Chapter 4 Projects, Funding and Implementation

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 Projects, Funding and Implementation This chapter presents the capital projects to complete the countywide network described in Chapter 3. This chapter then describes the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP), VTA s funding mechanism for countywide bicycle projects. Other funding programs and policies besides the BEP for bicycle projects are described. Finally this chapter discusses the various strategies that have been or could be used to fund bicycle projects as part of other, larger non-bicycle projects. POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS This section first presents the projects needed to complete the cross county bicycle corridor network. Next, the potential projects emanating from the inventory of all major barriers in the county are presented. Finally safe routes to transit projects for the regional transit stations are identified. Each of these capital projects will be eligible for funding from the BEP and cities are encouraged to submit these projects in response to the VTP 2035 Call for Projects-Bicycle Program. There is also some overlap between the bicycle program and the other elements in the VTP, most often the highways program, the local streets and road program and the expressway program. Again, cities are encouraged to submit capital projects in this plan in response to all appropriate elements of VTP Cross County Bicycle Corridors (CCBC) Based on the CCBC alignments presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix C2, the total number of lane miles was calculated for each of the eleven project types to fully implement the CCBC network. These are discussed below by the three main types of CCBC s: Roadways, Trails and Expressways. To full implement the cross county bicycle corridors, a variety of projects are needed, ranging from bike lanes to shoulder widening. Even bike paths are part of some roadway corridors (and vice versa) depending on the conditions at the specific location. Completing connectivity with bike bridges, or widening roadway bridges is also crucial part of implementing the CCBC network. The following summarizes the various types of capital projects that are necessary for a completed CCBC network. Each CCBC has also been broken into smaller projects by City in Appendix D1 (roadways) and Appendix D2 (trails.). CCBC Roadways o Bike lanes on arterials or collectors o Bike paths as part of roadway CCBCs o Bike Boulevards o Signed Bike Routes o Shoulder Widening- 120 miles 9 miles 5 miles 15 miles 100 miles Page 4-1

2 o Add Bike Lanes to existing roadway crossings 33 locations o New bike/ped Across Barrier Connections 4 locations (not including MaryAve footbridge at I-280 and Borregas Ave bike- pedestrian bridges at SR 237 and US 101-under construction) o Redesign Freeway Interchanges to be bike-friendlier 29 locations CCBC Trails o Multiuse Trails in active planning stage o Multiuse Trails future alignment unknown o Planned bike/ped Across Barrier Connections o At-grade crossing improvements o Staging areas, access points o 24 hour access 70 miles 350 miles 3 locations throughout as needed all CCBC Expressways: o Expressway bike improvement projects 3 locations o Systemwide bicycle timing/detection project All o Expressway Connector Routes 12 miles o Redesign Freeway Interchanges to be bike-friendlier 11 locations Across Barrier Connections and Roadway Crossings Another significant component of this bicycle plan is safe and convenient access across the County s major barriers. Based on the inventory and analysis presented in Chapter 3 and Table 3-4, potential projects have been identified that would improve access - or provide access where none exists- across all the freeways, creeks and railroad tracks in the County. The project types fall into the following 3 categories: 1) inadequate roadway crossings, 2) unfriendly freeway interchanges and 3) major barrier to bike travel that could be fixed by the construction of a nonmotorized Across Barrier Connection (ABC). 1. Provide bike lanes or shoulders on existing roadway overcrossings or undercrossings with inadequate lane widths. Across the two dozen or so freeways, railroad tracks and waterways in the County, there are over 250 roadway bridges or undercrossings with narrow outside lanes and no shoulders or bike lanes. Many of these, however, are local roads with low traffic volumes, thus bike lanes are not considered necessary according to the BTG Page 3-1. However, 197 existing roadway bridges or undercrossings have sufficient traffic volumes to consider the need for bike lanes or wide shoulders. The 32 crossings of railroad tracks are listed below in Table 4-1A. Of the 94 freeway crossings, the 44 that are not at interchanges are listed in Table 4-1B (and the 50 freeway interchanges are considered separately under #2 on Page 4-4). Those crossings that are part of a CCBC are indicated by an asterisk in Tables 4-1A and 4-1B. The 71 road crossings of creeks are listed in Appendix D3. Page 4-2

