HomeMy WebLinkAbout0413.0924l'
• •
-" ,,' ~-~" -
September la, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Members of the council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
/
",
12
During the past several months, the city of Palo Alto has been
participating in a process that has led to the preparation of the
1993 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), for adoption by the
Metropolitan Transportation commission (MTC) and approval by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). That process is now nearing
completion. It appears that Palo Alto will have at least one
project included in the 1993 TIP. A second project is very near
the top of ~ back-up list4
The purpose of this staff report is ~o recommend that council adopt
the two attached resolutions, indicating the intent to proceed with
the two projects and provide the necessary local matching funds.
rhe first resolution (Attachment 1) concerns the Embarcade~o
pedestrian/Bike Brioge and Bike Path Extension project, which !s
't-he single project. currently included in the draft 1993 TIP. The
second resolution (Attachment 2) concerns the Page Mill/Foothill
Intersection Improvement Project, ~hich is not presently included
in the draft 1993 TIP, but is very near the top cf a back-up list,
and may possibly move up if other projects falter.
Late in March 1992, MTC announced plans to program the new
Inter1!Jodal Sur-face Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds into
the 1993 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP}~ The new funds
to be programmed are Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and
Congestion Mitiqatinn and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, for 1992/93 and
CMR:413:92
,.
'."
1993/94, plus some carr/-over funds from 1951/92 t!'-,at were not
programmed through the one year F~deral Aid Urban/Feder3l Aid
Secondary e~tension4
Since Karch. KTC has '-'orked .. ·i th the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency (~.) and other Bay Area county CMA's to develop
~ list of projects fo~ the 1993 TIP. The Santa Clara county G~
has provided a very helpful leadership role in ~orkinq with MTC and
local jurisdictions, to develop ;~ lis"t. of projects for the 1993
TIP.
In May, City staff reported to council (CMR:261:92), on the then
current status of the evolving process, and recommended that
Council establish a priority 1 h;t of projects fat'" proqramllling
consid.eration in the 1993 TIP. The priority list approve::" by
Council at that time (Exhibit 1) included seven roadway projects,
one transit project, one sideW'aI)c project, and one pedestrian!
bicycle project.
Since Hay, many things have transpired and/or changed with respect
to project eligibility, project evaluation criteria and scoring,
prioritization strategies, and funding levels~ w~ile the process
has at times been uncertain, it appears that most participants are
able to 6upport the results.
FUNDING LEVEL
Exhibit 2 provides a su~~ary of the funding for the draft 1993 TIP
for Santa Cl~ra county. Overall, Santa Clara County projects
acco\L~t for 113 percent of the proportionate share fo~ the County.
With the addition of Santa Clara County's allocated share of
regional projects, the total increases to 120 percent. Two points
are worth emphasizing:
• First~ the amounts of funds programmed are 15 percent greater
than the available fundS, predicated on the assumption that
50me o~ the projects will not complete a 11 the necessary steps
for full project funding eligibility.
• Second, the less than proportionate share of STP Discretionary
(85%) , while compensated for by the greater than proportionate
share of CMAQ (142\), resulted in a situation whereby: (a)
Santa clara County, as a 'Whale, received its full
proportionate share and more in terms of total furjds~ but (b)
co. major Palo Alto project (Page Mill/Foothill) ended up being
excluded from the list of project.s in the draft 1993 TIP~
CMR: 413 :92 9/10/9'2
Page 2
... "
ExhlbJt 1
• • •
Congestion Management Agency
oUanta. (tva CouRt)'
Breakdown of Draft 1993 Fede .. aJ. TIP (or Santa Clat'3 County
DoIftJr' Amwnts in 1boi.stJPUis
f'WIIO lYr'1O
'STP Guaran'ce
:STP DlscretJomul'
olAQr
S'JBl'OTAL
Hu.ot
'kOJECOl
16
8
10 ..
PIlQl'lORl'tONAL
"""'"
Sl3.967
$13.962
$18,882
$A6,Bl1
"'0Wl
PllOGltAMMItU
ta'<fOf
PROl"OR, ......
$14,067
SIl,B7-J
526,9()\
101%
'-..85%
----"'112%
>CN1'Of
rat,..
I'At>GRAloI
25"
IN
31%
lJ)o/lI 25%
plus Sh.alt! of Regional p.rojects (below)
$5:J,K'12
Sl.3lZ "~
ryRANoToT~SS(-l<14 --lUiiV~-~---260/-;:1
~,
'-.
"
-n"""rr
56.210
52,M'
~7.1)5
S16,0I'9
K'"
""""'''
4< ..
22 ..
21"
31m
I'~
............. ........
N<HII,nCAMa' I I.JlVWAOe:D
$7.827
$9,255
5l9.nl
,s18,4UJ
$17.917
129,0<16
l..EV£MGtP _IT
$8,1'50
$3.505
17,9>7
j36.8~) 565.381:J 519.1\2
~-
""" UVUIA.Gfn
....... IT
... " " J8%
27%
:lOll.
ru:CIONi\L PI\OJECfS. (SeC ~harc bn,.'tu on Z".9%. populaUon sllitre)
sc.c
PI<OJECf AMOUNt SIW<£
Regional S(gn,\ Equip Upgrade, ___ ,."" ....... 17,Ji)1 11,818
Freeway Sefl'kc ?,(wf& """ .. ,,,,,,, .. $1,611 $'02
R~Bional Traffic: Opt:'lali~15 CcrnCt!PA'l11 .. , ......... . $;.425 $1.J02
'rO'rAL $13.,41 $3,;H
itp f'f~" .... m wmmu., @/ott'jl
!:! "' ~
'" ,.. ...
N
!'iuMbefl'-" I'0OI. ~ up ~\I."(", ~ \Q~r., tf1'Cf
(;)
>, .. ;
1 1993 TIP PROJECTS
Exhibit 3 provides a su~~ry of only those projects in Sa~ta Clara
County that are now included in the draft 1993 TIP.
Included as Attachment 3 is a list of projects for the nine-county
Bay Area, which 'Were considt:'!r-ed for inclusion in the draft 1993
TIP. The unshaded portions represent proj ects that are now
included, while "the shad.ed portions represent pz:'ojects that are not
included in the draft 1993 TIP.
PALO ALTO PROJECTS
As the process of developing the project list for the 1993 TIP
evolved over the past several months, it became evident that only
three ~f the ten projects Palo Alto originally identifiEd warranted
further consideration for this funding cycle. The three projects
were:
• Page Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvement
• Page Mill/Hanover Inte:--section Improvement
• Embarcadero pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path Extension
Ultimately" the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path
Extension project has been the only project inclueed. The project
was included, by nature of the fact that it competed successfully
within a special category of funds set aside for low cost «$350X),
cost-effective projects.
The Page Hill/Foothill Intersection ImprovelJlent project scored well
(56.0), but snded up just missing the funding cutoff, and is ranked
second highest of the projects not funded (see page 5, Attachment
3) within the STP cateqory. The Page Mill/Hanover Intersection
Improvement project had a lower score (43.4), 'Which placed it
behind 29 other projects and ahead of 74 projects, all of them
unfunded.
In summary, the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path
Extension Project will be funded as part of the 1993 ~IP; the page
Mill/Foothill Intersection Improvement Project is not presently
funded" but might possibly be advanced into the 1993 TIP, if
suffi~ient other projects falter; and the Page Mill/Hanover
Intersection Improvement Project is not p~esently funded, nor is it
likely to be advanced into the 1993 ~IP.
