Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan

Transcription

1 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan July 2008 State Clearinghouse #

2 ICF Jones & Stokes Program Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan. Final. July. (ICF J&S ) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

3 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan Prepared by: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Contact: Tom Fitzwater 408/ State Clearinghouse # July 2008

4

5 Contents Page Chapter 1.0 Introduction Introduction Public Review Process Revisions Comments and Responses Chapter 2.0 Revisions to Draft PEIR Revisions to the Text Executive Summary Project Description (Chapter 2) List of Projects Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Chapter 3) Air Quality and Climate Change (Chapter 4) Biological Resources (Chapter 5) Cultural Resources (Chapter 6) Transportation (Chapter 11) Alternatives (Chapter 14) Short-Range Transportation Plan Alternative References (Chapter 15) Chapter 3.0 Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Introduction Letter 1, Lowell Grattan, May 10, Letter 2, Susan Stuart, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System, May 20, Letter 3, Russ Mohr, May 29, Letter 4, Jacob Ohlhausen, June 06, Letter 5, Kathrin Turner, Santa Clara Valley Water District, June 10, Letter 6, Thomas Aihie, California Department of Transportation, Hydraulics Branch, June 12, Letter 7, Raluca Nitescu, County of Santa Clara, Road and Airports Department, June 16, Letter 8, Lindy L. Lowe, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, June 17, Letter 9, Carol Anne Painter, City of Santa Clara, June 19, Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan i July 2008 ICF J&S

6 Letter 10, Lisa Carboni, California Department of Transportation, Local Development Intergovernmental Review, June 19, Letter 11, Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union, June 20, Letter 12, Bruce England, June 20, Letter 13, Colleen A. Oda, County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development, June 20, Letter 14, Kimberly Brosseau, County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department, June 19, Letter 15, Terry Roberts, California Office of Planning and Research, June 19, Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan ii July 2008 ICF J&S

7 Tables Page ES-1 Major LRTP Projects ES-2 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures LRTP Projects Summary of Project-Related Operational Emissions (pounds per day) Short Range Transportation Plan List of All Projects Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan iii July 2008 ICF J&S

8 Acronyms and Abbreviations Caltrans CEQA District EIR EIS HOT ITS MTC NEPA PEIR RTP SEIR SVRTP VTA VTP California Department of Transportation California Environmental Quality Act Santa Clara Valley Water District Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Statement High Occupancy Toll Intelligent Transportation Systems Metropolitan Transportation Commission National Environmental Policy Act programmatic environmental impact report Regional Transportation Plan Supplemental EIR Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority s Valley Transportation Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan iv July 2008 ICF J&S

9 Chapter 1.0 Introduction Introduction This final programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority s (VTA) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP; herein referred to as the Project) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section requires that a final EIR consist of the following: the draft EIR or a revision of the draft; comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and any other information added by the lead agency. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft PEIR is incorporated by reference into this Final PEIR. A copy of the Draft PEIR is on file at the public counter of the VTA at 3331 North First Street, Building B Lobby, San Jose, CA, The Draft PEIR was also sent to all public libraries within Santa Clara County. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 1-1 July 2008 ICF J&S

10 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 1.0. Introduction Public Review Process The primary objective and purpose of the public review process is to obtain comments on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts and the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft PEIR. The public review period for the Draft PEIR began on May 6, 2008, and ended on June 20, 2008, a total of 45 days. On June 3, 2008, a public meeting was held at the St. James Senior Center at 199 N. 3 rd Street in San Jose, California from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to provid the public another opportunity to learn about, review, and comment on the LRTP and Draft PEIR. The meeting was hosted as an open house with project information presented on display boards and VTA staff available to provide information and answer questions. Five people attended the meeting, including four from the following local agencies: City of San Jose, SamTrans, County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation, and Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County. Copies of the Draft PEIR were mailed directly to local and regional agencies and organizations, and were available for review at public libraries throughout Santa Clara County. A Notice of Availability was also posted in a local news publication, the San Jose Mercury News, and with the clerks of Alameda, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties to inform the public of the locations and availability of the Draft PEIR. Revisions Responses to comments received during the public review period resulted in a number of revisions to the Draft PEIR. These are described in Chapter 2 of this document. Comments and Responses Fifteen comment letters were received on the Draft PEIR from the following individuals and agencies: Lowell Grattan Susan Stuart Russ Mohr Jacob Ohlhausen Kathrin Turner, Santa Clara Valley Water District Thomas Aihie, California Department of Transportation, Hydraulics Branch Raluca Nitescu, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department Linda L. Lowe, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 1-2 July 2008 ICF J&S

11 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 1.0. Introduction Carol Anne Painter, City of Santa Clara Lisa Carboni, California Department of Transportation Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union Bruce England Colleen A. Oda, County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development Kimberly Brosseau, County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department Terry Roberts, California Office of Planning and Research These comment letters and VTA s responses to the comments are included in Chapter 3 of this document. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 1-3 July 2008 ICF J&S

12 Chapter 2.0 Revisions to Draft PEIR This chapter contains revisions to the text of the Draft PEIR. Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft PEIR in response to comments received on the document. Revisions are shown with strikethrough text for deletions (strikethrough) and underlined text for additions (underline). Text changes were identified for those sections or chapters listed below. Revisions to the Text Executive Summary Table ES-1. Major LRTP Projects The following changes are made to Table ES-1 on pages ES-3 to ES-9 and to Table ES-2 on page ES-17 of the Draft PEIR: Project Type Jurisdiction Location Project Title Transit Highway Expressways Cost ($ Millions) 2008 San Jose, Santa Clara Mineta San Jose Intl Airport APM Connector County, Santa Clara San Jose, Santa Clara US 101/Montague Expressway/San Tomas Expressway /Mission College Blvd I/C Improvements I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Blvd Interchange Improvements County, Santa Clara San Tomas Box Culvert County, Santa Clara Central 6 lanes Lawrence to San Tomas County, Santa Clara San Tomas 8 Lanes Williams & El Camino Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-1 July 2008 ICF J&S

13 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Table ES-2. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance with Mitigation TRN-6: Potential Alteration of Present Patterns of Vehicular Circulation, Increased Traffic Delay, Parking Loss, and Increased Traffic Hazards during Construction of Specific Projects Significant TRN-2: Develop and Implement a Traffic Control Plan for Construction of Specific Projects Less than Significant Significant and Unavoidable Project Description (Chapter 2) The following changes are made to the text on page 2-4 and on Table 2-1 on pages 2-4 to 2-15 of the Draft PEIR: List of Projects Table 2-1. Major LRTP Projects A list of all of the projects and programs in the LRTP is provided in Appendix A: LRTP Projects and Programs. Table 2-1 LRTP Projects, presents a list of the major projects included in the LRTP. Project Type Jurisdiction Location Project Title Transit Highway Expressways Source: VTA Cost ($ Millions) 2008 San Jose, Santa Clara Mineta San Jose Intl Airport APM Connector County, Santa Clara San Jose, Santa Clara US 101/Montague Expressway/San Tomas Expressway /Mission College Blvd I/C Improvements I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Blvd Interchange Improvements County, Santa Clara San Tomas Box Culvert County, Santa Clara Central 6 lanes Lawrence to San Tomas County, Santa Clara San Tomas 8 Lanes Williams & El Camino Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-2 July 2008 ICF J&S

14 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Chapter 3) The following text is added on page 3-5 concerning the local regulatory setting for the project under the Growth and Development Chapter of the Santa Clara County General Plan: Growth and Development Chapter Policy R-GD 16: Goals and policies of the General Plan recognize the development constraints, issues, and sensitivity of the hillsides of Santa Clara County for new development. The goals of the General Plan, outlined in the Open Space Action Program, are to prevent further urban uses and development outside cities, conserve wildlife habitat, avoid natural hazards, and preserve the generally natural appearance of the hillsides as much as possible. Policy R-GD 17: Design Review Zoning Districts, including Design Review Guidelines, shall apply to primary viewshed areas most immediately and directly visible from the valley floor, lands up to and including the first ridge, or those within approximately one to two miles distance from the edge of the valley floor. Policy R-GD 18: Design Review Zoning Districts may be differentiated to effect distinctive goals, policies, and standards as appropriate. Policy R-GD 19: Application of design review guidelines, landscaping standards, retaining wall design requirements, and related matters should reasonably relate to the goals of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, address the impacts of a project, and take into account the size of the structure, and the site-specific characteristics involved. The following text is added on Page 3-7 concerning the local regulatory setting for the project under the Santa Clara County General Plan: Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.20 d Design Review Combining Districts. Design review zoning districts (-d 1 Santa Clara valley viewshed, and d 2 Milpitas Hillsides) designate that certain visually and environmentally sensitive areas require design review, for the purpose of mitigating adverse visual impacts from development and encouraging quality design (see Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.20 for further details). Chapter 3.30 sr Scenic Roads Combining District. The Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance has regulations pertaining to protecting the visual character of scenic roads. The sr Scenic Road zoning district applies to all designated scenic roads in Santa Clara County (see Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.30 for further details). Portions of Highway 101 and other highways in the LRTP are designated as County scenic roads. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-3 July 2008 ICF J&S

15 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Air Quality and Climate Change (Chapter 4) Table 4-4 on page 4-29 is revised, as shown, to include operational emissions information for the 2004 Existing Condition. Table 4-4. Summary of Project-Related Operational Emissions (pounds per day) Condition Daily VMT ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 CO Existing 30,407,732 15,955 62, ,683 2,950 1,877 29,783, No Project 46,914,448 3,310 12, ,739 4,137 2,586 52,129, Project 45,888,330 2,833 11,331 94,186 3,743 2,226 45,921, SRTP Project 46,483,726 2,869 11,478 95,408 3,792 2,255 46,517,814 Alternative differences Daily VMT ROG NO X CO PM10 PM2.5 CO Project No Project -1,026, , ,207, SRTP Project No Project -430, , ,611,572.2 BAAQMD thresholds NA NA NA The following changes are made to text on page 4-27 under Impact AIR-2 of the Environmental Impacts section: Construction activities associates with projects that will be implemented under the Project could involve the operation of diesel-powered equipment for various activities. In October 2000, the ARB identified diesel exhaust as a TAC. Local concentrations of construction-related diesel exhaust at sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of construction activities would vary depending on the level of construction activities, duration of construction activities, meteorological conditions, and distance of receptors to construction sites. However, it is anticipated that construction activities would generally occur over a period of up to 5 years in duration. The following text is added on page 4-30 under Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Implement Construction Emission Control Technology: To further reduce construction-related criteria pollutant emissions, construction contractors would be required to provide a construction plan, for approval by the lead agency and BAAQMD as required, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleetaverage 20 percent NO X reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average at time of construction. Control measures available to achieve emissions reductions include, but are not limited to use of newer model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology (e.g., diesel particulate matter filters and lean-no X or diesel Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-4 July 2008 ICF J&S

16 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR oxidation catalysts) after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. Biological Resources (Chapter 5) The following text is added on page 5-6 concerning the local regulatory setting under the Santa Clara County General Plan Policies: R-RC 37 Lands near creeks, streams, and freshwater marshes shall be considered to be in a protected buffer area, consisting of the following: 150 feet from the top bank on both sides where the creek or stream is predominately in its natural state; 100 feet from the top bank on both sides of the waterway where the creek or stream has had major alterations; and In the case that neither (1) nor (2) are applicable, an area sufficient to protect the stream environment from adverse impacts of adjacent development, including impacts upon habitat, from sedimentation, biochemical, thermal and aesthetic impacts. R-RC 38 Within the aforementioned buffer areas, the following restrictions and requirements shall apply to public projects, residential subdivisions, and other private non-residential development: No building, structure, or parking lots are allowed; exceptions being those minor structures required as part of flood control projects. No despoiling or polluting actions shall be allowed, including grubbing, clearing, unrestricted grazing, tree cutting, grading, or debris or organic waste disposal, except for actions such as those necessary for fire suppression, maintenance of flood control channels, or removal of dead or diseased vegetation, so long as it will not adversely impact habitat value. Endangered plant and animal species shall be protected within the area. The following text is added on page 5-8 concerning the local regulatory setting for the project under the Santa Clara Valley Water District: Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-5 July 2008 ICF J&S

17 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative In an effort to clarify and streamline local permitting for streamside activities, representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, cities, the County, and business, agriculture, streamside property owners, and environmental interests created a partnership known as the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative). Among its many accomplishments is a manual of model guidelines and standards for land use near streams (User Manual Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County, August 2005; Revised July 2006). The guidelines and standards are designed to complement existing regulations such as City and County provisions, which address some related water quality issues. It is assumed that each jurisdiction will also continue to follow other existing regulations that protect streams and/or surface water quality. It is important to note that while many of the guidelines and standards focus on in-stream activities, there is a significant physical linkage between the in-stream and near-stream biological communities that is critical to protect and restore where possible. The riparian systems that border many streams in Santa Clara County provide important habitat for aquatic invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. A number of species are dependent on a healthy riparian system to survive. The guidelines and standards are intended to be used for the purposes of review of proposed land use activities for new development, major redevelopment, and where appropriate, single family units. The guidelines and standards cover the following: riparian corridor protection; bank stability/streambed conditions; encroachments between the top of bank, erosion prevention and repair grading; outfalls, pump stations, and site drainage; channelization; utility encroachments; trail construction; septic systems; trash control and removal; protection of water quality and groundwater; and flood protection. The following changes are made to the text on page 5-39 under Mitigation Measure FISH-2: Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Species of Their Habitat: The project will be constructed during periods that avoid the sensitive life stages of special-status fish species. Construction activities will be scheduled so that they do not interfere with the reproductive cycles of fish species. Work in most of the systems will take place during the dry season, as defined by the regulatory agencies in-water work period. Construction in this time frame will avoid impacts on the majority of the adult and juvenile migration stages of anadromous species. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-6 July 2008 ICF J&S

