HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2014 Desk Items #16 City Council meeting�yo,SARgro City of Saratoga
L 9
CItIFORN�P
Memorandum
From: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
Date: May 21, 2014
Subject: Agenda Item 16 — Highway 85 Performance Agreement
Attached to this memo are materials distributed to the City Council after the May 21,
2014 City Council Agenda Packet was published and placed on the City of Saratoga
website.
Attachments:
- VTA Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee May 15, 2014
Agenda Packet
- Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study
Please do not remove this memo and attachments from the lobby.
S A N 1 A C L A R A
Valley Transportation Authority
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM & PLANNING
COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 15, 2014
10:00 AM
VTA Conference Room B -104
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL
2. ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on
any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not
permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except
under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed
on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff
for reply in writing.
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2014.
REGULAR AGENDA
5. ACTION ITEM - Adopt a resolution approving the project priorities for the FY2014/15
Countywide Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program.
6. ACTION ITEM - Approve the programming of FY 2014/15 Transportation Fund for
Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40 %) funds to projects.
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & ,Planning Committee May 15, 2014
7. ACTION ITEM - .Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089, adopt the
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Findings. The 2013 CMP Monitoring and
Conformance Report finds all Member Agencies in conformance with the CMP
monitoring requirements.
8. ACTION ITEM - Authorize the use of $150,000 from the Vehicle Registration Fee
(VRF) 15% Countywide program for Crossroads software maintenance to establish a
Countywide Traffic Collision Database to be maintained by the County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department (County) staff as part of a three -year pilot program.
9. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive a status report on the Semi - Annual Update of Bicycle
Expenditure Program (BEP) projects.
10. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Proactive CMP Quarterly Report for January to
March 2014
1. 1. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive a verbal report from SPUR on urban planning in Santa
Clara County.
OTHER ITEMS
1.2. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.
13. Review Committee Work Plan. (Ristow)
1.4. Committee Staff Report. (Ristow)
15. Chairperson's Report. (Pirzynski)
16. Determine Consent Agenda for the June 5, 201.4 Board of Directors Meeting.
17. ANNOUNCEMENTS
18. ADJOURN
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its
meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who
need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should
notify the Board Secretary's Office at least 48 -hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring
language assistance should notify the Board Secretary's Office at least 72 -hours prior to the
meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at 9 (408) 321 -5680 or
E board.secretary @vta.org or 9 (408) 321 -2330 (TTY only). VTA's home page is
www.vta.org or visit us on ® www.facebook.com /scvta. 2 (408) 321 -2300: F-'3Z / Espanol
/ p A- / s1-71-0-1 / tie-ng Viet / Tagalog.
Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 84308). In
accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall accept, solicit,
Page 2
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
15, 2014
or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her agent, or from any
participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other
entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member who has received a
contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than $250 from a party or
from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not
make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence
the decision. A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding
any contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the
party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a
contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three
months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The
foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308 and parties
are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the law.
All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board
Secretary's Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321 -5680, the Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA's website
at http: / /www.vta.org/ and also at the meeting.
NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY
ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.
Page 3
S A N T A C L A R A
000 rm' Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
Thursday, May 15, 2014
10:00 AM
VTA Conference Room B -104
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
11.X. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive an update on the Environmental Process for the State
Route 85 Express Lane Project.
S A N T A C L A A A
® Valley Transportation Authority
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM & PLANNING COMMITTEE
Thursday, April 17, 2014
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee (CMPP)
was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Chairperson Pirzynski in Conference Room B -104, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name
Title
Status
Rose Herrera
Vice Chairperson
Present
Joe Pirzynski_
Chairperson
Present
_ _
David Whittum
Member
Present
Ken Yeager
Member
Absent
Dave Cortese
Alternate Member
Absent
Jamie Matthews
Alternate Member
N/A
Jason Baker
Alternate Member
N/A
* Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member.
A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.
2. ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were no Orders of the Day.
3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, noted the following: 1) suggested that VTA use the
ASPX file format for agenda packets uploaded onto the VTA website; and 2) suggested
that Santa Clara County involve VTA in the building permit process when the proposed
project is within a half -mile of transit.
The Agenda was taken out of order.
REGULAR AGENDA
7. SB 743 Chances to CEOA Transportation Analysis and Implications for VTA and
Member Agencies.
Ying Smith, Transportation Planning Manager, gave a presentation of the Senate Bill 743
(SB 743) changes to transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and its implications for VTA and Member Agencies, highlighting:
3331 North First Street [San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 EAdministration 408.321.5555 CCustomer Service 408.321.2300
1) the Governor® Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish a new CEQA
transportation criteria to replace Level of Service (LOS); 2) definition of Transit Priority
Area (TPA); 3) summary of arguments for and against the LOS methodology;
4) alternative metrics proposed by the OPR; and 5) VTA roles and next steps.
Vice Chairperson Herrera arrived at the meeting and took her seat at 10:13 a.m.
and a quorum was established.
General Manager Nuria 1. Fernandez emphasized that SB 743 is a replacement of the
LOS criteria, not in addition to LOS. She also noted that this State legislation is not
consistent with Federal transportation analysis guidelines and may affect how we
compete for federal funds on projects.
Members of the Committee and staff engaged in a discussion covering: 1) use of LOS in
development /capital projects and local policies; 2) interpretation of the definition of
TPAs; 3) timeframe of SB 743 implementation; and 4) outreach efforts to date.
Members of the Committee made the following comments: 1) distance to transit in the
TPA definition should be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards; 2) Cities should be able to continue to establish parking requirements;
3) SB 743 should include a method to assess fees for infrastructure improvements; 4)
City Managers should be included in the discussion of this new legislation; 5) expressed
concern that development projects may be more susceptible to CEQA lawsuits during the
transition period; 6) expressed concern about the implementation timeline of the
legislation; and 7) noted that the interpretation of SB 743 may have unintended
consequences.
M.s. Fernandez stated that VTA can assist in facilitating the discussion with City Mangers
and City Councils in order to form a consolidated recommendation to the OPR.
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the Committee
reviewed and discussed the SB 743 Changes to CEQA Transportation Analysis and
Implications for VTA and Member Agencies.
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2014
M /S /C (Whittum/Herrera) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of
February 20, 2014.
5. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2014
M /S /C (Whittum /Herrera) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of
March 20, 2014.
6. Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2013
M /S /C (Whittum/Herrera) to receive the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring
Report for October CDecember 2013.
NOTE: M /S /C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 April 17, 2014
REGULAR AGENDA (continued)
8. Silicon Valley Express Lanes Implementation Plan
Casey Emoto, Deputy Director of Project Development, gave a presentation regarding the
Silicon Valley Express Lanes Implementation Plan, noting: 1) program history and goals;
2) planned delivery approach; 3) design and construction cost estimates; 4) cost and
funding of future phases; and 5) project planning schedule summary and next actions.
Members of the Committee and staff engaged in a discussion, covering: 1) filling the
construction finding gap for Phase 2 of the SR 237 Express Lanes Project; and
2) collecting voluntary contributions for regional projects.
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the Committee
received an update on the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program Implementation Plan.
9. Lawrence Expressway Grade Separation Recommended Concept
Dawn Cameron, County Transportation Planner, presented on the Lawrence Expressway
Grade Separation Concept Study, highlighting: 1) existing challenges and project goals;
2) concept development process; 3) public outreach process; 4) overview and benefits of
proposed concept; and 5) cost projection and identifying funding.
Vice Chairperson Herrera left the meeting at 11:05 a.m., the quorum was lost,
and a Committee of the Whole was declared.
Member Whittum supported the project moving forward but expressed concern about the
$440 million estimated project cost. He advocated looking for funding to help develop
the project.
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the Committee of the
Whole received a report from County Roads and Airports staff on the Lawrence
Expressway Grade Separation Concept Study.
OTHER ITEMS
10. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration
John Ristow, Director of Planning & Program Development and Staff Liaison stated that
staff will continue to update the Committee regarding VTA® outreach efforts to City
Managers concerning SB 743 and ongoing developments with the Silicon Valley Express
Lanes project.
11. Committee Work Plan
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the Committee of the
Whole reviewed the Work Plan.
1.2. Committee Staff Report
Mr. Ristow provided a written report to the Committee containing information on local
events; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/ Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), State & Federal; and VTA CMA.
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee Minutes Page 3 of 4 April 17, 2014
Mr. Ristow highlighted the following: 1) upcoming Saratoga City Council listening
session and Los Gatos Town Council meeting on April 21, 2014 to discuss the SR 85
Express Lanes Project; 2) VTA will host the August 20 ❑ 21, 2014, California
Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting in San Jose, wherein the final $40 million
allocation to VTAD BART Extension to Silicon Valley is on the agenda for approval;
and 3) VTA will be the host for the (Focus on the Future ❑Conference to be held at the
Santa Clara Hyatt Hotel on November 17 ❑ 19, 2014.
Member Whittum commented on an old Measure A literature, stating the depiction of
light rail transit might have been mistaken by some to be aligned with SR 85. The
labeling could cause one to attribute that for an SR 85 alignment.
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the Committee of the
Whole received the Committee Staff Report.
13. Chairperson's Report
There was no Chairperson® Report.
14. Determine Consent Astenda for the May 1, 2014 Board of Directors Meetinp_
CONSENT:
Agenda Item #6. Receive the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for
October - December 2013.
Agenda Item #7. Review SB 743 Changes to CEQA Transportation Analysis and
Implications for VTA and Member Agencies.
Agenda Item #8. Receive an update on Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program
Implementation Plan.
15. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Announcements.
16. ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski and there being no objection, the meeting was
adjourned at 1 1:33 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Oblena, Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee Minutes Page 4 of 4 April 17, 2014
S A N T A C L A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: FY2014/15 TDA3 Project Priorities
April 30, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
Policy - Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
Resolution
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution approving the project priorities for the FY2014/15 Countywide
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program.
BACKGROUND:
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are derived from a '/4 -cent of the State's general
sales tax. Article 3 of the TDA makes a portion of these funds available for use on bicycle and
pedestrian projects.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) programs TDA Article 3 funds in the nine
Bay Area counties. Each year, MTC requests that the Congestion Management Agency (CMA)
in each Bay Area county coordinate and submit annual TDA Article 3 program funding priorities
for their respective counties. VTA, as the CMA for Santa Clara County, develops the countywide
program. After the VTA Board adopts the projects, the list is forwarded to MTC for approval and
project sponsors apply for reimbursement directly to MTC.
On December 9, 2004, the VTA Board of Directors dedicated 25% of Santa Clara County's TDA
Article 3 funds to projects on the countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) list through
2030. The remaining 75% of the annual allocation is guaranteed to Member Agencies based on
the most recent California Department of Finance population estimates. These funds may be used
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
for any eligible project and are referred to as the Guarantee Fund.
On November 5, 2009, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a funding program for County
Expressway Pedestrian Projects and dedicated up to $150,000 per year from the TDA3 BEP set -
aside to help fund such projects.
If a Member Agency is unable to complete a project within the two -year period, the agency may
rescind the project. When a project is rescinded, the funds are reallocated to the agency as part of
its guarantee in the following cycle instead of reverting back to the countywide pool. In the event
that an agency fails to rescind a project and funds lapse, the funds revert back to the countywide
pool.
VTA policy also allows an agency to bank their TDA funds for up to three cycles in order to
fund a larger project. Banked funds are added to an agency's Guarantee Fund amount in the
following year. A member agency must inform VTA in writing of its intent to either claim or
bank its TDA3 guarantee funds; failure to do so means that the funds revert to the countywide
pool in the next cycle.
DISCUSSION:
The total TDA Article 3 funding available for programming this year is $3,580,392. Attachment
A lists the VTA staff recommendations for the entire Santa Clara County TDA Article 3 program
as discussed below and Attachment B contains a brief description of each project. The TDA
Article 3 program was developed in accordance with MTC's Local Process Resolution, MTC's
project requirements and the VTA board - adopted policies discussed above. The following
paragraphs explain the staff recommendation for programming these funds:
Guarantee Fund
This year, a total of $2,898,373 is available to the cities and the County for the Guarantee Fund.
This total includes funds that were banked or rescinded in prior years. Member agencies claimed
$2,221,043 of the Guarantee Fund this year. Per attachment A, 7 agencies are collectively
banking $717,330 guaranteed and Expressway Pedestrian funds and this total is not being added
to the amount claimed.
BEP Fund:
This year, there is $532,019 available for BEP projects. VTA received two applications for BEP
projects from Campbell totaling $532,019. Staff recommends funding these projects.
County Expressway Pedestrian Projects:
A total of $150,000 is available for County Expressway Pedestrian Program projects this year,
plus $110,000 in banked funds from last year. County staff requested to award last year's banked
fiends to the San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail Project and bank the remaining $150,000 until next
year. VTA staff concurs with this request and recommends that it be adopted by the VTA Board.
Page 2 of 3
ALTERNATIVES:
The VTA Board may recommend an alternative list of project priorities, however all projects
submitted for TDA Article 3 funds must adhere to TDA law and MTC's TDA Article 3 Rules
and Procedures.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $2.9 million in TDA Article 3 funds will be made available to projects in Santa
Clara County. The projects and programming described in this memorandum are not included in
the VTA Capital Budget because VTA's role in the TDA Article 3 process is limited to
prioritizing the annual program of projects. Project sponsors apply for reimbursement directly to
MTC. The appropriation for costs of VTA staff support of this program is included in the FYI
and FY 15 Adopted Congestion Management Program Fund Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Amin Surani
Memo No. 4562
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A: Submittal of Countywide Coordinated Claim to MTC for the Allocation of FY2014/15
Funds to Claimants in Santa Clara County
Project Sponsor
Project Name
Guarantee
Request
BEP Project
Request
Expressway
Pedestrian
Imps.
Total
Request
Banked Funds
Campbell
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
$44,936
$0
$0
$44,936
$0
Campbell
San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail
$0
$432,019
$0
$432,019
$0
Campbell
Campbell Avenue Portals
$0
$100,000
$0
$100,000
$0
Cupertino
Funds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$66,307
Gilroy
Eigleberry Street ADA Ramps
$178,491
$0
$0
$178,491
$0
Los Altos
Portola Avenue Sidewalks and Bicycle Detection Equipment
$732,149
$0
$0
$132,149
$0
Los Altos Hills
Finds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,191
Los Gatos
Funds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,639
Milpitas
ADA Curb Ramps in 2015 Street Resurfacing Project
$75,509
$0
$0
$75,509
$0
Monte Sereno
Funds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,804
Morgan Hill
Llagas Creek Trail
$93,949
$0
$0
$93,949
$0
Mountain View
W. Middlefield /Independence /Thaddeus Pedestrian Safety Imps
$184,290
$0
$0
$184,290
$0
Palo Alto
Funds :Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73,812
San Jose
Install ADA curb ramps on public sidewalks at various locations
$100,000
$0
$0
$100,000
$0
San Jose
Bicycle Safety Education Program
$141,558
$0
$0
$141,558
$0
San Jose
Monterey Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements
$300,000
$0
$0
$300,000
$0
San Jose
Bike Plan 2020 Implementation
$553,137
$0
$0
$553,137
$0
Santa Clara
Funds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$283,708
Saratoga
Saratoga Avenue Pathway
$34,150
$0
$0
$34,150
$0
Sunnyvale
Fair Oaks /Tasman East Channel Trail
$74,500
$0
$0
$74,500
$0
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road Ped Safety and Walkability Enhancements
$66,500
$0
$0
$66,500
$0
Sunnyvale
Priority Development Area Safe Routes to School
$70,937
$0
$0
$70,937
$0
Sunnyvale
Fair Oaks Avenue Streetscape and Bike Lanes
$12,000
$0
$0
$12,000
$0
Sunnyvale
Maude Avenue Streetscape and Bike Lanes
$88,000
$0
$0
$88,000
$0
Sunnyvale
Moffett Park Bicycle and :Pedestrian Trails
$70,937
$0
$0
$70,937
$0
S. C. County
Funds Banked
$0
$0
$0
$0
$96,869
S. C. County
Countywide Expressway 2014/15 funds
$0
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
S. C. County
San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail
$0
$0
$110,000
$110,000
$0
Totals
$2,221,043
$532,019
$110,000
$2,863,062
$717,330
Page 1 of 1
5.b
Attachment B
Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TDA3 Program
Project Descriptions
Campbell Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
City will design and construct bike /ped improvements at seven locations throughout Campbell and install
shared lane markings and construct ADA traffic signal improvements at various locations.
Campbell San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Project
City will design and construct a new trail along San Tomas Aquino Creek between Virginia Avenue and
Westmont Avenue.
Campbell Campbell Avenue Portals Project
City will construct a number of improvements on Campbell Avenue including sidewalk improvements and
bike lanes between Union and Poplar Avenues.
Gilroy Eigleberry Street ADA Ramps
City will use TDA Article 3 funds to pay for the 24 access ramps in the project, adjacent sidewalk work,
and incidental curb and gutter work associated with the ADA ramp placements.
Los Altos Portola Avenue Sidewalks and Bicycle Detection Equipment
City will construct a sidewalk along Portola Avenue between Westminster Lane and Egan School. City will
also fiirnish and install bicycle detection at various intersections where bicycle demand is high.
Milpitas ADA Curb Ramps in 2015 Street Resurfacing Project
City will install intersection ADA curb ramps for pedestrians at locations throughout the city.
Morgan Hill Llagas Creek Trail
City will pave design and build the Llagas Creek Trail between Watsonville Road and Silverira Park.
Mountain View W. Middlefield /Independence /Thaddeus Pedestrian Safety Improvements
City will construct various pedestrian safety improvements at the intersection of West Middlefield Road,
Independence Avenue and Thaddeus Drive.
San Jose Install ADA curb ramps on public sidewalks at various locations
City will install ADA Curb ramps on public sidewalks at locations throughout the City of San Jose.
San Jose Bicycle Safety Education Program
City will conduct a bicycle safety education program for residents of the City of San Jose.
San Jose Monterey Road Pedestrian Safety Improvements
City will construct various pedestrian safety improvements on Monterey Road, which over the last five
years has incurred the highest number of pedestrian fatalities of any San Jose roadway.
San Jose Bike Plan 2020 Implementation
City will install bikeways (including signs, striping, and bicycle - friendly signal detection) in multiple
projects identified as Planned Bikeways of the San Jose "Bike Plan 2020" which was unanimously
approved by city council on November H, 2009.
Saratoga Saratoga Avenue Pathway
City will install a concrete /cement walkway along Saratoga Avenue between Lutherja Way and Park Place.
Page l
5.b
Sunnyvale Fair Oaks /Tasman East Channel Trail
City will install a paved bicycle and pedestrian trail between the John W. Christian Greenbelt and Tasman
Drive along the East Channel.
Sunnyvale Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road Ped Safety and Walkability Enhancements
City will install a pedestrian traffic signal at the intersection of Mathilda Avenue and Sunnyvale- Saratoga
Road, and eliminate free right turn lanes and improve pedestrian crossing distances at the intersection of
Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road and El Camino Real.
Sunnyvale Priority Development Area Safe Routes to School
City will install pedestrian enhancements including high visibility crosswalks, yield lines, signs, signal
improvements, flashing beacons, in- pavement lighted crosswalks, and stop signs at 200+ intersections on
school routes in Priority Development Areas.
Sunnyvale Fair Oaks Avenue Streetscape and Bike Lanes
City will install medians and construct bike lanes on Fair Oaks Avenue.
Sunnyvale Maude Avenue Streetscape and Bike Lanes
City will install medians and construct bike lanes on Maude Avenue.
Sunnyvale Moffett Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails
City will construct paved bicycle- pedestrian trails along the East and West Channels in the Moffett Park
Area, and provide intersection improvements and amenities.
Santa Clara County San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail
County will construct the San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail Project for the segment between El Camino Real
and Homestead Road.
Page 12
Resolution No.
Re: Submittal of Countywide Coordinated Claim to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2014/15 TDA Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Proiect Funds to Claimants in SANTA CLARA COUNTY
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities
Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional
transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and /or use
of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution
No. 4108, which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funds; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests from eligible claimants for
the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated
claim, composed of certain required documents; and
WHEREAS, the SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
has undertaken a process in compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4108 for consideration of
project proposals submitted by eligible claimants of TDA Article 3 funds in SANTA CLARA
COUNTY, and a prioritized list of projects, included as Attachment A of this resolution, was
developed as a result of this process; and
WHEREAS, each claimant in SANTA CLARA COUNTY whose project or projects
have been prioritized for inclusion in the fiscal year 2014 -15 TDA Article 3 countywide
coordinated claim, has forwarded to the SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY a certified copy of its governing body resolution for submittal to MTC requesting
an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY approves the prioritized list of projects included as Attachment A to this
resolution; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY approves the submittal to MTC, of the SANTA CLARA COUNTY fiscal year
2014/15 TDA Article 3 countywide, coordinated claim, composed of the following required
documents:
A. transmittal letter
B. a certified copy of this resolution, including Attachment A;
C. one copy of the governing body resolution and required attachments, for
each claimant whose project or projects are the subject of the coordinated
claim;
D. a description of the process for public and staff review of all proposed
projects submitted by eligible claimants for prioritization and inclusion in the
countywide, coordinated claim;
Page I
5.c
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of
Directors on June 5, 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ash Kalra, Chairperson
Board of Directors
I HEREBY CERTIFY AND ATTEST that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed and adopted by the vote of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, California, at a meeting of said Board of Directors on the date
indicated, as set forth above.
Date:
Elaine Baltao, Board Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Fabela, General Counsel
Page 2
5.c
/4moS A N T A C l A R A
.�rValley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
April 30, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
SUBJECT: 2014 TFCA Program Manager Fund Supplemental Projects
Policy - Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the programming of FY 2014/15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager
(TFCA 40 %) funds to projects.
BACKGROUND:
The Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) is generated by a $4.00 surcharge on vehicle
registrations in the nine- county Bay Area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) administers the funds; money is available for allocation to alternative fuels, arterial
management, bicycle, and trip- reduction projects that reduce vehicle emissions. State law is very
specific as to how the funds may be spent.
BAAQMD returns 40% of TFCA funds to the county in which they are collected for allocation
by a "program manager." This fund is called the TFCA Program Manager Fund (TFCA 40 %).
VTA is the program manager for Santa Clara County and project sponsors apply directly to VTA
for funding. The VTA Board of Directors allocates these funds to projects in Santa Clara County,
subject to approval by BAAQMD. To be approved by BAAQMD, all TFCA projects must
conform to BAAQMD's board - adopted policies, cost - effectiveness requirements, and the County
Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance - Fiscal Year Ending 2015.
At its December 9, 2004 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors set aside up to 25% of the annual
TFCA 40% allocation to bicycle projects in the Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP)
for FY201 0/11 -FY2029/30. Eligible BEP projects are funded "off the top" subject to VTA
Board - adopted screening criteria and BAAQMD policies cited above. Since TFCA 40% funds
cannot be "banked" from year to year, if less than the set -aside amount can be programmed to
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
qualified BEP projects, the remainder is programmed via the competitive process and the
difference does not carry over to the following years.
Unless the program is undersubscribed, the competitive projects are evaluated by a scoring
working group of the Technical Advisory Committee's Capital Improvement Program Working
Group. The scoring group consists of transportation professional staff members from VTA's
Member Agencies, and they serve on a volunteer basis. If needed, this group meets, reviews
project applications and ranks the projects subject to the BAAQMD policies and the VTA
Board's TFCA 40% Screening /Scoring Criteria, as adopted on December 12, 2013.
VTA staff issued a call- for - projects on December 26, 2013. . Because the total requested funding
for the projects submitted left the program undersubscribed, a supplemental call- for - projects was
issued on February 24, 2014. The results and project Fist from these first two calls were adopted
by the Board of Directors it its April 3, 2014 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Because BAAQMD requires Program Managers to "Allocate (program) all new TFCA fiends
within six months of the date of the Air District's approval of the Expenditure Plan, " VTA staff
issued a second supplemental call - for - projects on March 24, 2014 with a deadline of April 14,
2014 in an attempt to retain all TFCA 40% funds in Santa Clara County.
There is a total of $2,459,265 available for TFCA 40% projects in this cycle. With this third call -
for- projects, VTA received one additional BEP application and four non -BEP "competitive"
project applications. VTA staff reviewed the applications for minimum qualifications and
recommends them for funding, without the scoring working group meeting to score and rank
them. The results are shown on Attachment A- Santa Clara County FY 2014115 TFCA 40%
Program..
BEP Projects:
The additional BEP project submitted brings the total requested funds to the 25% set -aside of
$614,816. As shown on Attachment A -Santa Clara County FY 2014115 TFCA 40% Program, the
project is VTA's Santa Clara Caltrain Station Pedestrian /Bicycle Tunnel Extension. VTA staff
recommends a grant amount less than the requested amount, in order not to exceed the set - aside.
Additional project details can be found on Attachment B- Recommended Project Descriptions.
Competitive Projects:
The total grant request for the four non -BEP project applications is $401,348. As shown on
Attachment A, the projects are, (1) the City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Boulevard Colorized
Bike Lanes; (2) the City of Milpitas Electric Vehicle Level 2 Charging Stations; (3) the City of
Morgan Hill Llagas Creek Trail- Watsonville to Silveira Park, and (4) City of Mountain View
Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion. In order not to exceed the available funds,VTA staff
recommends a grant amount less than the requested amount for all projects except Milpitas.
Milpitas' requested amount was far less than all others. Additional project details can be found
Page 2 of 3
on Attachment B- Recommended Project Descriptions.
ALTERNATIVES:
The VTA Board may request other programming alternatives. However, all projects submitted
for consideration in the TFCA program must adhere to state law and the BAAQMD policies
cited above.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As the program manager for Santa Clara County, VTA distributes the TFCA 40% grant funds
directly to the project sponsors, retaining 5% to cover administrative expenses. The projected
expense and revenue reimbursement are included in the FYI Adopted Congestion Management
Program Fund Operating Budget. The grant revenue for the Light Rail Shuttles project, for which
VTA is the project sponsor, is reflected in the FYI 5 Adopted VTA Transit Fund Operating
Budget.
Prepared by: Celeste Fiore
Memo No. 4582
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program
Total $2,742,586 $2,459,264
Total Available Funds $2,459,264
* New projects are noted in bold.
"Grant Request" amounts might be adjusted in order to fully utilize TFCA funds available and comply with BAAQMD policy.
rn
iv
Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) Projects
Grant
Grant
TFCA
Project Sponsor
Project Name
Request
Recommended
Cost/Ton
$198,000
Competitive Protects
*VTA
Santa Clara Caltrain Station Ped/Bike Tunnel
$380,000
*Cupertino
Stevens Creek Boulevard Colorized Bike Lanes
$67,348
$63,595
$68,571
*Milpitas
Electric Vehicle Level 2 Charging Stations
$40,000
$40,000
$70,217
Morgan Hill
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations
$24,000
$24,000
$88,941
*Morgan Hill
Llagas Creek Trail - Watsonville to Silveira Park
$144,000
$135,975
$89,657
*Mountain View
Mountain View Bay Area Bike Share System
$150,000
$141,640
$487,280
Expansion
San Jose
San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion
$256,238
$256,238
$450,882
Santa Clara
Saratoga Ave. Signal Timing & Interconnect
$498,000
$498,000
$68,990
S C County
Signal Timing - Almaden Expy; San Tomas Expy,
$275,000
$275,000
$39,181
Montague Expy
VTA
Light Rail Shuttles
$360,000
$360,000
$89,359
VTA
Eastridge Transit Center EV Charging Stations
$50,000
$50,000
$70,217
Subtotal
$1,864,586
$1,844,448
Total $2,742,586 $2,459,264
Total Available Funds $2,459,264
* New projects are noted in bold.
"Grant Request" amounts might be adjusted in order to fully utilize TFCA funds available and comply with BAAQMD policy.
rn
iv
Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) Projects
Saratoga
Blue Hills School Railroad Safety Crossing
$300,000
$300,000 $83,929
VTA
Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements
$198,000
$198,000 $89,806
*VTA
Santa Clara Caltrain Station Ped/Bike Tunnel
$380,000
$116,816 $89,515
Subtotal
$878,000
$614,816
Total $2,742,586 $2,459,264
Total Available Funds $2,459,264
* New projects are noted in bold.
"Grant Request" amounts might be adjusted in order to fully utilize TFCA funds available and comply with BAAQMD policy.
rn
iv
6.b
Attachment B
Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program
Recommended Project Descriptions -new projects are noted in bold.
NON - BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PROGRAM PROJECTS
Stevens Creek Boulevard Colorized Bike Lanes
Cupertino will widen and add green colorized segments to existing bike lanes along Stevens
Creek Boulevard to increase visibility at transition zones and conflict areas. The focus of the
colorized bike lanes will be at transition zones between Mary Avenue and the Highway 85 on-
ramp on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd and access points to De Anza College, with an
approximate student population of 22,000 students, on the south side of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Electric Vehicle Level Charging Stations
Milpitas will purchase and install of four (4) Electrical Vehicle (EV) Level 2 charging stations
to be located at the City of Milpitas City Hall and Santa Clara County Library District,
Milpitas Library. The grant funding will be used to procure EV station equipment, construct
the necessary electrical infrastructures and install EV station stall signing and striping, and
other direct EV charging station improvement cost.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Morgan Hill will purchase and install 4 slow electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and 2 quick EV
charging stations in a new parking structure located in the City's downtown area.
Llagas Creek Trail — Watsonville to Silveira Park
Morgan Hill will construct a class I paved pedestrian and bicycle pathway as an extension of
an existing trail system which currently extends from Spring Avenue to Watsonville Road.
This project has been identified as a key element in the City of Morgan Hill's Bikeways
Master Plan and Trails Master Plan.
Mountain View Bay Area Bike. Share System Expansion
Mountain View will add one additional bike share station with 13 bikes and 23 docks at the
Middlefield Light Rail Station as part of the Bay Area Bike Share system. TFCA 40%
funding will encompass construction, launch, and 5 -year operational costs.
San Jose Bay Area Bike Share System Expansion
San Jose will add additional bike share stations on the northwest corner of Market Street and Park
Avenue and in Fountain Alley, located in San Jose's downtown transit mail, as part of the Bay Area
Bike Share system. This grant will fund capital costs for a large bike share station with 24 bikes
and 42 docks. The grant will also fund installation and launch costs, and five years of operational
costs.
Saratoiza Avenue Signal Timin$1 & Interconnect
Santa Clara will install communications infrastructure for traffic signals and server to server
communications, allowing for interconnection, coordination, management, proactive and reactive
adjustment of traffic signal timing and install new state of the art traffic signal controllers that will
communicate with the City's Naztec ATMS system at City Hall.
6.b
Attachment B
Santa Clara County FY 2014/15 TFCA 40% Program
Recommended Project Descriptions -new projects are noted in bold.
Almaden Expressway Weekday and Weekend, San Tomas Expressway Weekday, and
Montague Expressway Weekday Traffic Responsive (TR) Signal Timing
The County will develop and implement weekday Traffic Responsive (TR) signal timing system
on San Tomas Expressway and Montague Expressway, and weekday and weekend TR signal
timing system on Almaden Expressway. A total of 48 signalized intersections would be included,
for a total of 22.3 miles.
Light Rail Shuttles
VTA will use TFCA fiends to help support operations of the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) in
downtown San Jose.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations for Eastridge Transit Center
VTA will install five level -2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at the transit center located near
Eastridge Mall along Capitol Expressway between Tully and Quimby Roads in the City of San
Jose. The Eastridge Transit Center is the second busiest transfer point in VTA's system, served by
eleven bus lines which provide access from East San Jose to downtown San Jose. A project to
reconstruct and modernize the transit center is currently under construction. The EV stations would
be installed in the transit center parking area beginning in early 2015 and become operational by
mid -2015 with the transit center opening.
BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PROGRAM PROJECTS
Blue Hills School Railroad Safety Crossing Proiect (Reconnect Saratoga)
Saratoga will construct a pedestrian railroad crossing allowing a pass through Joe's Trail at De
Anza from Guava Court to Fredericksburg Drive. (BEP VTP 1D 1375)
Capitol Expressway Pedestrian Improvements
VTA will upgrade the signal at the intersection of Capitol /Loop to include a pedestrian phase and
install pedestrian sensors and implementing pedestrian adaptive signal timing to automatically
extend the pedestrian crossing green time when pedestrians are in the crosswalk; will install a
pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of and Capitol Expressway /Eastridge. Loop; will install a
sidewalk approximately 1,200 feet in length on the east side of Capitol Expressway between the
Eastridge Loop and the shopping plaza driveway; and will install a median fence on Capitol
between Tully Road and the Eastridge Loop. (BEP VTP ID 1368)
Santa Clara Caltrain Station Pedestrian /Bicycle Tunnel Extension
VTA will construct an extension of the recently opened pedestrian /bicycle tunnel under the
Caltrain tracks at the Santa Clara Caltrain /Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) station to
the east of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. In addition, it will construct a ramp
and pathway to connect the tunnel to Brokaw Road. The tunnel will enable Caltrain and
VTA passengers, and area residents /employees to walk or bike from the west side of the
Caltrain tracks to the businesses and services on the east side for the first time in over 50
years since the Brokaw Road at -grade crossing was eliminated. The tunnel will comply with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and will be 8 feet 6 inches high by 1.6
feet wide, which exceeds minimum design standards.
0
/4m,:S A N T A C L A R A
:00.�rValley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
May 7, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
SUBJECT: 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Policy - Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089, adopt the 2013 Monitoring and
Conformance Findings. The 2013 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report finds all Member
Agencies in conformance with the CMP monitoring requirements.
BACKGROUND:
California Government Code Section 65089 requires Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs)
to conduct analysis of all Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities every two years to
ensure Member Agencies are developing in a manner consistent with the CMP level of standard
of LOS E. As the responsible CMA for Santa Clara County, VTA exceeds the biennial
legislative requirement and undertakes this analysis on an annual basis. Each year, VTA
produces a Monitoring and Conformance Report which documents the CMP conformance
findings.
The CMP Monitoring and Conformance Program includes an extensive data collection program
covering CMP freeways and intersections, bicycle and pedestrian data, rural highways, land use
data submitted by Member Agencies, and deficiency plans. Besides fulfilling the statutory
requirement, this data supports VTA activities such as capital project development, travel
demand modeling, and land use development review.
This year's report includes freeway and land use monitoring data only between July 1, 2013 and
June 30, 2014. The other elements of the program are part of the biennial "full scope" and will be
included in the 2014 Monitoring and Conformance Report.
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
D
DISCUSSION:
The 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report (Attaclunent A) includes CMP freeway and land
use data collected in the fall of 2013. The CMP Monitoring and Conformance Program requires
Member Agencies to submit the following information to VTA to demonstrate conformance:
Land use data indicating the type of land use, number of residential units, and non-
residential square footage for each project approved during the prior .fiscal year (July 1,
2012 to June 30, 2013); and
• Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Reports for projects that generate 100 or more
peak hour automobile trips. Member Agencies must submit the TIA for review at least 15
calendar days before the project hearing date.
The CMP network is monitored in terms of Level of Service (LOS), a measure of traffic
conditions and vehicle delay. The scale ranges from A to F where LOS A represents free flow
traffic and LOS F represents congested conditions. To comply with CMP standards, each
Member Agency must maintain the CMP standard of LOS E on CMP facilities.
An overview of key results in the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report is presented below.
Freeways
In 2013, there were 73 freeway miles in the AM peak period and 75 freeway miles in the PM
peak period operating at LOS F. Of these miles, 20 miles during the AM and 26 miles during the
PM were at LOS F in the baseline 1991 year and therefore considered LOS - exempt. The
remaining 53 directional miles during the AM and 49 directional miles during the PM. are
considered deficient.
The percentage of directional miles of each freeway that operated at LOS F in either the AM or
PM peak period - or both periods - is shown below in Table 1. SR 87 has the highest percentage
of the facility operating at LOS F at 77 percent. This is an increase from 2012 when 67 percent
of the facility operated at LOS F in at least one peak period.
TABLE 1
Percentage of Freeway Facilities at LOS F during AM and /or PM Peak Period
Freeway
Directional Miles
Miles at LOS F
2013 Percentage
SR 17
28
7
24%
SR 85
48
25
52%
SR 87
18
14
77%
US 101
115
42
36%
SR 237
20
10
51%
1 -280
44
28
63%
1 -680
20
7
35%
1 -880
21
12
57%
Page 2 of 4
Freeway Data Collection Methodology
Since 1997, VTA has used aerial photography to collect traffic data for freeway segments. VTA
is currently evaluating new methodologies for collecting freeway data, including commercially
available travel -time data and other "Big Data" methodologies that could potentially provide a
more comprehensive data set for a lower cost than aerial photography. As a starting point for
comparison, the aerial photography data collected for the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance
Report will be compared side -by -side with data collected at the same times and locations by
INRIX (commercial travel -time data from a variety of sources) as well as Wavetronix and the
Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for validation. This comparison will assist
VTA in determining the usefulness of commercial travel -time data for future monitoring studies.
VTA also plans to use 1NRIX data to compare historical trends in transit and automobile travel
times along key transit corridors in Santa Clara County. These analyses will be incorporated into
technical memos released separately from the 2013 CMP :Monitoring and Conformance Report,
but may inform the data collection methodology used in the 2014 and future Reports.
Land Use
All Member Agencies met the land use data submittal requirement. In 2013, 4,012 dwelling units
were approved, a decrease of 7 percent from 2012. There was a net increase in 4,613,615 square
feet of commercial, industrial and office space approved, which would result in an estimated
capacity for 12,670 new jobs. This was an increase of 80 percent compared to 2012.
Conformance Findings
The 2013 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report finds all Member Agencies in conformance
with the CMP monitoring requirements.
All Member Agencies have complied with the CMP land use data requirement.
As noted above, the freeway analysis found 53 directional miles during the AM and 49
directional miles during the PM that are considered deficient based on CMP standards. Member
Agencies with deficient freeway segments located within their jurisdiction are not penalized due
to the regional nature of freeway congestion. However, they are encouraged to implement
strategies listed in the Immediate Implementation Action List found in the CMP Deficiency Plan
Requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are no alternatives to the proposed action. As the designated CMA for Santa Clara County,
VTA must adopt conformance findings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to VTA as a result of approving the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance
Findings.
Page 3 of 4
Prepared by: Robert Cunningham
Memo No. 4438
Page 4 of 4
7.a
DRAFT
' MONITORING &
CONFORMANCE REPORT
yn
� WuK N
nuunr
I
JUNE 2014
009 Valle Trans' po.rtation Authority
7.a
7.a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
11 INTRODUCTION
3
2 LAND USE
5
3 FREEWAYS
14
4 CONFORMANCE FINDINGS
61
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
62
7.a
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Level of Service Description 3
Table 2.1 Commercial and Industrial Job Densities (Jobs per 1,000 sq. ft.) 5
Table 2.2 Approved Residential Units, 2009 -2013 6
Table 2.3 1 Square Footage of Non - Residential Development Approvals, 2013
7
Table 2.4 1 Job Change Estimates Based on Commercial /Industrial Approvals, 2009 -2013
8
Table 2.5 Land Use Approvals Near Cores, Corridors and Station Areas, 2009 -2013
9
Table 3.1 Freeway Level of Service Definitions
17
Table 3.2 Aerial Photography Data Collection Schedule
17
Table 3.3 Exempt Mixed -Flow Segments Operating at LOS F in 2013
21
Table 3.4 Non - Exempt Mixed -Flow Segments Operating at LOS F in 2013
22
Table 3.5 HOV Segments at LOS F - AM Peak Period
30
Table 3.6 HOV Segments at LOS F - PM Peak Period
31
Table 3.7 2013 Freeway LOS - AM Peak Period
34
Table 3.8 2013 Freeway LOS - PM Peak Period
44
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.11 Land Use Approvals within CCSAs 10
Figure 2.2 1 Job Change Estimates within CCSAs 10
Figure 2.3 1 Approved Residential Units Near VTA's Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas (2013 Net Change) 11
Figure 2.4 1 Job Change Estimates Near VTA's Cores, Corridors, and Station Area (2013 Net Change) 12
Figure 2.5 1 Approved Residential Units Near VTA's Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas (2010 -2013) 13
Figure 2.6 1 Job Change Estimates Near VTA's Cores, Corridors, and Station Area (2010 -2013) 14
Figure 3.11 Speed Density Curve 16
Figure 3.2 2013 Freeway Mixed -Flow Lane Mile Operation
Figure 3.3 Mixed Flow Lane Miles at Each LOS, 2009 -2013 (AM Peak)
Figure 3.4 j Mixed Flow Lane Miles at Each LOS, 2009 -2013 (PM Peak)
Figure 3.5 Mixed Flow Level of Service in the AM Peak Period
Figure 3.6 Mixed Flow Level of Service in the PM Peak Period
Figure 3.7 2013 Freeway HOV Lane Mile Operation
Figure 3.8 HOV Lane Miles at Each LOS, 2009 -2013 (AM Peak)
Figure 3.9 HOV Lane Miles at Each LOS, 2009 -2013 (PM Peak)
Figure 3.10 HOV Level of Service in the AM Peak Period
Figure 3.11 HOV Level of Service in the PM Peak Period
Figure 3.12 AM Peak Hour Gateway Inflows, 2001 -2013
Figure 3.13 AM Peak Hour Gateway Outflows, 2001 -2013
Figure 3.14 PM Peak Hour Gateway Inflows, 1997 -2013
Figure 3.15 PM Peak Hour Gateway Outflows, 1997 -2013
Figure 3.16 2013 AM Gateway Inflow vs. Outflow
Figure 3.17 2013 PM Gateway Inflow vs. Outflow
24
25
25
26
27
28
29
29
32
33
56
57
58
59
59
60
7.a
ESII Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
State Statute 65089 requires Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) to conduct analysis of
all Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways every two years to ensure Member
Agencies - the cities, towns and county - are developing in a manner consistent with the CMP
level of service standard of LOS E. As the responsible CMA for Santa Clara County, the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) undertakes this analysis on an annual basis. VTA prepares the
annual Monitoring and Conformance Report which documents the CMP conformance findings.
The scope of data collection is reduced every other year during odd - numbered years to
minimize the costs of analyzing the CMP network annually. During the "off- years," the reduced
scope of work includes only land use, freeway level of service, and Deficiency Plan Status
Reports. All other CMP elements are collected biennially as part of the full scope.
The 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report features the reduced scope as described above.
The following summarizes the results of the 2013 Monitoring Program.
LAND USE
VTA's Member Agencies, the cities, towns and County of Santa Clara, submit land use data to
VTA in the form of residential and commercial /industrial project approvals for the prior fiscal
year. The data reflects changes in residential dwelling units for approvals as well as estimate
changes in commercial /industrial job approvals. Job change estimates are determined by
applying job density values to square footage and land use type of commercial /industrial
projects in order to estimate how many jobs are likely created or lost as a result of the land use
approval.
In 2013, 4,012 dwelling units were approved, a decrease of 7 percent from 2012. There was a
net increase in 4,613,617 square feet of commercial, industrial and office space approved,
which would result in an estimated capacity for 12,670 new jobs. This was an increase of 80
percent compared to 2012.
FREEWAY
Aerial photography was used to collect traffic data to document congestion on all 310
directional miles of Santa Clara County's freeway system. The photographs are analyzed to
determine the peak period of vehicle density which is used to determine level of service. Mixed -
flow lanes are treated as separate facilities from HOV lanes and their levels of service are
calculated separately.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 1 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
This year, there were 75 AM freeway segments (73 directional miles) and 81 PM freeway
segments (75 directional miles) that operated at LOS F. These numbers are close to numbers
recorded in 2012 when 85 AM freeway segments (85 directional miles) and 74 PM freeway
segments (70 directional miles) operated at LOS F.
Segments that operated at LOS F when monitoring began in 1991 are exempt from CMP level of
service standards. Of the freeway segments operating at LOS F, only 52 AM and 55 PM freeway
segments are considered deficient due to 1991 baseline exemption. Member Agencies with
non - conforming facilities within their jurisdiction are encouraged to implement strategies
listed in the Immediate Implementation Action List found in VTA's CMP Deficiency Plan
Requirements.
CONFORMANCE FINDINGS
The 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report finds all Member Agencies in compliance with
the CMP monitoring requirements.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
California State Government Code 65089 mandates the creation of a Congestion Management
Program (CMP) for each county to manage the effects of transportation and land use. It
requires that all elements of the CMP be monitored at least biennially by the designated
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to determine if the county and city governments,
known collectively as Member Agencies, are conforming to the level of service standard set by
the CMA.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the designated CMA for Santa Clara
County and is charged with monitoring the CMP network. VTA exceeds the state requirement
by collecting data each year and producing an annual Monitoring and Conformance Report. The
2013 report covers land use, freeways, and mandatory conformance findings.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic congestion is monitored on the CMP roadway network which is comprised of freeways,
state highways, expressways and principal arterials. Congestion is monitored in terms of level
of service (LOS), a sliding scale from A though F where LOS A represents best traffic flow and
LOS F represent significant traffic delay. Santa Clara County's LOS standard is LOS E. Table 1.1
provides a description of LOS standards.
FABLE 1.1 1 LEVEL UP SEKVILP, UESLKIF 11UN
A I B I C Traffic can move relatively freely without significant delay
D__ Delay becomes more noticeable
E Traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, resulting in unstable flow,
significant delays and reduced average speeds
F Traffic demand exceeds available capacity. Very slow speeds (stop- and -go),
long delays (over one minute) and standing queues at signalized intersections
CONFORMANCE STANDARD
To comply with the CMP standard, Member Agencies must demonstrate that all CMP roadways
(excluding freeways) within their jurisdictions are operating at or above the CMP traffic level of
service standard of LOS E. Member Agencies that do not maintain the CMP LOS standard risk
having their Proposition 111 (1991) gas tax subvention withheld. If the LOS standard cannot be
met, a deficiency plan must be approved by VTA. Freeway segments and CMP intersections that
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
operated at LOS F when monitoring began in 1991 are exempt from meeting the LOS E
standard. Freeway LOS thresholds are taken from the Highway Capacity Manual with the
exception of D/E and E/F thresholds which are calibrated by VTA for Santa Clara County
conditions.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 4 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
2 LAND USE
INTRODUCTION
California State CMA legislation requires each Congestion Management Agency to monitor land
use changes within its jurisdiction. Each year, VTA monitors land use changes within Santa
Clara County by requesting land use data from Member Agencies in terms of residential and
commercial /industrial projects that have been approved.