3 Table 4-1A: Rail Arterial Crossings with No Bike Lanes or Shoulders The 21 roadway crossings of Caltrain tracks (including at-grade crossings) are: University Ave. Embarcadero Rd.* Oregon Expressway* Mary Ave.* Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale Ave. De La Cruz Blvd.* (Coleman Ave./El Camino Real/Lewis St.) Blossom Hill Rd.* (see also Table 4-2) Palm Ave. Live Oak Ave. Tilton Ave. San Pedro Ave. Middle Ave. San Martin Station* Church St.* Masten Ave. Rucker Ave. Buena Vista Ave.* Cohansey Las Animas Ave. Luchessa Ave.*. The 11 roadway crossings of the UPRR tracks (all lines) that do not have bike lanes or shoulders are: Calaveras Boulevard* Curtis Ave. Great Mall Drive Montague Expressway* Civic Center* Orchard City* Kennedy Ave. Camden Ave.* Hacienda Ave. Prospect Rd.* Seven Springs * This roadway over or undercrossing is part of a Cross County Bicycle Corridor The 44 major roadway crossings of the following freeways (not interchanges) that do not have bike lanes or wide shoulders are listed below in Table 4-1B: Table 4-1B: Freeway Arterial Crossings with No Bike Lanes or Shoulders I-680 SR 17 SR 237 Cropley Ave. Moorpark Ave.* Fair Oaks/Java Jackson St. Campbell Ave. McCarthy Blvd.* SR 85 I-880 US 101 Oka Rd. Fourth St. Lafayette St. Meridian Ave.* Park Ave.* San Antonio St.* Winfield Blvd. Pruneridge Ave.*/Hedding St.* Coyote Rd. Snell Ave. Forest Ave. Monterey Rd.* Lean Ave. Via del Oro Page 4-3

4 SR 87 I-280 Airport Parkway* Macarthur Ave. Hedding St.* Bascom Ave.* Almaden Blvd.* Leland Ave. Santa Clara St. Leigh Ave.* San Fernando St.* Race St. San Carlos St. Lincoln Ave.* Virginia St. Vine St. Alma Ave.* Almaden Rd. Almaden Rd. Second St. Mill Pond Dr. Third St. Carol Dr.* Hillsdale Ave. Branham Ln.* Chynoweth Ave.* * This roadway over or undercrossing is part of a Cross County Bicycle Corridor 2. Freeway interchanges that are bicycle-unfriendly. Freeway interchanges can be intimidating to even serious cyclists. Many moderately skilled cyclists refuse to ride through many or most interchanges in the county. The two most beneficial improvements are 1) to provide bike lanes or wide shoulders on the over/ undercrossing, and 2) to reconfigure the ramps to be at 90 degrees, which slows motor vehicle traffic and enables safer merge /weave movements between the through bicyclists and the merging/diverging motor vehicles; (see BTG Chapter 5). All freeway interchanges in the county were reviewed for their bike-friendliness. In all, 93 need improvements: 37 need bike lanes and some or all of the ramp intersections modified, 13 need bike lanes or shoulders but the ramps are acceptable, and an additional 43 have bike lanes or shoulders but need modified ramp intersections. These interchanges are listed in Appendix D4. Typically, these bike-friendly design elements would be incorporated into a future highway project that proposes to modify all or a portion of the interchange. Those interchanges that are currently in the VTP 2030 Highway Program are so indicated in Appendix D4. If located on a CCBC, this is indicated as well. 3. Large distance between existing crossings of the major barriers. Over 100 segments of freeways, railroad tracks and waterways were identified where existing crossings are spaced more than one mile apart. The lack of crossings of these major barrier results in discontinuity in the local roadway and trail system that is accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicyclists and pedestrians are forced to detour from their preferred line of travel to cross at the nearest opportunity, which also might be bike unfriendly. Building more ABC s will close the gap in a road or trail that is essentially severed by the freeway, railway or waterway. Page 4-4

5 In the urbanized areas of the county, 109 segments were determined to warrant, either now or in the future, a new crossing of the barrier. The four ABC s and one roadway bridge that are under construction and/or fully funded are not included in this count; these are: I-280 Bicycle Bridge at the extension of Mary Avenue US 101 and S.R.237 Bike Bridges at the extension of Borregas Ave. The roadway extension of Charcot Avenue over I-880 San Tomas Aquino Trail over Caltrain tracks Two additional major barrier locations were identified during the inventory that fall within Alameda County. The first is across the Alameda County flood control channel, along the Bay Trail alignment just north of the Alameda County/Santa Clara County border. The second is across I-880 between Fremont Blvd and Dixon Landing Road. VTA will work with the cities of Milpitas, Fremont and Alameda County so that these gaps in connectivity across these barriers can be fixed as soon as possible: The 109 segments have been categorized into either planned or potential projects. Sixteen of these segments have planned projects, defined as: already in VTP 2030, either the BEP or the Local Streets and Roads (LSR) program; were submitted in response to the call for projects to VTP 2035 for either the BEP or LSR; (in the case of the LSR projects, the project is a new roadway with bike lanes rather than a ped/bike ABC). have been identified in this plan as either on the CCBC network and/or the Safe Routes to Transit projects; or are in a city s specific plan or General Plan. In addition to these 16 segments, three other ABC s are planned by local jurisdictions two would replace substandard existing ABCs and one would supplement a substandard existing roadway crossing. These three projects have been incorporated into this bicycle plan as# 10, 12 and 14 on Table 4-2. Thus a total of nineteen planned ABC projects are listed in Table 4-2 and are illustrated in Figure 4-1 as either a green arrow (ABC) or line segment within a circle (roadway project). (Figure 4-1 is located after Table 4-3). The remaining 93 locations are referred to as potential projects and are listed below in Table 4-3. These locations should be monitored for development or redevelopment opportunities that would contribute to the demand for the crossing and/or could help fund them. Potential projects are illustrated on Figure 4-1 as blue arrows. The blue arrow symbol does not represent the specific location of a potential project; rather the blue arrows identify a segment between two existing crossings that remains a barrier to bike and pedestrian travel. Page 4-5