18 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Cultural Resources (Chapter 6) The following text is added on page 6-9 under Mitigation Measure CR-2: Implement Stop-Work and Consultation Procedures for the Discovery of Human Remains as Mandated by PRC 5097: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with the Project, in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, implementing agencies will cease further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the following steps are taken or events occur: Transportation (Chapter 11) The following text is added on page 11-7 concerning Policies and Regulations Existing Conditions: Bicycles: There are approximately 535 miles of off-street countywide trail routes within the Countywide Trails system. There are an additional 120 miles of on-street, bicycle-only routes within the Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995). The Master Plan identifies short- and long-term goals for implementing the goals and objectives of the County Parks 2003 Strategic Plan. Alternatives (Chapter 14) The following changes are made to the text on page 14-2 under Air Quality: Under No Project conditions, population and employment growth in Santa Clara County is expected to continue as well as the associated increase in travel. Overall, VMT would actually be higher with the No Project Alternative due to less transit use. In addition, the amount of vehicle delays (+ 633,620 hours/year) will be substantially larger without the Project. Emissions of criteria pollutants would be higher without the Project. While not quantified, it is also probable that greenhouse gas emissions without the Project would be higher than with the Project due to lower transit ridership and greater vehicle miles traveled a lower efficiency overall for transportation in the County. The following text is deleted on page 14-3 under Energy: Similar to the Project, natural gas and power needs of proposed improvements under the No Project Alternative would be minimal. Continued reliance on conventional transportation (i.e., automobiles), under this alternative would likely result in increased consumption of fossil fuels. Transportation-related energy Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-7 July 2008 ICF J&S

19 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR consumption and associated impacts would be greater under this alternative than those under the Project and SRTP Alternatives. The following text is added on pages 14-5 and concerning the Short Range Transportation Plan alternative. The list of Short Range Transportation Plan was inadvertently left out of the Draft Program EIR: Short-Range Transportation Plan Alternative The SRTP Alternative includes the near-term projects ( ) included in the Project. Under this alternative, VTA would not move forward with projects identified as mid-term or long-term that are scheduled for development between 2016 and Table 14-4 SRTP Projects, located on Page 14-10, presents a list of project included in the SRTP. Table Short Range Transportation Plan List of All Projects Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Bus Rapid Transit The Alameda/El Camino & San Carlos/Stevens Creek--El Camino BRT. Project from Diridon Station to Palo Alto Bus Rapid Transit The Alameda/El Camino & San Carlos/Stevens Creek--Stevens Creek BRT. Project from downtown San Jose to DeAnza College Transit Transit Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino Caltrain Electrification Tamien to San Francisco* (5) Transit Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy Caltrain Electrification Gilroy to Tamien* (6) Transit Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy Downtown East Valley--Capitol Expressway LRT. Project from Eastridge to Existing Alum Rock LRT Station Vasona Junction. Project from Campbell to Netflix/Hwy 85 via Winchester Blvd. SR 85 HOT Lanes: US 101 (South San Jose to Mountain View) (Conversion) Cost (Millions) $2008 $ $ $ $ Transit San Jose $ Transit Los Gatos, Campbell, $99.00 Highway Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos and $72.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-8 July 2008 ICF J&S

20 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location San Jose Cost (Millions) $2008 US 101 HOT Lanes: San Mateo Countyline to SR 85 (Mountain View) (Conversion) SR 237 HOT Lanes: I-880 to Mathilda Avenue (Conversion) Highway Highway Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Mountain View $12.00 $20.00 SR 237 HOT Connectors (Milpitas) to I-880 Highway Milpitas $5.00 US 101 HOT Lanes: SR 85 (South San Jose) to Cochrane Road (Conversion) US 101 HOT Lanes: SR 85 (Mountain View) to SR 85 (South San Jose) (Conversion) Highway Highway San Jose, Morgan Hill, County Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose $23.00 $90.00 SR 17 SB/Hamilton Avenue Off-ramp Widening Highway Campbell $1.00 SR 25/Santa Teresa Boulevard/US 101 Interchange (includes US 101 widening between Monterey Road and SR 25 and connection to Santa Teresa Blvd) SR 85 Northbound to Eastbound SR 237 Connector Ramp and NB SR 85 Aux Lane Highway Gilroy $ Highway Mountain View $26.00 Fremont Avenue Improvements at SR 85 Highway Sunnyvale $3.00 SR 85/Cottle Rd Interchange Improvements Highway San Jose $5.00 SR 87/Capitol/Narvaez Interchange Improvements Highway San Jose $10.00 US 101/Montague Expressway/San Tomas Expressway /Mission College Boulevard I/C Improvements US 101 SB/Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard/Central Expressway Interchange Improvements US 101/Blossom Hill Road Interchange Improvements US 101/Mabury Road/Taylor Street Interchange Improvements US 101 Southbound Auxiliary Lane: Great America Parkway to Lawrence Expressway US 101/Old Oakland Road Interchange Improvements Highway Santa Clara (County) $12.00 Highway San Jose $34.00 Highway San Jose $20.00 Highway San Jose $49.00 Highway Sunnyvale, Santa Clara $3.00 Highway San Jose $20.00 US 101/Tully Road Interchange Improvements Highway San Jose $55.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-9 July 2008 ICF J&S

21 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location US 101 Southbound Widening from Story Road to Yerba Buena Road US 101/Capitol Expressway I/C Improvements (Includes New Northbound On-ramp from Yerba Buena Road) Cost (Millions) $2008 Highway San Jose $8.00 Highway San Jose $40.00 US 101/Tennant Avenue Interchange Improvements Highway Morgan Hill $17.00 US 101 SB Auxiliary Lane Widening: I-880 to McKee US 101 Auxiliary Lanes - SR 85 to Embarcadero Road Highway San Jose $9.00 Highway Mountain View $ US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: 10th St Highway South County area $7.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Leavesley Rd Highway South County area $10.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Masten Ave Highway South County area $5.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: San Martin Ave Highway South County area $5.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Tennant Ave Highway South County area $6.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: E. Dunne Ave Highway South County area $5.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Cochrane Rd Highway South County area $6.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Coyote Creek Golf Dr Highway South County area $5.00 US 101 Ramp Metering Facilities: Bailey Ave Highway South County area $4.00 US 101 Ramp/Intersection Improvements: SB offramp at Tennant Ave US 101 Ramp/Intersection Improvements: US 101 SB Ramp- 10th St US 101 Ramp/Intersection Improvements: US 101 SB& NB Ramps at Masten Ave US 101 TOS Improvements (incident management, CCTV, speed control system in South County area) SR 152 Improvements, Intersection Improvement at Ferguson Road SR 152 Ramp/Intersection Improvements: SR 152(E) at Bloomfield Ave SR 152 Ramp/Intersection Improvements: SR 152(E) at Frazier Lake Rd SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Road Intersection Improvements Highway South County area $1.00 Highway South County area $3.00 Highway South County area $1.00 Highway South County area $35.00 Highway County $2.00 Highway South County area $2.00 Highway South County area $2.00 Highway Mountain View $4.00 SR 237 Westbound On-ramp at Middlefield Road Highway Mountain View $11.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-10 July 2008 ICF J&S

22 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location SR 237 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane between Zanker Road and North First Street I-280 Northbound - Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway I-280 NB Winchester Boulevard Interchange Improvements I-880/Montague Expressway Interchange Improvement I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Boulevard Interchange Improvements I-880 Widening for HOV Lanes from SR 237 to Old Bayshore Cost (Millions) $2008 Highway San Jose, County $7.00 Highway Cupertino, Los Altos $2.00 Highway San Jose $45.00 Highway Milpitas, San Jose (County) $12.00 Highway San Jose $64.00 Highway Milpitas, San Jose $95.00 Almaden 8 lanes Coleman to Blossom Hill Expressways County $10.50 Capitol - TOS Infrastructure Expressways County $3.50 Central Aux Lanes between Mary & Lawrence Expressways County $17.00 Central Convert Meas B HOV lane (De La Cruz to San Tomas) Expressways County $0.10 Central - Convert HOV queue jump lane at Bowers Expressways County $0.10 Foothill Extend decel lane at San Antonio Expressways County $0.70 Foothill-Loyola Bridge Expressways County $7.00 Lawrence - Additional left turn lane at Prospect Expressways County $2.60 Lawrence Close median, right in/out Expressways County $1.50 Montague 8 lanes Trade Zone to Park Victoria Expressways County $20.00 Montague 8 lanes Lick Mill to Trade Zone Expressways County $12.00 Montague - Trimble Road flyover Expressways County $32.00 Montague - Mission College At-Grade Improvements Expressways County $4.00 San Tomas SR 17/San Tomas improvements Expressways County $2.60 SCC Motorist Traffic Information & Advisory Systems Expressways County $5.00 Signal Coordination/Interconnect with cross streets Expressways County $5.00 TOS Infrastructure Improvements Expressways County $10.00 Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor - Realign DeWitt S- Curve Expressways County $2.50 San Tomas Box Culvert Expressways County $13.20 Calaveras Blvd. Overpass Widening with Operational Improvements Local Streets Milpitas $70.00 Coleman Ave Widening from I-880 to Taylor Street Local San Jose $13.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-11 July 2008 ICF J&S

23 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Streets Autumn Parkway Improvement from UPRR Xing to Park Ave Branham Ln Widening from Vista Park Dr to Snell Dixon Landing Rd. Widening Charcot Ave Extension Over I-880 Downtown Couplet Conversion Phases C,D,F, G - 10th/11th North of Santa Clara, 10th/11th from Santa Clara to I-280, Almaden/Vine, and 2nd/3rd near I- 280 Butterfield Blvd. South Extension Campbell Ave. Bike/Ped Improvements under SR 17 Blossom Hill Rd Bike/Ped Improvements1 Fitzgerald/Masten Realignment at Monterey Park Ave Improvement from Bird to Rt 87 Palo Alto Smart Residential Arterials DeWitt Ave/Sunnyside Realign at Edmunsen Foothill-Loyola Bridge Santa Teresa & San Martin Signal Santa Teresa & Tilton Ave Signal SR 9 Gateway University and N. Santa Cruz Avenues Miramonte Ave. Bikeway Improvements Bicycle Boulevards Network Project* Moody Road Improvements Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Cost (Millions) $2008 San Jose $33.00 San Jose $10.30 Milpitas $60.00 San Jose $34.00 San Jose $22.00 Morgan Hill $18.80 Campbell $3.00 San Jose $10.00 County $0.60 San Jose $4.10 Palo Alto $10.00 County $6.60 County $1.00 County $0.60 County $0.60 Los Gatos $3.00 Los Altos $1.38 Palo Alto $5.00 Los Altos Hills $1.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-12 July 2008 ICF J&S

24 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Great America Parkway/Mission College Boulevard Intersection Improvements Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase II Rancho Rinconada Traffic Calming Project Sunnyvale Local Street Improvements Reconstruction/Rehabilitation of Fatjo/Thompson/Arguello/Bray/Graham Mary Avenue Extension Las Animas Overcrossing Tenth Street Bridge Project North San Jose Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements North First Street Core Area Grid Streets Zanker Road Widening from US 101 to Tasman Drive Caltrain Pedestrian Crossing Bridge at Blossom Hill Station North San Jose Bike/Ped Improvements Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Local Streets Cost (Millions) $2008 Santa Clara $6.50 Saratoga $0.50 Cupertino $0.10 Sunnyvale $14.71 Santa Clara $3.60 Sunnyvale $58.00 Gilroy $9.20 Gilroy $14.00 San Jose $29.00 San Jose $61.00 San Jose $54.00 San Jose $2.50 San Jose $33.00 Hamilton Ave. ITS ITS Campbell $0.40 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade ITS Campbell $0.15 Winchester Blvd. ITS ITS Campbell $0.40 Reactivation of Traffic Count Stations ITS Campbell $0.10 Installation of Pedestriation Countdown Timers ITS Campbell $0.20 City of Gilroy Adaptive Traffic Control System ITS Gilroy $0.90 Gilroy Event Management System - dynamic message signs ITS Gilroy $0.90 City of Gilroy Traffic Signal System Upgrade ITS Gilroy $3.90 Gilroy Flood Watch Cameras ITS Gilroy $0.51 ITS Enhancements on Santa Teresa Blvd. ITS Gilroy $ th Street & Downtown Signals Upgrade ITS Gilroy $1.50 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-13 July 2008 ICF J&S

25 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Cost (Millions) $2008 SR 152 Signal System Upgrade ITS Gilroy $2.30 Gilroy Community Bus Signal Priority ITS Gilroy $0.40 Gilroy Other Signals Upgrade ITS Gilroy $1.00 Gilroy Downtown Parking Management System ITS Gilroy $0.30 Town of Los Gatos Traffic Signal System Upgrade ITS Los Gatos $0.30 South Milpitas Blvd. SMART Corridor ITS Milpitas $0.48 City of Milpitas Traffic Signal Upgrade ITS Milpitas $0.75 Citywide Traffic Signal Operational Center ITS Morgan Hill $1.25 Citywide Wireless Vehicle Detection System Installation City-wide Traffic Signal Upgrade and IP Traffic Signal Access ITS Morgan Hill $0.90 ITS Mountain View $2.50 Grant Road Adaptive Traffic Signals ITS Mountain View $1.35 Shoreline Boulevard Adaptive Traffic Signals ITS Mountain View $1.65 Rengstorff Avenue Traffic Signal Improvements ITS Mountain View $0.40 Palo Alto Smart Residential Arterials ITS Palo Alto $6.22 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrades ITS Palo Alto $1.80 Citywide Traffic Signal CCTV/Emergency Vehicle Preemption Project Silicon Valley Transportation and Incident Management Center ITS Palo Alto $1.40 ITS San Jose $7.50 San Jose Proactive Signal Retiming Program ITS San Jose $25.00 San Jose Transportation Communications Network Enhancements ITS San Jose $24.00 San Jose Traffic Signal System Upgrades ITS San Jose $8.00 Downtown San Jose Area Freeway Management System Downtown San Jose Local Street Advanced Traffic Management System ITS San Jose $2.00 ITS San Jose $3.00 Downtown San Jose CMS Upgrades ITS San Jose $1.40 King/Story Area Advanced Traffic Management System ITS San Jose $3.00 Silicon Valley ITS Program Upgrades ITS San Jose $27.00 Countywide Freeway Traffic Operation System (TOS) and Ramp Metering Improvements ITS San Jose $25.00 Silicon Valley TIMC SJPD Integration ITS San Jose $2.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-14 July 2008 ICF J&S

