
YES
Project added to VTP
' Transit Program covers a 30-year base
VTP 2030
203
project proposals wiU be subjected to the same
technical analysis required during full updates,
and a majority vote of the VTA Board of
Directors still will be required to approve plan
amendments. Project proposals not accepted
dm'ing off-years can be reconsidered during the
¥MSt.
subsequent update of the entire plan. VTA will
conduct a public participation process for the
&a>
proposed amendment, the level of which wiH be
^■sm,™
m
m
*c
m
#Ss
mm
^•'':
based on the scale of the proposed amendment.
V %i ' '
r«i
Projects Without VTP 2030
Allocated Funding
aSif
Projects appeai-ing in the VTP 2030 Capital
m
a
Investment Program that do not have allocated
funding for constmction are considered in the
"unconstrained" portion of the VTP 2030 and
the RTP. Funding options for these projects wUl
be re-evaluated with the next update of VTP
2030.
i
m
If funding for a project is identified before VTP
2030 is updated, and the sponsoring agency
allows for off-year changes. A flowchart of the
determines the project has become a top priori
process for amending VTP 2030 is shown in
ty, the project may move into plaiuiing and pre
Figure 4-3 on the previous page. A description
liminary design phases without needing to be
of the flowchart is provided in following text.
included in the financially constrained portion
Special cii'cumstances such as time-limited
funding availability, or contributions from a local
developer, may require quick action. In these
cases, there will be opportunity for projects to
be added to the VTP in off-years. Off-year
204
Valley Tronsporfotion Authority
of VTP 2030 or the RTP. If the project needs to
acquire right-of-way or move into engineering
and construction phases before the next VTP
update, VTP 2030 and the RTP need to be
amended, requiring at nainimum regional trans
portation systems and air quaiity conformance
chapter0 IMPLEMENTATION
analysis involving significant staff time and
resources. In these cases, Member Agencies
should notify VTA as soon as possible so staff
may explore a range of possible actions.
Implementation Process for
Non-Capitoi Programs
Non-capital programs include the Community
Design and Transportation (CDT)Program and
the Joint Development Program. Activities in
('.i
these programs may include administrative,
planning, design and programming-related func
'■■w-a-rti-
tions. VTP 2030 identifies a lump sum amormt
for several of these program areas, and lists of
specific projects may not be identified before
the next VTP update.
VTP 2030
205
APPENDIX
PROGRAM
AREA
DETAI LED
PROJECT
LISTS
fT^his appendix provides additional infor-
_L motion about the project lists presented
in the Program Areas in Chapter 2, "TheCapital Investment Program." Additional
-•information may include tiie project sponsor,
the jurisdictions the project affects, and the
VIP 2030 project allocation amount. The
reader should consult the Program Area
maps in Chapter 2 to locate projects
geographically. All dollar amounts are shown
in 2003 dollars.
Projects lists for the following Program Areas ;
p.' n •• n n
• Highways
•
'
^
c n.
,
.
n -
•
I - ,' " I.
T
•
*
,
I
J
!
nnn
. n n • • • Bicycles .
"
'.
. .
• nn n .
.-
n '
Project lists for Pavement Management,
. '
'I
,
I
• T
Sound Mitigation-, Landscape Restoration .
,
.•
•
-. ..w
f
,
and Graffiti Removal, and the Livable
.
n n
not developed during the VTP-2030 planning"
r-;"... •
n .
206
process.
.
•'
Valley Transportation Authority
• '• •
>
-
- .
.
.
' n
" !
•
n
i
'C', n
i
.
.. „
V
i.
>
' ,
.
• .
n '
n - .' •
-
n
-
. Communities and Pedestrian Program were .
f .•
•.
n
. '1
•, "
n ;n '
i - n 'n
'
i
•
n
• Systems Operations Management/ITS
f
i
•• .
. n
• Local Streets and County Roads
.
j
i:.
*
.
• Expressways
f
-
n
are presented:
n
[
•
.
.
'
-
l
1
j
|
_
. j
APPENDIX
Highway Program
(HOV)lanes, freeway-to-freeway comiector
The VTP 2030 Highway Projects list includes a
State tughways and operational improvements.
improvements, intersection improvements along
wide array of projects located along freeway and
AH projects submitted to MTC and incorporated
State highway corridors. The projects include
in the RTP are included in this list, as well as
freeway mainline improvements, safety
some additional projects resulting from recent
improvements,interchange reconstruction, new
studies.
interchanges, new liigh occupancy vehicle
Highway Projects—Allocation Amount $766,3 million
VTP ID
H17-01
H25-02
H25-03
H85-02
Project
Total Estimated
VTP 2030
Location/Sponsor
Project Cost
Allocation
('OSS/Millunis)
('OSS/Millions)
Project Name
SR 17 Improvements, NB SR 17
Auxiliary Lane from Camden Ave.
San Jose,
to Hamilton Ave.
Los Gatos
SR 25/Santa Teresa Blvd./US 101 Interchange
Construction (Includes US 101 Widening
between Monterey Highway & SR 25)
$.12.0
$12.0
Gilroy
85.0
70.0
SR 25 Upgrade to Six-Lane Facility Design
County
10.0
10.0
SR 85 Noise Mitigation between
Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Gatos, San Jose,
Saratoga, Sunnyvale,
Campbell
7.0
7.0
22.0
22.0
1-280 & SR 87
H85-05
SR 85 Northbound to EB SR 237
Connector Ramp Improvement
Mountain Wiew
H85-09
Fremont Ave. Improvements at SR 85
Sunnyvale
2.0
2.0
H85-10
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between
Sunnyvale,
Cupertino
19.0
19.0
Central Bxpwy. Interchange Improvements
San Jose
27.0
27.0
US 101 Auxiliary Lane Widenings—
Trimble Rd. to Montague Expwy.
San Jose,
Santa Clara
10.0
10.0
US 101/Hellyer Ave. Interchange Improvements'
San Jose
11.0
0.0
HlOl-09
US 101/Blossom Hill Rd. hiterchange Improvements'
San Jose
7.0
0.0
HIOMO
US 101/Mabvuy Road/Taylor St. Interchange
Environmental & Preliminary Engineering
San Jose
3.0
3.0
Homestead Ave. & Fremont Ave.
H101-06
HlOl-07
HlOl-08
US 101 SB/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz Blvd./
1. Funded by the City of San Jose.
VTP 2030
207
Highway Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
H101-n
Project Nome
Project
Location/Sponsor
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
COSS/Mill'ions)
('03$/Millions)
us 10l/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr/Fourtl\ St Intercliange
San Jose
$7.0
$7.0
2.0
2.0
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Great America
Pkwy. to Lawrence Expwy.
Santa Clara
HlOl-14
US 101/Tully Road Interchange Modifications
San Jose
22.0
22.0
HlOl-15
US 101 SB Widening firom
Story Rd. to Yerba Buena Rd.
San Jose
11.0
11.0
US 101/Capitol Expwy. Interchange Improvements
(mcludes New NB On-ramp from Yerba Bueira Rd.)
San Jose
20.0
20.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
140.0
0.0
164.0
0.0
San Jose
8.0
8.0
San Jose
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
H101-i2
HlOl-16
HlOl-19
Sunnyvale,
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Improvement
Between Ellis St.and SR 237
Sunnyvale
US 101/Teimant Ave. Interchange
Improvements in Morgan Hill
Morgan Hill
HlOl-22
US 101 Conversion to Four-Lane Freeway: SR 25
to Santa Clara/San Benito Coimty Line^
County
HlOl-23
US 101 Widening between Cochrane
Rd. and Monterey Highway®
H101-20
HlOl-25
HlOl-26
Morgan Hill
US 101 NB Auxilieiry Lane Widening—
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
HI 52-02
Gilroy, County,
US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Widening—
1-880 to McKee Rd./Julian St.
SR 152 Improvements, Traffic Signal at Gihoy Foods/
WTI Intersection, SR 152 Widening from MUler's
Slough througlr Llagas Creek Bridges
Gilroy
HI 52-03
SR 152 Improvements, Intersection
Improvement at Ferguson Rd.
County
1.0
1.0
HI52-04
SR 152/SR 156 Interchange Improvements®
Coimty
27.3
0.0
Mountain View
3.0
3.0
H237-01
SR 237/El Camino Real/Gr£int Rd.
Intersection Improvements
H237-02
SR 237 WB to SB SR 85
Connector Ramp Improvements
Moimtain View
18.0
18.0
H237-03
SR 237 Widening for HOY Lanes
between SR 85 & east of Mathilda Ave.
Mountain View,
Sunnyvale
36.0
36.0
H237-04
SR 237 WB On-Ramp at Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View
8.0
8.0
H237-05
SR 237 WB to NB US 101
Sunnyvale
8.0
8.0
Sunnyvale
13.0
13.0
Connector Ramp Improvements
H237-06
SR 237/US 101/Mathilda Ave.
Interchange hnprovements
2. Funded by ITIP.
208
Total Estimated
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Highway Projects (cont.j
VTP ID
H237-08
Project Name
Project
Location/Sponsor
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
C03$/Millions)
('OS$/MUlkms)
SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lanes from
MatMlda Ave. to Fair Oaks Ave.
Sunnyvale
$5.0
$5.0
Lawrence Expwy./SR 237
Auxiliary Lane Improvement
Sunnyvale
3.0
3.0
H237-10
SR 237 WB Auxiliary Lane between
Coyote Creek Bridge & North First St.
Milpitas, San Jose
15.0
15.0
H280-05
1-280 NB—Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expwy.
Cupertino, Los Altos
1.0
1.0
H680-01
1-680 HOY Lanes—
Milpitas, San Jose,
Calaveras Blvd. to SR 84
Fremont
25.0
25.0
H237-09
H680-02
H880-03
I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Environmental
Milpitas, San Jose,
& Conceptual Engineering
Fremont
7.0
7.0
San Jose
14.0
14.0
5.0
5.0
Los Altos, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale
$48.0
$48.0
1-880/1-280/ Stevens Creek Blvd.
Interchange Improvements—^Phase I
HOO-01
High Occupancy Toll Lane
Demonstration Project Development
Countywide
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
H85-03
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between
Fremont Ave. & El Camino Real
H85-04
SR 85 Auxiliary Lanes between El Camino Real
& SR 237 & SR 85/El Camino Real
Interchange Improvements
Mountain View
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from
Stevens Creek Blvd. to Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.
Cupertino,
41.0
41.0
San Jose
25.0
25.0
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from
Saratoga/Sumiyvale Rd. to Saratoga Ave.
San Jose,
Saratoga
32.0
32.0
SR 85 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes from North of
Winchester Blvd. to Saratoga Ave.
Saratoga, San Jose,
Campbell,
Los Gatos
31.0
31.0
San Jose
40.0
40.0
Interchange Construction—Phase I
San Jose
71.0
71.0
moi-ii
US lOI/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St.
Interchange Construction—Phase 11
San Jose
10.0
10.0
H10M7
US 101 SB Braided Ramps between
San Jose
21.0
21.0
H85-06
H85-07
H85-08
HlOl-10
H101-11
US lOI/Mabury Rd./Taylor St.
Interchange Construction
US lOI/Zariker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St.
Capitol Expwy. & Yerba Buena Rd.
VTP 2030
209
Highway Projects (conh)
VTPID
Project Name
Project
Location/Sponsor
Total Estimated
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocation
('OS$/MiUions)
COS$/MiUions)
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cont.)
HlOl-18
US 101 NB Braided Ramps between
San Jose
$21.0
$21.0
HlOl-21
US 101/Buena Vista Ave. Interchange Construction Gilroy
20.0
20.0
HlOl-27
US 101 SB to EB SR 237 Connector Improvements Sunnyvale
55.0
55.0
H237-07
SR 237 EB to Mathilda Ave. Flyover Off-Ramp
Surmyvale
17.0
17.0
H237-11
SR 237 EB Auxiliary Lane between
Zanker Rd. & North First St.
