HomeMy WebLinkAbout 06-16-1999 Agenda 3A(1)SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ~ f ~ 3
MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER: '
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Presentation on Santa Clara County Measure B Transportation Improvement
Program
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Direct staff on forwarding any City comments to the County on the Draft Base Case Plan.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff from the County Executive's Office is expected to be in attendance at your meeting to
present the County's Draft Measure B Base Case Transportation Improvement Program. In
preparation for this, I have copied excerpts from the plan which are attached to this memo If
anyone wishes to see the entire plan, a copy of it is in my office.
Included in the plan excerpt are descriptions of those rail and highway projects which I believe are
of most interest to Saratoga. These are the Vasona Light Rail Project, the Route 17
Improvements between Lark Avenue and Highway 280, the Highway 85 Safety Improvements
(Note -This is where the Noise Abatement Issue is discussed -See Plan Page 25), the Highway
85 and 101 North Interchange in Mountain View, the Bicycle Improvement Program, and the
Pavement Management Program. The draft Plan was released for public comment on May 11.
Following a six week review period, the Plan is scheduled to go back before the Board of
Supervisors on June 29 for final approval. Any comments the City may wish to make on the Plan
should be transmitted to the Board by the end of next week. Therefore, the Council should direct
staff accordingly on any comments it wishes to make at your meeting.
Also attached to this memo are copies of recent correspondences pertaining to the Route 85 noise
issue. Since I expect the Council will want to specifically address this issue with the Board, I
have assembled these materials separately for your convenience.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The City would not submit any comments to the Board of Supervisors on the Measure B Base
Case Plan.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
A letter will be prepared for the Mayor's signature expressing the City's comments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Measure B Base Case Plan.
2. Route 85 Noise Issue correspondences.
Santa Clara County
MEASURE 6
Transportation
Improvement Program
Prepared by:
Office of the- County Executive
CH2M Hiil/1~arsons7ransportation Group
BASE CASE
Acknowledgements
The following individuals, agencies, and firms are gratefully acknowledged for their
support and assistance during the preparation of this Base Case Implementation Plan.
Board of Supervisors
Donald F. Gage, District One
Blanca Alvarado, District Two
Pete McHugh, District Three
James T. Beall, District Four
S. Joseph Simitian, District Five
Counti~ Administration
Richard Wittenberg/County Executive
Jane Decker/Deputy County Exeruiive
Eileen Goodwin./Special Consultant
William Parsons/Director of Finance
William Anderson/Assistant County Counsel
Paula Lacey/Intergovernmental Relations Manager
Patricia Carrillo/Administrative Assistant
Valerie Altham/Graphics Designer
Leonard Pacheco/Design Consultant
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) City of Campbell
Hatch Mott MacDonald City of Cupertino
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. City of Gilroy
MK Centennial, Inc. City of Los Altos
Nolte and Associates, Inc. Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Los Gatos
County of Santa Clara -Roads and Airports City of Milpitas
Department City of Monte Sereno
City of Morgan Hill
State of California - Caltrans City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
SJC\1181GJOSE\PROJECTS\150973\DRAFf BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Contents
Page
AcknowledQements ......................................................................................................................i
Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii
....................................................................................................................................... iii
Glossary
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................ES-1
Background ...................................................................................................................................1
Objective ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Policy Recommendations ..........................................................:................................................3
Project Summary ..........................................................................................................................6
Revenue Forecasts ......................................................................................................................41
Draft Expenditure Plan .............................................................................................................47
Tables
1 Base Case Revenue Projections
2 VTA Revenue Estimate
3 Draft Expenditure Plan
Figures
1 Site Location Map for Measure B Passenger Rail Projects
2 Montague Expressway Conceptual Interchange Plan
3 Aerial Photograph: Vasona Corridor at Diridon Station
4 Site Location Map for Measure B Roadway Improvements
5 Annual Transit Tax Revenue (1975 to 1998)
6 Cumulative Sales Tax Revenue
7 Comparison of Projected Measure B Revenue
Appendices
A Measure A Ballot Language
B Project List
C Project Fact Sheets
SJG1\~BIGJOSE\PROJECTS1150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Glossary
The following terminology and descriptions are used in the Base Case Plan.
Braided Exit-Ramp: Freeway off-ramp that is grade-separated from an adjacent freeway on-
ramp, thereby eliminating a conflict between the traffic movements.
Climbing Lane: An additional traffic lane for trucks or slow moving vehicles, climbing steep
grades.
General Fund: Revenue generated by the general sales tax that the County is responsible for
distributing among its county-wide programs. The County's budgetary fund where tax
revenue is deposited and expenditures are drawn.
Connector Ramp: A ramp between two freeways.
Environmental Documentation: Documents including, but not limited to, Environmental
Impact Reports, Environmental Impact Statements, Initial Studies, Environmental
Assessments, and Negative Declarations that are necessary for project approval.
Escalation: The increase in project cost over time,. caused by anticipated inflation.
Full-Take: The acquisition of an entire parcel of property needed for a project.
Hi hg Occupancx Vehicle Direct Connector: A freeway ramp that directly connects one high
occupancy-vehicle lane to another direct connector ramp designated for the use of high-
occupancyvehicles.
Measure A: An advisory measure, .approved on November 5, 1996, for transportation
improvements in Santa Clara County.
Measure B Program: The program to implement the Measure A projects using Measure B
funds.
Measure B: A measure approved by the voters in 1996, authorizing the County to collect an
additional lfi-cent general sales tax.
Partial Take: The acquisition of a portion of a parcel of property needed for a project.
Project Report: A report documenting the proposed design of a highway improvement
project that supports advancing the project to construction.
Project Stud~Report: The initial project document that establishes the need, purpose, scope,
and cost of a highway improvement project.
Weaving Operation: The act of a vehicle attempting to enter or exit a freeway.
Weaving Section: A length of one-way roadway, designed to accommodate weaving, at one
end of which two one-way roadways merge and at the other end of which they separate.
Typically, a section of roadway between two consecutive interchanges designed to
accommodate vehicles entering and exiting the freeway.
SJC\\\BIGJOSEIPROJECTS\150973\DRAFf BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BAC Bicycle Advisory Committee
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
the Base Case Plan Measure B Base Case Implementation Plan
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
EB Eastbound
ED Environmental documents
FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement
HOV High occupancy vehicle
LFV Low floor vehicle
LOS Level of service
LRT Light rail transit
NB Northbound
PMP Pavement Management Program
PSSR Project Scope Summary Report
PSR Project Study Report
PR Project Report
RAC Rubberized asphalt concrete
R/ W Right-of-Way
SB
SCCTA
Southbound
Santa Clara County Traffic Authority
SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program
SPRC Southern Pacific Railroad Company
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
UP
Union Pacific Railroad Company
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VTP Valley Transportation Plan
WB Westbound
SJC\1\BIGJOSE\PROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC N
Executive Summary
In November of 1996, the voters in Santa Clara County overwhelmingly approved
Measure A, an advisory measure that outlined a specific package of transportation
improvements for the County. Measure B authorized the enactment of a lfi-cent sales tax for
general County purposes, fora 9-year timeframe. A framework has been established
wherein the Board of Supervisors will retain program level responsibilities and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the County's Roads and Airports Department
and local cities would be primarily responsible for project delivery. The success of this
approach requires a clear understanding of the Measure B Program. Development of the
Base Case Plan is the first step in achieving a concise program definition based on several
key assumptions, the most important include the following:
/ For the purpose of developing this initial Base Case Plan, program funding is limited
to the anticipated revenue generated by the ~-cent sales tax.
/ Cost-effective projects will be delivered at each of the locations described in
Measure A. ,
/ The program will maintain the funding split between rail projects at 55 percent of
the total program funding and roadway projects and programs at 45 percent.
/ Project construction will be substantially complete by 2006.
Development of the Plan included a thorough review of the existing project scoping
documents, PRs, EDs, conceptual drawings, and cost estimates. Also, scoping meetings
were held with project stakeholders including the County, VTA, Caltrans and Cities, to
discuss the proposed scope of the projects, design constraints, and potential implementation
issues.
Based on this review, the Plan includes several policy recommendations including
expenditure control, limitations on project indirect costs and contingencies, implementation
of aesthetic enhancements and the use of rubberized asphalt concrete. For each Measure B
project and program, the Project Summary section provides a description of the project
scope, project status, implementation issues, project budget, and Base Case
recommendations.
As a part of the development of the Base Case Plan, the County obtained three revenue
estimates based on a 10-year sales tax forecast prepared by Foremetrics, in April 1999. The
Base Case Plan includes a summary of these estimates and a comparison with the historic
sales-tax trend in the County. The forecasts presented in the Plan represent a reasonable
range of potential Measure B revenue. For the purpose of developing the Base Case
Expenditure Plan, Foremetrics' base revenue projection totaling approximately $1.33 billion
is assumed.
The Plan includes a Draft Expenditure Plan organized into three major components
including highway expenditures, railway expenditures and cash-flow. The cash-flow model
SJCU\BIGJOSEIPROJECTS1150973\DRAFT BASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC ES•1
computes project inflation at an annual rate of 2.5 percent, interest on investment at 5.3
percent and interest on debt at 4 percent.
The Draft Expenditure Plan indicates that the escalated cost of the Measure B program is
approximately $1.32 billion and total revenue expectation is $1.33 billion. Rail projects
account for approximately $757 million or about 57 percent of the total expenditures.
Highway projects account for the balance of $562 million or 43 percent of the total. The
program schedule indicates that all of the projects would be substantially complete by 2006.
The cash-flow summary indicates that the program will have a negative balance in FY 2004
through FY 2006 of as much as $150 million and a positive final balance of $62.1 million at
program completion.
SJC1\1BIGlOSE1PROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC ES-2
Background
In November of 1996, the voters in Santa Clara County overwhelmingly approved
Measure A, an advisory measure that outlined a specific package of transportation
improvements for the County. It was the understanding of the voters that if funding.were
available, the County would deliver the specified improvements. Not only did the Measure
outline the projects; it outlined some administrative issues as well, including a goal that all
the projects be delivered within the 9-year life of the program.
The project package (Appendix A) was developed by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic
Relief, with input from local officials and transportation staff. Guiding principles used in the
development of the list included need, project readiness, geographic diversity and an
approximate split between road-oriented projects and transit-oriented projects. The list is
balanced slightly toward the transit side in probable expenditures for project delivery,
because light rail transit construction projects are, in general, more expensive to design and
construct than highway construction projects.
Measure B, which was on the same ballot as Measure A, authorized the enactment of a
lfz-cent sales tax for general County purposes fora 9-year iimeframe. In addition, Measure B
contained the provision that an independent Citizens Watchdog Committee be established
to review all expenditures of he tax revenue and conduct annual audits of the sales tax
expenditures. The validity of Measure B tax was immediately challenged, but ultimately the
California Supreme Court determined in 1998 that the tax was, in fact, valid.
In September 1998, the County adopted the Blueprint for Delivery -1996 Measure A
Transportation Improvement Program, which identified a framework for effective delivery of
the program. This framework specified that the Board of Supervisors would retain program
level responsibilities and that the Valley Transportation Authority, the County's Roads and
Airports Department and local cities would be primarily responsible for project delivery.
Clearly the success of this partnership approach to transportation project delivery would
necessitate a clear understanding of the "Base Case" Measure B Program. The Blueprint for
Delivery recognized that the Base Case must be not only understood, but agreed to by the
Board of Supervisors, the VTA and the other project sponsors.
Preparation of the Base Case Implementation Plan began in December 1998. At that time,
the VTA had completed a substantial amount of work on the transit element of the Measure
B Program. Portions of the Tasman East LRT line were already under construction, and the
final design was nearly complete on the balance of that project. All the other transit projects
had some level of conceptual engineering and environmental documentation under way.
The VTA had also initiated limited pre-design activities on five highway projects and began
development of the Pavement Management Program (PMP). Reimbursement of VTA funds
already expended on the Measure B Program is anticipated in the Base Case Plan. Adoption
of the Final Plan by the Board of Supervisors is planned for June 1999. It is likely that the
program will not be fully defined until December 1999, when Project Study Reports for all
the highway projects should be complete. At that time, the Base Case Plan would be further
refined and become the Revenue and Expenditure Plan for the Measure B Transportation
Program. Thereafter, the Plan should typically be updated annually.
SJC\UBIGJOSEIPROJECTS\7509731DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Objective
The success of any large-scale transportation program is founded on a clear vision of what
the program includes. Measure A described the scope of the proposed transit and roadway
projects only generally, so development of the Base Case Plan is the first step in aclueving a
concise program definition. Program definition, in this case, is building on the list of projects
in Measure A and is not intended to imply a new list of projects. The Base Case Plan adheres
closely to the ballot measure list of projects. Each of the projects is defined in terms of scope,
budget and timing to ensure that all of the projects are delivered. The Plan was developed
based on other assumptions as well, including the following:
/ For the purpose of developing this initial Base Case Plan, program funding is limited
to the anticipated revenue generated by the ~-cent sales tax, so as to preserve non-
sales tax funding sources for other critical transportation projects in Santa Clara
County.
