The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0415.091'. -- • • I , I i ! I I - .. '~ , September 5, 1991 6_ HONORABLE CIT, COUNCIL Palo Alto, California praft Fi.nal Santa Clara CQunty Transportation Pla:r.----l.T201Q) Members of the council: &E.EQ.RT IN BRIEf The purpose of this report is to recommend that council: (l} consider the T2010 Draft Final Plan, (2) establish a position regard.ing it.,; content and recom.mendations, and (3) communicate that position to the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. staff recommends that Council endorse the T2010 Plan, with specific additional recommendations, summarized as follows: • Implement signalization improvements on oregon, Page Mill. and Foothill Expressways immediately; • Include and promote increased Dumbarton Bridge transit service; • Recognize and be specific regarding existing CalTrain servic~ and future planning for regional rail service in the u.s~ 101 corridor; • Make transit, specifically calTrain, tn.e first priority of flexible congestion relief funds. BACKGROUND It 1981, the Board of Supervisors approved the Transportation 2000 {T20DO) Final Plan--a comprehensive, long-range transpcrtation plan for Santa Clara County4 Palo Alto city Council reviewed the T2DOD Plan in February 1981, and unanimously endorsed it. The T2010 Plan, which is the subject of this staff report, is the first update ot the T2000 Plan. CMR:'15:91 -~--".-.. L • . ~:'-7 -""', - -". . J.? :, . l , L 'The purpose of the-T2010 Plan is to providl:'! direction for the development of the County's transpcrtation system through 2010. The T2010 Plan reflects new legal, environmental, and financial conditions that have arisen since adoption of tbe origir.al T2COC Pl an. The T2010 Plan retains the hasie qoals, elements, and direction of the T2COC Plan, but updates and significantly exp~nds upon its recommendations. The Santa Clara county Board of Supervisors, through the Transportation commission, designated a T2010 ~~ersight Committee, cOTlsistinq of nine Transportation commissioners. This committee is responsible for the review and direction of the T2010 PI~n; hO'itfever, final approval authority rests ,,'ith the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt the Final T2010 Plan in October 1991. The T2010 Plan .. as developed under the provisions of 1988 Assembly .Bill (AB) 3705 r which allo1;,'s counties to develop a countywide Transportation Plan~ The T2010 Plan, thereby I qualifies as Santa Clara County's Countywide Transportation Plan, and will serve as Santa Clara County's portion of the Metropolitan Transportation co~~ission'5 Regional Transportation Plan. It will also provide the long-range planning basis for developing and updating the County's Congestion Manage~ent Program. The public participation process for the T201C PIa" was 1 ess comprehensive than that tor the original T2000 Plan, as the T2010 Plan is an update of the T2000 Plan~ County staff conducted surv&ys which confirmed that there is continued public support for the basic premise"s of the T20CC Plan. DU:i.":"ng the T2010 planning process, public agency input ",'as proviC!ed thrcugh a Technical Advisory Committee, of 'Which a Palo Alto '1"cansportation Division staff person was a member. T2010 PLAN E.'.NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the T2010 Plan .as developed simultaneously ~ith the T2010 Plan. The Draft EIR has its own, concurrent, formal comment process. The Draft EIR is a program-level ErR that analyzes the cumulative impacts of all the projects included in the T2010 Plan. Each individual project ..... ill undergo a project-level environmental clearance process before it is constrllcted or implemented. County staff has not requested, nor is City staff recommending, Council review or comment on the Draft EIR. Three alternatives are assessed in the EIR: the Base Case; the T2010 Plan itself, representing a balanced approach to highway and transit imprevements: and a transit alternative which assumes more transit improvements and fewer high .... 'ay improvements than the T2010 OIR: 415: 91 L 9/5/91 Page 2 , _.'-, ::~, , \ , -., I i I 1 I I I I I Plan~ Tbe EIR concludes that the T2010 Plan would result in much less congestion than the Base caEe, while the transit alternative has a slightly better overall performance than either the Base Case or the T2010 Plan~ With regard to air quality, there would be sigr:ificantly reduced harmful emissions under all alternatives, primarily as i!!I. result of planned improvement.s to vehicular emissions controls. coNTENT OF THE T2010~ The T201D Plan is composed of a policy Element, a Highvay Element, Commuter Elements, Transit Elements, and a Financial Element. The remainder of this staff report brieflv summari zes each elerne:it, with a specific focus on the impacts en Palo Alto~ More details can be found in th~ first chapter of the T201D Plan (Summary, pages S-l through 5-12), or in the chapters specifically addressing each element. The T2010 SUllUnary and a few other pages referenced in this staff report are attach~d~ A reference copy of the full T2DIO Plan is available in the Transportation Division office, Sixth Floor, city Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue. Polley Element Th~ key recommendations of the policy Element are that the T2010 Plarl be consistent and compatible .~ith regional and subregional planning efforts (e.g., the Regional Transportation Plan, Congestion Ha:'lageClent Program); and include alternatives to the ~ingle-passenger auto, provide a balanced range of elements (e.g.