6 Table 4-2: Gap Locations in Santa Clara County PLANNED Across Barrier Connections City of Gilroy Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Buena Vista and Leavesley (* Las Animas Rd.) Uvas Creek 3. Miller and Luchessa (* 10th Street.) Leavesley and Gilman (* IOOF Rd.) *In 2008 Call for Projects - Local Streets & Roads City of Milpitas Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Great Mall Pkwy & Montague Expy * CCBC #8A UPRR 5. Calaveras and Montague Expy **TASP * In Cross County Bicycle Corridors Countywide Bicycle Plan, 2008 ** Transit Area Specific Plan Coyote Creek 6. Tasman /Great Mall Pkwy & Montague Expy * CCBC #6A City of Mountain View Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Rengstorff/Ampitheater and Shoreline * (Permanente Creek Trail ABC -bridge) Stevens Creek 9. El Camino Real and Fremont Rd. (southern portion in Sunnyvale/LosAltos) El Camino Real & Fremont Rd **(CCBC- Stevens Creek Trail ABC) **(CCBC-Stevens Creek Trail ABC) * In 2008 Call for Projects Bike Project ** BEP Project City of Palo Alto Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Oregon Expy ABC and San Antonio Rd i.e. at Matadero Creek * /1/ (Adobe Creek tunnel replacement) Caltrain 11. Oregon Expy and Meadow * South Palo Alto ABC * In 2008 Call for Projects ** BEP Project /1/ Replace existing substandard undercrossing Caltrain 12. ** /1/ Caltrain at California Avenue City of San Jose Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment between: Name Segment between: Montague Expy and new Caltrain 14. At Blossom Hill Rd. * Charcot Rd. extension overcrossing UPRR /Caltrain 15. Caltrain Station and Hedding St. ** CFP at Newhall St. *Blossom Hill Rd overcrossing of Caltrain /Monterey Rd has no bike lanes or sidewalks, and is extremely inconvenient to access for pedestrians and bicyclists, thus this ABC is being built to address this inadequate roadway crossing, (see Page 4-3), not to fill a 1.0 mile gap. ** In 2008 Call for Projects Page 4-6

7 City of Santa Clara Planned New ABC s RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: Caltrain/ UPRR 16. De La Cruz and Hedding *Caltrain Station ABC ** CCBC #08A * BEP Project ** Cross County Bicycle Corridors Countywide Bicycle Plan 2008 PROJECTS, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION City of Saratoga Planned New ABC s RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: UPRR 17. Connect Fredericksburg and Guava Court * *In 2008 Call for Projects City of Sunnyvale Planned New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Ellis and Mathilda * Mary Avenue roadway extension Caltrain 19. Whisman (Mt. View) and Mary Ave **( Bernardo ABC) *LSR Project **BEP Project Table 4-3: Gap Locations in Santa Clara County POTENTIAL Across Barrier Connection City of Campbell Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Campbell and San Tomas Expy/Camden Los Gatos Creek 3. Campbell Park Bridge and Camden Ped Bridge San Tomas Expy/Camden and Ped Overcrossing at Mozart (LG) Los Gatos Creek 4. San Tomas Expy and Ped Bridge at Lark (LG) City of Cupertino Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Foothill Blvd (LA) and new Mary Ave Bike/ Pedestrian bridge Homestead Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd. UPRR UPRR 7. Rainbow and McClellan 8. Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Rd 9. Stevens Creek Homestead Rd and Stevens Creek Blvd City of Gilroy Potential New ABC s RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Caltrain 10. Luchessa and Bolsa Uvas Creek 11. Hecker Pass Hwy and Santa Teresa Uvas Creek 12. Santa Teresa and Miller Page 4-7