/ Cost-effective projects will be delivered at each of the locations described in
Measure A.
/ The program will maintain the funding split between rail projects at 55 percent of
the total program funding and roadway projects and programs at 45 percent.
/ Project construction will be substantially complete by 2006.
/ To the extent possible, .the program will be on apay-as-you-go basis.
/ Near-term project value will be optimized consistent with long-term needs.
/ A limitation will be placed onproject development and administration costs.
Many of the Measure A projects had previous development work, so development of the
Plan began with a review of the existing project scoping documents, PRs, EDs, conceptual
drawings, and cost estimates. Some cost estimates were almost 8 years old, while others
were updated in early 1999. During the development of the Plan, the construction quantities
were verified independently and unit cost assumptions were updated. In some cases, the
cost estimates were revised to more accurately reflect the current scope of the proposed
project.
Early in the process of developing the Base Case Plan, scoping meetings were held with the
project stakeholders. The stakeholders typically included the County, VTA, Caltrans, cities,
and other interested parties. During the meetings, the proposed scope of the projects, design
constraints, and potential implementation issues were discussed. Certain projects had little,
if any, development work completed in the past. In these cases, the scoping meetings
identified a range of potential improvements that would be analyzed during the
preliminary engineering phase. For projects that substantially exceeded their initial Measure
A budget, additional analysis was conducted to identify potential alternatives to reduce
project scope and costs.
In addition to scope, cost and schedule, the Base Case Plan also makes recommendations
regarding implementation policies, forecasted revenue, expenditures, and cash flow.
SJCi\1BIGJOSEIPROJECTS115097TDRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Policy Recommendations
Controlling Expenditures
Each Measure B project shall be included in the Base Case Plan and have a Project Study
Report or equivalent scoping document. The scoping document shall accurately estimate the
preliminary scope, cost and schedule to develop and construct the project. The County will
reimburse the implementing agency for reasonable labor and expenses directly attributable
to the preparation of the scoping documents.
The Base Case Plan establishes the vision, but successful implementation will require
binding agreements between the County and each implementing agency. It is recommended
that the County use a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for each project in the
Measure B Program. The FFGA is a detailed agreement that commits the County (grantor)
to a firm commitment of funding and commits the implementing agency (grantee) to
delivering the project under the terms and conditions of the agreement. The funding should
be consistent with the project scope, cost and schedule developed in the PSR or equivalent
scoping document. The FFGA will establish a separate construction contingency budget for
the purpose of funding reasonable increases in project cost.
Upon execution of the FFGA, the implementing agencies will be authorized to commence
with project development activities and .the. specified funding advanced for the subsequent
project phase. Payments will be based on successful completion of project milestones
specified in the FFGA. At each of these milestones, the implementing agency will provide a
project status report that identifies outstanding issues and estimates the cost and schedule to
complete the project. Increases in project scope and cost that can be accommodated within
the FFGA's contingency budget should be resolved at the project implementation level and
not require approval by the County. Changes beyond this are program issues and must be
accepted by the County, who will .amend the FFGA, before further advancement of the
project.
Opinion of Probable Costs
Each Measure B project includes an opinion of probable cost to reflect the anticipated cost of
providing new or upgraded highway and rail passenger facilities and services. These
opinions are based on the measurement and pricing of quantities wherever information was
available and reasonable assumptions for other work not covered in drawings or
specifications, as stated within this document. Unit rates were obtained from historical
records and discussions with project sponsors and reflect current bid costs in the area.
Each estimate of probable costs includes an allowance for indirect costs. Indirect costs
include design fees, professional services fees, construction manager fees, owner inspection
or coordination cost, testing and inspections by owners, owner-furnished insurance (if any),
real estate acquisition agents, legal support, aerial and ground surveys, and owner-
furnished nontechnical services.
SJC1\\BIGJOSEIPROJECTSN509731DRAFTBASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Industry experience with indirect costs varies widely. For highway projects, an allowance of
up to 32 percent was included in the estimate of probable costs. For passenger rail projects,
an allowance of 33 percent of base year construction costs was used for the light rail
projects, while a lower allowance (26 to 30 percent) was used for the commuter rail projects,
consistent with industry experience norms.l
Contingencies
Contingency allowances for highway projects are computed in accordance with Caltrans
guidelines for PSR-level of project definition.
Contingency allowances for passenger rail projects include a 20 to 30 percent allowance for
civil construction change orders within the base year construction cost estimate, and a
10-percent unallocated contingency allowance for all cost elements (e.g., construction, right-
of-way, vehicle procurement, and indirect costs). The 10-percent allowance for unallocated
contingencies is considered to be commensurate with the advanced state of project
definitions associated with the light rail projects and the use of Tasman West recent
construction delivery costs, as the basis for cost estimating.
Aesthetic Enhancements
The Measure B program proposes a large package of transportation improvements that will,
among other things affect the aesthetic character of the project area. The Measure B program
and the implementing agencies recognize that it is in the best interests of the community to
develop projects that provide visual enhancements over and above those already required
by environmental regulations. Therefore, the Measure B program should designate
additional funds for the sole purpose of visual enhancement of certain projects and its
surroundings. Key elements of the aesthetic enhancement recommendation include the
following:
/ Funding could be up to 2 percent of the project's base construction cost, or
approximately $13 million program-wide.
/ The funds should not replace, but are in addition to basic environmental mitigation
funds.
/ All Measure B projects qualify for application of the funds with the exception of
those primarily providing pavement rehabilitation, signalization, intersection
improvements and low floor vehicles (LFVs).
/ Typically, these funds will provide additional landscaping and aesthetic upgrades to
soundwalls, retaining walls, bridges, rail stations and park-and-ride facilities.
/ The funds should be granted based on an evaluation of the opportunity for and
potential positive affects of the enhancements, among other factors.
1 A VTA survey of 24 transit construction projects across North America identified indirect costs as ranging from 89.2 percent
of construction cost to a low of 17.8 percent. The industry average was 38.7 percent, and the norm was 34 percent. Quartile
averages were 60.3 percent for the highest six indirect cost ratios; 37.9 percent for the second quartile of six projects; 30.6
percent for the third quartile of indirect cost ratios; and 24.1 percent for the lowest six indirect cost ratios.
SJC\\\81GJOSE\PROJECTSN50973\DRAFf BASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC
Rubberized Asphalt Concrete
Rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) is a relatively new technology that uses crumb rubber
mixed with paving aggregates bound together with asphalt cement to form a durable
asphalt concrete pavement. The crumb rubber is generated from grinding up scrap tires that
would otherwise be disposed of in a landfill. Caltrans has proven through testing that RAC
can be an appropriate alternative for certain pavement rehabilitation (primarily overlay)
projects. RAC is a relatively new technology, however some potential benefits have proven
to include the following:
/ Reduced overlay thickness
/ Quieter ride
/ Resistance to reflective cracking
/ Increased skid resistance
/ Reduction of scrap tires (up to 1,000 per lane mile per inch of pavement)
RAC does have some drawbacks however, that should be considered, including the
following:
/ Additional material and installation cost
/ Requires use of specialized equipment and highly experienced contractors
/ Requires careful construction inspection
/ Produces emissions problems
/ Material is not recyclable
Compared to conventional, dense graded asphalt concrete, RAC costs approximately 40 to
80 percent more, depending on location and size of project. However, the cost of rubberized
asphalt with a reduced thickness .can be economically compared to conventional asphalt.
The County pavement rehabilitation program typically proposes the minimum specified
thickness. Therefore, a thinner and less expensive RAC overlay is not possible.
When considering the use of RAC for Measure B projects, cost, availability, and future
maintenance should all be considered on aproject-by-project basis.
SJC\NBIGJOSE\PROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC
Project Summary
The project descriptions, implementation issues, recommendations; and recommended
budget information for the Measure B Passenger Rail and Roadway Improvement Projects
and Programs are described in this Project Summary section. Site location maps (Figures 1
and 4) illustrate the project locations for the Measure B Passenger Rail and Roadway
projects.
Appendix C, Project Fact Sheets of the Measure B Passenger Rail and Roadway
Improvement Projects, can be used as an additional reference. The fact sheets are stand-
alone figures that include brief project descriptions, a project budget, development status,
and a site location map. The project budget included on each fact sheet coincides with the
1999 budget value listed in the following Project Summary. Appendix B is a table inclusive
of passenger rail and roadway projects and project descriptions.
SJC~I~BIGJOSE~PROJECTS1150973~DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PIAN.DOC
ir~"(3.R1, PM Rai1SNeMap.fiB 4Y27t99(~R~ v ` ~ -
- ~ i ~~ r
. ~ ~-., ~.
~ - - ~. •~ , " ~ Mil ltas ~~~
Menlo Fie '' ~g
. rte,....
pelo A; _
' Tasmer+ west Uyht~ait a f
' `C8-lif0 is Aug tun+kr constn~donl
P2i0 `'t~ FLi01; ~;i
_ _".Alto Ssin is ~ ,,'
~~~ ,,~, nyva~e
`~
Mouh~ain View `"~~'--,~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,.
~ Los i ..'~- ,l0~~, : '~ .. ..
~-ttos Sun ya~a._ ~enta~~a ,.,. ~,_..:
K, ~~ ~ ~Glara iridq~ ~;
T '•~ ~1 "._._--- - --~- -- ~"~ 'r =~,~,L ,~~ tip? i
~' .~ + ttpBKtinO, ` g171i@r1 ' ~ r'• r'..~
:,
`~, ~, . a tOi.,
"rti- f xt Camp~ll , ~.~ ~ ,
~ti E ~~~
~~ 7° ~ '
~'~, ~ ~ ~ Blo~a 'Nih
- _ - Saratoga .. "
Rail Projects ~ - __
~ 1111 Caltrain !AS Gatos . ~ "
FremontlSouth eay "' Figure 'i .
~_ ~
~" ~ Commuter Nail ~ Site Location Map
1 Tasman East {.ightralt er R~~~ PrQ~eG~S
I~ >~ ~ 1~ `~ passeng
~ m ^ ~ 1 Capitol Lightraii' .~ Meag~ire B
~ ~ ~ *~ I Vasona Lightra ~_
Vasona Light Rail Line: Between Campbell and Downtown
San Jose
Project Description
The 4.8-mile Vasona corridor connects downtown Campbell with downtown San Jose. From
downtown Campbell to the Diridon Caltrain Station, 3.8 miles, the Vasona Line will operate
primarily over a single LRT track running adjacent to the UP freight railroad track. North
and southbound light rail trains will pass one another at stations. From the Diridon Station
into downtown San Jose, a distance of 1 mile, two tracks will be constructed using new
rights-of-way to connect with the existing Guadalupe LRT line on San Carlos Street.
The downtown Campbell Station will have 27 parking spaces. From there, the line travels
3,500 feet to a station at Hamilton Avenue, followed by the Bascom Avenue Station, about
3,000 feet away. The Bascom Station will have 149 parking spaces and a bus drop off and
pickup area. The next station is at Fruitdale Avenue, about one mile away. Continuing
northeast for about 3,000 feet, is the Race Street Station, followed by the Diridon Station,
approximately one mile away. From Diridon LRT Station, the line will pass under the
Caltrain yard in a 1,600 foot long tunnel, returning to grade at Autumn Street, where the San
Fernando Station will be located. The line will then turn south, adjacent to Delmas Street to
join the Guadalupe LRT line at San Carlos Street, adjacent to the Children's Discovery
Museum.
Conceptual engineering for this segment was completed by VTA in December 1998.
Preliminary engineering is underway.
Implementation Issue
/ VTA estimates the overall escalated cost of this project at $256 million, which is
significantly higher than the 1996 Measure A estimate of $136 million.
Recommendations
/ Negotiations with Union Pacific, regarding use or acquisition of the Vasona rail corridor,
must be completed.
/ Reduce indirect costs for VTA staff, professional services during construction and
nontechnical services; and reduce the unallocated contingency allowance for a total
savings of approximately $45 million.
/ Reduce the size of the Bascom park and ride lot ($2 million).
/ Given the Measure B budget constraint, the proposed tunnel section on the downtown
San Jose segment should be reevaluated to reduce cost. The tunnel planned is beneath
the northern portion of the Diridon Station rail yard, the station's bus transfer center,
and Montgomery Street (southbound State Route 82). The purpose of the tunnel is to
grade separate the LRVs from commuter and freight rail operations. It also allows for
SJC\1\BIGJOSEiPROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC 17
the construction of a convenient transfer connector between Vasona light rail and
passenger rail services using the Diridon Station (Caltrain, ACE, and AMTRAK).
The attached aerial photo (Figure 3) illustrates both the VTA proposed alignment and a
conceptual alternative (dashed line) developed for the Base Case Plan. The alternative
alignment incorporates several cost effective elements contained in earlier attempts to
identify a downtown San Jose connection to the Vasona line including, the Vasona
Corridor Final Downtown Planning Study prepared in 1994 and the Dozutitozun San Jose
Transit Alternatives Study, prepared in 1995.