~ hi9~ways, transit, land use, etc.), and provide coordination between qrovt,h and transportation policies. specific policies for each element of the T2010 Plan are discussed on pages 15-17 of the T2010 Plan. Staff recommends that Council etuiorse the Policy ElemenL Hjghw~y Element The High~ay Element includes a seri€s of recommendations for the County's highway system--free~ays, express~ays, and principal arterials. Proj ects have been divided into increments covering the following time periods~ 1990-1995 (projects which have already been funded); 1995-2000 (la-year priorities): and 2000-2010 (20-year priorities)~ Ten-year priorities include completion of Measure A and commuter lane projects~ Twenty-year priorities include additional l!lajor interchanges and added capacity on some key segments. In its final action on the Citywi~e Land Use and ~ransportation Study, Council approved several at-grade-only inters~ction improvements on County expressways in Palo Alto. This .as communic~ted to the county, so the T2010 Plan does not propose any interchanges for Palo Alto CHR:4l5:91 L 9/5/91 Page :! .\ ~ .• . , .. '" \ • ., , • . ..J L ----~.---~---~~-~--- intersections, a~d includes major at-grade improvements at these intersections: Page XiII ExpressllIay intersect ions with El Camino ~eal, Hanover Street, and Foothill E~presswaY/Junipero Serra Boulevard; Oregon ExpresswayjMiddlefield Road; and Foothill ExpressyaY/Miran~a Avenue~ which includes i~provements of all Miranda intersections betveen Hillview Avenue and Arastradero Poad~ All major intersection improvements in the County. includi~ Palo Alto's, are listed as 10 and 20-year priorities in the T2010 Plan, vith specific priorities among these improvements not yet assigned. Accorclinq to county staff, si9nalization improvements and interconnections on Oregon and F'oothill Expressways h~ve al ready been funded, and are due to be installed neAt year. Signalization improvements on Page Mill Expressway have been funded, but are still in the design stage, and are part of the ~990-1995 group of proj e=ts. Staff recommends that Cmmci1 endOf'Je the Higln .. ·ay Element, but reaffum ils pre'\. ious action lak~f1 during 1M T2000 ?fan process, thaI the signal coordin.ation. projects on Oregon., Page ~t/irl, and FOOlhill Expr(!SSk,'ll}'s proceed immedialely. cOmmyter Elements COmmuter IdDe Netvork Element. The goal of this element is to have an interconnected syste~ of C01!'J!1uter lanes on 'IIlost free'W3.Ys and County expressways. plus support facilities such as park-and-ride lots., ramp zeter bypass lanes" and s',lper express buses. No ne-.r commuter lanes are proposed for any free'Ways or expressways in Palo Alto. In the T2000 Plan, Foothill Express~ay had been designated as a long-term candidate tor commuter 13nes, but i~ no longer &0 designated. According to County staff, analysis has since sho~n that current congestion and potenti~l future demand do not seem to varrant commut~r lanes in the Foothill corridor, within the n~xt 20 years. Also, cities through which Foothill Expressway passes. especially Los Altos, feel that commuter lanes ~i9ht require right of-way that now provides landscaping and a buffer area bet~een the road .. ay and adjoining residential areas. COmD:l'(.ter lanes are recommended for Central Expressway, up to Shoreline Boulevard in Mountain Vie .. # Transportation Demand Management Element. The goal of this element is for each city and the County to adopt a TDM ordinance consistent with the County's Congestion Management Proqral!l. Palo Alto and the othe~ Golden Triangle cities have already adopted the TOM o~di nance, which is recommended to be adopted in similar form by the rem:ainder of santa Clar~ County cities. Bicycle and Pedestrian Element. The bicycle portion of this elelD.ent updates the proposed actions from the T2000 Plan. The pedestrian portion is new. Extensive ~ack9round work on how to facilitate bicycling as a commute alternative in Santa Clara County CKR:HS,91 9/s/n Page 4 ~ , , I ~ i "",". , I ~ "">- " I , ! i l t .. I I I - " , .---.. ,~.-----_.-- was done for the T2000 Plan. ']'his was authoced by Alan Wachtel, II member of the Palo ~lto Bicycle ~dviEOry committee. The T2010 Plan refers to the '1'2000 Bicycle Eloement working Paper #11 as a valid refert::nce document, but does not include any details. The T2010 Plan is clearly $upportive of the bicycling and pedes~rian modes of travel. Recommendations 'Which relate to Palo Al to are promotion of the existing policies of allor.r'ing bicycle access to all County express"w'ays and county Transit bus lines. Palo Alto's "bi..::ycle program~ is cited as a ~odel for other cities to emulate. Staff recommeruis fhat Council endonl aU :It.;! Commuter Elements. Iransit "Elements ~~ement. Other than the Highway Elernent~ the Rail Element receives the most exter.sive discussion in the T2010 Plan. The Rail Element accounts for the Majority of future capital investment required to implement the T2010 Plan (refer to the following discussion of the Financial Element). The rail element defines a vision of a rail transit syste-n. for Santa Clara Cou.nty, 'Whic~ could be developed over the next 40-50 years. A pri~ary recommendation of the T20~O Plan is to reaffirm the original priorities of rail corridors established in the T:2 000 Plan~ and to continue thsir development as first priority in the 20-y~ar implementation pla~. Of primary concern to Palo Alto are the "El Camino Real" intra county corridor, and the "U.S. 101" regional corridor, both shmom on page 82 of the '1'2010 Plan. The EI Camino Real corridor is defined as 6uitable for a light-rail-type technol~f that could be placed anywhere between Foothill Expressway and Route 101; providing local service supplemental to Cal Train or othpr regional rail service. It is a low-priority project that is not envisioned to be studied until well in the futUre. The U.S. 101 regional corridor is the current and future CalTrain service. 