RESOLUTIONS REGARDING LOCAL SHARE
Prior to final adoption (by MTC) and approval (by Fh~A) of the 1993
TIP, local jurisdictions ~ith ~rojects included in the draft 1993
TIP must approve a resolution committing the necessary matching
CMR:U3: 92 9/10/92
Page 3
/
r"
"
'114' !'~
199j 'rIP -METfIOPOllrA~ TRANSPOfifAllON COMMIS:j: ... 11 (MTe)
SURFACE TRANSPOATA710N PROGRAM (STP) AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR O~JALITY IMPROYEMl:NT PROGRAM (CMAQ)
All cQ;(ls rn SHIM'!
leo Sponsor Plolcct
:!£~ C"llrOln~ t!!!.r..f!60
,)CL rc~Ufar!~ IIYIY 280 (iii 08 II,nlll ,QIIQICr'
Iscl. C"llr .. nt IDS· V"lious tn,lnW
~Cl C,''''llboil (}J'5Corn Ave Slgnnl
~C.~l-C,1mpulJll $J!"I lOnln Exp III
~Collrnl'
~11r~~
_ ~pwy Comml.."/vr (HOV)
,eL 'C{lunl TA TOIrI'lINl $1 •. 11'1 SJ Child Cote Focility
~~ ~CJunly TA. Ccufllt TratlsiI5y~IIii"
;Cl Counlv"TA ~OUnl( Pion Updalfl
;~ Cauntt T A Ch<Jboya ~u_s Yald Fue!.TloInk
;C-~ (.QI'nly TA
La~
in SI"}ljorlT~"'ler
n P ..!!i!,n_
g & ProgramrTIng
lOr. $rq;;;;llJp,
~C~l ~,.;~ y~~ ~_~.!..~"~I FiI9hl Turn l,1Mt-
~~CL rJlr" "'Trw St''} "nlonlo CaiT""" SPIel!'
~~tilb,o\II" Embau:~H~~
:;\ l ,~.lnJO<,1I W,,"I,!'kJ I:!lvrj Rd.-
~l ;m1O--;;-Ow"lo~
S~LfS"flJ~::~ ~~!~n~0
~ ! ~i~ Cc'" _~~'!!~~!L TI,lf......§r.I"m ~JI P'O!! !(:~_Jl'!'!'-=:!~. lli~lilI"u of C.ty Tr,~~1C Sl'~18'<1'1'1~m'
13 C
~I~;;;~;~
~t.il-'Id;, ,
Ul>f".1trd!J Eol C.1n11NJ Sl9'llllllrtyru'fen'llr.1
'!!!J.... 13131 I'll !,151 Inlord' ...... !). Co",,-
SUB ~OTAL SANT~ 9,.ARA COUNTY
PAss.
y
y
y
TOl4
Cu,
SII
I
9')Q'j
12,375
ISTU
Cost
~#'l~.
TSM
Mutel
10.0
J u ~(.'Iu:.v ! ~v.
).0 $2,212.5 $2875
,0.0 $4"8_0 I $64.
$2.Q()(HJ Sl,6mt-ll
$800.0 S400
$300.0 1240
$4,000.0 SJ.20l1
S500,Q $400.
SHlO.O S40.0
$700
$S,OOo .". $!lU4.
$~i25-
1200
\:.000
,",000
-r.;:ocOo ---m;oo
~
55,0000
'~.ooo.a
__ !JOO 0
.'(l,500.0
$66,::1635
$74,
702
-S2.!lOO m.
$j~OO
51.2000
It6o'O
l2OaO ~
$(00,
---mT
$5.250 ..
$92.0
----siS9.4
,aa
$207 1460
500'
S2:
:!!~
.0.0
~
or/locall '(EARl P5&E PROJ
I {ESC~ ODIC' T't~'E ?"U
$2,
$475.0
ul-92 AIJ)( STP GUM
---so:o Aor-gJ AflT... STP
1,,·94 TOS CMA
$\'50'2 a TP
Si5aO ~T+
-$00, ._~~, v.".-¥~ .........
11,110-92 HOV CMAQ
1!'l-93 TRAN !'iTP G\
l~.O ,--19.92 Jun-93 TAAN STP 9!l..~
Ki:G'T"l992 Jan 94 TRAN STP GUM
1992 Jul·~l TRAN STPG"ijAR~~
t992 S; -93 PLAN ~lP (;I.-,U:.
$60.0 1992' Jan·9:J F't
$59.!) 1 Jan-93 n
$4"5.0 ? Jan.9J~~M""V .~
SO.O 1 Jlln, .. nt~_IGN -lcMAO I
;.[;:"92 PiAN SfP I
Jan,9J mAN lSTP
SiOI.
~$265.6
~ 199:
$1000 19'1.
1100.0 199:<
.. ~--
$34 0 ? OIlC-9:J OIt(E
~"OO u 199~r J;,n·94,
"7 0 H~g2 M:II-9.3 I
S21 J 1992 Jan·g] PLAN
$0,0 1992 Oec-In~!!
SO.O ~~ Ov~-9:
~ '99~
"PGlJAf-'
'fp
II'
ls~
WAH
(l0 1992 ---r=----IT.. SfP GUAA
$5,250,
$12.171.
~(t -a"l 11,; ST" GUAR
NEED i;lIKE STP
1',,1: .. 93 SIGN
J;I90;C-
o
o
~ ;;;
:1
'"
''', '\ ..
,,' ' .
.\ .. \.;
'\
),
"
,"\
.of-,
;):-.
r!.('
,.. ,
funds, CC1oDUllittin9 to the cOllpletion of the project as describl?<j in
the priority setting process, and stating their understanding that
STPJCMAO cannot be expect2'd to cover any cost increases for the.
project. Such resolutions must be provided to MTC by Septemb~r 22,
1992.
EWba;caderq Pedestrian/Sike Bridge ADd P~th Extension Project
Attachment 1 is a resolution whereby th~ Palo Alto City Council
expresses its intent to proceed 'With the implementation of the
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridqe and Path Extension project and
to pt'ovide the appropriate matching fun.ds; and also acknowledges
that additional CHAQ funds, to co .... er cost increSlses, cannot be
expected.. Inoluded as Attachment 4 is a copy of the application
form, upon which the eliqibility and priority settin9 vas
determined for this project.
The local matching share of $80,000 will be fully reimbursed by a
combination of pending approval of State Transportation System
Management {TSM) funding participation (11.5' of total project cost
[$45,000]) and $34,000 from an outstandinq commitment by Holiday
Inn to provide a sum of up to $37,000 for const~uction of the bike
path~ If some or all of the St.ate TSM matching funds fail to
materialize, Palo Alto could include funding for this project as
part of its annual application for State Transportation Development
Act (TDA) grant funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
~Kill/Foothi11 Intersection IDprovement pro~ct
Attachment 2 is a resolution whereby the Palo Alto city Council
expresses its intent to proceed with the implementation of the Page
Hill/Foothill Intersection Improvement Project and to provide the
appropriate matching funds. Inc~,.,--!d as Attachment 5 is a copy of
the application form, upon whiC'.1 the eligibility and priority
setting was determined for this project.
Technically, this resolution is not required because this project
is not included in the 1993 T!P. However, since the project is
.favorably positioned for possible sl!bstitution for-some project
that may falter, staff believes that it would be ~ise and prudent
for the Council to formally express such a position on this
projec:t~
The local matching funds ($198, 000 for design and construction)
will come from existing monies collected as part of the Stanford
Research Park Traffic Impact Fee., for the pur;-"'be of making tra.ffic
operation improvements at nine locations as identified in the
Citywide Land Use and Transportation stUdy. Utilization of these
traffic impact. fees for this project will likely necessitate
reprogramming the planned improvements at Middlefield/Oregon
(FY 94-95) and Page Mill/Hanover CFY 96-96) as shown in 1992-9J elP
projact 19073.
CMR:413:92 9/10/92
Page 4
.' ...;.
•
~ ..
I
I
FQTUBE AC'1'IONS
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bite Bridge and Path Extensi9n Project
The proposed strat~gy with the Embarcadero Pedestrian/6ik~ Bridge
and Path Extension Project is '::0 proceed ,:&,lth the design and
construction of the project in a manner that takes full advantage
of the avail able funas approved as part of the 1~93 TIP.