The proposed "value engineering" alignment would leave the Vasona UP track just
south of West San Carlos Street and transition to a double track running along the
former Western Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific) spur track. The alignment would
cross West San Carlos Street along the former spur track alignment (recently removed)
and continue to Park Avenue. At Park Avenue, the alignment would transition to a
single track running along the north edge of the street right of way. The single track
would pass under the Caltrain/Union Pacific rail corridor using the existing Park
Avenue undercrossing. No traffic lanes would be removed with this design solution.
Upon reaching Montgomery Street (southbound State Route 82), the alignment would
turn north using private right of way acquired for the LRT project, located on the west
or east side of the street. Under these design solutions, no through traffic lanes or on-
streetparking would be removed from Montgomery Street. The alignment would
continue alongside Montgomery Street to a new light rail station to be located in front of
Diridon Station. From this station stop, the value engineering alignment would rejoin
the currently proposed VTA alignment leading to Delmas Avenue.
This value engineering option would significantly reduce the risk of construction cost
increases and change orders associated with tunnel construction, hazardous materials,
and reconstruction of the West San Carlos Street overcrossing. Pursuit of the value
engineering alignment could lengthen the design and environmental clearance schedule
by as much as 6 months. It is likely that the construction schedule would be reduced by
an equivalent length because of fewer complexities associated with the at grade
alignment.
Recommended Budget
The value engineering option is recommended for initial budgeting purposes. The estimated
cost of this option, reflecting the above-described recommendations is as follows:
1999 Escalated $ to
Construction Year
Construction $ 78,165,000 $ 93,451,000
Right-of-Way 22,356,000 25,257,000
Indirect 25,795,000 28,779,000
Continaency 12.632.000 14.749.000
Total $138,948,000 $162,236,000
SJC~1181GJOSE~PROJECTS1150973~DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC 18
Mr
�V., "7
Q
IT
OL
V
XON
44
VIKTA f
77
Otk
,� �-:; i r ] ?: '� " _.`;i,� t '��. r�.; .Z "�,. rti a �`y�lq..�; ,pd.,. �.i r.. �ii'r'` �. � ���.�k- ..nl_;�+�+w.Ci.�'{. #3i.a,.`i`�'.. -� �li l,_`/'
If- MR-
-412 o
V)
-7 J.
AN
W919P
NO
7 O-1
-a 7 l
To Sen Jose
QD
~~
~a ~,
~-(~
1 Mlle
u
`'--_~'' Figure 4
Site Location Map
Measure B Roadway Improvements
Source: VTA
MEASURE B MAJOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
(BY ROUTE)
A site location map illustrating the Measure B Roadway Improvements Projects (Figure 4) is
included on the following page.
17-01 -Route 17 Between Lark Avenue in Los Gatos and Route
280 in San Jose
Projecf Description
The project has not been completely defined. A project scoping meeting was held on March
5, 1999, with representatives from County of Santa Clara, Caltrans, City of San Jose, City of
Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, VTA, and the design consultant. There was general
consensus that adding through lanes on Route 17 is beyond the scope of this project and
likely beyond the 20-year planning period.
Instead, a Concept Study Report will be prepared and evaluate the following
improvements:
/ Widen Route 17, including standard shoulder widths.
/ Construct a northbound auxiliary lane from Route 85 to Hamilton Avenue.
/ Construct a southbound auxiliary lane from Route 85 to Lark Avenue.
/ Improve ramp geometrics and queuing capacity at Camden Avenue.
/ Construct a signalized intersection at the northbound exit ramp and White Oaks Avenue
to improve operations.
The VTA design consultant prepared a scope of services to prepare the Conceptual Study,
and work is proceeding.
Implementation Issue
/ Improvements and costs for overall operations, capacity, and safety in the project area
have not yet been completely defined.
Recommendation
/ The PSR phase should proceed immediately after the conceptual study is completed.
The PSR phase will focus on feasible alternatives and resolve issues regarding project
cost, scope, and feasibility, before the Environmental Documentation (ED) phase begins.
Recommended Budget
The budget for this project should be maintained at $45 million, as originally proposed
under the Measure A program, pending completion of the PSR.
SJC\UBIGJOSEIPROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC P3
85-01 -Highway 85 Safety Improvements
Project Descn ption
Measure A references safety issues on Highway 85. After the Measure was placed on the
ballot, Caltrans installed a median barrier that addressed the safety issue. There were also
discussions regarding a sound mitigation project in the corridor.
Implementation Issue
/ Caltrans conducted a noise study in the corridor in 1997 that identified several noise
abatement alternatives. The project or selected alternative, to address noise concerns, has
not been defined at this time.
Recommendation
/ Continue discussions with affected jurisdictions.
Recommended Budget
There was an assumption that $12.5 million would be available for safety needs. Because the
median barrier did not require that level of spending, there maybe an opportunity to
address noise abatement through a small pilot project. There is no funding amount
budgeted in the Base Case Plan at this time.
SJCU\BIGJOSEIPROJECTS11509731DRAFf BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC 25
85/101(N)-01-Route 85/101 (N) Interchange in Mountain View
Project Description
A project at this location was first initiated under the original Measure A program and had a
budget of approximately $60 million. A draft PSR dated August 5, 1996, was prepared, but
not approved by Caltrans.
Since that time, the VTA re-initiated the project and is working together with the City of
Mountain View and Caltrans District 4. The current project aims to improve mainline
weaving operations and increase 85/101 capacity, while maintaining much of the existing
local interchange access at Old Middlefield Way, Shoreline Boulevard, and Moffett
Boulevard. The project would completely replace the Route 85/101 interchange to increase
capacity and improve operations. A draft Project Study Report dated January 29, 1999, was
prepared. The PSR identifies the preferred alternative with a total construction cost of
approximately $115 million.
Implementation Issues
/ R/W Cost: R/W, is currently estimated at approximately $20 million. The cost estimate
was developed based on actual R/W area needed, multiplied by an average estimated
unit cost. A review of the probable property impacts indicates that several properties
may be damaged sufficiently to require relocation. In some instances, afull-take might
be required. These issues have the potential to significantly increase project cost.
/ Design Exceptions: Implementing the currently proposed project depends on Caltrans'
approval of numerous design exceptions. Without these approvals, the project will
require significant re-design to meet the standards. To achieve standard weaving and
deceleration lengths at successive ramps would likely require eliminating local access at
some locations. Achieving other standards may result in additional property impacts or
require additional right-of-way. The primary issue is not whether the exceptions are
needed, but rather, will Caltrans approve all the exceptions needed to implement the
project as proposed.
/ Cost: The preferred alternative has an estimated cost of approximately $115 million. The
Measure B budget assumption was $60 million, resulting in an apparent funding
shortfall of approximately $55 million. Because Measure B revenue is constrained, the
shortfall would need to be funded by cost reductions in other Measure B projects, STIP
funds or local matching funds.
SJCU\81C,JOSE\PROJECTS\1509731DRAFT BASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC pg
Recommendations
/ Construction of the HOV direct-connect ramp should be deferred or alternate funding
secured for a savings to the Measure B program of approximately $20 million.
/ Caltrans' geometrician should complete a comprehensive review of the design at the
earliest opportunity to determine acceptability.
/ Fact sheets should be prepared and approved by Caltrans for all design exceptions.
/ Continue development of the project, but resolve major scope and cost issues before
commencing with the environmental documentation phase.
/ Given its relative high cost, additional analysis should be undertaken to determine the
most probable cost of R/W before completion of the PSR. The analysis should account
for the likely impacts to the actual properties and businesses, including relocation costs.
Also, where property trades, city contributions, or remainders are likely, the value of
these should be accounted for.
/ Leveraging other funds to partially offset the funding shortfall should be contributed to
the extent possible.
Recommended Budget
Pending further resolution of the issues identified here, the budget estimate for the project is
as follows:
1999
Project Study Report $ 250,000
Project Report/ED 500,000
Design 4,900,000
Right-ot-Way 23,500,000
Construction 65.850.000
Total $95,000,000
SJC\UBIGJOSEIPROJECTS\150973~DRAFr BASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC 27
ROADWAY PROGRAMS
BIP-00 -Bicycle Improvement Program
Program Description
VTA is undertaking the development of a new, comprehensive, countywide bicycle plan as
part of the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2020. VTA staff is working with the VTA
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), as well as city and County staff members, on the
development of this bicycle plan.
In January, the VTA BAC and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) refined the policy
framework of the bicycle plan. VTA Board of Directors adopted the policy framework the
following month. These policies provide guidance for the comprehensive bicycle plan for
better integration of bicycling into the transportation network.
The 10-year Bicycle Expenditure Program will prioritize bicycle projects countywide. This
project list will focus on closing key bicycle network gaps and providing connectivity.
Funding for bicycle projects is expected to be derived from four funding sources:
/ 1996 Measure B Bicycle Funds
/ Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40 percent fund (TFCA 40 percent)
/ Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Fund
/ Local Transportation Equity Act for 21St Century (TEA-21) Enhancement Program
For the next 6 years, it is estimated that there will be approximately $27 million in available
funds for bicycle projects in the Bicycle Expenditure Program. The Technical Guidelines and
Evaluation Criteria for the Bicycle Expenditure Program are currently being developed
through the VTA BAC and TAC. It is anticipated that a call for projects will be issued in
early summer 1999 for bicycle projects throughout the County. A draft Countywide Bicycle
Plan and Bicycle Expenditure Program are expected to be ready for review by the end of fall
1999. The final Countywide Bicycle Plan, Bicycle Expenditures Program, and Countywide
Bicycle System Map are expected to be adopted in the winter of 1999.
Implementation Issues
None
SJCNIBIGJOSEIPROJECTS\150973\DRAFT BASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC 36
Recommendations
/ The Board should take action to approve the budgeted amount and make the funds
available for future project expenditures.
/ To qualify for funding, the projects should be in the Countywide Bicycle Plan. In
addition, funding priority should be given to projects offering matching local, CMAQ or
other funding.
Recommended Budget
$12 million
SJC1\\BIGJOSEIPROJECTS1150973\DRAFf BASE PtAMBASE PL4N.DOC 37
PMP-00 -Pavement Management Program
Program Description
The County Roads and Airports Department has identified needed pavement repair and
rehabilitation improvements on the County's expressway system. Also, each of the County's
15 cities has identified rehabilitation projects on their respective streets. The Board took
action to approve the first year of a 4-year accelerated Pavement Management Program.
Implementation Issues
None
Recommendation
/ Implement the complete 4year program, as conceptually approved by the Board.
Recommended Budget
$90 million
SJC\1\BIGJOSEIPROJECTSN509731DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC 39
Revenue Forecasts
The Measure B sales tax has a total duration of nine years, beginning in April 1996 and
ending on March 31, 2006. Net tax revenue generated through FY 1998 was approximately
$170 million and the estimated revenue for FY 1999 is about $138 million. As a part of the
development of the Base Case Plan, the County obtained three revenue estimates based on a
10-year sales tax forecast, prepared by Foremetrics in April 1999. The Base Case Plan
includes a summary of these estimates and a comparison with the historic sales-tax trend in
the County.
County Revenue Estimates
The Foremetrics forecast includes a base case and a high and low-growth scenario. The base
case scenario assumes that Measure B tax collections will slow sharply this year (FY 99) and
will continue to grow slowly in FY 00. Through the middle years of the forecast, revenue
growth would improve, but would not reach the peak growth rates experienced in the mid-
1990s, when in FY 1995 revenue increased by 21 percent. In the latter years of the forecast,
tax collections will be hampered by local growth constraints, most notably a lack of
affordable industrial land and deteriorating quality of life standards in the County. Another
important base case assumption is that general inflation will remain low at approximately 2
percent through the entire forecast period, which translates to lower taxable sales and tax
collections.
The higher growth scenario assumes that the County will experience higher inflation, which
would increase retail prices and lead to increased tax revenue. This scenario also assumes
that consumer confidence is higher, which will encourage additional retail sales in the
middle and later years of the projection.
The low-growth scenario assumes that a sell off in the stock market will cause consumer
confidence, and retail sales, to diminish. This in turn will reduce the demand for retail goods
and translate into lower prices and increased inflation.
The Foremetrics analysis generated an annual sales tax growth rate for each of the next 10
years for each growth assumption summarized above. The County applied these rates to the
actual FY 1998 Measure B tax collections. Sales tax growth rates and the estimated revenue
for each scenario is summarized in Table 1.
SJG111BIGJOSEIPROJECTS~1509731DRAFf BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC 41
Table 1: Base Case Revenue Projections
Fiscal Percent Growth and Annual Revenue ($1,OOOs)
Year High Base Low
1997 $31,681 $31,681 $31,681
1998 $137,862 $137,862 $137, 862
1999 0.60% $138,689 -0.38% $137,333 -0.70% $136,903
2000 3.59% $143,662 1.96% $140,030 0.19% $137,160
2001 2.83% $147,728 2.03% $142,878 0.61 % $137,996
2002 3.16% $152,390 3.09% $147,295 2.59% $141,570
2003 3.24% $157,334 3.41% $152,315 2.22% $144,712
2004 2.89% $161,880 3.06% $156,983 1.66% $147,107
2005 2.78% $166,380 2.68% $161,196 1.43% $149,218
2006 2.90% $126,561 2.36% $122,067 1.46% $112,173
Total $1,364,167 $1,329,638 $1,276, 380
Historic Tax Revenues
A lfi-cent sales tax has been collected in Santa Clara County since 1975 for the purposes of
VTA's transit operations. A statistical analysis of the transit tax was conducted to provide a
historic basis for comparison with the forecasted revenue under the base case, low and high-
growth scenarios. A review of the annual transit tax revenue (Figure 5), indicated that the
year-to-year tax revenue varied substantially. In particular, 1986 and 1992 saw significant
decreases in revenue, which were later offset as retail sales rebounded. A review of the
cumulative revenue indicated a more consistent upward trend. A regression analysis of the
cumulative revenue was prepared (Figure 6), which predicted total revenue of about $1.254
billion.