San Jose,
Coimty
6.0
6.0
1-280 NB Braided Ramps
between Foothill Expwy. & SR 85
Cupertino,
Los Altos
34.0
34.0
between 3rd St. & 7th St.
San Jose
22.0
22.0
1-680 NB/SB Auxiliary Lanes
from McKee Rd. to Berryessa Rd..
San Jose
46.0
46.0
$9.0
$9.0
300.0
300.0
65.0
65.0
272.0
272.0
10.0
10.0
H280-02
H280-04
H680-03
1-280 Downtown Access Improvements
Projects That Were Not Submitted to MTC
HI7-02
HI 52-05
H880-04
SR 17 Improvements, NB SR 17 to
San Jose,
NB SR 85 Direct Connector
Los Gatos
Limited access four-lane facility and partial
new alignment between 1-5 & US 101;
possible toll road
Gilroy,
Santa Clai'a County,
San Benito County,
Merced Coimty
I-880/SR 237 Flyover—
NB 1-880 to WB SR 237
H880-05
H880-06
1-880 Widening for HOY Lanes
Milpitas,
from SR 237 to Old Bayshore
San Jose
I-880/Kato Rd. Overcrossing (with
Cormections to Dixon Landing Rd.
& Scott Creek Rd.)
210
MUpitas
Valley Transportation Authority
Fremont,
Milpitas
APPENDIX
Expressway Projects
(fiscally constrained) and Tier lb (fiscally
The projects m this list are taken directly from
for the County Expressway Program covers the
the Comprehensive Countywide Expressway
total project costs for all Tier la projects. Cost
Planning Study (GGEPS) conducted by the
savings due to local contributions to Tier la
Santa Clara County Roads and Airports
projects may be applied to Tier lb projects.
unconstrained) projects. The $150m allocation
Department m 2001. The list includes Tier la
, Expressway Projects—^Allocation Amount $150.0 million
VTPID
Project Name
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
('OS$/Milli<ms)
Tier 1A Projects (Fiscally Constrained)
XOl
Almaden Expwy.—Initiate a Caltrans Project Study Report/
$0.0
X02
Almaden Expwy.—Provide interim operational improvements at SR 85/Aimaden Expwy.
2.0
X03
Aimaden Expwy.—Widen to eight ianes between Coleman Ave. & Biossom Hill Rd.
8.0
X04
Central Expwy.—Convert the Measure B HOV lane widening between San Tomas Expwy.
& De La Cruz Bivd. to mixed flow & remove the HOV queue jutnp ianes at Scott Blvd.,
if unsuccessful after a three- to five-year trial period
0.1
X05
X06
Central Expwy.—Widen to six lanes between Lawrence & San Tomas Expvirys.
without HOV lane operations
10.0
Central Expwy.—Widen between Lawrence Expwy. & Mary Ave. to provide auxiiiary
and/or acceleration/deceleration lanes
13.0
X07
Foothill Expwy.—Replace Loyola Bridge
10.0
X08
Footliill Expwy..—^Traffic/signal operational corridor improvements between Edith Ave.
& El Monte Ave. including adjacent side street intersections & Grant Rd./St. Joseph Ave.
1.5
X09
FoothUl Expwy.—Extend existing WB deceleration lane at San Antonio
0.5
XI0
Lawrence Expwy.—Convert HOV to mixed fiow lanes between US 101 & Elko Dr.
0.1
xn
Lawrence Expwy.—Close median at Lochinvar Ave. & right-in-and-out access at DeSoto Ave.,
Golden State Dr., Granada Ave., Buckley St., & St. Lawrence/Laivrence Station Rd. on-ramp
0.5
XI2
La-wrence Expwy.—Widen to 8 lanes between Moorpark Ave./BoUinger Rd.& south of Calvert Dr.
4.0
X13
Lawrence Expwy.—Optimize signal coordination along Lawrence-Saratoga Ave. corridor
0.1
XU
Lawrence Expwy.—Coordinate & optimize signal phasing & timing plans
in 1-280/Lawrence Interchange area
0.1
1. PSR cannol be funded by fund source. PSE estimated cost $250,000.
VTP 2030
211
Expressway Projects (cent.)
VTPID
Project Name
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
('OSS/Millmu)
X15
Lawrence Expwy.—Prepare Caltrans Project Study Report for Tier IC project
$0.0
X16
Montague Expwy.^Conveft HOV lanes to mixed-flow use east of 1-880
X17
Montague Expwy.—^Baseline project consisting of 8-lane widening & 1-880 partial-clover
Interchange with at-grade improvements at Lick Mill Blvd., Plumeria Dr./River Oaks Pkwy.,
Main St./01d Oaldand Rd., & McCandless Dr./Trade Zone Blvd.
0.1
38.5
X18
Oregon Page Mill Expwy. corridor improvements
X19
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—I-280/Page Mill Interchange modification
5.0
X20
Oregon Page Mill Expwy.—Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study
0.3
X21
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide additional WB right-turn lane at Monroe St.
1.0
X22
San Tomas Expwy.—Widen to eight Itmes between Willituns Rd. & El Camino Real
X23
San Tomas Expwy.—Provide 2nd EB, WB,& NB left-tiun lanes at Hamilton Ave.
2.0
X24
Sein Tomas Exp-wy.—At-grade improvements at SR 17/San Tomas Expwy.
2.0
X25
Expressway Traffic Information Outlets
5.0
X26
Expressway Signal Coordination with City Signals
X27
5.0
28.0
10.0
Equipment to connect with Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Moimtaln View,& Los Altos traffic
signal interconnect systems
2.5
X28
Upgrade traffic signal system to allow automatic traffic count collection
0.5
X29
Capitol Expwy. street improvements—intersection modifications, left-turn lane,
carpool lane adjustments, and stripping modifications
2.0
X30
Widen Almaden Expwy. to eight lanes firom Blossom HUl Rd. to Branham Rd.
Measure B LOS Project, not included in the CCPES
3.2
Tier 1B Projects (Fiscally Unconstrained)
X31
Capitol Expwy.—Interchange at Silver Creek Rd.
X32
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at Arques Ave. with Square loops along Kern Ave.& Titan Way
35.0
X33
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at KLfer Rd.
45.0
X34
Lawrence Expwy.—^Interchange at Monroe St.
45.0
X35
Montague Expwy.—^Trimble Rd. Flyover
15.0
2. PSR cannot be funded by fund source. PSR estimated cost $500,000.
212
55.0
Valley Transporfation Authority
APPENDIX
Expressway Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Nome
Allocation and Total
Estimated Project Cost
COSS/Millions)
X36
X37
Montague Expwy.—At-grade improvements at Mission College Blvd.
& partial clover Interchange at US 101
$11.0
Montague Expvyy.—^McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Ave. square loop Interchange
60.0
Local Streets and County Roads Projects
The Local Streets and County Roads Fund
projects not connected to new development
Program was created to address the
projects. A rninimum 20-percent local match is
difficulties Member Agencies have with raising
required for LSOR projects.
revenues for local streets and county roads
Local Streets and County Roads Projects—Allocation Amount $230.0 million
VTP ID
ROl
Project
Total
Sponsor/Location
Project Cost
VTP 2030
Allocation
C03$/MiUims)
C03$/Milli<ms)
Project Name
Calaveras Blvd. Overpass Widening
with Operational Improvements
Milpitas
Oakland Rd. Widening from US 101 to Montague
R03
R04
R02
R05
$40.0
$32.0
San Jose
10.0
3.7
Coleman Ave. Widening
San Jose
14.0
11.2
Berryessa Rd. Widening—^US 101 to 1-680
San Jose
7.0
5.6
Mathilda Ave./SR 237 Corridor Improvements
(Mary Ave. Extension)
Sunnjwale
50.0
25.0
Chynoweth Ave. Extension from
East of Almaden Expwy.
San Jose
15.1
6.3
R07
Mathilda Ave. Caltrain Bridge Reconstruction
Sunnyvale
17.4
3.5
R08
Autumn St. Extension
San Jose
10.0
8.0
R09
Story Rd. Improvement from Senter Rd.
to McLaughlin Ave.
San Jose
2.0
0.4
R06
VTP 2030
213
Local Streets and County Roods Projects (cont.)
VIP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocation
('03$/MilUoms)
RIO
R11
Rengstorff Ave. Grade Separation
Environmental Documentation
Mountain View
$0.3
$0.2
Montague Expwy./Great Mall
Parkway-Capitol Ave. Grade Separation
Milpitas
24.5
17.5
8.2
3.9
R12
Branham Ln. Widening from Wsta Park Dr.to Snell Ave. San Jose
R13
Dixon Landing Rd. Widening
Milpitas
0.6
0.5
R14
Gilman Rd/Arroyo Circle/
Camino Arroyo Improvements
Gilroy
7.0
5.6
R15
Loyola Dr./Foothill Expwy. Intersection
Coimty
10.0
8.0
R16
Charcot Ave. Connection
San Jose
36.0
23.2
R17
Snell Ave. Widening from
San Jose
3.2
2.8
Branham Ln. to Chynoweth Ave.
R18
Lucretia Ave. Widening from Story Rd.to Phelan Ave. San Jose
R19
Almaden Plaza Way Widening
R20
Senter Rd. Widening Project
9.0
3.5
County
0.8
0.6
San Jose
6.8
5.4
Los Gatos-Almaden Rd. to Ross Creek
San Jose
1.7
1.4
R22
Downtown Couplet Conversions
San Jose
20.0
16.0
R23
Lawrence Expwy./Wildwood Ave.
Roadway Realignment & Traffic Si^al
Sunnyvale
4.4
3.5
R24
Butterfield Blvd. Extension
Morgan Hill
14.0
7.2
R25
Campbell Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
Campbell
R21
Union Ave. Widening from
2.0
1.6
R26
Blossom HUl Rd. Bike/Ped Improvements
San Jose
6.8
5.4
R27
King Rd. Pedestrian Improvement at Barberry Ln.
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R28
Uvas Park Dr. Roadway Extension
Gilroy
2.2
1.8
R29
Winchester Blvd. Streetscape Improvement
San Jose
4.0
0.8
at Monterey Hwy.
County
1.2
0.5
R31
Quito Rd. Improvements
San Jose
1.9
1.5
R32
Fitzgerald Ave./Masten Ave.
Realignment at Monterey Rd.
County
0.9
0.8
R33
Dixon Landing Rd./North Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas
1.0
0.8
Intersection Signahzation
County
0.4
0.3
Park Ave. Improvement
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R30
Railroad Crossing; San Martin Ave.
Intersection Improvements
R34
R35
214
('OSS/Million
Magdalena Ave. at Country Club Dr.
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Local Streets and County Roads Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
Project Cost
('03$/Mill'ions)
R36
Railroad Crossing—
Church St. at Monterey Rd.(San Martin)
Cormty
R37
Java Dr. Bicycle Shared Use Improvements
(Class II & III Bike Lanes)
VTP 2030
Allocation
('OSS/MilHon
$0.5
$0.4
Sunnyvale
0.4
0.3
5.0
R39
Smart Residential Arterials Project
Palo Alto
6.2
R40
HiU Road Extension
County
5.0
4.0
at Edmunson Ave.
Coimty
5.0
4.0
Santa Teresa Blvd./Fitzgerald Ave.
Intersection Signalization
County
0.3
0.2
R49
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.
County
0.2
0.2
R50
First St.(SR 152) Roadway Widening—
Monterey St. to Church St.