26 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location City of San Jose Red Light Running Enforcement Program Cost (Millions) $2008 ITS San Jose $0.50 San Jose Traffic Signal Interconnect ITS San Jose $4.00 SVITS Hybrid Analogy/Digital Video System ITS San Jose $0.20 Silicon Valley TIMC Ramp Metering Integration ITS San Jose TBD Coyote Valley ITS ITS San Jose TBD Monterey Hwy. ITS ITS San Jose TBD San Jose Mobile Video Surveillance for Emergency Response ITS San Jose TBD San Jose Emergency Vehicle Preemption System ITS San Jose TBD SVITS Connection to Sunnyvale ITS San Jose TBD Construction Information Management System ITS San Jose $0.10 Winchester/Stevens Creek Area Advanced Traffic Management System Eastridge/Evergreen Area Advanced Traffic Management System Almaden/Blossom Hill Area Advanced Traffic Management System Santa Clara (City ) Communications Network Upgrade ITS San Jose $2.00 ITS San Jose $4.00 ITS San Jose $2.00 ITS Santa Clara $3.49 Santa Clara (City ) Traffic Signals Upgrade ITS Santa Clara $3.19 Santa Clara (City ) TMC Upgrade ITS Santa Clara $0.35 City of Saratoga Citywide Signal Upgrade Project- Phase II ITS Saratoga $0.20 Citywide Accessible Pedestrian Signals ITS Saratoga $0.26 Traffic Adaptive Signal System on Major Arterials ITS Sunnyvale $3.32 Citywide CCTV Camera Deployment ITS Sunnyvale $1.06 Citywide Traffic Signal Controller Update ITS Sunnyvale $0.56 Citywide Count & Speed Monitoring Stations ITS Sunnyvale $1.01 Citywide ITS Communications Infrastructure ITS Sunnyvale $1.69 Traffic Management Center Integration ITS Sunnyvale $0.25 Emergency Preemption Receiver Installation ITS Sunnyvale $0.99 Capitol Exp TOS ITS County $3.50 County Expwy. Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads ITS County $0.50 TOS Infrastructure Improvements ITS County $10.00 Signal Coordination/Interconnect with cross streets ITS County $5.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-15 July 2008 ICF J&S

27 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location SCC Motorist Traffic Information & Advisory Systems Cost (Millions) $2008 ITS County $5.00 Adaptive Ped Timing Demo Project ITS County $1.00 Exp Bike Detection ITS County $2.08 Campbell Ave. Improvements at SR 17 and Los Gatos Creek Bicycle Campbell $1.50 Los Gatos Creek Trail expansion on West Side Bicycle Campbell $2.50 Widen Los Gatos Creek Trail on East Side Bicycle Campbell $0.30 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Bicycle Campbell $1.50 Bollinger Rd. Bicycle Facility Improvement Bicycle Cupertino $0.40 Mary Ave. (I-280) Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Bicycle Cupertino $7.10 Uvas Creek Trail Study Bicycle Gilroy $0.20 Gilroy Sports Park Bicycle Gilroy $4.80 Northern Uvas Creek SCWVD service road west Bicycle Gilroy $1.90 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. Bicycle Gilroy $0.90 Bicycle Gilroy $1.90 Bicycle Gilroy $0.60 SCWVD service road along western Llagas Creek Bicycle Gilroy $1.70 Western Ronan Channel SCWVD from Leavesley Rd. to Llagas Creek Bicycle Gilroy $2.70 Stevens Creek Link Trail Bicycle Los Altos $3.00 Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Replacement Bicycle Los Altos $0.50 Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Bicycle Los Altos $0.10 SR 9 - Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector Bicycle Los Gatos $2.00 Blossom Hill Rd. Sidewalks and Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Los Gatos $0.70 SR 9 Bike Lanes (Saratoga Ave. to Los Gatos Blvd.) Bicycle Los Gatos $1.70 Berryessa Creek Trail Bicycle Milpitas $0.90 Montague Expwy. Pedestrian Overcrossing Bicycle Milpitas $15.00 Install Class I bike path adjacent to West Little Llagas Creek from Spring Ave. to Watsonville Rd. Madrone Recharge Channel - Conversion to Joint Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Bicycle Morgan Hill $1.50 Bicycle Morgan Hill $0.50 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-16 July 2008 ICF J&S

28 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Bike/Ped Improvements on south side of Cochrane Rd. between DePaul Dr. & Madrone Pkwy. Stevens Creek Trail Reach 4 Segment 2 (Sleeper Ave to Dale/Heatherstone) Stevens Creek Trail Reach 4 Segment 2 (Dale/Heatherstone to Mountain View High School) Permanente Creek Trail Bike/Ped crossing of US 101 and Old Middlefield Way Cost (Millions) $2008 Bicycle Morgan Hill $0.60 Bicycle Mountain View $10.00 Bicycle Mountain View $12.00 Bicycle Mountain View $7.50 Permanente Creek Trail Undercrossing and Extension Bicycle Mountain View $4.20 Hetch-Hetchy Trail Middlefield Rd and Shoreline Blvd Stevens Creek Trail/Middlefield Road North Side Access Stevens Creek Trail/Landels School Access Point Improvements Bicycle Mountain View $0.80 Bicycle Mountain View $0.70 Bicycle Mountain View $0.60 US 101 Bike/Ped Grade Separation Bicycle Palo Alto $13.00 South Palo Alto Caltrain Ped/Bike Grade Separation Bicycle Palo Alto $13.00 Replacement of California Avenue Bike/Ped undercrossing of Caltrain tracks Bicycle Palo Alto $13.00 Bicycle Boulevards Network Project Bicycle Palo Alto $0.80 Almaden Expwy Bike/Ped Overcrossing at Guadalupe Creek Trail Branham Lane/US 101 Bike/Ped Overcrossing Edenvale Connector Coyote Creek Trail Montague to Kelley Park I- 280 Underpass Segment Bicycle San Jose $5.70 Bicycle San Jose $5.00 Bicycle San Jose $20.00 Guadalupe River Trail Montague to Alviso Bicycle San Jose $5.00 Los Gatos Creek Trail Auzerais to Santa Clara Street Diridon Station Segment" Bicycle San Jose $15.00 Blossom Hill Rd Bike/Ped Improvements Bicycle San Jose $10.00 Willow Glen Spur Trail Bicycle San Jose $10.00 Thompson Creek Trail from Yerba Buena to Eastridge Transit Center Five Wounds Trail Watson Park to Williams St Park Alum Rock BART Station Segment Penitencia Creek Trail Coyote Creek to King Road Berryessa BART Station Segment Newhall Street Bike/Ped Overcrossing over Caltrain Corridor Bicycle San Jose $15.00 Bicycle San Jose $17.50 Bicycle San Jose $5.00 Bicycle San Jose $7.00 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-17 July 2008 ICF J&S

29 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR Project Title Project Type Jurisdiction Location Cost (Millions) $2008 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Spur Trail Bicycle Santa Clara $2.50 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail (SR 237 to City Limits) Bicycle Santa Clara $17.00 Santa Clara Intermodal Transit Center Bicycle Santa Clara $5.00 PGE De Anza Trail (Reach 3) Bicycle Saratoga $2.50 Bike-Pedestrian Rail Crossing between Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court Bicycle Saratoga $0.25 Bernardo Caltrain Undercrossing Bicycle Sunnyvale $8.46 Sunnyvale East Drainage Trail (JWCG Tasman) Bicycle Sunnyvale $1.33 Sunnyvale Train Station NS Grade Separated Access Bicycle Sunnyvale $8.50 Moffett Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Bicycle Sunnyvale $5.86 Stevens Creek Trail Connector Bicycle Sunnyvale $1.38 Bicycle Capital Improvement Program Bicycle Sunnyvale $3.13 Pedestrian Safety and Opportunities Plan Implementation Projects identified in the Pedestrian Opportunity Districts Bicycle Sunnyvale $9.06 Bicycle Sunnyvale $2.56 Page Mill/I-280 I/C Bike Improvements Bicycle County $6.60 McKean Road shoulder improvements (Harry Rd. to Bailey Ave.) Bicycle County $6.60 Foothill-Loyola Bridge Bicycle County $4.50 Foothill/Magdalena shoulder widening Bicycle County $0.40 Los Gatos Creek Trail (Vasona County Park) Bicycle County Parks $1.54 Coyote Creek Trail - Silicon Valley Boulevard to Metcalf Road Coyote Creek Trail - Metcalf Road to Malaguera Road Bicycle County Parks $1.08 Bicycle County Parks $2.82 Pilot Bicycle Parking Program Bicycle VTA $0.20 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-18 July 2008 ICF J&S

30 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 2.0. Revisions to Draft PEIR The following text is deleted on page 14-7 under Energy: Similar to the Project, natural gas and power needs of transportation improvements under the SRTP Alternative would be minimal. Continued reliance on conventional transportation (i.e., automobiles), under this alternative would likely result in increased consumption of fossil fuels; thus energy impacts under this alternative would be greater than those under the Project. References (Chapter 15) The following references were added to the References Chapter: Santa Clara County Final Countywide Trails Master Plan. November. Available: < Accessed: July Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, VTA Transit Sustainability Policy 2007, Appendix A, Service Design Guidelines. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 2-19 July 2008 ICF J&S

31 Chapter 3.0 Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Introduction Copies of the comment letters received on the Draft PEIR, as well as responses to each comment, are included in this chapter. CEQA requires that VTA respond to all significant environmental comments at a level of detail appropriate to the comment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). The persons, organizations, and public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft PEIR through June 20, 2008, are listed in Table 3-1, and numbered, in order of date received. VTA s response to each comment follows below. The comment letters are incorporated at the end of the chapter as numbered in Table 3-1. The comment letters are marked with an abbreviation and number to match the response provided by VTA. Table 3-1. Summary of Comments Received Letter Name Date of Letter Date Received 1 Lowell Grattan May 10, 2008 May 14, Susan Stuart May 20, 2008 May 20, Russ Mohr May 29, 2008 May 29, Jacob Ohlhausen June 06, 2008 June 06, Kathrin Turner, Santa Clara Valley Water District 6 Thomas Aihie, California Department of Transportation, Hydraulics Branch 7 Raluca Nitescu, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department 8 Lindy L. Lowe, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission June 10, 2008 June 10, 2008 June 12, 2008 June 12, 2008 June 16, 2008 June 17, 2008 June 17, 2008 June 19, Carol Anne Painter, City of Santa Clara June 19, 2008 June 19, Lisa Carboni, California Department of Transportation June 19, 2008 June 19, 2008 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-1 July 2008 ICF J&S

32 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter Name Date of Letter Date Received 11 Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union June 20, 2008 June 20, Bruce England June 20, 2008 June 20, Colleen A. Oda, County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development 14 Kimberly Brosseau, County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department 15 Terry Roberts, California Office of Planning and Research June 20, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 19, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 24, 2008 Letters 13 and 14 are stamped with received dates of June 23 and June 24, 2008, respectively. Both letters, however, were ed to VTA on June 20, Letter 15 is stamped with the received date of June 24, 2008, after the close of the comment period. This is the official transmittal letter from the State Clearinghouse documenting which state agencies provided comments. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-2 July 2008 ICF J&S

33 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 1, Lowell Grattan, May 10, 2008 Response to Comment 1-1 Comment lists three websites that it recommends be reviewed prior to moving forward with a tax increase or completing the EIR. Comment lists the following websites: The first website is focused on the proposed BART line to San Jose, also known as the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP). The SVRTP is included in the LRTP and this program-level environmental document. To evaluate the project-level impacts of the SVRTP, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR (SEIR) have been prepared in accordance with the CEQA. The EIR and SEIR were certified by the VTA Board of Directors in 2004 and 2007, respectively. In addition, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is currently being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments related specifically to the SVRTP can be submitted when the Draft EIS is released for public review and comment. For information on the SVRTP, visit The second website connects to the article, Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? This article discusses four alternatives to rail transit including buses with hybrid-electric motors, concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during off-peak periods, building new roads with variable toll systems to reduce highway congestion, and encouraging the use of more fuel-efficient cars. Many of the projects included in the LRTP fall into these categories of alternatives, including Bus Rapid Transit, Caltrain Electrification, Hwy 17 Bus Service Improvements, ZEB (Zero Emissions Bus) programs; HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes projects; numerous highway and interchange projects; and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The third website, the American Dream Coalition website, is a link to a Power Point presentation that comments on the SVRTP and VTA and not on the LRTP. This comment is noted. No response is required Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-3 July 2008 ICF J&S

34 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Response to Comment 1-2 Comment states that in order to have a good transportation system the studies conducted on the websites listed above (Comment 1-1) must be considered. It also states that if VTA would like to debate the issues a hearing with the Chamber of Commerce or other organization should be set up. VTA agrees that it is essential to have a good transportation system; however, it is beyond the scope of this document to debate the issues discussed in the referenced files. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-4 July 2008 ICF J&S