Other Revenue Estimates
In Apri11999, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also prepared a
revenue estimate based on growth rates between 2.5 and 3.5 percent, including general
inflation and real growth, developed by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. The projected
growth rates were applied to the actual FY 1998 revenue, resulting in a total revenue
estimate of $1.387 billion. Assumed growth rates and projected annual revenue is
summarized in Table 2.
SJC\\1BIGJOSEIPROJECTS11509731DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DOC q2
$160,000
$140,000
$, 20,000
~ $100,000
3
C
d
~ $80,000
7
t0
C
C
a $60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Figure 5
Annual Sales Tax Revenue (1975-1998)
M
CO
O
1
7
~
O
~
M
~
-
N
~
~}.
F
O
O
tO0
69
N
~
~
~
,
O
~
M
~
O
pp
~
O
In
~ _
f'7
~
^
~
~
r
LL')
fii O_
EA
r
OD_
~
~
/~
W
~
T
O
~
~ (~
y
V
.may
V
(t
T
O
~
(~
1(~~/~
w/
~
~'~
f
U
¢
1~ i
~
j
i
S
{
..:
~
.
~
K~
,f
~
~}
~
~
~f~
,
~
,
t
~
~~o.
~'
y,
+,{k
T:
N N
N dq ~;
n
`~
as
~>
'. ~ a
+ ~
11~ ~.
(O f~ OD O O .- N Ch ~t ~ c0 f~ 00 O O ~ N (h ~ to CO I~ 00
I~ f~ f~ I~ O O O O a0 00 ao a0 a0 co rn rn rn O~ rn rn rn rn rn
O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q~ O O O O O O O O Q1
T r T r r r' T r r' T r' T r T r r r T r T r r r
FY
$3,000,000
Figure 6
Cumulative Sales Tax Revenue
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
d
c
d
d
Cumulative Revenue = 2242.1(FY-1974)2 + 16954(FY-1974) - 6799.7
R2 = 0.9998
~ $1,500,000
•+-.
R
3
E
U
$1,000,000
$500,000
• Actual Revenue
Predicted Revenue
$0
In (O f~ 00 O O r N C'7 ~ LC) CD f~ GO O O r N M ~!' l1') CO f~ 00 O O ~- N M ~ In (fl
f~ I~ I~ ~ ~ M M O M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O M O M O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O
•- r r r r r r r ~- r r r r r ~- ~-- r e- r r r ~-- r ~-- •- N N N N N N N
FY
Table 2: VTA Revenue Estimate
Fiscal Year Percent Growth/Revenue
1997 $31,681
1998 $137,862
1999 2.57% $141,405
2000 2.80% $145,364
2001 2.98% $149,696
2002 3.13% $154,381
2003 3.24% $159,383
2004 3.34% $164,706
2005 3.42% $170,339
2006 3.48% $132,200
Total $1,387,017
Notes: FY 1997 and 1998.are actual tax collections.
FY 2006 collections ending March 31 are estimated at 75 percent of annual revenue.
Revenue Comparison
Figure 7 provides a comparison of the historic and future revenue estimated by the County
and VTA projections. The figure shows that Measure B sales tax collections to date have
significantly exceeded the statistical average, so it is likely that slower growth will occur in
the period ending FY2006. The statistical projection is based on a computed average annual
growth rate of 0.35 percent applied to FY 1998 collections, rather than the baseline average.
The result is total revenue of $1.254 billion predicted by the statistical analysis of cumulative
revenue. The statistical projection is the least optimistic of the forecasts considered in the
Plan.
The County's base and low-growth revenue estimates assume flatter growth. Based on FY
1999 collections so far, it is likely that growth this year will be flat or decline, possibly
signaling the beginning of slower growth.
The County's high-growth forecast and VTA's forecast only assume moderate growth
through FY 2006. However, when applied to the actua11998 collections, these revenue
predictions are the most optimistic of the forecasts considered in the Plan.
Recommendations
The forecasts presented in the Plan represent a reasonable range of potential Measure B
revenue. For the purpose of developing the Base Case Expenditure Plan, the base revenue
projection totaling approximately $1.33 billion is assumed.
SJCt\\BIGJOSEIPROJECTS11509731DRAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.DCC 45
$220,000
$200, 000
$180, 000
$160,000
~ $140,000
0
0
0
~ $120,000
c
d
~ $100,000
ro
a $80,000
$60,000
$40,000
~~
$20,000
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~/ /
~~ /
/~
r
Actual
- - -Historic Baseline
VTA
- -County (High)
--County (Base)
- - -County (Low)
Statistical Projection
~~~ ~ ~ I
-
~''
v ~
i~~
Figure 7
Comparison of Projected
Measure B Revenue
$0 ~ . ~ -r- -~ -
r
CO 1~ OD O O .- N M ~ CO f~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~
.- r r .- r r r .-- ~-- r ~ r
OD O O ~ N M d' to O ~ QO 01 O r N M ~ Q (O
00 aO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~ ~ r' r' ~ •" ~ ~ ~-- ~- ~ ~ N N N N N N N
Fiscal Year
Draft Expenditure Plan
The Expenditure Plan Financial Model (Table 3) is organized into three major components
including highway expenditures, railway expenditures and cash-flow. Inputs to the model
include:
/ Cost estimates expressed in 1999 dollars for each phase of each project, including
preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction.
/ Timelines, including the start date and duration of each phase of project development
and construction expressed in calendar years.
/ Estimated quarterly revenue generated from the lfi-cent Measure B sales tax.
/ Project inflation at an annual rate of 2.5 percent, applied to design, construction and
right-of-way.
/ Interest on investment at an annual rate of 5.3 percent.
/ Interest on debt at an annual rate of 4 percent.
Based on these inputs, the model computes the quarterly cash-flow for revenues, less
escalated expenditures. The model methodology is based on the following assumptions:
/ The cost of preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, design and
construction is assumed to accrue uniformly over the scheduled period. Twenty percent
of the cost of right of-way acquisition is assumed to accrue over the scheduled period
and the remaining 80 percent accrues as a lump sum at the end of the acquisition period,
when actual offers for property are accepted.
/ The escalated cost for each phase of the project is computed at an annual rate of
2.5 percent, applied to the quarter in which the cost is accrued.
/ Annual revenue accrues quarterly in four equal payments.
/ Interest income on revenue is computed quarterly at an annual rate of 5.3 percent,
divided by four, applied to the average quarterly cash balance.
/ Interest on debt is computed quarterly at an annual rate of 4 percent, divided by four,
applied to the average quarterly cash balance.
The draft expenditure plan indicates that the escalated cost of the Measure B program is
approximately $1.32 billion and total revenue is $1.33 billion. Rail projects account for
approximately $757 million or about 57 percent of the total expenditures. Highway projects
account for the balance of $562 million or 43 percent of the total. The program schedule
indicates that all of the projects would be substantially complete by 2006. The cash-flow
summary indicates that the program will have a negative balance in FY 2004 through FY
2006 of as much as $150 million and a final positive balance of $60.6 million at program
completion.
SJCWBIGJOSEIPROJECTS11509731DRAFTBASE PLANIBASE PLAN.DOC q~
Appendix A - Measure A Ballot Language
The following are improvements listed in Ordinance NS-7.4 setting the advisory measure on
the November 5, 1996 ballot as Measure A:
PROJECT PACKAGE:
• Maintaining Streets and Filling Potholes: Improving local streets and filling potholes in
all fifteen cities and on county roads sad expressways by funding greatly needed street
maintenance and repair. -
• Santa Clara County connectioa to BART: Conacctiuig Santa Clara County to BART by
- adding a CalTiain-type rail Line on the UP tracks between downtown San Jose, through cast
San Josc and Ivrlpitas, and up to the BART system in Alameda County for weekday service.
• - Trafrc Signal Synchronization: Improving the signal timing oa all tight county
expressways -Almaden, Capitol, Central, Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, Oregon, and San
Tomas.
~• Tasman East Light Rail Line: Extending the current Light Rail system to lviilpitas and
Ilorthcast San Josc.
•~ Highway 880: Widening Highway 880, to a total of three lanes in each direetioa, from
Highway 237 in.Milpitas to Hig~'hway 101 in San Josc.
• Interchange Improvements: Improving key intcrohangcs at 237/880 in Milpitas, 85/101
in Mountain View, 85/87 in the Almaden Valley of San lose and 85/101 near Bernal Road
in South San Josc.
• Transit Service for Seniors and the Disabled: Providing .improved transit service for
seniors and the disabled by purchasing Low floor vehicles for all future- Light rail tines.
A1'TRGW~~EN~'
• Safety Improvementr: Preventing head-on collisions by placing a safety barrier in the
Highway 85 median, and building additional truck climbing lanes and pull-outs on
Highway 152 over the Pacheco Pass.
• Cal-Train ImproPementr from San Jose North: Improving CalTrain commuter rail
' service by adding trains and improving facilities from San Josc to Palo Alto.
• Highway 101: Widening Highway 101, from Bernal Road in South San Josc to Cochrane
Road in North Morgan Hill, from two to three lanes in each direction.
• CalTrain Improvementr between Gilroy and San Jose: Improving CalTrain rail service
by adding trains and improving facilities between Gilroy and San Jose.
+~ ~ Highway 17: Widening Highway 17 and improving. key interchanges ~ between Lark
Avcauc in Los Gatos and Highway 280 in San Josc. ~ ' . .
• Capitol Light Rail Line: Building the Capitol Light Rail line from northeast San Josc --
the connection to the Tasman line -- down Capitol Avenue through cast San Josc to the
Alum Rock area, with eventual service to Eastridge.
• Highway 87: Widening Highway 87 from two to three lanes in each direction from
Highway 85 to San Jose International Airport and Highway 101.
• Yasona Light Rail Line: Building the Vasona Light Rail 1'uic from downtown San Jose
to the San Josc Arena/CalTrain station and on to downtown Campbell, with eventual
service to Los Gatos.
• Bicycle Facilities: Improving bicycle facilities throughout the county to improve safety
and eliminate key gaps in the county wide bicycle network.
In addition, local decision-makers should aggressively pursue other regional, state and
federal funds to leverage local funds so that traffic relief and mobility projects can be
delivered more quickly. and build additional transportation and rail transit improvements
that are needed to serve Santa Clara County.
RTTR
Appendix B -Project List
APPENDIX B
PROJECT LIST
Title Description
Measure B Passenger Rail (By Line)
Caltrain Service Improvements To improve and increase commuter rail services from Gilroy to Palo Alto,
Gilroy to Palo Alto capital improvements are necessary to repair infrastructure and equipment,
rehabilitate facilities, and provide for Americans with Disabilities Act
compliant access.
FremonUSouth Bay Commuter Rail Line A 15- to 25-mile commuter rail serving the FremonUSouth Bay corridor will
link Santa Clara County to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in Alameda
County.
Tasman East Light Rail Line The project will extend 1.9 miles east along Tasman Drive from the
Between First Street and I-880 Guadalupe light rail transit line on North First Street to I-880.
Tasman East Light Rail Line The project will extend approximately 3 miles southeast along the Great Mall
Between I-880 and Hostetter Road Parkway/Capitol Avenue corridor from the I-880 station (Tasman Avenue,
west of I-880 and Alder Drive) to the Hostetter Station.
Vasona Light Rail Line The 4.8-mile Vasona corridor will connect downtown Campbell with
Between Campbell and Downtown San Jose downtown San Jose.
Capitol Light Rail Line The project will extend approximately 3.3 miles along Capitol Avenue from
Between Hostetter Road and Capitol the southern terminus of the Tasman East light rail transit line, Hostetter
Expressway Station, to the Capitol Expressway Station at Wilbur Avenue, near the
intersection of Capitol Avenue and Capitol Expressway.
Low Floor Vehicles Low floor vehicles (LFV) are light rail vehicles whose cabinway floor is 14
inches above the rail. This low floor allows level loading from compatibly
designed platforms, thereby eliminating the need for steps, ramps, or lifting
devices. The Low Floor Vehicle will provide patrons of varying physical
abilities with easier, more efficient boarding to the light rail transit (LRT)
vehicles. Proposals to supply 30 LFVs, with options for 20 additional vehicles
have been received by the VTA from three vehicle manufacturers. These
proposals are being evaluated and final bids will be tendered in April 1999.