Gilroy
1.2
0.9
Traffic Calming Elements
County
2.0
1.6
R60
Miramonte Ave. Bikeway Improvements
Los Altos
1.0
0.8
R75
Moody Rd. Improvements
Los Altos HUls
0.2
0.2
R81
Wedgewood Ave. Improvements
Los Gatos
0.6
0.4
R89
Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase II
Saratoga
0.5
0.4
R91
Rancho RinconadaTTaffic Calming Project
Cupertino
0.1
0.1
R43
R44
R51
DeWitt Ave./Sunnyside Ave. Realignment
Alum Rock School District Area
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
R38
Martha St. Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor
San Jose
$3.3
$2.7
R41
Dehnas Ave. Streetscape Improvement
San Jose
0.9
0.7
R42
Bird Ave. Pedestrian Corridor
San Jose
0.9
0.7
R4S
Reed St. Pedestrian Corridor Project
San Jose
1.4
0.7
R46
North 13th St. Streetscape Project
San Jose
1.6
0.5
R47
Balbach St. Bike/Ped Improvements
San Jose
1.4
1.1
R48
Taylor St. Improvement
San Jose
1.0
0.8
R52
Sterlin Rd./Shoreline Blvd. Intersection Modification
Mountain View
0.2
0.2
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.2
1.0
R54
Auzerais Ave. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
San Jose
1.9
0.4
R55
ITS Improvement on Santa Teresa Blvd.
County
1.0
0.8
R53
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd./Remmington Dr.
VTP 2030
215
Local Streets and County Roads Projects (corit.)
VIP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total
VTP 2030
Project Cost
Allocotion
COSS/Millions)
('OSS/Million.
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cent.)
R56
Downtown Sunnyvale/Mathilda Blvd.
Sunnyvale
R57
Keyes St. Streetscape Improvement Project
San Jose
R58
Mary Ave. Bicycle Improvement
Sunnyvale
R59
Almaden Rd.Improvement—
Malone Rd. to Curtner Ave.
$1.9
1.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
San Jose
2.0
1.6
0.3
R61
Junipero Serra Blvd. Shoulder Widening
County
0.4
R62
Easy St./Gladys Ave. Intersection Modification
Mountain View
0.3
0.2
R63
Mary Ave./Evelyn Ave. Intersection
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R64
Mary Ave./El Camino Real Intersections
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R65
White Rd. Streetscape
County
1.0
0.8
R66
Senter Rd. Improvement Project
San Jose
6.8
2.5
Alum Rock Ave. to Mabury Rd.
San Jose
2.0
1.5
Bicycle Blvd. Network Project
Palo Alto
0.8
0.6
Pockets and Shoulder Widening
County
5.0
4.0
R70
Gifford Ave. Streetscape
San Jose
0.5
0.4
R71
Loyola Comers Traffic Circle
County
0.5
0.4
Intersection Improvement
Simnyvale
6.0
0.5
R73
Hyland Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
County
0.7
0.6
R74
West San Carlos St. Streetscape
Improvement Project
San Jose
1.4
0.7
County
0.2
0.1
County
0.2
0.1
Ave./Lawrence Expwy. Area
County
0.3
0.2
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on Alum Rock
Ave. South of Migueiita Creek Ped Bridge
Covmty
0.3
0.2
1-880 to Meridian Ave.
San Jose
6.0
4.8
R82
Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor
County
3.9
3.2
R83
Farrell Ave. Bridge Widening
Gilroy
1.5
1.2
R67
R68
R69
R72
R76
White Rd. Pedestrian Improvement—
McKean Rd. and Watsonvfile Rd. Left-Tum
Wolfe Rd./Red Ave. Old San Francisco Rd.
East HiUs/Florence Area Bicycle/
Pedestrian Improvements
R77
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements on McKee Rd.
between White Rd. & Staples Ave.
R78
R79
R80
216
$2.4
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements in the Mitty
Scott St. Pedestrian Corridor—
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Local Streets and County Roods Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Total
Sponsor/Location
Project Cost
COSS/MilUaiis)
VTP 2030
Allocation
('OSS/Million
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects (cont.)
R84
Citywide Sidewalk Improvements
Gilroy
R85
DeWitt Ave. S-Curve Realignment
County
R86
R87
$1.8
$1.5
1.0
0.8
Abom Rd. Pedestrian Improvements at Irwindale Dr. San Jose
1.0 n
0;8
Fair Oaks Ave./Arques Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
R88
Wolfe Rd./Kifer Rd. Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.2
1.0
R90
Washington Ave./Mathilda Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Sunnyvale
1.1
0.4
Intersection Improvements
Sunnyvale
1.0
0.8
R93
McLaughlin Ave. Streetscape Project
San Jose
1.5
1.0
R94
Calaveras Rd. Improvements(Rural Area)
County
3.0
2.4
R95
West Virginia St. Streetscape &
Pedestrian Crossings Project
Stm Jose
1.0
0.4
R96
Garden Area Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
County
0.5
0.4
R97
Metal Beam Guardrails on County Roads
County
0.3
0.2
R98
El Monte Rd./I-280 Improvements
Los Altos Hills
0.2
0.2
for Employment Areas
Sunnyvale
7.2
5.8
RlOO
Citywide Traffic Calming Program
Sunnyvale
1.0
0.8
R101
Aldercroft Creek Bridge/Old Santa Cioiz Hwy.
Cmmty
1.7
1.3
Intersections & Traffic Signals
Gilroy
2.0
1.6
R103
Junipero Serra Blvd. Traffic Calming
Coimty
0.5
0.4
R104
New Pavement Markers and Signs
County
0.3
0.2
Improvements
Gilroy
0.7
0.6
R106
Burbank Area StreetJighting Project
County
0.2
0.1
R107
Countywide Pedestrian Ramps
County
0.3
0.2
R108
Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal
Saratoga
0.3
0.2
R109
Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements in
the Toyon Rd. Area
Coimty
0.8
0.6
R92
R99
R102
R105
Mary Ave./Fremont Ave.
Comprehensive Sidewalk Network
Mantelli Dr. Corridor Improvements:
Citywide Class n & in Bicycle Route
R110
Oak Place & Highway 9 Pedestrian Signal
Saratoga
0.2
0.2
R111
Herriman Dr. Traffic Signal Project
Saratoga
0.3
0.2
VTP 2030
217
Transit Projects
new regional rail services, community-oriented
The Transit Program identifies specific transit
enhanced commuter rail service. Funds for this
bus service operated with small vehicles, and
projects to be implemented during the time-
program come from the 2000 Measm-e A and
frame of the plan. These projects include new
from other local. State and Federal sources.
light rail extensions, bus rapid transit corridors,
Transit Projects—Allocation Amount $6,829.0 million'
VTP ID
TO
T1
T2
T3
T4
Project Name
City
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030 Measure A
Allocation
('03$/Millkms)
('OSS/Mill-iom)
Operating Assistance
2006-2036"
All Cities
ACE Upgrade
Santa Clara, San Jose
$1,003.0
$1,003.0
22.0
22.0
BART to MUpitas, San Jose
MUpitas, San Jose,
& Santa Clara"
Santa Clara
4,193.0
2,453.0
1,740.0
Bus Rapid Transit(Line 22,
Stevens Creek)
Monterey, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Surmyvale,
Santa Clara, San Jose,
Cupertino
50.0
33.0
17.0
233.0
417.0
171.0
155.0
16.0
GUroy
100.0
61.0
39.0
Caltrain Electrification''
Palo Alto,
Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara,
San Jose, Morgan Hill,
GUroy
T5
Caltrain Service Upgrades
(VTA Share)"
Caltrain-South County"
San Jose, Morgan HUl,
T7
Downtown East Valley(DTEV)'
San Jose
550.0
550.0
T8
Dumbarton RaU
Palo Alto
278.0
44.0
T9
Highway 17 Bus Service
Improvements
Los Gatos,
Campbell, Sair Jose
2.0
2.0
TBD
188.0
1.0
1.0
TIO
New Rail Corridors—Phase U
Til
New Rail Corridors Study—
conceptual alignment
evaluations"
218
650.0
Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara,
San Jose, Morgain Hill,
Gilroy
T6
Funding from
Other Sources
COSS/MMiovs)
Valley Transportation Authority
234.0
APPENDIX
Transit Projects (cont.)
VTP ID
T12
Project Name
City
Total Estimated
Project Cost
VTP 2030 Measure A
Allocation
COS$/Millions)
(•OSS/Millicms)
Funding from
Other Sources
C03$/Milli<ms)
Mineta San Jose International
$400.0
$222.0
$178.0
Palo Alto
200.0
50.0
150.0
All Cities
17.0
Airport APM Connector
Srm Jose
T13
Palo Alto Intermodal Center'"
T16
Zero Enrission Bus(ZEB)
Demonstration Program
17.0
Fiscally Unconstrained Projects
T15
T16
New Rail Corridors—
Phase 2"
1,031.0
TBD
Zero Emission Buses(ZEBs)
& Facilities"
AU Cities
260.0
260.0
1. Includes $973 million in Federal New Starts Fuitds, $5,017 billion from 2000 Measure A, $732 million from TCRP, and $107 million fi'om
Proposition 42 (STIP).
2. 2000 Measure A funds dedicated to future transit operations representing 18.45% of Measure A revenues.
3. Measure A need for BART project is net of $649m in TCRP funds, $834m Federal New Starts, $107m Prop. 42 STIP.and $69m in other funds.
Does not assume additional bonding for construction.
4. Full funding for Caltrain electrification is dependent on full funding front Caltrain JPB partners.
6. Caltrain service upgrades include track and facility'; improvements and additional service.
6. Caltrain upgrades in South County include double-tracking and station improvements.
7. DTBV includes Enhanced Bus or LRT in the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor plus LRT on Capitol Expressway to Eastridge with an extension to
Nieman Boulevard. A specific strategy to be developed as EIR/EIS and PE are completed on both portions.
8. The costs and phasing of new rail corridor projects will be determined as part of the planning study (see note 6).
9. Long-range planning study would evaluate the feasibility, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of several light rail extensions and lines.
New rail corridors to be considered include Vasona extension to Vasona Junction, DTEV Eastridge Area to Hwy 87, Santa Teresa extension to
Coyote Valley, extensions to Morgan Hill, Stevens Creek Blvd., West San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale/Cupertino, and North Coimty/Palo Alto.
10. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center I'equires additional funds not identlTied at this time.
11. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) assumes 15% Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs). Currently, VTA is testing ZEE technology with a demonstration
project. Based on the results of this project, the viability of the technology will be reassessed. The ZBB program may move up in the Measure A
program with future VTP updates.
VTP 2030
219
operation and management of the overall
Transportation Systems
Operations and
Management Projects
transportation system. These new technologies
are collectively referred to as hitelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), and include
electronics, computer, and communications
The Transportation Systenas Operations and
infrastructure. These projects are subject to the
Management(TSOM)Program includes
CMP CiP 20-percent local match.
projects that use technology to improve the
ITS Projects —Allocation Amount $28.0 million
VTPID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Totol Project
VIP 2030
Cost
Allocation
COS$/Millio)is)
('OSS/Millions)
$0.2
S102
City of Campbell Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Campbell
0.3
0.2
S103
Winchester Blvd. Intelligent Transportation System
Campbell
0.3
0.3
S300
City of Gihoy Adaptive TVafBc Signal Control System
Gilroy
0.9
0.7
S301
City of Gilroy Event Management System
Gilroy
0.9
0.7
S302
City of Gilroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Gilroy
3.9
3.1
S303
City of Gilroy Flood Watch Cameras
Gilroy
0.5
0.4
S600
Town of Los Gatos Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Los Gatos
0.3
0.2
S701
South Milpitas Boulevard Smart Corridor
Milpitas
0.5
0.4
S702
City of Milpitas Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Milpitas
0.8
0.6
S703
City of Milpitas CCTV Camera Deployment
on Major TVavel Corridors
Milpitas
0.3
0.2
Morgan Hill
0.1
0.04
Morgan Hill
0.4
0.3
Moimtain View
0.4
0.3
Palo Alto
6.2
5.0
Santa Clara
3.5
2.8
S900
Cochrane Ave. Corridor Traffic
Signal System Improvement
S901
City of Morgan HUl Traffic Signal
System Improvement
SIOOO
Rengstorff Ave. Corridor Traffic Signal
System Improvement
Slid
City of Palo Alto Smart Residential
Arterlals Project'
S1200
City of Santa Clara Communications
Network Upgrade
1. Ako listed a-s a Local Streets and County Roads Project,
220
$0.3
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
ITS Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP 20
Cost
Allocoti
COS$/MUlicms)
S1201
SI 202
51301
51401
(■OSS/Mill.