If council approves the resolutjon of intent regarding the
~rcadero pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path Extension Project
(Attachmant 1), and if the project is formally approved as part of
the 19513 TIP, staff will return to Council with a elP budget
amendment ordinance to establish a elP project to cover the desiqn
and cons1"ruction of the project. This will occur following the
completion of the planninq study currently underway, as provided
for in 1992-93 CIP No~ 19)10.
The steps in this process include the follcwing:
1. Approval by Council of resolution of iutent to construct
the project~ and provide the local matching tunds~
2. Approval by MTC and FHWA of 1993 TIP, inclusive of
subject project.
3. Completion of planning study currently underway. as
provided ~or in 1992-93 CIP No. 19310.
4. Approval by Council of CIP bUdget amendment ordinance
estahlishing a CIP project~ to provide General Funds to
cover design and con3tl~ction costs~ with reimbursement
frem federal tun~. through the 199) TIP.
5. Proceed with desiqn phase, including hiring a consultant
to prepare the neces!ary plans and related bid documents.
6. Proceed with construction phase, includin'3' hiring a
contractor to build the project.
~ Mill/Foothill Intersection rmprovel'rl.e.nt Project
The proposed strategy .. ith the Page Mill/Foothill Intersection
Improvement Project is to proceed up to and through the design
phase of the project using all local funds, if necessary I so that
the project is well positioned for possible substitution into the
1993 TIP and/or inclusion in a subsequent year TIP.
om: 413 :92 9/10/92
Paqe 5
It Council approves the rQsoluti~n of intent regarding the Page
Mill/~oothill Intersection Improvement Proje~t, staff will return
to Council with a CIP budget amendment ordinance to establish a CIP
project, to cover the design portion ($~4,OOO) of the project.
It may also be necessary to recommend delaying implementation of
other roadway rela.ted projects, in ol'der to .e.ccommodate this
project.
Since this project will not be included in the 199J TIP and,
therefore, is not currently eligible for federal (STP/CMAQ)
fun~in9, staff proposes to utilize 100 percent local funds (traffic
illpact fees) .for the design portion, in order to advance the
project along a s~~edule that will ensure its readiness to
substitute into the 1993 TIP, if such an opportunity materiali2es.
The steps in this process inclUde the following:
1. Approval by council of resolution of intent to construct
the pz-oject and provi.de the local matching funds.
2. Completion of
underway~
preliminary design study currently
3 ~ Approval by council of eIP budget amendment ordinance
establishing a CIP project to cover detailed design.
4. Proceed with design phase ($84,000) using all local funds
{Traffic Impact Fees), including hiring a consultant to
prepare the necessary plans and related bid doc\ments.
5. Re-submit project tor possible funding
phase as part of a future MTC/FHWA
Improvem~~t Program (TIP).
of construction
Transportation
6. Proceed. with construction phase ($906,000), including
hiring a contractor to build the project, (a) When and if
the project is approved for funding within an approved
MTC/FHWA TIP, or (b) · ... hen and if other resources are
allocated to this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve the attachsd resolution of intent (AttacMent 1)
regarding the implementation of the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path Extension Project, and
2. Approve the attached resolution of ir.tel!t
reqardinq the implementation of the Page
Intersection I~provement Project.
C'IIR, 413: 92
(Attachment 2)
Mill/Foothill
9/10/92
Page 6
Respact!ully sUbmitted,
tt?I£Nd A:> .4'd~~
/'
MARVIN L. OVERWAY KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Chiaf Transportation Official
Attachments:
Manaqer
1. Resolution of Intent Regarding ••• the
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike
Path Extension ••••
2. Resolution of Intent Regarding ••• the Page Hill
Foothill Intersection Improvement Project
3. List of all projects in nine-county Bay Area
considered for inclusion in draft 1993 TIP
4. Application form for Embarcadero ped/Bike
Bridge and Bike Path Extension Project
5. Application form for Page Mill/Foothill
Intersection Improvement Project
cc: Stanford University ,Julia Fremon, Andy Doty, Phil Wi.lliams)
Clement Chen Associates
Holiday Inn, Di~ter Schulz, General Manager
Stanford Research Park Mailing List
CMR.:413:92 9/10/92
Page 7
.; ~-
"/
./"'"\.
".
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.~~~
RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF TIlE COl'NCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO REGARDING CITY OF PALO l'.LTO FUNDS AND
THE CONGESTION MITIGJ,TION AND AIR QUALITY
IMPROVBMBli'!' PROGl<AM FOR THE EMBARCADERO
PlIDBSTRIAN!BIKB BRIDGB AND BIItB PATH BXTBNSION
FROM CHURCHILL AVBNUE TO UNIVBRSrTY AVBNUB
WBRRBAS, the City of Palo Alto has applied and been
rec~nded for $320,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
:Improvement ProgrBlr'. (IICMAQ") funding for the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path &xtension from Churchill
Avenue to anivereity Avenue in the 1993 Transportation Improvement
Program ("TIP") a!3opted by the Met.ropoli tan Transportation
Commission and approved by the Federal Highway Admdnistration; and
WHBRBAS, a prerequisite for inclusion in the 1993 TIP is
the adoption of a local resolution setting forth the project
description, the project cost and amount of local matching funds
that will be prO"J'ided~ and an acknowledgement as to the fixed
amount of OQQ funding;
NOW~ THBRBFORE J the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RBSOLVE as follows!
The City council by adopting this resolution of intent does
hereby state that (subject to the adoption of a budget by the City
council:
a. The project will be built as described
above;
b. $80,000, or 20 percent of total project
costs (whichever is less), in local
matching funds will be provided by the
City of Palo Altoi and
c. The City of palo Alte understands that
the CMAQ fw:.ding is fixed at $320,000,
and therefore any cost i:lcreases cannot
be expected to be funded with CMAQ Zunds.
INTRODUCED AND P ASSBD :
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:
ABSTB.ITIONS:
1
ATTBST:
City Clerk
APPROVE!) AS TO FORM:
Senior Asat. City Attorney
2
" "-;,,-._..,.
APPROVED:
Mayor
City r=ger
Director of Finance
Director of Planning and
community Environment
Chief TransportatIon Official
---!. :.
AT~_'ACHMENT 2
RESOLOTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF rNTllNT OF THE CO~UN=C""IL'-CF !HB CITY OF
PALO ALTO REG.I,RDING CIn: OF PALO ALTO i'IlNDS AND
THIl SURFACE TRANSPORTA'TION PROGRAM FOR THE PAGE
MILL/FOOTHILL INTERSBCTION IMPROVBMENT PROJECT
~, the City of Palo Alto has applied for $792,000 in
Surface Transportation Program (·STP") funding for the page
Mill/Foothill Intersection ImproY"ement Project (the "proj ect·) in
the 1993 Transportation Improvement Program ('TIP') adopted by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and approved by the Federal
Highway Admini8tration~ -The project includes: widening Page Mill
on both approaches tOo provide a second left-turn land and to
provide an exclusive ri9bt~turn lane on the westboucd approach of
Page Mill; widening Junipero Serra on the west side to provide an
9Xclusive southbound righ~-turn lane; widening Poothill on the east
side to provid.e a second left -turn lane and to remove the
north/south split operation: optimizing the tr&ffic signal timing;
and adding bicycle lane.; and
WHEREAS, the project has not been reconnended for inClusion
in the 1993 TIP, but ie ranked high as a. possible substitute
project; and
WHEREAS ... the City of Pa.lo Alto wishes to expresB its intent
and L~dine •• to have the project be included in the 1993 TIP, if
and when Buch an opportunity arises; and
WBBRBAS, a pr~requ1.ite for inclusion in the 1993 TIP is
the adoption of a. local r-e.ol\ltion setting forth the project
description, the project coet and amount of local matching funds
that will :be provided~ and. an acknowledgement as to the fixed
amount of STP funding;
NOW ... THEREPORE, tne City Council of the City of Palo ~to
does RESOLVE as follows:
The City Council by adopting thie resolution of intent does
hereby .tate that (subject to the adoption of a budget by the City
Council' :
a. The project will be built as described
above;
b. $~98,OOO, or 2u percent of total project
ccsts (whichever is less). in local
matching f\Jllds will be provided by the
City of Palo Alto; and
c. The Ci.ty 01 Palo J>..lt.o understands that
the STP funding i8 fixed at $792,000. and
therefore any cost increases cannot be
expected to be funded with STP funds~
1
".-------"
INTRODUCED AND PABSIID,
AYIiS:
NOBS,
ABSENT:
ABSTXNTIONS:
A'l'TBS'l':
City Clerk
APPROVED AS 'l'O !'ORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
2
APPROVED:
Mayor
City t-t'.anager
Di~ector of Finance
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Chief Transportation Official
,
'.'./
/
. _____ ~_~. __ . .~~'.~,.Trr.!':"·""~~~~
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
All ro,t6 If! $100(1 •.