Measure B Major Roadway Improvements (By Route)
17-01 -Route 17 The project has not yet been defined. A project scoping meeting was held on
Between Lark Avenue in Los Gatos and I-280 in March 5, 1999, with representatives from County of Santa Clara, Caltrans,
San Jose City of San Jose, City of Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, VTA, and the design
consultant. There was general consensus that the adding through lanes on
Route 17 is beyond the scope of this project and likely beyond the 20-year
planning period. Instead, a Project Study Report will be prepared and
evaluate the following improvements:
• Widen Route 17, including standard shoulder widths.
• Construct a northbound auxiliary lane from Route 85 to Hamilton
Avenue.
• Construct a southbound auxiliary lane from Route 85 to Lark Avenue.
• Improve ramp geometrics and queuing capacity at Camden Avenue.
• Construct a signalized intersection at the northbound exit ramp and
White Oaks Avenue to improve operations.
85-01 Highway 85 Safety Improvements Measure A references safety issues on Highway 85. After the Measure was
placed on the ballot, Caltrans installed a median barrier that addressed the
safety issues. There were discussions regarding a sound mitigation project in
the corridor.
85/101(N}01 -Route 85/101 (N) Interchange This project will improve mainline weaving operations and increase Route 85
in Mountain View and U.S. 101 capacity, while maintaining the existing local interchange
access at Old Middlefield Wa ,Shoreline Boulevard, and Moffett Boulevard.
B-1
APPENDIX B
PROJECT LIST
Title Description
The project would replace the Route 85/101, modify interchange ramps at
Moffett Boulevard, Shoreline Boulevard, and Old Middlefield Way, widen the
U.S. 101 median and construct additional lanes and construct high
occupancy vehicles direct-connector ramps between northbound Route 85 to
northbound and southbound U.S. 101 to southbound Route 85. The high
occupancy vehicle ramps are not included in the Measure B program
because of funding constraints.
85/101(S)-01 -Route 85/101(S) Interchange
in South San Jose The project would add two connector ramps to the existing interchange
including southbound Route 85 to northbound U.S. 101 and southbound U.S.
101 to northbound Route 85. Other potential improvements include high
occupancy vehicle direct-connect ramps between U.S. 101 south of the
interchange and Route 85 north of the interchange.
85/87-01 -Route 85/871nterchange The project would add two connector ramps to the existing interchange
in South San Jose including southbound Route 85 to northbound Route 87 and southbound
Route 87 to northbound Route 85.
87-01 -Route 87 HOV Lanes
Between Route 85 and I-280 The project proposed to construct a high occupancy vehicle lane in each
direction in the existing median between Route 85 and I-280, a distance of
approximately 5 miles. In addition, the project will include installation of ramp
meters, high occupancy vehicle bypasses, retaining walls, and widening
results in an inside shoulder width of 7.25 feet, which is less than the
standard of 10 feet. Caltrans is also proposing to repair pavement, barrier,
sound wall, and drainage systems damaged by settlement in this segment.
87-02 -Route 87 HOV Lanes The project proposes to widen Route 87 from Route 280 to 0.2 miles north of
Between I-280 and Julian Street Julian Street from afour- to six-lane freeway. This includes adding a high
occupancy vehicle lane in each direction, ramp meters at the entrance
ramps, and widening the northbound Route 280 to northbound Route 87
connector. Widening will be accommodated within the existing right-of-way
except for the portion along the west side of Route 87 between San
Fernando Street and Julian Street.
101-01 -Route 101 The widening would occur in the existing median and accommodate in
Between Burnett Road in Morgan Hill and additional high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction and 12-foot full-
Bemal Road in San Jose depth shoulder. All of the structures are proposed to be widened to the
ultimate 8•lane width.
152-01 -Route 152 Safety Improvements The project will provide safety improvements on Route 152 between U.S.
101 and Route 156. Several potential projects were identified including
intersection improvements at Route 152/Bloomfield, awestbound climbing
lane west of the intersection with Route 156, operational improvements
237/880-01 -Route 237/880 Interchange The interchange completion project is comprised of three elements including
in Milpitas (a) direct high occupancy vehicle connectors for southbound I-880 to
westbound Route 237 and eastbound Route 237 to northbound I-880; (b) a
southbound braided exit ramp from I-880 to Tasman Drive; and (c) a
connector ramp from northbound I-880 to westbound Route 237. The
connector ramp from northbound I-880 to westbound Route 237 is not
included irrthe Measure B Program because of funding constraints.
880-01 -1-880 The project would widen I-880 between U.S. 101 and Montague Expressway
Between U.S. 101 and Montague Expressway from afour- to a six-lane freeway. Widening would occur in the existing 40-
foot median and include a 12-foot lane and non-standard 7-foot shoulder in
each direction and a center barrier. The Coyote Creek Bridge would require
inside widening as well. Widening would not be needed on the outside of 1-
880. Also included is an auxiliary lane from U.S. 101 to First Street and ramp
improvements at the southbound Brokaw Road ramps.
Roadway Programs
B-2
APPENDIX B
PROJECT LIST
Title Description
BIP-00 -Bicycle Improvement Program The 10-year Bicycle Expenditure Program will prioritize bicycle projects
countywide. This project list wilt focus on closing key bicycle network gaps
and providing connectivity. Funding for bicycle projects is expected to be
derived from four funding sources:
• 1996 Measure B Bicycle Funds
• Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40 percent fund (TFCA 40 percent)
• Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Fund
• Local Transportation Equity Act for 2151 Century (TEA-21) Enhancement
Program
For the next 6 years, it is estimated that there will be approximately $27
million in available funds for bicycle projects in the Bicycle Expenditure
Program. The Technical Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria for the Bicycle
Expenditure Program are currently being developed through the VTA BAC
and TAC. It is anticipated that a call for projects will be issued in early
summer 1999 for bicycle projects throughout the County. A draft Countywide
Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Expenditure Program are expected to be ready for
review by the end of fall 1999. The final Countywide Bicycle Plan, Bicycle
Expenditures Program, and Countywide Bicycle System Map are expected to
be adopted in the winter of 1999.
ILS-00 -Intersection LOS Improvement The County Roads and Airports Department identified general intersection
Program improvements in the County that would improve capacity and operations.
These improvements typically include the addition or expansion of left-turn
lanes. In addition, they have prepared an expenditure plan.
PMP-00 -Pavement Management Program The County Roads and Airports Department identified needed pavement
repair and rehabilitation improvements on the County's expressway system.
Also, each of the County's 15 cities identified rehabilitation projects of their
respective streets. The Board took action to approve the first year of a 4-year
accelerated PMP.
TSS-00 -Traffic Signal Synchronization The County Roads and Airports Department identified traffic signal
Program improvements in the County that would improve intersection capacity and
operations. In addition, they have prepared an expenditure plan for the
proposed improvements.
63
6-11-1999 4:39PM
,~ o ~ C AMAd<:+
r
U r
a
~ ~.
A't ~•HA40
June 11, 1999
Larry Perlin, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Larry:
CiTX of CAMPBELL
City Manager's Offiec
As you are well aware, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will be considering the
Measure B Base Case Implementation Plan (the "Base Case") at their Jwie 29 Board Mee[ina.
Campbell staff has. completed iu review of the Base Case and has prepared the attached
Council Report and Resolution for consideration by our City Council on Tuesday, June 15.
Our report recommends adoption of a resolution requesting that the Board of Supervisors: 1)
adequately fund and expeditiously construct the Vasona Light Rail Line from Downtown San
Jose to the Winchester Station in Campbell; 2) ensure that State Route 17 Congestion Relief
Improvements between Lark and l:~ighway 280 are adequately funded and substantially
completed by 2006; a.nd; 3) approve the accelerated Pavement Management Program described
in the Base Case.
As we have discussed, the extension of the Vasona Line to the Winchester Station is extremely
important if the West Vallcy is to have adequate access to our County's light rail system. 1
believe it is critical for your community to take a similar action to indicate support for the
Vasona extension so that we can demonstrate broad-based and consolidated support for this
important project.
Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional inf'orn~ation regarding the Measure
A/B program, or answer any questions you might have regarding Campbell's position on the
County's Base Case.
Sincerely,
~~,~~~~,
Bernard M. Strojny
City Manager
70 Nprth First Strcct Campbell, California 95008.1423 ~ 7Fi 408.866,2125 rns 4t)8.i74.fiA89 •rui) 4US.866.2790
6-11-1999 4=d0PM
City
Council xte~n No.: 1z.
ne~O,,~. Category: New Business
~t Date: June 15, 1999
TITLE: Recommendation Regarding Santa Clara County Measure A Base Case (Resolution/Roll
Call)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution requesting that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors: 1)
adequately fund and move expeditiously to construct the Vasona Light Rail Line from Downtown San
Jose to the Winchester Boulevard Station; 2) ensure chat State Route 17 Congestion Relief
Improvements between Lark Avenue and State Route 280 are adequately funded and substantially
completed by 2006; and 3) approve the accelerated Pavement Management Program as described in the
Draft Base Case:
BACI{GROYIND
Measures A and B were approved by the voters in November 1996 to fund transportation
improvements throughout the County with aone-half-cent sales tax for nine years. Measure A was an
advisory measure that identified a priority list of transportation projects that should be implemented if
Measure B or the one-half-cent County General Fund Sales Tax was approved. The collection of [he
tax went into effect in April 1997, and the tax survived multiple court challenges to invalidate it. Last
summer the County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) reached
an agreement ;wing project management oversight responsibilities to the VTA for implementation of
Measure A projects. whereas the County would retain fiduciary responsibilities for the Measure B Sates
Tax.
The Board of Supervisors released the draft Measure B Base Case Implementation Plan, which outlines
funding le~~els ant! sets construction timelines for each of the eighteen { 18) Measure A projects. for
public comment on May 11. 1999. Campbell City Councilmembers received a copy of the Draft Base
Case at that came. The Measure A ballot measure language and a project list summary from the Draft
Base Case are attached for the Council's reference. The Board of Supervisors and the VTA Board of
Directors met in joint session on May l9, 1999 to discuss the Plan. The County's consultants reviewed
their proposed draft Base Case Plan and VTA staff presented an alternative plan since they had
concerns about portions of the County's draft Plan. The joint session was the first ever for the two
agencies. Areas of agreement in the draft Plan between the County and the VTA include:
Revenue projections for Measure B.
• Allocation of 55 percent for transit and 45 percent for highway projects.
• Scope and capital cost for most elements of the highway program.
• Low-floor light rail vehicle scope and cost estimates.
• Tasman East LRT from Baypointe to I-880 scope and cost estimates.
• Capitol LRT scope.
6-11-1999 4:40PM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS 408 3760958 r ~
Recommendation Regarding Santa Clara
County Measure A Base Case: Page 2
.Ituie 15, 1999
At issue were project funding leveis, construction schedules and light rail transit alignments. Chief
among the funding questions was whether or not to use State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) moneys to fill expected shortfalls for several projects. The County has taken the approach of
using only Measure B funds for all 18 projects, reducing the scope of some projects to meet the budget
restrictions. The VTA is advocating the use of some STIP funds to fill some identified funding
shortfalls. At the joint meeting on May 19, some County Supervisors expressed a desire to reserve the
entire STIP allocation for non-Measure A projects or expanded Measure A projects, while other
Supervisors and most VTA Board members appeared to favor the use of some, but not all, STIP funds
to implement the Base Case Measure A projects.
DISCUSSYON
The draft Base Case Implementation Plan, referred to alI of the cities for comment, was prepared
jointly by Santa Clara County staff and their transportation consultant group. This Plan stipulates that
program funding is limited to the anticipated revenue generated by the Measure B 'h -cent sales tax.
The Valley Transportation Authority's staff and consultants have conducted project scoping analysis
and conceptual design studies for proposed light rail projects over the last several years. These studies
include alignment alternatives, operational criteria, preliminary engineering, environmental evaluation
and cost estimates, and have been reviewed in most instances with the Policy Advisory Boards for those
projects as design features were incorporated. The current design proposals for these light rail
projects will require other funds in addition to the sales tax revenues. For this reason, the Vasona
a,~d Tasman Easc light rail lines are the center of much controversy.
The Tasman East design currently includes an elevated section of over one mile through Milpitas,
although the County's consultant recommended a portion be constructed at grade to reduce project
costs.
The design for the Vasona line currently proposed by the VTA includes an 800 foot tunnel in
downtown San Jose estimated to cost up to $60 million that the County's consultant is not
recommending. Both the County and VTA are recommending that the Vasona line extend only as far
as downtown Campbell due to funding constraints and ballot language calling for "Building the Vasona
ligh[ Rail Line from downtown San Jose to the San Jose Arena/Cal Train Station and on to downtown
Campbell, with eventual service to Los Gatos."
There appears to be complete agreement among all consultants and staff from the County, VTA and the
affected cities that extending the project to the proposed Winchester Boulevard station would
substantially improve the ridership opportunities of tt,e new light rail facility because of greatly
enhanced accessibility and parking, and that the cost of this extension, including design, construction
and property acquisition would be from $15-20 million.
The State Route 17 Congestion Relief Improvements project has not been completely defined. There
are conflicting descriptions of the limits of the project in different documents chat were used to promote
the sales tax measure and it is not clear at this time what congestion relief improvements could
6-11-1999 d:d1PM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS d08 3760958 P.d
Recommendation Regarding Santa Clara
County Measure A Base Case: Page 3
June 15, 1999
reasonably be constructed within the current $45 million allocation. A needs assessment/cost benefit
evaluation for a project in this corridor is currently underway by a VTA consultant with input from the
agencies directly affected.