METHODOLOGY
VTA collects land use data from Member Agencies each year to track decisions jurisdictions are
making about land use. Member Agencies submit land use data for the prior fiscal year in the
form of changes in dwelling units for residential approvals and changes in square footage for
commercial and industrial approvals. This data is limited to tracking approvals only, even if
those approvals do not result in construction during the reporting year.
For commercial and industrial approvals, changes in square footage are used to estimate the
number of jobs created or lost. jobs are estimated by applying a job density value (measured in
jobs per 1,000 sq. ft.) to the size of the site. job density values vary depending on the specific
land use type. Table 2.1 shows the job density values per type of land use.
TABLE 2.1 1 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JOB DENSITIES (JOBS PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
P�ensity
Lano t -
Office / Educational /Institutional /Hospital
Transportation
R &D Office
Hotel /Motel
Retail /Manufacturing
Non- Manufacturing
Park / Recreation /Agriculture /Cemetery /Urban Reserve
3.4
3.1
2.5
2.0
___ 1.75
0.75
0
The focus of VTA's land use analysis is development approvals that provide the capacity to
accommodate population and employment growth. The data is not a reflection in actual
changes in residents or job creation. Rather, it is a measure of the trend in allocation of land for
different purposes. In addition to the analyses included in this report, the data can be used to
understand the current and projected demand in housing and employment. To better
understand the employment data it is helpful to understand limitations that affect the data
quality but are beyond the control of VTA and the Member Agencies:
• The job change estimates described below are based on full potential occupancy of
commercial /industrial square footage.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 5 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
• In some cases, there may be an overestimate in job losses for commercial /industrial
sites that are either underutilized or vacant at the time they are redeveloped. To
compensate for this, VTA requests Member Agencies to indicate in their land use data
submittal whether jobs were lost during land use conversions. Where this data was not
provided, our methodology assumes full employment for commercial/ industrial
conversions, which may negatively impact the job change estimate reported.
Despite these limitations, the analysis provides valuable information to illustrate trends in land
use development and where Member Agencies are targeting housing and employment growth.
LAND USE ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 2.2, Member Agencies approved 4,012 residential units in 2013, a 7%
decrease from the previous year when 4,334 units were approved. Notably, the City of Milpitas
saw a decline from 2,243 residential units approved in 2012 to 793 units approved in 2013, as
the multi -year trend of large residential approvals in the Transit Area Specific Plan near the
planned Milpitas BART station began to slow down. Milpitas still saw the largest number of
approvals in the County in 2013, while several other Member Agencies including the Cities of
Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara County
saw significant increases in housing approvals from 2012. In the City of Cupertino, a previous
mixed use approval was modified to reduce the number of residential units allowed, resulting
in a net negative impact on residential capacity even though no existing units were removed.
TABLE 2.2 1 APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2009 -2013
Member Agency
Campbell
Cupertino_
2009
109
161
2010
1
0
2011
27
1
2012
195
0
2013
12
-30
Gilroy _
Los Altos
244
4
59
2
35
69
101
204
278
20
__
Los Altos Hills
5
0
5
1
7
Los Gatos
24
17
31
116
20
Milpitas
1,013
54
2,531
2,243
793
Monte Serena
0
0
0
0
0
Morgan Hill
46
24
96
268
544
Mountain View
1,542
256
273
298
537
Palo Alto
36
86
47
1
2
_
San Jose
1,467
598
2,496
536
729
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
_
3
29
0
471
766
2
3
2
102
0
0
315
48
0
2
321
_140
369
8
583
Total
5,154
1,870
6,028
4,334
4,012
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 6 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
In 2013, there was a net increase in 4,613,615 square feet of commercial, industrial and office
space approved by Member Agencies. Approximately 63% of the total square footage was
approved in just two cities, San Jose and Santa Clara. The Cities of Los Gatos, Mountain View,
Palo Alto and Sunnyvale as well as the County of Santa Clara also saw significant employment
project approvals in 2013. Milpitas was the only city to see a net decrease in employment -
generating land are in 2013, due to residential /mixed use approvals on underutilized retail and
office sites near the planned Milpitas BART station.
Overall, office /R &D development was the most prominent category of non - residential
development, accounting for 83% of the net increase in square footage. Table 2.3, below,
provides the net square footage approved by land use and Member Agency.
TABLE 2.3 1 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, 2013
Member Agency
Campbell
Cupertino
Retail
0
158,312
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other'
0
0
0
158,312
Gilroy
4,315
9,142
0
0
0
13,457
Los Altos
12,460
32,640
0
0
23,050
68,150
Los Altos Hills
0
0
0
0
0
0
Los Gatos
0
212,340
0
0
0
212,340
Milpitas
- 164,024
- 44,584
0
0
0
- 208,608
Morgan Hill
0
22,840
0
0
0
22,840
Monte Sereno
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mountain View
- 31,972
328,071
0
- 73,000
14,726
237,825
Palo Alto
127,063
153,302
72,957
5,672
37,804
396,798
San Jose
15,600
1,468,500
128,000
28,000
- 12,900
1,627,200
Santa Clara
2,011
1,118,694
0
119,124
73,128
1,312,957
Santa Clara County
0
0
0
0
314,915
314,915
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
0
15,353
0
495,770
0
0
0
- 57,534
0
3,840
0
457,429
Total
139,118
3,796,715
200,957
22,262
454,563
4,613,615
1 Includes medical, educational and institutional land uses
Based on standard assumptions of job density (see Table 2.1), the net square footage of non-
residential development approved in 2013 would result in an estimated capacity for 12,670
jobs. The job estimates by Member Agency are shown below in Table 2.4.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 7 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
TABLE 2.4 1 IOB CHANGE ESTIMATES BASED ON COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL APPROVALS, 2009 -2013
Agency Member
Campbell
Cupertino
2009
23
465
2010
7
89
2011
-179
-3
2012
-140
432
2013
0
277
Gilroy
6
227
56
0
39
Los Altos
0
0
-40
50
211
Los Altos Hills
0
0
0
0
0
Los Gatos
203
260
264
70
555
Milpitas
1,536
81
706
-1,176
-399
Monte Sereno
0
0
0
0
0
Morgan Hill
-16
8
10
0
57
Mountain View
-1,102
581
598
798
1,151
Palo Alto
-58
656
4,584
585
924
San Jose
861
733
853
1,247
4,211
Santa Clara
9,199
6,603
460
2,583
3,394
Santa Clara County
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
0
1,034
256
0
11
645
693
0
635
80
0
2,524
1,071
0
1,179
Total
12,407
9,902
8,636
7,053
12,670
PROXIMITY TO CORES, CORRIDORS AND STATION AREAS
In 2003, VTA in partnership with Member Agencies developed the Community Design &
Transportation (CDT) program to craft best practices for land use and transportation. The CDT
program established a framework of Cores, Corridors and Station Areas as priority areas
identified by VTA and Member Agencies for targeting future growth and transportation
investments. These areas are most likely to benefit from concentrated development due to
their location near major transit corridors.
Spatial analysis was conducted on the land use data submitted by Member Agencies to
determine the proximity of approved developments to the CDT Cores, Corridors and Station
Areas. Proximity is defined as within 1/3 mile of major transit stations and 1/4 mile from the
cores and future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors. The purpose of the spatial analysis is to
illustrate where housing and employment growth is occurring relative to the core transit
network in Santa Clara County.
As shown in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.1, there were 4,012 total residential units approved in
2013, of which 1,982 units or 49 percent were located within the Cores, Corridors and Station
Areas. This is a decrease from 2012 when 66 percent of residential approvals were near these
targeted areas for investment, but represents an increase over the percentages recorded in
2010 and 2011.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 8 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
Of the 12,683 estimated increased jobs due to commercial /industrial development, 6,966 jobs
or 55 percent were located within the Cores, Corridors and Station Areas (see Table 2.4 and
Figure 2.2). This is an increase from 2012 when 37 percent of the estimated new jobs were
within these areas.
'I'ABLE Z.5 I LAND USE APPROVALS NLAK LUKEN, LUKKIDUKN ANU N 1 A I IUN AKEAN, GUU l -ZlI1S
Residential Unit Approvals within CCSAs
Total Units
% near CCSAs
3,498 792 1,835 2,855 1,982
5,154 1,870 6,028 4,334 4,012
68% 42% 30% 66% 49%
Job Change Estimates within CCSAs
112
7,282
1,109
2,610
6,966
Total Estimated Job Capacity
12,407
9,902
8,636
7,053
12,683
% near CCSAs
1%
74%
13%
37%
55%
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 9 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
7,000
6,000
v
v
'0 5,000
L
CL
Q
a 4,000
3,000
c
3 2,000
0
1,000
C
2009 2010
0 Units Approved Outside CCSA
14,000
12,000
rd,
'Fj 10,000
M 99%
M
U 8,000
0
v 6,000
�o
4,000
W
2,000
0
2009
2010
2011 2012 2013
s ■ Units Approved Within CCSAs
45%
87% 63%
M a I--
2011 2012 2013
OJob Change Estimates Outside CCSAs ■ Job Change Estimates Within CCSAs
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 10 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
FIGURE 2.3 1 APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS NEAR VTA'S CORES, CORRIDORS AND STATION AREAS (2013 NET CHANGE)
'X
PALO ALTO,
,101
0
MOUNTAIN,-.-
VIEW
I
LOS
ALTOS
�S5
LOS ALTOS �
HILLS
HILL
tut
v
/ —'— GILROS O
0 1.25 2.5 5
lim Miles
O
W
0
C
MILPITAS
SAN
JOSE
may-'1IM
�I
Residential Units - Net Change
® -70 - -1
® 1.9
® 9 -50
®51-178
® 179 -474
t--� BART Extension
Caltran. ACE, Capitol Corridor
VTA LW Rail
Planned BRT Corridors
Cores, Corridors and Station Areas
Freeways
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority I1 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
01
MONTE
SERENO
8
•
�\
/ ®
LOS
®
GATOS 0 1.25
2.5 5
Miles
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority I1 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
01
FIGURE 2.4 1 JOB CHANGE ESTIMATES NEAR VTA'S CORES, CORRIDORS AND STATION AREAS (2013 NET CHANGE)
•
PALO ALTO
In1
• & _•k
MOUNTAIN�� -
VIEW
_LS
ALTOS
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
•
•
1.
HILL
C
GILROY
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles
IV
MILPITAS
• SAN
JOSE C
Job Change Estimates
Net Change
A . 257 - -1
• 1.48
•49-150
•151-500
•501-1665
BART Extension
—F— Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor
VTA Light Rail
!�- Planned BRT Corridors
Cores, Corridors and Station Areas
Freeways
• 0 0
a
•'
•
1 \
MONTE •
SERENO O�
i
.% LOS �
GATOS 0 1.25 2.5
,h4 it E•S
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 12 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
m
FIGURE 2.5 1 RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS NEAR VTA'S CORES, CORRIDORS AND STATION AREAS (2010 -2013)
'A
♦
PALO ALTO t
O Q, , O C�
O
A, MOUNTAIN
ALIUS
LOS ACT—OS
HILLS
�® • �'�i
ten •
•
ORGAN HILL
Lel
GIL'ROY
0 s O Q
MWs
O v{ Q O
O
MILPITAS
SAN
JOSE
•
—' 1, • •
O O I
SARATOGA� O
CAMPBELL
� Rio
o 6, o
MONTE QD O
SERENO O
®C.
QLOS O
® GATOS O
Residential Units N
Net Change
sb1.1 ue
eol.aoo
301. soo
0 -w
0�—
-175 .0
2010
2011
2012
2013
t=i,=t= BART Extension
—�— Caltrain. ACE. Capitol Comdor
— VTA Light Rail
— Planned BRT Corridors
Cores, Corridors and Station Areas
Source: VTA Monitoring and Conformance
Report 2013. CCSA February 2012
Data 04IW2014
O
0
o
0
5MIN
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 13 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
FIGURE 2.6 1 JOB CHANGE ESTIMATES NEAR VTA'S CORES, CORRIDORS AND STATION AREAS (2010 -2013)
• • ��� •
• �� PALO ALTO
Of
• a 1 VIEW
•
LOS•� _\
• r • .� • •
•
MORGAN TALL
GILROY
0 5
Mlka
kMILPITAS O
�O
•
9W 4 ae
•
•
• •
• • • • • �` •
r�
•
0
O MONTE O
SERENO
LOS
GATOS
Estimated Jobs N
Net Change
4000 -s962
2.500 - , ee
s
, 001 - 7 Soo
�F= o -,00e
-0,165 -0
2010
2011
— 2012
— 2013
r BART Extension
--l— Caltrain, ACE. Capitol Corndor
— VIA Light Rall
— Planned BRT Condors
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas
Source: VTA Monitonng and Conformance
Report 2013, CCSA February 2012
Date 0619!2014
.0
A
0 0
0
0 5
MN"
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 14 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
01
3 FREEWAYS
INTRODUCTION
Level of service data is collected each year for all freeway segments in Santa Clara County. Two
travel directions for each freeway produce approximately 310 directional miles and multiple travel
lanes in each direction yield 860 mixed -flow and 170 HOV lane miles.
Since 1991, level of service data has been collected for freeway segments in the County to identify
those segments that are operating below the CMP standard of LOS E. This chapter features an
analysis of traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak periods for the freeway system in Santa
Clara County. For the purpose of this analysis, mixed -flow and HOV lanes are treated as separate
facilities. In addition to collecting freeway level of service data, traffic counts were collected at six
freeway "gateway" locations at or near the county line to measure traffic flows in and out of Santa
Clara County.
METHODOLOGY
Since 1997, VTA has used aerial photography to collect traffic data for freeway segments. This
approach allows for the collection of a set of data that could be used to determine density, travel
speed and flow rate for each freeway segment in both the AM and PM peak periods. From the
aerial photographs, density is directly measured by counting vehicles in the freeway segments.
Travel speeds and flow rate, or traffic volumes, are estimated using classic speed - density- volume
equations calibrated for Santa Clara County conditions.
VTA is currently evaluating new methodologies for collecting freeway data, including commercially
available travel -time data and other "Big Data" methodologies that could potentially provide a
more comprehensive data set for a lower cost than aerial photography. As a starting point for
comparison, the aerial photography data collected for the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance
Report will be compared side -by -side with data collected at the same times and locations by INRIX
(commercial travel -time data from a variety of sources) as well as Wavetronix and the Caltrans
Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for validation. This comparison will assist VTA in
determining the usefulness of commercial travel -time data for future monitoring studies. VTA also
plans to use INRIX data to compare historical trends in transit and automobile travel times along
key transit corridors in Santa Clara County. These analyses will be incorporated into technical
memos released separately from the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report, but may inform
the data collection methodology used in the 2014 and future Reports.
VTA envisions that a transition to Big Data could improve the Monitoring Program, not only by
potentially providing more data for a lower cost, but also by widening the scope of congestion analysis
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 15 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
in Santa Clara County. Over the coming years VTA staff will evaluate the suitability of Big Data to
conduct research in the following areas:
• Duration of congestion
• Automobile travel times and reliability
• Congestion spillover to alternate routes
• Causes of congestion
• Transit travel times and reliability
• Modal split
• Automobile trip generation
• Vehicle miles traveled
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Table 3.1 defines the level of service thresholds used for freeway segments. Level of service is
determined based on density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. The LOS density
thresholds are based on VTA's Level of Service Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), which adopts the
Highway Capacity Manual's (2000) values for LOS A /B, B/C and C /D. The D/E and E/F thresholds
are calibrated for Santa Clara County conditions.
SPEED MODEL CALIBRATION
While research shows that there is a direct relationship between speed and density, this
relationship is less straightforward than the relationship between density and speed and volume
when two of the three are known. The speed density curve was last re- calibrated in 2001. Research
and review of several speed- density curves resulted in a new, single regime curve based on the Van
Aerde equation which is shown in Figure 3.1.
5
0
0
LOS A
LOS 6
LOS
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 16 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
aDie s.i I rreeway Levei or aervice uennirions
Free Flow. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to
A _< 11 60-65 maneuver within the traffic stream. The effects of minor incidents are
easily absorbed.
Reasonably Free Flow. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream
B 11 < density <_ 18 57-60 is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and
psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. The effects of
minor incidents are easily absorbed.
Stable Flow. Flows are approaching the range where small increases in
C 18 < density 5 26 54-57 traffic flows will cause substantial deterioration in service. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane
changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver.
Unstable Flow. Small increases in traffic flows cause substantial
deterioration in service. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream
D 26 < density 15 46 46-54 is limited, and the driver experiences reduced psychological comfort
levels. Minor incidents can be expected to create substantial queuing
because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions.
Capacity Flow. Operations are unstable, because there are virtually no
46 < density 5 58 35-46 usable gaps in the traffic stream. Any incident can be expected to
produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing.
Forced Flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming
> 58 < 35 behind breakdown points. Such breakdowns occur for a number of
reasons: a temporary reduction in capacity caused by a traffic incident, or
recurring congestion caused by a merge, a weave segment, or lane drop.
DATA COLLECTION
Two flight patterns were used to photograph Santa Clara County's freeway system. These patterns
were defined such that each freeway segment could be photographed at a frequency of
approximately one sample every 40 minutes, or four times each flight. The morning surveys were
conducted approximately from 6:15 AM to 9:45 AM and the evening surveys were conducted from
approximately 3:15 PM to 6:45 PM. Two morning and two evening flights were scheduled for each
freeway, providing a total of 16 photographs - 8 morning and 8 evening - of each segment.
Aerial photography is traditionally scheduled for September but on occasion, can extend into
October depending on the weather. This year, weather was not an encumbrance during the data
collection effort. Table 3.2 shows the data collection dates for the morning and evening flights.
Table 3.2 1 Aerial Photo2raahv Data Collection Schedule
.♦ ?JTJ Flights
Wednesday, September 4th Wednesday, September 4th
Wednesday, September 4 th Wednesday, September 4th
Wednesday, September 11th
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 17 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
The density of traffic between each pair of interchanges was estimated by counting the number of
vehicles between each interchange in each photo. The photo that displayed the greatest vehicle
density for each freeway segment was considered to represent the peak period and was selected
for analysis in the chapter. The corresponding lengths and the number of lanes were also verified
from the photos. Vehicle counts were performed using four different categories: cars, buses, trucks
and tractor - trailers. The buses, trucks and tractor - trailers were assigned passenger car equivalents
(PCE) by applying a 1.5 PCE for trucks and buses, and 2.0 PCE for tractor - trailers.
The AM and PM peak period densities were compared to identify the most congested time for each
segment. Then, using the speed - density curve described previously, the peak density is converted
to speed, level of service and volume for each freeway segment. The LOS was determined directly
from the density value using the thresholds listed in Table 3.1.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
A two -step quality control process was performed to assure the quality of the freeway LOS results.
Skycomp, the company responsible for taking aerial photographs of the study facilities, provided
initial oversight to review density measurements taken using the aerial photographs and to ensure
lane configurations are correct. Skycomp also gathered information regarding collisions and other
freeway incidents that could cause atypical congestion. Traffic volume data from the vicinity of
those incidents were not included in the density calculations.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. performed the second step review of the results to check for near
consistency with results from studies during previous years. The following four conditions were
considered to compare the 2013 results with past results:
• Segments operating at LOS Fin 2013 that were LOSE or better in 2012
• Segments that improve from LOS F in 2012 to LOS E in 2013 without a clear cause
• Segments that change two levels of service (improving or worsening) between 2012 and 2013
• LOS D, E and F segments that changed one level of service from 2012 to 2013
Each segment that met one of the conditions above was checked to see if the segment has a history
of density fluctuation. For those segments that do not show a history of fluctuation or for which
past fluctuation has not reached the level of service found in 2013, historical downstream
congestion was reviewed and it was determined whether a downstream queue observed in the
past could have presented longer this year than it has presented historically. For the remaining
segments, which neither have displayed historical fluctuation nor appeared to be affected by
downstream congestion, the aerial photographs were reviewed to confirm that no errors had
occurred in collecting and reducing the data.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 18 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SINCE 2012
Three freeway improvement projects may have impacted the LOS results in this Report:
I -880 HOV Lanes - New HOV lanes opened on I -880 between US -101 and SR 237 on June 21,
2013, increasing the total directional HOV lane miles in Santa Clara County from 176 miles to 185
miles. Based on the 2013 Monitoring data, these new HOV lanes operated with relatively low levels
of congestion, with all directional segments operating at LOS B in the AM peak period and
operating between LOS A and LOS D in the PM peak period. Adjacent mixed flow lanes generally
showed either the same or less congested LOS as compared to 2012, which is an expected result of
overall increased capacity on the affected segments.
I- 280 /I- 880 /Stevens Creek Boulevard Improvements Project - This project began construction
in late Fall 2012 and is estimated to be completed in late 2014. The project will reconfigure the
existing I- 880 /Stevens Creek Boulevard interchange to widen and realign ramps, widen the
overcrossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard over I -880, construct a new direct connector from
northbound I -280 to northbound I -880, and construct direct off ramps to Monroe Street from
Southbound I -880. When data was collected for the 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report, the
project was still under construction, and may have impacted traffic through the area. This is
consistent with the PM peak period mixed flow LOS results in this Report showing that both
eastbound and westbound I -280 between Winchester Boulevard and I -880 went from LOS D in
2012 to LOS F in 2013. Similarly, the PM peak period HOV results show that eastbound I -280
between Meridian Avenue and 1 -880 went from LOS D to LOS F. These congestion increases may be
partially explained by construction activities associated with the interchange project.
US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project - This project began construction in Spring 2012 and is estimated
to be completed in Summer 2014. The project will construct auxiliary lanes in each direction of a
3.2 -mile segment of US 101 between State Route 85 in Mountain View and Embarcadero Road in
Palo Alto, including widening and modifying the on -ramps and off -ramps at each interchange in
this section to improve efficiency. This section of US 101 is highly congested, with most freeway
segments operating at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak periods. These segments generally either
showed no change or fluctuated by one LOS letter grade in either direction, suggesting that the
construction of the US 101 Auxiliary Lanes did not measurably impact the LOS results.
DEFICIENT FREEWAY SEGMENTS
Directional miles represent the number of miles of freeway for the two travel directions. For the
2013 Monitoring Program, 75 segments, with a combined length of 73 miles, are operating at LOS F
in the AM peak hour and 81 segments, with a combined length of 75 miles, are at LOS F in the PM
peak hour. In total, 149 out of 313 directional miles of freeway segments were found to be
operating at LOS F in at least one of the peak periods. This is about 2 more lane -miles than the
2012 results.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 19 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
Of these miles, 20 miles during the AM peak and 26 miles during the PM peak operated at LOS F in
the baseline year and therefore considered LOS- exempt. The remaining 53 directional miles during
the AM peals and 49 directional miles during the PM peak are considered deficient.
Table 3.3 presents the mixed -flow freeway segments that were operating at LOS F in 2013 and
operated at LOS F under the 1991 baseline conditions, which make the latter exempt from CMP
conformance requirements. Freeway mixed -flow segments operating at LOS F in 2013 but not
operating at LOS F in 1991 are non - exempt from CMP requirements and are shown in Table 3.4.
The duration of congestion, in hours, is shown in parentheses in each of these tables.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 20 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
Table 3.3 1 Exempt Mixed -Flow Segments Operating at LOS F in 2013
#
125
Fwy
1 -280
Dir
WB
AM/PM
AM
Segment
Meridian Ave to SR 17 (1 -880)
Length
1.40
Duration of
Congestion
(2.0)
124
1 -280
WB
AM
SR 17 (1 -880) to Winchester Blvd
0.55
(1.0)
_
123
1 -280
WB
AM
Winchester Blvd to Saratoga Ave
1.37
(2.0)
122
I -280
WB
AM
Saratoga Ave to Lawrence Expwy
1.19
(2.0)
121
1 -280
WB
AM
Lawrence Expwy to Wolfe Rd
1.24
(1.0)
45
1 -680
SB
AM
Capitol Expwy to King Rd
1.00
(1.0)
39
1 -680
SB
AM
King Rd to US 101
0.40
(2.0)
32
1 -880
NB
AM
1 -280 to Stevens Creek Blvd
0.41
(0.5)
30
SR 17
NB
AM
Bear Creek to Saratoga - Los Gatos
2.90
(1.0)
89
SR 237
WB
AM
1 -880 to McCarthy Blvd
0.40
(2.5)
90
SR 237
WB
AM
McCarthy Blvd to Zanker Rd
0.94
(3.0)
171
SR 85
NB
AM
1 -280 to Homestead Rd
0.34
(2.0)
1_70
SR 85
NB
AM
Homestead Rd to Fremont Rd
1.00
(1.0)
289
US 101
NB
AM
1 -280 to Santa Clara St
0.88
(1.5)
290
US 101
NB
AM
Santa Clara St to McKee Rd
0.39
(2.5)
291
US 101
NB
AM
McKee Rd to Old Oakland Rd
1.58
(1.5)
292
US 101
NB
AM
Old Oakland Rd to 1 -880
0.57
(1.0)
293
US 101
NB
AM
1 -880 to Old Bayshore Rd
0.50
(2.5)
294
US 101
NB
AM
Old Bayshore Rd to N First St
0.49
(2.5)
295
US 101
NB
AM
N First St to Guadalupe (SR 87)
0.64
(1.5)
305
US 101
NB
AM
SR 85 to Shoreline Blvd
0.28
(2.5)
306
US 101
NB
AM
Shoreline Blvd to Rengstorff Ave
1.01
(1.5)
275
U5101
SB
AM
Embarcadero to Oregon Expwy
0.15
(0.5)
136
1 -280
EB
PM
SR 85 to DeAnza Blvd
1.31
(0.5)
137
1 -280
EB
PM
DeAnza Blvd to Wolfe Rd
1.06
(0.5)
138
1 -280
EB
PM
Wolfe Rd to Lawrence Expwy
1.24
(0.5)
139
1 -280
EB
PM
Lawrence Expwy to Saratoga Rd
1.19
(0.5)
3
1 -880
NB
PM
Montague Expwy to Great Mall
0.98
(0.5)
2
1 -880
NB
PM
Great Mall to SR 237
0.72
(1.0)
1
1 -880
NB
PM
SR 237 to Dixon Landing Rd
1.99
(1.5)
16
1 -880
SB
PM
Montague Expy to Brokaw Rd
1.35
(1.5)
17
1 -880
SB
PM
Brokaw Rd to US 101
1.29
(2.5)
18
1 -880
SB
PM
US 101 to N First St
0.49
(1.0)
19
1 -880
SB
_
PM
N First St to SR 87
0.40
(1.5)
_
20
1 -880
SB
PM
SR 87 to Coleman Rd
0.51
(1.5)
81
SR 237
EB
PM
Lawrence Expwy to Great America
1.27
(2.5)
79
SR 237
EB
PM
First St to Zanker Rd
1.61
(2.0)_
77
SR 237
EB
PM
McCarthy Blvd to 1 -880
0.40
(3.5)
187
SR 85
SB
PM
SR 237 to El Camino Real
0.41
(3.0)
188
SR 85
SB
PM
El Camino Real to Fremont Rd
1.89
(3.0)
2.74_
US 101
SB
PM
Oregon Exp to San Antonio Rd
1.85
(2.0)
273
US 101
SB
PM
S Antonio Rd to Rengstorff Ave
0.71
(2.5)
264
US 101
SB
PM
GreaAmerica Pkwy to Montague
Expwy
0.75
(3.5)
263
US 101
SB
PM
Montague Expwy to De La Cruz Blvd
1.28
(3.5)
262
US 101
SB
PM_
De La Cruz Blvd to SR 87
0.77
(0.5)
261
US 101
SB
PM
SR 87 to N First St
0.64
(2.0)
260
US 101
SB
PM
N First St to Old Bayshore Rd
0.49
(3.0)
259
258
US 101
US 101
SB
SB
PM
PM
Old Bayshore Rd to 1 -880
1 -880 to Old Oakland Rd
0.50
0.57
(3.0)
(3.5)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 21 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
Table 3.4 1 Non - Exempt Mixed -Flow Segments Operating at LOS F in 2013
#
130
Fwy
1 -280
Dir
WB
AM/PM
AM
Segment
US 101 to McLaughlin
Length
0.37
Duration of
Congestion
(2.5)
129
1 -280
WB
AM
McLaughlin to 10th St.
0.92
(2.0)
128
1 -280
WB
AM
10th St. to SR 87
1.20
(2.0)
127
1 -280
WB
AM
SR 87 to Bird Av.
0.35
(2.0)
126
1 -280
WB
AM
Bird Av. to Meridian Av.
1.07
(2.0)
119
f -280
WB
AM
De Anza Blvd. To SR 85
1.31
(1.0)
118
1 -280
WB
AM
SR 85 to Foothill Expwy
0.70
(1.0)
52
1 -680
NB
AM
King Rd. to Capitol Expwy
1.00
(0.5)
53
1 -680
NB
AM
Capitol Expwy to Alum Rock Av
0.31
(1.0)
54
1 -680
NB
AM
Alum Rock Av. to McKee Rd.
0.64
(0.5)
_
11
1 -880
NB
AM
Stevens Cr to N. Bascom Ave
0.84
(1.0)
18
1 -880
SB
AM
US 101 to N. 1st ST
0.49
(1.0)
19
1 -880
SB
AM
N. 1st ST to SR 87
0.40
(1.5)
26
SR 17
NB
AM
San Tomas /Camden to Hamilton
1.82
(0.5)
95
SR 237
WB
AM
N. Fair Oaks Ave to Mathilda Ave
0.96
(1.0)
182
SR 85
NB
AM
Blossom Hill Rd. to SR 87
1.27
(0.5)
181
SR 85
NB
AM
SR 87 to Almaden Expressway
0.94
(2.0)
180
SR 85
NB
AM
Almaden Expwy to Camden
1.97
(0.5)
179
SR 85
NB
AM
Camden to Union
1.17
(1.5)
178
SR 85
NB
AM
_
Union to Bascom
1.13
(1.0)
177
SR 85
NB
AM
Bascom to SR 17
0.27
(2.0)
176
175
SR 85
SR 85
NB_
NB
AM
AM
SR 17 to Winchester
Winchester to Saratoga Av.
0.50
2.68
(2.0)
(0.5)
172
SR 85
NB
AM
Stevens Creek Blvd. to 1 -280
0.75
(1.5)
169
SR 85
NB
AM
Fremont Av. to El Camino Real
1.89
(0.5)
70--
SR 87
NB
AM
SR 85 to Capitol Expwy_
1.09
(1.0)
71
SR 87
NB
AM
Capitol Expwy to Curtner
1.49
_
(2.0)
72
SR 87
NB
AM
Curtner to Almaden Expwy
0.73
(3.0)
73
SR 87
NB
AM
Almaden Expwy to Alma
0.69
(1.5)
75__
SR 87
NB
AM
1 -280 to Julian St.
0.96
(1.5)--
76
_
SR 87
NB
AM
Julian St. to Coleman St
0.38
(2.0)
414
SR 87
NB
AM
Coleman St to Taylor
0.41
(1.0)
416
SR 87
NB
AM
Taylor St to Airport Pkwy
1.87
(1.0)
418_
SR 87
NB
AM
Airport to US 101
0.67
(2.0)
309.02
US 101_
NB
AM
_
San Martin Ave to Tennant Ave
3.55
(1.5)
309.01
US 101
NB
AM
Tennant to E. Dunne
0.96
(2.0)
282
283
US 101
US 101
NB
NB
AM
AM
Bernal to Silver Crk Valley Rd_
Silver Crk Valley Rd to Hellyer Rd
1.57
1.84
(0.5)
(1.5)
284
US 101
NB
AM
Hellyer Rd TO Yerba Buena Rd
0.90
(2.0)
285
US 101
NB
AM
Yerba Buena Rd. to Capitol Expwy
0.80
(2.0)
286
US 101
NB
AM
Capitol Expwy to Tully Rd.
1.33
(1.5)
287
US 101
NB
AM
Tully Rd. to Story Rd
1.46
(0.5)
288
US 101
NB
AM
Story Rd to I -280
0.38
(0.5)
296
US 101
NB
AM
SR 87 (Guadalupe) to De La Cruz Blvd.
0.77
(2.5)
297
US 101
NB
AM
De La Cruz Bld. to Montague
1.28
(0.5)
298
300
301
US 101
US 101
US 101
NB
NB
NB
AM
AM
AM
Montague to Bower / Great American
Pkwy
Lawrence Expwy to N. Fair Oaks Ave
N. Fair Oaks to N. Mathilda Ave
0.75
0.98
0.85
_
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
302
US 101
NB
AM
Mathilda to SR 237
0.35
(0.5)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 22 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
303
US 101
NB
AM
SR 237 to Moffett Blvd.
1.68
Congestion
(2.5)
304
US 101
NB
AM
Moffett Blvd. to SR 85
0.33
(2.5)
307
US 101
NB
AM
Rengstorff to San Antonio Rd.
0.71
(0.5)
131
1 -280
EB
PM
Page Mill to La Barranca
1.73
(0.5)
132
1 -280
EB
PM
La Barranca to El Monte
1.60
(2.5)
133
1 -280
EB
PM
El Monte to Magdalena
0.95
(2.5)
141
1 -280
EB
PM
Winchester to 1 -880
0.55
(0.5)
142
1 -280
EB
PM
1 -880 to Meridian
1.40
(1.0)
143
1 -280
EB
PM
Meridian to Bird
1.07
(2.5)
144
1 -280
EB
PM
Bird Av. to SR 87
0.35
(1.5)
145
1 -280
EB
PM
SR 87 to 10th
1.20
(1.0)
126
1 -280
WB
PM
SR 87 to Bird
0.35
(0.5)
124
1 -280
WB
PM
1 -880 to Winchester
0.55
(0.5)
113.1
1 -280
WB
PM
Page Mill to Alpine
2.25
_
(0.5)
48
1 -680
SB
PM
SR 237 to Yosemite
0.69
(0.5)
47
1 -680
SB
PM
Yosemite to Montague Expwy
0.77
(1.0)
46
1 -680
SB
PM
Montague Exp. to Capitol Av.
1.00
(1.5)
45
1 -680
SB
PM
Capitol Av. to Hostetter Rd.
0.31
(1.5)
44
1 -680
SB
PM
Hostetter Rd. to Berryessa Rd.
0.94
(1.5)
22
1 -880
NB
PM
The Alameda to Coleman
0.59
(0.5)
21
1 -880
SB
PM
Coleman Av. to The Alameda
0.59
(1.5)
22
1 -880
SB
PM
The Alameda to Bascom Av.
0.82
(1.5)
23
1 -880
SB
PM
Bascom Av. to Stevens Crk
0.84
(1.0)
36
SR 17
SB
PM
Lark to Saratoga
1.81
(0.5)
83
237
EB
PM
Mathilda Ave to N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.96
(1.0)
82
_SR
SR 237
EB
PM
N. Fair Oaks Ave to Lawrence Expwy
0.63
(1.5)
80
SR 237
EB
PM
Gr America Pkwy to N. First St.
1.00
(3.5)
90
SR 237
WB
PM
McCarthy Blvd. To Zanker Rd.
0.94
(0.5)
97
SR 237
WB
PM
US 101 to Maude
0.71
(0.5)
98
SR 237
WB
PM
Maude to Central
0.80
(1.5)
100
SR 237
WB
PM
SR 85 to El Camino Real
0.40
(2.0)
185
SR 85
SB
PM
_
US 101 to Central Exp
1.24
(0.5)
186
SR 85
SB
PM
Central Expwy to SR 237
0.47
(1.0)
191
SR 85
SB
PM
1 -280 to Stevens Creek Blvd.
0.75
(0.5)
192
SR 85
SB
PM
Stvns Crk Blv. to Saratga -Snnvl
1.83
(2.5)
193
SR 85
SB
PM
Saratoga -Sunny to Saratoga Av
1.83
(0.5)
195
SR 85
SB
PM
Winchester to SR 17
0.50
(0.5)
196
SR 85
SB
PM
SR 17 to Bascom
0.27
(1.0)
197
SR 85
SB
PM
Bascom to Union
1.13
(3.0)
417
SR 87
SB
PM
Airport Pkwy to Taylor
(0.5)
415
SR 87
SB
PM
Taylor to Coleman
0.41
(1.5)
69
SR 87
SB
PM
Coleman to Julian
0.38
(0.5)
68
SR 87
SB
PM
Julian St. to 1 -280
0.96
(0.5)
67
SR 87
SB
PM
1 -280 to Alma
0.90
(1.0)
66
SR 87
SB
PM
Alma to Almaden Expwy
0.69
(1.5)
65
SR 87
SB
PM
Almaden Expwy to Curtner
0.73
(1.0)
303
US 101
NB
PM
SR 237 to Moffett
1.68
(0.5)
304
305
US 101
US 101
NB
NB
PM
PM
Moffett to SR 85
SR 85 to Shoreline
0.33
0.38
(1.5)
(2.0)
306
US 101
NB
PM
_
Shoreline to Rengstorff
1.01
(3.0)
307
US 101
NB
PM
__
Rengstorff to San Antonio _
0.71
(3.0)
243
US 101
SB
PM
_
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop) to Cochrane
0.87
(1.0)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 23 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
275.08
265
US 101
US 101
SB
SB
PM
PM
Monterey Rd to Bloomfield Ave
Lawrence to Gr America Pkwy
1.85
1.12
(1.0)
_(3.5)
266
US 101
SB
PM
N. Fair Oaks to Lawrence
0.98
(0.5)
_
US 101
SB
PM
Mathilda to N. Fair Oaks
0.85
(0.5)
_267
269
US 101
SB
PM
Moffett to SR 237
1.68
(0.5)
275
US 101
SB
PM
Embarcadero to Oregon Expwy
0.15
(2.0)
MIXED -FLOW LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
In 2013, there were 859 mixed -flow lane -miles of freeway in Santa Clara County. Figure 3.2
summarizes the overall operation of the freeway system, including lane miles operating at each
LOS, regardless of CMP exemption. These values are based on the most congested time recorded
for each segment during the aerial data collection.
300
244244
LA 250 229
218
203
0 200 190
LL
a 150 13s
x
3 100 83 76 84
Q)
a
LL 50
9 2
=N _AEM --
A B C D E F
Level of Service
■AM
PM
In total, 203 (24 %) and 218 (25 %) lane -miles operated at LOS F in the AM and PM time periods,
respectively, in 2013. Compared to 2012, there were 34 fewer lane -miles at LOS F in the AM peak
hour. However, the PM peak hour showed an increase of similar magnitude of 28 additional lane -
miles operating at LOS F as compared to 2012.
The percentages of lane -miles operating at each LOS for the AM time period remained within 3% of
the percentages found in the 2012 Monitoring Report for all LOS grades, except for LOS D which
increased by 7% and LOS F which decreased by 4 %. The LOS results in the PM time period were
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 24 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
within 3% of 2012 values, except LOS C which decreased by 4 %. See Figures 4.3 and 4.4, below, for
historical information on the LOS results for mixed flow lane -miles over the past five years.
100%
a,
90%
80%
c
70%
c 60%
LL
-0 50%
40%
0 30%
20%
U
a 10%
a
0%
LOS A ■ LOS B ■ LOS C LOS D ■ LOS E ■ LOS F
o I-
24% 21% 29%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
LOS A ■ LOS B ■ LOS C LOS D ■ LOS E ■ LOS F
100%
a 90%
80%
c
J 70%
0 60%
LL
50% 29%
cu 30% 30% 28% 30%
X 40%
0 30%
ac, 20%
a 10%
0%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 25 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
26
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
al
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
27
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
01
HOV LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
There are 185 directional miles of HOV lanes throughout the freeway network in Santa Clara
County. New HOV lanes opened on 1 -880 between US -101 and SR 237 on June 21, 2013, resulting
in eight additional HOV segments and nine additional total HOV lane miles compared to the HOV
network analyzed in the 2012 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report.
Figure 3.7 shows the results of the HOV lane LOS analysis for 2013. About 79% of the HOV lanes
operate at LOS D or better in the AM peak, up from 73% in 2012, while 91% operate at LOS D or better
in the PM peak hour, down from 96% in 2012. Fewer segments operating at LOS E and LOS F in the PM
peak suggests that HOV lane use is more concentrated in the AM peak, resulting in slower speeds and a
worse LOS.
70
60
a,
50
a
c
`4 40
O
= 30
a
a3, 20
v
LL
10
38
43
A B C D
Level of Service
■ AM
22
16 PM
f 8
_ ,_ _
HOV lanes operate at a much higher level of service, on average, compared to mixed -flow lanes.
However, the HOV system does include segments that operate at LOS F. In 2013, there were 36
deficient segments accounting for 23 directional miles (3 fewer than in 2012) during the AM peak
and 6 deficient segments accounting for 8 directional miles (3 more than in 2012) during the PM
peak. This is approximately 13% of the HOV system in the AM peak and 4% of the HOV system in
the PM peak.
In 2013, all segments in which the HOV lane operated at LOS F also had mixed -flow operations at
LOS F. HOV lanes experience weaving movements from vehicles wishing to enter and exit the HOV
lane from adjacent mixed -flow lanes, which can slow down vehicles in the HOV lane, especially
when the adjacent mixed -flow lanes are congested. Therefore, LOS F results in the HOV lanes are
not entirely caused by excess demand, but by weaving movements as well. This cause of congestion
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 28 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
could be reduced through operational improvements such as direct interchange HOV lane
connections or direct HOV- lane -to- off -ramp connections.
Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 provide a historical perspective on the percentage of HOV lane miles
operating at each LOS over the last five years for the AM and PM peak period, respectively.
Comparing the 2013 results to the previous years, the percentage of lane miles operating at LOS D,
LOS E, or LOS F has seen a gradual upward trend in the AM peak period from 31% in 2009 to 41%
in 2013, while such lane miles increased from 21% to 33% over the same period in the PM peak
period.
LOS A A LOS B ■ LOS C LOS D ■ LOS E ■ LOS F
100% — 90%
a o 33% 31% 29%
— 80/ 34% 39%
a 70%
c
60%
O 50%
x
0 40%
15% 21%
30/
20% 27%
20% 20%
a 10 °° - ■ -- - —
0%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
c
60%
0 50%
x
0 40%
f+
30%
V
a 20%
10%
0%
LOS A ■ LOS B ■ LOS C
W11
19%
9.°
2009
22%
40
2010
LOS D ■ LOS E ■ LOS F
3796 30% 33%
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 29 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
23%
19%
26%
W*
00ii
AW-
2011
2012
2013
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 29 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 present the complete list of all HOV segments operating at LOS F in the AM and
PM peak, respectively. The LOS results are also represented graphically in Figures 4.10 and 4.11.
The complete freeway monitoring results are presented in Table 3.7, below.