'l'he future technology envisioned in this corridor is either commuter rail (like Cal Train) , BART trains, or high-speed li9ht rail, with the ultimate decision not being made for perhaps many years. The T2010 Plan takes the point of vie~ that CalTrain will be under the custody of a new transit district that will be responsible for CalTrain's long-range planning. Thus, the T2010 Plan, though including calTrain as a first priority project (pages S-5, S-6, and 96-97), does not contain much detail regarding long term planninq issues. The Plan identifies an e.$timated needed capital invest~ent ranging from $30u million to $900 million for the Santa Clara County portion of calTrain. According to county staff, this broad range of funding is intended to cover a range of possible upqrad~s extending from "minimum'" to -high end". The minimum program is identified on page 93 as right-of-way acquisition, increase from the current 54 to a future 66 daily trains, constru~tion of a maintenance base in San Jose, providing CMR:415:91 9/5i91 Page 5 71·.··: •.. .,.' , ... i .-1 l .- accessibility for the handicapped, and ilrlplementat.ion of self service fare collection4 Extension of ser-lice to Gilroy and const",ruction of the Tamlen (San Jose) CalTrain station are already funded, are proceeding, a~'\d are not included in the above estimates~ The hig'h end program ($900 million) could incl\.lde: Santa Clara County' 6 share of the extension to c:lowntoW'n San Francisco, in order to connect ~ith other regional transit 5ervic~s: upgrade to transit-type frequency: electrification: and grade separations. The T2010 Plan recommends that an annual funding allocation be established .for this corridor in order to develop a reserve account, to be used for making improveme~ts once a long-term plan is defined by the new operator of calTrain~ The amount of the allocation is not identified, nor-is it stated, or i1t,plied, 'Whether the allocation should aim for the minimum or high end improvement programs. The October 1990 ftSanta Clara County CalTrain Policy study~ is not referred to in the T2010 Plan. This study, prepared for county staff by consultants, discussed future options tor calTr~in, especially as they relate to Santa Clara County. The study has not been formally reviewed or acted upon by the Transportation Commission or the Board of Supen-isors. county statf indicates that there is no action planned or anticipated r-eqarding this study, at this time. staff be.lieves that the T2010 Plan does not give s:ufficient recognition of and support to Cal'frain, nor any other possible regional rail SY5t~~ in the U.S. 101 corridor. This is a major shortcoDin9 of 'f2010, (a} because CalTrain is an existing service 'With a proven track record and growing ridership (and the. only service in this corridor), and (b) beca~se Santa Clara County forms ~ crucial link in the Bay Area l s regional rail plan. Even though a new operator has net yet been selected for the CalTrain service, tbe Joint }=lowers Board (JPB) has developed a clear plan for the future of the service, as. evide.nced in the. Septe'C'.be( 1991 Cal Train ;:_-hort Range Transit Plan.. This plan includes JPB ovnership of the right-at-way, incre.ased service to 905 daily trains. extension to downtown San Francisco as well a$ Gilroy, and many other improvements_ The T2010 Plan should give stronger support to this eXistinq vital service, as well as to futUre planning for regional rail in this corridor, by strongly supporting CalTraints short Range Transit Plan. Staff recommends thai lilt! n010 Plan recognize and be specific regarding existing CalTrain senrice and future planningfor regional rail in the US 101 corridor by stating that: (a) CalTrain L, the preferred rail mode for Ihe us. 101 corridor; (b) CalTrain •• ,,'ice should be upgraded accordir.g to !he CalTrain Shorr Rilnge rran.siJ Plan, which indudes pu.rchase of ale riglu-oj way, txlension 10 down/own. San Francisco, in order to corm.eCi with other regional fransil CMR:H5: 91 L 9/5/91 Page 6 i l I I I , " ~.'." " -~ ... ::, . -~:~-" • • \ - sero'1.·L-~ and increased train freqwncy to 96 daily nains; (c) jeasihility studies for elimination of grade cro'MIl' .lwuld be begun; and (d) SCCTA will idenlify 'he amoun.! of 'he proposed annUlJI funding allocation 10 cover these proJ~ctJ. Bus El~. The Bus Element calls for expansion of the bus fleet from the current 512 buses to approximately 670 buse~ over the n~xt 20 years l -witt' .. emphasis on improving the €fficiency of fleet. utili~ation and providing additional commute and rail feeder s~r~ices. No specific projects are mentioned in Palo Alto, but several lo-year and 20-year recommendations could directly benefit Palo Alto, includinq increased use of the Palo Alto Transit center, provision of new super express routes (using commllter lanes), increased rail feeder and shuttle bus services, and imp.rove.d bicycle ac<::ess on buses. On the negative. side, (though not specifically mentioned), the goal of improved fleet efficiency will likely ~ean raduction or ~limination of service en lo~-ridership routes, some of which are located in Palo Alto. The DUmbarton Bridge bus service and corridor are not mentioned in the T2010 Plan but should be, given the special nature of this regional corridor (joint fundinq by three transit districts, relatively ne~ service~ and healthy ridership gains). The County Transportation Agency is currently recommending elimination of two cO)7.Jnuter express lines that serve Stanford Research Park I and. one of the ll'tajor arterial routes that provides feeder service to CalTrain from the Stanford Research Park. (Refer to CMR; 414 :"91 in this packet.) These recommendations s.eem to contradict the above T2010 Plan recommendations of increased rail feeder, shuttle bus, and commuter services~ and the recommendation of improved access to activity centers (refer to the discussion below of the Activity center Element). Slaff recummends lfIat Council endone lhe Bus Elemenl, and that the T20iO Pian include recognirion and active promotion of existing and increased lTansiJ service connecting Alameda, Sa.'