The Board of Supervisors has previously approved the first year of an accelerated Pavement
Management Program whereby the smaller cities (including Campbell) could receive their full
pavement management allocations within the next two years. Campbell has significant unmet pavement
management needs and strongly supports the accelerated program concept.
The Board of Supervisors has scheduled adoption of the Base Case Plan for June 28,1999. Prior to
adoption, County staff and Supervisors have held a series of public meetings to explain the proposed
Plan to constituents. Supervisor Beall held a meeting on May 24,1999 at the Campbell Community
Center for the West valley area.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ALTERtiATIVES
1. Support the Base Case Implemen[ation Pian as currently drafted. This is not recommended because
it is important for all of the West Valley cities to indicate the necessity of extending the Vasona
LRT to the Winchester Station and to ensure congestion relief in the Route 17 corridor prior to
County adoption of the Base Case Plan.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by
Attachment: Resolution
j; ~.vasrnia
6-11-1999 4:41PM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS d08 3760958 r'-=~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
REQUESTING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ADEQUATELY
FUND AND MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY TO CONSTRUCT 7HE VASONA LIGHT RAIL LINE
FROM DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE TO THE WINCHESTER BOULEVARD STATION, TO ENSURE
THAT STATE ROUTE 17 CONGESTION RELIEF IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN LARK
AVENUE AND STATE ROUTE 280 ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED AND SUBSTANTIALLY
COMPLETED BY 2006 AND APPROVE THE FULL ACCELERATED PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell supports the Measure A and B Program and encourages the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to work
collaboratively to deliver all projects during the life of the program: and
WHEREAS, the Route 17 transportation corridor is heavily congested and immediate relief is
needed. including highway improvements and development of alternative transportation opportunities.
and
WHEREAS, the Vasona Light Rail Line will respond to a critical need for mass transit in the
West Valley, providing a vital transportation link to Diridon station, downtown San Jose area and
Silicon Valley employment centers; and
WHEREAS, extension of the Vasona Light Rail Line to Winchester Boulevard will
dramatically increase opportunities for West Valley residents to access the facility; and
WHEREAS, the Vasona Light Rail Line and Route 17 Improvements will provide essential
congestion relief in the heavil}~ impacted Route 17 transportation corridor;
WHEREAS. the County Board of Supervisors has conceptually approved an accelerated
Pavement Management Program:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell hereby
requests that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adequately fund and move expeditiously to
construct the Vasona light rail line from Downtown San Jose to the Winchester Boulevard station.
ensure that State Route 17 congestion relief improvements between Lark Avenue and State Route 280
are adequately funded and substantially completed by 2006, and approve the full accelerated pavement
management program.
6-11-1999 4 42PM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS d08 3760958
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 1999, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers: •
APPROVED:
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
P_ 6
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
SPATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942649
~
~~
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 ~~~~
~
(916) 319-2024
FAX (916) 319-2124 ~
E-mail: Jim.Cunneen®asm.ca.gov ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
DISTRICT OFFICE
901 CAMPISI WAY, SUITE 300 JIM CUNNEEN
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 ASSEMBLYMEMBER,TWENTY-FOURTH DISTRICT
(408) 369-8170
FAX (408) 369-8174 R esentin the communities o Cam bell, Cu ertino,
~ 8 f ~ P
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale
June 9, 1999
Honorable Jim Shaw
Councilmember
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Jim:
COMMITTEES:
EDUCATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
PUBLIC SAFETY. Vice-Chair
Thank you for your interest in transportation issues. I have
enclosed copies of some transportation project proposals that are
being considered by. Santa Clara County Supervisors for the final
allocation plan of Measure B funds. The Supervisors will
consider the draft allocation plan on June 29th.
Specifically, funds for a noise abatement test corridor along
Highway 85 have been discussed, but are not included in the draft
plan as of yet. There is no question that residents who live
near this corridor are negatively impacted from the level of
noise from the highway. I am hopeful that the findings of the
noise study, that I worked with Caltrans to conduct, will be
incorporated. Since a median barrier has already been
constructed along Highway 85, at my insistence, it seems
reasonable to use these funds for noise abatement. I am hopeful
that they will be incorporated in the final allocation plan.
The addition of a third lane on Highway 87 is currently included
in the draft allocation plan. This is a critical addition to a
very congested commute corridor. Highway 87 provides a link for
many commuters between Almaden Valley and downtown San _TO~~.
Having only two lanes places an incredible daily stress onV
drivers. This corridor was constructed with enough width to
allow for a third lane in each direction, it is time it be opened
for use.
Lastly, a project to link the cities of Campbell and Los Gatos to
light rail has been included in the draft allocation plan. I am
eager for an opportunity for West Valley residents to participate
in the light rail transit system and mitigate traffic congestion
in surrounding corridors.
As you may recall, I submitted a letter to the Santa Clara County
Supervisors and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
strongly supporting these projects and will continue my support
at every opportunity. I hope that this update was helpful.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Please contact me or my District Office Director, Stacey Morgan, at
408-369-8170, if you need anything further. Again, thank you for
your interest in transportation issues.
Sincerely,
C~~~~
As_s ymember
24th District
JC:sm
i~
i~
it
87-01 -Route 87 HOV Lanes Between Route 85 and Route 280
Project Description
The project proposes to construct an HOV lane in each direction in the existing median. This
results in an inside shoulder width of 7.?5 feet, which is less than the standard of 10 feet.
Caltrans prepared and approved a PSR for this project in 1991. A design exception for the
non-standard shoulder width has been approved.
In addition, Caltrans is proposing to repair pavement, concrete barrier, sound wall and
drainage systems damaged by settlement in this segment. A PSSR and ED have been
approved for this project. SHOPP funds are programmed for 2001/2002.
A project scoping meeting was held on March 4,1999, with representatives from Countv of
Santa Clara, Caltrans, City of San Jose, VTA and the design consultant. There was an
agreement that the HOV and repair project must be combined to m;n;Tn;~e traffic disraption
during construction and take advantage of shared economies.
Implementation Issue
/ Combining the widening and rehabilitation projects will require coordination of the
design, schedule, funding, and construction under a cooperative agreement with
Caltrans.
Recommendation
,/ Additional engineering studies for the combined HOV and rehabilitation project should
be conducted that validate the effectiveness and cost of the proposed repair work,
identify the overlapping elements of work and the potential shared economies, and
prepare a construction cost estimate.
Recommended Budget
19995
Project Study Report Complete
Project Report/ED $ 200,000
Design 1,500,000
Right-of-Way 50,000
Construction 26.000.000
Total $27,750,000
SHOPP funding for the repair project is an additional S15 million.
SJCII~BIGIOSEIPHOJECT511509731DHAFT BASE PLAMBASE PLAN.[)OC
30
87-02 -Route 87 HOV Lanes Between Route 280 and
Julian Street
Project Description
The project proposes to widen Route 87 from I-280 to 0.2 miles north of Julian Street from a
=1-lane to a 6-lane freeway. This includes adding an HOV lane in each direction, ramp meters
at the entrance ramps and widening the NB I-280 to NB Route 87 connector. Widening will
be accommodated within the existing right-of-way except for the portion along the west
side of Route 87, between San Fernando Street and Julian Street. Caltrans prepared and
approved a PSR for this project in 1991.
Implementation Issues
/ The project schedule should coincide with completion of the Caltrans project from Julian
Street to U.S. 101.
Recommendation
/ Begin preparation of the Project Report and Environmental Document immediately.
Recommended Budget
~ss9
Project Study Report Complete
Project ReporUED 5 200,000
Design 2,000.000
Right-of-Way 400,000
Construction 26.800.000
Total 529.400,000
SJCAIBIG,IOSEIPROJECT51150g7310RAFT BASE PUMBASE PLAN.IIOC 31
~ 85-01 -Highway 85 Safety Improvements
Project Description
Measure A references safety issues on Highway S5. After the Measure was placed on the
ballot, Caltrans installed a median barrier that addressed the safety issue. There were also
discussions regarding a sound mitigation project in the corridor.
Implementation Issue
/ Caltrans conducted a noise study in the corridor in 1997 that identified several noise
abatement alternatives. The project or selected alternative, to address noise concerns, has
not been defined at this time.
Recommendation
/ Continue discussions with affected jurisdictions.
Recommended Budget
There was an assumption that 512.5 million would be available for safety needs. Because the
median barrier did not require that level of spending, there may be an opportunity to
address noise abatement through a small pilot project. There is no funding amount
budgeted in the Base Case Plan at this time.
SJ(.11181GJOSEIPROJEC1511509731DRAFT BASE PlAN18ASE PLAN.DOC 25
Vasona Light Rail Line: Between Campbell and Downtown
San Jose
Project Description
The 4.8-mile Vasona corridor connects downtown Campbell with downtown San Jose. From
downtown Campbell to the Diridon Caltrain Station, 3.8 miles, the Vasona Line will operate
primarily over a single LRT track running adjacent to the UP freight railroad track. North
and southbound light rail trains will pass one another at stations. From the Diridon Station
into downtown San Jose, a distance of 1 mile, two tracks will be constructed using new
rights-of-way to connect with the existing Guadalupe LRT line on San Carlos Street.
The downtown Campbell Station will have 27 parking spaces. From there, the line travels
3,500 feet to a station at Hamilton Avenue, followed by the Bascom Avenue Station, about
3,000 feet away. The Bascom Station will have 149 parking spaces and a bus drop off and
pickup area. The next station is at Fruitdale Avenue, about one mile away. Continuing
northeast for about 3,000 feet, is the Race Street Station, followed by the Diridon Station,
approximately one mile away. From Diridon LRT Station, the line will pass under the
Caltrain yard in a 1,b00 foot long tunnel, returning to grade at Autumn Street, where the San
Fernando Station will be located. The line will then turn south, adjacent to Delmas Street to
join the Guadalupe LRT line at San Carlos Street, adjacent to the Children's Discovery
Museum.
Conceptual engineering for this segment was completed by VTA in December 1998.
Preliminary engineering is underway.
Implementation Issue
/ VTA estimates the overall escalated cost of this project at $256 million, which is
significantly higher than the 1996 Measure A estimate of $136 million.
' Recommendations
/ Negotiations with Union Pacific, regarding use or acquisition of the Vasona rail corridor,
.m~.:st be completed.
' / Reduce indirect costs for VTA staff, professional services during construction and
nontechnical services; and reduce the unallocated contingency allowance for a total
' savings of approximately $45 million.
/ Reduce the size of the Bascom park and ride lot ($2 million).
' / Given the Measure B budget constraint, the proposed tunnel section on the downtown
_ San Jose segment should be reevaluated to reduce cost. The tunnel planned is beneath
the northern portion of the Diridon Station rail yard, the station's bus transfer center,
' and Montgomery Street (southbound State Route 82). The purpose of the tunnel is to
grade separate the LRVs from commuter and freight rail operations. It also allows for
$J(T1{BIGJOSEIPROJECT51150873WRAFT BASE PUIMBASE PLAN.DOC 17
the construction of a convenient transfer connector between Vasona light rail and
passenger rail services using the Diridon Station (Caltrain, ACE, and AMTRAK).
;~ The attached aerial photo (Figure 3) illustrates both the VTA proposed alignment and a
conceptual alternative (dashed line) developed for the Base Case Plan. The alternative
alignment incorporates several cost effective elements contained in earlier attempts to
identify a downtown San Jose connection to the Vasona line including, the Vnsonn
Corridor Fina! Downtown Planning Study prepared in 1994 and the Dozuntozun Snn Jose
Transit Alternatives Study, prepared in 1995.
The proposed "value engineering" alignment would leave the Vasona UP track just
south of West San Carlos Street and transition to a double track running along the
former Western Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific) spur track. The alignment would
cross West San Carlos Street along the former spur track alignment (recently removed)
and continue to Park Avenue. At Park Avenue, the alignment would transition to a
single track running along- the north edge of the street right of way. The single track
would pass under the Caltrain/Union Pacific rail corridor using the existing Park
Avenue undercrossing. No traffic lanes would be removed with this design solution.
Upon reaching Montgomery Street (southbound State Route 82), the alignment would
turn north using private right of way acquired for the LRT project, located on the west
or east side of the street. Under these design solutions, no through traffic lanes or on-
street parking would be removed from Montgomery Street. The alignment would
continue alongside Montgomery Street to a new light rail station to be located in front of
. Diridon Station. From this station stop, the value engineering alignment would rejoin
the currently proposed VTA alignment leading to Delmas Avenue.
This value engineering option would significantly reduce the risk of construction cost
increases and change orders associated with tunnel construction, hazardous materials,
and reconstruction of the West San Carlos Street overcrossing. Pursuit of the value
_ engineering alignment could lengthen the design and environmental clearance schedule
by as much as 6 months. It is likely that the construction schedule would be reduced by
an equivalent length because of fewer complexities associated with the at grade
alignment.