I I I I
PASSES I TOTAL I ISTI:AI CUM ISTEAI CM,6,(J ITeM
CounlV Sponlor Prolfe! ~~I!.~EN SCORE COST COST ELlGlbl.E GROUP
1~~~~,~!m?s~.~~!O~~!;:'ION AND ~IRv.QYA,!:,I~IY \~'~~IQ) ,~,~2PR~MI
I E:tpW"( Signal Sy'
I: Signel upgrade. curm""" =1=
OAH Signal&' IfC Impr,
~~-+~~~~-+~~~IM,,~lon~'~S~~~'~;I~lnle~oB~ect ~Y'
SON Santa Rosa Interconnect SIQnail
ISON
CC C';unly ~~
ALA ,Pleassf'lton ~r_~ __
!SF
IS.
.f0~."A",n",,,.,!B1,,,,,d·'7!"'CCS""',",,,"
Raglonal Signsl Equip Upgrade
PttlalurJlfll
IEII
~ on
:1 Cllrnoo Sign.llmP!'
II fa
~ ~"81!-
jP&lllIUfT18· ng',onIEl): S190.1I1. I V'
c: Slon.1 Comoulllr UPQIsd", ...:i..
;ON
ri-'lA
iLA )Oaklel1d
iCL ; S6n Jose ~h ISII" Jose
iCl
iliNT
IREG
SOL
!}CL
A(~A-rACTA
I~~
°fIJtnon
~tliG Signal SynchrQnll!!!.~"!.!,)Qr!1'"
:;onl. Busl. 011S1. TIAI, Syshln'1 Myl
1!tIAn~A nl Cilv Trc!!ic S~!!'!!! __ ~l:!!
PWY (;omn,..,ler lHOVl
vllllro '
ros
I, fr.eway'
hoMO HOV III''U'I. ~llIvl!!n~Ofl '.0 M,,~~ior\
kfly -7121192 . I :47 PM
v
y'
v
y
~Ij-,-
·55:[
:l:l,Q
54.
49.4
~-
42.3
~L
36.5·
590.0
~120.1
$3'52.'
$505 __
~16.0
.n04'
$7,301.
1640
~.~o 0
..J UI ,;
~~~I.:
$56.0
~I2!)
l4.428j
02S.1
IB86.:
,903.0
5,977.4
].398,6
.1,462,6
13,482.6
4,722.1
i47.i
-j4,4_1 $200.0-
32.8 I $4.."?~!0
i16,21~
~~43.;
-----sBo~·s"-4a.o $25,.'i16,
-$6,000.0 $~
$5 400 0 $:ffi -916
~60.0·· $161_42 $:JB5:J~
_ .. - -[) 400.0 $-469"11'1'
$605.0 $"'9 e
$2OOO:'c ~lli
$7 965.(1 $~9 7
~S7,5;.tO.O ~OO.~
Pggt'll1l17
y
v y
-y-
.:t..
y
V
V
'1
y
,. ,.
,
1
...1.. ,
1 , .. ,-, ,.
2 , .. ,.
INO .... 5
....... "',..,'" IPI'I.~.ln uaranl'!l.
",,93 SIGN
~-I)3 SIGN II'III __ tU8 new
Jilin·"'" SIGN
JUn·92 SIGN
JIl'l-1J3 SIGN
;;;1''';
JUn-93 SIQ
.8 .93 SIO
Jul-9.J SIG
~e -9J 510
·.b·9:) 8(0
Ti'i9-;;fI-;
~_ = .. \1111 \lfe r>ew
.g;> SIC,
-Au!L!':J' ~S".'G~-I~" ~~IGN--1J-'8 .;;;;;;
c~J§IGN
!l5.1~· _ -~IR"N
j~.gs!~~
-;<
".)
i)
,.
;:l
~
~
~I':
H
~
. ".:~'
(.
'\:
,",1·<:;~.;
-.. ~~:-< .
•
" ' \
,:~~.
-':H"
.>' ./ . I
I
!
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PAOORAM (TIP)
MElROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENOATION
~MAQ AJUDS. MAnE AVAJU8lJE FROM SAcoa
key.: 1J21192 -l:4J PM Pag_ 2: 011
, ,
o • :. j-
>,~ ~ ,
',,\.
"
{)
,~-.,~/,
•
"
"
i.lit ~"
, ,;
I
!
/
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPRQVEME:NT PROGHAM (TIP)
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
AHros.s in $1000.,
(county jspontlor __ IF>ttlJect
PROGRAM fP) f:.± ISURFACE:
6ESTION ~ANAG
NAP CMA
SF CMA
SM eMA
SCL eMA
SOl eMA
,j SON C!-1A
I
ISTEAI
1ST
i!.Pf~g,
" ,
ISlEA Planning 3. I
1ST!:." PI~inl0!l~
~ ,&I
, Pl
9 "v.;,lvi,IIIS
I kllvlllills
I Ac1ivllillS
9 Ar:1ivl!le:s
9 Ac,lvlllu
q AcUvllhl5
q AcIl'lilies,
9_Aclivitllu,
v
V
V
.:i._
-"y
..:r...
V
v
11) FUND LOW COST , COST F.FFECTIVE:
SCL Cgm bell
CC DDnvlliB
~8N I Mill V •• oy
SON
:, BII!~ed~l.n
SF DPT Nllw $Ig o .. !: West PP!
:C EI CarrHo Hin 8, Cui
~ OOBHTD lllrk.'plJr Farry AcceJl Imp,
[Gel MIl"!. View S8r1 AnltmlQ Calfraln S
l~RN Tiburon SF Ferry 811o;e PDII~IM
I cc
I
SC
ALA
'I SF Sel
, ~ M",,-
l!'l~~
Mora
DPr
Co1!!!.!L
OPT
I 101·~ 'mola (NVC)
d~Ald"Lol
Ir!.itflic vTde(j'i -----
lGlove Way Blk. 'Jne~
iMalhilda-Ave. PaIn & I
If plnn (Sl~
~ pedfB;~~ldgll
11 lor TrllOlU -----
V' yo
..:5:"
V'
y' yo
y
y'
yo
y'
y
..'!".
V'
._'t
v· y
NA
_NA
_l:!~
~
NA
~
NA
...-W_
NA
~
~
~~~--
-4:1.6
-~[
...!b!..
~'!..
42.5
'T9T [3-
35.3
-~ _ 34.!L
~
~
$225.0_
-.J:22S_0
~
_53.4.0
....EI!?:!.