City of Santa Clara Traffic Signal System
Cabinet & Controller Replacement
Santa Clara
$3.2
$2.6
City of Santa Clara Transportation Management
Center Upgrade
Santa Clara
0.4
0.3
Upgrade Project—Phase IP
Saratoga
0.5
0.4
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Adaptive Signal System
on Mru'or Arterials
Sunnyvale
2.8
2.2
City of Saratoga Citywide Signal
51402
City of Sunnyvale CCTV Camera Deployment
Sunnyvale
0.6
0.5
51403
City of Sunnyvale Traffic Signal Controller Update
Sunnyvale
0.5
0.4
51404
City of Suimyvale Count &
Speed Monitoring Stations
Smmyvale
0.9
0.7
51405
City of Sunnyvale ITS Communications Infi astructure Sunnyvale
1.5
1.2
51406
City of Suimyvale TMC Integration
Sunnyvale
0.2
0.2
52001
City of San Jose Proactive Signal Timing
Program Phase II
San Jose
1.0
0.8
Sihcon Valley Sub-Regional Transportation
Management Center
San Jose
7.5
6.0
City of Sem Jose Transportation & Incident
Management Center (TIMC)/PD CAD Integration
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52004
City of San Jose Smart Intersections
San Jose
4.0
3.2
52005
City of San Jose Field Equipment Upgrade
San Jose
3.0
2.4
Communications Network
San Jose
9.8
7.8
City of San Jose Neighborhood Business District
(NED) ITS Deployment
San Jose
3.0
2.4
Incident Management System
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52009
City of San Jose Motorists Information System
San Jose
1.4
1.1
52010
King/Story Roads Smart Corridor
San Jose
3.0
2.4
52011
Brokaw/Hostetter Roads Smart Corridor
San Jose
2.0
1.6
52002
52003
52006
52007
52008
City of San Jose Transportation
City of San Jose Downtown Freeway &
VTP 2030
221
ITS Projects (cent.)
VTPID
Project Nome
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP20;
Cost
Allocail(
('03$/Millkms)
S2012
City of San Jose Red Light Running
Enforcement Program
San Jose
$0.5
$0.4
City of San Jose Advanced Parking
Management System
San Jose
1.5
1.2
County of Santa Ciara Traffic Operations
System Improvements
County
18.0
14.4
S3002
ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave.'
Cotmty
0.2
0.2
S3003
ITS Enhancements on Santa Teresa Blvd.
County
1.0
0.8
Caltrans
3.6
2.9
Caltrans
5.4
4.3
Caltrans
5.7
4.6
Caltrans
4.8
3.8
Calti'ans
2.2
1.8
S2013
S3001
S4010
Caltrans 1-880 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering^
S4020
Caltrans 1-680 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp MeteiingS4030
Caltrans SR 237 Corridor TOS Eiements
C&; Ramp MeteringS4040
Caltrans SR 85 Corridor TOS Elements
& Reimp Metering^
S4050
Caltrans 1-280 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering''
S4060
Caltrans US 101 Corridor TOS Elements
& Ramp Metering^
Caltrans
3.0
2.4
S5004
Silicon Valley—^ITS (SV-ITS) Program Upgrades
San Jose
27.0
21.6
S6000
Countywide Ramp Metering Study
VTA/Countywide
0.5
0.4
S6010
Ti'ansit ITS
VTA/Countywide
5.0
4.0
2. Covered by project identified in VTA Highway Program.
222
('03$/Milli
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Bicycle Projects
document that served as the Bicycle Element
In 2000, VTA adopted the Santa Clara
Element of VTP 2030. The Countywide Bicycle
Goimtywide Bicycle Plan (CEP), a stand-alone
Plan will be updated in 2005.
of VTP 2020, and also serves as the Bicycle
Bicycle Projects —Allocation Amount $90.5 million
VTP ID
BOl
Project Nome
Project
Total Project
Sponsor/Location
Cost
Allocation/
C03$/MiUions)
(WS/MiMu
Campbell Ave. improvements at Hwy 17
VTP 202
& Los Gatos Creek
Campbell
$1.5
$1.2
Los Gatos Creek Trail expansion on west side
(Hamilton to Campbell)
Campbell
2.0
1.6
Los Gatos Creek Trail bridge & path
improvements (Mozart Ave. to Camden Ave.)
Campbell
0.8
0.6
Coyote Creek Trail (Hellyer Ave. to
Anderson Lake County Park)
County Parks
1.3
1.0
Almaden Expwy.
(Ironwood Dr. to Koch Ln.)
County Roads
and Airports
2.3
1.8
Bicycle shoulder delineation
along expressways
Coimty Roads
and Airports
0.6
0.5
Foothill Expwy./Loyola Dr. structural
improvements m Los Altos'
and Airports
10.0
2.0
McKean Rd. shoulder improvements
(Harry Rd. to Bailey Ave.)
County Roads
and Airports
5.0
4.0
Page Mill Expwy,/l-280 interchange
bike improvements^
Cotmty Roads
and Airports .
n 5.0
1.0
BIO
Bellinger Rd. bicycle facility improvement
Cupertino
0.4
0.2
Bit
Mary Ave.(1-280) Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing
Cupertino
7.1
6.8
Park Phase I & 2)
Gilroy
11.9
0.5
Uvas Creek Trail Study (Sports Park to
Gavilan College)
Gilroy
0.2
0.1
Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Bridge replacement
Los Altos
0.5
0.4
B02
BOG
B04
BOS
BOS
B07
BOB
B09
B12
BIG
B14
County Roads
Uvas Creek Trail (part of Gilroy Sports
1. Also included in the VTP 2030 Local Streets and County Roads and Expressway Programs.
2. Also included m the VTP 2030 Expressway Program.
VTP 2030
223
Bicycle Projects (cdnt.)
VTP ID
Project Nome
Project
Sponsor/Location
Total Project
VTP 2030
Cost
Allocation/BEP
('03$/Millions)
COSS/Millions)
BIS
Stevens Creek Trail feasibility study
Los Altos
$0.1
$0.1
B16
Berryessa Creek Trail(Reach 3)
Mhpitas
0.9
0.4
B17
Coyote Creek Trail (Reach 1)
MUpitas
1.2
0.6
BIB
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of UPRR tracks
(near Great Mall)
MUpitas
5.6
4.5
B19
Hwy.9 Bike Lanes(Saratoga Ave. to Los Gatos Blvd.) Monte Sereno
1.4
Coyote Creek Trail Connection
Morgan Hill
0.5
0.4
B21
West Little Llagas Creek Trail
Morgan HUl
1.5
1.2
B22
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Central
Moimtain View
4.0
3.2
B23
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Soutlt
Mountain View
5.0
4.0
B24
Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4, Segment 2 North
(Yuba Drive to North Meadow)
Mountain View
3.8
1.2
B20
B25
Bicycle Blvd./Lanes Network
Palo Alto
5.0
4.0
9.0
4.0
B26
California Ave. Caitrain Undercrossing®
Palo Alto
B27
Homer Ave. Caitrain Undercrossing
Palo Alto
5.6
1.0
B28
Almaden Expwy. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing'
San Jose
5.7
4.6
Pedestrian Overcrossmg'
San Jose
5.0
4.0
Coyote Creek Trail
(SR 237/Bay Trail to Story/Keyes)
San Jose
6.1
4.9
B29
B30
Branham Lane/US 101 Bike/
B31
Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso to 1-880)
San Jose
5.1
4.1
B32
Los Gatos Creek Trail (Reach 4)
San Jose
4.8
3.6
B33
Los Gatos Creek Trail(Reach 5)
San Jose
6.4
5.1
B35
Guadalupe River Bridge at River Oaks
San Jose,
Santa Clara, VTA
2.8
1.8
Santa Clara
17.0
5.0
Santa Clara
5.0
4.0
B36
B37
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail
(SR 237 to City Limits)
Santa Clara Intermodal Transit Center
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing^
3. Also included In the VTP 2030 Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program, currently under development.
224
1.7
Valley Transportation Authority
APPENDIX
Bicycle Projects (cent.)
VTP ID
Project Name
Project
Total Project
VTP 2030
Sponsor/Location
Cost
Allocotion/BEP
COSS/Millicms)
('03$/Millums)
B38
Cox Ave. Railroad Grade Crossings
Saratoga
$0.5
$0.4
B39
PGE De Anza Trail CReach 3)
Saratoga
2.5
2.0
B40
Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing
Sunnyvale
6.5
5.2
B41
Borregas Ave. Bike Lanes
(Weddell Dr. to Caribbean Dr.)
Sunnyvale
0.2
0.1
at US 101 &SR 237
Sunnyvale
6.5
5.2
Evelyn Ave. Bike Lanes
(Sunnyvale Ave. to Reed Ave.)
Sunnyvale
0.4
0.3
Sunnyvale East Drainage Trail
(JWC Greenv^ay to Tasman Dr.)
Sunnyvale
0.5
0.4
B45
Surmyvale Train Station North Side Access"
Sunnyvale
1.8
1.4
B46
Pilot Bicycle Parking Program
VTA
0.2
0.1
B42
B43
B44
Borregas Ave. Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossings
VTP 2030
225
Glossary
ABAG—Association of Boy Area
cent sales tax and use the money for a specific
Governments A regional agency responsible for
list of transportation projects and programs in
regional planning (exclucling transportation).
Alameda County.
ABAG publishes forecasts of projected growth
for the region.
26,1990, ADA was signed into law, requiring
Access The facilities and services that make it
public transit systems to make their services
possible to get to any destination, measured by
fuUy accessible to persons with disabilities as
the availability of physical connections (roads,
well as to underwrite a parallel network of
sidewalks, etc.), travel options, ease of move
paratransit service for those who are unable to
ment, and nearness of destinations.
use the regular transit system. In addition, VTA
Access-by-proximity A key concept of the GDT
Program. Focuses on clustering complementary
land uses and well-designed compact develop
ment to combine, reduce or eliminate trips,
reduce automobile trips, and to help achieve the
kind of critical mass that makes vibrant public
life possible.
ACCAAA—Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency The agency responsible
for transportation planning and programming of
transportation funds in Alameda County.
ACE—Altamont Commuter Express A com
muter rail service that nms between the City of
Stockton in San Joaquin County and the City of
San Jose in Santa Clara County. The service is a
must meet the new ADA accessibility design
guidelines for all newly constructed transit
facilities such as light rail stations, bus stops, and
transit centers. All procurement of bus and rail
vehicles must also meet the ADA accessibility
design guidelines.
APIS—^Advanced Parking Information System
APIS provides real-time parking availability infor
mation to drivers. The system provides motorists
with electronic message signs located at key
locations on major streets and freeway ramps
informing motorists where to park.