Table 3.5 1 fIOV Segments at LOS F - AM Peak Period
ID
118
123
Freeway
1 -280
1 -280
Dir
WB
WB
From
SR 85
Winchester Blvd
To
Foothill Expwy
Saratoga Ave
Length
0.7
1.4
122
1 -280
WB
Saratoga Ave
Lawrence Expwy
1.2
89
SR 237
WB
1 -880
McCarthy Blvd
0.4
181
SR 85
NB
SR 87
Almaden Expwy
0.9
176
SR 85
NB
SR 17
Winchester Blvd
0.5
172
SR 85
NB
Stevens Creek Blvd
1 -280
0.8
169
SR 85
NB
W. Fremont Ave
EL Camino Real
1.9
171
SR 85
NB
1 -280
W. Homestead Rd
0.3
170
SR 85
NB
W. Homestead Rd
W. Fremont Ave
1.0
71
SR 87
NB
Capitol Expwy
Curtner Ave
1.5
72
SR 87
NB
Curtner Ave
Almaden Rd
0.7
75
SR 87
NB
1 -280
Julian St
1.0
76
SR 87
NB
Julian St
Coleman Ave
0.4
414
SR 87
NB
Coleman Ave
Taylor St
0.4
288
US 101
NB
Story Rd
1 -280
0.4
302
US 101
NB
N. Mathilda Ave
SR 237
0.4
304
US 101
NB
Moffett Blvd
SR 85
0.3
307
US 101
NB
Rengstorff Ave
San Antonio Ave
0.7
295
US 101
NB
N. First St
Guadalupe Pkwy
0.6
269
US 101
SB
Moffett Blvd
SR 237
1.7
303
US 101
NB
SR 237
Moffett Blvd
1.7
289
US 101
NB
1 -280
Santa Clara St
0.9
290
US 101
NB
Santa Clara St
McKee Rd
0.4
292_
US 101
NB
Oakland Rd
1 -880
0.6
293
US 101
NB
1 -880
Old Bayshore Hwy
0.5
294
US 101
NB
Old Bayshore Hwy
N. First St
0.5
305
US 101
NB
SR 85
N. Shoreline Blvd
0.4
306
US 101
NB
N. Shoreline Blvd
Rengstorff Ave
1.0
275
US 101
SB
Embarcadero Rd
Oregon Expwy
0.2
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on 1 -280
3.3
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on SR -237
0.4
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on SR -85
5.4
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on SR -87
4.0
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on US -101
10.1
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 30 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Table 3.6 1 HOV SeEments at LOS F - PM Peak Period
ID Freeway Dir From
142 1 -280 EB 1 -880
To
Meridian Ave
Length
1.4
1 1 -880 NB SR 237
Dixon Landing
2.0
274 US 101 SB_ Oregon Expwy
San Antonio Ave
1.9
265 US 101 SB Lawrence Expwy
Bower Ave / Great American Pkwy
1.1
264 US 101 SB Bower Ave / Great American Pkwy
258 US 101 SB 1 -880
Montague Expwy / San Tomas Expwy
Oakland Rd
0.8
0.6
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on 1 -280
1.4
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on 1 -880
2.0
Total Congested HOV Lane Miles on US -101
4.3
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 31 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
32
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
2)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 33 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
01
Tahle 3 1 2O1 3 FrePwav I.(14 — AM Peak Period
31
30
29
28
SR 17
SR 17
SR 17
SR 17
NB
NS
NB
NB
Summit Rd
Bear Creek Rd
Saratoga Ave
Lark Ave
Bear Creek Rd
Saratoga Ave
Lark Ave
SR 85
4.06
2.90
1.81
0.46
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
08:00 - 08:20
09:20- 09:40
07:20 - 07:40
07:20 - 07:40
51
67
42
41
Density
0
0
0
0
LOS
E
F
D
D
•-
41
28
52
54
•
4190
3760
4370
4430
27
SR 17
NB
SR 85
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
1.17
3
3
0
08:40 - 09:00
27
0
D
66
5310
26
SR 17
NB
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
Hamilton Ave
1.82
3
3
0
09:00 - 09:20
69
0
F
27
5590
25
SR 17
NB
Hamilton Ave
1 -280
1.61
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
53
0
E
39
6210
184
SR 85
NB
US 101
Cottle Rd
1.79
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
24
16
C
B
66
67
3170
1080
183
SR 85
NB
Cottle Rd
Blossom Hill Rd
1.96
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
50
29
E
D
42
65
4200
1890
182
SR 85
NB
Blossom Hill Rd
SR 87
1.27
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
62
55
F
E
32
37
3970
2040
181
180
179
178
177
176
175
SR 85
SR 85
SR 85
SR 85
SR 85
SR 85
SR 85
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
SR 87
Almaden Expwy
Camden Ave
Union Ave
S. Bascom Ave
SR 17
Winchester Blvd
Almaden Expwy
Camden Ave
Union Ave
S. Bascom Ave
SR 17
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
0.94
1.97
1.17
1.13
0.27
0.50
2.68
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
07:20 - 07:40
07:40 - 08:00
08:00 - 08:20
07:40 - 08:00
08:00 - 08:20
07:00 - 07:20
07:20- 07:40
94
62
66
72
105
82
64
74
43
57
43
55
88
50
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
E
D
E
F
E
16
32
29
25
13
20
30
24
51
36
51
37
18
42
3010
3970
3830
3600
2730
3280
3840
1780
2200
2060
2200
2040
1590
2100
174
SR 85
NB
Saratoga Ave
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
2.19
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
43
26
D
C
51
66
4390
1720
173
SR 85
NB
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
1.83
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
47
26
E
C
46
66
4330
1720
172
SR 85
NB
Stevens Creek Blvd
1 -280
0.75
3
2
1
08:20- 08:40
127
82
F
F
8
20
2040
1640
171
SR 85
NB
1 -280
W. Homestead Rd
0.34
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
125
114
F
F
8
30
2400
1140
170
SR 85
NB
W. Homestead Rd
W. Fremont Ave
1.00
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
93
78
F
F
16
22
2980
1720
169
SR 85
NB
W. Fremont Ave
EL Camino Real
1.89
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
66
62
F
F
29
32
3830
1990
168
SR 85
NB
EL Camino Real
SR 237
0.41
3
2
1
09:20- 09:40
46
41
D
D
47
54
4330
2220
167
SR 85
NB
SR 237
Central Expwy
0.47
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
29
21
D
C
65
66
3770
1390
166
SR 85
NB
Central Expwy
US 101
1.24
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
41
19
D
C
54
66
4430
1260
70
SR 87
NB
SR 85
Capitol Expwy
1.09
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
128
55
F
E
8
37
2050
2040
71
SR 87
NB
Capitol Expwy
Curtner Ave
1.49
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
110
77
F
F
11
23
2420
1780
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 34 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Table 3.7 12013 Free%vav LOS - AM Peak Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
35
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
N
-
Photo
Max Density
LOS (Density)
Speed
Flow
ID
Facility
Dir
From/To
From/To
Miles
Total
Mixed
NOV
Time
Mixed
NOV
Mlixed
NOV
Mixed
•
72
SR 87
NB
Curtner Ave
Almaden Rd
0.73
3
2
1
07:40- 08:00
89
69
18
27
3210
1870
73
SR 87
NB
Almaden Rd
Alma Ave
0.69
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
63
52
F
E
31
40
3910
2080
74
SR 87
NB
Alma Ave
1 -280
0.90
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
49
34
E
D
43
63
4220
2150
75
SR 87
NB
1 -280
Julian St
0.96
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
116
67
F
F
10
28
2320
1880
76
SR 87
NB
Julian St
Coleman Ave
0.38
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
131
73
F
F
7
25
1840
1830
414
SR 87
NB
Coleman St
Taylor St
0.41
3
2
1
09:00 - 09:20
79
87
F
F
22
18
3480
1570
416
SR 87
NB
Taylor St
Skyport Dr
1.87
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
70
32
F
D
26
64
3640
2050
418
SR 87
NB
Skyport Dr
US 101
0.67
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
152
43
F
D
6
51
1830
2200
309.
US 101
NB
SR 156
SR 129
1.78
2
2
0
06:20 - 06:40
13
0
B
67
1730
11
309.
US 101
NS
SR 129
Betabel Rd
1.61
2
2
0
09:00 - 09:20
19
0
C
66
2510
1
309.
U5 301
NB
Betabel Rd
Bloomfield Ave
4.15
2
2
0
09:00 - 09:20
14
0
B
67
1870
09
309.
US 101
NB
Bloomfield Ave
Monterey Rd
1.85
2
2
0
07:20 - 07:40
22
0
C
66
2910
08
309.
US 101
NB
Monterey Rd
Pacheco Pass Hwy
1.11
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
13
0
B
67
2600
07
309.
US 101
NB
Pacheco Pass Hwy
Leavesley Rd
1.46
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
18
0
B
67
3600
06
309.
US 101
NB
Leavesley Rd
Buena Vista Ave
1.60
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
17
0
B
67
3400
OS
309.
US 101
NB
Buena Vista Ave
Masten Ave
1.16
3
3
0
06:20 - 06:40
27
0
D
66
5310
04
309.
US 101
NB
Masten Ave
San Martin Ave
2.17
3
3
0
06:20 - 06:40
48
0
E
45
6480
03
309.
US 101
NB
San Martin Ave
Tennant Ave
3.55
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
79
0
F
22
5220
02
309.
U5101
NB
Tennant Ave
East Dunne Ave
0.96
3
3
0
06:40 - 07:00
81
0
F
21
5110
01
276
US 101
NB
East Dunne Ave
Cochrane Rd
1.82
3
3
0
09:00 - 09:20
54
0
E
38
6160
277
US 101
N8
Cochrane Rd
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
0.87
4
3
1
06:20 - 06:40
38
29
D
D
58
65
6620
1890
278
US 101
NB
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
Sheller Ave
2.57
4
3
1
06:20 -06.40
28
28
D
D
66
66
5510
1850
279
US 101
NB
Sheller Ave
Lane Drop (SB)
4.32
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
25
25
C
C
66
66
4950
1650
280
US 101
NB
Lane Drop (SB)
SR 85
1.00
4
3
1
06:40 - 07:00
32
18
D
B
64
67
6150
1210
281
US 101
NB
SR 85
Bernal Rd
0.20
4
3
1
06:40 - 07:00
18
15
B
B
67
67
3600
1010
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
35
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
N
Table 3.7 12013 Freewav LOS - AM Peak Period
10
282
283
Facility
US 101
US 101
Dir
NB
NB
From/To
Bernal Rd
Silver Creek Valley Rd
From/To
Silver Creek Valley Rd
Hellyer Ave
Miles
1.48
1.84
Number
ToLd
4
4
of
Mixed
3
3
Lanes
HOV
1
1
Peak Photo
Time
08:20 - 08:40
07:40 - 08:00
Max
Mixed
88
109
Density
NOV
16
28
. (Density)
Mixed
F
F
HOV
B
D
Speed
Mixed
18
12
HOV
67
66
Flow
Mixed
4760
3930
HOV
1080
1850
284
US 101
NB
Hellyer Ave
Yerba Buena Rd
0.90
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
79
33
F
D
22
64
5220
2120
285
US 101
NB
Yerba Buena Rd
Capitol Expwy
0.80
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
72
30
F
D
25
65
5400
1950
286
US 101
NB
Capitol Expwy
Tully Rd
1.33
4
3
1
06:20 - 06:40
64
36
F
D
30
61
5760
2200
287
US 101
NB
Tully Rd
Story Rd
1.46
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
91
33
F
D
17
64
4650
2120
288
US 101
NB
Story Rd
1 -280
0.38
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
93
68
F
F
16
27
4470
1840
289
US 101
NB
1 -280
Santa Clara St
0.88
4
3
1
07 :40 - 08:00
87
85
F
F
18
19
4700
1620
290
US 101
NB
Santa Clara St
McKee Rd
0.39
4
3
1
07:40- 08:00
100
71
F
F
14
26
4200
1850
291
US 101
NB
McKee Rd
Oakland Rd
1.58
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
72
51
F
E
25
41
5400
2100
292
US 101
NB
Oakland Rd
1 -880
0.57
4
3
1
08:20 -08:40
93
64
F
F
16
30
4470
1920
293
US 101
NB
1 -880
Old Bayshore Hwy
0.50
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
112
100
F
F
11
14
3700
1400
294
US 101
NB
Old Bayshore Hwy
N. First St
0.49
4
3
1
08:20- 08:40
109
91
F
F
12
17
3930
1550
295
US 101
NB
N. First St
Guadalupe Pkwy
0.64
4
3
1
09:00 -09:20
90
85
F
F
17
19
4590
1620
296
US 101
NB
Guadalupe Pkwy
De La Cruz Blvd
0.77
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
111
85
F
F
11
19
3670
1620
297
US 101
NB
De La Cruz Blvd
Montague Expwy /Santa Tomas
Expwy
1.28
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
68
53
F
E
27
39
5510
2070
298
US 101
NB
E opntague Expwy / Santa Tomas
Bower Ave / Great America Pkwy
0.75
4
3
1
08:20- 08:40
70
37
F
D
26
59
5460
2190
299
U5101
NB
Bowe r Ave / Great American
Pk
Lawrence Expwy
1.12
4
3
1
07:20- 07:40
58
40
E
D
35
55
6090
2200
300
US 101
NB
Lawrence Expwy
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.98
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
71
55
F
E
26
37
5540
2040
301
US 101
NB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
N. Mathilda Ave
0.85
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
69
36
F
D
27
61
5590
2200
302
U5101
NB
N. Mathilda Ave
SR 237
0.35
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
72
102
F
F
25
13
5400
1330
303
US 101
NS
SR 237
Moffett Blvd
1.68
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
82
73
F
F
20
25
4920
1830
304
US 101
NB
Moffett Blvd
SR 85
0.33
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
105
95
F
F
13
15
4100
1430
305
US 101
NB
SR 85
N. Shoreline Blvd
0.38
5
4
1
07:40 - 08:00
108
65
F
F
12
29
5190
1890
306
US 101
NB
N. Shoreline Blvd
Rengstorff Ave
1.01
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
84
82
F
F
19
20
4790
1640
307
US 101
NB
Rengstorff Ave
San Antonio Ave
0.71
4
3
1
07:40- 08:00
77
65
F
F
23
29
5320
1890
308
US 101
NB
San Antonio Ave
Oregon Expwy
1.85
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
46
44
D
D
47
50
6490
2200
309
US 101
NB
Oregon Expwy
Embarcadero Rd
0.15
4
3
1
06:20 -06:40
31
22
D
C
65
66
6050
1460
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
36
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
v
Table 3.7 12013 Freewav LOS - AM Peak Period
ID
88
87
Facility
SR 237
SR 237
Dir
EB
EB
Frorn/To,
El Camino Real
SR 85
From/To
SR 85
Central Pkwy
Miles
0.40
0.63
Number
Total
2
2
of
Mboed
2
2
Lanes
NOV
0
0
Peak Photo
Time
09:00- 09:20
09:00- 09:20
Max Density
Mixed
38
56
HOV
0
0
LOS (Density)
Mixed
D
E
HOV
Speed
Mixed
58
36
HOV
Flow
4410
4040
86
SR 237
EB
Central Pkwy
Maude Ave
0.80
2
2
0
09:00 -09:20
35
0
D
62
4340
85
SR 237
EB
Maude Ave
US 101
0.71
2
2
0
08:20 - 08:40
29
0
D
65
3770
84
SR 237
EB
US 101
Mathilda Ave
0.53
2
2
0
08:00 - 08:20
35
0
D
62
4340
83
SR 237
EB
Mathilda Ave
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.96
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
37
11
D
A
59
67
4370
740
82
SR 237
EB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Lawrence Expwy
0.63
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
30
28
D
D
65
66
3900
1850
81
SR 237
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Great America Pkwy
1.27
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
39
14
D
B
57
67
4450
940
80
SR 237
EB
Great America Pkwy
N. First St
1.00
3
2
1
08:00- 08:20
48
33
E
D
45
64
4320
2120
79
SR 237
EB
N. First St
Zanker Rd
1.61
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
51
13
E
B
41
67
4190
880
78
SR 237
EB
Zanker Rd
McCarthy Blvd
0.94
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
28
12
D
B
66
67
3670
810
77
SR 237
EB
McCarthy Blvd
1 -880
0.40
3
2
1
07:40- 08:00
21
8
C
A
66
67
2860
540
130.
1
1 -280
EB
Alpine Rd
Page Mill Rd
2.25
4
4
0
08:40- 09:00
30
0
D
65
7800
131
1 -280
EB
Page Mill Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.73
4
4
0
08:40 -09:00
25
0
C
66
6600
132
1 -280
EB
La Barranca Rd
El Monte Rd
1.60
4
4
0
08:20 - 08:40
20
0
C
66
5280
133
1 -280
EB
El Monte Rd
Magdalena Ave
0.95
4
4
0
09:00 - 09:20
22
0
C
66
5810
134
1 -280
EB
Magdalena Ave
Foothill Expwy
2.65
4
3
1
08:40 - 09:00
28
14
D
B
66
67
5510
940
135
1 -280
EB
Foothill Expwy
SR 85
0.70
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
30
11
D
A
65
67
5850
740
136
1 -280
EB
SR 85
De Anza Blvd
1.31
4
3
1
08:40 - 09:00
26
15
C
B
66
67
5150
1010
137
1 -280
EB
De Anza Blvd
Wolfe Rd
1.06
4
3
1
08:40- 09:00
27
8
D
A
66
67
5310
540
138
1 -280
EB
Wolfe Rd
Lawrence Expwy
1.24
4
3
1
08:40 - 09:00
24
12
C
B
66
67
4760
810
139
1 -280
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Saratoga Ave
1.19
4
3
1
08:40 - 09:00
28
13
D
8
66
67
5510
880
140
1 -280
EB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
1.37
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
42
10
D
A
52
67
6560
670
141
1 -280
EB
Winchester Blvd
1 -880
0.55
4
3
1
08:40- 09:00
24
30
C
A
66
67
4760
670
142
1 -280
EB
1 -880
Meridian Ave
1.40
4
3
1
08:40- 09:00
29
7
D
A
65
67
5660
470
143
1 -280
EB
Meridian Ave
Bird Ave
1.07
4
4
0
08:40 - 09:00
49
0
E
43
8430
144
145
I -280
1 -280
EB
EB
Bird Ave
SR 87
SR 87
10th St
0.35
1.20
4
4
4
4
0
0
07:20- 07:40
07:40 - 08:00
19
19
0
0
C
C
66
66
5020
5020
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
37
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
>v
Table 3.7 1201.3 Freeway LOS -AM Peak Period
ID
146
147
51
52
53
54
Facility
I -280
1 -280
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
1-680
Dir
EB
EB
NB
NB
NB
NB
From/To
10th St
McLaughlin Ave
US 101
King Rd
Capitol Expwy
Alum Rock Ave
From/To
McLaughlin Ave
US 101
King Rd
Capitol Expwy
Alum Rock Ave
McKee Rd
Miles
0.92
0.37
0.40
1.00
0.31
0.64
Number
Total
4
4
4
4
4
4
of
Mixed
4
4
4
4
4
4
Lanes
HOV
0
0
0
0
0
0
Peak Photo
rime
08:40 - 09:00
07:20 -07:40
07:40 - 08:00
08:00- 08:20
08:00 - 08:20
07:40- 08:00
Max Density
Mixed
24
21
22
78
83
63
HOV
0
0
0
0
0
0
• (Density)
Mixed HOV
C
C
C
F
F
F
Speed
Mixed
66
66
66
22
20
31
Flow
HOV •
6340
5550
5810
6870
6640
7820
55
1 -680
NB
McKee Rd
Berryessa Rd
1.47
4
4
0
08:00 - 08:20
43
0
D
53
8780
56
57
58
59
60
61
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
Berryessa Rd
Hostetter Rd
Capitol Ave
Montague Expwy
Yosemite Dr
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
Hostetter Rd
Capitol Ave
Montague Expwy
Yosemite Dr
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
Jacklin Rd
0.94
0.31
1.00
0.77
0.69
0.85
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
06:40 - 07:00
08:20 - 08:40
08:20 - 08:40
08:20 - 08:40
09:00 - 09:20
09:00 - 09:20
30
38
38
30
29
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
C
65
S8
58
65
65
66
7800
8820
8820
7800
7540
4950
62
1 -680
NB
Jacklin Rd
Scott Creek Rd
1.57
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
27
0
D
66
5310
12
1 -880
NB
1 -280
Stevens Cr
0.41
3
3
0
09:00- 09:20
69
0
F
27
5590
11
1 -880
NB
Stevens Cr
N. Bascom Ave
0.84
3
3
0
08:40 - 09:00
66
0
F
29
5750
10
1 -880
NB
N. Bascom Ave
The Alameda
0.82
3
3
0
08:00- 08:20
42
0
D
52
6560
9
I -880
NB
The Alameda
Coleman Ave
0.59
3
3
0
08:00 - 08:20
36
0
D
61
6590
8
1 -880
NB
Coleman Ave
SR 87
0.51
3
3
0
08:00 - 08:20
46
0
D
47
6490
7
1 -880
NB
SR 87
N. 1st ST
0.40
3
3
0
08:00 - 08:20
41
0
D
54
6650
6
1 -880
NB
N. 1st ST
US 101
0.49
3
3
0
08:40 - 09:00
41
0
D
54
6650
5
1 -880
NB
US 101
E. Brokaw Rd
1.29
3
3
0
07.40 - 08:00
39
0
D
57
6670
4
1 -880
NB
E. Brokaw Rd
Montague Expwy
1.35
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
30
0
D
65
5850
3
1 -880
NB
Montague Expwy
Great Mall Pkwy
0.98
3
3
0
08:40- 09:00
24
0
C
66
4760
2
1 -880
NB
Great Mall Pkwy
SR 237
0.72
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
22
0
C
66
4360
1
1 -880
NB
SR 237
Dixon Landing
1.99
4
3
1
07:20 -07:40
19
15
C B
66
67 4270 1010
32
SR 17
SB
1 -280
Hamilton Ave
1.61
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
27
0
D
66
5310
33
SR 17
SB
Hamilton Ave
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
1.82
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
17
0
B
67
3850
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
38
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
v
Tahle 3.7 12011 Freewav LOS — AM Peak Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 39 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
ti
sv
Number
of
Lanes
Peak Photo
Max
Density
ID
Facility
• ir
From/To
From/To
Miles
Total
Mixed
HOV
Time
Mixed
HOV
•
.
•
34
SR 17
SB
San Tomas Expwy /Camden Ave
SR 85
1.17
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
21
0
C
66
4160
35
SR 17
SB
SR 85
Lark Ave
0.46
2
2
0
07:40 - 08:00
28
0
D
66
3670
36
SR 17
SB
Lark Ave
Saratoga Ave
1.81
2
2
0
09:00 - 09:20
33
0
D
64
4230
37
SR 17
SB
Saratoga Ave
Bear Creek Rd
2.90
2
2
0
08:40 - 09:00
16
0
B
67
2130
38
SR 17
SB
Bear Creek Rd
Summit Rd
4.06
2
2
0
07:40 - 08:00
27
0
D
66
3540
185
SR 85
SB
US 101
Central Expwy
1.24
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
18
7
8
A
67
67
2400
470
186
SR 85
SB
Central Expwy
SR 237
0.47
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
18
3
B
A
67
67
2400
210
187
SR 85
SB
SR 237
EL Camino Real
0.41
4
3
1
08:00 - 08:20
29
12
D
B
65
67
4720
810
188
SR 85
SB
EL Camino Real
W. Fremont Ave
1.89
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
41
14
D
B
54
67
4430
940
189
SR 85
SB
W. Fremont Ave
W. Homestead Rd
1.00
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
31
7
D
A
65
67
4030
470
190
SR 85
SB
W. Homestead Rd
1 -280
0.41
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
14
7
B
A
67
67
1870
470
191
SR 85
SB
1 -280
Stevens Creek Blvd
0.75
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
13
6
B
A
67
67
2080
410
192
SR 85
SB
Stevens Creek Blvd
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
1.83
3
2
1
08:40- 09:00
18
7
B
A
67
67
2400
470
193
SR 85
SB
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Saratoga Ave
2.19
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
19
5
C
A
66
67
2510
340
194
SR 85
SB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
2.68
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
24
4
C
A
66
67
3170
270
195
SR 85
SB
Winchester Blvd
SR 17
0.50
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
17
4
B
A
67
67
2270
270
196
SR 85
SB
SR 17
S. Bascom Ave
0.27
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
11
7
A
A
67
67
1480
470
197
SR 85
SB
S. Bascom Ave
Union Ave
1.13
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
25
6
C
A
66
67
3300
410
198
SR 85
SB
Union Ave
Camden Ave
1.17
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
27
5
D
A
66
67
3540
340
199
SR 85
SB
Camden Ave
Almaden Expwy
1.97
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
25
10
C
A
66
67
3300
670
200
SR 85
SB
Almaden Expwy
SR 87
0.94
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
19
5
C
A
66
67
2510
340
201
SR 85
SB
SR 87
Blossom Hill Rd
1.27
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
20
5
C
A
66
67
2640
340
202
SR 85
SB
Blossom Hill Rd
Cottle Rd
1.96
3
2
1
08:20 - 08:40
26
11
C
A
66
67
3440
740
203
SR 85
SB
Cottle Rd
U5101
1.79
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
20
3
C
A
66
67
2640
210
419
SR 87
SB
US 101
Skyport Dr
0.67
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
22
12
C
B
66
67
2910
810
417
SR 87
SB
Skyport Dr
Taylor St
1.87
3
2
1
08:40 - 09:00
12
2
B
A
67
67
1600
140
415
SR 87
SB
Taylor St
Coleman St
0.41
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
30
12
D
B
65
67
3900
810
69
SR 87
SB
Coleman Ave
Julian St
0.38
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
30
5
D
A
65
67
3900
340
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 39 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
ti
sv
Table 3.7 12013 Freewav LOS - AM Peak Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
40
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
Miles
Number
of
Lanes
Peak Photo
Max
Density
LOS
.-
ID
Facility
Dif
From/To
From/To
Total
Mixed
HOV
Time
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
68
SR 87
SB
Julian St
1 -280
0.96
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
19
5
C
A
66
67
2510
340
67
SR 87
SB
1 -280
Alma Ave
0.90
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
15
6
B
A
67
67
2000
410
66
SR 87
SB
Alma Ave
Almaden Ave
0.69
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
27
9
D
A
66
67
3540
610
65
SR 87
SB
Almaden Ave
Curtner Ave
0.73
3
2
1
07:00- 07:20
20
12
C
B
66
67
2640
810
64
SR 87
SB
Curtner Ave
Capitol Expwy
1.49
3
2
1
07:00 - 07:20
19
6
C
A
66
67
2510
410
63
SR 87
SB
Capitol Expwy
SR 85
1.09
3
2
1
08:00 - 08:20
25
9
C
A
66
67
3300
610
275
US 101
SB
Embarcadero Rd
Oregon Expwy
0.15
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
65
61
F
F
29
32
5660
1960
274
US 101
SB
Oregon Expwy
San Antonio Ave
1.85
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
48
41
E
D
45
54
6480
2220
273
US 101
SB
San Antonio Ave
Rengstorff Ave
0.71
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
30
25
D
C
65
66
5850
1650
272
US 101
SB
Rengstorff Ave
N. Shoreline Blvd
1.01
4
3
1
09:00 - 09:20
36
32
D
D
61
64
6590
2050
271
US 101
SB
N. Shoreline Blvd
SR 85
0.38
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
34
32
D
D
63
64
6430
2050
270
U5101
SB
SR 85
Moffett Blvd
0.33
4
3
1
06:20 - 06:40
33
15
D
B
64
67
6340
1010
269
U5101
SB
Moffett Blvd
SR 237
1.68
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
31
20
D
C
65
66
6050
1320
268
US 101
SB
SR 237
N. Mathilda Ave
0.35
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
32
14
D
B
64
67
6150
940
267
US 101
SB
N. Mathilda Ave
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.85
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
27
16
D
B
66
67
5310
1080
266
U5101
SB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Lawrence Expwy
0.98
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
27
19
D
C
66
66
5310
1260
Boovwyy r Ave / Great American
265
US 101
SB
Lawrence Expwy
1.12
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
35
16
D
B
62
67
6510
1080
Pk
r Ave / Great American
Montaque Expwy / Santa Tomas
264
US 101
SB
Pkwy
0.75
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
25
30
C
A
66
67
4950
670
Expwy
op�que Expwy / Santa Tomas
263
05101
SB
E
De La Cruz Blvd
1.28
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
23
9
C
A
66
67
4560
610
262
U5101
SB
De La Cruz Blvd
Guadalupe Pkwy
0.77
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
28
7
D
A
66
67
5510
470
261
US 101
SB
Guadalupe Pkwy
N. First St
0.64
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
18
8
B
A
67
67
3600
540
260
US 101
SB
N. First St
Old Bayshore Hwy
0.49
4
3
1
06:20 - 06:40
15
6
B
A
67
67
3000
410
259
US 101
SB
Old Bayshore Hwy
1 -880
0.50
4
3
1
06:40 - 07:00
10
4
A
A
67
67
2010
270
258
US 101
SB
1 -880
Oakland Rd
0.57
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
16
5
B
A
67
67
3200
340
257
US 101
SB
Oakland Rd
McKee Rd
1.58
4
3
1
07:00 - 07:20
22
5
C
A
66
67
4360
340
256
US 101
SB
McKee Rd
Santa Clara St
0.39
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
20
12
C
B
66
67
3960
810
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
40
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
Table 3.7 12013 Freeway LOS - AM Peak Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 41 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
Sy
Number
of
Lanes
Peak Photo
Max Density
.
(Density)
Speed
Flow
ID
Facility
Dir
From/To
From/To
Miles
Total
Mixed
HOV
Time
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HO'
255
US 101
SB
Santa Clara St
1 -280
0.88
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
19
4
C
A
66
67
3770
270
254
US 101
SB
I -280
Story Rd
0.38
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
12
2
B
A
67
67
2400
140
253
US 101
SB
Story Rd
Tully Rd
1.46
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
46
4
D
A
47
67
6490
270
252
US 101
SB
Tully Rd
Capitol Expwy
1.33
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
30
10
D
A
65
67
5850
670
251
US 101
58
Capitol Expwy
Yerba Buena Rd
0.80
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
24
6
C
A
66
67
4760
410
250
US 101
SB
Yerba Buena Rd
Hellyer Ave
0.90
4
3
1
09:00 - 09:20
24
11
C
A
66
67
4760
740
249
US 101
SB
Hellyer Ave
Silver Creek Valley Rd
1.84
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
22
7
C
A
66
67
4360
470
248
US 101
SB
Silver Creek Valley Rd
Bernal Rd
1.48
4
3
1
07:40 - 08 :00
15
21
B
C
67
66
3000
139
247
US 101
SB
Bernal Rd
SR 85
0.20
4
3
1
06:20 - 06:40
19
15
C
B
66
67
3770
101
246
US 101
SB
SR 85
Lane Drop (SB)
1.00
5
4
1
07:40 - 08:00
15
8
B
A
67
67
3990
540
245
US 101
SB
Lane Drop (SB)
Sheller Ave
4.32
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
17
12
B
B
67
67
3400
810
244
US 101
SB
Sheller Ave
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
2.57
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
22
11
C
A
66
67
4360
740
243
US 101
SB
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
Cochrane Rd
0.87
3
3
0
08:20 - 08:40
18
0
B
67
3600
242
US 101
SB
Cochrane Rd
East Dunne Ave
1.82
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
16
0
B
67
3200
275.
US 101
SB
East Dunne Ave
Tennant Ave
0.96
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
17
0
B
67
3400
01
275.
US 101
SB
Tennant Ave
San Martin Ave
3.55
3
3
0
08:20 - 08:40
14
0
B
67
2800
02
275.
US 101
SB
San Martin Ave
Masten Ave
2.17
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
12
0
B
67
2400
03
275.
US 101
SB
Masten Ave
Buena Vista Ave
1.16
3
3
0
08:20 - 08:40
12
0
B
67
2400
04
275.
US 101
SB
Buena Vista Ave
Leavesley Rd
1.60
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
13
0
B
67
2600
05
275.
US 101
SB
Leavesley Rd
Pacheco Pass Hwy
1.46
3
3
0
09:20 - 09:40
12
0
B
67
2400
06
275.
US 101
SB
Pacheco Pass Hwy
Monterey Rd
1.11
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
10
0
A
67
2010
07
275.
US 101
SB
Monterey Rd
Bloomfield Ave
1.85
2
2
0
08:20 - 08:40
14
0
B
67
1870
08
275.
US 101
SB
Bloomfield Ave
Betabel Rd
4.15
2
2
0
07:40 - 08:00
13
0
B
67
1730
09
275.
US 101
SB
Betabel Rd
SR 129
1.61
2
2
0
07:40 - 08:00
15
0
B
67
2000
275.
US 101
SB
SR 129
SR 156
1.78
2
2
0
07:20 - 07:40
10
0
A
67
1340
11
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 41 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
Sy
Table 3.7 12013 FreetivaV LOS - AM Peal: Period
ID
89
90
Facility
SR 237
SR 237
Dir
WB
WB
FrornlTo
1 -880
McCarthy Blvd
From/To
McCarthy Blvd
Zanker Rd
Miles
0.40
0.94
Number
Total
3
3
of
Mixed
2
2
Lanes
NOV
1
1
Peak Photo
Time
07:20- 07:40
08:00 - 08:20
Max
Mixed
116
108
Density
NOV
66
50
LOS (Density)
Misted
F
F
NOV
F
E
Speed
Mixed
10
12
HOV
29
42
Flow
Mixed
2320
3120
HOV
1920
2100
91
SR 237
WB
Zanker Rd
N. 1st St
1.61
3
2
1
07 :40 - 08:00
56
35
E
D
36
62
4040
2170
92
SR 237
WB
N. 1st St
Great America Pkwy
1.00
3
2
1
07:40 - 08:00
39
32
D
D
57
64
4450
2050
93
SR 237
WB
Great America Pkwy
Lawrence Expwy
1.27
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
28
29
D
D
66
65
3670
1890
94
SR 237
WB
Lawrence Expwy
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.63
3
2
1
07:20 - 07:40
54
58
E
E
38
35
4110
2030
95
SR 237
WB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Mathilda Ave
0.96
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
86
0
F
19
4910
96
SR 237
WB
Mathilda Ave
US 101
0.53
2
2
0
07:20 - 07:40
42
0
D
52
4370
97
SR 237
WB
US 101
Maude Ave
0.71
2
2
0
09:00 - 09:20
32
0
D
64
4100
98
SR 237
WB
Maude Ave
Central Pkwy
0.80
2
2
0
08:20 - 08:40
28
0
D
66
3670
99
100
130
129
128
127
126
SR 237
SR 237
1 -280
1 -280
1 -280
1 -280
1 -280
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
Central Pkwy
SR 85
US 101
McLaughlin Ave
10th St
SR 87
Bird Ave
SR 85
El Camino Real
McLaughlin Ave
10th St
SR 87
Bird Ave
Meridian Ave
0.63
0.40
0.37
0.92
1.20
0.35
1.07
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
09:20 - 09:40
08:20 - 08:40
08:40 - 09:00
07:40 - 08:00
07:20 - 07:40
07:40 - 08:00
07:00 - 07:20
18
23
96
87
71
115
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
C
F
F
F
F
F
67
66
15
18
26
10
10
2400
3040
5760
6270
7390
4600
4680
125
1 -280
WB
Meridian Ave
1 -880
1.40
4
3
1
07:00 -07:20
109
42
F
D
12
52
4450
2190
124
1 -280
WB
1 -880
Winchester Blvd
0.55
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
112
54
F
E
11
38
3700
2060
123
1 -280
WB
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
1.37
4
3
1
07:20 -07:40
74
71
F
F
24
26
5330
1850
122
1 -280
WB
Saratoga Ave
Lawrence Expwy
1.19
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
94
66
F
F
16
29
4520
1920
121
1 -280
WB
Lawrence Expwy
Wolfe Rd
1.24
4
3
1
07:20 - 07:40
70
53
F
E
26
39
5460
2070
120
1 -280
WB
Wolfe Rd
De Anza Blvd
1.06
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
55
39
E
D
37
57
6110
2230
119
1 -280
WB
De Anza Blvd
SR 85
1.31
4
3
1
08:40 - 09:00
83
34
F
D
20
63
4980
2150
118
1 -280
WB
SR 85
Foothill Expwy
0.70
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
84
61
F
F
19
32
4790
1960
117
1 -280
WB
Foothill Expwy
Magdalena Ave
2.65
4
3
1
08:20 - 08:40
37
43
D
D
59
51
6550
2200
116
1 -280
WB
Magdalena Ave
El Monte Rd
0.95
4
4
0
09:20 - 09:40
44
0
D
50
8800
115
1 -280
WB
El Monte Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.60
4
4
0
09:20 - 09:40
45
0
D
48
8640
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 42 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
iv
Table 3.7 12013 Freeivav LOS - AM Peak Period
ID
114
113.
1
Facility
1 -280
1 -280
Dir
WB
WB
From/To
La Barranca Rd
Page Mill Rd
Froni/To
Page Mill Rd
Alpine Rd
Miles
1.73
2.25
Number
Total
4
4
of
Mixed
4
4
Lanes
NOV
0
0
Peak Photo
Time
07:40 - 08:00
08:20 -08:40
Max Density
Mixed
30
21
NOV
0
0
Mixed NOV
D
C
Mixed
65
66
NOV Mbied
7800
5550
NOV
50
1 -680
SB
Scott Creek Rd
Jacklin Rd
1.57
4
3
1
08:00 - 08:20
23
17
C B
66
67 4560
1140
49
1 -680
SB
Jacklin Rd
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
0.85
4
3
1
07:40 - 08:00
25
10
C A
66
67 4950
670
48
1 -680
SB
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
Yosemite Dr
0.69
4
4
0
09:40 - 10:00
32
0
D
64
8200
47
1 -680
SB
Yosemite Dr
Montague Expwy
0.77
4
4
0
09:40 - 10:00
39
0
D
57
8900
46
1 -680
SB
Montague Expwy
Capitol Ave
1.00
4
4
0
08:00 - 08:20
22
0
C
66
5810
45
1 -680
SB
Capitol Ave
Hostetter Rd
0.31
4
4
0
07:20 - 07:40
22
0
C
66
5810
44
1 -680
SB
Hostetter Rd
Berryessa Rd
0.94
4
4
0
07:40 - 08:00
19
0
C
66
5020
43
1 -680
SB
Berryessa Rd
McKee Rd
1.47
4
4
0
09:40 - 10:00
21
0
C
66
5550
42
1 -680
SB
McKee Rd
Alum Rock Ave
0.64
4
4
0
08:20 - 08:40
26
0
C
66
6870
41
1 -680
SB
Alum Rock Ave
Capitol Expwy
0.31
4
4
0
08:40 - 09:00
54
0
E
38
8210
40
1 -680
SB
Capitol Expwy
King Rd
1.00
4
4
0
08:00- 08:20
82
0
F
20
7220
39
1 -680
SB
King Rd
US 101
0.40
4
4
0
07:40 -08:00
96
0
F
15
5760
13
1 -880
SB
Dixon Landing
SR 237
1.99
4
3
1
09:40 -10:00
54
50
E E
38
42 6980
2100
14
1 -880
SB
SR 237
Great Mall Pkwy
0.72
3
3
0
07:20- 07:40
25
0
C
66
4950
15
1 -880
SB
Great Mall Pkwy
Montague Expwy
0.98
3
3
0
07:40- 08:00
33
0
D
64
6340
16
1 -880
SB
Montague Expwy
E. Brokaw Rd
1.35
3
3
0
06:40 - 07:00
29
0
D
65
5660
17
1 -880
SB
E. Brokaw Rd
US 101
1.29
3
3
0
08:40 - 09:00
50
0
E
42
6300
18
1 -880
SB
US 101
N. 1st ST
0.49
3
3
0
08:00 - 08:20
84
0
F
19
4790
19
1 -880
SB
N. 1st ST
SR 87
0.40
3
3
0
08:40- 09:00
70
0
F
26
5460
20
1 -880
SB
SR 87
Coleman Ave
0.51
3
3
0
08:00- 08:20
32
0
D
64
6150
21
1 -880
SB
Coleman Ave
The Alameda
0.59
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
34
0
D
63
6430
22
1 -880
SB
The Alameda
N. Bascom Ave
0.82
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
39
0
D
57
6670
23
1 -880
SB
N. Bascom Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
0.84
3
3
0
07:20 - 07:40
53
0
E
39
6210
24
1 -880
SB
Stevens Creek Blvd
1 -280
0.41
3
3
0
07:40 - 08:00
29
0
D
65
5660
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
43
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
sv
Table 3.8 12013 Freewav LOS - PM Peale Period
ID
31
Facility
SR 17
Dir
NB
From/To
Summit Rd
From/To
Bear Creek rd
Miles
4.06
Number
Total
2
of
Mixed
2
Lanes
HOV
0
Peak Photo
Time
15:20 - 15:40
Max
Mixed
24
Density
•
0
LOS
C
.•
66
3170
30
SR 17
NS
Bear Creek Rd
Saratoga Ave
2.90
2
2
0
16:40 -17:00
37
0
D
59
4370
29
SR 17
NB
Saratoga Ave
Lark Ave
1.81
2
2
0
17:00 - 17:20
30
0
D
65
3900
28
SR 17
NB
Lark Ave
SR 85
0.46
2
2
0
16:40 -17:00
27
0
D
66
3540
27
SR 17
NB
SR 85
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
1.17
3
3
0
16:40 - 17:00
17
0
B
67
3400
26
SR 17
NB
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
Hamilton Ave
1.82
3
3
0
17:00 - 17:20
27
0
D
66
5310
2S
SR 17
NB
Hamilton Ave
1 -280
1.61
3
3
0
17:00 - 17:20
24
0
C
66
4760
184
SR 85
NB
US 101
Cottle Rd
1.79
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
22
6
C
A
66
70
2910
420
183
SR 85
NS
Cottle Rd
Blossom Hill Rd
1.96
3
2
1
17:20 -17:40
31
9
D
A
65
70
4030
630
182
SR 85
NB
Blossom Hill Rd
SR 87
1.27
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
31
10
D
A
65
70
4030
700
181
SR 85
NB
SR 87
Almaden Expwy
0.94
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
30
12
D
B
65
70
3900
840
180
SR 85
NB
Almaden Expwy
Camden Ave
1.97
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
28
12
D
B
66
70
3670
840
179
SR 85
NB
Camden Ave
Union Ave
1.17
3
2
1
15:20 - 15:40
31
11
D
A
65
70
4030
770
178
SR 85
NB
Union Ave
S. Bascom Ave
1.13
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
24
7
C
A
66
70
3170
490
177
SR 85
NB
S. Bascom Ave
SR 17
0.27
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
14
3
B
A
67
70
1870
210
176
SR 85
NB
SR 17
Winchester Blvd
0.50
3
2
1
16:40 -17:00
20
18
C
B
66
70
2640
1260
175
SR 85
NB
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
2.68
3
2
1
17:40- 18:00
30
8
D
A
65
70
3900
560
174
SR 85
NB
Saratoga Ave
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
2.19
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
20
6
C
A
66
70
2640
420
173
SR 85
NB
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
1.83
3
2
1
17:20 -17:40
25
5
C
A
66
70
3300
350
172
SR 85
NB
Stevens Creek Blvd
1 -280
0.75
3
2
1
16:40- 17:00
10
4
A
A
67
70
1340
280
171
SR 85
N8
1 -280
W. Homestead Rd
0.34
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
25
7
C
A
66
70
3960
490
170
SR 85
NB
W. Homestead Rd
W. Fremont Ave
1.00
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
29
10
D
A
65
70
3770
700
169
SR 85
NB
W. Fremont Ave
EL Camino Real
1.89
3
2
1
15:20 - 15:40
25
7
C
A
66
70
3300
490
168
SR 85
NB
EL Camino Real
SR 237
0.41
3
2
1
18:20 - 18:40
26
9
C
A
66
70
3440
630
167
SR 85
NB
SR 237
Central Expwy
0.47
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
20
5
C
A
66
70
2640
350
166
SR 85
NB
Central Expwy
US 101
1.24
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
17
6
B
A
67
70
2270
420
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 44 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
v
Table 3.8 12013 Preewav LOS - PNI Peal: Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
45
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
iv
Density
LOS
Density)
Speed
Flow
ID
Facility
Dir
FromlTo
From/To
Total
Mixed
HOV
Time
Mixed
HOV
.
.
•
70
SR 87
NB
SR 85
Capitol Expwy
1.09
3
2
1
18:00 - 18:20
27
10
D
A
66
70
3540
700
71
SR 87
NB
Capitol Expwy
Curtner Ave
1.49
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
25
9
C
A
66
70
3300
630
72
SR 87
NB
Curtner Ave
Almaden Rd
0.73
3
2
1
17:40 -18:00
26
10
C
A
66
70
3440
700
73
SR 87
NB
Almaden Ave
Alma Ave
0.69
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
50
12
E
B
42
70
4200
840
74
SR 87
NB
Alma Ave
1 -280
0.90
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
33
8
D
A
64
70
4230
560
75
SR 87
NB
1 -280
Julian St
0.96
3
2
1
16:00 - 16:20
14
8
B
A
67
70
1870
560
76
SR 87
NB
Julian St
Coleman Ave
0.38
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
26
7
C
A
66
70
3440
490
414
SR 87
NB
Coleman Ave
Taylor St
0.41
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
28
7
D
A
66
70
3670
490
416
SR 87
NB
Taylor St
Skyport Dr
1.87
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
17
6
B
A
67
70
2270
420
418
SR 87
NB
Skyport Dr
US 101
0.67
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
20
4
C
A
66
70
2640
280
309.
US 101
NB
SR 156
SR 129
1.78
2
2
0
15:40 - 16:00
13
0
B
67
1730
11
309.
US 101
NB
SR 129
Betabel Rd
1.61
2
2
0
15:40 - 16:00
18
0
B
67
2400
1
309,
US 101
NB
Betabel Rd
Bloomfield Ave
4.15
2
2
0
17:20 - 17:40
15
0
B
67
2000
09
309.
US 101
NB
Bloomfield Ave
Monterey Rd
1.85
2
2
0
15:40 - 16:00
25
0
C
66
3300
08
309.
US 101
NB
Monterey Rd
Pacheco Pass Hwy
1.11
3
3
0
16:40 - 17:00
29
0
D
65
5660
07
309.
US 101
NB
Pacheco Pass Hwy
Leavesley Rd
1.46
3
3
0
15:40 - 16:00
14
0
B
67
2800
06
309.
US 101
NB
Leavesley Rd
Buena Vista Ave
1.60
3
3
0
15:40 - 16:00
15
0
B
67
3000
05
309.
US 101
NB
Buena Vista Ave
Masten Ave
1.16
3
3
0
17:20 -17:40
20
0
C
66
3960
04
309.
US 101
NB
Masten Ave
San Martin Ave
2.17
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
20
0
C
66
3960
03
309.
US 101
NB
San Martin Ave
Tennant Ave
3.55
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
19
0
C
66
3770
02
309.