! Afatea, and Santa Clara Counties .·'fa the Dumbarton Bridge. Paratransi.t Element. 'rhis elelllent discusses the goals for extending' transportation se.rvices to the mobility-inpaired population of th~ County, i.e., seniors and individuals who cannot use fixed route transit duo:<: to physical or mental disabilities. As SUCh, it sets the frame~ork for institutionalizing paratransit as part of the public transportation system. The T2010 Plan recogni~es the efforts of five public paratransit programs in the coun~y (including the City of Palo Alto's Project Mobility Program) th~t account for over 300,COO annual trips. NevE:rtheless l the report documents the need fer an additional 60',000 annual trips by the year 2000~ Paratransit services will also be affected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under this 1990 federal legislation, the Transportation Agency, as CMR:U5:91 L 9/5/91 Page 7 • .. , - . ..J ---- .' . - a transit operator, must develop and para trans it in the county that responds to January 1992. imple~ent a plan for the ADA requirements by The T2010 Plan recommends the establishment of stable funding sources to expand par~transit services to meet current and future demand anG to implement the: provisions of the Americans ...,ith Disabilities Act in cooperation ~ith paratransit providers. Staff recommends that Council endorse the Paratransit ElelT'_en-t:. Activity Center-Circulation al".d Distribution :£~1.t. This element calls primarily for the consideration of adoption of Countywide TDM site desiqn qui del ines for neW' development, to promote use of commute alternatives, and the expansion of the rail shuttle bu~ program to serve major activity centers. Activity centers in the T201Q Plan include the Palo Alto Central Business District (CaD) (coI!1posed of the CBD, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford University), the Stanford Research park~ and the San Ar,tonio Shopping Cent~r (composed of the shopping center, Old Mill redevelopment area, and Hewlett-Packard) ~ Accordin9 to County staff, site design guidelines would be considered for adoption only with the participation of private sector businesses. Individual cities would r.ot be required to adopt the guidel ines, and .. ould be. free to adopt more stringent guidelines if they so desired. In January 1991, Varian Associates coropleted a feasibility st~dy of sl1uttle service bet .... een Stanford Researcb Park companies~ the California Avenue CalTrain station~ and the downtown and Calirornia Avenue business distr-icts~ Varian COTldlJcted tbe study at the City's request: it was not connected with r-ecommendations of the T2010 plan. (For mor-e information, refer to CMR: 414: 91 in this packet and CMR:259:91, May 9, 1991.) Recently~ Sun Microsysterns, located in the San Antonio/West Bayshore area of Palo Al.to~ expressed interest in being served by a CalTrain/City of Mountain View shuttle service that currantly serves the North Bayshore area of Mountain View. Sun Kicrosystems has S1nce decided not to pursue this. Loral Corporation (formerly Ford Aerospace). also located in the San AntoniofWest Bayshore area~ operates its own shuttle service to the California AvenlJe CalTrain Station. stanford University a.lso operates its own s.huttle service bet~een campus locations and both Palo Alto calTrain Stations. Staff recommends that Cou.ncil etufone the Acrivfty Ct!nler Circulation. and Distn"bun"o'l Element. San Jose International Airport Ground Access Ele:mjiwt. The z-ecommendation is to improve ground access to the airport by providing a permanent tr-ansit link between rail stops (e.g., light rail and CalTrain) an~ the airport, or by increasing bus route frequency to match future rail service frequencies. CHR:H5:91 L 9/5/91 Page a " i I I , • I l I , , .' : . ~'" ~o -:-l ... , ..... :1 .. ... ·'" " :;r····· ."- "-' , -/ II Staff recommends lMl Council endorse the San lase Airp<:m Growuf Access Element ,-",,', - ~d Use Element This e.lem~nt recommends continued effor-rs to link land use and growth policies to the capacity of the transportation system.. including encoura9inq higher density development at transit stations and mixed uses in employment and residential areas. The primary eInphasis is on planning strategies that promote commute alternatives to t_he single-occupant automobile. Palo Alto ,«ould 'be expected to participate in the above planning strategies relating to zonino:; at transit centers, employutent sites~ and residential areas. S/aff recommends that Council endorse (he Land Use ElemenJ.. Financial Element This element provides estimates of costs and revenue associated '\lith the plan elements. Implementation of the T2010 Plan 'Will require a total investment ranging (rom $4.2 billion to $7.1 billion. The largest single program element is the rail element, requiring an investment ranging from about $.2. /5 to $4.8 cill ion (representing nearly all of the. $2.8 to $5.1 bill ion investment for all transit elements). The next highest investment is required by the bighway element at $1.1 to $1.5 billion. After all potential revenue sources are considered, t'here is expected to be a funding shortfall of $1.1 to $4.7 billion for the total T2Cl0 Plan. To overcome this shortfall, the T2010 Plan recommends seekinq new sources of Federal and State funds, advocating a high level of local flexibility in use of these funds, and identifying ne~ local fundinq sources. The T2010 Plan does not st~te that there is a lack of funds in any particular category (sucb as t,ransit), or that funding or;e category is preferred over funding any othe:r~ Ro~ .. ·e.ve.r, because the upper range of the funding need for transit (mostly the rail element) is so large compared to the other plan elements, the funding shortfall for that element is by far