~~
$225_0
S292.0
5350.0
.l!~~ 0
-$'-~OO
• $144.0'
SI •. 0
5253.6
5221
~21.3
120.0
~~
UI().o
$100.0 s;oo:o
SJTo:O
J,~
_$80,0 '
~ey-mI192·':1,7PM Pagl!lJ 01 7
$6~
$1.112.8 I
$1,33IJ~
$1.562.8_
-..!1,9 ••. 8
Sl,2e !1L
S3,071.:.!.
$3,~9(l.6_
$3_52~
.J.lli.Q..
$792.0
1,056.01
1,18-4.0
!2!!.4.'
!.2!!
',5ot2.0
!t795 .6
~,Olti.9
?2~
$2,358.2
$2,"38.:
$Z.llfL?..
$Z,616.Z
E,7182
S3,03f,,-Z
..!!.
.!!-
" N
..!!.
..!!.
..!!.
..!!.
N
..!!.
V
.:i..
.:i..
-"'f
'''''~''''-",,~~<~,
PSU!PROJ I
()IIlE TYPE NOTeS
., -"lA.!PLA·,
-;;;--t-~ ~~~A,".~-,-~+ ___ ~
..!l~
~
~
NA
NA I ...... n
NA PLAN
N~, PLAN
NA Pi:'AN
~A PLAN
NA PLAN
rn PAVE
Jun:94 SIGN 1",,,,_
-~.Ja~E-_
Jllo-93 SICN 111: ore new
~3PAVE ----
Jun·93 Plf-
-1!.EF.O TR,
J""jiL Nov.-9Z PAVE
POR
.AN
KE
-\b~~
\..J
,I" I'.
!:/
,",
,I:.
,. , , ~~
" .,
" ,
,
1
, ,
';,I:
i
'/ I
/ t'
/
I
I
!
/
!
f
f
!
.I
!
(ff. -f£
1993 iF!AI'/SPOI/'TJl!J
ME;rROPOLJr ON IMPROVEMENT PfU;>Gf./1it ,!~: :::.co::.~"'''''''' """'-. :::::;; .or;
;0;Ij-~~ _ N cr,n:~ f~ 1!,1t'f(f P /!!k.:" .0-
I ...
::-0
L~ ~:-=
I!J. I1ct ~~ ... r(;~lCI:t.--' II' ~"!.:
~-
"AP-_a.
~~ ~ ::c
~ . ~c 8,~
.r'" ~8F
':)/11 Scr
il JPa--~' Cifltrai~ ~ §"I'lf1
~ ~~Ia
,2'-
t~;;
~
Q.A"
~
-'" ~2
!..~,-
~!'b.~ " 1!:~.uN~·~,Ort _
~~
'-~~ -!2!..~ .. §I(
~'"
~
~ ~"~'~~ ~~Ar;;;;-S'!"'Y~
c~"l)",QfN rr;:.
,
i ! ~~S TOtAL I
'"",,II 8COQ£, ~·".I Cu., IST"I C".a
r -C""I<u<;," reM
-L ~9--;;
Jtf ~ ~
?L
-.·:!f '/;!.2-
.f'
-!~ _rJ#j'~I. ~:S-5 ,
o -:
" ,
~'1
~.
t>:l'.tt.
~ e!'!'o 3 ;;2rm~
---~.~ ,, ,
·0 @f
"-
~l~ ~t ::-:
.. -...., jllOJ ~~t~~ iNc~~ ~.~ r~A.~_ ~-.\lI T.q~ ~3B.(if£ 9zr.gJ~ _____
)1k:~93 ~Lr---~
f'lIIb''''',Nj ~ Afl't1-kwt.b .. "Vn1 r~~ ~
W!!f<. _ 9? fR""i~
~9J rA".'\~ J~'::1J fRAN _~n_\? -~D~ o
'~!>/'. ll?i'1!J2 ~ '.47 PM
~''''~'~A
.1",~ '" ' ~~ ~.
~ Wi
~ :?ffi. 1~
~
~ ~
Page,.: 011 ~~ -
• -.. .. -~
"
,
I"
/
,',
I
I
\
! ,
~
, 1
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PiP)
METROPOliTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
All co!ls in $(1)00.4.
~(lUhry ! Sponsor i Project
"
I P!tSSES TOYAl
SCREEN SCORE
y' !i6.7
ISH: I
COS'
~
CUiVllSTfAj CMAQ j TeM
cos"r 1=11r..1R1 ~ finOI II
51;5,4:;-
CC ipo, Si!l V' 56,6 ~400(l $(i5,B~ ,
13)
ALA
SON
Mn"N
[) A!\o
CC M.~
ALA Ganren')
SF PORT
;oN
ALA eART
CC 'fiMlf
SF BART
tALI\. BART I"E-. flARl
I~ ~Rr
.~y.._ BARi
BART
[i~ MnN Coun
pIICH'l'
(SF [MLNI
ella AIIO_
NOT IDfOFORFUNDIN
-y ~d wltjef\I'ig
d ••
rU"'If,;ITi
'. HiIlBlJde ~~
M!fI!llon Blvd
----Ilrnodiile~I!OI.i
lodO,
.I'I' .... I~
i'eli&fl!on E
-asms(
~aplaCj
Ne~! genetallo".ollrllin control. Pha~1l
@7r;
I· Pha!1I
Ne;i9~l1(IfaHl'ltH:.llfIlI1l COnI/o!, PtJl!Is;'
,_I "J1:I~1generlltiM of -
~~~9!£_~_
j Irldll~lllat p~\V)' SW Wicl!!fllng
'"Ie .... rake;-Sa/lllJei 1 ey!or PlUk
WJp .r1d A¢r;ot$lblllv h(,ptl
I Facility
q\.llp
y.
~~V
Y
y y
y
y
""7
Y
~-Ar 4. INal)3 CliY "R,ko a.nd fo
~ON
AL"-OA~T'
.Pllih 10 NapH Vlllilly Colioal y
key· 712 I f')2 -\:47 PM
Tfo
~
;1-2
"&
4f:]"
4&,"
-:i5.1
Jl5.1
45.0
4~,O
~~
~1&'_
42.3
-A1.9-,
'!':Cj----'c,r,Q..~2!
.'~2.0 $71,62f
18.0 sn,!iH
iITr
~-~~-S!;.::: '83 .. _
S6~G.O~&
,~~
O,55i'._~
$2.
-=:-r===.~ O,.J'40.0! 1132,QI ~
~.4784 $1:14.'1960
10(\5.13 $ (35,3il2.4
$!1I9,2 .i1J6121
-.2.;000.1 '1:)952
$2,062 9 $1~1,6_~~.
$s6s
S1401 0;
~~
$\51}.6'
f,5
L...:::::":
'&9& J.::...:.. .... , I ,410.
Sd.8Z!!L $lfjD,
Pog\) 5 01 '!
N
-
-
-
JI,I"-92 ART+
,r-:--S4 .1)3 ART ..
Au -92 Aln.-
M"t·l).4 el~E rr:;
M.t·9-'l~
Jsn-93 TF'iA~J
"J;"'93 TRAN
_ J.n·\J;} TR~~ m. ~._.jtiH:la~
J.".~' '7-.-.,
IOn·'
I
JU\:,ron-nq7Aw..-r-
JHIl'9.::
i5ii(;'R]fAIi< t:: -y-
. I~_'
~
c.J
')
-.
-~-
-
,
It.
" -,
.
I
I
.. ,
'.-''''/ •
, ,.
"
.,
I
!
/
"
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
METROPOliTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
All ro.m In ~ 100Q$.
PASSES J TO'J'lll
SCR[,EN
t!oOOQJ§
y"l11~ i
k~1' 11~~lIU;~-':"/PM PII(JD (i f)! 7
CMAQ 1 lCM
EU(1lUlE
r~1'I''IV'' T. ','"P.\ .@,! Wi P~:l.~.~.,-w;":9'. &:+""!,,.' __
, ;'.'
o ~ -:--. '" '
}.'t
\
-'1..
·--·0
•
..