ASPA—American Society for Public
Administration A professional association in the
field of public administration.
partnership involving VTA, the San Joaquin
ATMS—Advanced Traffic Management
Regional Rail Commission, and the Alameda
System ATMS is a category of intelligent
County Congestion Management Agency.
transportation systems that focuses on the
ACTIA—Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority A special government
agency authorized by State law and created by
the voters of Alameda County to coUect a half-
226
ADA—Americans With Disabilities Act On July
Valley Transportation Authority
management of traffic. It typically includes ramp
metering, traffic management centers (TMCs),
HOV lanes, integrated corridor management,
CCTVs, arterial management, and/or incident
management.
GLOSSARY
Auxiliary Lanes A lane from one on-ramp to
overseeing the work of the VTA staff associated
the next off-ramp to allow vehicles coming on
with bicycle plans, guidelines, and programs.
the freeway or getting off the freeway to have
more time to merge with the through lanes.
These lanes are often installed for safety pur
poses (reduce merging accidents).
BART—Boy Area Rapid Transit The San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Bart Transit District
(BART) prowdes heavy passenger rail service in
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San
AVL—Automated Vehicle Location AVL is the
Francisco counties, between the cities of
use of electronic technologies to aUow fleet
Fremont,Pleasanton, Richmond, Pittsburg, and
managers to know where vehicles are located at
San Francisco.
a given time. Several different types of AVL
technologies exist. The Department of Defense's
Global Positioning System (GPS) is the basis for
several recent transit industry AVL projects. In
addition to its primary use by transit dispatch
BoyCAP—Boy Area Clean Air Partnership
BayCAP is a consensus initiative established by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
the Bay Area Council, the Silicon VaUey
Manufacturing Croup, and other interested
ers and supervisors, AVL can be linked into
organizations to promote greater awareness of
other systems and used to provide real-time
air quality issues, particularly during the critical
arrival information for transit customers, to
ozone season; provide extra encouragement on
support paratransit services, and for a variety
"Spare the Air" days to limiting air.pollution
of other applications.
tlu-ough reduced use of cars, products, equip
BAAQMD—Bay Area Air Qualify
ment or activities that can cause smog; permit
Management District The regional agency cre
businesses and organizations to get credit for
ated by the State legislature for the Bay Area air
emission reductions achieved through volimtary
basin (Alameda, Contra Costa, half of Solano,
programs; and prevent future violations of the
half of Sonoma, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Federal ozone standard.
Mateo, and Santa Clara cormties) that develops,
in conjunction with MTC and ABAC,the air
quality plan for the region. BAAQMD has an
active role in approving the TCM plan for the
region, as well as in controlling stationary and
indirect sources of air pollution.
BEP—Bicycle Expenditure Plan The ten-year
funding program dedicated for the implementa
tion of bicycle projects in Tier 1 of the Santa
Clara Countywide Plan (Bicycle Element of VTP
2030). It includes funding from various local.
State and Federal sources. Projects in the
BAC—Bicycle Advisory Committee An adviso
Bicycle Expenditure Program are required to
ry committee to the VTA that is responsible for
provide a minimum 20 percent local match.
VTP 2030
227
Bicycle Technical Guidelines VTA document
made up of representatives from the comities of
that pro\'ides a uniform set of optimum stan
San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara,
dards for the planning, design, and construction
oversees this commuter rail service.
of bicycle projects in Santa Clara County.
BOD—Board of Directors VTA Board of
Transportation The responsible owner/operator
Directors is composed of 12 elected officials
of the State highway system. Caltrans is respon
appointed by the member cities and County of
sible for the safe operation and maintenance of
Santa Clara. The members of this partnership
roadways.
work together to address the transportation
needs of Santa Clara County.
ColWORKs In response to Federal welfare
reform legislation, the legislature created the
Bottleneck A location on a roadway where the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
traffic demand tends to be greater than its
to Kids (CalWORKs) program, enacted by
capacity. "IVpically, tliis occurs where the num
Chapter 270, Statutes of 1997(AB 1542,
ber of lanes decrease on congested or near-con
Ducheny, Ashburn, Thompson, andMaddy).
gested roadways.
Like its predecessor, Aid to Families with
Braided Ramp Type of freeway on/off-ramp
that consists of grade separated ramp(s) that
keep two major traffic movements from crossing
one another.
BRT—Bus Rapid Transit BRT combines the
Dependent Children, the new program provides
cash grants and welfare-to-work services to
families whose incomes are not adequate to
meet their basic needs. Under CalWORKs, able-
bodied adult recipients (1) must meet participa
tion mandates,(2) are limited to five years of
quality of rail transit and the flexibOity of buses.
cash assistance, and (3) must begin community
It can operate oh exclusive transit-ways, HOV
service employment after no more than 24
lanes, expressways, or ordinary streets. A BRT
months on aid.
system combines mtelligent transportation sys
tems technology, priority for transit, cleaner and
quieter velucles, rapid and convenient fare col
lection, and integration with land use policy.
Capacity The maximum rate of flow that can be
accommodated on a facility segment under pre
vailing conditions. Rate of flow is the number of
vehicles passing a point on a facility during
Caltrain/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
some period of time, expressed in veliicles per
Board Commuter raU service running between
hour or persons per hour.
Gilroy and San Francisco through San Jose. The
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB),
228
Caltrans—California Department of
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Capitol Corridor Intercity Roil Service A 150-
California's public agencies to 1)identify the sig
mile intercity rail service along the Union
nificant environmental effects of their actions;
Pacific ROW Capitol Corridor, which runs
and either 2) avoid those significant environmen
between San Jose and Auburn, tluough Oakland
tal effects where feasible or 3) mitigate those sig
and Sacramento.
nificant environmental effects where feasible.
Carpooling An arrangement in which commuters
Choice—A Key Concept of the CDT Program
share driving and the cost of commuting. A car-
Focuses on the notion that one-size-does-not-
pool is formed with a minimum of two people
fit-aU. A transportation system that is dominated
who commute on a regular basis. The members
by a single mode fosters development patterns
generally share conunon residential and employ
and policies that encourage sprawl, decentral
ment locations as well as common commuting
ization and separation of uses. Choice seeks to
patterns and schedules.
expand the range of options about what kind of
CCTV—Closed-Circuit Television This ITS com
ponent is used for traffic surveillance, where the
signal is transmitted by wire. A CCTV system
home to live in, where that home is located, the
character of the community, and the means of
getting around.
usually commmricates with a centralized facility
CIP—Capital Improvement Program A multi-
such as a TMC or OCC.
year program of projects to maintain or improve
CDP—Count/wide Deficiency Plon A docu
ment that will address deficiencies on Santa
Clara County's freeways and expressways and
include a set of improvements, programs and
actions that are designated to both improve
service on the overall transportation system and
cause a significant improvement m air quality.
COT Program See Community Design and
Transportation Program
CEQA—California Environmental Quality Act
the traffic level-of-service and transit perform
ance standards developed by the CMP, and to
mitigate regional transportation impacts identi
fied by the CMP Land Use Analysis Program,
which conforms to State and Federal air quality
requii'ements. It is updated every other year as
part of the Congestion Management Program
update. The CIP is a ten-year program.
Clean Air Act The Federal law that requires
urban areas with high pollution to modify trans
portation policies in order to reduce emissions.
The basic goal of CEQA is to develop and main
This law makes air quality a primary concern in
tain a high-quality environment now and in the
transportation decisions.
future, while the specific goals of CEQA are for
VfP 2030
229
CMA—Congestion Management Agency The
CMP Roadway Network A network of
CMA is a countywide organization responsible
roadways witliin a CMA that are of regional
for preparing and implementing the county's
significance. The CMP roadway network in
CMP (see definition below). CMAs came into
Santa Clara County consists of freeways,
existence as a result of State legislation and
expressways, urban arterials (six-lane facilities
voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990 (later
or non-residential arterials with average daily
legislation removed the statutory requirements
traffic (ADT) of 30,000 vehicles per day), and
of Proposition 111, making CMAs optional). In
imral highways.
Santa Clara County, VTA is the designated CMA.
Community Design and Transportation (CDT)
CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation and Air
Program A partnership between the VTA and
Quality Improvement Program A Federal
the 15 cities/towns and the comity to develop
funding program established by ISTEA and con
and promote strategies for improving transporta
tinued in TEA-21 specifically for projects and
tion systems and community livability. This
programs that will contribute to the attainment
involves creating areas with high-quality plamiing
of a national ambient air quality standard. The
and design that support walking, biking, and local
funds are available to non-attainment areas for
auto trips. It also promotes concentrated devel
ozone and carbon monoxide based on popula
opment, good access to transit services, multi-
tion and the degree of severity of pollution.
modal street design, and efficient use of land.
Eligible projects wiB be defined by the approved
The CDT program is VTA's primary program for
State Implementation Program (SIP) and the
integrating transportation and land use, and has
State's air quality plan.
CMP—Congestion Management Program
been adopted by each of the 16 city, town and
county governments in Santa Clam County.
A comprehensive program designed to reduce
Commute A home-to-work or work-to-home
traffic congestion, to enhance the effectiveness
trip.
of land use decisions, and to improve air quality.
The program must comply with CMP State
statutes, and vyith State and Federal Clean Air
Acts. Unless otherwise specified, CMP means
Santa Clara Comity's Congestion Management
Program.
Concentrated Development Usually synony
mous with higher-density development than
is the average for the area. Among land use
planners, concentrated development implies a
minimum of multistory, attached residentiai
condominiums or apartments, mid- to high-rise
office or retail, or some mix of these land uses.
230
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Usually, concentrated development comiotes an
Corridors Linear areas, typically centered on a
urban setting located around some type of
single street, that function as the spine of the
transit station, downtown commercial center, or
surrormding coimnunity.
other attraction or amenity. Concentrated devel
opment generally contrasts with "clustered"
development, which may describe a grouping of
detached residential units in a rural or suburban
setting and intended to preserve open space in
a large parcel.
CSS—Commute Services Study A VTA study
document updated every two to three years to
ensure commute services are responsive to
changing commute patterns in Santa Clara
County. The study is an analysis of commute
trips, to assess the viability of existing commute
Congestion The condition of any transportation
bus services and to identify new commute bus
facility in which the use of the facility is so great
service concepts and routes.
that there are delays for the users of that facili
ty. Usually this happens when traffic approaches
or exceeds facility capacity.
CTC—California Transportation Commission
A State agency that sets State spending
priorities for highway and transit and allocates
Connectivity Generally defines how weU a
funding. Members are appointed by the
street network allows pedestrians, bicyclists,
governor.
and non-auto modes to travel in a straight line
(i.e., shortest path) between two points.
Improvement to coimectivity, such as extending
dead-end streets or continuing mterials under
freeways, encourages walking and bicycling.
Planners would contend that a perfect grid or
radial street pattern maximizes connectivity
while cul-de-sacs, at-grade freeways, rail tracks,
and other impediments or intimidating structures
CVO—Commercial Vehicle Operations Use of
ITS technologies to improve travel time and
reliability for freight traffic and reduce the cost
of shipping goods. CVO applications include
satellite tracking of truck traffic, automated
weigh-in-motion scales, and automatic vehicle
identification systems.
Deficiency Deficiencies occur where the
diminish cOimectmty. For auto travel, coimectivity
transportation facilities provided do not confonn
may apply to extending arterial roadways that
to the standards that the area has adopted as
will allow autos to avoid using congested flreeway
minimally acceptable. A deficient roadway in
segments to make short trips.
Santa Clai-a County is one with a Level of
Cores District areas that include many streets
Service (LOS) of F.
and blocks characterized by concentrated devel
opment features.
VIP 2030
231
Delay A measure of the amount of time spent
during a trip due to congestion. It is measured
vacancy rates, and a high cost of living. Long
as the difference in travel time between
term, however, these indicators could presage
congested and free-flow conditions.