the-greatest, even if all future -flexible-funds were allocated to transit (refer to Table 15 on page 153) ~ This -would imply that, barring extraordinary efforts to secure additional transit funding and to dedicate flexible funds to transit, the rail element ~ould be the most likely not to be fully implemented. Staff recommends rrd}l Palo Alto support tlie Financial ElemenJ, especiallj the goal of advocQting Q high le'vel of [texibilily in tile programming of ru"'n' Federal and State fwuls. Staff strongly recommends lhat an addilional recommended action of the Financial Element be lhat 1M ji,.,t .nd highest pn"oruy of Stale flexible congestion relief funds, ar.d any olher flaible cransponation funds. be fOl' tran.sil, with a specific empTlasis on CalTrain improvements in cite US. 10] corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy. CMR: 415: 91 L 9/5/91 Page 9 ., • ", "ij..;,:-~.: .:~"' 'Ii:r-.· '-;·:c~~".:~-·. j , - - ", .. ' BE COMMEN OAT IONS Staff recommends that the C01..J.ncil endorse the Santo! Clara county Transportation Plan (T2010)# and direct the Maj'or to send a letter to the santa Clara county Transportation Agency. communicating that endorsement, and the following specific a~ditional recommendations: 1. Palo Alto recommends that sig~alizaticn improvements and interconnect.ions on oregon, Page Mill, and Foothill ExpresS'Jiays proceed immediately~ 2. Palo Alto recommends that tr.e T2010 Plan include and actively promote existing and increased transit service c::nnecting Alameda, San Mateo, and santa Clara Counties via the ~arton B:ridge. 3. Staff recomcends that the T201D Plan recognize and be specific regarding existing CalTrain service and future planning for regional rail in the U~Sa 101 corridor by stating that; (a) Cal Train is the preferred rail mode for the U.S. 101 corridor; (b) Cal Train service sho1.lld be upgraded according to the CalTrain Short Range Transit Plan~ which includes purchase of the right-of-way, extension to downtoOi1l San Francisco, in order to connect with other regional transit services, and increased train freque~~y to 96 daily trains; (eJ fea$ibili~y studies for elimination of grade crossings should be begun; and (d) SCCTA will identify the amount of the proposed annual funding allocation to Cover these projects. 4. Palo Al~o recommends that the first and highest priority of state flexible congestion relief funds, and any other fle~ible transportation funds, be tor transit, with a specific emphasis on CalTrain improvement.s in the u~s .. 101 corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy. CMR: 415: 91 9/5/91 page 10 -. , ... ~ .• - '. • Respectfully ~~mitte~, ~L~~ 1;;' ';(/"" I, I ../, /, y4..1(.,IUC/i' -",-'CI.......:._ttt'I __ KE~'NETH R. SCHREIBER / Director of Planning and Community Environment CAR!. STOFFEL Tr~nsport.ti;':: Engineer j/-J'-,,/~\ .J{,"N'! FLEMING ' __ ..... As~istant City Manager / At.tachments: Pages 5-1 to 5-12, 82, and 153 of Draft Final Santa Clara County Transport3tion pl an, T2010., ,July 1991 cc: Planning Co~i$sion Stanford (Andrew Dcty, Phil Williams, and Julia Fremon) Dawn Cameron, Santa clara county Transportation Aqency Edie Dorosin, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Cour,ty Transportation Commission Related Staff Reports~ CMR:415:91 CMR:414:91, ~+oposed Cha~ges in SCCTP Bus service CMR: 259 :91, Shuttle Feasibili~:t Study- stan ford Resea rch P~,rk 9/5/91 Page 11 • II , I i' , I r r •. ~ 1 , - \ PLAN SUMMARY I N'I'RODtlC T I ON In 1981. the Santa CI~ra County Board of Supervisors approved tte Transport~tion 2QOO (T2000, Fin&l Plan. The T20aO rl~n pro~ided a c~~prehensive, long-range transportation plan for Santa Clara Co~nty. The Sa~ta Clara Co~nty Transportation Plan --T2010 (T2010 Plan) is the first update of the 72000 Plan. The 12010 Plan reflects n~w legal l envj~on~~ntal and financial conditions. The Plan ~as developed under the provisions of the 1988 ~ssemhly Bill (AS} 3705 and. theref~tej Qualifies as S~nta Clara County's Countywide Transportation Plan. OV!rall. the T2010 Plan retains the basic goals, elements and directi~n of the T20nn Plan but updates and significantly expands upon tbe recommendations of the T2000 Plan. SANTA CLARA COUNTY IN 2010 The T2010 Plan sets out a program of transportation and land ~se actions designed to ma~e. over the next 20 years. the transportation system perform better and the County become a better pl.ce to live. If this p!an is successful, a resident of the County in 2010 might hava the fol1o~ing view on conditio~s in 2010 ~nd hoy the county has chan~ed since 1991: • The County has continued to grow, but at a 5lo •• r rate than previous decades: the growth in jobs has ~een more in balance vith the 9rovth in re5ident&; the populsticn is nov some~hat older ~nd we~lthjer. but ~l'o significantly more diverse in terms of eth~ic composition. • Though still l~rqely Bubur~an~ the County has become very urbanized in many loe~tions. New grovth has produced higher density residential and comm~rcial areas in older downtown~ a~d alon; rail transit lines. • The County n~w has cleane: air end water. better reere8tional f~eilities t&uch ~s :iveI parkways}, 6nd mote div~t&e cultural opportunities. • Traffic congestion is still a problem, particularly on frfe"'ays such as ~outes 85 and 101, but it i; no verse th~n it was in 1990; .any problem bottlene~ks h~ve been eliminated. • County r~&id.nt& noy have ~any good alternatives to ~riving on cooqeated roads --a rail ,y'te~. more buse&, and vanpocls and carpools using a network of C~mmutet Lanes. • The development of en inter-connected lo~al and regional rail transit system has been a qreet asset to the community; not S-l • . •. ,. , I 1 1 I L " --~ .... -... only has the rail 'yitem been vell used but it has h~lped to f>:l-cUS growth 4Cld maintain the ~C'onomie vitality of the County. • lnter-re9ional