35 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 2, Susan Stuart, Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System, May 20, 2008 Response to Comment 2-1 Comment recommends that the VTA include an evaluation of accessibility to mass transit. As part of VTA s project-specific transit-related environmental documents, VTA estimates ridership from those accessing the stations by walking, biking, kissand-ride, and park-and-ride. To promote ridership, VTA includes facilities such as bike racks and bike lockers to make the stations more accessible. In 2003, VTA published a document titled Community Design and Transportation A Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use. This document is a vision for how our communities can look, feel and function, and how they can better support and enhance our everyday lives. The document promotes an integrated systems approach of land use, streets, pedestrian networks, transit modes, and development projects. While VTA has a role in this vision, local governments have the critical component in their land use decisions. In response to VTA s financial constraints, in February 2007 VTA adopted Service Design Guidelines that established performance standards to ensure that transit service focuses on those areas with the greatest demand. It should also be noted that many of the bicycle projects listed in the LRTP include both bicycle and pedestrian features. Response to Comment 2-2 Comment encourages VTA to sponsor walkability audits to help involve the public, particularly youth, in identifying the barriers to walking and biking (and connecting to mass transit). Comment states that audits would serve as a way to educate planners about neighborhood issues as well as educate the public about transportation options. This comment is noted. The response to Comment 2-1 mentioned VTA s document titled Community Design and Transportation A Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use. Chapter 4, A Multimodal Approach to Streets discusses street design and the pedestrian environments with recommended best practices. These include: create a continuous pedestrian network that connects buildings to each other and to transit facilities; provide wide sidewalks; provide pedestrian amenities; buffer pedestrians from traffic; provide pedestrian-scaled street lighting; provide secure bicycle parking; provide high-amenity, accessible, and functional transit stops; and design public spaces into the pedestrian environment. While VTA is playing Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-5 July 2008 ICF J&S

36 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR a role in implementing these best practices, local governments have the major influence through their land use decisions. Other local and regional projects, programs, and policies address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists and the pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment, including Transit Oriented Development that intensifies and diversifies land uses and enhances pedestrian circulation, the Bicycle Expenditure Program that funds projects in the Countywide Bicycle Plan, the Youth Outreach Program that encourages Santa Clara County students to learn and experience the benefits of public transportation, the Street Smarts Program that promotes pedestrian safety, and local zoning and building regulations. Response to Comment 2-3 Comment asks that VTA consider issues of connectivity to supermarkets, farmer s markets, clinics, and hospitals when considering new stops and new routes. As stated in the Response to Comment 2-1, VTA has adopted Service Design Guidelines that established performance standards to ensure that transit service focuses on those areas with the greatest demand. To the extent that supermarkets, farmer s markets, clinics, and hospitals provide ridership in accordance with the guidelines, new stops and new routes would be considered in future projects. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-6 July 2008 ICF J&S

37 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 3, Russ Mohr, May 29, 2008 Response to Comment 3-1 Comment recommends that VTA concentrate on improving commuter transportation, including commuter transit, BART, rail, auto, bus, and high speed rail.. This comment is noted. As stated on page 2-3 of the Draft PEIR, the LRTP includes several different types of transportation projects (over 300 total), including: mainline highways, interchanges, regional roadway improvements, bus transit, rail corridor improvements, bicycle facilities, and ITS, in and around Santa Clara County. The projects were proposed by VTA, the County of Santa Clara, and the various cities in the County to provide a balance of transit improvements. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-7 July 2008 ICF J&S

38 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 4, Jacob Ohlhausen, June 06, 2008 Response to Comment 4-1 Comment states that Mr. Ohlhausen was unable to attend the public meeting held for the project on June 3, 2008, and asks if more meetings are planned or if minutes of any meetings are available. He states that the first time he saw the June 3, 2008, meeting advertised was May 29, 2008, which did not allow him enough time to schedule means to attend. Comment suggests that VTA announce the meeting as early as possible to take citizens time constraints into account. This comment is noted. Initially, a scoping meeting was held on April 8, 2008, at the start of the environmental process to explain the Project and request comments on the scope of the environmental document. The next opportunity to comment on the Project and PEIR will be at the VTA Board of Directors meeting on August 7, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California. At the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments before the Board is asked to certify the PEIR and approve the Project. On June 9, 2008, a summary of the June 3, 2008, public meeting was ed to the commenter. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-8 July 2008 ICF J&S

39 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 5, Kathrin Turner, Santa Clara Valley Water District, June 10, 2008 Response to Comment 5-1 Comment states that the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) sent a letter indicating the District facilities that may be impacted by the LRTP and asks that VTA provide responses to the comments presented in the letter. See below for the responses. Response to Comment 5-2 Comment states that any proposed work which affects a District facility or is within the District right-of-way (easement & fee title) is subject to review and issuance of a District permit. This comment is noted. As the individual projects listed in the LRTP are developed, the project sponsors (VTA, County of Santa Clara, one of the cities in the County, or the Joint Powers Board for Caltrain electrification) will need to apply for District permits as required. Response to Comment 5-3 Comment included a spreadsheet listing the Santa Clara Valley Water District facilities potentially affected by the proposed project areas. Proposed projects not impacting District facilities have been labeled O.K. For project titles labeled Not Clear, it could not be determined with the information provided if the project will potentially affect any Water District facilities or right-of-way. Comment requested that VTA provide a clearer description of proposed locations so that the Water District can properly determine which facilities or rights-ofway are impacted. As the individual projects listed in the LRTP are developed, the project sponsors will coordinate with the District as required. The purpose of this PEIR is to analyze the overall environmental effects of the LRTP. The preparation of this document does not relieve the sponsors of the projects listed in the LRTP from the responsibility of complying with the requirements of CEQA and securing all necessary permits and approvals. Individual projects will prepare a more precise, project-level analysis, including the identification of affected District facilities, the analysis of impacts to the facilities, and mitigation measures as required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-9 July 2008 ICF J&S

40 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Response to Comment 5-4 Comment states that the District is currently in the planning stages for future improvements to various creeks within Santa Clara County, and coordination between the District and VTA will be required so that the proposed project will not impact any District projects. Also, any bridge construction work should not negatively alter the existing hydraulics of the channels. The PEIR is a program-level EIR. Future project-level analysis will be able to better assess the impacts of specific projects, including impacts to the proposed District improvements. As the individual projects are developed, the project sponsors will coordinate with the District as required. Response to Comment 5-5 Comment requested copies of the DEIR when available. A copy of the Draft PEIR was mailed to the District on May 6, A copy of the Final PEIR will also be sent to the District when it is available. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-10 July 2008 ICF J&S

41 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 6, Thomas Aihie, California Department of Transportation, Hydraulics Branch, June 12, 2008 Response to Comment 6-1 Comment states that the Hydraulics Branch of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the proposed projects and at this stage has no comment. This comment is noted. A response is not required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-11 July 2008 ICF J&S

42 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 7, Raluca Nitescu, County of Santa Clara, Road and Airports Department, June 16, 2008 Response to Comment 7-1 Comment states that the Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR was received by the County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department on May 6, The letter along with the attachments for the subject properties was reviewed. The County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department had no comments. This comment is noted. A response is not required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-12 July 2008 ICF J&S

43 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 8, Lindy L. Lowe, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, June 17, 2008 Response to Comment 8-1 Comment identifies the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission s (BCDC or Commission) area of jurisdiction and regulatory framework, which is the Commission s Bay Plan. This comment is noted. Response to Comment 8-2 Comment recommends that projects proposed within the Commission s jurisdiction should avoid all unnecessary fill in the Bay, include maximum feasible public access consistent with the project, and consider the effect of future sea level rise on location and design of projects. The projects will be reviewed by the Commission for consistency with the Bay Plan and the Bay Plan s transportation policies, which stress the importance of alternative forms of transportation to the single-occupant vehicle and the need for non-motorized access to accompany new transportation plans. As the individual projects included in the LRTP are developed, the project sponsors will coordinate with the District as required. Table 2-1, Major LRTP Projects, in the Draft PEIR lists a number of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane and bicycle projects that provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. Response to Comment 8-3 Comment recommends that VTA consider developing partnerships with other transportation providers and counties to develop a Bay Area HOT lane network to ensure the people in the Bay Area have an efficient way to travel in these lanes on Bus Rapid Transit, by carpool, and by paying to enter lanes throughout the region. Lastly, it recommends that for all projects within BCDC s jurisdiction, please refer to the above comments and the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. HOT lane projects on several highways are already a major component of the LRTP (see pages 2-5 and 2-6 of the Draft PEIR.). While this is a program-level document, individual projects within the BCDC s jurisdiction will comply with BCDC as required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-13 July 2008 ICF J&S

44 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 9, Carol Anne Painter, City of Santa Clara, June 19, 2008 Response to Comment 9-1 Comment states that the City of Santa Clara could potentially be involved in the additional projects listed in the Draft PEIR. It requests that the City of Santa Clara be included in the Jurisdictional Location column in the LRTP List of Major ($5M+) Projects as reflected below: Page # ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 ES-6 Project Mineta San Jose International Airport APM Connector U.S. 101/Montague Improvements I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Blvd. Interchange Improvements San Thomas Box Culvert ES-7 Central 6 lanes Lawrence to San Thomas and San Thomas 8 Lanes Williams to El Camino Real This comment is noted. The Executive Summary has been updated accordingly. See Chapter 2.0, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR. Response to Comment 9-2 The list of Major Projects is repeated on pages 2-4 through Comment requests updates to the list as appropriate. This comment is noted. Chapter 2, Project Description (pages 2-4 through 2-15) has been updated accordingly. See Chapter 2.0, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR. Response to Comment 9-3 Comment states that the City of Santa Clara would like to review any impacts to trees on the City s list of protected trees at the specific project review stage. This comment is noted. As the individual projects included in the LRTP are developed, the appropriate level of environmental analysis will be prepared by Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-14 July 2008 ICF J&S

45 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR the sponsoring agencies. The impacts on native and heritage trees will be addressed in the analyses as required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-15 July 2008 ICF J&S

46 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 10, Lisa Carboni, California Department of Transportation, Local Development Intergovernmental Review, June 19, 2008 Response to Comment 10-1 Comment suggests that the LRTP include either a distinct pedestrian element or a combined bicycle and pedestrian element as a means of drawing attention to and addressing all modes of transportation. This comment is noted. While the LRTP does not identify projects that are solely pedestrian projects, there are almost 70 bicycle projects, such as bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings and trail projects, that incorporate pedestrian elements. These projects are listed on pages 2-13 through 2-15 of the Draft PEIR. Response to Comment 10-2 Comment states that the Department would like to receive and review all environmental project documents for the LRTP as they are completed. This comment is noted. As the individual projects included in the LRTP are developed, the project sponsors will coordinate with the California Department of Transportation as required. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-16 July 2008 ICF J&S

47 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 11, Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union, June 20, 2008 Response to Comment 11-1 Comment states that the letter outlines the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union s input for VTA s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Comments related to VTP 2035 are only partly relevant to the LRTP. While the LRTP and VTP 2035 project lists are similar, VTP 2035 is an ongoing process to update the 25-year long-range transportation plan and will not be considered for approval by the VTA Board of Directors until later in the year. Response to Comment 11-2 Comment voices concern about the current documented cost of the proposed BART to Silicon Valley project mentioned in the VTP This comment is noted. This comment pertains to the proposed BART to Silicon Valley project, also known as the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP). The SVRTP is a project included in the LRTP and in this program-level environmental document. However, the purpose of this PEIR is to analyze the overall environmental effects of the LRTP and to identify measures that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts resulting from the LRTP. An evaluation of the cost and benefits of the SVRTP is beyond the scope of this PEIR. Response to Comment 11-3 Comment outlines what the group wants from VTP 2035 in terms of funding of projects, expansion of service, and reopening of BART alternatives. This comment is noted. A discussion and analysis of the funding allocations, including full funding of bus and light rail service operations, and projects included in the VTP 2035, including expansion of express and local bus services, is beyond the scope of this PEIR, as is the request to find less expensive alternatives to the proposed BART extension. In addition, this comment did not raise an environmental concern that requires a response in accordance with CEQA. The update of the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP 2035) began in early 2008 and will continue through the year. The VTP 2035 project lists were developed with information from VTP 2030 and input from the public and cities, towns, and County of Santa Clara. Meetings to discuss the lists were held with the public Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-17 July 2008 ICF J&S

48 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR and local governments in early VTA also gathered input from the public via an online survey. The draft project lists have been submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for consideration in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). At the conclusion of this process, VTA s Board of Directors will consider adopting VTP For additional information on VTP 2035, see Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-18 July 2008 ICF J&S

49 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 12, Bruce England, June 20, 2008 Response to Comment 12-1 Comment requests an additional project be considered for the LRTP that does not appear on the current list of major projects. This suggested project was presented in the Mountain View General Plan Update public meeting process and will also be included in recommendations submitted to the Mountain View City Council by the Mountain View Environmental Sustainability Task Force. The purpose of this PEIR is to analyze the overall environmental effects of the LRTP and to identify measures that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts resulting from the LRTP. Additions to the list of projects included in the LRTP is beyond the scope of this environmental analysis unless the project would reduce an identified significant impact, which it does not. The proposed bicycle project to link the Whisman Road/Whisman Station area to the intersection of Grant and El Camino Real has been forwarded to VTA s Bicycle Program Coordinator for consideration. The Bicycle Program Coordinator oversees the development of the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP, which is currently being updated, guides the development of major bicycling facilities by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other projects of countywide or intercity significance. The updated CBP is scheduled to be adopted at the VTA Board of Directors meeting on August 7, Comments from the public will be accepted at the meeting prior to the adoption of the CBP. While the CBP has a regional emphasis, local jurisdictions bicycle plans and general plan circulation elements cover the local communities in greater, more comprehensive detail. Response to Comment 12-2 Comment notes that the Task Force will be submitting a number of transit related recommendations in August (2008), and several of them will overlap with VTA jurisdictions and processes. This comment is noted. There has and will continue to be coordination between the City of Mountain View and VTA on bicycle and pedestrian projects by way of the VTA Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The BPAC consists of 16 members representing each of the 15 cities in the County, including Mountain View and the County of Santa Clara. They serve as the countywide bicycle advisory committee for Santa Clara County and advise VTA s Board of Directors on funding and planning issues for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-19 July 2008 ICF J&S