8 City of Los Altos Hills Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS Name Segment Between: El Monte and Robleda to Foothill College City of Los Gatos Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Lark and Blossom Hill Los Gatos Creek 16. Lark and Pepper Tree Lane (Trail at Vasona Park) Pollard and Winchester City of Milpitas Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Scott Creek (Alameda County) and Jacklin Dixon Landing and SR 237/Calaveras McCarthy and Abbott UPRR 20. Dixon Landing Rd and Abel (alignment splits to SC Train Station & industrial sites) Coyote Creek 21. McCarthy at Dixon Landing and Ped Bridge at Alviso Milpitas City of Morgan Hill Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Cochrane and Main Llagas Creek 24. Santa Teresa and Monterey Dunne and Tennant City of Mountain View Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Ellis and planned Mary Ave Extension in Sunnyvale Caltrain 26. Rengstorff and Shoreline Blvd. Stevens Creek 27. Ped Bridge at Crittenden and Moffett Park Ave. City of Palo Alto Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: University and Embarcadero Caltrain 29. Caltrain to connect Everett to Quarry Adobe Creek 30. Terman Park and Foothill Expy Page 4-8

9 City of San Jose Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: North First and Caltrain 45. Ped xing at Coyote Creek 52. Oakland Rd and North Tenth Stone and Capitol Berryessa Expy Story and Caltrain 46. Blossom Hill Coyote Creek 53. Mabury and Julian Tully and Bernal Tully and Caltrain 47. Bernal and Coyote Creek 54. Story and Tully Capitol Expy Coyote Rd and Blossom Hill/Silver Creek Valley Rd Blossom Hill/Silver Creek Valley Rd and Bernal Bernal and Metcalf Lawrence Expy and Saratoga th and McLaughlin Hostetter and Berryessa Brokaw and Old Bayshore Highway Winfield and Blossom Hill North First and Zanker Zanker and McCarthy Skyport and Hedding Caltrain UPRR UPRR UPRR Blanchard 48. Blanchard and Bailey 49. Trade Zone and Hostetter 50. William and Keyes/Story 51. Montague Expy and Oakland Coyote Creek Coyote Creek Coyote Creek Guadalupe River Guadalupe River Guadalupe River Los Alamitos Los Alamitos Los Alamitos Penetencia Creek Silver Creek Silver/Thompson Creek 55. Tully and Capitol Expy 56. Hellyer and Silver Creek 57. Silver Creek and Silicon Valley Blvd 58. Tasman and Ped Bridge at River Oaks 59. Montague Expy and Trimble 60. Branham and Blossom Hill 61. Mazzone and Graystone 62. Graystone and Harry 63. Harry and Shillingsburg 64. Dorel and Alum Rock 65. Greenyard and Hassler 66. Yerba Buena Ave and Yerba Buena Rd City of Santa Clara Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: San Tomas/Montague Expy and Lafayette Caltrain/UPRR 68. Lawrence Caltrain Station Ped ABC and Bowers Ave. Calabazas Creek) City of Saratoga Potential New ABC s CREEKS Name Segment Between: San Tomas Aquino Creek 69. Fruitvale and Highway 9 Page 4-9

10 City of Sunnyvale Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Caribbean/Lawrence Expy and San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (SC) Caltrain 71. Wolfe and Lawrence Caltrain Station Ped ABC Unincorporated Communities Potential New ABC s FREEWAYS RAILROAD TRACKS CREEKS Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Name Segment Between: Tennant and Middle Caltrain 77. Laguna and Palm Llagas Creek 84. Llagas Rd and Edmundsen Middle and San Martin Caltrain 78. Palm and Live Oak Llagas Creek 85. San Martin and Church San Martin and Caltrain 79. Live Oak and Llagas Creek 86. Church and Masten Church Tilton Church and Caltrain 80. Tilton and Llagas Creek 87. Buena Vista and Masten Masten and Buena Vista Caltrain Caltrain Caltrain Monterey 81. Tennant and Middle 82. Middle and San Martin Station 83. San Martin Station and Church Llagas Creek Leavesley 88. Leavesley and Gilman Llagas Creek 89. Gilman and S.R. 152 Llagas Creek Uvas Creek Uvas Creek Uvas Creek 90. S.R. 152 and Bloomfield 91. Uvas Rd and Watsonville 92. Watsonville and S.R Hecker Pass Hwy 93. Luchessa and Bloomfield Page 4-10