"
1993 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATlON COMMISSION (MTC)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
All uul~:lll $1COO.s.
,il,Jp~~f!1p.
~)~t4,t£.~¥~_~.M {j
klly -7f~ll9;! \;!ll PM P<lgo1Q!7
,.;
,
')
,"-¥'-
" , ",
Project:
14~ ArT ACHHENT 4
"', .. Y Embarcadero Ped/Bike Br1dq~
, Bike path Extention
sicycle Application -page 1 of 5
Application ~or FY 199~-92 FUnds
CATIA Fund Program
Bicycle Projects
ANIIl1AL ELI'!MENT PROJECTS
PART 1. TITLE AND CERTIFICATION
Appllcant Agency' city of Palo Alto
Adaresa: 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person: Ashok Aqqarwal
(415) 329-2575 Tele.phone No~~
Project Title: Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge , Bike Path
Extention
Project Location (County, city, or clties): Palo A1to
Amount of Prop. 116 Funds Requested in F¥ 1992-93: $ 40Q,QQQ
To the best of my knowl~dqe and belie!, the data and information in
this application is true .n4 correct and I a~ authorized to fil~
this application on behalf ot the applicant~
Name " Title.. M&ryiD L. OyS[YIY. Chief trAnsportation Official
Signature: Date: Hay 14. 1992 -
e 0
Attachment 5: Bicycle Application -raga 2 or 5
PART 2. COMMISSION SCREENIN~ CRITERIA
Does ycur agency/project meet the statutory requirement to be
eligible for CATIA funding, pursuant to section 99650 of the
Clean Air and Transportation I~provement Act or 19907
Yes No [XX] Not Applicable
Does your agency have the financial ability to implement,
operate and maintain the proposed project?
Yes No [XX] Not Applicable
Has your l\gency's peliey bC3rd/body approved the project and
the project fund application {attach certified resolution or
other documentation showing policy board approvalj?
Yes [XX] No
Has your agency completed,
beginning the project,
documentation, pursuant to
Quality Act (CEQA)?
[XX] Yes No
Not Applicable
or wi.!l it complete prior to
the required envirorunental
the california Environmer~tal
Not Applicable
Will your agency be able to obligate/encumber/expend fund.~ for
the proposed project at least 36 months after project approval
and allocation?
[XX] Yes No Not Appl icabl e
Is the project designed in conformity with the standards set
forth in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual, aBikeway
Planning and Design W? -
[XX) Yes No
Is your agency's proposed project
Regional/Local Plan?
[XX] Yes No
Not Applicable
ide.ntified in a
Not Applicable.
Identify the plan (S): Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan· BLl.:ewa1r'S Master PI~!L
Has your agency submitted the fund application to the
appropriate r-eqion::ll transportation agency, as 'Well as to
affected agencies for review and comment?
Yes No [XX] Not Applicable
'i
j
1
1
1 i
1
"~;
~ r'
-' Attachment 5: Bicycl~ Application -page J of 5
Pl\l<'l' 3. DESCRIPTION OF PRD.1:ECT
section 1. Project Rescription
a. The purpose of t.his project to create a grade oeparated
pedestrian and tlicycle bridge over-EmharcaderrJ Road. between
Palo Al.to High School and TOlffl and Country Shopping Center and
complete a ~85 mile segment of bikeway between Embarcadero
Road and University Avenue. 1he project will have a twofold
benefit: (1) to provide: a safe crossing of this major
arterial between the school ana shopping center, where over
1000 student pedestrian crossings occur durinq the noon hour
when school is in session, and (2) to provide a essential link
in a de:!=;iqnated city bikeway that parallels the Caltrain
riqht-ot-way from the north city limit with Menlo Park to the
south city limit ~ith Mountain View~ This bicycle route is
identified as a "proposed bikeway~ on the Palo Alto Bikeways
Master Plan. It is an extension of the bike routes that
currently exists on the west side of the railroad tracks that
follows an alignEent via Wilkie Way, Park Blvd~, and the E1
Cuino Park bike path. The missinq segment in the route
passes through or adjacent to thE! Urban Lane area, T'C
shopping center and Palo Alto High School.
b. The city would most lik.ely design the proj ect and then
contract out for construction.
c. Project Location Map is attached.
Section 2. Project Need and Benefits
a,b. This pr~ject yill resolve safety and operationals problem at
the intersection of Palo Alto High and Town a.nd Country
Shopping Center Drive~ays ~ith Embarcadero Road. . The
p~destrianfbike overpass would completely remove pedestrian
traffic between the high school and shopping center from
conflicts with motor vehiCles on Embarcadero, an arterial
street that carries 26,000 ADT~ Further, in the context of
the city bike'W'ay system, the overpass and bik.e path extension
vo~ld facilitate access to the downtown and California Avenue
business districts, two CalTrain stations, the Palo Alto
Transit Center, and Stanford University. The' projact would
add a key link to the existing bikeway adjacent to the
railroad tracks that provides a convenient and safe alterative
to the two closest parallel routes, Alma street and El Camino
Real, which are ~ajor arterials and have AnT volumes ranging
from 30,000 to 47,000.
c. The Urban Lane bikeway feasibility study ¥lill be funded in
1992-93.
Section J. Project St?tus
a. The City has funded feasibility study to examine the issues
involved in creating the .85 mile bike path betwe~n the Palo
Alto caltrain Station at University l\venIJe and Churchill
Avenue. The City/School Liaison Committee, which includes
representatives of the School SOard and city Council is
currently considering access issues related to Palo Alto High
School.
b. The project will follow a competetive bid process.
@ 0
Attachment 5: Bicycle Application -Paqe 4 of 5
PART 4. PROJECT BUDGET
1. Please proyide a project budget, including a breakdo~ ot all
project costs and revenues, and any multi-year phases of the
p:-oject:
PROJECT COST
Engineering/Design
Property Acquisition
Constr~ction/Rehabilitation
TiJ'rAL PROJECT COST
PROJECT REVENUES
General Fund
Private
Otller (
state:
Proposition 116 Funds
other ( TDA
Federal:
other (STP/CMAQ)
TOTAL PROJECT REVEI/UES
$10,000
o
$2,000
$8,000
$10,000
93 94 94 95
$29,900
$199,100 $199,100 -+--
$45,800
$183.200
$229 000
o
$39,820
$159,280
$199 100
2. Please briefly describe th~ sources of your cost and revenue
estimates.
ESTPOffED COSTS 199~_~ ESCAL.~§.
Enqinaerinq/Design 38,000 39,900 1 yr
Property Acquisition 000 000
Construction Engineering 17,000 18,700 2 yrs
Construction ;J45,OOQ 37~,500 2 yrs
400,000 438,100
FllNDING "OURCE~ 1992$ ESCAI..A.TED:S:
city 000 000
Other (state TDA funds) SO,OOO 87,600
Total STP/CMAQ Requested 320 /000 350.500
Cost Estimates based "pen
current unit cost prices •
preliminary in-house estimates using
• Property acquisition m~y require negotiating easements with the
Palo Alto Unified School District and Town and Country Shopping
center, rather than purchasing land. No problems are expected and
no right-of-way costs ~oulQ be incurred.
-------------
.. -.
, .........
Attachment 5: Bicycle Application -P3ge 5 of 5
PART 5. . ENVIRONMEh'TAL DOCUMENT_~TION
Provide information on the status of the environmental clearance for the
project4
Appropriate
envitoDm@ntAl Document
cateqDrical Exemption
Oth~r exemption (
Notice of Exemption
Negative Declaration
Craft ErR/ErS .
Final EIR/EIS Certification of EIR
Notice of Determination
project construction/Implementation Schedu'e
Environmenta~ Assessment
Prel~inary Enqineerlnq
Final ~siqn
Property Acquisition
Construction/Rehabilitation
Actual or Estimated
Completion pate
pe cl!.!!'.ber 1993
MIA
N/A
N/A
9/92
9J9,
3/93
----l.,,-" LI,,9 ... 3 __
12/93
3/93
12/93
12/93
12194
~
!