50 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 13, Colleen A. Oda, County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development, June 20, 2008 Response to Comment 13-1 Comment states that the EIR does not discuss the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulations pertaining to the County s Viewshed Ordinance and the revisions to the Design Review regulations for viewshed protection. These regulations have been incorporated into Chapter 3, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR. See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 13-2 Comment states that Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance has regulations pertaining to viewshed protection. Design Review zoning districts (-d1 Santa Clara Valley viewshed, and d2 Milpitas Hillsides) requirements are intended to mitigate adverse visual impacts on development. Retaining walls and other features within the County s viewshed areas are subject to these provisions. These regulations have been incorporated into Chapter 3, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR. See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 13-3 Comment states that Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance has regulations pertaining to protecting the visual character of scenic roads. The sr Scenic Roads zoning district applied to all designated scenic roads in Santa Clara County. These regulations have been incorporated into Chapter 3, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR. See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 13-4 Comments state that the County General Plan R-RC 37 and R-RC38 are not incorporated into the EIR. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-20 July 2008 ICF J&S

51 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Chapter 5, Biology, of the Draft PEIR has been updated with these policies. See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 13-5 Comment states that the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative is not incorporated in the PEIR. Chapter 5, Biology, of the Draft PEIR has been updated to include the guidelines and standards mentioned above. See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 13-6 Comment states that an evaluation of off-street countywide trails and consistency with the Countywide Trails Master Plan are not evaluated in the DEIR. It recommends referring to the County Parks and Recreation Department letter for further details. This comment is noted. Consistency with local plans and zoning ordinances will be addressed at the project level by local jurisdictions and sponsors of the individual projects included in the LRTP. See Comment Letter 14 from the County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department, for responses. Response to Comment 13-7 Comment requests that VTA submit a copy of the Final PEIR and other documents related to the project when they are available. This comment is noted. A copy of the Final PEIR will be sent to commenter. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-21 July 2008 ICF J&S

52 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 14, Kimberly Brosseau, County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department, June 19, 2008 Response to Comment 14-1 Comment states that the major bicycle projects listed in Table 2-1 of the DEIR, Los Gatos Creek Sub-regional Trail (Route S-4) and Bay Area Ridge Trail: El Sombroso-Lake Anderson (Route R5-D), Bay Area Ridge Trail (Route R5-C), Juan Bautista de Anza NHT (Route R1-A), and Coyote Creek Trail/Llagas Subregional Trail (Route S-5) would be consistent with County Parks Department s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This comment is noted. Response to Comment 14-2 Comment states that the Draft PEIR should provide additional information on the countywide trails system and include a discussion related to the project s consistency with the Countywide Trails Master Plan. The discussion of Existing Circulation Conditions for Bicycles in Chapter 11 on page 11-7 of the Draft PEIR was revised to include additional information on the number of miles of on- and off-street countywide trail routes and the Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995). See Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft PEIR, in this Final PEIR for the text changes. Response to Comment 14-3 Comment states the Draft PEIR should include a discussion related to the Project s consistency with the Countywide Trails Master Plan. As the individual projects listed in the LRTP are developed, the project sponsors (VTA, County, or various cities) will coordinate with the County as required. Consistency with the Countywide Trails Master Plan will need to be addressed in the project-level analysis. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-22 July 2008 ICF J&S

53 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Chapter 3.0. Responses to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Letter 15, Terry Roberts, California Office of Planning and Research, June 19, 2008 Response to Comment 15-1 Comment acknowledges that VTA has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. Comment letter from Lisa Carboni of the California Department of Transportation was forwarded with the comment. The Department of Transportation comment is addressed in Letter 10 above. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Long Range Transportation Plan 3-23 July 2008 ICF J&S

54

55

56

57 The Le Suite 309, Millcreek Drive Mississauga, ON L5N 3E7 Centre for Centre pour Tel: Sustainable un transport Fax: Transportation durable /Courriel: CHILD-FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING February 29, 2004 This document was prepared with the support of Go for Green a Canadian organization devoted to the promotion of active transportation (see Please address questions about this document to Catherine O Brien at imurray@renc.igs.net Please address questions about The Centre for Sustainable Transportation to Al Cormier at the coordinates at the top of this page TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background Child-friendly transport planning: a new concept Transport concepts related to child-friendly planning Children s participation in planning Creating policies and guidelines: putting them into practice Concluding thoughts...11 Appendix A: The Child Friendly Cities Secretariat...12 Appendix B: Better road conditions for children...15 Appendix C: Participation by children and youth...16 End notes...19

58 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY BACKGROUND This report arises from work conducted during 2003 in the Halton and Peel regions, just west of Toronto. That project, supported by the Ontario Trillium Foundation and entitled Kids on the Move in Halton and Peel, examined children s travel in those two suburban regions through examination of available data and through consultations with almost 300 educators, health professionals, municipal staff and politicians, parents, children, safety officials, and many others. 1 The impetus for the work done during 2003 was concern that modern transport practices, particularly automobile dependence, are compromising children s development, through air and noise pollution, physical inactivity, and loss of the intimate contact with surroundings that comes from travel by automobile rather than by foot or by bicycle. Box 1 on the next page summarizes many of the health impacts of transport on children. Our consultations in Halton and Peel suggested strongly that what is required is a set of provincially endorsed child-friendly land-use and transport planning guidelines. This began with a remark by a land developer who said that within each municipality there should be a person looking out for children s interests, in much the same way as a fire chief reviews a development proposal to ensure that there is adequate access for emergency vehicles. Planning and public health officials warmly embraced this suggestion, saying that doing this would require a set of appropriate guidelines, preferably but not necessarily having provincial government approval. A model of the kind of guidelines proposed by the municipal officials is the document Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines 2 issued by the Ontario Ministries of Transportation and Municipal Affairs in April 1992and still in extensive use in Ontario and elsewhere. Planners and others in Ontario municipalities follow the guidelines when developing land-use and transport plans. The guidelines tell them how to fashion both new development and redevelopment so that residents are going to be more likely to want to use transit and so that transit providers are going to be more likely to provide transit services. In the same way, a set of Child-Friendly Land-use and Transport Planning Guidelines would help planners design communities that met children s needs. The guidelines could cause them to pose questions such as these: Are there sidewalks leading to destinations that children regularly travel to? Are there walls or other sight obstructions along the routes that children frequent? Are traffic lights timed to permit child pedestrians sufficient time to cross? How might neighbourhood parking regulations affecting children s safe travel? As a step to developing child-friendly planning guidelines, the Centre for Sustainable Transportation has completed a limited literature survey and canvassed several planning experts to determine whether similar guidelines have been developed elsewhere in the world. This report outlines the results of our search. Superscript numbers refer to 57 reference and other notes that begin on Page 19. 2

59 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Box 1. Summary of several health impacts of transport on children Traffic fatalities are the leading cause of Opportunities and locations for spontaneinjury death in Canada for children over ous, non-structured play are severely rethe age of one year. 3 stricted by traffic. 13 Less than half of Canadian children walk A study of children s exposure to diesel to school. (Most children who live within exhaust on school buses in the United three kilometres of school do walk, but a States indicated that concentrations of sufficient number live farther from school PM 2.5 were often 5-10 times higher than to bring the average who walk down to average levels measured at fixed-site less than half of all children.) 4 monitoring stations. 14 Two out of three Canadian children do not Low-level but chronic noise of moderate meet average physical activity guidelines traffic can stress children and raise their to achieve optimum growth and develop- blood pressure, heart rates and levels of ment. 5 stress hormones. 15 More than a quarter of Canadian children 25-30% of children who survive traffic acand youth are overweight. 6 cidents may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, unless treated. This may Children who live near high-traffic areas include depression, recurring nightmares, (20,000 cars passing per day) may be six difficulty attending to school work, fear of times more likely to develop childhood 16 cars. leukemia and other cancers 7 In-car benzene concentrations sometimes Smog has been linked to asthma as both a exceed concentrations in the roadside air trigger and possible cause. 8 by up to four fold. Carbon monoxide concentrations may be more than 10 times There appears to be no threshold for higher inside cars than at the side of the ozone levels that are safe, and children road. Elevated in-car pollution concentraare particularly susceptible. 9 tions particularly endanger children, the elderly, and people with asthma and other Children may be more vulnerable to air- respiratory conditions. They receive little borne pollution because their airways are attention. Nevertheless, in-car air pollution narrower than those of adults. 10 may pose one of the greatest modern threats to human health. 17 Children living in areas with poor air quality have been found to have reduced lung In Canada, approximately 30% of greenfunction growth that places them at risk for house gas emissions result from transport. future respiratory illness. 11 These emissions are contributing to global warming, which will have long-term im- Heavy traffic reduces the independent pacts on children. 18 mobility of children and youth CHILD-FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING: A NEW CONCEPT The term child-friendly transport planning, and variants, is not being used in transport documents and planning literature, nor is it a concept familiar to the experts we contacted in 3

60 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Canada and elsewhere. The current key concept is that of child-friendly cities. The spearhead is the Child Friendly Cities initiative (CFC) of the United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF), which is at the forefront of efforts to consider children s needs and aspirations in an urban environment. 19 CFC is responding to the global trend towards urbanization, to recognition that children constitute between per cent of many populations, and to commitments made in respect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 20 The concept of a child friendly city is not based on an ideal end state or a standard model. It is a framework to assist any city to become more child friendly in all aspects of its environment, governance, and services. UNICEF set up the CFC Secretariat at its Innocenti Research Centre in Florence, Italy, in September 2000 to support city authorities in developing such frameworks and to support the many people working in different cities to change practices unfriendly to children into systems where children matter. 21 The CFC Secretariat is documenting and publicizing successful child friendly city initiatives and supporting national and international networks that are working in this area. They use the word child, but their work also addresses the needs of youth up to18 years of age. Appendix A, beginning on Page 12 of the present report, provides further details about the CFC initiative. The CFC Web site features the work of a Canadian organization: the Society for Children and Youth (SCY) of British Columbia. 22 SCY has developed a project entitled Child and Youth Friendly Communities. So far, the project has focused on housing and the child s right to play. Literature on the child s right to play highlights the need for very young children to live in an environment that does not impose undue limits on their ability to play. Heavy traffic, for example, has been shown to limit the range and diversity of children s play. 23 Our search encountered two potential sources of information on child-friendly transport planning. The Dutch Institute for Design has published design guidelines for children, in Dutch. Nic Nilsson has published Barnperspektiv på planeringen 24 (Child s perspective on planning), in Swedish. As well, Alex van Loon, with the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, has made specific recommendations towards improving the safety of neighbourhoods for child pedestrians and cyclists. His recommendations are included in Appendix B, which begins on Page 15. A team at the Stockholm Institute of Education is analyzing data from a research project regarding children s travel patterns and factors that influence children s mobility in an urban environment. 25 In the United States, the Community-Based Education Resource (CUBE) 26 is championing child-oriented communities. It has developed an educational resource for teachers to work with children on planning. CUBE s premise is that a community designed for young people will work for everyone. It cites the Bill of Rights for Kids created by Aspen architect, Harry Teague, set out in Box 2 on the next page. 4

61 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Box 2. Harry Teague s Bill of Rights for Kids The city shall be: safe in appropriate scale no walls over four feet accessible youth will have the ability to get from one place to another integrated nature, the community, work, ages, sexes, all will be part of the whole a manifestation of tradition youth will be able to identify cultural anchors whether they be building types and styles, monuments, landmarks, or natural areas Documents dealing with child friendly cities and communities present the case that communities making special efforts to meet the needs of children will benefit the community as a whole. Authors who approach this from a development perspective note the international development trend that eventually recognized that women s needs and aspirations had to be incorporated into development thinking and plans. Now it is time to extend this to children. 3. TRANSPORT CONCEPTS RELATED TO CHILD-FRIENDLY PLANNING Within the transport and planning literature, there are concepts and guidelines that may be helpful in the preparation of child-friendly planning guidelines. They include: Comprehensive Transport Planning. Litman 27 discusses the value of moving beyond conventional transport planning and incorporating a more comprehensive view of impacts, costs, and benefits. Comprehensive planning takes into account additional costs that often result from increased roadway capacity and the additional vehicle traffic it produces, and it takes into account additional benefits provided by transport demand management (TDM) strategies that improve transport options and encourage more efficient use of transport system capacity. These additional factors justify policy and planning decisions that emphasize increased transport system diversity and efficiency. Understanding of the costs and benefits of transport on children s health and the limits to their mobility can contribute to more comprehensive planning. Universal Design, also called inclusive design, accessible design or, simply, accessibility. The concept often refers to transport systems that meet the needs of people with disabilities, but its use is evolving to include all people who may experience an accessibility challenge, including children, adults with baby carriages, and cyclists. Developing child-friendly transport guidelines would assist efforts to create more inclusive and accessible transport systems. New Urbanism. Many new urbanist designs strive to achieve more attractive and efficient communities. They may also afford greater mobility for children. If you live in a New Urban neighbourhood you can conveniently go shopping and perform other per 5