11 PROJECTS, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION Page 4-11

12 Page 4-12

13 Page 4-13

14 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Page 4-14

15 Page 4-15

16 Safe Routes to Transit Projects Each city in Santa Clara County was asked to identify projects that would improve bicycle access to a major transit station. The projects listed below in Table 4-4 were submitted by local agencies. Table 4-4: Safe Routes to Transit Potential Projects City Bike Improvement* Transit Station Gilroy -Bike lanes on Church Street -Bike lanes on Chestnut Street -Bike lanes on Railroad Street and Eigleberry Street -Bike lanes on Forest Street Gilroy Caltrain -Bike lanes on Murray Avenue -Bike lanes on Alexander Street Milpitas -ABC over Montague Exp to connect Falcon Dr with the future Milpitas BART Station, -ABC over Montague Exp to connect the future TASP districts between Centre Point Dr/McCandless Dr and Trade Zone Blvd, -ABC over the east-half of Capitol Av to connect the Capitol Av Light Rail Transit Station with the future Milpitas BART Station, Future BART Station Morgan Hill San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale Countywide/VTA -Bike lanes on Main Avenue, between Butterfield Blvd. and HWY 101 -Bike lanes on Diana Avenue, between Butterfield Blvd and HWY Bike lanes on Llagas Rd between Monterey Rd and Llagas Ct. 1.1 mi to the west. -Safe crossing** of tracks to eastside land uses at Blossom Hill -Safe crossing** of tracks to eastside land uses at Capitol -Five Wounds trail Watson Park to Williams Park -Penitencia Creek Trail Coyote Creek to King Rd -Thompson Creek trail from Yerba Buena to Eastridge Transit Center - -Spot improvements to access Ace /Amtrak station along frontage to Lafayette St. and from other directions -Extension of Planned Caltrain tunnel to east side of UPRR tracks -Bike lanes on El Camino Real -Bike lanes on Mathilda Avenue -Countywide signage program for consistency and uniformity to sign bike routes to all commuter rail stations in the county Morgan Hill Caltrain Blossom Hill Caltrain Capitol Caltrain Alum Rock BART Berryessa BART Eastridge LRT Great America Ace /Amtrak station Santa Clara Caltrain station Sunnyvale and Lawrence Caltrain The 16 Caltrain / ACE/Amtrak stations *This table only includes cities that have a regional transit station that would be eligible to receive funds under Regional Measure 2- Safe Routes to Transit program. ** Safe Crossing includes overcrossings, tunnels, and signalized at-grade pedestrian crossings. Page 4-16

17 COST ESTIMATES AND PRIORITY PROJECTS Cost Estimates PROJECTS, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION The total cost of implementing the capital bikeway projects identified in this plan is difficult to estimate since most of the projects are still at the conceptual stage. Nevertheless a ballpark estimate of the construction cost is presented below to help projects to identify a place holder for funding through the BEP or a future MTC Regional Bicycle Program or even through roadway funds. The latter scenario is discussed further on Page The order of magnitude cost estimate for the construction cost was prepared using the project types on pages 4-1 and 4-2 and the unit cost assumptions presented in Appendix D5 Bikeway Projects The bikeway projects are considered all of the CCBC, ABC and Safe Routes to Transit projects. The total cost of constructing the bicycle projects is approximately $950 million. This is broken down as follows: (there is some overlap between the following categories so the sum of these numbers is more than the $950 million). CCBC s o 24 roadway routes: $350 million o 17 trails (70 miles): $105 million o Expressways: $9 million plus County Expressway Planning Study Projects ABC s 112 locations: $560 million Safe Routes to Transit-20 projects: $55 million Roadway Projects with Bike Components In addition to these three categories, there are a total of 147 roadway crossings of freeways, creeks and railroad tracks that need to be reconstructed or widened in order to safely accommodate bicycles. The 93 freeway interchange modifications costs were not estimated; these would be included in the Highways Program. The 147 roadway overcrossing widening costs are extremely difficult to estimate without a individual assessment of each roadway bridge, but a ballpark estimate is $800 million, ($200 million was included in the CCBC cost above). It should be noted that many if not all of these roadway crossings as well as roadway CCBC s could be implemented as part road projects per Routine Accommodation /Complete Streets policies. For example they could be funded by VTP 2035 Local Streets and Roads Program or other programs and strategies for building road projects - see Page Page 4-17

18 Priority Projects The actual scoring of the potential projects will take place with the update of the BEP described in the next section. However over the past eight years several general project types and two specific project locations have consistently been mentioned as needing attention. These projects may be considered higher priority for future funding cycles. Note that any changes in evaluation criteria for future BEP amendments are subject to BPAC and Board approval. 1. Train stations at which passengers cannot cross the tracks Blossom Hill Station Capitol Station Santa Clara Station (existing BEP project; under design) 2. Long segments where there is no adequate crossing over Caltrain tracks such as: Between De La Cruz Blvd and Hedding St. (Santa Clara station crossing above would fill this gap, as would proposed Newhall crossing) Blossom Hill Road over Monterey Rd/Caltrain (under design) Between Curtner Ave. and Capital Expressway 3. Long segments where there is no adequate crossing over freeways such as: U.S. 101 between Mabury Rd. and Coyote Creek Trail SR 87 between Mozart Ped Bridge and Los Gatos Creek Trail north of Campbell Ave. I-880 north of Dixon Landing in Alameda County 4. Bay Trail Connection between the City of Fremont and McCarthy Blvd. in Milpitas across Alameda County Flood Control Channel (City of Fremont is currently conducting a feasibility study) 5. Restoration of the pedestrian at-grade crossing of UPRR tracks at Fredericksburg in Saratoga serving Blue Hills School 6. Bikeway to prioritize bicycle travel connecting Diridon Station with San Jose State University. Page 4-18