Recommended Budget
The value engineering option is recommended for initial budgeting purposes. The estimated
cost of this option, reflecting the above-described recommendations is as follows:
19995 Escalated S to
Construction Year
Construction $ 78,165,000 $ 93,451,000
Right-of-Way 22,356,000 25,257,000
Indirect 25,795,000 28,779,000
Continaencv 12.632.000 14 7,~ 491000
Total $138,948,000 $162,236,000
SJC1~18iGJOSE1PfiolEC'rSt5o9731DRAFf BASE PtAMBASE PLAN.pOC 18
-~
. ~-
l' t
L v
Fri May 7 15:46:40 1999
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 12:36:32 -0700
From: Carl Gaurdino <cguardino@svmg.org>
Subject: Measure B- Base Case Plan
If you read this morning's San Jose Mercury News front-page story
on the
Measure A and B draft "Base Case Plan" released yesterday, you
caught a
glimpse of the tough issues that must be worked out as we deliver
the 18
transportation improvements listed in our twin ballot initiatives.
The good news mentioned in the story - but not highlighted - is
that all of
the improvements can and will be delivered on time and on budget.
I am
glad to be able to report that the question is "how and when" - not
"if" .
Some background is in order. As you know, the 21-month series of
three
frivolous lawsuits filed against our Measure A and B transportation
initiatives of 1996 cost us not only two-years in commuter relief,
but also
$200 million in increased land and construction costs. This has
created a
difficult but not insurmountable challenge to deliver all 18
projects
on-time and on-budget with the $1.37 billion the nine-year measure
is
expected to generate. In essence, we must now squeeze a size 12
foot into
a size nine shoe.
The draft Base Case Plan meets that objective. And while it is not
without
controversy, and will inevitably be adjusted and even improved as
the
cities, towns, transportation agencies and other concerned parties
weigh in
during the proposed six-week public hearing process, there are
several key
positives that bear repeating from this "starting point" document:
1. The projects can be completed on-time and on-budget.
2. The county planners continue to use very conservative sales tax
revenue
estimates to ensure that, if anything, we will be pleasantly
surprised
rather than deeply disappointed with the amount of local money we
generate.
3. The county planners also operate under the assumption that we
must
deliver the entire plan only with the local sales tax dollars
generated
through the measure. This is fiscally prudent, even though all
parties
recognize that our local match will undoubtedly attract regional,
state and
federal funds. Better to be prudent, however, and not expect too
big of a
windfall from sources beyond our control.
4. The Base Case Plan employs "value engineering," a way to deliver
all of
the projects while looking for potential ways to save money on each
project. This is a sound business practice that saved $150 million
out of
the $1 billion 1984 Measure A transportation program that the
Manufacturing
Group also championed. This doesn't mean that the value
engineering
recommendations in the report are finalized, but it is a fiscally
prudent
place from which to begin the discussion.
5. The VTA's foresight to invest in pre-engineering work -
especially on
the rail transit lines - have kept the projects shelf ready so that
we can
come out of the Base Case planning process ready to move forward
immediately without any additional loss of time caused by the
frivolous
lawsuits.
6. The VTA and the County have a "positive friction" that will
ultimately
help to ensure that the best product is divided. The "check and
balance"
system that our measures created between the "fiscal agents" (the
county)
and the "program managers" (the VTA) will invariably best serve all
of us
as taxpayers and commuters.
In the past few days, I have heard that several cities and towns
are
concerned that they "won't get their fare share." Some are even
calling
our companies to lobby for "their projects." While this is not
necessarily
a bad thing, in the end, they must all sit down with the county and
the VTA
and work together to deliver all of the projects in the measure.
Both the
county and the VTA are committed to this outcome, as is the
Manufacturing
Group as the initiative sponsor. The draft Base Case Plan gets us
there,
and the final Base Case Plan that will emerge in six weeks will
only be a
stronger, consensus-building document. Public hearings throughout
the
county will soon be announced. There will be plenty of time for
input,
energy and discussion. I would emphasize that the goal must be
consensus
and creativity rather than conflict and competition. Our Measure
A and B
transportation initiatives were built on collaboration - and its
implementation must also be built on collaboration.
If you have questions about the Base Case Plan, the hearing
schedule (which
has not yet been released), the funding scenario, or any particular
project
that may be of importance to you and your employees, please let me
know.
And let's not lose sight of the big picture - all parties agree
that ALL 18
projects can and will be delivered on-time and within budget.
Route 85 Noise Issue
Correspondences
Jun-11-99 12:10 From-INTUITIVE SURGICAL
~'Clf:f< h~ errc! tp-x; «sturtl acf~arsrsra ~ one and rax numkk~rs}
F~l7C
6505262066 T-645 P.D1/O1 F-961
Ifs ~
"lr~z f+fc~t~cit°~b(~ ate` ~ti~w, tV~~tJ~xr ~r~aire[t {~rAr~ Tc,xi~r i Ar'~ittt Mtr-t
«r.,..~- ._ .M,..._..,_ rr..v...Y.,- ~....,.....,,..- .. ,~....,-_....~.... _.._..... __ ..~....~..~_ __..~..
!~'i~ta 4t}r~ 8 1:?i~9 iG1~-~: Q~1311t
l~j~g,~~f G7 I~'ar 1teevv f~ Mrt~ii -a~t~rrt~t ~ fi~-irrr ~t~p~y L! pl~asib R,-~Ie
i~+ar 3iri`t,
~lMtf 3; bPi,~f t~'~fiiC; '~~i th~r~}~ydta fad ~air~~r~~ t;f5 '~45 Pr1t:t Vitt#1"1 ~8.1'~l"ar';t~'C~~t~t~ 'fhG C~'tfi[~r d~3iy 'tt3
c~i~cu~~ ~~y $5 l~t€ai ~~i~t~rr~rttrue~, 1 ~n~ ~u~re ~t`;ur ir~pufi ~r'rri pr~~rt, ~~ W~tf
~~ f~~r~ ~3ur~l~~t'~, ~a ~I ~~#firt~ differs in tx~r E~i~l,i99ia~t~;.
~t ~iuc~~:rid t~ v~ty'i~!fui i~ ~ ~if~~"ft~rrl you 3VI~y~r uw~a ~~rifi ~t~'th~ dairt~# cif
~~`urv~~~r~ ~ric~r to ~-eir .fur>~r ~~' mc;etcrl~. 7h~ t~ltter ~hnt,~ld ~t~tr/ 'tt is ~e pity caf
~~~~ta~a'~ ur`rr~#~:r~ciii'tc~ that fVle~~ur~ ~ f~rrtrl wol.~ic~ bo a~{~r~~ri~~~fi Apr r~ei sF
Ci~it::"~~:fiir:~ ~~r~~ ~+~ test cc~rt~ic~csr. the ~C-ty +~fi S~ir~iicr~e tru~t~ ch~.t ~~~ Be~~rd of
Stt~+~rvi~~~ wrilt ht~t'lq~ this ~~t`nr'»itrt~~nt.
Ttt~it~ ~~~irl. 'cur ~~irt~~~t`! ~+a~~ior~# ~t~d ~ c~~ fh~ ert~it~ ,~i~ta~~i pity Cclun+~'rl is
very rrr~h ~p~rc~ia~. q vvt[t i~ee~s you ~>c~st~d c~rr tour ~irc,~r~ as.
f~~~t rsr~~,
wL,,,,..,, y
i
f
Karfwf~ 7u~r d€1t~ ~ti~h il~~t
l~..t~`~.f`t~f3~"5, ~VV"~ ~~ lV~{'SE? Ac~l'emertt ~csr~m~e~
06/11/99 11:47
FAX NOTE 2 sheets
To: Larry Perlin (868-1280)
G ,,1~,
From: Jim Shaw (257-1123
Hwy 85 Noise Attentuation
Karen Tucker advises the "PROJECT FACT SHEET" enclosed was attached to a Carl
Guardino (memo), (note), or (letter) to Joan Hershkowitz dated Oct. 7, 1996.
If Karen or Ardith West can come up with more pedigree they will share it with us.
U6/11/9y 11:48 1 408 257 1123 JIM SHAD!
-Highway 85 Safety !improvements -
PROJECT TITLE:
Route t3S sa!etY improvements and noise
ettetwstion
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To prevent h,ture head-on coltieion~ caused by
automobiles crossing the 46 toot dirt divider On
Route 85, this project will ira:an a "doubts thrse•~
beam" barrier in the median of the freeway. The
bsrrier wall De inststted ~n all locations where there
is not presently light rail o~ an existing harrier,
apFroximatety t 2 mites in length.
Respond to na~se attenuation study currently
underway by Cs-trans.
PROJECT 08JECTiVE
(iVEE~ AND BENEFITS!:
This project is a safety a~iQ noise atte~iuatian
irtlprove+r+ent
CURRENT STATUS:
No final design has been pertormee.
Pg. 02
STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION:
Tv install the median ssfety barrier, ~~rtOrm the
project deSi~+ end award the eoe-sttuetion
contract.
Complete ct:e noise attenuation stuCY and perform
projee: design. Award the aonstruct~on contract.
After Measures A end 8 were p+aced on the
ballot, C~tltrans indicated that it wilt instsil the
median barrier in OOCember or January. N /or any
mason Caltrans' funding tails t-rrou9n, this
important safety project terrains eorrple;sty
furn+ea thtough I4AeasUraS A end 8.
~r-tt--~.~ ~~ f
~~..c-~/
April 28, 1999
Ardith West
1021 Tuscany Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
Cazl Guazdino
Silicon Valley Manufactures Group
226 Airport Pazkway, Suite 190
San Jose, CA 95110
Deaz Mr. Guazdino,
I am writing to bring to your attention the unfinished business of quieting the noise on
Freeway 8S in the cities of Cupertino and Saratoga. As you remember, the Freeway RS Noise
Abatement Committee joined the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief in 1996. In exchange for
our support of Measures A and B, it was a stated objective of the Traffic Relief Measures to:
1. "Complete the noise attenuation study and perform project design.
2. Awazd the construction contract."
Cal Trans hired Acentech in 1997 to complete a study of noise conditions on Freeway 85 and
provide their analysis and recommendations. Acentech presented their evidence to the cities of
Saratoga and Cupertino as well as to Cal Trans early 1998. In essence the study stated re-
surfacing the freeway would result in a substantial reduction of noise (approximately 4dBA) and
applying sound absorbing materials to the walls would secondarily reduce the noise further. A
test corridor for implementing the study results was identified by Cal Trans and the cities of
Sazatoga and Cupertino to be a distance of approximately 6 miles from the southern border of
Sazatoga to Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino.
Over the past 5 years many local citizens have lived with an ever increasing noise volume as
the number, sizes and speed of vehicles have and will continue to increase. Our local
governments have been very supportive of the citizens request for quieting the freeway, as well
as Assemblyman Jim Cunneen and Senator Byron Sher. With Measures A and B funds now
upheld by the courts, the money is there to implement the study's recommendations. I urge you
to follow through in your commitment to improve transportation as it relates to quality of life
issues by pressing the various agencies involved to awazd the funds necessary to complete this
small yet valuable project before the yeaz is out.
Sincerely,
C~~~~~
Ardith West, Co-Chair, Cupertino, 408-996-7100 x2222
Karen Tucker, CaChair, Sazatoga, 650-237-7072
Joan Hershkowitz, Past Co-Chair
Freeway 85 Noise Abatement Committee
cc: Senator Byron Sher Supervisor James Beall, Jr.
Assemblyman Jim Cunneen Saratoga City Council
Supervisor Joe Simitian Cupertino City Council
y
STATE ~F CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
GRAY DAVIS, GoNetnor>^4v~' ~ ~~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ~~°
,,-;+".
Mail Station 49
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001
(916) 654-5267
FAX (916) 654-5881
March 9, 1999
The Honorable Jim Shaw
Mayor of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Shaw:
Use of Rubberized Asphalt on State Highway Projects
At the request of Assemblyman Jim Cunneen, I have been asked to respond to your
inquiry on the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) use of "recycled
rubber from discarded tires in roadway resurfacing projects involving asphalt pavement"
and the "prolonged life" and "greater roadway noise reduction" from using rubberized
asphalt.
As background information, the use of waste tires in highway applications has a long
history. Recent federal legislation has renewed the highway community's interest in
using larger quantities of waste tires in highway applications. Nationwide, waste tires
have been used in fills and embankments, erosion control, retaining walls, membranes,
revetments for slope protection, safety hardware, railroad crossings, valve box coverings,
planks and posts, drainage aggregate and culverts. In California, in addition to producing
rubber for asphalt, rubber tires have been used by Caltrans as fill or embankment
material, shoulder reinforcement, channel slope protection, windbreaks in the desert and
retaining walls.
Besides incorporating them in highways, waste tires have also been successfully recycled
in a number of other ways. The most common use of waste tires is as a fuel source. In
California, two applications of recycling rubber tires as a fuel source have been used
successfully. A power generation plant that burns rubber tires exists in the Central
Valley and rubber tires have been burned as fuel for the kilns at several cement plants
statewide.