62 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 sonal walking or cycling, and your children can walk to school and parks. 28 Other terms such as New Community Design 29 capture elements of New Urbanism, including promotion of pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods and less dependence on the automobile. Walkable/Livable Communities. Dan Burden 30 is well known for his promotion of walkable communities. His description of a walkable community takes children s destinations into account. Social Exclusion. Applied to transport this concept refers to constraints that prevent people from participating adequately in society particularly people who live in an automobile dependent community and are physically disabled, low income or unable to own and drive a personal automobile. 31 The goal of an inclusive transport system could incorporate many of the concepts above so that children and others with limited choices could have more transport options. Transport Resilience. This concept is usually applied to transport planning regarding security and a system s response to emergencies. Litman 32 notes that TDM strategies contribute to the resilience of transport systems by providing greater transport diversity. Public Health and Land Use Planning. Recognition that land use planning has impacts on health, physical activity, and mobility is increasing worldwide. Active Living by Design 33 in the United States is spearheading efforts to demonstrate that new collaborations in planning are needed to create environments that contribute to active living and help the public choose more active lifestyles. This involves cooperation amongst government departments across several jurisdictions. Child-friendly transport planning could contribute to more active lifestyles for children and even the wider population who currently have limited transport options or who are affected by heavy traffic density and speed. 4. CHILDREN S PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The Child Friendly Cities initiative noted above promotes the inclusion of children s needs in urban planning and the inclusion of children (and youth) in planning processes. It makes the case that it is mutually beneficial for children, youth, and planners to engage in a participatory planning process. UNESCO s Growing Up in Cities Project adopts the same perspective. It has sponsored two books on the subject. Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth 34 is a manual for municipal staff who wish to involve children. Growing Up in An Urbanizing World 35 provides case studies of urban projects that have engaged children in planning. The overarching rationale for children s participation in planning is that they have fresh perspectives on the local environment as it pertains to their needs. Their input can be in 6

63 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 valuable for contributing to a more socially inclusive community, one that recognizes the limited mobility of children, the locations where they generally travel, and the specific hindrances they may encounter. The Centre for Sustainable Transportation s Kids on the Move project engaged 140 elementary students in a discussion about their neighbourhood, where they like to travel, how they usually travel, and what kinds of neighbourhood they would create. Children as young as eight years-old were able to respond to these questions with considerable clarity. Appendix C, beginning on Page 16, outlines additional rationale for children s participation in planning and the benefits of including youth. Children s Tracks active in Vestfold county, Norway is a project that seeks to involve children in transport planning. Children trace their own mobility patterns. They are compiled in the country s GIS project, named Arealis. 36 In Canada, the Ontario Walkability Study 37 contributed to understanding of children s experiences and aspirations through surveying more than 6,000 elementary school children on Walk to School Day (2000). A nine year-old Canadian boy, Henry Orsini, has notwaited for transport planners to ask his views. He lives in Vancouver and believes that transit fares for children are too high indeed the highest in Canada among those he has examined and he has created a bar chart to demonstrate this (see Box 3 on the next page). Through meetings with executives of Translink (the regional transit authority) he hopes to make the case that lower fees for children are needed to convince adults that transit is a cheaper option than driving. At this time, he argues, parents can drive a family of four and pay for parking for less than the transit fare. Henry s long-range goal is to have children s transit fares across Canada reduced to fifty cents. 38 Canadian architect, Stanley King, has developed design workshops with children and youth that have been implemented in Western Canadian communities through programs such as Alberta s Main Street Program. He heads the Co-Design Group in Vancouver, 39 and has written the following: Children aged 9 to 13 respond well. Newly aware of the environment beyond the home, they perceive the streets and parks with fresh eyes and acute senses. Their answers are often not those that would occur to adults. Awareness of risk from traffic, from dangerous people or from design situations that pose a threat is more acute in children than adults. 40 Of particular use in helping engage children s participation in planning could be a document produced by the Canadian Institute of Planners entitled A Kid s guide to Building Great Communities: A Manual for Planners and Educators. The preface includes the following: Young people represent an important component of the population who have a right to take an active part in decisions that affect the health and well being of their community. Planners have a responsibility to provide young people with opportunities to exercise this right so that they can take on their responsibilities as interested and well-informed citizens. 41 7

64 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Box 3. Henry Orsini's bar chart of children s transit fares 8

65 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY CREATING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES: PUTTING THEM INTO PRACTICE Our search did not uncover a comprehensive list of existing child-friendly transport guidelines, ready to be applied, but we note a growing movement to recognize that cities need to be more responsive to children. This responsiveness may involve the creation of new policies, new practices that engage children, and new forms of collaboration among levels of government and government departments. Public health advocates have drawn similar conclusions. 42 In May 2002, the United Nations General Assembly held a Special Session on Children that endorsed the document A World Fit for Children. 43 It committed member nations to develop child friendly communities and cities, and to involve mayors and municipal authorities as primary partners in achieving the new goals set for children. Children are recognized as citizens who have a right to express their opinions and have their views given due consideration. This requires most cities to make institutional, legal, and budgetary reforms and to develop a strategy to transform the living environments of children at the family, neighbourhood and city levels. 44 Recommendations and laws are a starting point for institutionalizing support for child friendly planning. Norway has been a leader in this matter. The Norwegian government appointed the world s first Commissioner for Children in 1981 and it has taken several measures to strengthen perspectives on children regarding land-use planning. The 1989 National Policy Guidelines stated: The municipality shall organize the planning process to make sure that the points of view concerning children as the affected party are brought to light and that different groups of children and young people are given an opportunity to participate themselves. 45 Wilhjelm has written about the realization of these policies and guidelines. 46 She found that when planners experience children s participation they are delightfully surprised by the useful knowledge children bring to the process. However, many Norwegian children and adults are not aware of their right to participate in planning. Her advice is to create dialogues involving meetings of developers and planners with the public, including children and youth. Nevertheless, Norway is ahead of many industrialized countries in its efforts to create child friendly environments. We may also look to Italy for examples of child friendly laws and initiatives. The Italian government s Plan of Action for Children and Adolescents (1997) made a formal commitment to meet the objectives of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 47 A national fund was created to be used for financing local projects, inter-ministerial cooperation, and the development of new laws. The Ministry of the Environment established a project called Città Sostenibili delle Bambine e dei Bambini (Sustainable Cities for Girls and Boys). The project promotes new initiatives, opportunities and structures for children but also aims to 9

66 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 encourage a new culture of government of cities and city planning based on the premise that a city suitable for children is more suitable for everyone. 48 The main objectives of the project are: To establish a yearly recognition award for cities that respond to a series of parameters and indicators of child-urban sustainability ; To create a clearing house to disseminate information, experiences and best practices taking place in Italian cities, and To organize a yearly international forum, Towards Child Friendly Cities, bringing together representatives of cities from Italy and abroad to exchange experiences and discuss issues and lessons learned. 49 The yearly recognition award contest involved more than 80 cities in its first year, Marco Corsi, who works for UNICEF at the Innocenti Research Centre in Florence has written about the Italian efforts to create Child Friendly Cities. He emphasized the importance of institutionalizing the concept of child friendly cities in all levels of government and creating mechanisms for inter-departmental cooperation at the municipal level. He also highlighted the need for public awareness to publicize initiatives and build community participation and support. Corsi described the indicators that have been developed to evaluate the progress cities are making. One indicator deals with promoting children s mobility. Improvements in this area have involved measures to reduce speeds; the creation of highly recognizable road signs (sometimes using symbols chosen and designed by children); the widening and protection of sidewalks, and the creation of pedestrian areas and residential streets (also involving children). There has been considerable expansion of the cycle path network, but mainly in city centres rather than suburban areas. 50 Also, minimum-impact public vehicles are coming into use that have the added benefit of reducing air pollution. The Italian movement toward more child friendly cities is work in progress with the recognition that there is much more to be done. Nevertheless, Italy has made significant strides towards shifting urban planning policy and beginning to engage the public, including children, in planning their environments. Riggio wrote that a child friendly city needs to move beyond municipal officials and experts and be progressively reflected in academic curricula and addressed by research. 51 Postgraduate courses are being developed to train architects, planners, environmental psychologists, and social science students in the principles of child friendly planning. 10

67 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY CONCLUDING THOUGHTS In our efforts to investigate child-friendly transport planning guidelines we have discovered the rich context of child friendly cities that encompasses all aspects of children s welfare. It has been encouraging to learn of European efforts in this area. The Canadian land developer who envisioned a planning process that includes a children s advocate was unwittingly in line with the child friendly cities movement. The former assumption that a city fit for adults is fit for children is being turned around. The new perspective is that a city designed with children in mind will be more inclusive, and will more readily meet the needs of all members of society. The social impacts and benefits of transport in the lives of children and youth merit far greater attention in Canada. Attention to child friendly transport planning will assist us to understand these impacts and benefits more fully. The literature search conducted for this report revealed that participatory planning with youth is proving to be a valuable mechanism for nurturing an experience of social inclusion. Once youth became involved in planning their community, adults realized that community design, transport issues, and lack of attention to youth needs are important factors in making youth feel marginalized or included. With few places to travel, or few options for independent travel, youth said they felt bored, harassed for hanging out on the streets, and invisible or, worse, unwanted. Adults may know how to create community environments that promote health and safety, but children and youth are the experts on what fosters or fractures their personal sense of well-being. 52 For several decades, Canadian national, provincial, and municipal governments and institutions have grappled with realizing objectives of sustainable development. They have drafted policies and vision statements, and established cross-department and cross-disciplinary collaborations. Until recently, children s transport needs and aspirations have hardly been noted. This has been particularly evident regarding children s health and transport. An exception is the program Active and Safe Routes to School, which stands out as an initiative that has raised awareness about children s mobility in respect to the school trip, and created effective solutions. 53 BEST s offramp program has played a similar role with respect to youth. 54 However, we have not seen a coordinated movement in Canada to address the full scope of children s transport and health. Converging interests around active transport, physical activity, obesity, air pollution, asthma, greenhouse gas reduction, traffic congestion, and road safety would all benefit from a coordinated effort to create more child friendly cities. The development of child friendly transport guidelines will form a critical component, but institutional support will be required to ensure that the guidelines are used effectively. With 80 per cent of Canadians living in urban areas, and the expectation that this will reach 90 per cent in the near future, we will all benefit through the creation of more child-friendly cities. 11

68 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 APPENDIX A: THE CHILD FRIENDLY CITIES SECRETARIAT (from CFC web site, Why Child Friendly Cities? Our planet is increasingly urban. More than three billion people half the world s population now live in cities. Urban growth is most rapid in developing countries and, by the year 2025, six out of every ten children in the developing world will live in cities. Half of these children will be poor. At the same time, a global process of decentralization is taking place, as local governments assume responsibilities for social sector services that were once provided by national governments. Children living in the slums or on the streets of developing countries are vulnerable to abandonment, gang life, drug addiction and to every form of exploitation, including child labour, prostitution and abuse. And in the cities of the industrialised world children may be threatened by traffic, pollution, and a shortage of green and open spaces in which to play. In both rich and poor countries, urban children and adolescents may feel imprisoned and isolated. The City Summit in Istanbul in 1996 stressed that the best indicator of a healthy city is the well-being of its children. A Child Friendly City is a people friendly city, encouraging the participation of citizens young and old in its services and its planning. What is a Child Friendly City (CFC)? A Child Friendly City guarantees the RIGHT of every young citizen to: influence decisions about their city express their opinion on the city they want participate in family, community and social life receive basic services such as health care and education drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse walk safely in the streets on their own meet friends and play have green spaces for plants and animals live in an unpolluted environment participate in cultural and social events 12

69 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 be an equal citizen of their city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or disability. What is the International Secretariat for Child Friendly Cities? Following the 1996 City Summit, UNICEF and partners launched the Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) to reach urban children particularly the poor and the marginalized with basic services and protection to guarantee their fundamental rights. Many cities, both in the North and in the South, are now working to become child-friendly and a number of local networks have been created. The time has come to pool these efforts, to share knowledge and consolidate the lessons learned in recent years. In 2000, a Secretariat for Child Friendly Cities was created at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre for the global exchange of information and resources. Its aim is to provide support to cities that are committed to a rights-based agenda for children. What the Child Friendly Cities Secretariat does Research and Data Collection Collects and shares data through a database and field research Processes lessons learned and promotes best practices Utilises lessons learned for the development of programme tools, methodologies and policies Information exchange Exchanges experiences North-South Maintains a CFC web page Produces and disseminates publications Networking Networks with Municipalities, Mayors, communities, experts and others to strengthen capacity for the development of rights-based agendas for children Networks with child / youth groups to empower young citizens to participate in planning for CFCs Assists in field consultations and programme development Organizes international, regional, national meetings on CFC issues 13

70 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Join the network By sharing information about activities and programmes for children in your city By sharing lessons on how your city is managed from the point of view of children and adolescents By sharing resources with other cities willing to become child friendly Where to contact the Child Friendly Cities Secretariat UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Piazza SS. Annunziata, Florence, Italy Tel Fax The activities of the International Child Friendly Cities Secretariat are carried out in partnership with UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, UNICEF Headquarters in New York, the Italian National Committee for UNICEF, UN-Habitat and the Istituto degli Innocenti, Florence. 14