19 VTA BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PROGRAM PROJECTS, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) was adopted by the VTA Board of Directors as the funding mechanism for countywide bicycle projects. When first adopted in 2000, roughly $31 million was set-aside over a 10-year BEP period (FY 2000/1-2009/10). It was subsequently augmented, with the biggest changes in the BEP funding being the inclusion of MTC s Regional Bicycle Pedestrian Program and the extension of the timeframe to be 25 years to be consistent with the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP). This action increased the BEP funds to approximately $99 million for the period; as of FY 2007/08, $33 million has been programmed. This funding was primarily from four funding programs: Measure B Bicycle Funds, a one-time $12 million infusion; Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program (TFCA 40%); Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian & Bicycle Program (TDA 3); Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Funds (RBPP); MTC s program composed of a dedicated portion of the Region s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Each of these fund sources is governed by a separate set of programming criteria and policies that the VTA Board of Directors amended to guarantee the availability of funds for the BEP; these policies are presented in Appendix D6. The BEP project list is amended in coordination with the adoption of the revised VTP approximately every 3 years and incorporates new projects as described on Page 4-20 under Future BEP Projects. Current BEP Projects and Funding The current list of 46 projects was adopted by the Board in Eighteen of these projects have been completed, utilizing almost $10 million from the BEP. These are listed in Appendix D7, page D7-1 The remaining 28 BEP projects are listed in Appendix D7 by status. Page D7-2 lists those that are fully funded and are under construction (these have been programmed a total of $18 million BEP funds). Page D7-3 lists the 22 projects that will need additional BEP funding. Table 4-5 shows the total dollars available from the primary funding sources to date ( ) and also projected to 2035, based on current assumptions for the future 25 years of funding. The 2009 BEP project list will be able to support up to $160 million in BEP allocations. In practice, most of the projects will receive funds from more than one of the BEP funding sources. VTA is committed to funding the full recommended amounts in the BEP for each project. To do so, VTA maintains flexibility in the actual programming of funds to each project. It may be necessary to adjust the combination of funds for bicycle projects in the future to best leverage the funding and accommodate project schedules and delivery. Page 4-19

20 Table 4-5: Available Funding for the Bicycle Expenditure Program (2006 dollars). Fund Source /a/ ($1000) ($1000) 1996 Measure B Bike $11,650 $250 TDA 3 /b/ $ 3,500 $16,000 TFCA 40% /b/ $6,700 $16,000 RBPP $ 2,900 $45, ,000/c/ Anticipated Unspecified $ 8,000 $83,000-$28,000 Total $32,750 $160,000 /d/ /a/ Includes completed projects and projects in progress. /b/the TDA 3 and TFCA funding set-asides for the BEP will fluctuate since they are based on a percentage of projected revenue, rather than absolute dollars. /c/ $2.9 million is committed, the remainder would be available if Federal Highway Funding is reauthorized at current levels. /d/ To be finalized when the MTC Regional Transportation Plan is finalized in Spring Future BEP Projects and BEP Funding As shown in Table 4-5, the BEP funding allocation will be increased in conjunction with MTC s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the VTP 2035, and more projects will be added in Spring Projects received in response to the 2008 Call for Projects (CFP) will be considered along with other high priority projects emanating from this plan and supported by the respective local agency. The bicycle projects received to-date in response to the CFP are presented in Table 4-6 along with a notation as to their relationship to this plan and to existing BEP projects. Since the BEP is financially constrained, projects will be evaluated and selected by the BEP Scoring Committee using the Board -adopted BEP Evaluation Criteria (Appendix D6). The BEP Project list is then approved by the Board. The BEP can only fund a small percentage of the many projects identified in this plan and submitted in response to the call for projects; therefore outside funding is essential. Examples and options of other implementation strategies are presented on Page Relation to MTC s Regional Bicycle Plan MTC s draft Regional Bicycle Plan currently under development incorporated the 2000 Countywide Bicycle Plan bikeway network. Upon adoption of this plan by the BOD, VTA will ask MTC to incorporate the 2008 bike plan projects so that all projects of countywide significance are eligible for potential funding through the Regional Bicycle Plan. Page 4-20