US 101
NS
Tennant Ave
East Dunne Ave
0.96
3
3
0
18:20 - 18:40
19
0
C
66
3770
01
276
US 101
NB
East Dunne Ave
Cochrane Rd
1.82
3
3
0
17:00 -17:20
22
0
C
66
4360
277
US 101
NB
Cochrane Rd
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
0.87
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
21
8
C
A
66
70
4160
560
278
US 101
NB
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
Sheller Ave
2.57
4
3
1
16:20 -16:40
18
11
B
A
67
70
3600
770
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
45
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
iv
Table 3.8 12013 Freewav LOS - PM Peal: Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
46
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
>y
Miles
Number
of
Lanes
Peak Photo
Time
Max
Density
LOS
.-
ID
279
Facility
US 101
Dir
NB
From/To
Sheller Ave
From/To
Lane Drop (SB)
4.32
Total
4
Mixed
3
HOV
1
17:00 - 17:20
Mixed
17
HOV
8
Mixed
B
HOV
A
Mixed
67
HOV
70
Mixed
3400
HOV
560
280
US 101
NB
Lane Drop (SB)
SR 85
1.00
4
3
1
15:40 - 16:00
19
8
C
A
66
70
3770
560
281
US 101
NB
SR 85
Bernal Rd
0.20
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
16
15
B
B
67
70
3200
1050
282
US 101
NB
Bernal Rd
Silver Creek Valley Rd
1.48
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
16
14
B
B
67
70
3200
980
283
US 101
NB
Silver Creek Valley Rd
Hellyer Ave
1.84
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
22
5
C
A
66
70
4360
350
284
US 101
NB
Hellyer Ave
Yerba Buena Rd
0.90
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
31
9
D
A
65
70
6050
630
285
US 101
NB
Yerba Buena Rd
Capitol Expwy
0.80
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
19
8
C
A
66
70
3770
560
286
US 101
NB
Capitol Expwy
Tully Rd
1.33
4
3
1
16:40 -17:00
29
10
D
A
65
70
5660
700
287
US 101
NB
Tully Rd
Story Rd
1.46
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
26
8
C
A
66
70
5150
560
288
US 101
NB
Story Rd
1 -280
0.38
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
15
7
B
A
67
70
3000
490
289
US 101
NB
1 -280
Santa Clara St
0.88
4
3
1
15:20 -15:40
20
9
C
A
66
70
3960
630
290
US 101
NB
Santa Clara St
McKee Rd
0.39
4
3
1
15:20 -15:40
22
7
C
A
66
70
4360
490
291
US 101
NB
McKee Rd
Oakland Rd
1.58
4
3
1
15:20 - 15:40
19
6
C
A
66
70
3770
420
292
US 101
NB
Oakland Rd
1 -880
0.57
4
3
1
15:20 -15:40
15
8
B
A
67
70
3000
560
293
US 101
NB
1 -880
Old Bayshore Hwy
0.50
4
3
1
15:40 - 16:00
15
8
B
A
67
70
3000
560
294
US 101
NB
Old Bayshore Hwy
N. First St
0.49
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
22
18
C
B
66
70
4360
1260
295
US 101
NB
N. First St
Guadalupe Pkwy
0.64
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
14
9
B
A
67
70
2800
630
296
US 101
NB
Guadalupe Pkwy
De La Cruz Blvd
0.77
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
22
9
C
A
66
70
4360
630
Montague Expwy / Santa Tomas
297
US 101
NB
De La Cruz Blvd
1.28
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
30
7
D
A
65
70
5850
490
Expwy
Montague ntague Expwy /Santa Tomas
298
US 101
NB
Bower Ave / Great America Pkwy
0.75
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
32
14
D
B
64
70
6150
980
wer Ave / Great American
299
US 101
NB
Lawrence Expwy
1.12
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
39
14
D
B
57
70
6670
980
Pkwy
300
US 101
NB
Lawrence Expwy
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.98
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
29
22
D
C
65
70
5660
1540
301
US 101
NB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
N. Mathilda Ave
0.85
4
3
1
16:40 -17:00
30
17
D
B
65
70
5850
1190
302
US 101
NB
N. Mathilda Ave
SR 237
0.35
4
3
1
15:20 - 15:40
22
17
C
B
66
70
4360
1190
303
US 101
NB
SR 237
Moffett Blvd
1.68
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
78
38
F
D
22
60
5150
2280
304
US 101
NB
Moffett Blvd
SR 85
0.33
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
97
38
F
D
15
60
4370
2280
305
US 101
NB
SR 85
N. Shoreline Blvd
0.38
5
4
1
16:40 - 17:00
84
20
F
C
19
70
6390
1400
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
46
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
>y
Table 3.8 12013 Freeway LOS - PM Peak Period
ID
Facility
Dir
From/To
From/To
miles
Number
Total
of
Mixed
Lanes
HOV
Peak Photo
Time
Max
Mixed
Density
HOV
LOS
Mixed
.•
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
306
307
US 101
US 101
NB
NB
N. Shoreline Blvd
Rengstorff Ave
Rengstorff Ave
San Antonio Ave
1.01
0.71
4
4
3
3
1
1
18:00 - 18:20
16:40 - 17:00
116
76
55
54
F
F
E
E
10
23
40
40
3480
5250
2200
2160
308
U5101
NB
San Antonio Ave
Oregon Expwy
1.85
4
3
1
18:00 - 18:20
53
38
E
D
39
60
6210
2280
309
U5 101
NB
Oregon Expwy
Embarcadero Rd
0.15
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
31
38
D
D
65
60
6050
2280
88
SR 237
EB
El Camino Real
SR 85
0.40
2
2
0
17:20 - 17:40
16
0
B
67
2130
87
SR 237
EB
SR 85
Central Pkwy
0.63
2
2
0
15:40 - 16:00
22
0
C
66
2910
86
SR 237
EB
Central Pkwy
Maude Ave
0.80
2
2
0
15:20 -15:40
20
0
C
66
2640
85
SR 237
EB
Maude Ave
US 101
0.71
2
2
0
17:00 - 17:20
14
0
B
67
1870
84
SR 237
EB
US 101
Mathilda Ave
0.53
2
2
0
17:40 - 18:00
52
0
E
40
4160
83
SR 237
EB
Mathilda Ave
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.96
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
73
22
F
C
25
70
3650
1540
82
SR 237
EB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Lawrence Expwy
0.63
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
94
25
F
C
16
70
3010
1750
81
SR 237
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Great America Pkwy
1.27
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
86
50
F
E
19
50
3270
2500
80
SR 237
EB
Great America Pkwy
N. First St
1.00
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
84
48
F
E
19
50
3200
2400
79
SR 237
EB
N. First St
Zanker Rd
1.61
3
2
1
17 :40 - 18:00
70
37
F
D
26
60
3640
2220
78
SR 237
EB
Zanker Rd
McCarthy Blvd
0.94
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
34
31
D
D
63
70
4290
2170
77
130.
1
131
SR 237
1 -280
1 -280
EB
EB
EB
McCarthy Blvd
Alpine Rd
Page Mill Rd
1 -880
Page Mill Rd
La Barranca Rd
0.40
2.25
1.73
3
4
4
2
4
4
1
0
0
15:40 - 16:00
17:40 - 18:00
16:40- 17:00
126
51
72
54
0
0
F
E
F
E
8
41
25
40
2080
8370
7200
2160
132
1 -280
EB
La Barranca Rd
El Monte Rd
1.60
4
4
0
17:40- 18:00
77
0
F
23
7090
133
1 -280
EB
El Monte Rd
Magdalena Ave
0.95
4
4
0
17:40 - 18:00
80
0
F
21
6720
134
1 -280
EB
Magdalena Ave
Foothill Expwy
2.65
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
32
26
D
C
64
70
6150
1820
135
1 -280
EB
Foothill Expwy
SR 85
0.70
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
33
it
D
A
64
70
6340
770
136
1 -280
EB
SR 85
De Anza Blvd
1.31
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
79
29
F
D
22
70
5220
2030
137
1 -280
EB
De Anza Blvd
Wolfe Rd
1.06
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
92
41
F
D
16
60
4420
2460
138
1 -280
EB
Wolfe Rd
Lawrence Expwy
1.24
4
3
1
18:20 - 18:40
60
38
F
D
33
60
5940
2280
139
1 -280
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Saratoga Ave
1.19
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
82
38
F
D
20
60
4920
2280
140
1 -280
EB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
1.37
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
52
35
E
D
40
70
6240
2450
141
1 -280
EB
Winchester Blvd
1 -880
0.55
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
80
58
F
E
21
40
5040
2320
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
47
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
!y
Table 3.8 12013 Freeway LOS - PM Peal: Period
ID Facility Dir From/To From/To
142 1 -280 EB 1 -880 Meridian Ave
143 1 -280 EB Meridian Ave Bird Ave
144
1 -280
EB
Bird Ave
SR 87
145
1 -280
EB
SR 87
10th St
146
1 -280
EB
10th St
McLaughlin Ave
1.40
4
3
1
17:40 -18:00
88
62
F
F 18
40 4760 2480
1.07
4
4
0
17:40 -18:00
85
0
F
19
6460
0.35
4
4
0
16:40 - 17:00
77
0
F
23
7090
1.20
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
71
0
F
26
7390
0.92
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
42
0
D
52
8740
147
1 -280
EB
McLaughlin Ave
US 101
0.37
4
4
0
15:20 - 15:40
32
0
D
64
8200
51
1 -680
NB
US 101
King Rd
0.40
4
4
0
18:00- 18:20
30
0
D
65
7800
52
1 -680
NB
King Rd
Capitol Expwy
1.00
4
4
0
17:40 -18:00
28
0
D
66
7340
53
1 -680
NB
Capitol Expwy
Alum Rock Ave
0.31
4
4
0
15:40 - 16:00
24
0
C
66
6340
54
1 -680
NB
Alum Rock Ave
McKee Rd
0.64
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
22
0
C
66
5810
55
1 -680
NB
McKee Rd
Berryessa Rd
1.47
4
4
0
18:00 - 18:20
22
0
C
66
5810
56
1 -680
NB
Berryessa Rd
Hostetter Rd
0.94
4
4
0
16:00 -16:20
19
0
C
66
5020
57
1 -680
NB
Hostetter Rd
Capitol Ave
0.31
4
4
0
16:00 - 16:20
16
0
B
67
4260
58
1 -680
NB
Capitol Ave
Montague Expwy
1.00
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
22
0
C
66
5810
59
1 -680
NB
Montague Expwy
Yosemite Dr
0.77
4
4
0
18:40 -19:00
18
0
B
67
4790
60
1 -680
NB
Yosemite Dr
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
0.69
4
4
0
16:20 -16:40
22
0
C
66
5810
61
1 -680
NB
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
Jacklin Rd
0.85
3
3
0
17:00 - 17:20
27
0
D
66
5310
62
1 -680
NB
Jacklin Rd
Scott Creek Rd
1.57
3
3
0
18:40 - 19:00
27
0
D
66
5310
12
1 -880
NB
1 -280
Stevens Cr
0.41
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
21
0
C
66
4160
11
1 -880
NB
Stevens Cr
N. Bascom Ave
0.84
3
3
0
18:00 -18:20
30
0
D
65
5850
10
1 -880
NB
N. Bascom Ave
The Alameda
0.82
3
3
0
15:40 - 16:00
37
0
D
59
6550
9
1 -880
NB
The Alameda
Coleman Ave
0.59
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
85
0
F
19
4850
8
1 -880
NB
Coleman Ave
SR 87
0.51
3
3
0
15:40 - 16:00
53
0
E
39
6210
7
1 -880
NB
SR 87
N. 1st ST
0.40
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
56
0
E
36
6050
6 1 -880 NB N, 1st 5T
5 1 -880 NB US 101
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
US 101
E. Brokaw Rd
0.49 3 3 0 17:20 - 17:40 42 0 D 52 6560
1.29 3 3 0 15:40 - 16:00 28 0 D 66 5510 ++
48 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
a1
TnbIP 3.R 1 2013 Freewav LOS — PM Peak Period
ID
4
Facility
1 -880
Dir
NB
From/To
E. Brokaw Rd
From/To
Montague Expwy
Miles
1.35
Number
Total
3
of
Mixed
3
Lanes
HOV
0
Peak Photo
Time
16:20- 16:40
Max
Mixed
23
Density
HOV
0
LOS
Mixed
C
•
HOV
Mixed
66
HOV
Mixed
4560
•
3
1 -880
NB
Montague Expwy
Great Mall Pkwy
0.98
3
3
0
18:00 -18:20
84
0
F
19
4790
2
1 -880
NB
Great Mall Pkwy
SR 237
0.72
3
3
0
17:20- 17:40
92
0
F
16
4420
1
1 -880
NB
SR 237
Dixon Landing
1.99
4
3
1
18:00 -18:20
98
67
F
F
15
30
5000
2010
32
SR 17
SB
1 -280
Hamilton Ave
1.61
3
3
0
16:40 - 17:00
30
0
D
65
5850
33
SR 17
SB
Hamilton Ave
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
1.82
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
26
0
C
66
5840
34
SR 17
SB
San Tomas Expwy / Camden Ave
SR 85
1.17
3
3
0
16:40 - 17:00
35
0
D
62
6510
35
36
37
38
SR 17
SR 17
SR 17
SR 17
SB
SB
SB
SB
SR 85
Lark Ave
Saratoga Ave
Bear Creek Rd
Lark Ave
Saratoga Ave
Bear Creek Rd
Summit Rd
0.46
1.81
2.90
4.06
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
16:40 - 17:00
16:00 - 16:20
17:00 - 17:20
16:40 -17:00
58
76
44
48
0
0
0
0
E
F
D
E
35
23
50
45
4060
3500
4400
4320
185
SR 85
SB
Us 101
Central Expwy
1.24
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
63
25
F
C
31
70
3910
1750
186
SR 85
58
Central Expwy
SR 237
0.47
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
99
35
F
D
14
70
2780
2450
187
SR 85
SB
SR 237
EL Camino Real
0.41
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
109
31
F
D
12
70
3270
2170
188
SR 85
SB
EL Camino Real
W. Fremont Ave
1.89
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
77
30
F
D
23
70
3550
2100
189
SR 85
SB
W. Fremont Ave
W. Homestead Rd
1.00
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
53
37
E
D
39
60
4140
2220
190
SR 85
SB
W. Homestead Rd
1 -280
0.41
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
21
31
C
D
66
70
2780
2170
191
SR 85
SB
1 -280
Stevens Creek Blvd
0.75
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
62
41
F
D
32
60
4770
2460
192
SR 85
SB
Stevens Creek Blvd
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
1.83
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
79
41
F
D
22
60
3480
2460
193
SR 85
SB
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd
Saratoga Ave
2.19
3
2
1
17:20 -17:40
70
36
F
D
26
70
3640
2520
194
SR 85
SB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
2.68
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
51
31
E
D
41
70
4190
2170
195
SR 85
SB
Winchester Blvd
SR 17
0.50
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
84
26
F
C
19
70
3200
1820
196
SR 85
SB
SR 17
S. Bascom Ave
0.27
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
94
29
F
D
16
70
3010
2030
197
SR 85
SB
S. Bascom Ave
Union Ave
1.13
3
2
1
17:20 - 17:40
92
33
F
D
16
70
2950
2310
198
SR 85
SB
Union Ave
Camden Ave
1.17
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
55
29
E
D
37
70
4070
2030
199
SR 85
SB
Camden Ave
Almaden Expwy
1.97
3
2
1
17:40 -18:00
49
28
E
D
43
70
4220
1960
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
49
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
91
Tahle 3.8 1 2013 Freewav LOS - PRI Peal: Period
ID
200
201
Facility
SR 85
SR 85
Dir
SB
SB
From/To
Almaden Expwy
SR 87
From/To
SR 87
Blossom Hill Rd
0.94
1.27
Total
3
3
Mixed
2
2
HOV
1
1
Time
17:20 - 17:40
17:40 - 18:00
Mixed
25
51
Density
HOV
23
25
LOS
Mixed
C
E
Density)
HOV
C
C
Speed
66
41
70
70
Flow
3300
4190
1610
1750
202
SR 85
SB
Blossom Hill Rd
Cottle Rd
1.96
3
2
1
16:00 - 16:20
32
21
D
C
64
70
4100
1470
203
SR 85
SB
Cottle Rd
US 101
1.79
3
2
1
16:00 - 16:20
20
13
C
B
66
70
2640
910
419
SR 87
SB
US 101
Skyport Dr
0.67
3
2
1
16:40 - 17:00
28
20
D
C
66
70
3670
1400
417
415
69
68
SR 87
SR 87
SR 87
SR 87
SB
SB
SB
SB
Skyport Dr
Taylor St
Coleman Ave
Julian St
Taylor St
Coleman Ave
Julian St
1 -280
1.87
0.41
0.38
0.96
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
17:40 - 18 :00
17:20 - 17:40
17:40 - 18:00
18:20 - 18:40
83
80
61
72
14
17
52
21
F
F
F
F
B
B
E
C
20
21
32
25
70
70
40
70
3320
3360
3910
3600
980
1190
2080
1470
67
SR 87
SB
1 -280
Alma Ave
0.90
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
90
40
F
D
17
60
3060
2400
66
SR 87
SB
Alma Ave
Almaden Rd
0.69
3
2
1
16:00 - 16:20
95
26
F
C
15
70
2850
1820
65
SR 87
SB
Almaden Rd
Curtner Ave
0.73
3
2
1
17:40 - 18:00
66
28
F
D
29
70
3830
1960
64
SR 87
SB
Curtner Ave
Capitol Expwy
1.49
3
2
1
16:00 -16:20
44
22
D
C
50
70
4400
1540
63
SR 87
SB
Capitol Expwy
SR 85
1.09
3
2
1
16:20 -16:40
28
15
D
B
66
70
3670
1050
275
US 101
SB
Embarcadero Rd
Oregon Expwy
0.15
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
84
55
F
E
19
40
4790
2200
274
US 101
SB
Oregon Expwy
San Antonio Ave
1.85
4
3
1
17:20- 17:40
71
61
F
F
26
40
5540
2440
273
US 101
SB
San Antonio Ave
Rengstorff Ave
0.71
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
85
57
F
E
19
40
4850
2280
272
US 101
SB
Rengstorff Ave
N. Shoreline Blvd
1.01
4
3
1
16:20 - 16:40
48
33
E
D
45
70
6480
2310
271
US 101
SB
N. Shoreline Blvd
SR 85
0.38
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
30
19
D
C
65
70
5850
1330
270
US 101
SB
SR 85
Moffett Blvd
0.33
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
36
12
D
B
61
70
6590
840
269
US 101
SB
Moffett Blvd
SR 237
1.68
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
63
28
F
D
31
70
5860
1960
268
US 101
SB
SR 237
N. Mathilda Ave
0.35
4
3
1
16:20 - 16:40
35
37
D
D
62
60
6510
2220
267
US 101
SB
N. Mathilda Ave
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.85
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
73
21
F
C
25
70
5480
1470
266
US 101
SB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Lawrence Expwy
0.98
4
3
1
16:20 - 16:40
78
50
F
E
22
50
5150
2500
265
US 101
SB
Lawrence Expwy
Bower Ave / Great American Pkwy
1.12
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
102
94
F
F
13
20
3980
1880
264
US 101
SB
Bower Ave / Great American
Pkwy
Montaque Expwy / Santa Tomas
Expwy
0.75
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
96
84
F
F
15
20
4320
1680
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
50
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
Table 3.£3 1 2013 Freewav LOS - PM Peal: Period
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
51
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
N
Miles
Number
of
Lanes
Peak Photo
Time
Max
Density
LOS
•
ID
Facility
Dir
From/To
ontaque Expwy / Santa Tomas
From/To
Total
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
263
US 101
SB
E
De La Cruz Blvd
1.28
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
108
52
F
E
12
40
3890
2080
pwy
262
05101
SB
De La Cruz Blvd
Guadalupe Pkwy
0.77
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
69
41
F
D
27
60
5590
2460
261
US 101
SB
Guadalupe Pkwy
N. First St
0.64
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
101
42
F
D
14
60
4250
2520
260
US 101
SB
N. First St
Old Bayshore Hwy
0.49
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
144
57
F
E
6
40
2600
2280
259
US 101
SB
Old Bayshore Hwy
1 -880
0.50
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
125
52
F
E
8
40
3000
2080
258
US 101
SB
1 -880
Oakland Rd
0.57
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
103
60
F
F
13
40
4020
2400
257
US 101
SB
Oakland Rd
McKee Rd
1.58
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
54
35
E
D
38
70
6160
2450
256
US 101
SB
McKee Rd
Santa Clara St
0.39
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
37
28
D
D
59
70
6550
1960
255
US 101
SB
Santa Clara St
1 -280
0.88
4
3
1
16:40 -17:00
35
20
D
C
62
70
6510
1400
254
US 101
SB
1 -280
Story Rd
0.38
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
23
14
C
B
66
70
4560
980
253
US 101
SB
Story Rd
Tully Rd
1.46
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
37
21
D
C
59
70
6550
1470
252
US 101
SB
Tully Rd
Capitol Expwy
1.33
4
3
1
18:00 -18:20
31
20
D
C
65
70
6050
1400
251
US 101
SB
Capitol Expwy
Yerba Buena Rd
0.80
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
25
12
C
B
66
70
4950
840
250
US 101
SB
Yerba Buena Rd
Hellyer Ave
0.90
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
32
20
D
C
64
70
6150
1400
249
US 101
SB
Hellyer Ave
Silver Creek Valley Rd
1.84
4
3
1
15:40 - 16:00
27
13
D
B
66
70
5310
910
248
US 101
SB
Silver Creek Valley Rd
Bernal Rd
1.48
4
3
1
16:20 - 16:40
19
35
C
D
66
70
3770
2450
247
US 101
SB
Bernal Rd
SR 85
0.20
4
3
1
15:20 - 15:40
30
20
D
C
65
70
5850
1400
246
US 101
SB
SR 85
Lane Drop (SB)
1.00
5
4
1
16:40 - 17:00
19
15
C
B
66
70
5020
1050
245
US 101
SB
Lane Drop (SB)
Sheller Ave
4.32
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
33
26
D
C
64
70
6340
1820
244
US 101
SB
Sheller Ave
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
2.57
4
3
1
17:20 - 17:40
51
44
E
D
41
50
6280
2200
243
US 101
SB
Burnett Ave (Lane Drop)
Cochrane Rd
0.87
3
3
0
16:20 - 16:40
67
0
F
28
5630
242
US 101
SB
Cochrane Rd
East Dunne Ave
1.82
3
3
0
15:40 -16:00
42
0
D
52
6560
275.
US 101
SB
East Dunne Ave
Tennant Ave
0.96
3
3
0
17:00 - 17:20
26
0
C
66
5150
01
275.
US 101
SB
Tennant Ave
San Martin Ave
3.55
3
3
0
16:20 - 16:40
28
0
D
66
5510
02
275.
US 101
SB
San Martin Ave
Masten Ave
2.17
3
3
0
16:40 -17:00
30
0
D
65
5850
03
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
51
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
v
N
Table 3.8 12013 Freeway LOS - PM Peak Period
ID
Facility
Dir
From/To
From/To
Miles
Number
Total
of
Mixed
Lanes
HOV
Peak Photo
Time
Max
Mixed
Density
HOV
LOS
Mixed
.-
HOV
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
275.
US 101
SB
Masten Ave
Buena Vista Ave
1.16
3
3
0
18:20 - 18:40
28
0
n
66
5510
04
275'
US 101
SB
Buena Vista Ave
Leavesley, Rd
1.60
3
3
0
16:40 - 17:00
24
0
66
4760
OS
275.
US 101
SB
Leavesley Rd
Pacheco Pass Hwy
1.46
3
3
0
15:40 -16:00
20
0
C
66
3960
06
275.
US 101
SB
Pacheco Pass Hwy
Monterey Rd
1.11
3
3
0
17:20 - 17:40
20
0
C
66
3960
07
275.
US 101
SB
Monterey Rd
Bloomfield Ave
1.85
2
2
0
17:20 - 17:40
64
0
F
30
3840
08
275.
U5 101
SB
Bloomfield Ave
Betabel Rd
4.15
2
2
0
17:00 -17:20
19
0
C
66
2510
09
275'
US 101
SB
Betabel Rd
SR 129
1.61
2
2
0
15:40 - 16:00
16
0
B
67
2130
i
275'
US 101
SB
SR 129
SR 156
1.78
2
2
0
16:20 - 16:40
13
0
B
67
1730
11
89
SR 237
WB
1 -880
McCarthy Blvd
0.40
3
2
1
15:40 - 16:00
18
8
B
A
67
70
2400
560
90
SR 237
WB
McCarthy Blvd
Zanker Rd
0.94
3
2
1
17:20 -17:40
59
10
F
A
34
70
4820
700
91
SR 237
WB
Zanker Rd
N. First St
1.61
3
2
1
17:00 - 17 :20
53
14
E
B
39
70
4140
980
92
SR 237
WB
N. First St
Great America Pkwy
1.00
3
2
1
17:00 - 17:20
39
22
D
C
57
70
4450
1540
93
SR 237
WB
Great America Pkwy
Lawrence Expwy
1.27
3
2
1
17:20 -17 :40
31
14
D
B
65
70
4030
980
94
SR 237
WB
Lawrence Expwy
N. Fair Oaks Ave
0.63
3
2
1
17:40 -18:00
27
22
D
C
66
70
3540
1540
95
SR 237
WB
N. Fair Oaks Ave
Mathilda Ave
0.96
3
3
0
17:40- 18:00
56
0
E
36
6050
96
SR 237
WB
Mathilda Ave
US 101
0.53
2
2
0
17:20 - 17:40
45
0
D
48
4320
97
SR 237
WB
US 101
Maude Ave
0.71
2
2
0
17:20 - 17:40
59
0
F
34
4020
98
SR 237
WB
Maude Ave
Central Pkwy
0.80
2
2
0
17:40- 18:00
78
0
F
22
3440
99
SR 237
WB
Central Pkwy
SR 85
0.63
2
2
0
17:00 - 17:20
42
0
D
52
4370
100
SR 237
WB
SR 85
El Camino Real
0.40
2
2
0
17:00 - 17:20
108
0
F
12
2600
130
1 -280
WB
US 101
McLaughlin Ave
0.37
4
4
0
16:00 - 16:20
20
0
C
66
5280
129
1 -280
WB
McLaughlin Ave
10th St
0.92
4
4
0
16:20 - 16:40
31
0
D
65
8060
128
1 -280
WB
1011 It
SR 87
1.20
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
32
0
D
64
8200
127
1 -280
WB
SR 87
Bird Ave
0.35
4
4
0
17:40 - 18:00
59
0
F
34
8030
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
52
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
0)
Table 3.8 12013 Freewav LOS - PM Peak Period
ID
126
Facility
1 -280
Dir
WB
From/To
Bird Ave
Froni/Te.
Meridian Ave
Miles
1.07
Number
Total
4
of
Mixed
4
Lanes
HOV
0
Peak Photo
Time
17:00 - 17:20
Max
Mixed
48
Density
HOV
0
LOS
Mixed
E
(Density)
HOV
Speed
Mixed
45
HOV
Flow
Mixed
8640
HOV
125
1 -280
WB
Meridian Ave
1 -880
1.40
4
3
1
17:40 -18:00
54
12
E
B
38
70
6980
840
124
1 -280
WB
1 -880
Winchester Blvd
0.55
4
3
1
17:40 - 18:00
83
25
F
C
20
70
4980
1750
123
1 -280
WB
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
1.37
4
3
1
17:40 -18:00
53
22
E
C
39
70
6210
1540
122
1 -280
WB
Saratoga Ave
Lawrence Expwy
1.19
4
3
1
16:40 - 17:00
25
15
C
B
66
70
4950
1050
121
1 -280
WB
Lawrence Expwy
Wolfe Rd
1.24
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
25
12
C
B
66
70
4950
840
120
1 -280
WB
Wolfe Rd
De Anza Blvd
1.06
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
26
9
C
A
66
70
5150
630
119
1 -280
WB
De Anza Blvd
SR 85
1.31
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
21
6
C
A
66
70
4160
420
118
1 -280
WB
SR 85
Foothill Expwy
0.70
4
3
1
16:20 - 16:40
30
12
D
B
65
70
5850
840
117
1 -280
WB
Foothill Expwy
Magdalena Ave
2.65
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
23
10
C
A
66
70
4560
700
116
1 -280
WB
Magdalena Ave
El Monte Rd
0.95
4
4
0
18:20 -18:40
21
0
C
66
5550
115
1 -280
WB
El Monte Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.60
4
4
0
17:00 -17:20
20
0
C
66
5280
114
1 -280
WB
La Barranca Rd
Page Mill Rd
1.73
4
4
0
17:40 - 18:00
24
0
C
66
6340
113.
1
1 -280
WB
Page Mill Rd
Alpine Rd
2.25
4
4
0
17:40- 18:00
102
0
F
13
5310
50
1 -680
SB
Scott Creek Rd
Jacklin Rd
1.57
4
3
1
15:40- 16:00
29
6
D
A
65
70
5660
420
49
1 -680
SB
Jacklin Rd
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
0.85
4
3
1
17:00 - 17:20
42
8
D
A
52
70
6560
560
48
1 -680
SB
Calaveras Blvd / SR 237
Yosemite Dr
0.69
4
4
0
17:40 - 18:00
63
0
F
31
7820
47
1-680
SB
Yosemite Dr
Montague Expwy
0.77
4
4
0
17:40 -18:00
71
0
F
26
7390
46
1 -680
SB
Montague Expwy
Capitol Ave
1.00
4
4
0
17:00- 17:20
79
0
F
22
6960
45
1 -680
SB
Capitol Ave
Hostetter Rd
0.31
4
4
0
17:00 - 17:20
102
0
F
13
5310
44
43
42
1 -680
1 -680
1 -680
SB
SB
SB
Hostetter Rd
Berryessa Rd
McKee Rd
Berryessa Rd
McKee Rd
Alum Rock Ave
0.94
1.47
0.64
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
17:00 - 17:20
17:00 - 17:20
17:40 - 18:00
67
42
44
0
0
0
F
D
D
28
52
50
7510
8740
8800
41
1-680
5B
Alum Rock Ave
Capitol Expwy
0.31
4
4
0
16:00- 16:20
26
0
C
66
6870
40
1 -680
SB
Capitol Expwy
King Rd
1.00
4
4
0
16:00 - 16:20
25
0
C
66
7260
39
1 -680
SB
King Rd
05101
0.40
4
4
0
16:00- 16:20
22
0
C
66
5810
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 53 2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
01
Table 3.8 1 2013 Freewav LOS - PM Peale Period
ID
13
14
Facility
1 -880
1 -880
Dir
SB
SB
From/To
Dixon Landing
SR 237
From/To
SR 237
Great Mall Pkwy
Miles
1.99
0.72
Number
To tal
4
3
of
Mixed
3
3
Lanes
HOV
1
0
Peak Photo
Time
17:00 - 17:20
15:20 - 15:40
Max
Mixed
27
28
Density
HOV
15
0
LOS .-
Mixed HOV
D B
D
Mixed
66
66
HOV Mixed HOV
70 6020 1050
5510
15
1 -880
SB
Great Mall Pkwy
Montague Expwy
0.98
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
40
0
D
55
6600
16
1 -880
SB
Montague Expwy
E. Brokaw Rd
1.35
3
3
0
18:00 -18:20
103
0
F
13
4020
17
1 -880
SS
E. Brokaw Rd
US 101
1.29
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
108
0
F
12
3890
18
1 -880
SB
US 101
N. 1st ST
0.49
3
3
0
18:00 -18:20
132
0
F
7
2780
19
1 -880
SB
N. 1st ST
SR 87
0.40
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
131
0
F
7
2760
20
1 -880
SB
SR 87
Coleman Ave
0.51
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
98
0
F
15
4410
21
1 -880
SB
Coleman Ave
The Alameda
0.59
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
79
0
F
22
5220
22
1 -880
SB
The Alameda
N. Bascom Ave
0.82
3
3
0
18:00 - 18:20
76
0
F
23
5250
23
1 -880
SB
N. Bascom Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
0.84
3
3
0
17:20 -17:40
79
0
F
22
5220
24
1 -880
SB
Stevens Creek Blvd
1 -280
0.41
3
3
0
16:20 -16:40
29
0
D
65
5660
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
54
2013 Monitoring and Conformance Report
V
a)
FREEWAY GATEWAY COUNTS
Santa Clara County has four main "gateways" through which traffic flows in and out of the County
from other parts of the region. Vehicle counts are collected along these gateways during the AM
and PM peak periods. The data is analyzed to determine freeway demand in terms of inflows and
outflows. Inflows refer to vehicles entering Santa Clara County and outflows refer to vehicles
leaving Santa Clara County.
The four main gateways are served by six freeways and they are grouped as follows:
Santa Cruz Gateway: The gateway to the southwest connects Santa Clara County with Santa Cruz
County. SR 17 is the primary freeway connection.
Southern Gateway: The gateway connects Santa Clara County to the southern counties of San
Benito, Monterey and Merced Counties. This connection is primarily served by US 101.
Peninsula Gateway: The gateway to the northwest connects Santa Clara County to destinations
on the peninsula including San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin Counties. The freeways serving
this gateway are US 101 and I -280.
East Bay Gateway: The gateway to the northeast connects Santa Clara County to the East Bay
Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Stanislaus. This connection is primarily
served by I -680 and I -880.
METHODOLOGY
Direct ground traffic counts were collected by video camera at these six freeway gateway
locations at or near the county line. Vehicle counts are recorded in 15- minute intervals from 6:30
AM to 9:30 AM and 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM in each direction on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday
during the month of September. The one -hour period with the greatest vehicle volume recorded is
considered the peak hour. The following figures and analyses in this section are based on peak
hour volumes.
Gateway counts were collected at the freeway locations specified. These numbers account only for
the volumes on freeways at each gateway, and are not intended as total gateway flows; a
screenline of each gateway would include urban arterials and rural highways that also carry
traffic to and from the county.
SPEED- THROUGHPUT RELATIONSHIP
Traffic engineering theory states that freeways carry the highest volumes of traffic, or achieve
close to optimal flow when traffic speeds are around 30 to 35 miles per hour. At this speed, a
combination of moderate speed and high vehicle density results in more vehicles passing given a
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 55 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
count location. Above 35 miles per hour, the increasing gap between speeding vehicles decreases
vehicle density and therefore, the flow rate. Below this speed, traffic is denser but the slower
speeds mean fewer vehicles are passing the count location. This results in increased vehicle
density despite lower vehicle counts.
When considering the relationship between vehicle speed and vehicle volume, it should be noted
that vehicle volume alone is not indicative of a change in roadway operations. Rather, increased
vehicle volumes may reflect travel speeds that are approaching optimal flow, or speeds around
30 -35 miles per hour.
AM PEAK HOUR INFLOW
In 2013, AM gateway inflows have increased by 5% overall, and increased at all gateways except
for the East Bay Gateway which saw a 3% decrease compared to 2012. Vehicle volumes at the
Southern Gateway saw the greatest percentage increase of 28% over 2012 volumes, while the
Santa Cruz and Peninsula Gateways saw increases of 3% and 7 %, respectively. The total AM
gateway inflow count is 39,624 vehicles compared to 37,610 vehicles recorded in 2012.
Figure 3.12 shows how AM inflows have varied over the last 13 years of data collection. Overall,
AM inflows have remained relatively stable through this time period, with a long -term trend of
increased inflows from the Southern and East Bay Gateways, counterbalanced by downward
trending inflows from the Peninsula Gateway and relatively stable flows from the Santa Cruz
Gateway.
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
AM Gateway Inflow Counts (Vehicles)
rH N 't Vl l0 fl- 00 M O c1 N m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_4 .1 _�_i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N
-Santa Cruz Gateway
- Southern Gateway
Peninsula Gateway
East Bay Gateway
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 56 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
VA 1i ' 9 ' 6111 f11IjI a EOMTA
AM gateway outflow counts have increased slightly at all gateways except for the Southern
Gateway, which decreased by 22 percent compared to 2012. The total AM outflow volume for
2013 is 27,149, compared to 27,044 for 2012.
As shown in Figure 3.13, results from the 2013 are relatively similar to AM outflows from the past
five years.
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
AM Gateway Outflow Counts (Vehicles)
N N V Ln l0 r\ W M O .--4 N M
O O O O O O O O _4 ri _1 r_1
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
PM PEAK HOUR INFLOW
Santa Cruz Gateway
Southern Gateway
Peninsula Gateway
East Bay Gateway
As Figure 3.14 shows, the gateway with the largest volume change from 2012 was the Southern
Gateway served by US 101, which saw a decrease of 23 %. For the East Bay Gateway, inflow
volumes decreased by 12 %. Gateway volumes for the Peninsula and Santa Cruz Gateways
increased slightly during the PM peak hour by 3% and 6 %, respectively. In 2013, the total PM
inflow volume is 27,613 volumes, a decrease of 7% compared to the total volume of 29,587 in
2012.
The long -term trend shown in Figure 3.14 indicates declining volumes entering through the
Peninsula Gateway, an upward trend over the past five years through the East Bay and Southern
Gateways, and little change in volumes from from the Santa Cruz Gateway.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 57 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
Figure 3.14 PM Peak Hour Gateway Inflows, 1997-2013
PM Gateway Inflow Counts (Vehicles)
16,000 - -- - -- — —
14,000 A — —
12,000
10,000
Nor Santa Cruz Gateway
8,000 -
Southern Gateway
6,000 Peninsula Gateway
4,000 East Bay Gateway
2,000 —
0
t\ 00 O 1-1 N -:I, Ln lD n 00 M O. 4 N rn
M 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 r-1 4 1
M 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O
rq r-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N
PM PEAK HOUR OUTFLOW
Outflow volumes during the PM peak period increased for all four gateways, with the largest
percentage increase for the Southern Gateway at 23 %. Vehicle volumes were up by 12 %, 8% and
3% for the Peninsula, Santa Cruz and East Bay Gateways, respectively. The 2013 PM outflow
volume is 36,988, an increase of 10% from the total volume of 33,609 in 2012.
The trend for the outflows over the last 16 years is shown in Figure 3.15. shows significant growth
for the Southern Gateway between 2001 and 2006, remaining relatively level since 2008. After
growing until 2001, the Santa Cruz gateway has dropped to roughly 1996 levels and remained
constant since then. Exiting volumes to the Peninsula were on a slight decline from 2008 -2012
until this year's reversal of the trend. Finally, East Bay gateway volumes have generally hovered
around 12, 000 vehicles in the PM peak hour with some growth between 2008 and 2011.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 58 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
Outflows, Figure 3.15 PM Peak Hour Gateway
PM Gateway Outflow Counts (Vehicles)
18,000 - -
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000 Santa Cruz Gateway
8,000 Southern Gateway
6,000 Peninsula Gateway
4,000 East Bay Gateway
2,000
0
r\ 00 0�1 N v Ln �D r� 00 0) 0 N m
rn0)0000000001-1���
M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�-4 r-r N N N N N N N N N N N N N
INFLOWS VS. OUTFLOWS
In the AM peak period, traffic flowing into Santa Clara County exceeded outflows for all four
gateways as shown in Figure 3.16. Nearly 75% of vehicles entering Santa Clara County are from
the Peninsula and East Bay Gateways, with inflow volumes of 14,489 and 14,458, respectively.
As shown in Figure 3.17, the traffic flow is reverse for the PM peak period, with all gateways
seeing higher outflows than inflows.
16,000
14,000
14,948
13,550
10,616 10,614
Santa Cruz Gateway Southern Gateway Peninsula Gateway East Bay Gateway
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 59 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
r Inflow
12,000
■ Outflow
10,000
8,000
6,000
5,105
4,000
4,007 4,316
2,000
1,498
=
0
_ — -
14,948
13,550
10,616 10,614
Santa Cruz Gateway Southern Gateway Peninsula Gateway East Bay Gateway
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 59 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1 7 Qqq
Santa Cruz Gateway Southern Gateway Peninsula Gateway East Bay Gateway
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 60 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
0
CONFORMANCE FINDINGS
The conformance findings for the 2013 Monitoring Program is presented below.
LAND USE SUBMISSION
All Member Agencies have complied with the CMP land use data requirement.
FREEWAY SEGMENTS
75 freeway segments (73 miles) operated at LOS F during the AM peak period and 81 freeway
segments (75 miles) operated at LOS F in the PM peak period. Of these, 23 AM and 26 PM
segments operated at LOS F in the 1991 baseline year and therefore, LOS- exempt. This results in
52 deficient AM segments and 55 deficient PM segments.
Member Agencies with deficient freeway segments located within their jurisdiction are not
penalized due to the regional nature of freeway congestion. However, they are encouraged to
implement strategies listed in the Immediate Implementation Action List found in the CMP
Deficiency Plan Requirements.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 61 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report
7.a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VTA PROJECT STAFF
Rob Cunningham, Transportation Planner III, Project Manager
Ying Smith, Transportation Planning Manager
Chris Augenstein, Deputy Director, Planning
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC
Aaron Elias, Data Collection Project Manager
Allen Huang, Data Reduction
Amy Lopez, Data Reduction
Alice Chen, Principal -in- Charge, Data Coordination
SKYCOMP
Aerial Photography
Data Reduction
WILTEC
Ground -Based Data Collection
T/JS A N 7 A C L A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
May 7, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
SUBJECT: Crossroads Countywide Traffic Collision Database
Policy- Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the use of $150,000 from the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) 15% Countywide
program for Crossroads software maintenance to establish a Countywide Traffic Collision
Database to be maintained by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department
(County) staff as part of a three -year pilot program.
BACKGROUND:
Crossroads is a traffic collision database software tool that provides traffic engineers,
transportation planners, law enforcement, and decision makers the ability to run queries and
reports on electronically filed police collision reports. The main features of this tool include the
ability to perform analysis of data, and generate reports and visual diagrams for the purpose of
identifying high collision locations and the collision factors with the ultimate goal to minimize or
prevent these collisions.
The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, through the County of Santa Clara
Public Health Department's Traffic Safe Communities Network (TSCN) received a grant award
from the State's Office of Traffic Safety to oversee the development of a customized,
countywide web -based integrated Geographic Information Systems (GIS) traffic collision
records network in October 2009.
The County selected Crossroads software as the platform on which to develop the countywide
traffic collision database. Since the development of the Crossroads database, County staff has
provided several demonstrations and training sessions to TSCN's partner agencies, including
staff from VTA member agencies.
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
On June 7, 2012, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a plan for the VRF Countywide Program.
For an initial 3 -year period, approximately $3.6 million will be reserved for matching finds for
regional roadway transportation projects included in the adopted Valley Transportation Plan.
Attachment A describes the procedures and process under which the VRF Countywide Program
will be used as local match for transportation projects in Santa Clara County. This Program is
included in Valley Transportation Plan 2035 (VTP 2035) under the Transportation Systems
Operations and Management Program section.
DISCUSSION:
In September 2013, the County through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approached
its Systems Operations and Management (SOM) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
working groups to discuss whether there was an adequate level of support and available funding
for a countywide traffic collision database that would be maintained by the County.
The SOM and CIP working groups discussed this issue over several meetings. The SOM
Working Group focused on the functional and practical use of Crossroads and the CIP Working
Group discussed identifying potential funding sources for the maintenance of Crossroads.
Ultimately, the working groups recommended ftinding a three year pilot program that will cost
$150,000 which would include the following key elements:
Quarterly update reports from Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
accessible to all member agencies through an internet -based website;
Maintenance of the servers, hardware and software; and
Work to integrate local police data into the countywide traffic collision database.
The main regional benefits for supporting the maintenance of Crossroads would be the
following:
Use of a single, web -based traffic collision database and software that would be updated
on a quarterly basis and accessible to all member agencies.
An efficient, standardized streamlined process and format for storing and retrieving
traffic collision reports.
The ability to perform local and county level traffic collision analysis and output data in
multiple formats such a graphs, maps and GIS files.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may choose to modify the recommendations from the SOM and CUP working groups
or choose not to fund the maintenance of Crossroads.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The VRF was enacted by the County's voters in November 2010. This actions would make
$150,000 from VRF funding available to maintain this traffic collision datatbase.
Page 2 of 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) discussed this item at their meeting on April 10,
2014. Members Servin, Rodriguez and Borden expressed support for finding of Crossroads.
Staff noted that this item was being presented as a discussion item this month and would return
at the May meeting as an action item.
Prepared by: Eugene Maeda
Memo No. 4415
Page 3 of 3
8.a
Attachment A
Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF): Countywide Program
Matching Fund Component
Objective: This document defines the procedures and process under which VRF Countywide
Program funds will be used as local match for transportation projects in Santa Clara County.
1. Matching Funds will be authorized by the VTA Board
2. A project sponsoring agency with an eligible project will send a request for funding to
VTA staff.
3. Eligible projects must be in the current Valley Transportation Plan.
4. VTA staff reviews the request, considering the following factors:
a. Compatibility with VTA's Vision, Mission, and Goals
b. Countywide significance
c. Emergency situation
d. Inability to obtain and /or use other funding sources
e. Risk of losing other finding
5. VTA staff makes a recommendation of its merit to the VTA Board.
6. VTA board accepts /rejects fund request.
Page 1 of 1
S A N T A C l A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
April 24, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: Bicycle Expenditure Program - Semi - Annual Status Report
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
In August 2000, the VTA Board of Directors created the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) for
the purpose of identifying and dedicating a funding stream to help implement the Countywide
Bicycle Plan. The BEP Project List is updated approximately every four years, in conjunction
with the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP)- -VTA's long -range transportation plan for Santa
Clara County. The BEP becomes the Bicycle Element of the VTP.
In May 2013, the VTA Board adopted the BEP Project List for inclusion in VTP 2040, which
guides VTA's transportation investments through the year 2040. There are 121 bicycle projects
on the list. These projects are broken into 70 Category 1 projects and 51 Category 2 projects.
Category 1 Projects are considered to be implemented in the near term and will receive priority
funding consideration in the BEP and other VTA funding programs. Category 2 Projects are
eligible to compete for BEP and other funds, but will not receive priority funding consideration.
The BEP consists of $300 Million in future revenues that can be dedicated to implementing
bicycle projects over the 28 -year timeframe of VTP 2040. Funds programmed toward BEP
projects come from a combination of funding programs, including, but not limited to
Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program (TFCA 40 %);Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Pedestrian Bicycle Program (TDA 3); and Federal Congestion Mitigation & Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).
This memorandum is intended to provide a status report on the progress of the 70 Category 1
Projects in the BEP Project List. This is the first semi - annual report for the BEP Project List
adopted in May 2013.
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 - Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
DISCUSSION:
Funding Status
D
Table 1 summarizes the funding status of the 70 Category 1 projects as of March 1, 2014. The
projects are categorized as completed, fully funded, partially funded and unfunded. Attachment
A provides details on the funding status of Category 1 BEP projects.
Table 1
Surnmary of Funding Status for Category 1 Bicycle Expenditure Program Projects
Funding Status
Number of Projects
March 2014
Completed
0
Fully funded
12
Partially funded
8
Unfunded
50
TOTAL
70
Attachment B presents funding status of BEP projects by jurisdiction. Member Agencies have
made significant progress on securing funding since March 2013. In all, 20 of the 70 Category
projects are partially or fully funded.
Funding Sources
Since 2013, several VTA funding programs, including One Bay Area Grants (OBAG), TDA and
TFCA have provided significant funds for BEP projects.
• $28.7 Million in OBAG grants were awarded to 13 BEP projects.