Developer Exaction A contribution or payment
required as an authorized precondition for
receiving a development permit; usually refers
to mandatory dedication (or fee in lieu of dedi
cation) requirements foimd in many subdivision
regulations.
Development Impact Fees A fee, also called a
development fee, levied on the developer of a
project by a city, comity, or other public agency
as compensation for otherwise unmitigated
impacts the project wili produce. California
Govermnent Code Section 66000 et seq. speci
fies that development fees shall not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the seiw-
ice for which the fee is charged. To lawfully
economic decline if not addi-essed. It may also
include long-term indicators that measure a
region relative to the State or nation in regard
to wages, construction of high-end housing,
demand for skilled labor, diversity of the indus
trial mix, the share of economic activity related
to new or robust industry sectors (e.g., biotech,
telecommunications, etc.).
Eeo Pass Partnership between Santa Clara
Valley employers and the VTA. Eco Pass is a
transit card with unlimited use of VTA bus and
light rail services. Employers purchase aimual
Eco Pass stickers for full-time employees at a
given site, at one low cost. Pricing levels are
based on proximity to VTA transit services and
the number of employees.
impose a development fee, the public agency
EIR/EIS—Environmental Impact Report/
must verify its method of calculation and docu
Environmental Impact Statement A study
ment proper restrictions on use of the fund.
which analyzes various alternatives for environ
Economic Health A term used to describe the
fundamental and long-term strength of the
economy. The most common measures of a
region's economic health include unemplo5mient
mental impacts, identifies possible mitigations
to reduce impacts, and obtains legally mandated
State and/or Federal environmental clearance
for a chosen preferred alternative.
rate, business output, personal income, the
Electrification To equip rail or bus transit sys
sales growth of indigenous business, and the
tems for use of electric power.
attraction of new business to the area. Short-
term indicators of economic health may include
congestion, lustoricaUy higli cost of housing.
232
parking shortages, low commercial and retail
Valley Transportofion Authority
Evaluation Criteria factors that help to distin
guish the relative value of alternative actions.
GLOSSARY
Final Engineering Finalizes design drawings
and congestion, frequent accidents or stalls, and
and produces construction documents for the
lack of shoulder space for disabled vehicles.
preferred alternative.
FTA—Federal Transit Administration A
Fixed-Route Transit Transit sendee provided
component of the U.S. DepaiTment of
on a repetitive, fixed-schedule basis along a spe
Transportation, delegated by the Secretary of
cific route, vidth vehicles stopping to pick up
Transportation to administer the Federal transit
passengers at and deliver passengers to specific
program under the Urban Mass Transportation
locations.
Flexible Work Hours This is a form of alterna
Act of 1964, as amended, and various other
statutes.
tive work schedule. It Is a policy that gives
FTIP—Federal Transportation Improvement
employees the option of varying their start and
Program All Federally funded projects are
end times each workday. The intent is to allow
required to be included in the FTIP. The FTIP is
employees more flexibility to adjust work hom's
a document that mcludes key information
to meet individual needs and proidde incentive
regarding all Federally ftmded and "regionally
to use commute alternatives.
significant" projects. This document is used as
Flyover Ramp A ramp connecting two roadway
facilities that provides a dhect connection to
avoid congestion, merguig, and/or an intersec
tion.
a common reference point for review and
approval of processes (such as funding, air
quality conformity, etc.) by various State and
Federal agencies. The FTIP is actually a
composition of select projects from State,
Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)The Bay Area
regional and local sources. Each "level" also has
FSP is a joint project of the Metropolitan
its own transportation improvement progi'am
Transportation Commission Service Authority
(TIP). Therefore, in order for a project to be
for Freeways and Expressways(MTC SAFE),
included in the FTIP, it must first be included in
the California Highway Patrol(CHP) and the
a local TIP, then in the RTIP, then in the STIR
California Department of Transportation
Each TIP will require a review and approval
(Caltrans). The seiwice is provided by a fleet of
process by the agency responsible for adminis
74 trucks provided by private tow truck
tering the TIP.
companies under contract with MTC SAFE, and
patrols some 450 miles of the Bay Area's
freeways. Patrol routes are selected based on
several factors, including a high rate of traffic
Golden Triangle The area bounded by US 101,
SR 237, and 1-880 that experienced large job
growth in the 1980s and 1990s.
VTP 2030
233
Grade Separation A grade separation is a
Interconnection - A Key Concept of the CDT
structure necessary to provide for either the
Program Focuses on interconnecting streets,
passage of a roadway or bicycle or pedestrian
pedestrian emd bicycle networks, transit modes,
facUity under or over a rail line.
buildings and developments to get more from
HOT Lanes—High-Occupancy Toll Lanes
Combines the characteristics of HOV lanes and
toll roads by allowing carpools, vanpools, and
tiue, and to form coherent districts and more
livable places.
buses free access, while charging for single
Intermodal The term "mode" refers to and dis
occupant vehicle (SOV) or drive alone use.
tinguishes the various forms of transportation,
HOV Lanes—High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Lanes on heavily congested roadways that are
used exclusively by carpools, vanpools, buses or
any vehicle that transports multiple passengers.
IIP—Interregional Improvement Program A
such as automobile, transit, ship, bicycling and
walking. Intermodal refers specifically to the
connections between modes.
Inter-Agency Indicates cooperation between or
among two or more discrete agencies.
State funding program created by SB-45. IIP
Inter-County Existing or occurring between two
funds may be programmed to projects outside
or more counties.
of the urbanized areas and/or interregional proj
ects. All IIP funds are programmed by Galtrans,
via the Interregional Transportation
Inter-Jurisdictional Existing or occurring
between two or more jurisdictions.
Improvement Plan (ITIP) process, with final
Intra-County Existirrg or occurring within the
approval by CTG.
county boundaries.
Incidents Accidents and other problems that
ISTEA—Intermodal Surface Transportation
cause increased congestion on our roads.
Intensification For residential uses, the
increase in the actual number or the range of
dwelling units per net or gross acre. For nonresidential uses, an increase in the actual or the
maximum permitted floor area ratios CFARs).
234
transportation resources and urban infrastruc-
Valley Transportation Authority
Efficiency Act Federal legislation passed in 1991
and expired in 1997 which restructured much of
the basis for funding highway projections, and
made some of these funds available to urban
areas for transit projects. A key ISTEA compo
nent is increased flexibility in the programming
of projects.
GLOSSARY
ITIP—Interregional Transportation
Livabillty Wlfile this term may encompass as
Improvement Program The ITIP is a four-year
many different meanings as there are workers
planning and expenditure program adopted by
and residents m Santa Clara County, it is used
the CTC and updated in even numbered years.
in the VTP 2030 as a more broadly defined
The ITIP covers rural highway and key interre
synonym for "quality of life" to describe the
gional improvements, including intercity rail.
plan's support for four types of transportation
ITS—Intelligent Transportation Systems
Technologies that improve the management and
efficiency of our transportation system, such as
electronic fare payment systems, ramp meter
ing, timed traffic signals and on-board naviga
tion systems.
investments and services: relief from conges
tion, better facilities and services for non-work
and off-peak trips, attractive travel choices, and
services for a diverse and changing population.
Livabifity describes a resident's satisfaction with
the transportation system in such terms as its
ease of use, convenience, reliability, cost, range
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio
of travel choices, and interference in non-
The availability of housing for employees in a
transportation-related activities.
particular area. The jobs/housing ratio divides
the number of jobs in an area by the number of
employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a
balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net
in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net outcommute.
Long-Range Plan A transportation plan cover
ing a time span of 20 or more years. While the
VTP 2030 is a living docmnent that will be
updated every two to five years, the plan's
methodologies are intended to create perform
ance-based processes that wfil be used to select
LAN—Local Area Network A computer net
projects and design programs over the plan's
work that spans a relatively smaU area. Most
20-year horizon.
LANs are confined to a single building or group
of buildings. However, one LAN can be cormected to other LANs over any distance via tele
phone fines and radio waves.
LOS—Level-of-Service LOS measures the inter
relationship between travel demand (volume)
and supply (capacity) of the transportation sys
tem. LOS is a quantitative measure categorized
Land Use Activities and structures on the land,
into six levels, A through F, with A representing
such as housing, shopping centers, farms, and
ideal conditions—or no congestion—and LOS F
office buildings.
representing poor conditions or congested flow.
The VTA Congestion Management Program has
a standard of LOS E; roadways at LOS F are
considered deficient.
VTP 2030
235
LRT—light Rail Transit LRT operates on an
electrical system powered from an overhead
must include all reasonable alternatives to
wii-e on a dedicated track. The system is
address defined trairsportation problems, and the
capable of operating at high speeds in dedicated
study process must include all affected agencies,
rights of way and at lower speeds on arterial
local governments, MTC, and the public.
streets and downtown environments.
Mitigation An action to reduce or eliminate the
Measure A (1996) A Santa Clara County adri-
impacts of another action.
sory ballot measure passed in 1996 that identi
Mixed Use Refers to a variety of land uses and
fied a specific program of priority transportation
improvement projects in Santa Clara County to
be undertaken as funding became available.
acti-vities "with a mixture of different types of
development, in contrast to separating uses,
such as job sites, retail and housing; multiple
Measure B (1996) A 1996 ballot measure in
land uses m the same structure or same general
Santa Clara County that raised the local sales
area of a community; used to describe buildings
tax by one-half cent for a nine-year period, with
■with different types of use On different floors,
the proceeds being deposited into the county's
particularly commercial uses (such as shops or
General Fund.
banks) on the ground floor ■with flats above.
Measure A (2000)A 2000 ballot measure in
Mobility The movement of people or goods
Santa Clara County that provides a one-half
throughout our communities and across the
cent sales tax for 30 years, beginning in April
region. Mobility is measured in terms of travel
2006. The proceeds would be used to fund
time, comfort, convenience, safety and cost.
several transit projects throughout the coimty.
Modal Split or Mode Shore Modal split
The Measure passed in November 2000.
measures the extent to which travelers use the
Member Agencies Local jurisdictions that are
various available transportation modes. It is
signatories to the CMA's Joint Powers
measured as the proportion of people making a
Agreement. Tins includes all cities and towns
trip using a given mode.
■within the county, Santa Clara County, and the
MPO-^Metropolitan Planning Organization
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
236
project can be included in the RTF. The study
A Federally required transportation planning
MIS—Major Investment Study A study
body responsible for the Regional Transportation
required for major Federally funded transporta
Plan (RTF) and the Transportation Improvement
tion projects (highway and transit) before a
Program (TIP) in its region; the governor
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
designates an MPO in eveiy urbanized area with
means of coimnutmg to work, such as public
a population of over 50,000.
transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or
MTC—Metropolitan Transportation
Commission The metropolitan planning
organization (MPO)for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area.
.Multimodai Of or relating to more than one
walking. Parking cash-out offers the opportunity
to improve air quality and reduce traffic conges
tion by reducing vehicle trips and emissions.
For years, negative tax implications limited the
implementation of the law. But in 1998, the
Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
mode of transportation.
Century (TEA-21) included amendments to the
NEXTEA The next evolution of TBA-21.
Internal Revenue Code that fixed this problem.
OCC—Operations Control Center Centralized
location where transportation operations (traffic
and/or transit) are monitored and conducted.
The parking cash-out law does not apply to all
employers or aU employees. Employers with
over 50 employees in an air basin designated
non-attainment for any State air quality stan
Parotransit Paratransit services are specialized
dard must offer a parking cash-out program to
systems of transportation operated for people
those employees who have the availability of
who are unable to use conventional fixed-route
subsidized parking that meets certain criteria.
transit. Paratransit services provide trips
between a rider's origin and destination, usually
Peak Hour The peak hour of traffic volumes in
an area.
door-to-door. ADA requires that the service be
comparable to the fixed-route service available.