21 Table 4-6: Proposed Bicycle Projects Submitted In Response To Call For Projects 2008 Related to BEP Project on CCBC # ABC Project Sponsor Project Title Campbell Widen Los Gatos Creek Trail on East Side SJB32 T-S4 $0.30 Campbell San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail SCB36 T02 $1.50 Gilroy Gilroy Sports Park Trail and Bridge B12 T04 $4.80 Gilroy Northern Uvas Creek SCWVD service road west B13 T04 $1.90 Gilroy Gilroy Gilroy Lions Creek SCWVD service road west - west of Wren Ave. to Kern Ave. Lions Creek SCWVD service road west - Kern Ave. to Day Road Lions Creek SCWVD service road west - west of Santa Teresa Blvd. Total Project Cost (millions) Gilroy SCWVD service road along western Llagas Creek $1.70 Gilroy Western Ronan Channel SCWVD from Leavesley Rd. to Llagas Creek $2.70 Los Altos Stevens Creek Link Trail B15 T-S2 $3.00 Los Gatos SR 9 - Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector R3, T-S4 $2.00 Los Gatos Blossom Hill Rd. Sidewalks and Bicycle Lanes $0.70 Milpitas Montague Expwy. Pedestrian Overcrossing yes $15.00 Morgan Hill Madrone Recharge Channel - Conversion to Joint Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway $0.50 Morgan Hill Mountain View Mountain View Bike/Ped Improvements on south side of Cochrane Rd. between DePaul Dr. & Madrone Pkwy. Permanente Creek Trail Bike/Ped crossing of US 101 and Old Middlefield Way $0.90 $1.90 $0.60 $0.60 yes $7.50 Permanente Creek Trail Undercrossing and Extension yes $4.20 Page 4-21

22 Table 4-6: Proposed Bicycle Projects Submitted In Response To Call For Projects 2008 Related Project Sponsor Project Title to BEP Project on CCBC # ABC Total Project Cost (millions) Mountain View Hetch-Hetchy Trail Middlefield Rd and Shoreline Blvd yes $0.80 Mountain View Stevens Creek Trail/Middlefield Road North Side Access B22 T-S2 yes $0.70 Mountain Stevens Creek Trail/Landels School Access Point View Improvements B23 T-S2 $0.60 Palo Alto US 101 Bike/Ped Grade Separation-make year-round yes $13.00 Palo Alto South Palo Alto Caltrain Ped/Bike Grade Separation yes $13.00 Thompson Creek Trail from Yerba Buena to Eastridge San Jose Transit Center $15 Five Wounds Trail Watson Park to Williams St Park Alum San Jose Rock BART Station Segment $17.5 Penitencia Creek Trail Coyote Creek to King Road San Jose Berryessa BART Station Segment $5 San Jose Newhall Street Bike/Ped Overcrossing over Caltrain Corridor yes $7 San Jose Downtown connector Bikeway $0.10 Saratoga Blue Hills School Bike-Pedestrian Rail Crossing Safety Project between Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court yes $0.25 Santa Clara San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Spur Trail B36 T02 $2.50 Sunnyvale Moffett Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails T-R4 $5.86 Sunnyvale Stevens Creek Trail Connector B15 T-S2 $1.38 Sunnyvale Bicycle Capital Improvement Program $3.13 TOTAL $ Note 1: If added to the BEP, the maximum amount of BEP funds that a project can receive is 80% of total project cost. See Appendix D6. Note 2: See Appendix D7 for list of current BEP projects as of the publication data of this document. Page 4-22

23 Bicycle Expenditure Program Policies The following are some of the current policies that are applicable to all projects funded through the BEP. The full text of the Board-approved BEP policy is presented in Appendix D6, which is subject to revision with the adoption of a new BEP project list. 1. All projects must be funded with a 20% minimum ( local ) match of non-bep funding. 2. All BEP projects must submit an annual project status report, in addition to any reports required by the originating fund source programs 3. BEP funds that are not obligated or expended within the time limits established by the governing fund program are subject to review and reprogramming to another project that is ready to expend the funds. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BICYCLE PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE BEP EXAMPLES AND OPTIONS While the BEP addresses many of the most critical countywide bicycle needs, Member Agencies still have many bicycle projects and improvements that are of high priority both regionally and locally. Local jurisdictions have funded many projects in the recent years outside of the BEP. Most of these projects were funded through the TDA 3 and TFCA programs. Several projects have also received funding directly from the state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) and from various federal sources. (Projects recently funded through BTA are listed in Appendix D8). In most cases, local jurisdictions submit applications, which are then screened and coordinated through VTA and/or MTC and/or Caltrans. Many other creative funding sources outside the BEP are available for bicycle improvements; Table 4-7 presents a list of the fund sources used in the recent past by Member Agencies to fund the local match of their BEP and/or other bicycle and pedestrian projects. The policies and restrictions associated with some of these programs are presented in Appendix D9; most of them are very competitive since (1) they are also available for projects outside Santa Clara County and/or (2) they are also used to fund non-bicycle projects. Page 4-23