cail service has expanded greatly with the development of hi~h speed lines; it is no~ ~ell used as ~n alternative to drivinq or using the San Jose tnter~ational Ai [pot L • Prompted by aie quality legislation, businesses and eittes have been votking hard to reduce commute traffic; companies encourage and~ in ~any cases~ subsidize the use of transit; telecomm~ting has no~ become commonplDce for many ~ork~[s. • older activity C~nter5 have become revitalized urban centers; designed for the pede5trisn~ served by rail tranSit, and ~ontaining homes, busines$es a~d shop&; these centers no~ di!tinquish the character of Santa Clara County and .r~ critic~l to the County's further growth and vitality. SIGSLIGSTS or TBE PLAN To help achieve thi$ vision, the T2010 Plan has developed a comprehensive set of reco~endations. Patterned aft~r the original r2000 plan; the 12010 Plan is composed ~f a Highway Element; Commuter Elements, and Tra~sit Ele~ents. To maintain eonsistency vith the ~egional Transportation PI~n. policy and Financial Elements have also been dEv~lopea. The ~l&n'£ key reeommend&tions for each ele~ent are su~atiz~d ~elo~: policy Ele.ent • ~he plan should be consistent and compatible with regional ana subregional planning efforts (e.g., ~esional Transportation Plen, Conyesticn Management Program. et~.). • rhe plan should inelude alternatives to the sln91e-passen9~r auto, a bal~nced range of el~ment&; and coordination between growth and transpectation policies, Highway Eleaent • Complete ~ecommp~dtd improvements to the freeway ($853-1,089 million} and e~pre&5vay ($275-39) million) systems; 10 year ptioriti~s include Mea~ute A completion ~nd Commuter Lanes; 20 year priorities also include major interchanges and added capacity or. key segments (see Fi9ure S-l). OPTION: Reduce the highway program by eliminatin9 at Icaling b~ek plans for interchanges and added cape~ity. cv~ld reduce highway recommendations by $200-400 million. (This option i& not ~ecommended by the 12010 O~er&i9ht Committee. ) 5-2 L , ~~~ ,~: , . c! ---.... HIGHWAY PLAN ••••• Auxiliary Lall~s ••• Added Laces • ® Commuter lanes Impro'fed lnlerchange lnrerchange Study ~. ,.......-~--.-.----.-, I ,;', ·',L-.·, ,. - \ , , , . • I t ... ,~'--;:-~ .. ~" . ;ff~_ -"_ .... , - • Emph~s1%~ the d~v~lopment of faeiliti~s ~hich will suppert th~ commuter Lane net~ork. • ~ssign high priority to operations ~nd T5M improvements, including the development cf Traffic Op~r!tions Syst~ms (TOS)~ • S~pport improvements to p~ineipal arterials, including new overcrossings and South County arterials. Commuter Lane Net~ork • Continue development of tbe Commuter Lane nl!'t .... ork ..... hich includes supporting facilities such es HOV ram;-meter bypass lanes, HOV lane connection ramps, and adequate enforcement areas. Transportation Demand xanagement (TD~) • Each city and the County adopt a TDM ordinance consistent with the Congestion Management Program (eMP) and develop progra~s and ~ssistance services to support private sector TDM e£f~rts. Bicyele and Pedestrian • Support bicycling and ~alkin9 by incorpor~ting hicycles and pedestrian faciiities into future projects, providing barrier crossin9s (e~9., Over freeways, creeks) where needed~ and completing bicycle plans for Bwys S5 p B7~ and 237. • Add bicycl~ r~cks to bus routes where heavy passenger loads prohibit bringing bicycles on board the bus. Transit Eleaents ~ail • Adopt the Long ~ange R~il MaEter plan as the basis for rail ccrrid¢c development in Santa Clara Co~nty~ • Maintain T2000 rail priorities, constituting Tier 1 of the T2010 Plan. • Advance the following intra-county corridors as Tier 2 priorities for planning and development in the next 20 years (lee Table S-1 and Figure S-2'~ s-t I I I --' "'-" .' "- -;,-,. " --.il~r . ~i~;.~i;·· .-' TI~, CocrlOOc 1 1aSIIan lt1!!IOlt-San .lo«! • • --------,------- ~-, --------- '1'2010 P.AJL aPPl!X:Jl; PRItETJES 20 YE>R PIAN Estim~ cap; tal Cost 11) Next Step (1990 $ millions) 34\)-360 ?relim~ Etqr .jFEJS 500-1700 "'vttlS fct.ential OJtCCll1!' run EInling "",,,,,,,,,,,t select Pref~t'r~ Alternative U_S. 101 (ll 30<)-900 fom. Transit District I'Urd\ase 10(, ~l.t. !\>g<MeS, @ Define !alg Range Plan v:.sm. 2 <N:lt in pciod ty oeder) ~ E>tlsting Branch '" capita~~rg.-..... , '" Co lima S<>Jth san JQSe ste<Mns C,..,k;1oJ. ... ""'" _ ~1.ticn-5Unyvale leq 15<}-170 15-25 2~310 360-540 13()-150 J21J.-o1BO 90-100 1I>ta! $2,~. 7 (billic:ns ) Prelim. Ehgr .;mR Plaming,ttIl< planninglt£IR prellJnlno'Y StOOy P[eliftiTary StWy Prel iainary Stuty Prolim. E>1gr _jFEIS Decisim to Ccnstruct ~ to Prelu,,_ E>1gr.jFEIR 1<Ivance to P",lim_ E>lgT .jFEIR M"""", to Pl...ung,ttIl< sta<Je i'&ance to PlamiDyDE:IR sta<}e J\dvanc!! to Plaming,tttR sta<Je ~i5ioo to Q:nstruct /tJtes: - n) CiIpl tal coets are hised m DlOSt recent plaminq sbxlies or frern W'1rking Pap!!:!r U (Evaluatirn of Draft L:::ctg P.artge Rail Plan) if tX:l otrer lnfonatioo is C'f'V'aila.ble. Costs for Fre!'lO"lt-San Jose ard U.S. 101 Con-ioo(s reflect tie range of cp:iam still \DJer ~.side~ati('l\ as discussed in tre T21J10 Plan. capital costs ~ rot been refined in tetlnS of systewid8 req.1ir~ts am. stoJ.ld be ca1Sidered as pceliI!'ina!:), estitl"itt"!!s. (21 !nclules 50Jth CCU1ty Couidor which is plarned for-t11e initial caltra-in Extensim an:I a rotential seccn:I stage expansiCJl. L -\ ,~~ --1 ~ -I in I .. ( • - 0,' _.f -.1 ... --... T2010 RAIL CORRIDOR PRIORITIES ( 20 Year Plan J _ Tier 1 I I Tier 2 L SANTA CLARA COUNTY , + Fremont to ~ San Jose 1 \~/~ f " I n .