$615,650 in TFCA funds were awarded to four BEP projects during two funding cycles
(1.3/14 and 14/15). Category 1 projects included VTA's Capitol Expressway Pedestrian
Improvements, Santa Clara's Scott Boulevard Bike Lanes, and Sunnyvale's El Camino Bike
Lanes. Category 2 projects included City of Saratoga's Blue Hills School Railroad Crossing
Safety Project.
• In the 2013 cycle, $346,790 in TDA funds were awarded to Sunnyvale's project to stripe
bicycle lanes on Mary Avenue (Category 1).
In addition, many jurisdictions continue to be successful in leveraging funds outside of the BEP
or other VTA funding programs. For example, VTA was awarded a $1.049 Million Highway
Safety Improvement Program grant to partially fund the design and construction of the Category
1 VTA BEP project to construct an at -grade bicycle /pedestrian crossing of Capitol Expressway
at Eastridge Transit Center and associated sidewalk and safety improvements.
Project Delivery
No projects on the BEP Project List were completed between March 2013 and March 2014. This
is not unusual, considering most projects are new to the list, and were in the early stages of
Page 2 of 3
project development when submitted to VTA for consideration last year. However, notable
progress has been made on several projects, including:
• City of Campbell has completed final design on the Portals Project on Campbell Avenue at
State Route 17 (Category 1) and project completion is anticipated for May 2015.
Mountain View's Permanente Creek Trail segment from Old Middlefield Way to Rock Street
is under construction and anticipated to be completed in summer 2014. (Category 2)
:Prepared By: Lauren Ledbetter
Memo No. 4476
Page 3 of 3
9.a
Attachment A: Category 1 BEP Projects by Funding Status
April 14, 2014
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
Fully Funded Projects
V P2040 iD
Sponsor
Project Title
Secured Funding
Unsecured Funding
Millions 5
Total Project Cost
Millions
Completion
Date
Status
40 -1302
Campbell
Portals Project: Bike Lanes on Campbell Avenue at SR 17
4.73
0.00
4.73
6/2015
CON
40 -607
Gilroy
Western Ronan Channel SCWVD Service Road Trail
1.93
0.00
1.93
03/2015
ENV complete
40 -Bll
Palo Alto
US 101 /Adobe Creek Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge
9.86
0.00
9.86
4/2015
ENV
40 -622
San Jose
Guadalupe River Trail (1 -880 to the Bay Trail) and Tasman
U ndercross in
11.87
0.00
11.87
12/2014
CON
40 -B32
San Jose
Park Avenue /San Fernando Street /San Antonio Bikeway
1.91
0.00
1.91
6/2015
Not Available
40 -B44
Santa Clara
Scott Boulevard Bike Lanes: Central Expwy to Monroe Street
0.20
0.00
0.20
6/2015
DESIGN
40 -B41
SC County
San Tomas Aquino Creek Spur Trail Phase 2: El Camino Real to
Homestead Road
5.39
0.00
5.39
2/2015
DESIGN
40 -657
Sunnyvale
Fair Oaks Ave Bike Lanes, Medians, and Detection: Old San Francisco
Road to Ahwanee Avenue
1.21
0.00
1.21
4/2016
Not Available
40 -1358
Sunnyvale
Hendy Ave Bike Lanes: Sunnyvale Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue
235
0.00
2.75
8/2014
CON
40 -B64
Sunnyvale
Maude Avenue Bike Lanes: Mathilda to Wolfe
0.83
0.00
0.83
4/2016
Not Available
40 -B65
Sunnyvale
Moffett Park Area East Channel Trail and West Channel Trail
4.75
0.00
4.75
4/2015
PE
40 1368
VTA
Capitol Expressway Pedestrian /Bicycle Crossing at Eastridge Transit
Center
1.55
0.00
1.55
8/2017
Field Review
TOTAL FULLY FUNDED PROJECTS
46.97
0.00
46.98
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
9.a
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those fisted in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
Partially Funded Projects
Unsecured Funding
Total Project Cost
Completion
VTP20401D
Sponsor
Project Title
Secured Funding
Millions $
Millions
Date
Status
Conceptual
40 -810
Palo Alto
Bicycle Boulevards Network Project
0.80
5. 310
6.60
Not Available
Desi n
Los Gatos Creek Trail Reach 5b and 5c: Auzerais Avenue south of W.
Conceptual
40 -B28
San Jose
San Carlos Avenue to Park Avenue /Montgomery Avenue (Trail and
1.10
8.46
9.56
Not Available
Design
Undercrossin
Master Planning
Three Creeks Trail: West from Los Gatos Creek Trail /Lonus Street to
40 -1333
San Jose
Coyote Creek Trail
1.50
8.50
10.00
Not Available
from Lonus to
Minnesota
40 -B46
SC County
Los Gatos Creek Trail: Lark Avenue to Blossom Hill Drive
1.76
1.80
3.56
Not Available
Not Available
Bike lanes to be
striped between
El Camino Real Bike Lanes: West City Limits to East City Limits (plus
Sunnyvale/
40 -856
Sunnyvale
0.02
0.33
0.35
Not Available
bike detection at 13 intersections)
Saratoga Rd and
Remington Drive
in 2014.
40 -B62
Sunnyvale
Mary Avenue Bike Lanes: Fremont to Maude
0.35
1.43
1.78
Not Available
Not Available
40 -863
Sunnyvale
Mathilda Avenue Bike Lanes: US 101 to El Camino Real
0.80
3.30
4.10
Not Available
Not Available
40 -B69
VTA /SC /SJ
Santa Clara Caltrain Station Undercrossing Extension
3.39
7.99
11.38
6/2015
Final Design
TOTAL PARTIALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
9.72
37.61
47.33
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those fisted in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
9.a
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
Unfunded Projects
Unsecured Funding
Total Project Cost
Completion
VTP2040ID
Sponsor
Project Title
Secured Funding
Millions $
Millions $
Date
Status
Hamilton Avenue Median Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements:
40 -BOl
Campbell
1.80
1.80
Not Available
Not Available
Bascom to Leigh
40 -803
Cupertino
Miller Avenue Bike Lanes: Steven Creek Boulevard to Calle de
-
0.10
0.10
Not Available
Not Available
Barcelona
Lions Creek SCVWD Service Road Trail: West of Kern Avenue between
40 -604
Gilroy
1.96
1.96
Not Available
ENV complete
Kern and Da
Lions Creek SCVWD Service Road Trail: West of Santa Teresa
40 -BOS
Gilroy
0.62
0.62
Not Available
ENV complete
Boulevard Da Road East Between Tapestry and Day Rd East
40 -806
Gilroy
Northern Uvas Creek SCVWD Service Road Trail (Gilroy Gardens
2.20
2.20
Not Available
Not Available
Extension Trail)
40 -B08
Los Altos Hills
El Monte Road: Stonebrook to Voorhees (Segment 4)
0.56
0.56
Not Available
Not Available
40 -1309
Los Altos Hills
Fremont Road Pathway Phase 2: Concepcion Road to Arastradero
0.90
0.90
Not Available
Not Available
Road
40 -B12
San Jose
Airport Boulevard: Guadalupe River Trail Bike & Ped connection
2.80
2.80
Not Available
Not Available
40 -813
San Jose
Auzerais Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: Sunol Street
2.20
2.20
Not Available
Not Available
to Race Street
Bird Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor: Autumn Street at Santa
40 -B14
San Jose
3.50
3.50
Not Available
Not Available
Clara to Bird Avenue at West Virginia
40 -B15
San lose
Blossom Hill Road /Silver Creek Valley Road Multiuse Path
6.10
6.10
Not Available
Not Available
40 -B16
San Jose
Blossom Hill Road: Calero Bikeways from Coleman Road at Santa
0.44
0.44
Not Available
Not Available
Teresa Blvd to Palmia Drive at Cottle Road
40 -B17
San Jose
Branham Lane Bikeway: Camden Avenue to Monterey Road
2.40
2.40
Not Available
Not Available
40 -818
San lose
Brokaw - Coleman Airport Bikeway: Airport Boulevard and the
1.16
1.16
Not Available
Not Available
Guadalupe Trail to Airport Boulevard and Coleman Avenue
Capitol Avenue /Capitol Expressway Bikeway: Penitencia Creek
40 -B19
San Jose
0.35
0.35
Not Available
Not Available
Road/Trail to Quimby Road/Thompson Creek
40-B20
San Jose
Charcot Bikeway: Orchard Pkwy to Hwy 880
0.46
0.46
Not Available
Not Available
40-621
San Jose
Cottle Road Multi -Use Path: Hospital Parkway to Poughkeepsie Road
2.70
2.70
Not Available
Not Available
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
9.a
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
Unfunded Projects
(Cimdnued)
Unsecured Funding
Total Project Cost
Completion
VTP20401D
Sponsor
Project Title
Secured Funding
Status
Millions $
Millions
Date
40 -B23
San Jose
Havana Dr/ Holly Hill Drive Bike /Ped Bridge at US 101
8.50
8.50
Not Available
Not Available
40 -624
San Jose
Hedding St. Bikeway: Park Avenue to Ruff Dr (Hwy 87)
0.27
0.27
2017
Not Available
Highway 87 Trail Connection Multi -Use Path: Unified Way through
40 -1325
San Jose
Curtner Light Rail Station Park and Ride to Carol Drive at Hwy 87
1.90
1.90
Not Available
Not Available
40 -926
San Jose
Hwy 237 Bikeway: Great America Parkway to Zanker (Class I and II)
0.46
0.46
Not Available
Not Available
Los Gatos Creek Trail Reach 5d: Park Avenue /Montgomery Avenue to
40 -1327
San Jose
11.08
11.08
Not Available
Not Available
Santa Clara Avenue (Diridon Station Segment)
Monroe Bikeway: Newhall Street to Hwy 17 Pedestrian Over Crossing
40 -629
San Jose
0.30
0.30
Not Available
Not Available
at Monroe /Moorpark/Tisch
40 -630
San Jose
Newhall Street Bike /Ped Overcrossing over Caltrain Tracks
8.11
8.11
Not Available
Not Available
North San Jose Bike /Ped Improvements: Connections to Guadalupe
40 -831
San Jose
River Trail /Coyote Creek Trail /Alviso Neighborhood
35.00
35.00
Not Available
Not Available
40 -1334
Santa Clara
Benton Street Bike Lanes: Lawrence Expwy to San Tomas Expwy
0.45
0.45
Not Available
Not Available
Bowers Avenue / Kiely Boulevard Bike Lanes: Cabrillo Avenue to
40 -1335
Santa Clara
0.96
0.96
Not Available
Not Available
Stevens Creek Boulevard
40 -B36
Santa Clara
Calabazas Creek Trail: From SR 237 to Calabazas Boulevard
14.21
14.21
Not Available
Not Available
40 -637
Santa Clara
Lafayette St. Bike Lanes: Agnew Rd. to Reed St.
0.98
0.98
Not Available
Not Available
40 -838
Santa Clara
Lick Mill Blvd. Bike Lanes from Tasman Dr to Hope Dr
0.20
0.20
Not Available
Not Available
Mission College Blvd Bike Lanes from Mission College Boulevard to
40-1339
Santa Clara
0.22
0.22
Not Available
Not Available
Wildwood Ave (city limits)
40 -640
Santa Clara
Pruneridge Ave. Bike Lanes: Pomeroy Ave. to Winchester Boulevard
0.79
0.79
Not Available
Not Available
Saratoga Avenue Bike Lanes: Los Padres Boulevard to San Tomas
40 -1342
Santa Clara
0.20
0.20
Not Available
Not Available
Expressway
Saratoga Creek Trail: Cabrillo Avenue to Forbes Avenue and
40 -643
Santa Clara
2.65
2.65
Not Available
Not Available
Undercrossings at Kiely and Homestead
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
9.a
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
Unfunded Projects
(Conti. nued)
Unsecured Funding
Total Project Cost
Completion
VTP20401D
Sponsor
ProjedTitle
Secured Funding
Millions
Millions $
Date
Status
40 -845
SC County
Doyle Rd Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Connection to Saratoga Creek
0.50
0.50
Not Available
Not Available
Trail
40 -6122
SC County
Expressway and Santa Teresa Corridor Bike Detection
1.00
1.00
Not Available
Not Available
(Foothill/Montague/Capitol)
40 -847
SC County
McKean Road Shoulder Improvements: Harry Road to Bailey Avenue
7 17
7.40
Not Available
Not Available
Oregon Expwy /Page Mill Road: 1 -280 Interchange Modification from
40 -B48
SC County
1.40
1.40
Not Available
Not Available
Old Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road
40 -B49
SC County
Popular Bicycle Rural Roads Improvements
1.00
1.00
Not Available
Not Available
40 -1350
SC County
Santa Teresa Boulevard Bicycle Delineation and Shoulder Widening
0.60
0.60
Not Available
Not Available
40 -1351
Sunnyvale
Belleville Way Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Fremont to Homestead
0.12
0.12
Not Available
Not Available
Bernardo Avenue Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: El Camino Real to
40 -1352
Sunnyvale
0.16
0.16
Not Available
Not Available
Evelyn
Bernardo Ave Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Remington to
40 -853
Sunnyvale
0.16
0.16
Not Available
Not Available
Homestead
Bernardo Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing: Evelyn Avenue to Central
40 -654
Sunnyvale
9.85
9.85
Not Available
Not Available
Expressway
40 -B55
Sunnyvale
California Ave Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Mary to Fair Oaks
0.23
0.23
Not Available
Not Available
Hollenbeck Avenue Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Danforth Drive to
40 -859
Sunnyvale
0.20
0.20
Not Available
Not Available
Alberta Avenue
Java Drive Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Via Road Diet from Mathilda
40 -660
Sunnyvale
0.08
0.08
Not Available
Not Available
to Crossman Avenue
40 -661
Sunnyvale
Lakewood /Sandia Drive Bike Lanes
0.02
0.02
Not Available
Not Available
Sunnyvale Stevens Creek Trail and Structures: Dale /Heatherstone to
40 -B66
Sunnyvale
20.00
20.00
Not Available
Not Available
Homestead Road (2.5 mi bike path, 4 structures and 1.2 mi bike lane)
40 -B67
Sunnyvale
Tasman Drive Bike Lanes and Bike Detection: Via Road Diet from Fair
0.30
0.30
Not Available
Not Available
Oaks Avenue to Reamwood Drive
TOTAL UNFUNDED PROJECTS
159.56
159.56
Note: Total costs have been updated based on information provided by the project sponsors. Some costs may be different from
those listed in the BEP as updated information becomes available.
9.b
Attachment B: Category 1 BEP Projects Progress by Jurisdiction
April 14, 2014
Sponsor
Total #Projects
Total # Completed
Projects
Total # Fully
Funded Projects
Total # Partially
Funded Projects
Total # Unfunded
Projects
Campbell
2
1
1
Cupertino
1
-
1
Gilroy
4
1
3
Los Altos Hills
2
-
2
Palo Alto
2
1
1
-
SanJose
22
-
2
2
18
Santa Clara
11
-
1
9
Santa Clara County
7
-
1
1
6
Sunnyvale
17
-
4
3
10
VTA
2
-
1
1
-
Total 70 0 12 8 50
10
�S A N T A C L A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
April 11, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: Proactive CMP Quarterly Report for Jan -March 2014
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
VTA has two programs through which it reviews and comments on development and
transportation projects occurring in and adjacent to Santa Clara County: 1) the Development
Review Program which reviews environmental documents and development proposals submitted
by Member Agencies; and 2) the review of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) reports for
proposed projects meeting the Congestion Management Program (CMP) TIA Guideline
requirements.
The Proactive CMP ( "Proactive ") process integrates these two VTA review processes to provide
comments on projects prior to approval by Member Agencies. The objectives of the Proactive
CMP process include improving land use /transportation coordination, promoting alternative
travel modes, and encouraging a balanced approach to addressing congestion. As part of the
Proactive process, VTA produces quarterly reports on project proposals highlighting two sets of
projects and types of information:
• Projects Reviewed by VTA: For projects or environmental documents reviewed by
VTA staff under the Congestion Management Program and Development Review
Program in the past quarter, relevant VTA comments are summarized.
• Projects Approved by Local Agencies: For projects or environmental documents
approved by local agencies in the past quarter, relevant VTA comments and agency
responses or conditions of approval are summarized.
3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300
DISCUSSION:
10
The following discussion provides a summary of the January through March 2014 Proactive
CMP Quarterly Report. The summary highlights key projects and topics contained in the report,
which is provided as Attachment A. The report includes a table summarizing all of the reviewed
and approved projects, and a reference map showing the locations of these projects.
• VTA commented on 18 projects through the Proactive CM -P process between January and
March 2014. The city with the largest number of projects was San Josh with eight projects
followed by Gilroy and Morgan Hill with two projects each.
• Twelve of the 18 projects that VTA commented on involved environmental documents such
as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Notice of.Preparation (NOP), or Mitigated
Negative Declaration. One of the projects involved a stand -alone TIA document and the
remaining five projects involved Site Plan, Tentative Map, and Planned Development Permit
reviews.
• Fourteen of the 18 items that VTA commented on were private development projects. The
remainder consisted of two station area plans, a high school, and a flood protection project.
• Nine projects which VTA previously commented on were approved by local agencies during
this quarter. The Cities of San Josh, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas had the greatest number of
approvals with two projects approved each.
Key plans and documents that VTA reviewed and commented on during the past quarter
included the following:
600 National Avenue, City of Mountain View: The City of Mountain View circulated an
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and TIA for a 140,634 square foot office
building on a 4.82 -acre site near the intersection of Ellis Street and US 101. VTA submitted a
comment letter commending the project applicant for proposing a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupancy automobile trips with a trip
reduction target of 20% and a monitoring program; suggesting that the monitoring program
be led by the Lead Agency or a third party and include an enforcement /penalty structure; and
agreeing with a recommendation in the TIA that the project contribute to improved
pedestrian connections to nearby light rail stations and bus service.
Diridon Station Area Plan, City of San Jose: The City of San Jose circulated a DEIR for
the expansion of the Diridon Station and transit center as well a vision and framework for
higher intensity development in 250 -acre area surrounding the Station. VTA submitted a
comment letter supporting the objectives of the Plan to accommodate future transit
improvements and intensify land uses in this important location; recommending that projects
in the area include exceptional pedestrian accommodations to facilitate access to transit;
recommending an analysis of congestion impacts to transit service and offsetting measures to
maintain transit speed; requesting clarifications related to analysis of CMP facilities; and
Page 2 of 4
10
making specific recommendations for the design of the transit center to serve transit
operational needs.
Landbank R &D, City of Sunnyvale: The City of Sunnyvale circulated a TIA Report for a
777,170 square foot office /R &D development at the southeast corner of North Wolfe Road
and East Arques Avenue. VTA submitted a comment letter supporting a recommendation in
the TIA to close an existing sidewalk gap along Arques Avenue near the project site;
recommending that the project also provide improvements to existing pedestrian
accommodations along Wolfe Road; recommending that the project include a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce automobile trips; and requesting
clarification regarding the CMP intersection analysis.
As noted above, nine items that VTA previously provided comments on were approved during
this past quarter. The following is a brief summary of key VTA comments and the local agency
responses or conditions of approval on three of these items.
45 Buckingham Residential, City of Santa Clara. The City of Santa Clara circulated an
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and TIA for 222 multifamily residential units on a
4.05 -acre site near the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue. VTA
submitted a comment letter supporting the land use intensification at this important site served by
VTA Local 23, Limited 323 and planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service; recommending transit
fare incentives as a conditional of approval for the project; and requesting clarifications related
to analysis of CMP facilities. The project was approved by City Council on March 18, 2014,
with conditions of approval to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program including ongoing transit passes available for free to residents of the project.
North First and Brokaw Office Development, City of San Jose: The City of San Josh
circulated a Site Development Permit for 2.025 million square feet of office development on a
31.09 -acre site bounded by Brokaw Road, North First Street, Bering Road, and Crane Court.
VTA submitted a comment letter supporting the land use intensification at this site within
walking distance of the Karina Light Rail station; recommending that the site design support an
active pedestrian environment along North First Street to encourage transit ridership;
recommending improvements to the sidewalks along, the project's fi•ontages; encouraging the
inclusion of additional uses on the site to reduce automobile trips; and recommending
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for the project, including transit fare
incentives. The project was approved at a Planning Director's hearing on March 19, 2014 with
conditions of approval including bicycle parking, transit fare incentives, direct pedestrian
connections to light rail with widened sidewalks, on -site shuttle stop locations, and payment of
North San ;lose Area Development Policy Traffic Impact Fees (TiF) to support transportation
improvements.
St James Towers, City of San Jose: The City of San Jose circulated a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for 643 residential units and up to 20,000 square feet
of ground floor retail for a site bounded by St. James Street, N. San Pedro Street, W. St. John
Page 3 of 4
Street, and Terraine Street. VTA submitted a comment letter supporting the land use
intensification at this important Downtown location served by multiple existing and planned
transit services; recommending that the project include transit fare incentives as a condition
of approval; and encouraging the project sponsor to include parking management measures to
encourage the use of alternative modes and reduce auto trips. The project was approved at a
Planning Director's hearing on February 26, 2014. In the FEIR response to comments, the
City noted that the project would incorporate TDM measures consistent with the Downto"m
Strategy 2000, including design to promote transit access, on -site shops and services, and
bicycle amenities.
Prepared By: Robert Cunningham
Memo No. 4423
Page 4 of 4
10
S A N T A C L A t A
Valley Transportation Authority
VTA Development Review Program
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report
January, February, and March of 2014
i
Development Review Projects Summary
January to March 2014
i
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report Page 1 of 4 January, February and March of 2014 e
N C�.
�y
is
>�
Map
CMP ID
Lead Agency
Project
Project Description
Document
o
VTA Comment Topics
p
No.
Name /Location
Type
o a
Q
U-
Q
Warn Springs /South
10,000- 20,000 new jobs and
Fremont Community
4,000 housing units on 850 acres
1
FR1301
City of Fremont
Plan
adjacent to future BART station
DEIR
y
Land Use; Freeway Analysis
UNF1 Warehouse -
Camino Arroyo and
Ventura Way, 1000
802,000 s.f. warehouse and
2
GI1302
City of Gilroy
feet south of SR 152
distribution center
DEIR, TIA
y
Bus Service
Glen Loma - Santa
Teresa Boulevard and
369 single family residential lots
3
G11401
City of Gilroy
Miller Avenue
on 309 acres
Tentative Map
y
TIA Report; Bus Service
City of Los
467 1 st St Office
4
LA 1301
Altos
Project
17,156 s.f. office building
IS /MND, TIA
y I
Pedestrian Accommodations
Southeast Quadrant -
1,600 student high school
Bounded by US 101,
facility on a 38 -acre site and
San Pedro Avenue,
program -level analysis for
City of Morgan
Carey Avenue, and
sports /recreation uses in 1,290-
Freeway Analysis; Potential Transit Service
5
MH1001
Hill
Maple Avenue
acre SE Quadrant area
I DEIR, TIA
y
Increases
DePaul Medical -
Southwest corner of
City of Morgan
Cochrane Road and
GPA for senior care /residential
Existing Bus Service; Potential Future Transit
6
MH 1401
Hill
Mission View Drive
units on 24.55 acres
Application
y
I
I Demand
Redevelopment of existing retail
Pacific Mall - Ranch
site, including 145,000 sf net
Drive and McCarthy
increase of retail and a 12 -story,
Freeway Impacts and Mitigation; Bus Stop
7
ML 1301
City of Milpitas
Boulevard
250 room hotel (172,000 so
DEIR, TIA
y
Improvements
KLA Tencor -
Northwest corner of
50% FAR increase to allow up
Technology Drive and
to 128,000 s.f. additional office
Pedestrian Accommodations; Transportation
8
ML1305
CityofMilpitas
McCarthy Blvd
development
IS /MND
y
y
I Demand Manageement; Tri Generation Rates
Transportation Demand Management;
City of
600 National Avenue
140,634 s.f. office building on
Initial
Pedestrian Accommodations and Access to
9
MV 1401
Mountain View
at Ellis Street
4.82 acres
Study /TIA
I y
Transit
i
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report Page 1 of 4 January, February and March of 2014 e
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report
Page 2 of 4
January, February and March of 2014 .
J
0
a�
Map
CMP ID
Lead Agency
Project
Project Description
Document
Cd
:.
05
Q-
VTA Comment Topics
No.
Name /Location
Type
E
n.
N
U�
a
Palo Alto Golf Course
and Baylands Athletic
City of Palo
Center - 1875
Golf course reconfiguration and
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access During
10
PA 1301
Alto
Embarcadero Road
athletic center expansion
DEIR, TIA
y
Construction
45 Buckingham
Residential - Near NW
City of Santa
corner of Stevens
222 multi- family residential
Land Use; Transit Incentives; CMP
11
SC1304
Clara
Creek and Saratoga
units
IS /MND, TIA
y
Intersections; Freeway Analysis
Monticello Village -
Land Use; Bicycle and Pedestrian
NE corner of Monroe
835 residential units and 43,849
Accommodations; CMP Intersection Impacts;
City of Santa
Street and French
square feet of retail space on
Potential Future Bus Route Options; Existing
12
SC 1307
Clara
Street
16.11 acres
DEIR, TIA
y
Transit Service
Upper Llagas Creek -
13 mile stretch from
Buena Vista Ave
Santa Clara
(Gilroy) to just north of
Valley Water
Llagas Road (Morgan
13
SCVWD1401
District
Hill)
Flood rotection along creek
DEIR
y
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Land Use; Pedestrian Accommodations;
Vision and framework for
Congestion Impacts to Transit Service; Project
higher intensity/transit- oriented
Phasing; Queuing Analysis at Freeway On-
City of San
Diridon Station Area
development in 250 -acre area
Ramp Locations; Existing Intersection LOS;
14
SJI 110
Jose
Plan
surrounding Diridon Station
DEIR
Freewa Analysis; Transit Center Design
Land Use; Site Design; Pedestrian
North First Street and
Accommodations and Access to Transit; Land
City of San
Brokaw Road Office
2.025 million s.f. office on a 31-
Site Dev.
Use Mix; Transportation Demand Management;
15
SJ1316
Jose
Development
acre site
Permit
y
Transit Incentives
Park Housing -
Northeast corner of
City of San
Park Avenue and
16
SJ1320
Jose
Laurel Grove Lane
182 multi-family housing units
IS /MND, TIA
y
I Land Use; Transit Incentives
Land Use; Pedestrian and Bicycle
Accommodations; Congestion Impacts to
Increase of 510,000 s.f. office,
Transit Service; Congestion Impacts to the I-
City of San
Santana Row Parcels 9
55,641 s.f. retail, 47 residential
800 /Stevens Creek Boulevard Interchange;
17
SJ 1321
Jose
& 17
units, 6 hotel units.
NOP, TIA N/F
I y
I
Freeway Analysis; CMP Analysis
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report
Page 2 of 4
January, February and March of 2014 .
J
0
a�
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report
Page 3 of 4
January, February and March of 2014
i
0
Vl L
:
--
Map
CMP ID
Lead Agency
Project
Project Description
Document
E �
o
VTA Comment Topics
No.
Name /Location
Type
a
Cr
vim¢
St. James Towers -
Block bounded by N
San Pedro St, W St
643 residential units and 18,000
City of San
John St, Terraine St,
s.f. ground floor retail on a 1.82-
Land Use; Transit Incentives; Parking
18
SJ 1322
Josd
and W St James St
acre site
DEIR
y
y
Management
Bay 101 Casino -
Bounded by First
Land Use; TIA Report; Pedestrian and Bicycle
City of San
Street, Fourth Street,
125,000 s.f. casino and two
Accommodations; Site Design; US 101 Express
19
SJ 1323
Jose
and US 101
hotels totaling 470 rooms
NOP
Lanes Project Coordination
505 Lincoln Avenue
City of San
near Race Street and
190 condominiums on a 2.94-
Land Use; Pedestrian Accommodations and
20
SJ1401
Josd
Parkmoor Avenue
acre site
TIA
y
Access to Transit; Transit Incentives
Alma Child Care -
City of San
West Alma Avenue
Conditional use permit for 5,100
Conditional
21
SJ1402
Josd
and Minnesota Avenue
s.f. day care facility
Use Permit
y
Bus Service
18 -story tower with 216
Park View Towers -
residential units and 18,537
Site
Operational Concerns; Construction Access
City of San
Northeast toner of I st
square feet of commercial space
Development
Permits; Land Use; Transit Incentives; Parking
22
SJ1403
Josd
Street and St James
on a 1.52 -acre site
Permit
y
Management
East Weddell
Residential Projects -
N W and NE corners of
City of
US 101 /Fair Oaks Ave
Total of 670 units on 16.08 acres
Land Use; Transit Incentives; Pedestrian
23
SU1304
Sunnyvale
Interchange
on two sites
DEIR, TIA
y
I Accommodations
TIA & TIA
Freeway Segment Analysis; Queuing Analysis;
City of
St. Jude Medical - 645
Notification
Voluntary Contributions; Pedestrian and
24
SU1305
Sunnyvale
Almanor Avenue
176,780 s.f. hospital
Form
y
Bicycle Accommodations
Landbank R &D -
Southwest corner of
City of
Wolfe Road and
777,170 s.f. (518,449 s.f. net
Pedestrian Accommodations; Transportation
25
SU1401
Sunnyvale
Argues Avenue
new s.£) R & D development
I TIA
y
Demand Management; CMP Intersections
Proactive CMP Quarterly Report
Page 3 of 4
January, February and March of 2014
i
0
6
MORGAN
4
'HILL
a` 13 5
EM0""" �° MILPITAS P �
PALO ALTO
y
MOUNTAIIQ 7 i' �` $
e _ =1 VIEW ° -
l01 8 Es
. o y ' - �• '.hHp � 9Z E'.
xpN
it tiP ° C� •, �1 t
O24 23
GILOY
A
- R r
LOS
LOS ALTOS ALTOS 2
Hliis 4 25 �_ > ?�
-0<
zF
12 19 4
0
SUNNYVALE � �•
ME�Nr W Outside Santa Clara County &
°II SANTA ! s Regional Projects
Hcrnes: rs CLARA. -1 22 SAN
111
*South Fremont -Warm Springs/
South Fremont Community Plan
11 16
Vv CUPERTIN 17 �� 20
.,.. O cca
i' f A O
21 101
<V — I G�0.S0.E •
SARATOGA
Development Review Projects CAMPBFI.L _ uE s CAS4 b
January - March 2014 N &��
OProjects within _ Q
Santa Clara County
MONTE�"
pto5som'xu
®Outside Santa Clara County SERENO r
and Regional Projects
o
Yr 1
umflnn Caltrain `L nos _ m
+ Planned BRT Corridors �\
Light Rail \�
1.25 2.5 5 ®
Miles
lactive CMP Quarterly Report Page 4 of 4
.i
January, February and March of 2014 c
m
PROACTIVE QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT
GLOSSARY
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments
MND
Mitigated Negative Declaration
ABC
Across Barrier Connections
MTC
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
AC
Acre(s)
MVHDR
Multifamily Very High Density Residential
ACE
Altamont Commuter Express
ND
Negative Declaration
A(PD)
Planned Development Zoning District
NOI
Notice of Intent
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit
NOP
Notice of Preparation
BMPs
Best Management Practices
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
BRT
Bus Rapid Transit
PCC
Portland Concrete Cement
BTG
Bicycle Technical Guidelines
PDA
Priority Development Area (MTC /ABAG Plan Bay Area)
CDT
Community Design & Transportation
PDR
Planned Development Rezoning
CG
Commercial General Zoning District
PE
Preliminary Engineering
CI /C
Combined Industrial /Commercial
PPOS
Public Park/Open Space
CMP
Congestion Management Program
PTG
Pedestrian Technical Guidelines
CSA
Construction Staging Area
PUD
Planned Urban Development
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
R &D
Research & Development
CWC
Citizen Watchdog Committee
R -M
Multi - Family Residential Zoning
DASH
Downtown Area Shuttle
ROW
Right -Of -Way
DC
Downtown Commercial Zoning District
RVIID
Residential Very High Density
DEIR
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SAR
Site and Architectural Review
DU/AC
Dwelling Units Per Acre
SCVWD
Santa Clara Valley Water District
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
SDP
Site Development Permit
ER
Environmental Review
SF
Square Foot
FAR
Floor Area Ratio
SFR
Single Family Residences
FEIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
SPA
Specific Plan Amendment
GPA
General Plan Amendment
SPRR
Southern Pacific Railroad
HDR
High Density Residential
SVRT
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit
HI
Heavy Industrial
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
HOV
High- Occupancy Vehicle
TCE
Temporary Construction Easement
HSR
High -Speed Rail
TCR
Transit Corridor Residential
IP
Industrial Park
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
IS
Initial Study
TIA
Transportation Impact Analysis
ITR
Industrial to Residential
TIA NF
Transportation Impact Analysis Notification Form
ITS
Intelligent Transportation System
TM
Tentative Map
Ll
Light Industrial
TMA
Transportation Management Association
LRT
Light Rail Transit
TOD
Transit- Oriented Development
LU /TD
Land Use /Transportation Diagram
TPA
Transit Priority Area (SB 743/SB 375)
MCR
Monitoring and Conformance Report
UB
Utility Box
MDR
Medium Density Residential
UPRR
Union Pacific Railroad
MM
Mitigation Measure
iI ;;;
T/!S A X 7 A C L A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
April 29, 2014
May 15, 2014
N/A
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) Report: Land
Use and Urban Design
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
SPUR staff will present a report regarding land use and urban design in Santa Clara County.
Attachment A is the report entitled "Walk This Way ".
Prepared By: John Sighamony
Memo No. 4579
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
SAN JOSE URBAN DESIGN
Walk
This Way
A Roadmap for Better Urban
Design in San Jose
Benjamin Grant is SPUR's public realm and
urban design program manager.
Summary: The challenge lies not
in understanding what walkable,
transit - oriented communities look
like but in the many challenges
inherent in making them a reality.
By Benjamin Grant
Silicon Valley, the most dynamic and innovative
economic engine in the world, is not creating
memorable urban places. But tastes and values are
rapidly changing. Today's top firms and top talent
are increasingly demanding engaging places, diverse
experiences and convenient amenities. Simply put,
they are demanding urbanism.
San Jose is critical to the future of the Bay Area.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
projects that San Jose will add more new residents in
the coming decades than any other city in the region
— more than San Francisco and Oakland combined.
The shape of that growth is critically important
to the sustainability, livability and economic vitality
of the region. San Jose faces a particular set
of challenges— shared by many American cities —
around how to retool environments built for the
automobile for a future that better supports walking,
cycling and transit.
In 2011, the City of San Jose adopted Envision San
Jose 2040, an ambitious new general plan intended
to guide the city's growth in the coming decades.
It calls for 470,000 new jobs and 120,000 new
housing units by 2040, with most new development
4 NOVEMBER 2013 THE URBANIST
` X
concentrated in designated "Urban Villages" and
other "Growth Areas:' It also imagines a dramatic
shift in urban form to mixed -use, walkable
neighborhoods that provide basic services and
amenities close to homes, workplaces and transit.
Achieving this transformation is a daunting
challenge. To be successful, it will require changes
in culture, public policy, professional and technical
practices, infrastructure, markets and norms. San
Jose's real estate market has been relatively soft.
The city government faces fiscal challenges that
limit its capacity for ambitious investment. Many
aspects of this transformation are out of the control
of policymakers, and many contradictory imperatives
drive decisions within city government.
While San Jose's General Plan does an excellent
job of sketching a transformational vision and
includes an impressive level of detail in defining
the location and density of growth, its successful
implementation is far from assured. The physical
form of new development at the human scale
will determine as to whether the benefits of denser
land use patterns actually translate into livable,
walkable, less car - oriented places or simply to denser
sprawl: placeless apartment complexes and office
parks hemmed in by worsening congestion.
San Jose brings tremendous assets to this
challenge. The broad -based enthusiasm for a more
urban future — along with the city's spectacular
weather and natural setting, diverse communities
and legendary capacity for innovation — present
a once -in -a- generation opportunity to reinvent for
a more sustainable and competitive future.
Getting to Great Places
SPUR's report Getting to Great Places (from which
this issue of The Urbanist is excerpted) is intended
to diagnose the impediments to creating excellent,
walkable urban places in San Jose and to recommend
changes in policy and practice that will improve
urban design outcomes. It is directed at implement-
ing the vision outlined in the 2040 General Plan.
In particular, it emphasizes the Urban Village
planning process as a timely opportunity to improve
implementation through clearer, more effective
policies and codes.
SPLIR's goal with this report, however, is not to
lay out an additional set of urban design guidelines.
The design of the built environment can ei-
ther inhibit or encourage walking. Through
its General Plan, San Jose pursuing a transi-
tion from a car- oriented to a more walkable
city. These places — both recently -built
employment centers — send very different
signals to pedestrians. (At left, San Jose; at
right, Emeryville.)
SPUR San Jose Urban Design Task Force
Co- Chairs: Robert Steinberg, Kim Walesh
SPUR San Jose Director: Leah Toeniskoetter
Research assistance by Meghan Hade
THE URBANIST NOVEMBER 2013 5
11.a
SAN JOSE URBAN DESIGN
Major Project Goals
The recommendations in this report are intended to help San
Jose accomplish the following:
Improve the development process
1. Increase the speed, certainty and quality of development
2. Provide support to decision - makers and city staff in
upholding policies and implementing the General Plan vision
3. Build urban design knowledge, capacity and enthusiasm
4. Support General Plan implementation and Urban Village
planning
Make San Jose more livable and attractive
S. Attract development that increases long -term economic value
6. Cultivate a better quality of life and sense of place
7. Attract top firms and top talent to San Jose
Build long -term sustainability
S. Support a shift to walking, cycling and transit
9. Create flexible places that can changeover time
10. Align city resources and practices to realize efficiencies and
support great places
Many excellent guidelines exist in San Jose and
the South Bay, but their impacts on the quality of
the built environment have been limited. Getting
to Great Places is a pragmatic effort aimed at
making common sense improvements. While some
of the recommendations are modest in scope,
they are made with an eye to dramatic long -term
improvements in San Jose's built environment.
For the purposes of this initiative, urban design is
the physical organization of buildings, streets and
open space into whole places that work for people.
Urban design does not include architectural style and
visual aesthetics, as important as these may be.
Ugly or banal buildings may embody good urban
design principles — and often do. Stunning, sophisti-
cated buildings may fail profoundly in this regard —
and often do. However, successful urban design
is very much concerned with the human dimensions
of the built environment and the experience and
behavior of its users.
SPUR takes the visions espoused in the General
Plan very seriously. We believe that good urban
places are both achievable and profoundly important
to the quality of life, economic prospects and
environmental sustainability of San Jose and the
region as a whole. On the other hand, it is important
to acknowledge that the urban design quality of most
new development in San Jose falls far short. The
vision is compelling, but the political will and policy
apparatus are not yet sufficient to achieve it.
If this problem were an easy one, it would have
been solved long ago. There is tremendous vision
and talent in city government and considerable
consensus about the desired outcomes. But the
challenge for San Jose resides in the details — of both
the development process and its physical outcomes.
A swarm of contradictory imperatives affects every
6 NOVEMBER 2013 THE URBANIST
project, and resolving details with an eye to the
big - picture vision is essential.
Most of the recommendations in SPUR'S report
are consistent with the policies laid out in the
General Plan. However, the volume of policies there
is immense and the mechanisms for implementation
and enforcement are generally vague. SPUR's
recommendations are meant to underscore and
strengthen what we feel are the most important
policies and to suggest additional ideas and
mechanisms.
Selected Recommendations
Getting to Great Places includes more than 50
recommendations addressing every aspect of the
development process. Here are some of the key
ideas. (For a complete set of recommendations, see
the full report at www.spur.org.)
Make the Rules Matter
Today, many policies on the form and design of new
development are vague or subject to negotiation
through the political process. The Urban Village
planning process provides an opportunity to revise
zoning codes so that they reflect policy goals and
increase certainty for developers.
Create Urban Village zoning districts that include
form controls. These should require fine - grained
pedestrian circulation, buildings meeting the
street, and integration with transit and public
space.
• Establish a retail policy that discourages surface
parking and encourages multilevel and pedestrian-
friendly solutions in Urban Villages and Growth
A reas.
• Revise fire, transportation and zoning codes to
support more compact development.
Improve Design Review and Design Capacity
The City of San Jose has no full -time urban design
staff, in contrast to San Francisco, which has more
than 10. What design review exists is geared toward
architectural aesthetics rather than the kinds of
site planning fundamentals that determine whether
a place will encourage walking and transit use.
• Hire dedicated urban design staff in the planning
department and train existing staff in physical
planning fundamentals.
• Require more detailed preliminary review of
projects in Urban Village areas, especially in the
early "napkin sketch" stages of site design, when
changes are more feasible.
• Require project proponents to map their projects
according to city priorities for the public realm,
as defined in the Urban Village Plans. This would
include defining "likely paths of pedestrian travel"
to and through the project site from transit.
Align Resources to Support General Plan Goals
Public resources are scarce and should be directed
to solve multiple problems at once. Great places
depend on every available dollar and every available
mechanism working together. Public spaces can
shape development, facilitate transit access,
treat stormwater and support public life — but only
if a strong vision is integrating all the pieces.
Facing page: In suburban settings like
this one In San Ramon, residential
areas are walled off from workplaces,
retail, restaurants and other amenities.
In contrast, walkable cities like
San Francisco facilitate pedestrian
connections.
Above: In many places built around
the automobile, pedestrian access Is
an afterthought (as this abrupt San
Jose sidewalk can attest). At their best,
sidewalks like this one in Berkeley,
can serve a host of functions, including
access, commerce, public life, and
green space.
THE URBANIST NOVEMBER 2013 7
11.a
a- P
31 ■ri,,ti
PPX�ji;
�
■ p !
r X N;
I ■ ®.. ",
lid't .
■ ■ Wk T
SAN JOSE URBAN DESIGN
• Create one to three "catalytic clusters" where
a sustained city effort combines high design
standards, innovative financing strategies and
partnerships with public, private, philanthropic
and non - profit entities to model urban design
excellence.
• Use post- redevelopment financing tools to
implement public improvements in designated
Urban Villages.
• Use existing funding streams (including parkland
dedication fees, impact fees and construction
taxes) more flexibly to implement complete,
integrated, walkable places.
Conclusion
Efforts to achieve better urban design outcomes are
nothing new in San Jose. In fact, sound urban
design principles have been articulated repeatedly
in San Jose's city guidelines since the 1980s.
But despite great strides in the downtown and some
gradual improvement elsewhere, development
here has not produced the kinds of pedestrian -
friendly neighborhoods that can truly support a
shift away from the private car. Financial pressures
and fierce competition for employment uses have
hampered the city's ability to uphold the principles
espoused in its plans. Efforts to implement the
General Plan are promising and ambitious, and our
report is issued in the spirit of supporting its success.
Den ;n, itself is not enough: great pedestrian, even if they arrive by car
walkable places depend on the integration (At left is New York City, at right, San Jose).
of land uses into streets and public
spaces designed for people. Everyone isa
The Benefits of
Walkable Urbanism
Sustainability
Urban dwellers consume far fewer resources and emit
far less carbon than their suburban counterparts.
Urban environments provide more activity in less
space and facilitate access by foot, bike and transit.
They save resources in transportation, energy, heating
and cooling, and their compact physical footprint
preserves land for open space and agriculture.
Low Density Transit - Oriented High - Density
Single Family Multifamily Urban
<5 20 -30 -100
Dwelling units /acre Dwelling units/acre Dwelling units/acre
mm
ME
mm
42,000
26,000
16,000
10,000
9,000
4,250
Ibs.CO./Hh/Yr
VMT /Hh/Yr
Ibs,00,/Hh/Yr
VMT /Hh/Yr
Ibs.CO./Hh/Yr
VMT/Hh/Y,
8 NOVEMBER 2013 THE URBANIST
a
F
3
B
E
ii
a
8
11.a
Streets designed only to move cars result in
intimidating unsafe environments for people.
Creating "complete" — or multimodal — streets
Is one key to a more walkable, livable city.
Public space— like thisgreenway I
Emeryville —can provide a framework
and catalyst for new development, tying
multiple projects into a single place.
Mobility and Access
Compact mixed -use areas facilitate "access by
proximity," resulting in less driving and more walking,
cycling and transit use. Density supports transit
ridership, allowing for improved service. Walkable
environments also support access and independence
for people with limited mobility, including the elderly,
the disabled and those without access to a car.
Prosperity and Economic Development
nr Many of today's most dynamic firms and workers
E ' — particularly in the knowledge and innovation
sectors — are favoring urban lifestyles and amenities.
Attractive and memorable places become self -
reinforcing, drawing new investment and sustaining
long -term value.
Public Life
Compact urban neighborhoods offer public places
for people to interact with one another, gather
together and build community. These activities build
a positive sense of place and interconnectedness.
Research has shown that people living in walkable
neighborhoods trust their neighbors more,
participate in community projects and volunteer
more than those in less- walkable areas.
(D Public Health
American's sedentary lifestyle and the associated
epidemics of obesity and chronic disease have
been repeatedly linked to the auto - dependent built
environment.
Social Equity
Where suburbs are heavily privatized, urban
n environments rely on public amenities like transit and
open space, which are available to everyone. This is
not only more efficient but more inclusive. Although
urban areas can be expensive, suburban settings are
especially punishing for low- income people, who find
extremely limited housing and mobility options and
can face spatial, social and economic isolation.
THE URBANIST NOVEMBER 2013 9
11.a
SAN JOSE URBAN DESIGN
Fine - grained pedestrian
circulation
Frequent and densely interconnected
pedestrian routes are fundamental to
walkability, shortening both actual and
perceived distances. Described as fine -
grained circulation, this can be accomplished
through smaller block sizes or through -
block access via publicly accessible alleys,
pathways or paseos, coupled with frequent
crosswalks. A good rule of thumb is that a
comfortable walking environment offers a
choice of route about once per minute, which
is 200 to 300 feet at a moderate walking
pace — typical of a traditional prewar city
block. This not only allows efficient access
but also provides visual interest and a
sense of progress as new structures and
intersections come into view with reasonable
frequency. Large blocks or disconnected
networks can dramatically increase walking
distances and discourage pedestrian
activity.