! :
t
~ • ~
',Jlllle
fl.p ROADWAY SYSTEli
DETAIL
VICINITY MAP ---:----;:=======.-I s-loo irrlloo'l , I L' • I • •
EB
"'-""'ED' -------"
I, L&g8nd' -........,
--Ro.nI$~ HigfM&)"II -'-""""" __ f'rlndplll M..n.I
--------,---------!
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
and Bike Path Extension
Attachment· A ,
. -.:. ---~
"
,
1
" .'
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
and Bike Path Extension
Attachment B
~.~,
0
~:". ~fft'/, P_l~:--"I-:::q 61 "Wj.q 'R~I., ~ ~ _ lTO""QHSC,r:J ~:. W 7f~~-Oot. r--i\', ' .. _~-==-=-.. . iii __ w.. ~ ~-.-~~~ -.............. f j
::=;:-...:;-II; 2\ ~~~_:::J . -_ ............ " . --_ ..... _ ... . ' , ... _,,--
, ._-. ___ " _ ........ A .........
~'!.'~...;~-"-"., ........ , ', .... o
••••• PROPOSED BICYCLE PATH
" ........ EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTES
__ PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE
Embarcadero pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bike Path Extension
Attachment C·
:".
~r~·t:·:'""':'"I''''''~ . 1'" i+r .... :-
I I,; , ' ~~;
r· ~ I
.' , .. ' ,
•
I
.' ~./.'
•
,'.J:
,
"
,r . ATTACHMENT 5
PrOjsct: Page MilllFooIhill
Intersection Imora.amen!
METROPOUTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1993 FEDERAL TlP
HIGHWAY/ARTERIAL PROJECT APPLICATION
(Fill out ene form for eacll project)
DATE: May 14. 1992
PREPARED BY: Ashok Aggarwal
AGENCY: City 01 Palo Alto
"HONE: (415 I 329-2529
PROJECT SPONSOR:
Sponsoring Agency: City of Palo Alto
Impl.menting Agency: City of Palo Alte' Oead agency)
County 01 San!a Ciara (coopera~ng ag"ncy)
Operating Agency: County of Sanla Clara
PROJECT LOCATlON:
COUNTY -ROUTE: Page Mill E>qXessway and Foothill Expressway
STATE HIGHWAYS: Post Mile Back NA Post Mile Ahead: NA
CAlTRANS PPNO. NA EA: NA
ARTERIAlS: ~project Qn m". es) 0.2 Ontersection Improvement) ~
Signals: ~No How Many? 1 Coordinated currentty?&u'''
LOCATION: Descnbe briefly and attaoh a vioinity map and a project loeatlon map
labeled with county/route/project lim~s.
Impro.emen!s are at the intersection of Page Mill Expressway and Foothill Expressway.
immediately adjacent to the Stanford Research Park. Both are Santa Clara County
Expressways. For vicinity and location map. refer to Attachments A and S.
Counues/Cities affected/trayersed: County 01 Santa Clara and City 01 Palo Alto.
Project begins at (nearest ;,.,terchange or cross Sireet):
Ends at (nearest interchange or cross street):
} Intersection ImprovGment
Page lA
".: ~ 0
DESCRIBE CuRRENT F~IU"TY: At:ach cross section di~gr8f,l, lane diagram end/or rsmp
conIIguraIion, labelad with coonty!route!project.· .
Number of lanes {mixed fIow/HOV/tUmlng/lotaQ: Please see ".ttacheme,rt C
WKltl1 01 Shoulders: NONE?
Presence of a median: YES
Parking allowed: NO
Type of facility: Freeway! expressway! arterial (circle one)
The iI1tersectioo is currently signalized with • six-phased contro".r (Foothill
Expressway is spl~ iI1 the nO<Wsouth direction). For current intersection
geometries, refer to At!aclvnent C.
Page 18
CURRENT CONOmONS: (will be con1irrned with Cal!yan. data on state highways)
AVERAGE D.AJLY TRAFFIC (most r~ data ava~able, in 1000's, both dlrectJons):
Page Mill Expressway
FoothI11 Expressway
32,000 vehicles pef day
25,000 vehicles per day
Year data collected: 1990
Truck AnT or % trucks, W aYallable: NA
% 01 traffic In the pe>:k: 10 percent (es'jmate)
5<xJrce of data:
County of Santa Clara
lEVEl. OF SERVICE:
Direction:
Time of day:
Duration of peak:
LOS during tI1e peak:
MetI10d 01 LOS calculation:
NA
PM Peak Period
180 minutes +
lOS = F, JCU = 1.05
CAPSSI
Current average vehicle occupancy rate during the peak hour Cif available): NA
Source of data City of Palo Alto
TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS: If ..va.la:ole, data should be
shown per malron vehicle m~es traveled. U not av",labIa, inc!icale number of accidents and
time period.
A total of 23 accidents were reported betw~ n January 1989 and December 1991.
NUMBER OF FATAUTIeS (over 3 years):
U concemed, total fatafllies over 6 years:
Source of data.
Page 2
•.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
BRlEF DESCRIPTION: Attach schemaUc drawing 01 Improvements. ~
interchange. show ramp diagram. "widening. soow typical cress section and
lane diagram.
Widen Page Mill on both approaches to provide a second left-tum lam! and provide
an exdusive right·tum lane on the westbouild approach of Page Mill. Widen
Juniper':) Serra on the west side to provide an exclusive svuthbound right-tl.Jrn lane.
Widen Foot.,m on the east side to provide a second left·turn lane and remove the
northIsouth sprt operation, and optimize the traffic signal timing. The projeC! also
ifldudes adding bicycle lanes.
Number 01 lanes after improvement(mixed flow/HOVltotal): See Attachment C
Addition of Shoulders: NO
Addition of medians: NO
Adcfltion or removal 01 packing: NO
Type of facliity: Expressway
:'BOJECT JUSTlFICATION (Attach adcf.'lional pages if necessary): Discuss the impact this
project will have 00 reducing the duration and exlellt of recurrent or incident-related
congestion, relationship to improving the efficiency olthe Metropor~an Transportation System
(MrS), the effect on truck traffic or other freight movement, and how many additional person
trips wJ1i be accommodated.
The intersection is within the Stanford Research Park area 01 Palo Mo, and is an intersection
of twa heav;ly used Santa Clara C-ounty expre<sways. The ICU will improve from 1.05 to .91
and the LOS frcm F to D. The improvements will reduce recurrer.! congestion and 41 hours
of vehicular delay, during the PM Peak Hour on a d8Jly basis. The reduced delay and
congestion will also resu~ in improved air quality. lhis project will improve operational
efficency on Page Mi" and Foothm Expressways, which are both designated faoltlies on the
regional MrS and CMP Roadway System. This p,oject is also included in Srunts Clara
County's T-201 0 Transponation Pian, as an expressway intersection improvement (Table 5).
Page 3
" .' ii
!
-: .
eo.:.."lIy/Project 1d<lntiIIer:-{~ ,-. ________ _
,
TIME NEEDED FOR OELIVERY/lMPLEMENTATlON SCHEDULE,
Resuns from PYPSCAN, W avanabl. for stale highways. Indicate the duration of each task
17/ using 8 bar. Key milestones should be r,ighnghted,
IMPLEIdENTAllON SCIlEOULE FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94
TASK 1; ErMronmantaI -
Including Preliminary
Engineering
TASK 2; Plans, -Specifications, & Estimates
TASK 3: Right-of-way NA
acquisition
TASK 4: AdvertisemenV
Bid/Award ""'"
TASK 5, Coostruction
PROJECT STUDY REPORT STATUS (for state highway projects ONlY): NA
Attach a copy rd MIC does not already have).