[ I \ t owntOym/Evergre¢ \,,- San Jose :!! IQ c: ., (I) (/) I I\) -, , I 1 I I I I I I ) - 1\ ~../ Tier 2 for plrli.inary 5tudy, planning and p~t~ntisl construction (net in pcictlty order) -- Al~aden -Upgrade existing branch Capitel/Downtown-Ever9ceen Corridors ne An%a Cctti~ct South San Jose Corrid~r Stevens Creek/Alum Rock Corridor Tasman Completion -Sunnyvale leg OPTION: Include only the current T~aOO rail priorities listed in Tier 1. (This option i5 not recommended by the T2010 Oversight Committee.) • Conduct an ~lternatives Analysis {AAJ/~r!ft EIS a£ &oon ~s possible in the Fremont-San Jose Corridor in order to develop a pr~ferred alternative and implemer.tation program for that corridor. • complete 5hort-term Caltrain i~prcvem~nts; establish a Transit District to operate Cal train and d~velop a long range plan for the u.s. 101 Corridor. e Complete the extension of Caltrain to Gilroy ~nd develop a second &tage e~p.nsion of service ~p to potentially Ie t~ains daily. The second stage expansion ,hould include a service plan for Coyote valley. • Support the State program for inter-regional tail &ervice, including the development of high speed rail. • Cevelop Activity Center Syste~s at key centers to £uppert the rail plan. • Ensure th3t rail development plans adequately adoress systemWide opera-tin,; issues., inter-modal faci 1 i ti~&, f~eder b'J.s service end coordination of land USe plans. Bus • txpand the hus fleet to app:oxizately 670 buses OVer the next 20 years with an emphasis on improving the efficiency of fle~t utilizatio~, providin9 ~deitional co~~te services and feeding new rail lines comin9 into operation; conduct a study to reviev the requi[ed fleet size; defer be;inniog the implementetion of fleet ezpan.ion until a new stable funding &ou[ce i8 secured. OPTION: futsue e high level of system expansion fo~ a fl~et siJe of 850 buses by 2010 wbich would cost an additional $20-25 million ann~ally to operate. (This option is not recomaended by the T2010 OVersight Committee} 4 • Continue implementation of full aecessibility peliey for all county Transit fized route bus 5ervice. 5-7 L • \ ~ -or:. ","".,- I I r'· .'._-. ' .. "-. ,,' i l - farattAnsit • Pursue a it.hIe fu~ding source to expan~ paratcansit s~rviC~5 to ~e.t current and future demand and to impleIDent the provisions of the ~ericans vith Disabiliti~s Act (ADA). Aetivity Center Circulation and Distribution • Through a joint public and private steter precess. consid~r thl!' development and .doption ~f countywide rOK ~ite design guidelines for new development to promote commute alternatives us •. • E~pand the "i1 ,hutt!e program {beth privately and publicly provided) to serve ~ajor activity centers. San Jose International Airport Ground Access • !~prove ground access to the airport by providing a permanent transit link bet~een rail stops and the airport and by completing planned i~prOvfments for B~ 97~ Land Use Eleaent • Continue efforts to link land use and gro~th policies to the capacity of the transportation system. including en~our~ging hi9her density development ~t transit stations. Fioanelal Eleaent • Develop a strategy te secure additional capital and operating funds neeeed to implement the T2010 Plan. THE COST OP raE PLAN Implementation of the T2010 viIi require an investment of betveen $~.2 billion and $7.0 billion in nev capital and operating expenditures. The large COit range is primarily due to th~ status of rail corridor develop.eet where a fin~l alternative hal not been selecte~ in some corridors and ether corridors are in very preliminary planning stages. A ~[e.kdown of the capital requirements of the pl&n (in 1990 dollars) is provided beloy: Bighysy improvements: $1.1 1.S billion .. ail illprov~m~nts: $2.5 -(,7 Other capital: SO •• -0.3 $3.8 -6.S billion S-B L • I I ~ I J ! r-- I " - In addition, e ~inimum of $400-500 ~illion in ne~ transit &nd paratto!lnSit ope!'1ting tt'vemJ@-is needeG. over the 20 years cf the plan. The oper&ting needs ate a minimu~ tstimate and may increase si9nific~ntly as a result of finAncial proje~tion5 curr~ntly being updated. EFFECTIVENESS or THE ,PLAN The combined effect af t~e rtco~end~d improvements c~lled for in the T2010 Plan vill i~prove transportation conditions in santa Clara County. Appendix 5 and the ~nvironment~l Impact ~eport for the plan provide _ detailed description of projected transportation i~pacts bas~d on results from the T2000 travel ~odel. Eowever. the model projections cannot fully acco~nt for the impact of all the reco~~ndations (e~q~f TOM proqrams) or for the combined efftct of the plan ele.ent&~ Using the mod~l runs AS a suid~~ thE following conclusions can be m~de ~bout the effectiveness of the plan: • Traffie congestion in 2010 will be comparable to or slightly better than current conditions. B~~ev~r~ without the plan; congestion would be substantially woese. • 27\ of all tr~ffic ~il1 be on congested roads ~ith the plan versus 34' withcut the plan. ~here would be S~\ mere miles of freeway congestion without the plan. Transit use will ri~e substantially; at of all vorkers will co~ute by tr~nsit. mo~e than double ftom today's tot~l. least 6% and up to 10\ Overall. transit will • Transit and Commuter Lane imp[ove~ent5 alone vill attract a minimum of 301 of commuters. When combined with TDM and other actions, the 35\ commut~ altetn&tiv~s 90&1 is teasonably achievable. • TraffiC congestion in 2010 will b~ most severe on ~outes 101~ B80. SS. 8' and 231~ All have. or are pla~ned fDr, Commuter Lane and rail impro .. ~ement6. indicating that the pla["~ icprovements Art! target~d to areas with th~ 9r~ate5t need. • Vehicle miles traveled are reduced moderately and vehicle hours si9nificantly with the pI_n. The result 16 that emissions ere red~eed over the no-build option. • OVerall travel ,peeds yjll be 16\ 9reatec vith the plan improvemer1ts. than vi thout the plarJ. { .. nd \lp to 30\ 9 reat~r in some corridors}. • Corridor level-of-service would si9nific.ntly improve vith the plan and only one corri~ot (1860/6BO to ~lame~a Co~nty) ~oul~ operate at level-of-service r. 5-9 L , .. ., --. ~£LATIONSalP TO ~EGIO~~LANS In 19S!