Along with the Departments of Transportation in Arizona, Florida and Texas, Caltrans
supports the use of rubberized asphalt on pavements on the State Highway System, and is
one of the primary users of rubberized asphalt nationally. Caltrans has been placing
rubberized asphalt on pavement rehabilitation projects since 1978. To date, more than
100 construction projects statewide (not including chip seals) have utilized rubberized
asphalt.
r
The Honorable Jim Shaw
February 25, 1999
Page 2
Caltrans uses rubberized asphalt on State Highway maintenance and rehabilitation
projects where feasible. Feasibility depends on the project location's climate and distress
shown on the pavement that is in need of repair. The choice of whether or not to use
rubberized asphalt is an engineering decision that is made on aproject-by-project basis.
Factors considered are, economics (the cost-effectiveness of its use) and its anticipated
service life (the performance of the material). Caltrans, in cooperation with the Rubber
Pavement Association (RPA), is currently in the process of developing guidelines to
provide information on where rubberized asphalt pavement can be placed to maximize
the likelihood of successful performance. Preliminary discussions indicate that there are
some locations in the State, predominately locations where climatic conditions are moist
and air temperatures are cool, which may not be appropriate to use rubberized asphalt.
Rubberized asphalt, when specified and built correctly, can provide better fatigue
resistance and resist cracking from below better than conventional asphalt. For these
reasons its use is promoted by Caltrans. These characteristics can also permit a
substantial reduction in pavement thickness (up to 50%) in non-open graded asphalt
concrete layers. Therefore, while rubberized asphalt is currently more expensive per ton
than conventional asphalt, with reduced thickness being required and the potential for
superior performance, rubberized asphalt pavement rehabilitation strategies are
competitive when life-cycle cost comparisons are performed.
While the scientific community (the Transportation Research Board, Academia, etc.)
recognizes that there ~ be some potential acoustic benefits from the use of open graded
surface treatments (including those with rubberized asphalt), there is no conclusive
evidence or consensus with regard to using such surface treatments as noise abatement
strategies. Our experience suggests that in comparison to freshly placed dense graded
asphalt, new concrete pavement, longitudinally tined, is 2 dB(A) louder, and freshly
placed open graded asphalt is 2 dB(A) quieter [for reference: a 3 dB(A) change in
ambient noise levels is generally considered the threshold of human perceptibility].
Unfortunately, the noise reduction associated with open graded asphalt declines with
surface age and, in a relatively short period of time, when compared to the design life of
the pavement, much of the noise benefit diminishes. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) both believe that this small amount of noise
reduction is not worth sacrificing pavement durability, public inconvenience (due to
additional construction-related congestion) and worker safety (workers will be exposed to
traffic more frequently to replace/repair the pavement). Caltrans agrees with both the
FHWA and AASHTO and, therefore, does not recognize nor have we used open graded
surface treatments for the purpose of traffic noise abatement on State Highway projects.
In closing, I would like to assure you that Caltrans is continuously looking for
opportunities to improve the pavements that serve the people of California. We are
always looking for opportunities to incorporate solid waste materials into roadway
construction. Caltrans has used significant quantities of recycled rubber from tires in
pavements in the past and will continue to do so in the future as long as the product
performance is satisfactory, it is safe to human health and can be recycled.
v
`~ The Honorable Jim Shaw
February 25, 1999
Page 3
Caltrans, however, does not believe a "demonstration" project on Route 85 is warranted
at this time. When it becomes time to rehabilitate distressed pavement in the corridor, an
asphalt rubber strategy more than likely will be one of the designer's options to consider
and evaluate. However, that will hopefully be in the distant future, since Route 85 has
been recently constructed. If you have any further questions, please call Kevin Herritt at
(916) 653-3170.
Sincerely,
MED
c: Assemblyman Jim Cunneen
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001
(916)319-2024
E-mail: JIm.Cunneen®asm.ca.gov
DISTRICT OFFICE
901 CAMPISI WAY, SUITE 300
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408) 369-6170
~~~~~~~t~ ~~~t~~~~~~~
JIM CUNNEEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER,TWENTY-FOURTH DISTRICT
Representing the communities of.• Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Monte Senrno, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnyaale
January 28, 1999
Honorable Jim Shaw
Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Shaw:
Thank you for your
Highway 85.
Santa Clara
Highway 85
I have
County
in their
COMMITTEES:
BUDGET
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STATE ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
PUBLIC SAFETY, Vice-Chair
RULES COMMITTEE (Alt)
recent letter regarding noise abatement on
enclosed the letter I recently sent to the
Supervisors requesting that they include
programmed funding for Measure A & B.
As you know, I've been working to make Highway 85 both safer and
quieter since the highway opened in 1994. It is reassuring to
have the support of local cities in our continuing quest to make
this highway a better neighbor. I was recently able to obtain
the funding for the noise study, but my request for funding the
repaving of Highway 85 was not included in the 1998-99 State
budget.
I am intrigued by your mention of using scrap tires for
rubberized asphalt. I sent a letter to Mr. Jose Medina, the new
Director of Caltrans, inquiring about their use of rubberized
asphalt. I have enclosed a copy of that letter as well.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this
issue. Congratulations on becoming the Mayor of Saratoga. I
look forward to continuing working with you.
Sincerely,
,..y--~
"CUNNEEN'
Assemblymember
24th District
JC:sm
enclosures
Printed on Recycled Paper
STATE CAPITOL
~O. BOX 942849 ~~~~~~~ ~
SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0OOt
(9161319-2024
c-mad: Jim.Cunneen~asm.ca.gov
r
~~~~~~~~ `~~
~~~~~~~~
DISTRICT OFFICE ~
901 CAMPISI WAY. SUITE 300
CA 35008 JIM CUNNEEN
CAMPBELL
(4081369.8170 ASSEMBLYMEMBER. TWENTY FOURTH DISTRICT
:~epresentine tlu communities of: Gtmpoell, ~uvemno,
Los Altos, i.os Gatos, .1~onte ~ernno, Jan lose, Saratoga, antt Sunnuoale
January _ 1999
_oncrable Don Gage
Santa Diara hoard oz Supervisors
~0 nT. riedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
~E : ~!easure ~ ::~ 3 orogram =undir~a nor 3ighway 35
Dear won:
COMMITTEES:
BUDGET
3UDGET SUBCOMMITTEE JN
STATE ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY .iND
TOXIC MATERIALS
HIGHER EDUCATION
'NSURANCE
.;DINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
?UBUC SAFETY. `lice-Chair
RULES COMMITTEE (Altl
sreetinas! ~ was so oleased to hear that the Measure ~ .X 3
~undingJhas peen upheld ~v the courts. ~ strongly suopcrted
`?easure 3 :~ 3 and am glad to see it .inal~v tieing =mn~emented.
Sar_ta Mara ~ounty is in such need c= _~~.~.__.. im>/rovements . am
eager ::~ see _:^~e ~r0]ectS cegin.
s~_.cereiv :~oUe that -rou •,vlll i nc.~uae a ne~se abatement test
corridor along ~ighwav 35 in your programmed Funding. i
understand that oroj ect =.vas included i the Measure ~ x 3
~'ransoortation enhancements '1st gnat was olaced on the ;callot.
~s -rou may snow, -NOrKed ~,aith Caltrans to met =undina aporcved
or a noise study aioncx the 3icthwav 35 corridor. ^_'heystudv -.vas
ccmt~leted in the ~ai.l of 1997.) relieve _~ a studv _~ad peen
tompiet?d be~ore .. he cities signed a .reewav agreement -.vith
=altrans and becan construct,on on ~ighwav 35, there ~.vould :nave
:seen much ;ess ci an impact or. those 1_-;inc near ~icrhwav 35.
regardless, resirents ~.n Saratoga and Cupertino ~eaularly share
-:pith me how the noise has di mini shed t:leir ;ualit-r or =_~e over
the oast =cur 1rears . ~t seems only =air t: at this _ortcram ~e
imniemented.
.lave enClOSed some ;attars _1aVP_ '_reC°~'rea _,om ^eS~cents ar_C1
_CCa1 elected Ot_iCia1S or -tour r°_Vle=.,V. `~'harilC 'IOU .Or '/OUr
~CnS~uerat~On OL t=~1S _eC•l1eSt : ?i SaSe ~C nCL _1eSltate t : _^.ntaC~
me __ ~ can ~e of any assistance. ~ look =onward to your
decision.
~~ ..•.v
J ~M CLTNNEEN
~ssemblymember
24th District
JC:sm
CC : Jane Dec~ter
Concerned Constituents
PNnted on ReC{nGed Paper
~~
.,. ~STATECAPITOL r r
P.O. BOX 942849 ~~~~~
YAY
{
SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0001 ~
~
.
s.
.i
(916)319-2024
E-mail: Jim.Gunneen®asm.ca.gov ~
~~~~~~.+v~
~~~~~~~~ ,~r~
~
7
~
I
L
DISTRICT OFFICE
AA ~
,
~,
~
~.~ .
901 CAMPISI WAY, SUITE 300
CA 95008 jIM CUNNEEN
CAMPBELL,
(408) 369-8170 ,gSSEMBLYMEMBER,TblENTY FOURTH DISTRICT
Representing the communities of Campbell, Cupertino,
~i
Los Altos, Los Gatos, ~bfonte Sereno, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnuvale
January 28, 1999
Jose Medina
Director, CALTRANS
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CP_ 95814
Dear Director Medina:
COMMITTEES:
BUDGET
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STATE ADMiNISTAATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
PUBLIC SAFETY, Vice-Chair
RULES COMMITTEE (AIt)
I am writing you regarding a letter I received from the Honorable
Jim Shaw, Mayor of Saratoga, regarding the use of rubberized
asphalt. I have enclosed of copy of his letter for your review.
I am very intrigued by the idea of using scrap tires for
rubberized asphalt. It seems to make a lot of sense in light of
California's problem of accumulating waste tires. Is Caltrans
currently reviewing or using this technology for California's
highways? I would very much appreciate an update on this issue.
Please send your response to the Honorable
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
to me in my District Office. Thank you for
matter.
Sincerely,
.~ ,
JIM CTJNNEEN
Assemblymember
24th District
JC:sm
Jim Shaw, Mayor of
CA, 95070 and a copy
your efforts on this
Printed on Recycled Paper
c
l,~
~.6~
C~B~~ 04 ~~OO C~~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200
Incorporated October 22, 1956
January 21, 1999
Assemblymember Jim Cunneen
24~' Assembly Dis~ict
901 Campisi Way, Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
Subject: Route 85 Noise Mitigation
Deaz Assemblymember Cunneen ~~~
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosian
John MehaNey
Jim Shaw
Nick Streit
On behalf of the Saratoga City Council, I am writing to seek your continued support for resolving the
Route 85 noise problem. Specifically, the City Council is most interested in your recent efforts'to secure
funding through the State budget process to implement one of the recommendations contained in the
Acentech Noise Study, namely resurfacing the roadway tivith asphah pavement. This, as you know, is
estimated to reduce the freeway noise levels by up to 4 dBA. 'It is our understanding that you submitted a
special member's request for $1 million in the Assembly Budget Subcommittee process to fund this work,
and that you were scheduled to reiterate the request before the Joint Conference Budget Committee last
summer.. We hope that you received the necessary bipartisan support for your request and that Caltrans
will be authorized to proceed with this important project soon. Please let us know what the latest
developments are in this regard.
On a related matter, the City has recently received information about the use of recycled rubber from
discarded tires in roadway resurfacing projects involving asphah paving. Appazently, the rubber helps to
prolong the life of the pavement and results in greater roadway noise reduction. Given the tremendous
waste problem associated with scrap tires, perhaps the State should be encouraging more use of rubberized
asphah. One way to do this might be through a successful demonstration of its application along a portion
of the State highway system, and of course the Route 85 test corridor comes to mind as an ideal candidate
location. We aze most interested in hearing your thoughts about this.
Sincerely,
~-
im Shaw, Mayor
cc: Cupertino City Council
Freeway Noise Abatement Committee
Supervisor S. Joseph Simitian
Printed on recycled paper.
~ - .~
c~~~
Cu~~~rtillo
L ~-,
(j~./
Ci 1
10300 orre venue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3212
FAX: (408) 777-3366
E-Mail: www-cupertino.org
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 1998
State Assemblyman Jim Cunneen
24"' District
901 Campisi Way, Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Assemblyman Cunneen:
On behalf of the residents of Cupertino and Saratoga impacted by high noise levels generated by the
traffic on Highway 85, the Cupertino City Council urges you to press for the implementation of the
noise abatement test corridor that is one of the projects included in the Measure A/B Transportation
enhancements list.
The completion of the noise study has prepared the way for this project to be implemented and it is
important to initiate it before it is buried under the larger projects on the list. Many residents supported
these measures under the assurance that their noise situation would be improved and it is important that
their quality of life be improved and their faith in government be upheld.
Sincerely,
~~Gvci
Wally De ,Mayor
~~
f :- ~~
,r' ~ r '.
r'" John Statton Vice Mayor
`'., ~
Don Burnett, Councilmember
..-`
Sandra James, Councilmember
cc: Charlotte Powers, Chair VTA Board
Saratoga Council
Carl Guardino, SVMG
Freeway Noise Abatement Committee
Michael Chang,
Printed on Recycled Paper