This kind of "permeability" is sometimes
resisted by project proponents, who
may cite security, property rights or site
TYPICAL
Design for
Walkability:
Key Components BETTER
These diagrams were developed by the
architecture firm, Gensler to illustrate the
fundamentals of walkable urban design.
Although many detailed guidelines exist
in San Jose and elsewhere, distilling the
fundamentals Into an accessible "cheat
sheet" can help project proponents, city
staff and decisionmakers focus on the
decisions that matter most. The "better"
condition shown throughout recognizes
that these principles apply even where the
Ideal case Is not feasible.
BEST
planning concerns. But street networks
are fundamental to walking. Walking five
200 -foot blocks through Portland, Oregon,
is easy and comfortable. Walking the same
thousand feet on a suburban commercial
street, past a single distant building and no
intersections, is very uncomfortable.
Not every location will reach an optimal
condition, but if San Jose is to make
significant progress toward its walkability
and mode -share goals, this principle must
be asserted broadly.
10 NOVEMBER 2013 THE URBANIST
3
X
C
Y
11.a
11.a
Buildings oriented to
streets and open space
In walkable urban environments, buildings
are built up to streets and public spaces,
providing "definition" or "enclosure" that
makes the environment legible and coherent.
Built edges — at all scales, from Manhattan
to Willow Glen — reinforce circulation routes
while allowing easy pedestrian access to
adjacent buildings. Building entrances are
on or next to street frontages. Setbacks are
short and used only to provide public space
or a transition from public to private life.
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
When buildings are set back behind parking
or landscape buffers, pedestrians are
isolated from uses and activities, exposed to
traffic and forced to walk greater distances.
Even if some means of pedestrian access
is provided, this pattern communicates to
pedestrians and transit users that they are
of secondary importance. Service functions,
blank walls and driveways should be limited
in size and placed to minimize disruption of
pedestrian access.
Uses organized to
support public activity
The way uses are arranged on a site has
a major impact on the activity, vitality,
security and identity of surrounding streets
and spaces. Active uses such as retail,
lobbies and event spaces, should be placed
strategically along pedestrian routes to
engage the public and should be designed
for transparency and interest. Secure,
private spaces can be placed at site interiors.
Residential entrances should be designed
to provide a graceful transition from public
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
to private. Stoops, front porches, balconies
and lobbies can all support privacy while
promoting sociability and "eyes on the
street." Certain uses such as garages and
cinemas, can be tucked deeply away, but
their points of access can be major nodes
of activity. Loading and utility spaces should
be tucked away from pedestrian frontages.
Office
M Retail
Residential
Parking
Public Open Space
THE URBANIST NOVEMBER 2013 11
SAN JOSE URBAN GUIDELINES
Parking placed behind
or below buildings
In newer development, good places for
people depend heavily on the artful
accommodation of cars. Parking is an
expensive, space-hungry and unattractive
use, and a key driver of site planning
and project finances. Parking should be
structured where possible, and placed
to avoid impacts on pedestrian spaces.
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
Well- designed public or shared private
garages can serve multiple buildings, draw
people onto streets and allow for flexible
management. Once parked, every driver
becomes a pedestrian, so pedestrian garage
exits should be located to support and
enliven public spaces.
i �i
P
P
Human -scale building
and landscape detail
People experience the built environment
at the scale of their own bodies in space.
Buildings should meet and engage people at
that scale, with awnings, facade elements,
articulation, lighting, signage and other
features along sidewalks. Even very large
buildings can meet the human scale in
a gracious and accommodating manner.
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
i
�w
'� �:qi. �cr w9i � • 111 `�
i
� 1 �
12 NOVEMBER 2013 THE URBANIST
X
Y
W
K
11.a
11.a
Clear, continuous Complete streets
pedestrian access
Wide sidewalks — including elements like
Sidewalks, while fundamental, are
Streets can accommodate a variety of
still support other activities. Small streets
trees, lighting, street furniture, public art
only one part of a broader public realm.
travel modes while also serving as public
are equally important and can limit
— are the city's connective tissue. In great
They should be seamlessly integrated with
amenities, sites of commerce and green
vehicular speeds and capacity in the service
walking cities like Barcelona and New York,
walkways, paseos, building entrances, transit
spaces. Roadways should be no bigger than
of other functions, from deliveries to
sidewalks of 40 feet are not uncommon,
facilities, plazas and parks. If people are
necessary for their function and should
social activity.
but a well- designed 10 -foot sidewalk can
to feel comfortable walking, the continuity
apportion space safely among private
be adequate in some contexts. They
of pedestrian access among major uses
vehicles, transit, bicycles and parking.
should be arranged in a continuous network,
and amenities, including transit facilities, is
If they are well designed, streets can move
with frequent, safe street crossings.
essential.
significant volumes of auto traffic and
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
TYPICAL
BETTER
BEST
t
e I 11
t {.
THE URBANIST NOVEMBER 2013 13
0
T/'S A N T A C L A R A
® Valley Transportation Authority
Date:
Current Meeting:
Board Meeting:
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
May 9, 2014
May 15, 2014
June 5, 2014
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: SR 85 Express Lanes Project ❑Environmental Process Update
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Board of Directors on the environmental
process and to present a preliminary staff recommendation on the scope of express lanes
implementation on SR 85.
The Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program (hereafter referred to as Program) was undertaken to
provide long -term mobility benefits and to provide another potential funding stream for
transportation improvements. Specifically, the primary objectives of the Program are the
following:
1. Provide congestion relief through more effective use of existing roadways;
2. Provide commuters with a new mobility option; and
3. Provide a new funding source for transportation improvements including public transit.
The Program has been under development since 2004 when the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors authorized the development of a feasibility
study of what was then referred to as high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes (now referred to as
Express Lanes). In December 2008, the VTA Board of Directors approved the Program,
concluding over 18 months of coordination, analysis and outreach on both technical and policy
areas related to implementing Express Lanes. The effort also included reaching out to the general
public, key community and project stakeholders to seek public opinion through focus groups,
web survey, open houses, presentation to business communities and environmental groups.
VTA received legislative authority for the Program that includes the SR 237 and US 101 /SR 85
corridors within Santa Clara County.
3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 -1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300
At this point the SR 85 Express Lane Project is in the environmental review phase. The lead
agency for both the state and federal environmental process is the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) since this is a state highway.
After more than two years of analysis and preparation, the environmental docu vent for SR 85
was released for public review and comment on December 30, 2013 with the formal public
comment period ending on February 28, 2014. VTA and Caltrans conducted two public
meetings on the project and were subsequently asked to provide more information at several city
council meetings and other public forums.
Six public agencies and 301 individuals commented on the project resulting in over 800 separate
comments received. Most of the comments received fall into five main categories: Traffic
Authority Performance Agreement reserving median for mass transit, noise, congestion points,
air quality and the existing truck ban on SR 85. Final response to all of these comments is
anticipated to be complete by October 2014.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the environmental document is to conduct a technical analysis of the proposed
project. This is done by establishing a purpose and need for the project, defining the scope of a
proposed project that meets that purpose and need, to analyze and disclose impacts, both positive
and negative, due to that proposed project. This results in a preferred project selection.
Although Caltrans is the lead agency for the environmental document, the implementation
agency for the project, established by AB 2032, will be VTA. Therefore, the policy decision on
how, what and when to implement the project is the responsibility of the VTA Board of
D irectors.
In response to input received from stakeholders and the general public interested in the project,
VTA staff developed a preliminary recommendation for the SR 85 Express Lane project scope
for implementation. After consultation with Caltrans and cities within the corridor, staff is
leaning toward a preferred project that would be limited to a conversion of the existing single -
lane carpool lane to express toll lane operations and not implement a second express lane
between S.R 87 and 1 -280 at this time.
At VTA Advisory Committee, Standing Committee and Board meetings, staff will present the
difference between a single -lane operation and the two -lane operation scenarios and how they
impact congestion relief, travel time savings, traffic operations, revenue and noise levels.
Prepared By: John Ristow
Memo No. 4610
Page 2 of 2
Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study
TJPA � - rages- CAM ARUP
DRAFT October 2010 �
Contents
Summary
Introduction
Bay Bridge Corridor Background and Context 10
Microsimulation Model Development 13
Improvement Options 23
Future Scenario Analysis 31
SoMa Analysis 36
Further Study 45
Mini�l�i�i�T�l
Summary
The Bay Bridge Condor Congestion Study estimates the future operating conditions for
vehicles traveling across the Bay Bridge from Oalaand Into San Francisco during the peak
morning commute hours. The study utftsis a mlcrosdmulation model to analyze a 24 -mle
freeway network that ftludes the Bay Bridge, the toil plaza and metering Ilghts In Oakland,
the distribution structure ( "MacArthur Maze*), and segments of Interstates 80 (1-60), 580,
and 880 - The study predicts the severity of future vehicle queuing at the toll plaza and
assesses how this congestion could effect bus service between the East Bay and the new
Transbay Transit Center (TTC).
The analysis Indicates that tenure traffic growth along the corridor will resift in a substantial
worsening of co gesbon at the Bay Bridge toll plaza. The projected queues would block
the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes that currently serve as a bypass around the toll
plaza for Trensbay buses. These future conditions would resuh In a significant degradation
to tmnaft operations.
To Improve operating conditions along the condor, a series of potential operational and
physical Improvements are evaluated. These Improvements include the Implementation
of a westbound contralow lane along the Bay Bridge during the morning commune and
various options for accessing the contrafiow, lane on the Oakland and San Francisco
sides. A contralow, lane Incorporates a reversible travel lane. In this study, a westbound
ccntralow lane across the Bay Bridge In the rooming would utilize the leftmost travel lane
that typically serves eastbound traffic. The analysis indicates that a contraflow lane, M
conjunction with a series of other roadway Im ptovements. could help maintain fature
transit reliablity. Conceptual cost estimates and the feasibility of these improvements am
afro discussed.
The study also considers conditions for the eastbound return trip that originates In the
'South- of-MerkeC (SoMa) district of San Francisco during the afternoon commute. While
traffic heading into San Francisco In the morning can queue on freeway lanes approaching
the toil plaza In Oakland, traffic exiting San Francisco using the Bay Bridge must queue on
local Solve streets during the afternoon. This queuing can have a negative effect on local
transit and traffic operations In San Francisco. For this evaluation, a microslrnulatkm model
of 75 Intersections within the local SoMe street network was developed The Solve model
Incorporates dynamic assignment, which allows traffic to reroute as congestion builds
within the simulation model. A base year calibrated network was developed and several
potential improvements to the Bay Bridge on ramps were investigated. This analysis
suggests that the on -ramp charges have local and regional benefits, but further work is
required. The effort Is Intended as a "first -step' towards a more detailed study of these
potential Improvements.
4 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Enhancirg transportation operations and capacity along the Bay Bridge corridor Is critical for the
folowtrg reesors:
• The performance of the new TTC Is dependent on maintaining reliable and convenient bus
Irks with the East Bay
• The was" travel demand between the East Bay and San Frarvisco is apt:roacMng the
capacity of the avalable transportation modes (auto, bus, ral, forty)
• The econanic viability of downtown San Francisco, including additional development planned
for the SoMa any, Is dependent on incrsasi g transportation capacity with the East Bay
The results of the study are Intended to provide a point of discussion for pollcymakers as
Improvement options are considered In the condor.
Figure 1: Bay Bndge Comdor Study Area
Transbay
Terminal
Contron
Lww on Lowe► Dock
Merge to
Transbay
Terminal
Bus Ramp
j San Francboo
Fgure 2: Impmvemerrt Options
C4
L1
0000❑❑❑❑
Summary
Model Development
A transportation ndcroslmulation model was developed for a 24 -mile study area using the
software program VISSIM. Figure 1 presents the study area Included In the westbound AM
VISSIM model.
The model study network IncWdes fifteen freeway Interchanges serving the westbwnd
direction Into San Francisco. The VISSIM model was calibrated to October 2009 conditions at
the Bay Bridge ton plaza and the metering lights. The calibrated VISSIM model was used as a
basis for the future operations analysis.
Improvement Options
The analysis considers two different approaches to improving operations along the westbound
Bay Bridge corridor during the morning commute:
I. Alternative Metering: Increase the metering rate at the Bay Bridge metering lights to
shift the queue on to the bridge and reduce the likelihood of vehicles blocking the HOV
bypass lanes.
2 Physical Improvements: A package of physical Improvements that include a westbound
contrallow lane on the Bay Bridge, access points necessary to enter the Contrail— lane
on the East Bay side and exit the contraflow lane oo the San Francisco side of the bridge,
and extension of the HOV network In the vicinity of the toll plaza.
Figure 2 shows the package of proposed physical Improvements. The contreflow lane could
be operated as a bus/high occupancy toll (HOT) facility or as a busMck facility.
ORA.FT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 V
o❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Summary
6 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Analysis Scenarios
A series of analsis Scenarios was developer) to assess futua operating conditions along the
corridor These scenarios were developed using the calibrated VISSIM model, the Improvements
Wed above, and Mlue 2035 baseline traffic forecasts obtained from the San Francisco Count'
Transportation AWtodty i (SFCTP) travel demand model (SF- Champ). Existing bw service within
the corridor sues obtained from cu ent schedules. wl*e futlne bus servtce assumptions were
developed ham TTC planning studies and are based on total TTC capacity. Table 1 summarizes
the analysis scenarios:
Base Year
October 2009 traffic volumes and existing bus
lrequencies
• October 2009 roadway network
Future 2020 No
• 2020 Mitt volumes Interpolated from 2035 SFCTA travel
Improvements
demand model and 2035 bus frequencies
• No changes or Improvements to the roadway network
Future 2035 No
• 2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Improvements
• No changes or Improvements to the roadway network
Future 2035 With
• 2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Alternative Metering
• Increased metering rate, o charges to the network
Future 2035 Will Physical
• 2035 traffic volumes and bus t Wuencies
Improvements
• Full set of physical Improvements, no metering change
• Assumes contrallow lane operates as a HOT lane with
1,000 vehicles par hour
Future 2035 With
• 2036 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Reduced Set of Physical
No 1 -500 HOV lane, no metering change
Improvements
• Assumes contra low )ere operates as a HOT lane with
1.000 vehicles per hour
Table 1 Analysis Scenanos
Performance Measures
Performance, measures and targets were established by the consultant team In consultation with
the stakeholders In the smWy The perfonnarx:e measures are grouped Into trres categories'.
cmgeskin, transit travel time, and transit reliability. A set of targets is defined for each measure
The performance measures and targets for the westbound Bay Bridge corridor analysis are:
• congestlai
• The length of the Toll Razes queue should of extend beyond the distribution structure
• Total vehicle -hours of delay and person -hours of delay in each 2035 improvement
scenario should be less than One 2020 and 2035 No Project condition
• Transit Travel
• Transit speeds should average not less than 42 miles -per hour (mph) between the
distribution structure anti the TTC
• Notes. The distance from the distribution structure to the TTC Is approximately seven
miles. A bus traveling at 42 mph will cover this distance In about 10 minutes.
• Transit Reliability
• No Individual peak period transit trip should exceed 14 minutes betweeri the
dsMbutlon structure and the TTC.
The pefomnance measures and targets were evaluated fu each scenario based on the results of
the mlcrosimulapon modeling. Table 2 provides a summary of these results lot the B -9 AM hour
Table 2 hhdcates whether the target Is satisfied - " Pass' - or exceeds line target - "Fell'.
The results In Table 2 hhdcate that the westbound AM corridor wo id experience acceptable
operating conditions through 2020. However, the analysis predicts that condMons for both
transit and autos would degrade to unacceptable levels by 2035. The two Physical Improvement
Scenarios could substantially Improve mobility through the corridor particularly, for transit. The
results Indicate that the physical it provsmanis examined in this am* have clear
operating berhefits.
Table 2 Performance Measums
Review and Conclusions
San Francisco employment is pmlected to increase by about 50 percent over the next 25
years Already 40,000 workers commute into the city from the East Bay in the peak hour,
simply projecting a 50 percent Increase beyond the current use will create demand beyond the
peak hour rapacity of the Bay Bridge and BART
The study used several analysis tools including
A detailed microamulation model of the AM peak period commute testing a range of
improvements. Including aherrlative toll plaza metering and physical projects. The physical
Improvements included a westbound bus corttrallow lane on the Bay Bridge that could
operate as bus/HOT lane or a bus/tmck lane. other improvements included new ramps
to enter and exit the contrallow lane, as well an extension of the HOV network in the East
Bay
A detailed microsimulation model of the SoMa area in downtown San Francisco studied
PM peak period conditions on local streets that serve afternoon commute traffic accessing
the eastbound Bay Brdge
❑❑❑,--1❑D❑❑
Summary
The major conclusions of the Bay Bridge Cori Congestion Study are
AM Westbound
The Bay Bridge and the toll plaza are currently are congested on most clays, however,
vehicle queues do not typically extend back from the toll plaza to the distribution st —tom.
The HOV bypass lanes are not typically blocked, which allows for acceptable bus
operations
With projected Increases in traffic along the corridor queuing will worsen and routinely
block the Hi bypass lanes in the future.
Transbay buses will not meet transit performance targets by 2035, which will limit the
performance of the Transbay Transit Center
The physical Improvements show considerable promise for maintaining bus travel times
and schedule reliability along the corridor. while also providing potential Increases In
person -rip capacity
PM Eastbound /SoMa
• Based or. a preliminary analysis of the SoMa area a reconfiguration of the Bay Bridge
on ramps and streets feeding these ramps could resuR In both Improvements in regional
access to the Bay Bridge and a betterment of local circulation for transit.
• SOMa traffic is Impacted by the land configuration of the eastbound Wast Approach and
Bay Bddge
• The SoMa model development has produced a valuable tool for future study of the area
Overall, the study has Identified existing and future constraints along the condor, developed
tools to effectively analyze improvement options, and generated ideas that warrant further
study
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 7
Gongestlon TGII Plaza queue toot
P
Beyond Dist Structure
Total Vehicle Him of Delay
2.350 2,725
3,208 3.680
2.168
2,288
Chg from 2009 Base
N/A
16%
37%
57%
-8%
-3%
Year l %)
Chg from 2035 Base
N/A
WA
N/A
75%
32%
-29%
Case l %I
Total Person Him of Delay
3.583
3.937
4,720
6,256
1254
3.426
Chg from 2009 Base
N/A
1091.
32%
75%
-9%
-4%
Year l %I
Chg from 2035 Base
N/A
h A
WA
33%
31%
Case 1 %1
Transit Travel
Transit speeds should
FEW
46 rrVh - , -
- -
53 mph = Pill
average not less than 42
mph (measured from 1 -80)
Transit Reliability
No individual peak period
11.5 min = Pass
12 min = Pass
15 min = Fell
20 miri = Fall
10 min = Pass
10 min = Pass
transit trip should exceed
14 minutes (measured
-
tmm 1 -80)
Table 2 Performance Measums
Review and Conclusions
San Francisco employment is pmlected to increase by about 50 percent over the next 25
years Already 40,000 workers commute into the city from the East Bay in the peak hour,
simply projecting a 50 percent Increase beyond the current use will create demand beyond the
peak hour rapacity of the Bay Bridge and BART
The study used several analysis tools including
A detailed microamulation model of the AM peak period commute testing a range of
improvements. Including aherrlative toll plaza metering and physical projects. The physical
Improvements included a westbound bus corttrallow lane on the Bay Bridge that could
operate as bus/HOT lane or a bus/tmck lane. other improvements included new ramps
to enter and exit the contrallow lane, as well an extension of the HOV network in the East
Bay
A detailed microsimulation model of the SoMa area in downtown San Francisco studied
PM peak period conditions on local streets that serve afternoon commute traffic accessing
the eastbound Bay Brdge
❑❑❑,--1❑D❑❑
Summary
The major conclusions of the Bay Bridge Cori Congestion Study are
AM Westbound
The Bay Bridge and the toll plaza are currently are congested on most clays, however,
vehicle queues do not typically extend back from the toll plaza to the distribution st —tom.
The HOV bypass lanes are not typically blocked, which allows for acceptable bus
operations
With projected Increases in traffic along the corridor queuing will worsen and routinely
block the Hi bypass lanes in the future.
Transbay buses will not meet transit performance targets by 2035, which will limit the
performance of the Transbay Transit Center
The physical Improvements show considerable promise for maintaining bus travel times
and schedule reliability along the corridor. while also providing potential Increases In
person -rip capacity
PM Eastbound /SoMa
• Based or. a preliminary analysis of the SoMa area a reconfiguration of the Bay Bridge
on ramps and streets feeding these ramps could resuR In both Improvements in regional
access to the Bay Bridge and a betterment of local circulation for transit.
• SOMa traffic is Impacted by the land configuration of the eastbound Wast Approach and
Bay Bddge
• The SoMa model development has produced a valuable tool for future study of the area
Overall, the study has Identified existing and future constraints along the condor, developed
tools to effectively analyze improvement options, and generated ideas that warrant further
study
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 7
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Introduction
The Challenge
The Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) forecasts that San Francisco employment
will increase by approximately 240.000 (about 50 %) by 2035. The traditional downtown job
centers. the Financial District and the 'South -of- Market' (SoMa) area will add more than
100,000 of these jobs. Another 50.000 jobs could be added along the US- 101 /Bsyshore
corridor In Priority Development Areas designated by San Francisco and ABAG. To the
Immedlate south of the San Frencisco -San Mateo County Une, Brisbane, South San Francisco
and the San Francisco International Airport area are projected to add almost 40,000 jobs. Many
of Chase job centers am not located In transit -rich corridors .
Traditionally, East Bay residents have Ailed about 40 percent of the jobs in downtown San
Francisco, 15 percent of the lobs In the 101 /Bayshore Corridor, and 5 percent of the jobs in
the South San Francisco and Brisbane arse. This pattern that will likely continue as population
growth in the City is projected to be less than the Increase in jobs (160,000 new residents
versus 240,000 new jobs)-
Already, 40.000 workers commute Into the city from the East Bay In the peak hour simply
projecting a 50% Increase beyond teh currant use will create demand beyond the peak hour
capacity of the Bay Bridge and BART. However, the Bay Bridge is already at capacity and
commuter call service offered by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has
capacity for only 8,000 to 12.000 additional trips per how. The new Transbay Transit Center
(TTC) will provide additional Transbay capacity on a new and expanded bus deck However,
bus operators are Concerned that future traffic growth may compromise the operations of
the HOV lanes that allow buses to bypass queues at the Bay Bridge toll plaza. it Is likely that
demand for job access to transit- deficlent locations on U.S. 101 will also compete with existing
automobile access to San Francisco. These forecasts suggest that the transportation capacity
Into San Francisco from the East Bay will not support the level of expected development and
could have negative quality -ol -pre Impacts.
In the SOW area, the local street system often gridocks with afternoon commute traffic bound
for the Bay Bridge. While traffic heading Into San Francisco In the morning can queue on
freeway Was approaching the toll playa In Oakland traffic exiting San Francisco must queue
on the local SoMa streets. Currently, traffic demand from the Financial District and SoMe
job centers greatly exceeds the capacity of the Bay Bridge on -ramps In the afternoon. The
forecast Increase in jobs and residents In downtown San Francisco, coupled with the corridor
capacity constraints Identified In the westbound AM analysis, will contribute to worsening
queing conditions on locals Soma meets.
8 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Study Approach
Arup was commissioned by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and AC Transit
to develop an Initial study of the Impacts of future demand on the Bay Bridge Corridor,
Cambridge Systematics provided traffic forecasts and reviewed the microsimulation models.
LCW Consulting provided analysis and oversight . The objectfve of the study ls to.
Develop a high-quality analysis that produces an estimate of future operating conditions
for cars, trucks and buses along the Bay Bridge corridor under congested conditions.
This analysis will identity potential Improvement options and serve as a useful case study
of condor planning In the San Francisco Bay Area. The intent Is to produce a report that
the Federal Transit Administration and other project sponsors can share with planning and
transportation agencies to help motivate the discussion M Improving mobility along the
Bay Bridge corridor,
The SoMa PM analysis considers a different study arse with a different set of constraints
than the westbound AM analysis. The Solve PM component of the analysis considers a very
large and complex urban grid network, which poses a series of modeling challenges. These
challenges have Iknited the scope of the SoMa analysis presented In this study However, a
set of potential improvements are Introduced and Investigated.
To complete these expectations, the study's work tasks include,
1 Study of the Bay Bodge Corridor Background and Context
2. Microsimulation Model Development
3. Improvement Options
4, Future Scenario Analysis
5, Solve Model Development and Analysis
6, Further Study
Previous Studies
The Bey Bridge corridor has been the subject of several studies dating back more than
twenty years, usually under the sponsorship and direction of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commisslon (MTC), . These studles Include:
The 1 -80 Corridor Study, issued by MTC in 1988 and prepared with
consultant assistance:
The report noted tat between 1980 and 2005 workers would Increase fester than jobs In
the corridor (from Flichmond to Solaro County) and that even with more than $800 million
N highway Improvements, 'I -BO Is projected to experience severe peak hour congastlon In
the year 2000 from Vallejo to the Bey Bridge, due to Increases In commudng.• Among the
projects recommended were the 1 -80 HOV lanes, which are now In operation. In addition. the
study considered an 1-80 'Burs FacAiW to save time on the Alameda County portion of 1 -80
as well as the Bay Bridge (not Implemented), and also additional express bus Improvements
and other widening, arterial and park and ride Improvements. Many, but not ell, of the
Improvements were completed, including the HOV lanes, the park and dde facilities, and the
arterial (San Pablo Avenue) Improvements.
San Francisco Bay Crossing Study, prepared for MTC by Korve
Engineering, Inc. (1991):
In 1991, under a request from the state Senate, MTC eramined 11 'build' aftemadves to
Improve Transbay travel. These ranged from new bridges and tunnels for both cars, and tm4s
to additional ferries and airport to airport connections. The options were narrowed to five
major concepts:
•
High Speed Ferry Service
• 1 -380 to 1 -238 IS. San Francisco to Hayward) Bridge with BART
• BART SFO -OAK connection
• New BART Transbay Tube
• Intercity Rail Connection
The key findings were that:
• Planned and programmed Improvements Including widening the San Mateo- Hayward
Bridge and more frequent BART service would provide enough capacity to accommodate
Trensbay travel to 2010, although congestion would Increase.
• The new bridge plus BART would deny the greatest dumber of trips but would only reduce
the duration of the Bay Bridge peak period and net the volume of the peak her. In
addition, there would be significant lend use Impacts and environmental Impacts with new
bridges or tunnel options.
San Francisco Bay Crossing Study, prepared for MTC by Korve
Engineering, Inc. (2002):
About 10 years after the 1991 study, MTC On response to a request from Senster Dianne
Feinstein) studied six different alternatives for Trenlsbey, travel hiduding a new Bridge (again
between 4380 and 1 -238) as well as Improvements to the San Mateo Bridge, west side
Dumbarton Bridge access Improvements, and Dumbarton rall service . A new BART/
cortvannonai rall tunnel was else considered, as wall as a lower cost expmss bus and HOV
system Improvements. The express bus/FIOV system Included additional HOV lades, more
express bus service In Tmnsbay corridors, and additional park-and-ride lots for Transbay buses.
The key recommendadans from the study'. Policy Committee were that:
Lower cost opemdonal improvements could be implemented . as a near-term response
to irelfic congestion In the bridge corddors. These Included eddidmal HOV lanes and
Toll Plaza imptover ments, modest BART capacity Increases, and additional express bus
service.
New crossings will be extremely. costly, In some cases requiring funding equal to or
exceeding the entire emotunt of new reglonal funds estimated by MTC'. RTP to be
available over the next 25 years. The report noted that a'major new Bay crossing has
Intrigued the public for a long time, but has not yet received a critical mass of support.'
Use existing funds to reestablish San Mateo Bridge bus service.
Pursue new bridge toll funds (Which were later approved by the Legislature and the voters
In RM2) for reversible lanes on the San Mateo- Hayward Bridge, Dumbarton rail basic
service, additional carpool lanes and BART corn capacity Improvements.
❑❑❑ ❑q❑❑❑
Bay Bridge Corridor Background
Further studies should include:
• Higher cost bridge HOV knpr ements (Including an 1 -580 HOW lane and other
Improvements on the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges)
• Dumbarton approach Improvements
• BART core capacity Improvements
• Express bus physical Improvements Including HOV Improvements that would benefit
express buses
The detailed analysis noted that the express bus/cerpool and operational Improvement
alternative was extremely cost effective, relative to other altemedves. This alternative Included
HOV lanes and spot operational traffic Improvements on bridge approaches, tell plaza
modifications including electronic toll collection, Inommental expansion of Tmnsbay BART
service, and expended express bus service In all three bridge corridors with perk- and -ride lot
expansion and additions.
The study noted that the five to six new HOV lanes or extensions near the Bay Bridge have
mart, but recommended further study and analysis. The study stated that I systemwide
and Transbay capacity plans that were under development by BART were Implemented,
projected demand for Transbay BART service could be handled by adding additional trains
and pursuing strategies for faster boarding and alighting of passengers In the downtown San
Francisco stations (through the use o1 three -door cars). The study also noted that "adequate
platform space In downtown San Francisco stations may become a capacity constraint by or
before 2025' and also noted that 'further study Is needed to refine our understanding of BART
Tmnsbay capacity constraints and needs.' Some of those studies have been conducted, but
few BART capeclty Increases have been implemented.
DRAFT I ARUP ( OCTOBER 2010 9
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Bay Bridge Corridor Background
2002 HOV Lane Master Plan, prepared for MTC by DKS Associates (2002)
In 2002, MTC commissioned the HOV Master Plan, which identified the use and benefits
of the HOV system and identified an overall vislon for a regional HOV network. The general
conclusions were that most Bay Area HOV lanes were performing within Caltrans criteria with
volumes ranging from about 2,000 vehicles per hour (U.S. 101 in Santa Clara) to a midrange
of about 1.300 vehicles per hour on 1 -80. 1 -880 and U.S. 101 IMarm). Some routes have fewer
vehicles. In addition, the HOV Master Plan forecast additional Increases In usage on most
routes and forecast use of new HOV facilities.
The HOV Master Plan called for an additional 300 miles of HOV lanes, costing about 517
billion. In addition, the Ran called for a network of express buses to use the HOV lanes,
and suggested that buses be provided with in -line freeway - stations with good Intemadal
connections to save thna, decrease operating costs and encourage ridership. The Plan also
noted fret some but not all HOV lames had excess capacity In the present, but perhaps not In
the tuture and HOT could be considered on some corridors. The Plan did rote that there was
excess capacity In all conldors In the off -peak and reverse peak periods.
Bay Area High- Occupancy/Toll Network Study, Final Report (and Update),
MTC with assistance from PBAmericas and ECONorthwesl, 2007 and 2008
Moving from the 2002 Bay Crossing Study and the 2002 HOV Master Plan. MTC anaWed
the impacts and Ueneffts of converting the HOV network into a HOT network. The anetysis
indicated that by tolling HOV facilities the network could be built earlier and could free -up
programmed RTP funds to other projects. The Study noted that HOT revenues could be
made available to fund express bus service in he HOT corridors.
The Future of Downtown (San Francisco(, San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association (SPUR), March 2009
SPUR produced a policy paper that compared ABAGS future year employrrent and population
pmlections against both he ratys developrrrera (Zoning) capacity and as transportation
capacity. About 40 percent of downtown San Francisco jobs are held by East Bay residents
and SPUR projected that within 25 years peak hour demand from new jobholders would
exceed available transit capacity pncluMg BART and expanded bus and feny services).
Within 10 years it is lkey, that BART will be near capacity, although the opening of the new
Transbay Transit Center represents new near -term capacity in the conidor
10 BAY BRIDGF CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Fgurs 3. Westbound AM Study Area
Existing Transportation Context
Figure 3 shows the westbound Bay Bridge highway system that Is Included In the study area,
with the ramps and the major gateways that make up the extents of the freeway network.
The bridge, which connects Oakland with San Francisco, was opened in 1936 as a highway/
ral facility, In the early 1960s the railroad on the lower deck was removed and the Cattrans
converted the Bridge to five lanes of traffic in each direction, with each bridge deck carrying
a one -way flow The current "cantilever' section of the bridge, which connects the East Bay
to Yerbe Buena Lsiand (YBI), is a double deck steel structure, This section Is being replaced
with a new concrete structure featuring a self anchored suspension bridge new YBI - the new
bridge will maintain five lanes In each direction but wil feature wider lanes with full shoulders.
West of YBI, the suspension span (actually two suspension bridges connected at the
anchorage structure) consists of five lanes on each deck, with lanes ranging from 11 feet -7
inches to 11 feet -11 Inches wide. Access to and from Treasure lsiand/YBI occurs via a series
of substandard ramps that pose significant challenges to drivers entering and existing the
mainline traffic stream on the bridge.
t
12MOL . Ate.
Rgure 4: Bay Bridge Suspension Spen Roadway Cross-Section
Figure 4 Illustrates a section of the suspension span.
Approaching the Bay Bridge on the East Bay side, 1 -80 and 1 -580 converge at a complex
(unction known as the 'distribution structure'. The distribution structure consists of a number
of freeway connector ramps that funnel traffic from 1 -80 and 1 -580 into the toll plaza area at
the base of the bridge. 1 -880 headed to the Bay Bridge bypasses the distribution structure
and converges with the other freeway approaches at the toll plaza. A Dank of metering lights
is located 1,000 feet west of the toll plaza complex. The connector ramps from each freeway
Into the toll plaza area include dedicated high - occupancy, vehicle (HOVOransit lanes that
bypass the toll plaza and the metering lights. The HOV lanes serve as a queue jump for HOVs
and bu9es around the congestion that develops at the toll plaza during a typical weekday
morning commute.
Figure 5 shows a schematic drawing of the toll plaza (as of September 2009), the three
interstate freeways that approach the Bey Bridge from Oakland, and the number of lanes
provided to each of the three payment types served at the toll plaza: Cash, Electronic Toll
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Bay Bridge Corridor Background
Collection (ETC) or "FasTrak', and HOV DtxIng the AM peak period, which is defined In this
study as 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM, lane assignment$ by payment type are:
• Lanes 1 - 2: HOV (serves I -8B0 and 1 -580)
• Lanes 3 - 6: Cash (serves 1 -580)
• Lanes 7 - 11: FasTrak (serves 1 -80 and 1 -580)
• Lanes 12 - 17: Cash (serves 1 -80 and I -880)
• Lane 18: FasTrak (serves 1 -880 and Grand Ave)
• Lane 19 - 20: HOV (serves 1 -880, Grand Ave, and 1 -80 HOV)
Traffic congestion on most weekdays occurs throughout the entire morning commute period.
Day -to -day variations caused by lane blocking Incidents or mirror demand fluctuations can
greatly exacerbate the normal congestion experience. As a result, corgestbn through the toll
plaza area and the distribution structure can also vary. Queues typically extend from the toll
plaza back several thousand feet. However, there is sufficient storage so that queues do no
extend back to the distribution structure during *normal" operating days. A normal operating
day is one without an Incident (e.g. • traffic accident or lane closure).
Metering Toll plaza - TolAng Equipment Peak a nasza es
Bay BrIdge
LI�MS _
= -----
To San Francisco .— Direction of Traffic w �- --From Oakland
� 1
Peak j0d measa es
H,1rat -0N„tMe.peNxwnlGYVh+1MMr -pe.L, N
o rrlgliOrkuryrKr Verxrk Law awd rauml
Figure 5: TON Plaza Complex (source: MTC)
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 11
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Bay Bridge Corridor Background
Cakrans policy 1s to accept queues at the toil plaza In lieu of excessive congestion on the
bridge spans. To accomplish this goal, Caltrans monitors the flow of traffic at the western base
of the Bay Bridge using loop detectors and activates the metering lights once the bridge's
capacity is exceeded. This occurs at a flow rate of approximately 9,300 vehicles per hour.
Once the metering lights are activated, Cal cans adjusts the rate to maintain this level of traffic
flow onto the bridge. This effectively minindzes congestion and queuing on the structure.
Once activated. the metering II¢rts are the controlling factor for vehicle capacity In the corridor
The presence of queues upstream of the metering lights is a clear Indication that traffic
demand currently exceeds the capacity of the bridge.
Carpools and buses traveling In the HOV bypass lanes avoid most of the congestion
associated with the toll plaza and the metering lights, while queues in the general purpose
lanes extend upstream from the metering lights Into the toll plaza complex and beyond. These
queues can extend into the weaving portions of the distribution structure and knpact traffic
flow on the multiple freeways connecting Into the Toll Plaza. For transit and HOVs. these
queues already Impact operations on the worst days. The West Grand connection for transit/
HOVs is especially Impacted.
Figure 6: Toll Plena
In the AM peak hour, the Bridge Corridor serves more than 40.000 westbound person -trips by
auto and transit nodes. AC Transit carries about 3,000 westbound passengers on the Bridge
In the morning peak how. while BART carries about 14,000 westbound passengers in the AM
peak how Table 3 provides a breakdown of existing AM travel demand from the East Bay to
San Francisco:
Vehicles: 9,300
Auto Passengers: 23.000
AC Transit Passengers: 3.000
BART Passengers: 14,000
Source: Cambridge Systematics, 2007
Table 3., AM Peak Now Travel - Westbound Bay Bridge
Every study conducted for MTC over the last 20 years has predicted that peak period demand
In the Bay Bridge Trensbay corridor would surpass the total transportation capacity of the
corridor during some horizon year, which has generally been recognized as sometime between
2010 and 2020. While the current economic recession has likely moved that point out a few
years, it 5 likely to occur within a generation Every study gives buses a crucial role In bridging
this capacity gap.
12 ..RIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
I Data Collection I
Base Year Traffic Estimation
VISSIM Network Development
Oct— 2009 Fraewey Loop Data Review 2008 BATA Buad New VISSIM
BATA Toll Plaza ryeMB) and Ramp Bay Bridge Toll Rveaway Network
Volumes Counts (whm avaaaoie) Plaza Models
Icamaidga Systematical
InBi01 O -D Traff , Flaws Initial VISSIM Neh-k
VISSIM Base Year Model Callbration
Load O-0 Tratilc Flows
VISSIM Bese Veer
Load VISSIM Network
latober zoos)
Adjust traffic demands
and Payment compositions
(NOV Fm rah, Cash)
qun Model n Iteretlona
(10 times)
Atlluet VISSIM
Nelwtxk
Doan the Model
NO
...... • • .......
Satisfy Calllxetidn ..............
.
Standard.?
YES
Calibrated
Model
librated
Mod ei
Fu-L,� re 12020!20351
ano Analysts
Figure 7: Bay Bndge AM Model VISSIM Development and Calibration
-...-
Micro§mulation Model Development
Methodology
To accurately model traffic conditions, Arup developed a mlcrosimulatlon model of the
westbound Bay Bridge comidor using the software program VISSIM'. VISSIM Is 0 stochastic,
mina- rnodal, microscopic simulation program that modals the interaction of inclMdual users
( drivers, transit vehicles, pedestrians) In complex freeway and urban transportation systems.
The modeling process Includes developing a calibrated Base Year (2009) model that replicates
current conditions. The calibrated model, along with future traffic projects, becomes the
basis for developing a Future (2035) No Project model. The Future (2035) No Project scenario
provides an estimate of how severe congestion along the corridor could become without any
addltlonal Infrastructure Improvements. This analysis serves as a basis for developing potential
improvernant options for the corridor. This section details the development of the Base Year
(2009) calibrated model and the Future (2035) No Project model
Model Scope
The study analyzes traffic and transit operating condtions during the AM peak period
commute for the freeways carrying traffic across the Bay Bridge from the East Bay and
Oakland Into San Francisco.
The study area Includes the following
• Approximately 24 miles of mainline freeway and 15 freeway Interchanges
• Three Interstate freeway corridors In the East Bay with the following gateways:
• Interstate 80 (1 -80) westbound north of the 1 -80A -580 merge In Albany
• 1 -580 eastbound north of the 1 -80 /1 -580 merge In Albany
• 1 -580 westbound east of the State Route 24 (SR 24)/1 -980 )unction in Oaldand
• 1 -880 northbound south of the Jackson Street on-ramp In Oaldand
• 1 -80 in San Francisco to a point south of the US- 101 /Central Freeway junction
Base Year (2009) VISSIM Model Development
and Calibration
Rgure 7 presents a flow chert that depicts the development and calibration of the Base Year
(2009) VISSIM model. This section details this process.
' PIV Amdmdz
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBIER 2010 13
0000❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Data Collection, Field Observations, and VISSIM Model Development
The Bay Bridge corridor model was based on an eadler VISSIM model of the toll plaza
area developed by Cambridge Systematics In 2006 for the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA),
The operation of the toil plaza, the metering light algorithm. and core vehicle performance
and driver behavior assumptions were incorporated from this earlier work, The Cambridge
Systematics model focused prim ff;y on the toll plaza and was calibrated to volume and travel
time data collected specKcally,for the BATA study. Based on this eviler work and calibration,
VISSIM Is considered a valid tool to model toll plaza and freeway operations along this corridor.
For the Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study the original Cambridge Systematics model
was expended to Include a larger portion of 1 -80, 1 -580 and 1 -880 In the East Bay and a larger
portion of the highway system through downtown San Francisco. The Bay Bridge AM peak
period model contains the following features:
• The VISSIM model area Includes about 24 rah s of freeway mainMe
• The model runs fora five -hour AM peak period (5:00 AM to 10:00 AM)
• The first hour (5:00 to 6:00 AM) Is included as a'warm -up' period to congest the network;
no simulation data or statistics ere collected for this warn -up period
• The model analysis Is conducted for the four-hour period from 6:00: to 10:00 AM
• Traffic volumes ere loaded In 15= m1nute increments
Only the Inbound direction to San Francisco is modeled
• The =at toll plaza configuration from September. 2009 Is included
• Three major tog payment types are Included and summarized In the model calibration:
Cash, Decuonic Toll Collection (FasTrak), and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
• The tell plaza metering light signal algorithm Is Included
• Existing Transbay bus routes were modeled using cement schedule information
Field observations, a review of previous studies, . and en Initial date analysis Indicate a number
of factors that determine traffic flow and capacity through the toll plaza area Key findings of
existing practices inn de:
• The metering lights are activated between 6:15 and 6:30 AM when throughput measured
at the five lanes at the base of the Bay Bridge exceeds a threshold of approMmately.9,000
to 9,200 vehicles per hour.
• Once the metering lights are activated, a brief 'all -red' phase Is shown to allow a small
queue to develop at the metering fight stop bar.
14 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Once the metering lights are activated. the metering cycle length and green time for Cash
and FasTrak vehicles is determined by a complex algorithm that considers and prioritizes
the throughput of HOV vehicles measured at the toll plaza while keeping the total
now constant.
The metering algorithm monitors HOV flows on a one - minute basis and allocates the green
time to Cash and FesTmklanes at the metering lights.
When the metering lights am activated, queues quickly stack up and Wend beck through
the toll plaza complex
Upstream traffic demand at the approaches Into the toll plaza Increases steadily
throughout the AM peak period until approximately 6:30 AM, when demand to the Bay
Bridge begins to subside.
Base Year Traffic Demand
Traffic demand data for the base year model conditions was developed from a number
of sources:
Detailed toll plaza volumes (by lane and payment type, for one -hour and five- minute
intervals) were obtained for a period from January 2006 to December 2009
Freeway mainline traffic volumes (hourly and 5- rtdnute Intervals) were developed using loop
detector data obtained from the Freeway. Performance Measurement System (PeMS)
Ramp volumes in the East Bay vmm developed from counts published In the 1-80
Integrated Corridor Mobility Project (DKS, January 2010)
Ramp volumes in San Francisco were developed fnem,00unm collected by Arup, Fehr 8
Peers, and AECOM for other projects
Origin and destination data used to develop vehicle murdngs In VISSIM were obtained from
base year model runs of regional travel demand models developed by MTC and the San
Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)
These data were used to define the fnitlal traffic volume inputs and distribution of vehicular
demand throughout the model area. The freffic volume inputs at origins In the model were
developed on a 15- minute basis to better control demands within the model, Development
of the model required a cornplete set of Internally consistem and balanced traffic stows
throughout the entire corridor. The toll plaza data represented the most robust damsel and
was the focus of the overall calibration effort. Where h was necessary, traffic volumes
were interpolated and balanced using.the best available traffic counts and travel demand
model Information.
Base Year (2009) Model Calibration
Calibration is an iterative process that Involves adjusting model parameters to produce a result
that closely replicates field measured traffic conditions. The calibration strategy Includes:
• Identifying appropriate calibration data and targets
• Identltying the appropriate model parameters to adjust or calibrate
• Modifying the selected parameters until traffic flow and capacity wgsfes the
calbration targets
The calibration process Involved collaboration between theconsulffng team and Celtrans,
MTC, end AC Transit. In addidon, Cambddge Systematics conducted an independent review
of the. base year model callbretion and found no major issues with the _models structure
or assumptions.
The Rey Bridge nodal calibration must:
• Replicate the distribution of vehicles by payment type (Cash, FasTrak, HOV) across the toll
plaza lanes
Replicate a typical hourly volume profile, at the tog plaza
• Replicate the metering light algorithm, Including when the metering lights we activated and
the green time allotted to Cash and FasTrak vehicles at the metering light stop bar
• Replicate traffic flow and queuing at the major freeway approaches (1-80,1-580,1-880) from
the distntiudon structure Into the toll plaza area
It should be noted that congestion throughout the corridor Is highly variable end results from
a number of different factors, Including: existing traffic demand exceeding the capacity of the
toll plaza, a high number of lane blocking incldems (e.g,, accidents, vehicle stalls, etc.), and
roadway geometric issues (e.g., lane drops, short weaving sections, etc.). Because of this
variability, the constdtent team armyZed the toll plaza and PSMS damsels to Identify .8 set of
potentlal observation days during October 2009 that experienced normal operating conditions
with no mejw incidents. October 2009 was selected because it was one month after the '
Installation of- the 'S- curve' on the Bay Bridge. Eleven mid -week days (Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday) were considered: these days occurred before the eyebar failure and subsequent
closure of the Bay Bridge (aftemoon of October 27 to the morning of November 2).