~ a ne~ State law (AS 3(05) v~s passed whieh allows e~~h co~nty to develop and maint~in a Countywid~ T~ansportatio~ plan. The Reglo~al TranSpottati~n plan (~TP) fcr the Bay ~[ea must incorporat~ the recommendations of a Countywide plan if it is developed in accordance with AS 3705. The T2010 plan meets the AS 3705 'l!'qIJirements for Santa Clara C01.lOt)·; the-rl!'forl!', '1'2:010 rl!'ccllIJDendations should form Santa Clara County's portion of the n~xt RT? AS 3i05 &1.50 called for consisteney bet\olE'en the CO'Jnty .... ;ide TtbDSportation Pl~n$ {i.~., T201C) and the air quality Transportation Control ~eesu,e (TCM) Plan. Thl!' r2010 Plan incorpot3tes, as much as possible, th~ TCM Plan. Although not directly required by legislation; it is highly de~i[able fo~ the AS 3705 pla4 (T2010, to provide the longer range plannin9 framework for the Congestion Management program (eMP). Since beth T20l0 and the CMP must be consistent vith the reM plan and the ~rp; a natural linkage exists bet~een 12010 and CMP. Efforts have been made to maintain consistency b~t\oleen th~ two plans. ~EY FOLLOW-UP ACTlvNS The T2010 Pl&n includes a number of key follo~-up actions or studies which are designed to further develop elements of the plan. In most cases, these should be conducted in the ne~t tva years in order to help guide the next update of the plan. 1ogether, these actions viII help develop a ~tretegic plan for implementing the T2010 Plan. The most important of the follow-up action~ include: Bighvay Element • Conduet joint Cal trans/Santa Clara county studies to better d~fine ~ajo: flee~ay-to-free~ay interchange plans and to identify opportunities for direct BOV connectors. • Further evalu3te the feasibility cf specific express~ay inte~change candid~tes. • Establish a Task Foree to coordinate continued development of the Commuter Lane Network. • Monitor proposed rules under the California Clean Air Plan for coordination Yith~ and possible ~pdatin9 of, the TOM Element. • Establish Bicycle Advisory Committees and develop bicycle plans for the County and e~ch city. • condu~t d &tudy to investigate Br~as Yh~re pedestrian provisions are needed on expressways. 5-10 "L I I I i \ I ':~ I ! I i ;A~>- . ~; "-"";: ~. ~; .. !rancit E'leaetlt • Ccndoct AA/~raft tIS for the Fremont-San Jose Corridor. • conduet furth~r planning studies fcr rail dev~lopment~ ~s defi~ed in the plan, if funding for implemer.t~tion is likely to be aVililable. • Conduct studi.s of transit circulation needs fot downtown San Jose end San Jo~e Int~rnational Airport. • Carry Qct an e"'~luaticn of system...,-ide rail issues in conjunction with further corridor studies. • Reviev the recommended bus !l~et size in regard to rail plans~ funding consideratio~s and oth~r factors. • Develop a plan for implementation of the paratransit require~ents of the Americans with Pisabilities Act (AOA). • E&t~bli$h a process for the potential development of site design g~idelines. Land U.e Ele.eDt • prepare a bi~nnual Land Use Status Report ~ddressing progre~s in aehieving l~nd use tecommend~tions. • Dev.lop specific station ar~a land us~ plans as part of r~il corridor planning. rinancial Eleaent • Develop a Fin~ncing and Implementation Strategy for 6ecuring n~~ local capital an~ operating revenu~. rDTUBE p~ UPDATES For consistency with the Regional Transportation plan and to satisfy th~ requirements of AB 3705, the County.ide Transportation plan (r201~) 5hould be updated ~very two years. Each upd~t~ should cover a 20 year time frame and should be 5ched~led to coordinate with other planning ar.d programming activities such as the aevelopment of St~te Transportation l~provement Program (S~IP) prio:iti~s. In addition to the key follo~-up actions recommended in the pl~n, there are several other issues which should be monitored and addressed in future plan updates. These include the following: • Development of the initi~l conqestion Xanaqement Program (CMP) will impact many elements of the T2010 Plan. Future plan updates should fully integrate tbe C"P into the plan and may n~.d to address significant changes, p~rtieul~rly in re$pons~ to the eMP land use ~nd level-of-service elem~nt'. ~ S-11 e'L··· . >,' - L • I.'~:~; , ,. • i ~ , j -. • • o High speed and .utomated rail techr.ologies hav~ ee~n sue~essfully implemented in re~~nt years. Progress on these technologies ,hould he monitored and future updates should ~onsider their potential role in the imp!~mentation of the Long Range ~al1 M~ster Plan. 'telecolDmuting and other changes in .... ork and commuting are 9aini~9 ac~eptance. Future up~at~s should ccnsidet how su~h changes might impaet the need fo~ traditional transportation solutions. • Economic conditi~ns and l~nd ose policies should be monito~ed for their impact on 9[owth. Significant ctanges from cu[re~t projections ce.g., 51o~er job ~ro~th) could affect the improvement priorities in f~ture pl~n updates. 5-12 ". , I l '" '" -r- SANTA CLARA COUNTY Steven s Creek! Alum Rock LONG-RANGE - RAIL CORRIDORS ; I~illm~ '1;Ieglonal , In~nty '-A1tel'rlale Route"--._, ~ Actlylty Cen~r ~ System J', L , .--............. (' --.._----..._---' Fremonllo San Jose South Sa n JoSt: TI fQ c:: ; -. , T2010 Pl!.n CapitAl/Operating Needs High .... ay Transit Other TOTAL Petential Available 5tate/Fed~ral Funds I SU~y OF FUNDING NElDS (in 1990 $ ~illion~) l~ Year 1990-2000 $ 4 56-582 1,090-1,$10 120-195 $1,666-2,687 20 Yea r 2000-2010 $672-908 1. 690-3,220 150-310 $2,512-4,438 Table 15 TOTAL $1,128-1,492 2,7I0-5,110 270-505 $4,178-7,127 Highway I $80-110 5100-140 $180-250 I Transit I 650-750 570-870 1,220-1,620 I Flexible I 240-270 800-900 1,040-1,170 --------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL I $970-1,130 $1,470-1,910 $2,440-3,040 ~dditional Funds Needed* $536-1,717 $602-2,968 $1,138-4,687 * The r~qul[ed funds are likely to be subltantially qreater than the low rang'e shc';I."ll due to the rJeed for adequate Ilatching revrnUE! for State and rederal funds. 153 L •