Parking Cash-Out Program State law requires
certain employers who provide subsidized park
ing for their employees to offer a cash allowance
Peak Spreading A ler\gthening of the peak
period of traffic congestion, usually accompa
nied by a flattening of the peak.
Performance Measure A means to measure
in lieu of a parking space. This law is caUed the
whether an objective has been achieved or
parking cash-out program (Assembly Bill 2109,
whether investments or strategies improve over
Katz; Chapter 554, Statutes of 1992), and the
time or across alternatives.
main provision of the law is California Health &
Person Trip A trip made by one person irre
Safety Code Section 43845. It was enacted after
spective of mode.
studies showed cash aliowances in lieu of park
ing encom-age employees to find alternate
VIP 2030
237
Place-making—A Key Concept of the CDT
the Statutes of 1987 requires that any capacity-
Program Focuses on the human-scale elements
increasing project on the State highway system,
of the built environment that create uniqueness
prior to programming in the STIP, have a
and identity and make places attractive, com
completed PSR. The PSR must include a
fortable, and memorable.
detailed description of the project scope and
PMP—Pavement Management Program
Funding program intended to repair or replace
the existing roadway pavement. Funds are
distributed using a population-based and laneirule formula. The cities and county must use a
Pavement Management System certified by the
MTC to identify and prioritize pavement needs.
Preliminary Engineering A study that identi
fies alternatives for attahiing a specified goal.
For each alternative, the document describes
benefits and contains engineering drawings with
enough detail to perform environmental analysis
and gauge construction feasibility.
PR—Project Report Refers to the report used
estimated costs. The intent of this legislation
was to improve the accuracy of the schedule
and costs shown in the STIP, and thus improve
the overall accuracy of the estimates of STIP
delivery and costs.
PSR/PR Combined The Combined Project
Study Report/Project Report (Combined
PSR/PR) was deveioped to streamiine the
project development process for non-complex,
non-controversial projects on State highways
that are 100 percent funded by others. It applies
to projects that have an estimated construction
cost over $1,000,000 for work within the
existing or to be dedicated State right of way. hr
addition, the project must comply with the stated
by Caltrans to recommend approval of a project.
criteria itemized in Chapter 9 of the Caltrans
The term "Draft Project Report"(Draft PR)
Project Development Procedures Manual
refers to a draft version of this report that must
(PDPM). It may also be used as a project report
be prepared for projects with environmental
for some projects costing more than $300,000
documents.
that are too complex to use a Permit
PSR—Project Study Report A PSR is an engi
Engineering Evaluation Report(PEER)format.
neering report, the purpose of which is to docu
The Combined PSR/PR may also be used for
ment agreement on the scope, schedule, and
Caltrans projects that meet the same stated
estimated cost of a project so that the project
criteria in Chapter 9, Article 12, of the PDPM,
can be included in a future State Transportation
provided they also meet the criteria necessary
Improvement Program (STIP). Chapter 878 of
for programming of the project, i.e., justification
for the project, a good cost estimate, identifica-
238
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
tion of support costs, and proposed funding. In
diverse and changing population. Some specific
both cases, the District Directors have approval
measures include high-quality design and
authority of the document.
planning that support walking, biking, and local
PTA—Public Transportation Account These
auto trips.
revenues are derived from the sales tax on
R&D—Research and Development Work
gasoline and diesel fuel. Under the provisions of
engaged in study,' testing, design, analysis,
SB-45, 50 percent of PTA revenues are distrib
and experimental development of products,
uted to the State Assistance Program (STA)
processes, or services.
with the other 50 percent used for funding plan
ning activities of Caltrans, the CTC,intercity rail
purposes and for the operations of the new
California High-Speed Rail Authority. Part of the
revenues are for uses formerly covered by the
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program
(TCI has been eliminated as a separate program
and folded into the PTA), wlrich include transit
vehicle purchases.
Redevelopment Tax Increment This source of
local revenues comes from property taxes
within a defined redevelopment area. The
county assessor freezes the assessed value of ail
real property within the redevelopment area as
of a base year. As property values appreciate
over the life of the redevelopment area (usually
about 20 years), the same proportion of the
increment of tax revenues above the base year
PTAP—Paratransit Technical Assistance
value is paid into the redevelopment agency
Program A regional effort to focus training in
special fund and used for designated projects.
the ai'eas of paratransit operations.
In theory, these specific projects help the area's
Quality of Life The first of the two goals of the
VTP 2030, the plan seeks, "...to provide trans
portation facilities and services that support
and enhance the coimty's continued success by
fostering a high quality of life for Santa Clara
County's residents." The VTP 2030 goes on to
define quality of life as the plan's support for
four tyiDes of transportation investments and
services: relief from congestion, better facilities
and services for non-work and off-peak trips,
attractive travel alternatives, and services for a
property to increase in value beyond the
appreciation rate of what would have occurred
without these projects. Proposition 13 restricts
the appreciation of property values to 2 percent
per year (or less if the market appreciates at
a lower rate). Other agencies that normally
receive property taxes may negotiate "pass-
through" agreements with the redevelopment
agency to avoid losing their share of the
increment to the agency. Tax increments are
bondable revenue streams that have leveraged
large amounts of local bond for all types of
public improvements.
VTP 2030
239
RIDES for Bay Area Commuters The Bay
Area's regional commute information service.
The RTIP has a four-year planning horizon and
RIDES supports carpool and vanpool options.
is updated every two yeai's.
Right-of-Way A strip of land occupied or
RTP—Regional Transportation Plan A multi-
intended to be occupied by certain transporta
modal blueprint to guide the region's trans
tion and public use facilities, such as roadways,
portation development for a 20-year period.
railroads, and utility lines.
Updated every two to three years, it is based on
Roadway Pricing "Road pricing" is an umbrella
phrase that covers aU charges imposed on those
who use roadways. The term includes such tra
projections of growth and travel demand cou
pled with financial assumptions. Required by
State and Federal law.
ditional revenue sources as fuel taxes and
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan Plan
license fees as well as charges that vary with
developed by the VTA to guide the development
time of day, the specific road used, and vehicle
of bicycle facOities in order to promote safe and
size and weight.
convenient bicycling throughout the comrty. It
RTD—Regional Transit Database MTC is
developing a public transportation database that
also provides coordination of facilities that cross
jurisdictional boundai'i'es.
encompasses seven major transit operators in
SB-45—Senate Bill 45 Governor Wilson signed
the Bay Area: AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid
SB-45 into law at the end of the 1997 legislative
Transit (BART), Central Contra Costa Transit,
session. This legislation consolidated several
Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, VTA, and San
State transportation funding programs into
Francisco Muni. The database will include each
three funding programs and devolved State
operator's routes, schedules, and stop locations.
transportation programming responsibility to
RTIP—Regional Transportation Improvement
Program A list of proposed transportation
projects submitted to the CTC by the regional
transportation plarming agency (for the Bay
Area— MTC), as a request for State funding.
The individual projects are first proposed by
local jurisdictions, then submitted by the CMA
to the regional agency, and then submitted by
240
the regional agency for submission to the CTC.
Valley Transportation Authority
the county and MPO level. Funds consolidated
by SB-45 include the Flexible Congestion Relief
(FCR), Transit Capital Improvement (TCI),
Trmisportation Systems Management(TSM)
and Regional Traffic Signalization and
Operations Program (RTSOP) Programs.
GLOSSARY
SCCRTC—Santa Cruz County Regional
Section 5311 FTA funds available for rural/
Transportation Commission The SCCRTC
intercity bus projects includmg purchases of
consists of ten members representing the Santa
buses and related equipment, and bus opera
Cruz County Board of Supervisors, the four
tions in rural areas.
cities, the Transit District Board, and a non-
voting member of Caltrans. One of the
Conmiission's primary roles is to distribute
vai'ious tjrpes of State and Federal funds to
transportation projects throughout the county.
The Commission also conducts long-range
planning activities, including the RTF.
SHOPP—State Highway Operations and
Protection Plan A program created by State
legislation that includes State liighway safety
and rehabilitation projects, seismic retrofit
projects, landscaping, some operational
improvements, and bridge replacement. SHOPP
is a four-year program of projects adopted sepa
Section 5307 Funds provided through FTA
rately from the STIP cycle. Both new (Prop.
through a complex formula. These funds are not
Ill) and old State.gas tax revenues and Federal
available for operating assistance in Urbanized
funds are the basis for funding tliis program.
Areas (UZAs) with a population over 200,000;
The legislature and governor have made
however, they can be used for preventive main
seismic retrofit the State's highest priority and
tenance piu-poses. Additionally, m UZAs with
in practice have used other STIP monies for
populations greater than 200,000, 1 percent of
these projects.
the UZA formula funds are to be spent on tran
SJC—Mineta San Jase international Airport
sit enhancements, which mclude rehabilitation,
(sometimes referred to as SJIA) The airport
coimections to parks, signage, pedestrian and
sei-ving the Santa Clara Valley area. It is a self-
bicycle access and enhanced access for those
persons with disabflities, and 1 percent must be
supporting enterprise, owned and operated by
the City of San Jose.
spent on security.
Smart Corridor A Smart Corridor is one where
Section 5309 This includes both discretionary
and formula transit capital funds provided
through the FTA. New rail starts and extensions
are funded through this program, which oper
ates through earmarking at the congressional
level. Other categories are fixed guideway mod
ernization (formula based), and bus and bus
various public agencies' traffic management
activities are coordinated to more effectively
manage traffic in that corridor. These are
typically acliieved using advanced technologies
or ITS, while partnerships between jurisdictions
are necessary to develop procedures and
measures for coordination.
facilities (discretionary).
VTP 2030
241
SMCTA—San Mateo County Transportation
according to population and 2) 50 percent are
Authority Tlie SMCTA is an independent
distributed on a basis proportional to operator
agency formed to administer the proceeds of
revenues in the region for the prior year. The
a countywide half-cent sales tax measure
Bay Ai-ea region usually receives about 38 per
approved by voters in June 1988. The tax wU
cent of State STA funds.
expire on December 31, 2008. The measure
included a specific expenditure plan with a
broad spectrum of projects and programs,
including Galtrain upgrades and improvements,
Station Areas Locations immediately proximate
to rapid transit stations that already serve or
will serve as central elements in a transit-orient
ed development (TOD).
highway and street projects, 20 percent alloca
tion for local streets and roads and paratransit
STIP—State Transportation improvement
service for people with disabilities. The
Program The STIP is a multi-year plamiing and
Transportation Authority also has allocated
expenditure plan adopted by the CTC for the
fundhig for transportation systems management
State Transportation System, and is updated in
programs, aimed at reducing traffic through
even-numbered years. The STIP is composed of
various means,including funding for a
the approved RTlPs and the Galtrans ITIP. The
countywide bicycle map.
2000 STIP is a four-year program. New State
SRTP—Short Range Transit Plan This docu
legislation passed in 2000 vrill extend the STIP
timeframe to a five-year program.
ments the VTA's on-gomg transit development
and planning process for a ten-year planning
STP—Surface Transportation Program A
horizon. It is used to support projects in the
flexible funding program established by ISTEA.
RTF and VTP.
Many mass transit and highway projects are
eligible for funding under this program. Ten
STA—State Transit Assistance Provides fund
ing for mass transit, transit coordination projec
tion and transportation planning. Half of the
percent of the projects in this program must be
transportation enhancement projects, and ten
percent must be safety projects.
revenues budgeted for the PTA are appropriat
242
ed to STA. STA apportionments to regional
SVITS—Silicon Valley ITS Program Expanded
transportation planning agencies (MTC in the
partnership formed to implement the Silicon
Bay Area region) are determined by two formu
Valley Smart Gorridor project to work toward
las: 1) 50 percent of funds are distributed
implementing three additional ITS projects in
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Santa Clara aird southern Alameda County.
upgrades, Vasona LRT to Winchester, and
The original Smart Corridor was focused on the
Fremont-South Bay Commuter Rail.