Figure 8 plots the hourly volumes (5:00 - 10:10 AM) at the tall plaza for the eleven analysis
days in October 2009. The minimum and maximum volumes for each hour are noted. October
11 was eliminated because an Incident upstream of the distribution structure constrained
the vehicle demand reaching the toll plaza. Of the remaining ten days, eight experienced the
highest observed toll plaza throughput between &00 and 7.00 AM, while two experienced the
peak between 7:00 and 8:00 AM.
October 8 was selected as the basis for the VISSIM model calibration because the hourly
traffic profile is within the observed ranges plotted on Figure 7. AN of the upstream and
downstream traffic Inputs In the VISSIM model were based Initially on these October 6 traffic
volumes. Using this one day to validate the model rather than an average at several days Is
preferred because averaging would smooth or flatten out the hourly traffic profile, or 'peeking'
profile. that is typically observed over the five -hour AM peak. The hourly traffic profile Is a
critical determinant of traffic operations and queuing at the toll plaza and along the entire
corridor. As Figure 7 Illustrates. October 8 falls in the meWan of the 'typical days' that were
evaluated as the basis tor calibration.
The breakdown of traffic by payment type at the toll plaza Is also an Important component
of the calibration. Table 4 provides a summary of the traffic payment compositions for the
calibration day.
V
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza AM Hourly Volumes
10,000
, 530
CASH %
31%
27%
20%
22%
28%
Fr %
50%
45%
35%
38%
48%
HOV%
18%
28%
45%
41%
24%
Table 4: Traffic Payment Compositions
The core driver behavior and vehicle performance parameters developed for the previous
Cambridge Systematics toll plaza model were left unchanged. In particular, Cambridge
Systematics developed a more aggressive lane charging driver behavior for use around the
toll plaza complex to hell with the quick lane merges and lane drops. These lane changing
behaviors were used on various links around the toll plaza to help with the model calibration.
❑❑ ❑o❑❑❑❑
Mlcro§mulatlon Model Development
Figure 8: Bay Bridge Toll Plaza Calibration Volumes
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 15
Bay Bridge Toll Plaza AM Hourly Volumes
10,000
!,S!! !'04
!,lti
9,000
l,7Oi
8,000
/
/
7,000
/
6,000
-- Other mid -week days —Oct 8 (Calibration Day)
--
O Min Obs (by Hour) O Max Obs (by Hour)
!,!7!
-- — Calibrated Model
5,000
5:00.6:00 6:00 -7,00 7:00 -8:00 8:00.900 9:00.10:00
Figure 8: Bay Bridge Toll Plaza Calibration Volumes
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 15
0000❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Calibration Criteria
Calibration typicaly Involves comparing various measures of effectiveness (MOEs) between the
model: and observed values. Vehicle throughput, travel time and vehicle queues are commonly
used MOEs. In addition, a visual audit of the simulation video provides a useful really check.
The calibration presented In this study focuses on the traffic throughput at the toll plan by
hour and by payment type. Spmlel attention was also paid to the shape of the houry volume
contour and the activation of the metering lights. Calibrated models should reflect these
factors as it Is primary Influence on the accumulation of queuing and congestion upstream of
the toll plaza.. Upstream volumes at the approaches from 010 distribution structure to the toll
plazawera rionitored. The MOEs were compared between the base and future year models
to assess the effectiveness of various improvements in the analysis.
The primary performance measure selected was the GEH statistic, which is standard traffic
modeling measure used to evaluate the accuracy of flows given wide ranges In observed
volumes. The GEH formula Is named for Its Inventor, Geoffrey E. Havers, a traffic engineer who
developed the statistic In the 1970s. The GEH formula is:
GEH= 2(M -C)°
M +C
Where
M = modeled volume
C = observed volume
Caltrens staff recommended using a target GEH statistic of less then 2.0 at the toll plaza (the
lower the GEH the better the ft between modeled and observed volumes) because this is the
primary bottleneck along the corridor. For an observed volume of 9.000 vehicles,. a: GEH of 2.0
represents a clIfference of only +y- 100 vehicles. In this example, a GEH of 2.0 translates Into a
2 percent difference.
Amp calculated the GEH statistic for each hour across the tour -hour analysis period. GEH
was also calculated by payment type (Cash, FasTrak. HOV) to ensure vehicle processing Is
modeled accurately. This criterion exceeds guidelines established by the Federal Hghway
Administration (FHWA) and Celtrans, which typically cal fare GEH below 5.0 for 85 percent of
observed counts.
16 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Calibration Actions
The toll plaza and upstream approaches were the focus of the calibration. The following Issues
were Identified and addressed during the calibration:
• Vehicle speed and to. upon activation of the metering lights - Vehicles are metered at a
lower rate upon activation of the metering lights In order to slow vehicles and expedite the
creation of a. queue.
• Vehicle lane choice at the toll plaza - Fixed vehicle routes were terminated upstream of the
toll booths. allowing vehicles the freedom to make lane choices based on qua re length.
• HOV merging behavior downstream of tot plaza - the large volume of HOVS caused long
queues as they attempt to merge with mainline traffic. Lane merge priorities,were set to
minimize queuing and prevent It from spilling back to the tollbooths.
In order to achieve modeling results Iii accordance with the calibration criteria; adjustments
to the modal Inputs were made. The following Inputs to the model were adjusted during
calibration to achieve the validated model:
• Hourly odgin destination date - Relative flows between origin and destination points
• 15 -min demand proflles - Absolute traffic flows from an origin
• Hourly vehicle payment types - Thepercentage of vehicles using each payment type at
the toll plena
•
Metering light algorithm - The Stan and end times of the metering lights as well as the
metering rate In each hour
Calibration Results
The VISSIM model was run 10 times with different random seeds. Executing multiple runs with
different seed numbers allows the model to capture random variations in driver behaviors and
decision making.
Table 5. provides the calibration results. The modeled volumes and the GEH results are
.averaged across the ten runs and are summarized for each hour and payment type
combination (e.g.,; 6:00 - 7:00 AM for HOV). The GEH results of each payment type at each
hour ere the primary focus as they provide a higher resolution of traffic flow - 75% of modeled
flows have a GEH < 2.0 and 100% are under 5.0. A full summery of the toll plaza results for
each of the ten slmulatlonruns are Included In Appendix A.
Dial
Observed
9,284
I
9,000
8,893
8.530
35,707
Modeled
9;234
9,075
8,735
%504
35,548
OV
Observed
2,5&5
4.012
3,609
2;085
12;291
Modeled
2,593
4,015
3,558
2,185
12,350
sfi
Observed
2,533
1,824
1,917
2,358
8,632
Modeled
2,645
1,808
1 1;996
2,374
8,823
asTmk
Observetl
4,166
3,164
3,367
4,087
14;764
Modeled
3,996
3,253
3.182
3,945
14;375
GEH'
Total
r
0.52
r.r
0.79
1.68
0.28
0.84
HOV
0.16
0.04
0.86
2.17
0.54
Cash
2.20
0.37
1,79
0.32
2:04
FasTmk
2.86
1.56
324
2.24
3:39
GEH = Statistic used to compere noodled voiumts to observed traffic•. counts. A target GEH <
2.0 Is the goel,aL'hdrgh a GEH < 5,0 is a typical modelrig target
Table 5: Cafibration Results
❑❑ ❑a❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
6'.00AM
7:0GAM
8:OOAM:
- -
v�
p�aaat rr`ar��+
9:OOAM'.
toa
10:OOAM
Figure 9 Caiibraton Queuing by Flow
The results presented In Table 5 Indicate the following
• AN of the GEH statistics (100 pement) are less than 5.0
• AN of the Toll Plaza hourty totals have a GEH less than 2.0
• 70 percent of the hour7payrnem type combinations have a GEH less than 2.0
• 30 percent of the hour /payment type combinations have a GEH between 2.0 and 4.0
These low GEH statistics represent model volumes that are within 5 percent of the observed
values. Small differences do exist, but these are caused by the activation and operation of the
metering lights. As stated previously the metering logic In the model differs slightly from the
actual logic used in the field. The consistently low GEH statistics indcate that the model Is
reasonably replicating throughput at the toll plaza and the metering lights, which satisfies the
basic calibration criteria.
A visual au6t of the queuing upstream of the toll plaza further supports these calibration
findings Figure 6 provides a series of VISSIM screenshots that show the progression of
queues at the toll plaza at 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, and 10:00 AM.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 17
❑❑❑o❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Future Year (2020/2035) No Project Table 6 also illustrates where the East Bay generated traffic is headed to - elther to Downtown
Model Development San Fmm[sco,tofhe Cenral Freeway /Bth StreetorfuMU soundon US101 Thernodels
Future (2020) and (2035) No Project scenarios were developed to predict future traffic and
transit operations along the corridor without any additional Infrastructure improvements. The
Future No Project models analyze 2020 and 2035 future taffic projections with the same
freeway, network and toil plaza payment assumptions as the calibrated Base Year model
described above. This section describes the traffic forecasting process used to develop the
demands for the Future No Project VISSIM models.
Travel Demand Forecasts
TMs section describes the forecasting process used to develop the background traffic volumes
for the mlcrosimuiation analysis of the future improvement scenarios. Future traffic forecasts
were devabpetl after a review of four Bay Area regional travel demand models
• Metropolltan Transportation Conmisslon (MTC)
• San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFGTA)
• Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
• Transbay Mode Choice/Caltraln Downtown Extension Studies
The purpose of considering the four models was to assess the range of future year traffic
demand. While the four models am all based on the same ABAG demographic Information,
some dHferences inevitably arise. The project team focused on two of the model forecasts -
the MTC and the SF- Champ. These models were Identified as generating the "high" (MTC)
and "low" (SFCTA) traffic estimates. (The MTC forecasts higher overall traffic volumes. although
the SF -Champ model was slightly higher).
Table 6 shows demand model traffic volumes on the Bay Bridge for both the MTC and
SF -Champ models. Year 2010 ne vterrm forecasts are shown to represent existing condMons
and Year 2035 volumes are the horizon year volumes. Both models show similar volumes on
the Bay Bridge - both in the base and future years (the difference In AM peak period traffic
volumes on the Bay Bridge between the two models is leas than four percent).
18 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
show general agreement that a Wife more than half the traffic Is headed downtown. However,
the models do not agree where the rest of the traffic is going to - The SF -Champ model
predict mom traffic Is headed to Northwest San Francisco (Central Freeway, 6th Smash, while
the MTC model shows more East Bay generated traffic is heeded south on US -101. However
the question of where the East Bay generated traffic not headed to downtown gees to Is not
critical; the focus has been to examine East Bay to Downtown San Francisco travel patterns.
Both models show that traffic demand is forecast to increase by 16% on the Bay Bridge during
the four hour AM peak period. Both models also agree on the percentage change in trips to
downtown San Francisco (growth Is about 20% for each modeff. In addition, trips generated
by the new Treasure ISland development (as Identified In the TIEIR) were also added to
Westbound Bey Bridge traffic for future years.
2010 MTC Model 36,400
19,600
5,800
11,000
2010 SF -Champ 37,700
19,000
9,600
9,100
2035 MTC Model 42,300
23,500
7,000
11,800
2035 SF -Chartp 43,800
22,700
10,200
10,900
2010 MTC Model
54%
16%
30%
2010 SF -Champ
50%
25%
24%
2035 MTC Model
56%
17%
28%
2035 SF -Champ
52%
23%
25%
SQ— Camordge. Systematz:s
Table 6: Bay Bridge Corridor T2/fic Forecasts
Fgure 10: Existing and Future Bay Bridge AM Peak Period Demand
it is useful to note that the for hour volumes shown In the travel demand models are likely
not achievable. Currently, the maximum one hour volumes on the Bay Bridge am limited to
about 9,200 vehicles per hour. Thus. the Bay Bridge Is currentty, at capacity for the entire four
hour AM peek period today in 2010. Additional growth In traffic on the Bay Bridge can only be
accommodated through a longer peak periotl than four hors, conversion of eastbound lanes to
westbound and from additional mode shifts to BART, AC Transit and ferries. Figure 10 provides
a comparison of the existing and future AM for -four peak period demand at the Bay Bridge.
At the Toll Plaza, downtown -bound vehicles represent 50 to 55 percent of toted Bay Bridge
westbound traffic (this range holds for bath the IvITC and the SF -Champ model and In both
current and future projections). In the tenure, while the percentage of trips beyond downtown
stays about the same, the absolute numbers Increase by about 2,000 trips In the peak period.
These additional trips compare with additional downtown rips on a facility with no excess
rapacity. The key findings from the travel demand forecasts are:
• Demand Increases by 10 to 16 percent by 2035 -
• The MTOand the SF -Champ models generated 2035 forecasts that varied by only 5
percent on the westbound Bey Bridge
• Future demand exceeds capacity, so the following is likely to occur: queuing and
congestion will worsen, peak -hour spreading will occur, and commuters will shift to buses
on BART (m all three occur)
The consultant team decided to use the SF -Champ model to generate the traffic forecasts
used In the analysis of future scenarios. All of the forecast models were similar enough In
their outputs, but the SF -Champ model produced forecast results that were appeared more
reasonable and stable around critical freeway Interchanges, particularly In San Francisco.
Table 7 compares the Base Year (2009) and Future (2035) traffic forecasts at the major
origins on the %ASSIM network. Future (2020) No Project traffic volumes were estimated using
Onts rinterpolation.
0000❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Arup, 2009
Table 7: Base Year (2009) Volumes and Future (2035) 7mific Forecasts
Performance Measures
Performance measures and targets were established by the consultant team in consultation
with the stakeholders In the study. The performance measures are grouped Into three
categories: congestion, transit travel, and translt rellabldly. A set of targets is defined for each
measure. The performance measures and targets for the westbound Say Bridge corridor
analysis ere:
Congestion
• The length of the Toll Plaza queue should not extend beyond the distribution structure
• Total vehicle -hours of delay and person -hours of delay in each 2035 improvement
scenario should be less than the 2020 and 2035 No Project condition
Transit Travel
• Transit speeds should average not less than 42 miles-per hour (mph) between the
distribution structure and the TTC
• Notes: The distance from the distribution structure to the T7C Is approximately seven
miles.. A bus traveling at 42 mph will cover this distance in about 10 minutes.
Transit Reliability
• No Individual peek period transit trip should exceed 14 minutes between the
distribution structure and the TTC.
The Base Year and Future No Project model results ate used to Identity If the scenario satisfies
the performance measure targets.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 19
1 -80 Start Point: on 580
28.755
29,500
3%
1 -580 Start Point on 80
11,458
12,500
9%
I -80 Buchanan St On
2,379
2,500
5%
1 -80 Gilman St On
1,218
11900
56%
1 -80 University Ave
1,699
1,999
5%
1 -80 Ashby On
1,634
2,140
31%
1 -80 WB Powell On
3,016
4,100
36%
1 -80 EB Powell On
640
goo
41%
1.580 Start Point on 24
14,781
17,000
15%
WBSR 24 to 580 Connector
6,383
61500
2%
EB SR 24 Connector to 580
5,176
6,600
8%
1 -880 Start Point
18,596
22,400
20%
1.880 Jackson St On
2,436
21900
19%
1 -880 Union St On
3,222
3,270
1 %.
1 -880 MaritlmelGrand On
4,467
4,667
4%
East Bay Total
108,041
117,876
11%
1 -80 TI On
1,300
3,200
146%
1 -804th On
4,557
4,700
3%
1 -80 7th On
829
1.400
69%
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Arup, 2009
Table 7: Base Year (2009) Volumes and Future (2035) 7mific Forecasts
Performance Measures
Performance measures and targets were established by the consultant team in consultation
with the stakeholders In the study. The performance measures are grouped Into three
categories: congestion, transit travel, and translt rellabldly. A set of targets is defined for each
measure. The performance measures and targets for the westbound Say Bridge corridor
analysis ere:
Congestion
• The length of the Toll Plaza queue should not extend beyond the distribution structure
• Total vehicle -hours of delay and person -hours of delay in each 2035 improvement
scenario should be less than the 2020 and 2035 No Project condition
Transit Travel
• Transit speeds should average not less than 42 miles-per hour (mph) between the
distribution structure and the TTC
• Notes: The distance from the distribution structure to the T7C Is approximately seven
miles.. A bus traveling at 42 mph will cover this distance in about 10 minutes.
Transit Reliability
• No Individual peek period transit trip should exceed 14 minutes between the
distribution structure and the TTC.
The Base Year and Future No Project model results ate used to Identity If the scenario satisfies
the performance measure targets.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 19
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Base Year (2009) and Future (2020/2035) No
Project Results
This section compares travel speed, delay, and transit MOES obtained from the VISSIM model
for Base Year (2009) and Future (2020) and (2030) No Project scenarios. The evaluation of the
performance measures Is also provided.
Travel Speed Comparison
The Base Year (2009) and Future No Project VISSIM model results were compared. One
Interesting aspect of microsimulation modeling tools is the ability to collect various measures
of congestion, such as average travel speed, on a link level. Travel speed serves as a good
proxy for overall traffic operations and level of congestion. Figure 10 compares the estimated
model travel speeds at the toll plaza (at 8:00 and 9:00 AM) for the Base Year (2009) and Future
(2035) No Project scenarios. Figure 11 shows that In the future, travel speeds at the toll plaza
will decline considerably by 8:00 AM.
20 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
_ngerrl p 0 -10 mph ® 25 -35 mph ■ 45 -55 mph
E 10-25 mph Q 35-45 mph 55. mph
Figure 11: Average Travel Speeds at the Toll Flaze
Base Year (2009)
Future Year (2009) No Project
I
_ngerrl p 0 -10 mph ® 25 -35 mph ■ 45 -55 mph
E 10-25 mph Q 35-45 mph 55. mph
Figure 11: Average Travel Speeds at the Toll Flaze
0000❑❑❑❑
Microsimulation Model Development
Vehicle Delay, Person Delay, and Transit Analysis
Table 8 and Tattle 9 compare the vehicle -hours of delay and person -hours of delay results for
Base Year and Future No Project conditions. These delay MOEs are collected systemwide and
reftect;the total delay erpedanced by each - vehicle on the 24 -mile network.
Base Year (2000)
265
1,335
e
2,350
r
3,703
7,654
Future (2020) No Project
391
1,620
2,725
3;269
6,006
1-80 to the TTC
55.51
46.6
I^BO to the TTC
9.7
10.0
11.5
Future (2035) No Project
524
2,058
3,208
3,707
9,497
1 -580 to the TTC
52;4
29.6
1 -580 to the TTC
9.7
7.2
1 -880 to the TTC
57.1
9
49.7
1 -680 to the TTC
10.0
10.6
11.5
Table 8: Vehfcle -Hours of Delay
1 -80 to the TTC
54.3
5110
45.9
1 -80 to therTTC
9.9
10.6
45.9
1 -580 to the TTC
51.5
VA
19.2
1 -580 to the TTC
9.9
13.4
26.5
Base Yee, (2009)
409
2,010
3.583
5,587
:11,588
I -880 t0 the TTC
54.6
52.4
50.2.
1 -880 to the TTC
10.4
10.9
11.4
Future (2020) No Project
607
2,490
3,937
4,711 1
11.745
Future (2035) No Project
802
3:375
4,720
5,501 1
14,998
1 -80 to the TTC
51,9
47.6
36.5
1.80 to the TTC
10.4
11.4
14.8
1 -580 to the TTC
50.9
37.5
12.7
1 -580 to the TTC
10.0
13.6
40.9
Table 9: Person -Hours of Delay
1 -880 to the TTC
54.5
29.5
42.8
1.880 to the TTC
10.4
19.3
13.3
Table 10 and Table 11 compere the bus speed
and travel ame from each freeway approach at
Table 70: Bus Travel Speed (MPH) from the Distributfon'SWcture to the TTC Bus Ramp
Table 19: Bus Travel Time (Min)
from the Distribution Structure . to the TTC Bus Ramp
the distribution stricture (1 -B0, 1 -580, or 1 -880) to the TTC
bus ramp.
'DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 21
❑00000DU
Wrosimulation Model Development
Performance Measures and Targets
The performance measures pmvlde a way to quickly summarize and compare the scenario
results to the operating targets Identffred b m
y the stakeholder group. Table 12 compares the
congWor. transtt travel, and transit reliability perfortnance measures for the Base Year, Future
(2020) No Project, and Future (2030) No Project scenarios.
The results In Table 12 Indicate the following.
• Operating perlorrnance along the westbound Bay Bridge corridor will remain within
acceptable performance targets until at least 2020
• However, future traffic growth will cause operating performance along the corridor i
exceed acceptable performance targets by 2035
• congestion upstream of the tell plaza Is expected to Increase and persist for a much
longer period by 2035
• The worsening of vehicle queuing in 2035 will block the HOV bypass lanes at the toll plaza .
which will have a negative effect on transit speeds and reliability
These findings clearly show that measures are needed to improve transit mobility
In the corridor
22 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
W,
Congestion
-
Tol Plaza queue - Not Beyond Dist
Structure
Total Vehicle Hrs of Delay
2,350
2,725
0
3,208
Chg from 2009 Base Year ( %)
N/A
16%
37%
Chg from 2035 Base Case ( %)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Person His of Delay
3,583
3,937
4,720
Chg from 2009 Base Year ( %)
N/A
10%
32%
Chg from 2035 Base Case ( %)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Transit Travel
Transit speeds should average not less
than 42 mph (measured from 1 -80)
-
Transit Reliability
No Individual peak period transit trip
should exceed 14 minutes (measured
from 1 -80)
11.5 min = Pass
12 min
Table 12 PaAOnnance Measures
Introduction
The analysis considers two different approaches to Improving operations along the westbound
Bay Bridge corridor during the morning commute:
1. Alternative Metering: Irlrsease the metering rate at the Bay Bridge metering lights.
2. Physical Improvements: A package of physical Improvements that include a'wastbound
contreflow lane on the Bay Bridge, access points necessary to enter the.contrallow lane
on the East Bay . side and exit the contraflow lane on the San'Framisco side of the bridge,
and extenslon of the HOV network In the vicinity of the toll plaza:
Alternative Metering Option
The alternative metering option assumes an Increase In the rate that vehicles am metered at
the Bay Bridge metering lights. This would increase the throughput onto the Bay Bridge,
which could reduce:ttie queuing upstream, the toll plaza. Shifting the queue from upstream
of the toll plaza and on the bridge would reduce the likelihood of vehicles blocking the
HOV bypass lanes. However,. Increasing the flow of traffic onto the bridge Is likely to lead to a
degradation of trettic conditions on the bridge.. This Increase in traffic on the bridge structure
could Impede bus travel.
Physical Improvement Options
Policy Context
A traditional option for mitigating traffic Increases Is to build mom capacity. In the last 36
years (since x•1972 public referenda that rejected the Southern Crossing), reglonal and local
Bay Bridge corridor policy has been to Increase the efficiency of the current transportation
network . and prioritize investment In transit. As a result, them has been no significant Increase
In highway capacity In the corridor since the Bay Bridge was converted to 10 lane operation In
the early 1960s. However, the elAdency of the existing system has increased substantially -
the Bdtlges vehicle occupancy is almost 2.5 people per vehicle In the peak period, and BART
regularly carries about 15,000 passengers par hour between Oakland and San Francisco In
the peak hour (or more than six lanes of traffic on a traditional freeway).
Over the last decade, managed lanes have become an accepted tool to Increase capacity end
manage congestion. The Federal ,Highway Administration defines a managed lane as having
most of these, elements:
The managed Iwo concept Is typically a "freeway- withina- freeway' where a set of lanes
within the freeway cross 'section is separated from the general- purpose lanes.
• The facility incorporates a high degree of operational flexlblliry so that over time operations
can be actively managed to' respond ,to growth and changing needs.
• The operation of and demand on the facility is managed using a combination of tools and
techniques in order to continuously achieve an optimal condition, such as free-flow speeds.
• The principal management strategies can be categorized into three groups: pricing, vehicle
eligibility, and access control.
Using this definition, the Bey Bridge has been effectively'managaW since 1970 when the
metering light and HOV bypass elements were Incorporated Into the Bridge. These elements
have allowed for the Bay Bridge to carry mom people on Its lanes than any highway in
California (23,000 In carpools and 3.000 in buses In the peak hour), and makes the facility
second only to the New Jersey -New York Uncdn Tunnel In 'peoplamovlrg' highways.
The Bay Area has embarked on a conversion of Its HOV lane system to a HOT (high occupancy
- toll) system, also called the *express lane' system This system allows single occupant vehicles
to'buy into the HOV lanes. The public benefit In this approach Is primarily financial and timing.
The HOT system can be built sooner since funding would be available sooner compared with the
traditional HOV lane financing approach. In addition. the transportation (tax) funding that would
normally be dedicated to the HOV system can be used for other projects, and excess HOT toff
revenues can finance transit services in the impacted corridors.
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
mprovement Options
Most proposed Bay Ame HOT projects simply convert the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes,
although some construction Is required for toting equipment end enforcement activities.
However, some HOT lanes will involve new construction. One of the.crtUcisms of the HOT
network Is that it focuses Investment on the fringes of the region ard not in the core.
In developing potential physical Improvements, policy continuity was a prime consideration.
The major physical Improvements evaluated In the study considered:
• Extensions of the HOV .system to Improve the ability of transit vehicles to bypass
congestion both Into the Toll Plaza and at the Toll Plaza.
• Contraflow.trenst lane on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge, operated as a HOT lane
The main policy nexus of the contraflow lane proposal would be to serve Transbay buses.
Futurs year forecasts Indlcate that .200 to 300 bus trips per hour could use the Bay Bridge in
the morning peak. Various repots provide guidance for a reasonable warrant to a dedicated
this lane: These reports provide a range from a 1976 Organization for Economic Co-operation
andDevetopment (OECD) report recommandinga low end of 40 to 60 buses per hour (and
passenger volumes of 1.600 to 2;400 passengers per hour) to the mom recent American
guidance contained In the National Gooperattve Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report
414 HOV - Systems Manuel recommending warrants of 200 -400 buses per hour for an exclusive
bus contraflow lane or 400 -600 high occupancy vehicles (buses and carpools sharing the
lacl ity). In either definition, the literature suggests that an exclusive facility could be justified.
Coltrane' HOV guldellnes note that contraflow lanes can be considered when •the peak period
directional traffic split is 35% or less during the design life of the project, and (2) If the speed of
the opposing mixed -flow traffic Is not reduced by Implementation of the contrailow lane.' The
current Bay Bridge west -east weekday peak period split is about 65/35 percent. While the
Bay Bridge currently operates at capacity In the AM westbound direction. It operates at ony,
about 70 percent capacity In the AM eastbound direction. The contrafiowoptionconsiders
using a reversible lane In the eastbound direction on the Bay Bridge. An example of ,a
contreflow system Is New York. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey pioneered the
concept with the Exclusive Bus Lena 0(BL) In the Lincoln Tunnel (SR 495) which provides AM
Inbound access from New Jersey Into Midtown Manhattan's Port Authority. Bus Terminal.
While the primary purpose of providing a contaflow lane is to maintain bus travel times and
reliability, the contreflow lane would have spare capacity based on the projected bus trips. Future
year projections assume approximately 300 Transbey buses per hour. This Indicates that the
cormallow lane could accommodate another 1,000 vehicles without Impacting Man operations.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 23
❑❑❑ ❑o❑❑❑
Improvement Options
Fgwe 12: Bay Bddge Corridor AM Physical Improvements
24 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
N consistent with the poky direction of major stakeholders, the lane could be operated as a
HOT lane to alow private vehicles to use the lane. The Bay Bridge contraflow, lane would than
serve as a continuation of the Bey Area HOT network. Operating the contraflow lane as bus/
HOT lane would allow single occupant vehicles to "Jump the queue' for a premium fare up to the
capacity of the lane and ensuring average speed was at least 42rriph. HOVs would continue to
use the existing upper deck HOV bypass. This world help fnance the cost of constructing and
operating the lane. The contraflow lane could also operate as a combined bus/truck facility,
with trucks paying the tog to operate In the lane, while trucks comprise only 2 percent of total
vehicle volume In the rnorning commute (approximately 200 trucks par hour), the size and poor
acceleration padormance of trucks on the Incline of the Bay Bridge's eastern span can result In
congestion.
2. Contra -Flow Configuration
(AM Peak)
Physical Improvement Options Considered
The physical Improvement projects considered In the analysis focus on the construction of the
contraflow lane on the Bay Bridge. The improvements also torus on providing access points
to enter the contraflow lane from East Bay freeways and at VBI. Options for exiting the lane
on the San Francisco side of the Bay Bridge are also discussed. Figure 12 summarizes the
proposed physical improvements.
11' 2' 12'
HOT Lane
56'- e„ +
Y Width of Travel Way
Figure 13: Contraflow Lane on Lower Deck
❑❑❑❑❑❑i❑❑
mprovement Options
Contraflow Lane on the Bay Bridge
The Bay Bridge contraflow lane would comprise the number #1 lane in the eastbound direction
across the entire length of the bridge, A movable "zipper barrier would separate the contraflow
lane from eastbound traffic . Figure 13 slows concept of the oontraflow lane on the lower deck
ol the suspension span. The contraflow lane could be operated as a transg/HOT facility or as
a bus/huck facility. Access Into the carareflow lane from 1 -80, 1 -580, 1 -880, and Grand Avenue
on the East Bey side would occur via new connector ramps. Aces out of the contraflow lane
on the San Francisco skis of the bridge would occur with a new facility located at the Rrst and
Essex Street temps. Details on these access points are described in the next section.
3. Contra -Flow Configuration
(Off - Peak)
11 6' 11 1 11' 11' 12' 27
HOT Lena
Width of Trawl Wily
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 25
0000❑❑❑❑
Improvement Options
Rgure 14: 1-80 Consallow Access
26 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
East Bay Options for Entering the Contraflow Lane
1 -80 Access: The westbound HOV lane occupies the N1 lane along 1 -80 through the East
Bay As 1.80 approaches the dleftution structure, a flyover ramp connects the westbound
HOV lane to the toll plaza. This flyover ramp begins its grade separation and divergence from
1 -80 approzimatety 1,500 feet south of Power Street In EmefyvNe. In the opposite clinic Ion of
travel, the eastbound I -BO HOV lane from the Bay Bridge merges with the northbound 1 -880
ramp at roughly the same location south of Powell Street.
It would be possible to begin the contraflow lane on 1 -80 between Powell Sheet and the
beginning of the HOV flyover ramp. The contraflow We would be created by reversing
the eeslbound 1 -80 HOV lane and providing a break In the Medan barrier to allow autos to
crossover at this location. Westbound contraflow traffic @uses and HOT vehicles) would
transition from the westbound HOV Ism and Into the reversible eastbound I -BO HOV ism. A
moveable barrier would separate the contraflow lane from eastbound 1 -80 traffic In the nimed-
How travel lanes The 1 -80 contraflow lane would the merge with the 1 -580 access point and
connect to the contraflow lane on the bridge. Outside of the AM peak period the moveable
banter would be reproved and traffic operations would revert to their present patterns.
Figure 15:1 -580 Contraflow Access
Figure 14 shows the 1 -80 access point. the beginning of the contraflow section. and the
crossover location south of Powell Street.
1 -580 Access. The access from westbound 1 -580 into the conareflow lane could be provided at
the base of the distribution structure. A break In the median barrier could be provided to allow
vehicles to enter the contreflow lane. Figure 15 Illustrates this concept.
The 1 -580 HOV We would extend westbound from the 1580/SR -24 )unctlon to the exlsiting
lanes west of the dstributbn structure. However, because this would be a peniculariy high -
cost facility, the analysis analyzes scenarios both with and without this extension.
1 -880 Access: 1 -880 traffic heeded towards the bridge could access the contraflow lane
using the existing HOV ramp. The HOV Ism that leads to the south side of the toll plaza
could diverge prior to the toll plaza and merge with the cprtreflow lane. The existing at grade
roadway that crosses below the 1 -880 ramp and serves the Cettrens toil plaza from westbound
1 -80 would be closed to prevent conflicts.
Na11K OpRMROW UMEA0CB6nan.,
.� EONIaNIOA TAME
- _n
Improvement Options
Figure M West Grand Access - Option A
West Grand On -ramp Access: Providing a point of access to the cootraflow lane from the
West Grand Avenue and Maritime Street is complex but critical for AC Transit bus operations.
The need for a straightforward and effectfve entrance Is enhanced by proposals for a bus
rapid transit (BRT) corridor along West Grand through OaMand. Four potential options have
been explored. For all options It Is assumed that the westbound West Grand - Maritime ramp
above the 1.80 eastbound and westbound roadways will be widened. This will extend the toil
plaza bypass HOV lane to Maritime and allows for continuation of a bus/HOV lane along the
West Grand structure located under the 1 -880 freeway.
Fgure 17: West Gland Access - Option B
West Grand Option A Includes an aerial ramp beginning at the West Grand/Martfirm Street
Intersection . As shown In Figure 16 the West Grand On -ramp could be widened for a
dedicated contraflow lane access ramp. The contraflow lane access ramp would diverge to
pass over Engineer Road, the railroad, I -580 eastbound on -ramp, and the eastbound 1 -80.
The ramp would descend at approximately 5 percent touching down in the 1 -80 medlar. The
contraflow access lane would utilize the exlsting toll plaza access lane where a zipper barrier
would provide a merge Into the facility .
West Grand Option B would diverge from the extended HOV lane on the widened wastbound
ramp. As shown In Figure 17 it would parallel the West Grand Avenue to 1 -580 eastbound
connector, passing over the port railroad and I -80 eastbound roadway. The ramp would
descend at approximately 8 percent and return to grade in the 1 -80 median, utilizing the
exfsthg toll plaza access lane as per Option A. where a zipper barrier would allow for a merge
Into the contraflow lane.
DRAFT I ARUP ( OCTOBER 2010 27
FETE-IM ■■ ■ ■■
Improvement Options
Figure 18: West Grand Access - Option C
Figure 19.' West Grand Access - Option D
28 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
West Grand Option C would diverge from the extended HOV lane on the widened 1 -880
westbound ramp. As shown In Figure 18 it would climb at approximately 8 percent to pass
over 1 -880 westbound, 1 -880 HOV romp. and 1 -80 to Maritime Avenue 'bop - back'. The ramp
would descend at roughly 8 percent until touchdown within the current Caiman plaza. A
zipper barrier. as per Option A. would provide a merge into the contraflow lane.
West Grand Option D would tunnel beneath the eastbound traffic of 1 -80 and 1 -580 as shown
as in Figure 1 g. From the Martine St and West Grand Ave Intersection the ronnallow, lane
access ramp would be constricted at grade, beneath the 1 -880 elevated roadway. it would
depress to pass under the rail oad and eastbound 1 -80. The tunnel wood return to grade at the
east and of the Coltrane plaza and a zipper banter would provide a merge into the HOT lane.
San Francisco Options for Exiting the Contraflow Lane
Approaching San Francisco the rbnvaflow lane would be on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge.
Westbound buses utilizing the lane are destined for the proposed Transbay Transit Center (TTC)
and therefore must access it via the proposed TTC bus romps, while private autos must be able
to exit without entering the TTC facility Two opWm were devveloped for exiting the cortraflow
lane Alternatives were considered for routing buses via city streets but these were rejected due to
congestion uncertainty and pow travel timers reliaWity,
Fait Option A closes the Essex Street ramp and autos would exit on a reversible First Street
romp to Hanson Street. Buses would exit on a new lane ramp to the TTC bus ramps. The new
contraflow lane ramp would use the closed Essex rangy at grade, pas beneath the exiting
Franont Street off -ramp, avoid existing columns, and tie Into the TTC bus ramps in the vidnity
of the Caltrars electrical substation. As a result, the Sterling Street ramp would be the sole
downtown entrance for eastbound traffic in the AM peak period. Outside the AM peek period the
First Street, Essex Street and Sterling Street ramps could remain for eastbound access to the
Bay Bridge and the new bus connector lone to TTC would be closed. Moveable barters could
be used to close Essex Street In the AM peek and close the HOT lane bus ramp at otter tines.
This option could be comdned with SoW Analysis Option A, the possible closure of Essex Street
romp.
ExV C"Ion a maintain on easgb rid on -ramp vom Essex Street. Essex Street would be grade-separated wth
Famison Street and lowered to pass beneath Harrison Street and a new bus ramp connect«, from the coreraflow
lane. Autos would edt on a reversible First Street ramp. with buses diverging from IN cormtaflow late a" the bus
ramp connector Essex Street and Sterling Street ramps could provide d— ,ritown entrances for eastbound traffic. The
bus ramp would be grade separated alwve tin lowered Essex Street, pass beneath the Fremont Street Off -ramp, and
be Into the TTC bus ramps. The bus ramp connector horizontal geometry Is dictated by column locations and verticd
clearances above Essex Street and beneath Fremont Street Off -ramp. Essex Street world require an approAnate
gradent of 10 percent to rise from beneath the bus ramp connector to tie n with the existirg First Street ramp nose. The
horizontal curves and vertical clearances could be opami with a more demded study. Figure 20 Illustrates this plan.
In Exit Option B. Essex Streit ramps rennin open and Essex Street v—Ad be widened to five apes between Folsom and
Hamison streets to rcraase eastbound queuing capacity. As s boptahs, changes cold be made to Sterling Street and
First Street and these concepts can be coord iced with the SoMa PM Improvement options the consider teconfiguing
the do -down on -ramp.
Figure 20: San Francisco Contrafiow Lane Fait Option B
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Improvement Options
- _ a
eaxa. r.d aw�wiw:v ��rw wo.a wnax rvro....mi.wT .Irrrtrwwtm[cou. zous Tn.sun Ia ur rwM IMM wWre n.wr
aur. i. ExrEa�M On,.mn�o..aerr mw. Nw�rur +rwhm
Figure 21: Treasure Island and Yarbe Buena Island vamps (Source: Fehr 8 Peers, AECOM, 2009)
- ��►..'
Verba Buena Island and Treasure Island
Bus Ramp
-_�
As art of the Bay Bridge East Span
p y replacement project and the Treasure Island and Verba
Buena Island Redevebpnent Plan. new o voff -ramps will be constructed on the east sloe of
Verba Buena Island (see Figure 21). These ramps will comprise standard right hand merging
and dlve antl will not affect the
rging operator of the proposed contraflow lane. The edsting
eastbound off -ramp (number 5 In Rgum 19) could be utilized as a bus only on ramp to the
contraflow lane In the AM peak period, subject to further operational considerations, As a
further option, HOT vehicles from Treasure Island could be allowed to use the Contraflow lane
using the bus ramps.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 29
0000❑❑❑❑
mprovement Options
Caltrans Toll Plaza Access
Regardless of the option pursued for. Wast Grand contrafbw, lane access ramp, access must
be provided to the.Caltrans administration building. Under current conditions an entrance
to the plaza Is provided from N1 lane of both eastbound and westbound 1 -80. An additional
access is provided from I.80 westbound N t lens approximately 2,500 ft east of the toll plaza,
which passes beneath the 1 -880 connection ramp farther east of the toll plaza. This roadway
would be permanently cued In all options.
The contmflow lane access ramp from West Grand Ave, for all options, would serve as an
entrance to the toll plaza at all times. Access from westbound 1 -80, 1 -580, and 1 -880 would be
via the entrance Immediately mat of the toll booths, with additional access from the comraflow
lane available In the AM peak.
Access from eastbound 1 -80 would be severed during the AM peak by the contraflow, lam.
however vehicles would be able to exit at West Grand Ave and bW back on the contraflow
lane access ramp. Outside the AM peak, the current eastbound t -80 access would remain.
In the AM peak period maintaining an eastbound move for vehicles adding the toll plaza Is an
Issue and requires further study.
30 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Cost of Improvements
Arup analyzed the cost of delivering the range of Improvement. Identified In this report. All Further analysis is necessary to provide a more accurate budget for these Improvements
estimates are considered "high - level' and it Is recommended that an additional 25 percent to provide a more robust analysis of the value of the Improvements and to further
general contingency be added for my budgeting purposes. The low costs represent the most define their costs.
modest improvements at,the lowest unit costs. whIch.the hlgher costs represent the most
complex Improvements at higher unit costs. Table 13 presents the cost estimates. The total
Improvement costs presented at the bottom of the table rapresent two potential packages;
than are shown for Ilustradve,purposes.
Core hems (Comraflm Lane. access
from 1- 80/580/880, HOV.extensional
$40,300,000
$73.400.000
-
West Grand Option A
$12,300,000
$19,700,000
West Grand Option B
$8,200,000
$19,700,000
West Grand Option C
$17,500,000
$28,000,000
West Grand Option D
$31,700,000
$60,300,000
Exit Option A
$2,500,000
$4,100,000
Exit Option B
$24,100,000
$42,900,000
Package 1: Core Items + West ,$51,000,000 $97,200,000
Grand Option B +Exit Option A
Package Y: Core hens + West $96.100,000 $176,600,000
Grand Option D + Exit Option Bt
Sauce: Aav, 2010
Table 13: Conceptual Cost EstIrrems
Analysis Scenarios
A saner of analysis scenarios was developed to assess future operating conditions along the
comclor. These scenarios were developed using the ca lbrated VISSIM model, the Improvements
listed above, and future 2035 traffic forecasts obtained from the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority's (SF- Champ) travel demand rtwdel. Existing bus service with n the
corridor was obtained from current schedules, while future bus service assumptions were
developed from 7C planning studies. Table 13 wmirnanzes the analysis scenarios Included In
the analysis:
Bess Year (Cellbmted
Octmba 2009 traffic volumes and existing bus
Model)
frequencies (approximately 100 peak hour bus trips)
• October 2009 roadway network
Future 2020 No Project
• 2020 traffic volumes Interpolated from 2035 SFCTA travel
demand model and 2035 bus frequencies (approximately
300 peak hour bus trips)
• No changes or improvements to the roadway network
Future 2035 No Project
• 2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
• No changes or improvements to the roadway network
Future 2035 With
2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Alternative Metering
• Increased metering ram, no changes to the network
Future 2035 With Physical
• 2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Improvements
Full set of physical Impovemems, no metering change
• Assumes contraflow lane operates as a HOT lane with
1,000 vehcles per hour
Future 2035 With
2035 traffic volumes and bus frequencies
Reduced Set of Physical
• No 1 -590 HOV lam. no metering charge
Improvements
• Assumes contraflow lane operates as a HOT lane with
1.000 vehicles par hour
Table 14: Analysis Scenarios
❑❑❑❑ ❑o❑❑
Future Scenario Analysis
In the Future scenarios with the cormaftow lane, an assumption was made that 1,000 vehicles
per hour would use the lane as a HOT lane. This also reduces the traffic demand at the tog
plaza by 1,000 vehicles. In the VISSIM model. 1,000 vehicles per hour were shitted out of
the projected traffic flow and into the contraflow lane. This produces delay results in the two
Physical Improvements scenarios that are better than the Base Year condition.
In reality. any available capacity In the freeway system resulting from vehicles shifting to a bus/
HOT contmfiow, lane would get absorbed quickly Any capacity increases associated with
a bus/HOT contraflow lane could Induce travelers to shift from transit to driving, or Induce
drivers to shift their trip beck into the peak period. This pherromenon of "Induced demand"
Is likely to occur In this context. The Bay Bridge corridor and the entire Bay Area region have
high levels of "latent' demand that cannot be satisfied by the region's transportation system
during peak periods. Induced demand was not considered In the study, as It requires a more
detailed analysis of travel behavior and demand.
Regardless of how induced demand Is considered, the transit analysis results are unlikely to
change. The VISSIM analysis indlua[es that the physical Improvements provide real benefits
to bus operations. Additional congestion as a result of Induced demend Is unlikely to interfere
with the ability of Transbay buses to access and operate within the contraflow lane.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 31
Future Scenario Analysis
Future Scenario Microsimulation Analysis
VISSIM rNCroslmulatton models were developed for each analysis scenario using the
assumptions detailed eariier In the report . This section provides a summary of the perfomtance
measures and targets and detall on the delay and transit measures
Summary of Performance Measures and Targets
The performance measures and targets were evaluated for each scenario based on the results
of the microslmulalion modeling. Table 15 provides a summary of these results for the 8 -9 AM
hour Table 2 Indicates whether the target Is satisfied - "Pass' - or exceeds the target - "Fall ".
The results In Table 2 Indicate that the westbound AM corridor would experience acceptable
operating conditions through 2020. However. the analysis predicts that conditions for
both transit and autos would degrade to unacceptable levels by 2035 The two Physical
Improvement sconarios could substantially improve mobility through the corridor. particularly
for transit. The results Indicate that the physical Improvements examined In this study have
clear operating benefits. The consultant team also evaluated an option to increase metering
rates onto the Bay Bridge. This scenario provided the worst service of all options studied.
The microsimulation data supporting the results In Table 15 are provided In the following
sections. These sections describe vehicle delay, person delay, and transit speed and
travel tknes.