71 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 APPENDIX B: BETTER ROAD CONDITIONS FOR CHILDREN Safer Road Conditions for Children (From van Loon A, Road Safety for Children: An Accident Analysis for Better Road Conditions for Children in the Netherlands 55 ) Recommendations From the results of this study, the following recommendations will obtain safer road conditions for children. The speed limit in residential zones must be set at 30 km/h along with traffic calming measures. Residential streets with speed limits of 30 km/h including traffic calming are 2-3 times safer than the same streets with a speed limits of 50 km/h and no traffic calming. This is due to a shorter brake distance, a wider visual scope of the driver and a minor injury rate in 30 km/h residential zones; In residential areas where children tend to cross over, no sight restraint is allowed. At busy parked streets, special locations to cross with enough sight must be made. High objects along roads must be avoided; Crossings on collector roads must be safer by slowing down traffic speed and making better sight conditions; A homogenous speed pattern must be obtained by adequately designed traffic calming measures at regular distances; Rows of parked cars must be regularly interrupted by an open space where children can cross the street safely; One-way streets must be avoided, but when this can t be avoided, traffic calming measures are needed; Collectors and arterials should be provided by bicycle lanes; Areas or roads near or around playgrounds, playfields, schools and shops must be designed as 30 km/h streets or zones, Sight obstruction must be avoided. 15

72 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 APPENDIX C: PARTICIPATION BY CHILDREN AND YOUTH Implications of Child and Youth Participation (From Chawla L, Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment: integrating children and youth into human settlement development 56 ) The Habitat Agenda from the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in 1996 recognized in its preamble that The needs of children and youth, particularly with regard to their living environment, have to be taken fully into account (paragraph 13). In the same paragraph, the preamble stated that: Special attention needs to be paid to participatory processes dealing with the shaping of cities, towns and neighbourhoods; this is in order to secure the living conditions of children and youth and to make use of their insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment. Planning teams need to include a representative for children, and whenever possible, children need to have a voice of their own when development decisions are made; A focus on children draws attention to their special vulnerability to disease, pollution and other environmental hazards; Because children have the longest future of any group in society, they direct policy making toward long-term planning; the same orientation that sustainable development requires; At the same time as they represent the future, children s rapidly developing bodies and minds must be nourished and protected in the immediate present, or a failure to meet their needs will have long-term consequences; Attention to children emphasizes the importance of a human development focus in planning; Given their relative lack of mobility and their dependence on immediately accessible resources, children draw attention to development at the community level. Small changes in the local environment may have a big impact on children s lives. Three main reasons for encouraging children s participation in development: Children will learn formal skills of democratic citizenship in this way; They are the best experts on local environment conditions related to their own needs; and They acquire a foundation for lifelong habits of environmental interest, concern and care. 16

73 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 The Benefits of Young People s Participation (From Driskell D, Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth 57 ) A commitment to young people s participation in community development requires understanding what participation is, and appreciating the potential benefits for everyone involved. Benefits for young people Participate in a new and exciting activity. Look at and understand their local community and environment in new ways. Learn about democracy and tolerance. Develop a network of new friends, including community role models and resource people. Develop new skills and knowledge Help create positive change in the local environment and other aspects of the community Develop a sense of environmental stewardship and civic responsibility Develop confidence in their abilities to accomplish the goals they set. Strengthen their self-esteem, identity and sense of pride. Benefits for other members of the community Interact with young people in positive, constructive ways, helping to overcome the misperceptions and mistrust that often exist between generations. Understand how young people in their community view the word, their community and themselves. Identify ways in which the quality of life for local young people can be improved. Build a stronger sense of community and pride of place. Appreciate the ideas and contributions of young people. Invest time and energy in the future of the community. Benefits for planners and policy makers More fully understand the needs and issues of the communities they serve. Make better, more informed planning and development decisions. Educate community members on the inherent complexities and trade-offs involved in policy and development decision-making. Implement at the local level the directives and spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 17

74 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 Involve young people in efforts to implement sustainable development, thereby helping to achieve the goals of Agenda 21 and Habitat Agenda. Create urban environments that are more child-friendly and humane. 18

75 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 2004 END NOTES The 38-page report on the project Kids on the Move in Halton and Peel is available at the Centre s Web site at the URL below Accessed February 25, The Ontario government document Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines is available at the URL below Accessed February 25, Canadian Institute of Child Health (2000) The Health of Canada s Children, Third edition, Canadian Institute of Child Health, Ottawa. Go for Green (1998) Nation Survey on Active Transportation: Summary Report. Go for Green and Environics International, Ottawa. Available at the URL below: 1. Accessed February 25, Vail, S. (2001) The Physical Inactivity Epidemic: The Preventative Role of Active School Communities. Discussion Paper Prepared for Delegates of the National Roundtable on Active School Communities, October Available at the URL below Accessed February 25, See the source detailed in Note 5. Pearson, R., Wachtel, H., Ebi, K. (2000) Distance-weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 50, pp California Air Resources Board (2002) The Children s Health Study, Fact Sheet, available at the URL below: 1. Accessed February 25, York Centre for Applied Sustainability and Pollution Probe (1996), Clearing the Air: Transportation, Air Quality and Human Health Conference. Toronto. Available at the URL below Accessed February 25, See the source detailed in Note 9. See the source detailed in Note 8. Tranter, P., Doyle, J. (1996). Reclaiming the residential street as play space, International Play Journal, 4, pp Hillman, M., Adams, J. (1992) Children s freedom and safety. Children s Environments, 9 (2), pp Wargo, J. (2002) Children s Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses, Environment and Human Health, report, Available at the URL below: 1. Accessed February 25, Evans, G., Lercher, P., Meis, M., et al (2001) Community noise exposure and stress in children, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109 (3), pp Stallard, P., Velleman, R., Baldwin, S. (1998) Prospective study of post-traumatic stress disorder in children involved in road traffic accidents British Medical Journal, 317, pp

76 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY This quotation is from International Centre for Technology Assessment (2000). In-Car Air Pollution: The Hidden Threat to Automobile Drivers. International Centre for Technology Assessment, Washington DC. Available at the URL below Accessed February 25, Canadian Institute of Child Health, Climate Change and Your Child s Health, Information Package, Available at the URL below: 1. Accessed February 25, Information about the Child Friendly Cities initiative is at the URL below Accessed February 25, The text of the Convention is available at the Web site identified in Note 19. Canada and at least 190 other countries have ratified the Convention. Riggio E (2002), Child friendly cities: good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment & urbanization, Vol 14(2) October, p. 45. Further information about the society for Children and Youth of British Columbia is available at the URL below Accessed February 25, These matters are documented at the Web site indicated in Note 22. Nilsson N (2003), Barnperspektiv på planeringen. Karlstad, Sweden: IPA-Barns Rätt Till Lek (ISBN ). Bjorklid P (2002), Parental restrictions and children s independent mobility. Paper presented at the 17th Conference of the International Association for People-Environment Studies, available from the author at Pia.Bjorklid@lhs.se. Information about the Community-Based Education Resource is available at the URL below Accessed February 23, Litman T. (2003). Comprehensive Transport Planning, Creating a Comprehensive Framework for Transportation Planning and Policy Analysis, TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available at the URL below. Accessed Feburary 23, Litman T (2003), New Urbanism, Cluster, Mixed-Use, Multi-Modal Neighbourhood Design, in TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available at the URL below Accessed February 23, Hirschorn J, Souza P (2001), New Community Design to the Rescue, Fulfilling Another American Dream, National Governors Association, Washington, available at the URL below Accessed February 25, Burden D (undated), Ten Keys to Walkable/Livable Communities, Local Government Commission, Sacramento, California, available at the URL below Accessed February 25, Litman T (2003), Social Inclusion as a Transport Planning Issue in Canada, Contribution to the FIA Foundation G7 Comparison, available at the URL below Accessed February 23, Litman T (2003), Evaluating Transportation Resilience: Evaluating the Transportation System s Ability to Accommodate Diverse, Variable and Unexpected Demands with Minimal Risk, TDM 20

77 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available at the URL below Accessed February 25, Information regarding Active Living by Design may be found at the URL below Accessed February 18, Driskell D (2002), Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth A Manual for Participation. UNESCO/Earthscan Publications, London. Chawla L (2002), Growing Up in an Urbanising World. UNESCO/Earthscan Publications, London. O Brien C (2001) Ontario Walkability Study, Trip to School: Children s Experiences and Aspirations, report. available at the URL below: Accessed September 22, Children and adults may contact Henry Orsini at the address indicated on his chart: lowertransitfaresarewhereits@yahoo.ca. Information about the Co-Design Group and Alberta s Main Street Program can be found respectively at the first and second URLs below Accessed February 26, Accessed February 26, King S (1995), Fresh Eyes, Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 19. Summer. The undated Manual is available from the Canadian Institute of Planners at the URL below Accessed February 26, Killingsworth R, Lamming J (2001), Development and Public Health Could our development patterns be affecting our personal health? Urban Land, July, p.17. Information about the Special Session of the UN General Assembly and the document A world Fit for Children are available at the URL below Accessed February 26, The quotation is from the source detailed in Note 21. Wilhjelm H (2002), Large but Not Unlimited Freedom in a Nordic City. In Chawla L, ed. Growing Up in an Urbanising World, UNESCO/Earthscan Publications, London, p See the source quoted in Note 45. For information about the convention, see the source detailed in Note 20. Corsi, M. (2002). The child friendly cities initiative in Italy. Environment & Urbanization, Vol 14, No 2, October, p See the source cited in Note 48. See the source cited in Note 48. See the source cited in Note 21. See the source cited in Note

78 CHILD FRIENDLY TRANSPORT PLANNING THE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY For information about the Active and Safe Routes to School program see the Web site of Go for Green at the URL below Accessed February 26, For information about BEST and the offramp program, see the URL below Accessed February 26, Van Loon A (2001), Road Safety for Children: An Accident Analysis for Better Road Conditions for Children in the Netherlands, Proceedings of the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference XII, June 10-13, London, Ontario, p. 8. Chawla L (2001), Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment: integrating children and youth into human settlement development, Environment & Urbanization, Vol 14(2), October, pp The quotation is from the source cited in Note

79 Walking to Public Transit Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations Lilah M. Besser, MSPH, Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH Background: Nearly half of Americans do not meet the Surgeon General s recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity daily. Some transit users may achieve 30 minutes of physical activity daily solely by walking to and from transit. This study estimates the total daily time spent walking to and from transit and the predictors of achieving 30 minutes of physical activity daily by doing so. Methods: Transit-associated walking times for 3312 transit users were examined among the 105,942 adult respondents to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, a telephone-based survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation to assess American travel behavior. Results: Americans who use transit spend a median of 19 minutes daily walking to and from transit; 29% achieve 30 minutes of physical activity a day solely by walking to and from transit. In multivariate analysis, rail users, minorities, people in households earning $15,000 a year, and people in high-density urban areas were more likely to spend 30 minutes walking to and from transit daily. Conclusions: Walking to and from public transportation can help physically inactive populations, especially low-income and minority groups, attain the recommended level of daily physical activity. Increased access to public transit may help promote and maintain active lifestyles. Results from this study may contribute to health impact assessment studies (HIA) that evaluate the impact of proposed public transit systems on physical activity levels, and thereby may influence choices made by transportation planners. (Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4): ) 2005 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Introduction The Surgeon General recommends that adults participate in 30 minutes of physical activity daily. However, nearly half of American adults do not meet the guidelines. 1,2 The impact of the built environment on obesity and physical activity is a relatively new field of research. Features of the built environment, such public parks and accessible gyms, can play a role in increasing physical activity among Americans. 3 Increased access to public transportation could also provide more opportunities for physical activity because most transit trips begin and/or end with walking. The purpose of this study was to estimate the daily level of physical activity obtained by Americans solely by walking to and from transit, and to examine the associations of these physical activity levels with age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, income, transit type, population density, and car ownership. From the Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Lilah M. Besser, MSPH, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, 1600 Clifton Road, MS E-86, Atlanta GA lbesser@cdc.gov. The Surgeon General advises that to be beneficial, physical activity can be continuous or intermittent, should be moderately or vigorously intense, and can be acquired through leisure-time exercise or through everyday activities such as cleaning the house. 1,4 Under these recommendations, moderate or vigorous physical activity can be acquired in shorter bouts and still contribute to the recommended 30 minutes a day. In 2003, only 52.8% of Americans achieved 30 minutes of moderately vigorous activity at least 5 days a week (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation), and approximately 23% of Americans had no leisure-time physical activity within the past month. 5 Some of these physically inactive individuals may have obtained physical activity through non-leisure activities. Because physical inactivity is associated with obesity, premature mortality, and other chronic diseases, a Healthy People 2010 objective aims to decrease the prevalence of no leisure-time physical activity among Americans. 6 Research suggests that the built environment influences physical activity participation, including recreational walking and walking to and from transit A study by Cervero and Radisch 19 compared two San Francisco Bay area communities with similar income levels and transportation services but different commu- Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4) /05/$ see front matter American Journal of Preventive Medicine Published by Elsevier Inc. doi: /j.ampre