24 Table 4-7: Funding Sources for Bicycle Projects Used by Cities in Santa Clara County (bike-specific and non-bike specific) Origin or Fund Name Manager Local General Fund Local City Parks Fund Local/VTA/MTC TDA Guarantee Local Developer Contribution (Traffic Impact Fee, voluntary conditions of approval) Local Mitigation for Project Development County Santa Clara Valley Water District MTC RBPP competitive (CMAQ) Regional ABAG-Bay Trail Regional. Safe Routes to Transit (Regional Measure 2) Regional BAAQMD-Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) VTA CDT Planning (VTAs TLC program) VTA CDT Capital (VTAs TLC program) VTA TFCA Competitive -60% State of Calif. Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) State of Calif. HES Hazard Elimination and Safety State of Calif. Safe Routes to School -State State of Calif. STIP Federal. Safe Routes to School -Federal Federal TEA or TE (Transportation Enhancements) Federal Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) (MTC s TE Program) Federal Federal Earmark Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Federal CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Implementation Strategies Three common strategies for implementing bicycle projects without bicycle grants are described below. A fourth is a relatively common concept for highway litter programs that can be applied to other maintenance activities. Rehabilitation: Pavement Management Programs and Local Roadway Repair/Maintenance Projects The SAFETEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy guides the programming of a two year increment of federal funding (FY and FY ) authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA) for pavement repair/replacement projects located between the two outside edges of curb and gutters. As part of projects such as overlays; reconstruction; curb and gutter repair; replacement of damaged loops, Page 4-24

25 pavement striping, markings, reflectors, etc., Member Agencies have the opportunity to make bicycle facility and safety improvements at no or minimal cost. The more common bicycle projects are roadway re-striping to provide bike lanes or wide curb lanes. At a minimum, pavement management and local roadway/expressway projects should not reduce the quantity or quality of local bicycle facilities, i.e. an arterial that has an existing bike lane that is resurfaced should have its bicycle lane restriped at the same width, if not wider, to comply with the Bicycle Technical Guidelines. Examples of opportunity-leveraging projects are: Convert four-lane undivided cross-sections to three lanes: two through lanes with a center two-way left-turn lane and bicycle lanes At intersections with right-turn only lanes, provide the extra width in the outer through lane, not the right-turn lane Install loop detectors that are bicycle-sensitive Replace grates to bicycle-safe drainage grates Consult Bicycle Technical Guidelines: A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County for additional details. Highway / Local Roadway Capital Projects (Routine Accommodation) All highway and road projects present an opportunity to improve the bicycle (and pedestrian) infrastructure within the project limits. This is the current State of California and MTC policy as well as VTA policy. Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 states that Caltrans fully considers the needs of nonmotorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project development activities and products.. MTC s Routine Accommodation policy states bicycle facilities and walkways must be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities. VTA s policy is for the highway program projects to conform to VTA s BTG. Consult Bicycle Technical Guidelines: A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County for additional details. Development and Redevelopment Opportunities New development, redevelopment and the corresponding roadway reconstruction projects offer opportunities to provide safe and convenient bicycle facilities at very little marginal cost. This includes the overall right-of-way width, provision of bicycle paths or lanes and details such as gutter and drainage design. All new developments and redevelopment project areas should be connected to and consistent with the existing and proposed bicycle network. Local agencies have the authority to include bicycle facilities and improvements as conditions of approval for development projects. Page 4-25

26 Adopt-A-Highway/Adopt-A-Trail Programs The public can also play an important role in helping maintain some of the transportation corridors in the county. The Caltrans Adopt-A-Highway Program provides individuals, businesses, and organizations an opportunity to adopt sections of the road along the California State Highway System. Adoption usually consists of maintaining a 2-mile stretch of roadside by way of removing litter and graffiti, planting and maintaining trees and flowers, and controlling the surrounding vegetation. Similarly, becoming a County Parks Volunteer is another lesser known opportunity for people to participate in maintenance and enhancement of transportation corridors. The Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation has an Adopt-A-Trail program which allows volunteers to help maintain a trail or section of trail by performing duties such as removing litter/debris, routine trail tread/drainage clearing, and reporting trail problems. Both programs acknowledge their volunteers with courtesy signage for their civic contributions. Page 4-26