32 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Congestion
-or. I'Iaza queue - Not
Beyond Dist Structure
Total Vehicle Hrs of Delay 2,350
2,725
3,208 3.680 2,166 2,288
Chg from 2009 Base
WA
16%
37%
57%
-8%
-3%
year ( %)
Chg from 2035 Base
N/A
N/A
N/A
15%
-32%
29%
Case( %)
Total Person His of Delay
3.583
3.937
4,720
6,256
3,254
3.426
Chg from 2009 Base
N/A
10%
32%
75%
-9%
-4%
Year I%)
Chg from 2035 Base
WA
N/A
N/A
33%
31%
-27%
Case ( %)
Transit Travel
Transit speeds should
mph =Pass
average not less than 42
-.. .. _
mph (massumed from 1 -801
Transit ReNabllity
No Individual peak period
11.5 min = Pass
12 ruin = Pass
15 min = Fell
20 min = Fall
10 min = Pass
10 min = Pass
transit trip should exceed
14 minutes (measured
from 1 -80)
Table 15: Performance Measures
Vehicle Delay
Vehlde -hours of delay were analyzed for the four -hour modeling pemod for each of the five
scenarios. Vehicle delay was measured for vehicles In the network crossing the Bay Bridge.
this measurement excludes vehicle trips to other destinations within the network, as well the
delay associatecl with continuing on through San Frand— Table 15 presents the vehicle.
hours of delay results by scenario. Values highlighted are delays that exceed the delay targets.
The Future (2035) With Physical Improvements scenario Is the only one that meets the
performance criteria for each hour
Table 16: Vehicle -Hours of Delay Results
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Future Scenario Analysis
Person Delay
Person hours of delay were based on vehice -hours of delay and assumptions of vehicle
occupancy Bus occupancy was collected from Transbay ridership counts estimated by
hour Table 16 reports the person -hours of delay results by scenario. The resuits are similar
to vehicle-hours of delay. with the With Physical Improvements scenario satisfying the
performance criteria.
Base Year (2009)
409
2,010
3,583
5587
11.588
Base Year (2009)
265
1,335
2,350
3,703
7,654
Future (2020) No Project
5.501
3,269
8.006
Future (2035) No Project
5,173
9,497
Future (2035) With
3,352
10,516
Alternative Metering
333
1,434
3,254
4,946
9,967
Future (2035) With
225
989
2,168
3.295
6,677
Physical Improvements
376
1,618
3,426
5,187
10,607
Future (2035) With
240
1,086
2,288
3.349
6,962
Reduced Set of Physical
Improvements
96%
68%
32%
-2%
24%
2035 No Project vs
98%
5a%
37%
0%
24%
Be Year
ss
-19%
-29%
-9%
-11%
-14%
2035 With Physical
-15%
-26%
-8%
-11%
-13%
Impromnents vs Base
Year
-58%
-58%
.31%
-10%
-31%
2035 With Physical
-57%
-52%
-32%
-11%
.30%
Improvementst vs 2035
No Project
Table 16: Vehicle -Hours of Delay Results
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Future Scenario Analysis
Person Delay
Person hours of delay were based on vehice -hours of delay and assumptions of vehicle
occupancy Bus occupancy was collected from Transbay ridership counts estimated by
hour Table 16 reports the person -hours of delay results by scenario. The resuits are similar
to vehicle-hours of delay. with the With Physical Improvements scenario satisfying the
performance criteria.
Base Year (2009)
409
2,010
3,583
5587
11.588
Future (2020) No Project
4,711
11,745
Future (2035) No Pr kct
5.501
14.398
Future (2035) With
5,173
16,894
Alternative Metering
Future (2035) With
333
1,434
3,254
4,946
9,967
Physical Improvements
Future (2035) With
376
1,618
3,426
5,187
10,607
Reduced Set of Physical
Impmvements
2035 No Project vs
96%
68%
32%
-2%
24%
Base Year
2035 With Physical
-19%
-29%
-9%
-11%
-14%
Improvements vs Base
Year
2035 With Physical
-58%
-58%
.31%
-10%
-31%
Improvementst vs 2035
No Project
Table 17: Person -Hours of Delay Results
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 33
❑❑❑❑❑07E
Future Scenario Analysis
Transit Travel Speed and Travel Time
Average bus travel speeds "M measured by each approach to the toll plaza for the four -hour
analysis period. The results show that even In the Future 120351 No Project models. not al
buses meet the 42 mph average speed. In the later hours congestion can reduce speeds on
the approaches. The With Physical Improvements scenario maintains high speeds throughout
the modeling period, outperforming even the Base Year model Table 17 provides a summary
of the transit travel speed results for the 6:00 to 9:00 AM period.
Travel tines are measured between the distribution structure and me bus off -ramp to the
Transbay Ternural. The highlighted values exceed the 10 minute travel time specifed In the
performance criteria. The With Physical Improvements model travel tines remain under 10
minutes for 1 -580 and 1880; 1 -80 travel times exceed 10 minutes by around 12 seconds.
Travel times are most consistent in the With Improvements scenario throughout the antlre
four -hour period compared to most other scenarios where travel times begin to vary during the
later hours. Table 18 presents the travel time results by scenario.
34 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
1 -80 to the TTC 55.5
53.8 46.6
1 -580 to the TTC
52.4
48.5
I -880 to the TTC
57.1
52.91 49.7
1 -80 to the TTC
54.3
51.0 J 45.9
1 -580 to the TTC
51.5
9.9
1880 to the TTC
5461
52.4 50.2
1 -80 to the TTC
51.9
47.6
1 -580 to the TTC
50.9
1 -880 to the TTC
54.5
42.6
I-80 to the TTC
53.7
51.1
I -580 to the TTC
51.0
1 -880 to the TTC
54.5
9.3
1 -80 to the TTC
530
52.4 52.8
1 -580 to the TTC
54.8
516 52.9
1 -880 to the TTC
59.0
58.4 58.0
I -80 to the TTC
53.0
52.4 52.8
I -580 to the TTC
55.2
50.3
1 -880 to the TTC
59.01
58.4 58.0
1 -80 to the TIC
-6%
-12% -22%
1 -580 to the TTC
-3%
-23% -57%
1 -680 to the TTC
-4%
-44% -14%
1 -80 to the TTC
-4%
-3% 13%
1 -580 to the TTC
5%
10% 76%
1 -880 to the TTC
3%
10% 16%
1 -80 to the TIC
2%
10% 45%
1580 to the TTC
8%
43% 316%
1 -880 to the TTC
8%1
98% 35%
MME"r,
I -80 to the TTC 9.7 -
1 -580 to the TTC
97W
I
1 -880 to the TTC
10.0
I -80 to the
9.g
9.9
"I.01h.
I -80 to the TTC.
1 -580 to the TTC
1 -880 to the TTC
1 -80 to the TTC
1.580 to the TTC
10.0
1 -880 to the TTC
1 -80 to the TTC
1 -580 to the TTC
9.3
9.5
9.6
1 -880 to the TTC
9.71
9.8
9.8
1 -80 to the TTC
10.2
10.3
10.2
I -580 to the TTC
9.2
10,1
13.6
1 -880 to the TTC
9.7
9.8
9.8
1 -80 to the TTC
7%
13%
28%
1 -580 to the TTC
3%
29%
134%
1 -880 to the TTC
5%
80%
16%
1 -80 to the TTC
5%
3%
-11%
1 -580 to the TTC
-4%
-9%
-44%
1 -880 to the TTC
-3%
-9%
-14%
1 -80 to the TTC
-2%
-9%
-3t%
1 -580 to the TTC
-7%
-30%
-76%
I -W0 to the TTC
-7%
49%
-26%
Table 18: Transit Travel Speed Results Table 19: Transit Travel Time Results
t
-"-W*
ca
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Future Scenario Analysis
Major Findings
San Francisco employment Is projected to Increase by about 50 percent over the next 25
years. Already 40,000 workers commute Into the city from the East Bay In the peak hour;
simply projecting a 50 percent Increase beyond the current use wil create demand beyond the
peak hour capacity of the Bay Bdtlge and BART
The major conclusions of the AM westhound analysis for the Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion
Study are:
• The Bay Bridge and the toll plaza are currently congested on most days; however, vehicle
queues do not typically extend back from the toll plaza to the distribution structure.
• The HOV bypass lanes are not typicalty blocked, which allows for acceptable bus
operations.
•
With projected Increases In traffic along the corridor, queuing will worsen and routinely
block the HOV bypass lanes In the future (traffic growth is projected at less than half -
percent annually).
• Transbay buses will not meet transit perfonmarx:e targets by 2035, which will limit the
performance of the Transbay Transit Center.
• The physical improvements show considerable promise for maintainUg bus travel times
and schedule reliability along the corridor, while also providing potential Ircreases In
parson -Mp capacity
DRAFT j ARUP I OCTOBER2010 35
SoMa Analysis
Iffln �m
0 vph Total SF to East Bay:
Il25 te)
Figure 24: SoMa PM Peak Hour Ramp Volumes
36 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Background
The "South -of- Market" (SoMe) area plays an Important role In San Francisco and the Bay
Areas transportation system. SoMa provides the critical roadway Ilrkages between downtown
San Francisco and the Bay Bridge. During the afternoon commute, automobile traffic leaving
downtown San Francisco utilizes the SoMe roadway, network to access the ramps serving
1 -80 and the Bay Bridge. This traffic queues on local streets as it is tunneled towards the major
Bey Bridge on -ramps at First Street, Essex Street, and the HOV on -ramp at Sterling Street (vie
Bryant Street). SoMa afternoon traffic, especially east of Filth Street, is characterized by heavy
congestion and frequently experiences gridlock on many streets.
Afternoon traffic conditions on SoMa streets vary considerably from day -to -day. While the
causes of congestion within SoMa are very complex, operating conditions on the Bay Bridge
and local fluctuations in demand exot considerable Influence on local street operations. On a
normal "functioning' day, the four SoMa on-ramps to the Bay Bridge at First, Essex. Starting
(HOV1, and Fifth Streets serve appmxi rnetely 5,800 vehicles during the PM peak hour The PM
peak hour volumes for each ramp are shown on Figure 24
On days when the Bay Bridge Is congested or there Is an event In downtown leg , a San
Francisco Giants baseball game), it Is not unusual for vehicle queues to extend along First
Street from the First Street on-ramp to Market Street, and along Harrison Street from the on-
rarnp to the Embarcadem. it Is likely that even on a normal functioning day, the traffic demand
I$ very close to the street systems capacity. it Is conceivable that a relatively small Increase
In vehkle demand. perhaps in the range of 10 to 15 percent. could create condkions that
result Ina falling day Figure 25 provides an example of queuing on a functioning "good" clay
compered to a failing "bad' day.
While system failure Is difficuM to measure precisely, f�tl observations suggest that the local
SOMa street network breaks down two to three days per week. System failure Is typically
defined as queues extending back from the Bay Bridge on-ramps on First Street to a point
beyond Mission or Market Streets. When queues of this severity develop. Intersections
often get blocked, which can Interfere with transit operations on Market. Mission.
and Folsom Streets,
Extern of M"
Figure 25: Typical versus Gndlocked Queuing
The character of SoMa has been chargng over the years as it has transiacrled from a light -
industrial area to a nix of commercial and residential uses. The TTC and the San Francisco
Planning Departments proposed Transit Center District Plan (TCDP) promise to increase the
Intensity of development within SoMa, while transforming the street grid Into a more locally-
focused pedestrian and transit - oriented arse.
Balancing the regional and local transportation needs within SoMa is a challenge. The regional
needs are related to managing the Bay Bridge -bound vehicle queues on SoMit streets. Local
needs are related to accommodating increased transit and pedestrian activity m SoMa streets
as redevelopment occurs.
Purpose and Limitations of this Study
The ultimate objective of the SoMa analysis Is to Identify transportation improvements that
better manage Bay Bridge queues and Improve local traffic circulation and transit reliability
This study represents a first step towards investigating and understanding the transportation
Issues In S.M.
The Initial work on a second VISSIM microsimulation model of the SoMa street network east
of Fifth Street was advanced as part of this study. The SoMa model utilizes VISSIM's dynamic
assignment routine to assign traffic to the network. Dynamic assignment, as applied in this
study Is an Iterat" procedure that adlusts a drivers mute choice based on the experienced
travel time and cost on the network.
The analysis does have limitations. While the VISSIM model is considered calibrated, further
model development work Is required before a more comprehensive analysis of the study area
Is possible. The additional work required to further advance the model Includes.
❑❑❑❑❑i ❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
• Refining VISSIMs dynamic assignment routine
• Ad4usting the origin- destination (O -D) tables and traffic compositions (SOV, HOV Truck)
• Understanding the variability In eastbound Bay Bridge traffic operations during the PM
peak prod
• Understanding the variability In traffic demand across the SoMa study arse
• Developing a better estimate of traffic produced end attracted to internal zones
• Adding pedestrian volumes at more intersections
• Developing a future year traffic forecast
A comprehensive analysis of potential Improvements has not been conducted because the
model requires these additional refinements. However, initial testing of potential Improvements
has been completed and pmmisi g strategies have been identified. The microslmulation
model developed ion this effort will serve as a valuable tool for further analysis.
SoMa Desired Outcomes
The following desired outcomes will become performance measures when the model Is further
developed. These tentative pedonnance measures were developed as a result of discussions
with the stakesholders'.
Congestion:
• Bridge queue m 1 st Street/ 2nd Street, and Beale should not extend beyond Howard at
any tine.
• Bridge queues on 1 st Street/2nd Street, and Beale should be reduced h the improvement
option (compared to the base alternative(.
• The total vehicle- hours/person-hours of delay should be reduced in the improvement
option
Transit Travel:
• Transit travel Umes on Mission Street, First Street, 2nd Street and and Folsom Street
should decrease with any improvement option.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 37
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
VISSIM Microsimulation Analysis
Model Study Area and Scope
Figure 26 presents the study area for the SoMa PM peak period VISSIM model. The VISSIM
model network includes the following:
• 0.75 square -miles of the SoMa street network bounded by Market, Embarcadero, Bryant
and FHth Sheet
• 80 signalized intersections. including the intersections north of Market Street that p.,Ade
points of access for traffic entering and exiting the Financial District
• 9 freeway ramps serving 1 -80 and the Bay Bridge
• All of the major paths of travel between the Financial District and the Bay Bridge.
• All of the major on and off -ramps that serve downtown San Francisco and SoMa
• 1 -80 is Included In the model as an external zone that produces and attracts traffic.
However, freeway, operations were not explicitly modeled nor Included In the calibration
• The existing Transbay Terminal (as of 2009)
• A two-hour PM peak period (includes a one- hour'wanm -up" period and a one -hour
analysis perod)
• VISSIM's dynamic assignment routine is utilized
• Existing traffic volumes (2008 -2010) and existing transit service (as of 2009)
• The PM peak period traffic demand tested In the model represents a typical
'functktnirg" data
• Traffic demand Is split Into SOV HOV, and Truck based on recent counts and observations
• 31 external zones on local streets
• 2 external freeway zones (Bay Bridge East and 1 -80 West)
• 26 Internal zones within the study area
While the SoMa area Is generally defined as covering a larger area of downtown San
Francisco, the model study area was limited to what Is shown In Figure 26. This study area
is sufficient to capture most of the major commute paths for traffic exiting downtown Sen
Francisco during the afternoon.
38 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Figure 26: SoMa OSSIM Model Study Aran
Figure 27: Potential SoMa Improvements
❑❑0007❑❑
SoMa Analysis
Previous Modeling Efforts
The SoMe VISSIM model developed for this study leverages two previous modeling efforts:
• A detailed Market- Ernbamadem VISSIM model developed by Tony Young at the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for studying signal timing and
coordination plans along Market Street and the Embarcedero.
• A VISSIM model of the TTC street level bus plaza developed by Arup for the TJPA that
analyzed the operating capacity of the plaza and traffic operations/signal timings along
Fremont Street. Traffic operations on Streets Immediately adjacent to the TTC (Mission,
Howard, Second, and Beale Streets) were also included In the analysis.
Both of these VISSIM models analyzed existing traffic demand. Traffic signal timings, field
observations, transit Intomtatlon, and pedestrian volumes were a9 canted over into the
Solve model.
Model Scenarios
The SoMa assessment considers two scenarios:
• Base year: This scenario represents the final calibrated version of the VISSIM model
and Includes existing traffic volumes. transit service , the existing Transbay Terminal, and
the existing roadway network. The existing traffic volumes and odgln- destination (O -D)
matrtces were developed using a variety of traffic counts that were collected between
2006 and 2010. while this represents a long time frame. the most recant traffic volumes
collected at the on -ramps In 2010 do Trot differ significantly, from the ramp volumes
collected In 2006.
• Base year With Improvements: This Scenario analyzes the same base year traffic
volumes but includes a set of street improvements that have the potential to better
manage afternoon Bay Bridge queues and Improve local circulation and transit reliability.
The set of Improvements Is extensive and assumes that the contrafm lane is constructed
and In operation. It Is also assumed that the grade separation of the Essex Street on -ramp
and Harrison Street are constructed. AN of these improvements are considered feasible for
purposes of this study, Figure 27 presents the Improvements.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 39
Z
Construct connector from First
to Essex Street under the Fremont
Street off -ramp (two travel lanes)
Convert Folsom to two -way
>4�
travel from First to Essex
Convert Essex to one -way
Convert First Street ramp
with four travel lanes
to traffic during PM
peak hour
peak h
Grade separate Essex and X
Harrison Streets (required
m
for AM Contraflow lane) `�
1
_ 6CI
• Install ramp meters at the
• Essex and First Street on ramp
z
Close the Sterling Street a
HOV on -ramp N
Essex Street on -ramp consists of two
full travel lanes on to the eastbound Bay
Bridge. The First Street HOV on -ramp
would merge into the Essex ramp.
Figure 27: Potential SoMa Improvements
❑❑0007❑❑
SoMa Analysis
Previous Modeling Efforts
The SoMe VISSIM model developed for this study leverages two previous modeling efforts:
• A detailed Market- Ernbamadem VISSIM model developed by Tony Young at the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for studying signal timing and
coordination plans along Market Street and the Embarcedero.
• A VISSIM model of the TTC street level bus plaza developed by Arup for the TJPA that
analyzed the operating capacity of the plaza and traffic operations/signal timings along
Fremont Street. Traffic operations on Streets Immediately adjacent to the TTC (Mission,
Howard, Second, and Beale Streets) were also included In the analysis.
Both of these VISSIM models analyzed existing traffic demand. Traffic signal timings, field
observations, transit Intomtatlon, and pedestrian volumes were a9 canted over into the
Solve model.
Model Scenarios
The SoMa assessment considers two scenarios:
• Base year: This scenario represents the final calibrated version of the VISSIM model
and Includes existing traffic volumes. transit service , the existing Transbay Terminal, and
the existing roadway network. The existing traffic volumes and odgln- destination (O -D)
matrtces were developed using a variety of traffic counts that were collected between
2006 and 2010. while this represents a long time frame. the most recant traffic volumes
collected at the on -ramps In 2010 do Trot differ significantly, from the ramp volumes
collected In 2006.
• Base year With Improvements: This Scenario analyzes the same base year traffic
volumes but includes a set of street improvements that have the potential to better
manage afternoon Bay Bridge queues and Improve local circulation and transit reliability.
The set of Improvements Is extensive and assumes that the contrafm lane is constructed
and In operation. It Is also assumed that the grade separation of the Essex Street on -ramp
and Harrison Street are constructed. AN of these improvements are considered feasible for
purposes of this study, Figure 27 presents the Improvements.
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 39
0000❑❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
The set of Improvements are summarized below:
• Closure of the Sterling Street HOV on -ramp
• Relocatlon of HOVS to the First Street on -ramp
• Restrict the First Street on -ramp to HOV traffic only; Essex Street becomes the major on-
ramp to the Bay Bridge for auto taffc
• Conversion of Essex Street to one -way southbound (towards the Bay Bridge) and
widening of the ramp to four lanes. This Increases the storage capacity of Essax Street.
• Grade separating Essex Street at Harrison, Grade . separation at this Intersectlon Is
necessary to construct the AM contreflow lone under Exit Option B.
• Installing metering signals to control traffic entering the Bay Bridge on -ramp at Essex
Street.
•
Converting Folsom to two -way traffic from First Street to Essex. This provides an additional
path for vehicles east of First Street to access Essex Street,. since Hanlson must provide
access.
•
Constructing a one -way street with two travel lanes underthe Fremont Street off -ramp that
connects First Street to. Essex rStreet. This provides an additional path for vehicles on First
Street to access Essex Street.
Other changes to the street system proposed by the Planning Department In the Transit Center
District Plan (fCDP) were not modeled and are not included In the improvement list,
The analysis presented In this study Includes the calibration of the Base Year model with the
adsting traffic demand and the existing network. A screening of the Base Year and the Base
Year with Improvements scenarios was done to compare queuing and the throughput of the
Bay Bridge on -remps.
This study does not consider the Impacts of future traffic demand or other circulation charges
on SoMa streets. Previous modeling work has Indicated that forecasts of future traffic far
exceed the capacity of the SoMa transportation system. A discussion of SoMa traffic forecasts
Is provided In a later section to highlight the significant increases forecast by the'SF- Champ's
travel demand model.
40 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Dynamic Assignment: Explanation and Rationale
The SoMa model Incorporates VISSIMS dynamic assignment routine to model driver's
route choice between origin and destination zones in the network. Dynamic assignment, as
defined within VISSIM and as applied In this study. Is an Iterative routine that n dIstdbutes
traffic, between an 0 -D pair based on the cost experienced by users as they travel within the
simulation, VISSIM's dynamic assignment routine has the ability to produce a set of O -D traffic
flows that are responsive to queuing and congestion as it develops over time:
VISSIM Identifies routes between each 0 -0 pair; and assigns traffic to each path based on
the travel time and cost experienced by users during a series of simulation =a. Successive
Iterations of the model employ a search for new routes and 0 -D traffic is redistributed to routes
based on travel costs from previous Iterations, The new traffic assignment Is loaded on the
network, the travel costs are collected during the run, Which are then used In subsequent nuns.
These steps ere executed until convergence criteria are met.
VISSIMk dynamic assignment rouane differs from standard "static assignment' procedures
for modeling traffic flows. Static assignment produces a set of O -D routings and traffic flows
that do not change as congestion and queuing develops. As simulation study me''s increase
In size, It becomes Increasingly difficult to specify routes between all O -D pairs and assign
a traffic flow to each route. In the SoMa model study arse, static assignment would require
Identifying and essigning traffic flows to thousands of mutes. VISSIM's dynamic assignment
routine eliminates the need to do this by generating the routes and traffic flows as It Iterates,
The usage of the tens dynamic assignment In MSSIM. differs from other definrtims commonly
used in transportation planning. While theta is no unified definition, to most transportation
researchers and prectliforlers the term *dymmic assignment' is often associated
with the process of •Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) in travel demand modeling. DTA In
travel demand modeling Is a technique for producing an equilibrium solution that Is based
on experienced travel costs2. DTA is a different concept from the microdmulatlon dynamic
assignment routine applied in this analysis.
Model Development
This section details the development of the SoMa VISSIM model. The model development was
an Iterative process and Includes the following steps:
• Step 1: Data collection
• Step 2: Matrix estimation
• Step 3: VISSIM network development
• Step ?: Assign Initial O -D matrix on the VISSIM network using dynamlo assignment
Step 5: Run VISSIM multiple times to generate multiple routes and traffic assignmems
• Step 6: Compare VISSIM output to calibration criteria
• Step 7: AdjustO -0 table and mine ASSIM network
• Step 3: Repeat Steps 5 through 7 will the model is successfully calibrated
• Step 9: Use calibrated model In the scenario analysis
DetaYS on the,data collection, O -D metric estimation, and the steps to calibrate the SoMa
VISSIM most ere presented In the following. sections.
' A Phrrter for Dynamic Traffic Assignment, ADB30 Transportation Network Modaivg Conmrae
(Traretnrtatlon Research Board, 2010),
Data Collection
Development
Existing Intersection j I O -D Sub -Area I I I Review of Existing Build New VISSIM
Tragic Counts I Extraction from VISSIM Models Roadway Network
SF -CHAMP Model
Initial O -D Matrices f I I I Initial VISSIM
VISSIM Model Calibration
Load 0-0 Matrices VISSIM Model With Load VISSIM Network
Dynamic Assignment
Adju.t O -D , Adjust VISSIM
Run
Matrices
Model n Iterations
INE,. ,,,,a,eiCS,,,o
Network
VISSIM Model
e�reo�m a vetac «��
Embarcadem
SFMTA
Transit Center
aunrq exn x� aerNlrnl
District Plan
2008
NO
^ ............
• ............
NO
• • .
tl.n
Eastern Neighborhoods
2010
Fehr & Peers
Calibrated
Model
Other Studies ISF Mint
Locations on Fourth and Ftfm
Plaza traffic study, others)
2008 -2009
Streets (between Mission and
Use Calibrated Made!
Folsom)
Tor S cenario Analysis
Figure 29. SoMa VISSIM Model Development Process
Ell-7] E1❑❑!__-
SoMa Analysis
Data Collection
A considerable amount of traffic, transit. and pedesman data was compiled from existing
sources. Table 20 lists the traffic data sources used to develop the existing O -D matrices.
Market- Embarcadero
2008
Market Street and
VISSIM Model
Embarcadem
SFMTA
Transit Center
Area bountled by Mlsslon.
District Plan
2008
Third. Bryant, Steuart Streets
AECOM
Area bounded by Harrison,
Eastern Neighborhoods
2010
Fourth, Bryant, and Flhh
Fehr & Peers
Streets
Other Studies ISF Mint
Locations on Fourth and Ftfm
Plaza traffic study, others)
2008 -2009
Streets (between Mission and
LCW Consulting
Folsom)
First, Essex. Sterling Street
Bay Bridge Corridor
2008-2009
on ramps, additional vehicle
�'p
Congestion Study
occupancy counts to confine
HOV percentages
Table 20: Data Sources
The recent traffic counts at the First, Essex, and Sterling on -ramps confine that traffic levels
have not changed to a measurable degree over the last several years . Additional vehicle
occupancy counts were also conducted at the on-ramps to confirm the split between SOV
and HOV traffic on the ramps.
DRAFT I AFUP I OCTOBER 2010 41
0000❑❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
Origin - Destination Matrix Estimation
The VISSIM dynamic assignment routine requires a set of O -D matrices Chet correspond to
each traffic composition (SOV HOV Tmck1 end each hour of analysis. The O -D tables specify
the number of vehicles that travel between a given origin and destlnstlan pelt The dynamic
assignment procedure Identifies a set of fsssible routes between a given O -D pair anti than
assigns the O -D volumes to each route based on the generalized cost.
Estimating an accurate O -D matrix Is critical to developing a calibrated model. The O-D matrix
estimation process in the SoMa study area is complex for the following reasons:
• She of the network and the number of zones: The SoMa model contains 64 total zones
(external and "at*, which makes the O -D table 4,096 cells (64'64).
• Uncertainty related to regional versus local travel: While regional trips to the Bay Bridge are
the primary focus of the study, local trips 01 represent the mapdty of total traffic on the
network at any given tine. Estimating the split of Bay Bridge versus local traffic at each
origin Is extremely difficult Presumably, a vehicle loading on the network at an origin has
already chosen a route that provides the =at direct route to its i tentlbd destlneron.
• The Intersection traffic courts used for the model reflect the traffic produced and
generated from zones external and internal to the SoMa study area network. Turning
movement counts at Intersections along the edge of the study area can be translated Into
external origin and destination flows rather easily However trips produced and attracted
at Internal zones require using a travel demand model.
• Balancing the extended and Internal flows to achieve a reasonable demand matrix
The estimation of the O -D tables was an Iterathre process:
1. An Initial set of origin and destination vokmnes were developed for each external zone
based on the traffic counts.
2. Cambridge Systematics extracted a sub -area O -D table from the SFCTAS SF -CHAMP
modal that roughly matched the SoMa model area zone structure. This 0 -D table
provided:
• Vehicle trips produced and attracted by internal zones
• An Initial estimate of the relative flows between O -D pairs
42 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
3. The O -D tables were split Into SOV, HOV and Truck matrices based on the following
percentages (collected from traffic counts at the Bay Bridge on- ramps):
• SOV = 75%
• HOV = 23%
o Truck = 2%
4. A set of additional rules and adjustments were applied to moody or restrict reps between
certain O -D pairs.
5. The zonal odors and destination were factored Iteratively to balance the overall O -D table.
6. The O -D tables used with VISSIMB dynenYC assignment routine.
7. Based on the VISSIM model output and calibration criteria, the O -D matrices were
Ousted to provide a better calibration result (steps 4 through 6). The matrix estimation Is
referenced In the calibration procedure section presented below
VISSIM Network Development
The VISSIM network development included the following stamens:
• Intersections along Market Street from Fifth Street to the Ermbarcadero and along the
Embarcadero from south of Washington Street to Bryant Street were Input from the
SFMTA's Market -Emban sdero VISSIM model
• The remaining Intersections, approximately 50 locations, were coded
• Traffic signal timings were carted over from previous modals (where available) and
coded at the remaining locations based on field observations and signal timing plans
(where avallable)
• Bus raves operated by Munl, Golden Gate Transit SamTrans
• Pedestrian volumes (where available)
• Conflict areas and priority rules were Included to provide right -of -way guidance and reduce
the Incidences of intersection blocking
Figure 30 Illustrates the VISSIM SoMe model,
Figure 3a SoMe VISSIM Network
VISSIM Model Dynamic Assignment Development
Calibration Results
VISSIM's dynamic assigrunent routine Is an Iterative process that requires various assumptions Table 21 summanzes the calibration results for the Bay Bridge or ramps
and actions. The SoMa model dynamic assignment routine includes the following.
• Number of iterations: Multiple runs of the model are requied for the dynamic assignment
reutine to generate enough paths to dstrlbute traffic to. For this analysis, the number
of runs was set at 10 in = 10). The first aeration (n =1), the shortest path between each
O -D pair Is searched. All traffic Is assigned to this route. Each run executes a different
random seed. The random seed maiahzes the random number generator, wrilcn provides
stochastic variation of input lbw Into the model.
• Network loading: In early aerations, there are not enough paths to provide a reasonable
distribution of traffic m the network. Until the model searches enough paths, applying
100 percent of the trettic vAM lead to gridock. Therefore. traffic loading is set at 50 percent
01 the total for n =1, and Is Increased In 5 percent intervals until 100 percent of the traffic
demand Is assigned.
• Evaluation Interval: This Is a sub- Interval where travel tims and cost information Is
collected. In this model, O -D tables are pmvlded on a one -hour basis and the evaluation
Interval is set at 10 minutes.
• In subsequent aerations, (e.g.. n = 2 - 10). addalons) routes are searched and added For
a given evaluation Interval. traffic Is assigned to each mute based on the experienced travel
costs collected during that evaluation Interval In previous aerations. A process weights the
travel costs for a given evaluation interval across the previous aerations.
Model Calibration Criteria and Actions
The calibration of the Spills VISSIM model focused on two criteria:
• Achieve a GEH statistic of 5.0 on three of the four SoMa study area Bay Bridge on- ramps:
First. Essex. Sterling, and Fifth. These four on -ramps act as a screenine for traffic exaing
downtown San Francisco and desWed for the East Bay
• Replicate queuing conditions on First Street, Essex Street, and Harrison Street that match
field observations
The following actions were taken to calibrate the SoMa VISSIM model:
• A*sted rdative traffic flows between O -D pairs
• Ad)usted signal timings
• Add surcharges to discourage certain turning movements. This makes other sightly longer
routes more attractive in VISSIM.
Source: Arup, 2010
Table 21: SoMa Calibration Results
• The calibration at the two main Bay Bridge on- ramps. first and Essex Streets. have a GEH
statistic less than 5.00
• The total volume the model sends to the eastbound Bay Bridge is slightly less than the
observed counts. However, the model difference. as measured by the GEH statistic of
3.11, is lass then the GEH standard of 5.00
• The overall distribution of traffic between the four on -ramps approximates the proportions
Indicated in the observed ramp counts
The model is lass effective at estimating the HOV traffic to the Sterling Street on -ramp-
Possible explanations for this Include.
• The model appears to be over - assigning HOVS to First and Essex Streets
• The O -D table requires further refinement to assign more trips from the south edge of the
model (Bryant. Second, and Third Street original to the Bay Bridge. This would send more
HOV trips towards Sterling Street.
While the calibration of the model to vehicle throughput at the ramps is Important. replicating
the queuing upstream of the ramps Is the pinery locus of the study. Calibrating the model
to queuing was done by reviewing the extent of vehicle queues observed In the simulation run
and comparing that to field observations. Figure 31 shows snapshots or queuing during the
simulation period at several critical locations. Additional date collection Is advisable to better
measure existing queue lengths.
The process described above Indicates that the SoMa PM peak period model Is calibrated for
this level of analysis. As stated earlier, further refinements to the model are required.
❑a❑ ❑a❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
r
�l
4
.i
if
't.
ri
e4
40?
figure 31 'v—cle Oveuny st Itie emu It the PM FQ flour Si WhOn Model
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 43
Fist Street
2.024
2,126
2.22
Essex Street
1,590
1,753
3.99
Sterling Street (HOV)
1,117
732
12.7
Fifth Street
8761
7661
386
Source: Arup, 2010
Table 21: SoMa Calibration Results
• The calibration at the two main Bay Bridge on- ramps. first and Essex Streets. have a GEH
statistic less than 5.00
• The total volume the model sends to the eastbound Bay Bridge is slightly less than the
observed counts. However, the model difference. as measured by the GEH statistic of
3.11, is lass then the GEH standard of 5.00
• The overall distribution of traffic between the four on -ramps approximates the proportions
Indicated in the observed ramp counts
The model is lass effective at estimating the HOV traffic to the Sterling Street on -ramp-
Possible explanations for this Include.
• The model appears to be over - assigning HOVS to First and Essex Streets
• The O -D table requires further refinement to assign more trips from the south edge of the
model (Bryant. Second, and Third Street original to the Bay Bridge. This would send more
HOV trips towards Sterling Street.
While the calibration of the model to vehicle throughput at the ramps is Important. replicating
the queuing upstream of the ramps Is the pinery locus of the study. Calibrating the model
to queuing was done by reviewing the extent of vehicle queues observed In the simulation run
and comparing that to field observations. Figure 31 shows snapshots or queuing during the
simulation period at several critical locations. Additional date collection Is advisable to better
measure existing queue lengths.
The process described above Indicates that the SoMa PM peak period model Is calibrated for
this level of analysis. As stated earlier, further refinements to the model are required.
❑a❑ ❑a❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
r
�l
4
.i
if
't.
ri
e4
40?
figure 31 'v—cle Oveuny st Itie emu It the PM FQ flour Si WhOn Model
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 43
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
SoMa Analysis
Scenario Evaluation
The two scenarios, Base Yeer and Base Year With Improvements, were analyzed In VISSIM
for the two-hour PM peak period. No performance metrics were generated. A screening of the
two scenance was done to compers queuing and the throughput of the Bay Bridge on- ramps.
Observatlons from the VISSIM model runs of the Base Year and Base Year with Improvements
scenarios am summarized below:
• The Improvement optics lake fine potential to enhance afternoon access to the Bay
Bridge, while also maintaining or enhancing ci=lstfon on local streets for transit and local
vehicular namc
• The closure of the Sterling Street HOV on -ramp and the relocation of the HOV access to
First Street warrants further study.
• The queue storage at Essex appears adequate with the recommended widening to four
lanes and the addition of the two-lane connector under the TTC bus ramps between First
and Essex. Traffic along Folsom gets slightly worse In this scheme and will regtle further
Improvements to help menage traffic entering. Essex from Folsom.
• The grade separation of Essex will require some forth of metering to control traffic flow
onto the new two-lane on -ramp.
• The new First Street HOV on -ramp will likely require a ramp meter. The First and Essex
Street on -ramp meters should then be coordinated to allow for a safe and orderly merge of
tmfflc flows from the two ramps. Without any metering, the HOV traffic entering from First
Street could have difficulty merging Into the flow of traffic.
This screening was done to begin the Investigation of possible solutions. Further work Is
required to test and optimize arry potential Fnproveme ris.
44 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Major Findings
The Solve ahemoon aneysls presented in this study accomplished the following:
Completed a calibrated mloroslmutatlon model of the SoMa area In downtown San
Franclsoo. The model utilizes dynamic assignment to study PM peak period traffic
conditions on local sheets and ramps serving the Bay Bridge
A reconfiguration of the Bay Bridge on -ramps and streets feeding these ramps can
Improve regional access to the bridge and local transit clmflatfon: 5th Street ramp, for
example. Is well below capacity
SOMA traffic Is Impacted by the lane conffguradw of the eastbound west approach
and Bay Bridge. Further studies should also consider changes to the Bridge flow In
coordination with SOMA Improvements
The SoMe model will serve as a valuable tool for future study of lend use and
trensponatlonahematives within the study area
Introduction
This analysis Illustrates the need to malnteln bus transit travel tlmas and reliability on the Bay
Bridge comdot A number of potential physical and operating strategies. Including a contref ow
transit lane: appear promising based on the preliminary analysts presented In this study.
Further study Is suggested for the conaaflow, concept, but should carefully consider the
conlllcting Impacts and Issues:
• Bus transit enhancements
• Additional vehicle access Into San Francisco
• Distribution of those vehicles In downtown versus beyond downtown
• HOT revenue potential
• Impact at those vehicles in the afternoon on freeway and downtown street operation
• Impact ofthe contraflow lane on morning eastbound traffic, both on the Bridge and on
access to the Bridge
• Impact of freeway metering onwesibound.traffic
• Impact of Treasure Island development
•
BART capacity
• Impact of proposed bicycle lane
• Impact on Bridge maintenance activities
Morning goods movement needs
• Ability of the City to manage afternoon Bridge -bound traffic queues
• Design of the eastbound West Approach and Its impact on traffic flow, both on Bridge
on the City streets
• Urban design Impacts on City streets of alternatives
• Additional congestion pricing to manage queues and Increase LOS
• Cost of improvements and construction and operational feasibility
Further Investigation could be an opportunity to actively manage the limited system capacity
proactively and transparently. It could also lead to Important Improvements that benefit both
regional travel and local conditions In San Franclsco. However, for the benefits to be greater
than the Impacts requires careful thought and considerable discussion and collaboration with
multiple stakeholders.
This study has added to our understanding of future year conditions at the Toll Plaza and also
South-of-Market In their respective peak periods. Asa result. It appears warranted to proceed
with additional Investigation of improvements to the Bay Bridge Corridor. Further studies
should be comprehensive and investigate Improvement options as a system.
As a starting point, further study should Induce the following work elements: .
Policy and Priority Understanding
While San Francisco has accommodated substantial job growth over the test 30 years, that
growth has absorbed most of the available capacty In the transportation system— Including
BART''s ability to operate longer trams and more trains, or the Bay Bridge's ability to carry more
people through carpools and buses. With another 250,000 Jobs projected In San Francisco
over the next 25 years. and with about 40 percent of those lobs held by East Bay residents,
BART and the Bridge will Eke move an additional 100,000 workers Into San Francisco dally.
As BART reaches capacity, al revisiting of the Bridge's functions should be considered.
Survey of Best Practices
This study mentions several highway facilities that provide preferemes for buses and HOVs
including the Lincoln Tunnef in New York and New Jersey. There are other examples, and to
provide dedsionmakers with a robust understanding of the universe of operational options.
further studles.should provide additional detall.and also arrange field trips to see these facilities
and discuss their operations with staff. Among the freeways to consider. Investigating are the
Lincoln Tunnel (and the Pori Authority Bus Terminal), . Son Diegos 1- 15'Managed Lanes, the LA
Silver Line (Harbor Trensttway, and El Monte Buswey), the Champlain; Bridge in Montreal, 1 -30
In Dallas; and the Shirley Highway N the Washington OC area.
Study of Alternatives - Transit and Overall
Corridor Demand
The Bey Bridge is an Important part of the infrastructure system that connects San Francisco
to the East Bey. Our understanding of the relationship between transit demand and capacity
and highway demand end capacity has Increased In recent years, but any further study of
the use and demand of additional peak period westbound capacity will need to be framed by
BART's wettable capacity .
A robust . demand forecasting exercise which ansyrea the peak period capecfty constralms
relative to total demand Is vital to both our understanding of the corridor and required for any
outside financing.
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Further Study
Suite of Alternatives - Westbound Study
Additional Westbound HOV Facilities
Caltrans has designed the Bay Bridge access system to allow HOVs to bypass queues either
on the mainline treaweys or at the Toll Plaza by using dedicated HOV bypass fares and ramps.
Two significant gaps exist in this network:
• West Grand/Maridme on-ramp
• 1 -580 to SR 24
Prior to the Loma Prleta earthquake, the West GrandrMarklme on -ramp Included a HOV lane
that extended to the beginning of the ramp at Maritime. When the remp was rebuilt after
the earthquake, the HOV lane was designed to begin at Its junction with 1-880 (about 2,000
feet west of Maritime). During peak periods, the ramp Is congested and buses using It am
delayed by up to 10 minutes. Expanding the ramp to extend the HOV lane to Maritime has
been Identified as a critical Improvement several times, and was even Included In the RM2
legislation, . but the protect did not advance. AC Transit has considered operating a Transbay
Bus Rapid Transit route via MacArthur and West Grand to the Bridge, but reliability suffers
vrithout a dedicated HOV terse on the Maritime ramp.
As with the Maritime ramp, westbound HOV and bus traffic oni- 5801sthe only freeway that
lacks a HOV lane outside of the distribution structure. Extending a wstbound -only HOV lane
could save up to 20 minutes of travel time for HOVs and for buses In the corridor, which will
become critical as traffic Increases and freeway travel times, slow. During the peak hour about
15 buses use 1 -580.
DRAFT j ARUP j OCTOSER2010 45
000000❑❑
Further Study
Contraflow Lane on Bay Bridge westbound
As traffic Increases In the system, absent additlonel capacity Caltrans can either choose
to allow traffic to queue further beck on. the East Bay freeway system or It can Increase the
metering rates and effectively move the queus from the Toll Plata and the freeways onto the
Bridge, In the firsucase, all traffic is Impacted, Including those vehicle riot destined far the
Bridge. In the later case, the HOV /bus.time advantage degrades, since the Bridge will operate
at a reduced speed.
A comranow lane an the Bridge could operate in several configurations. It Is recommended
that two approaches be considered In further studies. In Option 1, the contreflow lane would
be an extension of the HOT network. Buses (up to about 300 per hour) and tolled vehicles
would use the lane for direct axass Into San Francisco. The toll would be adjusted to ensure .
the lane operated slightly below capacity to ensure good service and fast. speeds. HOVs
would continue to use the existing HOV bypass system. Under thlsoption. VISSIMsimulations
indicate that the Bridge queue Is about the same in 2035 as today. The downside Is that
additional private vehicles enter San Francisco In the morning peak. and likely leave in the
eltei rgon peak
In Option 2, private passenger vehicles would not be permitted, but trucks would be eflowed
to use the contreflow lane along with buses. Option 2 would result in less edditionafCapecity.
Into San Francisco, but would Impmve travel time and reliability for buses and trucks.
In this option,. there would be a sight Increase In Bridge capacity, since about 200 trucks per
hour would be eliminated from the westbound.dimtIon, possibly creating additional capacity
for another 500 peek hour.autos. Since buses would be operating relatively free-flaw in the
contraflow lane, Caltrans has greater flexibility adjust the metering rates to keep the queue
upstream of the toll Plaza to reasonable lengths.
Any contrailow, analysis should also, consider the Impacts on the morning eastbound traffic.
Currently, about 6,500 vehicles use the Bay Bridge eastbound in the highest morning peak
hour. Any future analysis should consider moming eastbound traffic conditions Impacts
resulting from the removal of one traffic lane.
In addition, the impact on Bridge maintenance (where Ceftrans crews often claw a lane to
work on the Bridge) should also be considered,
46 BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR CONGESTION STUDY
Suite of Alternatives - Eastbound Study
The addition of a comraflow lane an the Bay Bridge would create additional capacity Into San
Francisco. The use of the contraflow lane as a HOT facility could deliver an additional 1,000
vehicles per hour into downtown. This could increase demand in the PM peak for the retum
trip., to the East Bay, which could increase the amount of traffic queuing an SoMe streets
trying to access the .Bay Bridge on- ramps. A series of additional questions warrant further
investigedon in Solve:
• Future studies should consider whether reconfiguring the sestbound travel lanes
at West Approach to the Bay Bridge. These could Include realigning lanes and
reconfiguring ramps.
•
Closing Sterling Street Ramp, improving Essex Stmetramp, converting First to HOV only
• Closing Essex Street ramp and raconfiguring the Bridge so that Stedlg ramp has its own
lane; convening First to HOV only
• Closing upstream ramps and reconfiguring the 101 -8D Freeway so that 8th Street
eastbound enters from the right, allowing the Flfth Street ramp enter Its own tare
• Using congestion pricing in the eastbound direction to manage queues and keep
streets cla9r
• Studying the urban design Impact of the various SoMa alternatives
Study of Alternatives - Implementation Options
As a plan Is developed and the benefits, primarily ridership and time savings, ere better
understood, the next study should Investigate the best option to deliver whatever improvement
Is selected. Project risk and project financing could lead to a traditional design- bid -bulld
process financed by togs charged on themmraflow Iane, or It could lead to an alternative
approach using a public- private partnership. All options should be considered as the project
scope and its risks become clearer.
Further Study
DRAFT I ARUP I OCTOBER 2010 47
Acknowledgements
Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
Tine Spencer
Robert. Del Rosario
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
Beth Walukas
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
DwAd Burch
Bay Area Council _
Michael Cunningham
California Department of Transportation (Caftrans)
Rodney Oto
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Albert Yee
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Val Manotti
San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)
Tilly Chang
Zabe Bent
Ellzabeth Sall
San. Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Britt Tanner
Julie farschbaum
San Francisco Planning Department
Jon Svae
Aktoriya Wise
Greg Riesen
San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association
Sarah Karlinksy
TransbayJoint Powers Authority (TJPA)
Ed Sum
Robert Beck
Report Preparation
Arup
William Baumgardner
Anthony Bruuone
Richard Coffin
John Eddy
Brian Huey
Michael Iswalt
Tim Pattinson
SyMa Vaquer
Cambridge Systematics
Lawrence Liao
Vamses Modugula
Ronald West
LCW Consulting
Luba Wyaryck -A
Arup
560 Mission, Suite 700
San Francisco. CA 94105
T 415 957 9445
F 4159579096 w W.arupxom