Approval date: ____ _
PSR prepared by:
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL OOCUMENTATlON:
level of documeota1ion:
FY94195
( X ) E1F\lEIS Intersaction improvements were Identified as traffic
mitigation measures in the Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, and "~e physical effects of these
improvements were. evaluated in this EIR and found
10 be not significant.
( ) Negative Oecfaration
( ) Caiegocica1 Exernptioo
Document preparer: City o! Palo Alto
Approval date by FlfNk EIR certified by Palo Alto City Couool
on March 6, 1989.
Outstanding envirorvnentaJ issues: An en,ironmental assessment will be done
and completed by December 1993.
Air Quality analysis status: Included as part of the CItywide land Use
and Transpcrtalion Study
Page 4
o
TSM/TCM COMPONENTS:
Does the pm/eel include HOV lanes? NO
Can trar;stt be accommodated within t~is project? ~ so, how?
Yes. Transit vehicles presen~y utilize both expressways, and will benefit from the
,educed congestion and delay.
Will this project ~e-in with .xi~"9 or proposed TSM measures? ~ so, how?
Yes. This is a basic traffic operations improvement project tllat will maintain and improve
the operational characteristics of both expressways.
Does th<i project include ,amp """ering featur •• ? NO
Does the 'amp conIiguration include HOV bypasses? NO
Does ~le alIected jurisdiction support ramp metering? YES
Does the project ooordinate already elOSting signals?
Traffic signal ~ming will be optimized. Signal coordination is scheduled for
implementation as part of a separate Santa Cla,a County project
[)o<o..s the project improve trdffic IIow?
Yes. This projeel will redues reo.Jrrem congestion and 41 hour. of vehicuiar delay during
the PM Peak Hour on a daily basIS, or. expressways that afe both part of the regional
MTS and the CMP Roadway System.
SYSTEM RElATIONSHIP:
Is the project 0<1 the Metroporrtan Transponatioo $ys1em (MTS) as defined in MTC's Regional
Transportation Plan?
Yes. Both roadways are designated expressways on the regional MTS.
Will this project resutt in gap closure?
Yes. tt completes an operationany deficient gap in the MTS and eMP systems.
Page SA
SIGNIFICANT S~ USE IMPACTS: Discvss ~·01 job centers to residential
areas, promotion of r.ew development In 8 currently undeveloped area, benefits to already
developed areas, Impacts on open space, egriculturallands, 0( w.~ands, Bay Conservation
and Development Con Imission (BCDe) review l~ approcable) and the displacement of homes
or businesses. Detailed anatv'Sis ~ not necessari. but any major issues shoukl be
mentioned, .
The Intersection is within the heart ,~ the Stanford Research Pa"'-The Researci1 ParK
has several thousand employees and wen know firms, slIch as Syntex, Varian
Associates, KodaK. Hewlett-Packard, etc. Therelore, the intersection is heaWy used by
Research ParK employees. Maintaining and improving operational efficiency at this
location is a key !actor to the ecooomic \/itality and competitiveness of the Research
Park.
PUBUC SUPPORT/CONTROVERSY FOR THE PROJECT, W Significant:
Has pubflC notice been given 01 the intemon to pursue this project?
Public support for this project was ellident through the relli.,.. and approval process 01
the Citywide Land Use and Transponation StOOy.
Page 58
.. ~, .~.i· A, • -~ .
CoorrtylProjeCt k1entifi~ 0
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONGESnON MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (eMP):
Is the profect """uded in the eMP Cap~al Improvemenl Program?
Yas. BoII1 expressways are designated expr~ways and the intersection is a
designated inlerseclion on the CM P Roadway System.
Will LOS or trans~ standards on the eMP network be improved as a resu~ of this project?
Yes. ICU will impfOve lrom 1.()S to ,91, and LOS Irom F to 0,
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PlAN OF THE COUNTY AND/OR CITY or the
COUmv·MDE TRANS?ORTATION PLAN (d appncable):
This project is par1 01 the Palo AIlo Citywide Land Usc end Transportation Study;
(Reference lntersection o-1A. Page V1.26, Final Addendum)
This project is also included in the Santa Clara County T·201O Transporta6on Plan as an
Expressway Intersection Improvement; (Page 41, Table 5).
WILL ADJACENT COUNTIES AND/OR CITIES BE IMPACTED? H so, how? Have they been
consulted regarding this project?
NO
SPEClAL CONDITIONS (d any):
This project wW rer ... uire roa.:::1vtay easements from Stanford University. No problems are
antcipated in obtaining !hese easements, No land purchase or reloca~o" will be
necessaIY.
Page 6
· --
"-' County/Pl(ljeClident!fie" __________________ _
PROJECT COS15 AND FiNANCING: (Use of Department of Finance Escalation Rates
is req'Jired.)
ESTlMATED TOTAl COST:
Prerllllinary Engineering/Design
Right 01 Way
Construction Engineerir>g
Consttuction
TOTAL
Source of cost estimate: Cily of Palo Alto
Datil of cost estimate: Ap'" 1992
Year ItIat funds are escalated to: See above
IN 1992 $$
$ 84.000
$,--~=-::-
$ 42,000
$ 864.000
$ 990000
IN ESC, $$
$ !J§,~
$
$ ~,2QQ
$ ll:iQ~
$ 1 ,Q!!1 aQQ
Does ti'18 cos! estirnlite include Traffic Operations System (TOS) hardware? NO
Does the cos! estimate include an necessa-y mitigations, induding 50undwai1s, mitigation
during construction (~a major project), and ramp metering?
YES
FUNDING SOURCES:
(1 year)
(2 years)
(2 years)
Attach City Council/Board of Supervisors Resolution for local sources. W Sales Tax funds are
involved, cite most recent Strategic P!sn to demonstrate fundir>g oommilmellt
1992$$ ESC $$
CITY $ 198,000 217,000
COUNTY $
SAlES TAX $
PRNA TE (Non-public) $
VALUE OF DONATED lAND $
OTHER $
TOTAL STP/CMAQ
REQUESTED $ 792000 867 BOO
Have you awned lor, or de yOU iI·1telld to apply for allY other slate fullds for this project (e.g.
TSM, State/local Partnership Program)?
NO
~ so, what is the status of that appGcatiDll?
Page 7
· ~: ."
., 0 CountylProject lderrtifier.::::." ________________ --,-__ -,
EXPENDITURE PlAN: USE ESCALATED DOLlARS
FY 91/92 FY D?I<L~ FY"-'V!14 FY !l41AA TnTA'
SURFACE
TRANSPORTA noN
PE
ROW
CON PE 70,560 70,560
CONGESTION ROW (NA) 0
MITY'..ATJON/A1R
OOAUTY CON 265,760 531,520 797,280
PE
ROW
CON
lOCAL FUNDS -,""" PE 77,1340 17,1340 ROW (NA) 0 CON 65,440 132,880 199,320
OTHER 0 0 0 0 I I PE
ROW
CON
TOTAl. 88,200 332,200 664,400 1,084,800
ADOmONAL INFORMATION:
Page 8
'"
t
~ •
cip ROADWAY SYSTE~
DETAIL
L! VlCINfTY MAP
------~----~I=,=,~~=.=(--=;=j.==J : ~.
EB-I:::: """" .............. ---.,
: Page Mill Expwy I Foothilf Expwy
Intersection Improvement Project
--
Attachment· A
. -,
I
.. ..
rrl'V<'" PALO ALTO
Page Mill Expwy I Foothil! Expwy
. Intersection Improvement Project
Attachment B
•
. ,
EXJSTING No Scale
1'1 ; ,
, ,
,
\ ~ 1:11 Ii
" ,
~ z , , .
I! ;:: .. ,
PROPOSED No Scale
Page Mill Expwy I Foothill Expwy Intersection Improvement Project
Attachment C