1-880 and SR 17 corridor.
TDA—Transportation Development Account
TAC—^Technical Advisory Committee An advi
Created in 1972, this account receives 1/2 cent
sory committee to the VTA that is responsible
of the 6-cent Statevnde sales tax. The 1/2 cent
for overseeing the technical work of the VTA
Is apportioned to the county of origin according
staff and developing recommendations to the
to the amount of sales tax generated by that
Board of Directors on projects and programs.
county, and allocated by MTC to the county's
TCM—^Transportation Control Measure A
measure intended to reduce pollutant emissions
from motor veliicles. Examples of TCMs include
programs to encourage ridesharmg or public
transit usage, city or county trip reduction
ordinances, and the use of cleaner-burning fuels
in motor vehicles. MTC has adopted specific
TCMs,in compliance with the Federal and State
Clean Air Acts.
eligible applicants. In Santa Clara County, the
transit agency is the only eligible applicant for
Article 4 allocations. In addition to Article 4,
allocations from TDA are also made under
Article 4.5 for community and pai'atransit serv
ices. This provision allows MTC to allocate up to
5 percent of the total TDA allocation for Santa
Clara County for these types of services, which
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
claims for ADA pai'atransit seraces.
TCRP—California Governor's 2000 Traffic
Additionally, Article 3 funds (4 percent of the
Congestion Relief Program A program estab
total) are allocated amiually for bicycle/pedes
lished in 2000 to provide $2 billion in funding
trian projects, which are nominated by the VTA.
for traffic relief and local street and road
maintenance projects throughout California.
Specific transit and highway projects were
identified to receive some funding from this
plan mcludmg 1-680 HOV lanes, US 101
vidderung to accommodate SR 85 direct HOV
connectors in San Jose, SR 85AJS 101 direct
HOV connectors in Mountain View and San
Jose, I-880/Coleman Avenue mterchange
improvements, BART to San Jose, Caltrain
TDM—^Transportation Demand Management
The purpose of TDM is to increase the efficien
cy of existing roadway systems by reducing the
demand for vehicular travel. TDM strategies and
initiatives are multimodal and aimed at reducing
peak-hour travel demands. Example TDM
strategies include carpooling or vanpooling,
flexible work hours, teleconunuting, parking
controls, and use of alternative transportation
modes such as transit.
VTP 2030
243
TE—^Transportation Enhancements Program
the fee are used to implement projects and
VTA established the TE with the Santa Clai'a
programs to reduce air pollution from motor
TEA funds. Approximately 37 percent of the
vehicles. Health and Safety Code Section 44241
TEA funds from TEA-21 will be dedicated to
limits expenditure of these funds to specified
Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program
eligible transportation control measures (TCMs)
projects and the remainder will be available for
that are included in BAAQMD's 1991 Clean Air
projects in aU TEA funding categories.
Plan, developed and adopted pursuant to the
TEA—^Transportation Enhancement Activities
ISTEA provided for a ten percent set-aside of
each state's ST? allocation to be used for TEA
projects above and beyond normal capital
improvements. Enhancement funds must be
1988. BAAQMD manages 60 percent of the
funds via a regional discretionary program. The
remaining 40 percent are returned to each
county based on aimual vehicle registrations.
used for elements of a project that have a direct
TIP—TransportaHon Improvement Program A
relationship to the intermodal transportation
federally required document produced by a
system and fit one or more of 12 activities
regional transportation planning agency(MTC
categories described m TEA-21.
in the Bay Area) that states investment priori
TEA-21—^Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century TEA-21 is the successor legisla
tion to ISTEA. Congress enacted TEA-21 in
mid-1997. The legislation covers the six-year
period 1997/98 to 2002/03, and extends and
ties for trairsit and transit-related improve
ments, mass transit guideways, general aviation,
and liighways. The TIP is the MTC's principal
means of implementing long-term plamiing
objectives through specific projects.
expands many of the funding programs devel
TLC—Transportation Livable Communities
oped under ISTEA.
Program MTC created a new regional discre
Telecommuting A system of working at home or
at an off-site workstation with computer facilities
that link to the worksite.
tionary funding program called TLC with some
of the TEA funds. Sponsors of projects must
apply directly to MTC for these funds. Funds
are to be used for cities to help them develop
TFCA—^Transportation Fund for Clean Air
transportation-related projects aimed at
TFGA funds ai'e generated by a $4.00 surcharge
improving quality of life.
on vehicle registrations. The funds generated by
244
requirements of the California Clean Air Act of
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
TMC—^Traffic Management Center TMCs help
often been used to subsidize the construction of
in the real-time management of traffic, including
convention centers and downtown improve
monitoring and controlling roadway access,
ments.
responding to and managing incidents, rerout
ing trafOc, and communicating and coordinating
with the public and the media. They perform
these functions with advanced ITS technology
such as sophisticated sensors; data fusion,
information processing, and communications
Transit Passenger service provided to the public
along established routes. Pai'atransit is a variety
of smaller, often flexibly scheduled and routed
transit services serving the needs of persons
that standard transit would serve with difficulty
or not at all.
equipment; and technology to automate routine
decision-making and other activities.
TOS—^TraKic Operations System A system
made up of various ITS components that
improve and monitor traffic operations for an
area. Components typically include surveillance
(loop detectors, GGTV, etc.), monitoririg
equipment, highway advisory radio, changeable
message signs (CMS), and ramp metering.
Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented
development(TOD)is characterized by a com
pact layout that encomages use of public transit
sei-vice and walking or bicycling instead of auto
mobile use for many trip purposes. "Typically, it
places higher-density development within an
easy walking distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a
public transit station or stop and is accessible
by all other modes. It is compact, typically
Transient Occupancy Taxes These taxes are
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, and has a transit
also knovm as hotel taxes and are charged for
stop or station as an activity center.
any overnight stay at a commercial lodging.
They typically run between 8 and 15 percent
but may be higher. Some proportion of the
transient occupancy tax revenues is sometimes
dedicated for convention and visitor promotions
or special projects. The balance is usually paid
into the county's General Fund. The revenue
stream from these taxes is bondable and has
Transit Streets VTA is considering developing a
network of "transit streets" which would include
thoroughfares where resources could be direct
ed to enhance transit operations, the pedestrian
environment, passenger waiting facilities, and
pedestriari comiections between stops and
activity centers. This is supportive of the GDT
program.
VTP 2030
245
TransLink The Bay Area's regional electronic
fai'e payment collection system.
Travlnfo The Bay Area's advanced traveler
information system.
TRP—Trans Response Plan The TRP concept
creates a multimodal transportation response
that is integrated into overall emergency
response for the nine-county Bay Area.
ments of urban plaiming, architecture, and land
scape architecture.
UA—Urbanized Area An area defmed by the
United States Census Bureau that includes one
or more incorporated cities, villages and towns
(or "central place") and the adjacent densely
settled surrounding territories (or "urban
fringe") that together have a minimum of 50,000
ISM—^Transportation Systems Management
persons. The urban frmge generally consists of
The use of low-cost capital inrprovements to
contiguous territory having a density of at least
iircrease the efficiency of road transportation
1,000 persons per square mile. UZAs do not
and transit services. Sometimes the term is also
conform to congressional districts or any other
applied to techniques used to reduce the
political boundaries, but are set by the Census
demand for travel in an area. Other TSM meas
Bureau on demographics, numbers and defini
ures are engineering-oriented, such as timing
tions. Non-Urbanized Areas are demographically
traffic signals to smooth the flow of traffic, and
rural in population.
ramp meteiing, which regulates the entrance
of vehicles onto a freeway, thus increasing the
efficiency of the freeway.
Universe of Projeete The compilation of proj
Vanpooling Commuting in a 7- to 15-passenger
van, with driving undertaken by conunuters.
Some portion of the van's ownership and
operating cost is usually paid by the riders on a
ects in the VTP 2030 which were proposed by
monthly basis. The van may be privately owned,
mterested agencies aird the general public. The
employer-sponsored with the company owning
projects proposed by mdividual cities and the
and maintaining the vehicle, or it may be
county required City Council or Board approval
provided through a private company that
prior to submittal to the VTA for inclusion in
leases vehicles.
the plan.
VHT/P-T—Vehicle Hours of Travel per Person
Urban Design The attempt to give form, m
Trip A measiue of the average amount of time
terms of both beauty and function, to selected
travelers spend getting to their destination.
urban areas or to whole cities. Urban design is
concerned with the location, mass, and design
246
of various uihan components and combines ele
Valley Transportation Authority
GLOSSARY
Vision A brief description of what we want the
pedestrian facilities, and land use.
region to be for the next generation. A vision
VTP—Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan
statement should be expansive and inspirational.
A 25-year plan developed by VTA which pro
VMT—Vehicle Miles of Travel A standard
vides policies and programs for transportation
areavride measure of travel activity, calculated
in the Santa Clara Valley including roadways,
by multiplying average trip length by the total
transit, ITS, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, and
number of trips.
VTA—Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority The Santa Clara Valley
Ti'ansportation Authority (VTA)is an independ
land use. The VTP is updated every tlu-ee to
four years to coincide with the update of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
ZEB—Zero Emission Bus The VTA's plan to
ent special district responsible for bus and light
purchase and deploy a zero emission bus fleet.
rail operations, congestion management,
ZEB is defined as an urban bus certified to zero
specific highway improvement projects, and
exhaust emissions of any pollutant under any
countywide transportation planning. As such,
and all conditions and operations. This includes
VTA is both a transit provider, and a multimodal
hydrogen-powered fuel ceU buses, electric
transportation planning organization involved
trolley buses, and battery electric buses.
with ti'ansit, higliways and roadways, bikeways.
VfP 2030
247
Acknowledgments
Project Staff
Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning
Manager, Development and Congestion
Management, Project Manager
Adam Burger, Transportation Planner
Ya Wang, Transportation Planner III
Contributing Staff
Gelia Chung,Senior Transportation Planner
Casey Emoto, Transportation Engineering
Manager
George Naylor,Principal Transportation
Planner
Jeff Qin,Senior Transportation Planner
Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning
Manager, Grants and Programmhig
Julie Render, Deputy Director, Transit
Planning and Programming
Steve Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner
Eugene Meada, Transportation Planner III
Mike Arc, Deputy Director, Service Planning
Bill Capps, Manager, Service Planning
Consultant Staff
Moore lacofairo Goltsmaii, Inc.(MIG)
Berkeley, Ccdifomia
248
Valley Transportation Authority
' S' A
tl 1 A
C I A B
A
« Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
Son Jose, Colifornio 951-34-1906
408.321.3000
-
.
TDD only 408.321.2330
v/ww.vta.org
Document
The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 is the long-range countywide transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), in its role as the appointed Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, is responsible for preparing and periodically updating the countywide transportation plan. VTP 2030 is a statement of the programs and projects the Board of Directors would like to see built, and for which the Board may want to pursue State and/or Federal funds, within the timeframe of the plan. It is intended to provide a planning and policy framework for developing and delivering transportation projects and programs over the next 25 years (2005 to 2030). The Plan identifies existing and future transportation-related needs, considers all travel modes, links Land Use and transportation funding and decision-making, examines alternative courses of action, and identifies what can be accomplished with the projected available funding for program and projects.
Initiative
Collection
James T. Beall, Jr.
Content Type
Memorandum
Resource Type
Document
Date
06/16/2005
District
District 4
Creator
Kurt Evans
Language
English
Rights
No Copyright: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/