80 nity designs. The Rockridge community features compact development and mixed land uses that encourage walking and biking, while the Lafayette community has large-lot tract housing, automobile-oriented developments, and poorly connected streets that are not conducive to walking and biking. Rockridge residents had higher rates of walking or bicycling trips to and from transit and were approximately 5 times more likely to walk or bike to a nonwork destination than Lafayette residents. This study also provided evidence that Rockridge residents were more likely than Lafayette residents to substitute walking or bicycling for automobile trips. Methods The 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) was used to determine the physical activity that Americans obtain solely by walking to and from public transit. The NHTS is a U.S. Department of Transportation telephone-based survey that collects travel-related information about the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population. 20 Households from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were interviewed along with households in nine regions for smaller-scale analyses (Baltimore, Des Moines, Lancaster PA, Kentucky, New York, Texas, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and the island of Oahu). Sample Selection Random-digit dialing was used to ensure an equal probability of sampling among households with telephones. The sampling frame was all telephone numbers in 100 banks of numbers (same first eight digits) that had at least one residential number listed. A systematic sample was taken from the list of telephone numbers after it was sorted by a number of geographic variables. Interviews When addresses were available, households were first contacted with an introductory letter and an incentive. One week after the mailing, households were called to obtain household-level demographics. Except in emancipated households, people aged 18 years were required to complete the household interviews. Households were assigned a 24-hour travel day in which members were to record travel-related information such as trip times, purposes, and modes (in the provided diary). After the assigned travel day, interviewers attempted to contact each household member to collect individual-level demographics, employment information, and travel-day details. Interviewers obtained information about all trips, including trips to school or work, to attend social events, to visit friends or family, to transport someone, to visit the doctor or dentist, and trips to and from public transportation. The Sample Households were included in the final data set if 50% of the household adults completed an interview ( useable household). For the full sample data set (including the nine add-on areas), 32.2% of households completed an interview and were useable, and 91.4% of individuals in useable households completed an interview (29.4% overall person response rate among useable households). This resulted in 69,817 useable households, 105,942 adults, and 54,816 children. Study exclusions. Children aged 18 years were excluded, and only people who walked to and from transit during their assigned travel day were included in the analysis. Because of the NHTS data set limitations, walking trips to and from public transit were excluded if they included a mode other than walking. For example, a walking trip was excluded if someone drove to a parking lot and then walked to transit. Improbable walking trip lengths ( 60 minutes) were also excluded, resulting in the elimination of 0.53% of all walking trips to transit and 3.79% of all walking trips from transit. After restrictions were made, the final sample size was 3312 individuals. Weights The NHTS data set included weights that were used to reduce nonresponse and selection bias for the national sample and the nine add-on regions. To adjust for these biases, weights were based on household characteristics ascertained during incomplete interviews, demographic data available on households not administered the survey, and independent demographic controls provided by 2000 Census data. 21 Weights were also adjusted for multiple telephone lines in a household and for differences in travel by season and day of week. Analyses Descriptive statistics were calculated in 2005 for the entire NHTS sample and for the sample that walked to and from transit (Table 1). For the sample walking to and from transit, all walking trip times to and from transit for 1 day were added together to calculate the total transit-related walking time for each individual. The weighted mean, and 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were calculated for total walking time to and from transit and were stratified by age, education, race/ ethnicity, household income, transit type, population density, and car ownership. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictors of achieving at least 30 minutes of daily physical activity solely by walking to and from transit. The crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and Wald chi-square p values were calculated using weights. SAS, version 9.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC, 2002) and SUDAAN, version 9.0 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park NC, 2004) were used to calculate the weighted estimates. Only SUDAAN was also used to calculate variance-based statistics. Results From the NHTS sample, 3.1% of adults (3312 out of 105,942) walked to and from transit during their assigned travel day, with a mean total walking time of 24.3 minutes and a median time of 19.0 minutes (Table 2 and Figure 1). The median single walking trip time to or from transit was 4.0 minutes, and the sample walked a total of 11,940 separate segments to or from transit. 274 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Number 4

81 Table 1. Demographic comparison of full sample and people who walk to and from transit, 2001 National Household Travel Survey Transit walkers (n 3312) Full Sample (n 105,942) Variable n a Weighted % 95% CI n a Weighted % 95% CI Transit Type b Bus Rail Household income $15, $15,000 34, $35,000 69, $70, Age (years) Education High school degree High school degree Undergraduate c Graduate c Race/ethnicity White African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Other d Gender Male Female Population density e ,000 24, , Household owned car Primary driver Not primary driver No car a Unweighted sample size. b Boat category was eliminated for this analysis because of small numbers. c Completed courses or obtained degree in specified level of education. d Native Americans, Alaskan natives, and mixed races/ethnicities (white and African American, white and Asian). e People per gross square mile, based on census block groups (data source: Claritas). CI, confidence interval. Trip purposes included 38.9% for commuting to work, 14.4% for shopping, 11.4% for family or personal business, 9.0% for school or church activities, 9.0% for social or recreational activities, 5.9% to visit friends, 5.0% to visit a doctor or dentist, 3.3% for work-related trips, and 2.4% for other miscellaneous trips. When the weighted frequencies for the entire NHTS population were compared to the weighted frequencies for the population walking to and from transit, there were significant differences by most variables, including age, income, education, race/ethnicity, gender, and car ownership (Table 1). In particular, there were significantly more individuals in households earning $15,000 among those walking to and from transit, significantly more of the youngest age group among the transit walkers, and significantly more of the oldest age group among the full sample. Among the walkers to and from transit, there were significantly more of the least educated group, fewer whites and more minorities, more females, more individuals living in a population density of 25,000 persons per square mile, and more people living in households without a car. Considerable differences were observed between mean total walking times by income, education, race/ ethnicity, gender, population density, and car ownership, but not by age and transit type (Table 2). When stratified by income, the highest mean total walking time was 29.0 minutes for people in households earning $15,000 a year, and the lowest mean time was 20.5 minutes for people in households earning $70,000 a Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4) 275

82 Table 2. Mean and median total walk times to and from transit and percent who walked 30 minutes to and from transit per day, 2001 National Household Travel Survey Percentiles Median Mean walk time % walked >30 minutes Variable (SE) t-test p value a 25% 50% 75% (SE) Transit type Bus 23.7 (1.01) Ref (1.98) Rail 23.9 (0.82) (1.69) Household income $15, (1.35) <0.001*** (2.99) $15,000 34, (1.87) 0.019* (3.10) $35,000 69, (1.03) (2.59) $70, (1.05) Ref (2.04) Age (years) (1.39) Ref (2.19) (0.93) (2.53) (1.22) (2.77) (1.46) (2.72) Education High school degree 29.3 (1.70) <0.001*** (3.75) High school degree 24.8 (0.95) 0.003** (2.45) Undergraduate b 23.0 (1.22) (2.08) Graduate b 20.6 (1.06) Ref (3.03) Race/ethnicity White 19.4 (0.75) Ref (1.56) African American 25.6 (0.89) <0.001*** (2.15) Asian/Pacific Islander 27.4 (2.12) 0.001** (5.66) Hispanic 29.2 (1.71) <0.001*** (4.00) Other c 29.7 (3.63) 0.006** (4.80) Gender Male 22.7 (0.61) Ref (1.67) Female 25.6 (1.05) 0.016* (1.78) Population density d (1.56) Ref (3.04) (2.03) 0.018* (2.64) 10,000 24, (1.22) 0.006** (2.75) 25, (0.81) <0.0001*** (2.31) Household owned car Primary driver 19.7 (1.00) Ref (2.17) Not primary driver 23.0 (1.33) 0.048* (2.03) No car 28.1 (0.91) <0.001*** (2.28) Total 24.3 (0.66) (1.27) a Testing difference between means in each categorical variable using t-test (between single category level and referent category level). b Completed courses or obtained degree in specified level of education. c Native Americans, Alaskan natives, and mixed races/ethnicities (white and African American, white and Asian, etc.). d People per gross square mile, based on census block groups (data source: Claritas). *p 0.05 (bolded); **p 0.01 (bolded); ***p (bolded). Ref., referent; SE, standard error. year. Compared to people with a graduate-level education (20.6 minutes), people without a high school degree (29.3 minutes), and people who completed high school (24.8 minutes) had significantly higher mean total walking times to and from transit, while people with undergraduate-level education (23.0 minutes) did not have a significantly different mean total walking time. Hispanics (29.2 minutes) and people of other race/ethnicities (29.7 minutes) had the longest mean total walking times, whereas whites had the shortest (19.4 minutes). Compared with men, women had a 2.9-minute greater mean total walking time to and from transit. People living in an area with a population of 4000 to 9999, 10,000 to 24,999, or 25,000 per square mile had significantly higher mean total walking times (24.4, 24.5, and 26.4 minutes, respectively) compared with people living in an area with 4000 people per square mile (18.8 minutes). People who were not primary drivers of a household vehicle (23.0 minutes) or who lived in a household without a car (28.1 minutes) had a significantly higher mean total walk time than primary drivers (19.7 min 276 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Number 4

83 transit (OR 2.01, 95% CI ). People walking 30 minutes to and from transit were significantly more likely to be African American, Hispanic, Asian/ Pacific Islander, or from another race/ethnic category than to be white, and were somewhat (borderline significant association) more likely to live in an area with 4000 to 9999 people per square mile than in an area with 4000 people per square mile (OR 1.63, 95% CI ). Compared to primary drivers of a household vehicle, individuals living in a household with no car were significantly more likely to walk 30 minutes to and from transit (OR 1.66, 95% CI ). Figure 1. Total daily walking trip times to and from transit (n 3312), 2001 National Household Travel Survey. utes). Similar differences were observed among the various categories when median walking times were compared, but the median walking times were lower than the mean walking times in all instances. Bivariate analysis revealed a significant difference in total walking times by income, education, race/ethnicity, population density, and car ownership (Table 3). When compared with people in households earning $70,000 per year, people in households earning $15,000 (OR 2.63, 95% CI ), $15,000 $34,999 (OR 1.75, 95% CI ), and $35,000 $69,999 (OR 1.48, 95% CI ) were significantly more likely to have walked 30 minutes to and from transit. People who did not complete high school were significantly more likely than people with a graduate level education to walk 30 minutes to and from transit (OR 2.08, 95% CI ). When compared with whites, African Americans (OR 2.20, 95% CI ), Asians/Pacific Islanders (OR 3.13, 95% CI ), Hispanics (OR 2.93, 95% CI ), and people of other race/ethnicities (OR 2.93, 95% CI ) were significantly more likely to have walked 30 minutes to and from transit. Individuals living in regions with 25,000 people per square mile were significantly more likely to walk 30 minutes to and from transit compared with people living in regions with 4000 per square mile (OR 1.52, 95% CI ). When compared to individuals who were primary drivers of a household car, individuals who lived in a household without a car were significantly more likely to walk 30 minutes to or from transit (OR 1.97, 95% CI ). In multivariate analysis, transit type, income, race/ ethnicity, and car ownership were significantly associated with walking 30 minutes to and from transit (Table 3). People who walked 30 minutes to and from transit were 1.67 times more likely to use rail than bus (95% CI ). When compared to the highest income group, only the lowest income group was associated with walking 30 minutes to and from Discussion Results from this study suggest that Americans who walk to and from public transit obtain an appreciable amount of daily transit-related physical activity (median of 19 minutes). This study also suggests that 29% of transit walkers achieve 30 minutes of daily physical activity solely by walking to and from transit. Efforts to increase transit accessibility and usage may not only decrease road congestion and air pollution but may have the added health benefit of increasing the proportion of Americans who obtain 30 minutes of daily physical activity. People of lower socioeconomic status (SES) obtained the greatest amount of physical activity by walking to and from transit, while it is this same population that experiences some of the highest levels of obesity. 22 Reasons for more walking among low-income populations could be that they are more likely to live in urban areas with better access to transit or are less likely to own a personal automobile. The Transportation Research Board has reported that people living in households earning $20,000 a year are more likely to use transit than other income groups. 23 Although an association between lower income and decreased car ownership has been found in previous studies, the relation is not always straightforward. 24,25 Cities like Toronto, with wealth levels comparable to U.S. cities, have planning that favors nonautomotive modes of transportation, and their residents use transit at much higher levels. 25 Even though low-income groups obtain higher walk times to and from transit, many other factors influence obesity rates in these populations. Minority groups demonstrated higher walking times to and from transit than whites, but like low-income groups, minorities tend to have the highest obesity rates. 22 The association between race/ethnicity and total walking time remained after controlling for income, which suggests that race/ethnicity alone may be a predictor of walking to and from transit. Previous reports indicate that African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians are more likely to use transit than are whites. 23 Like low-income individuals, minorities may live more Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4) 277

84 Table 3. Characteristics associated with walking to and from transit 30 minutes a day in bivariate and multivariate analysis, 2001 National Household Travel Survey Bivariate analysis a Multivariate analysis b Variable Odds ratio (95% CI) p value Odds ratio (95% CI) p value Transit type Bus Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Rail 1.02 ( ) ( ) 0.002** Household income $15, ( ) <0.001*** 2.01 ( ) 0.004** $15,000 34, ( ) 0.009** 1.34 ( ) $35,000 69, ( ) 0.030* 1.26 ( ) $70,000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Age (years) Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Education High school degree 2.08 ( ) 0.001** 1.03 ( ) High school degree 1.26 ( ) ( ) Undergraduate c 1.05 ( ) ( ) Graduate c Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Race/ethnicity White Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. African American 2.20 ( ) <0.001*** 1.69 ( ) 0.005** Asian/Pacific Islander 3.13 ( ) <0.001*** 2.52 ( ) 0.001** Hispanic 2.93 ( ) <0.001*** 1.88 ( ) 0.007** Other d 2.93 ( ) <0.001*** 2.01 ( ) 0.007** Gender Male Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Female 1.23 ( ) ( ) Population density e 4000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref ( ) ( ) ,000 24, ( ) ( ) , ( ) 0.003** 1.58 ( ) Household owned car Primary driver Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Not primary driver 0.79 ( ) ( ) No car 1.97 ( ) <0.001*** 1.66 ( ) 0.022* *p 0.05 (bolded); **p 0.01 (bolded); ***p (bolded). a Crude association between each single characteristic and total daily walk time of 30 minutes to and from transit. b Adjusted association between variable and total daily walk time of 30 minutes to and from transit, controlling for all other variables simultaneously (n 2926). (SUDAAN R 2 statistic ). c Completed courses or obtained degree in specified level of education. d Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and mixed races/ethnicities (white and African American, white and Asian,etc.). e People per gross square mile, based on census block groups (data source: Claritas). CI, confidence interval; Ref., referent. often than whites in urban areas close to public transportation, resulting in more walking to and from transit than whites. Similar to low-income groups, walking to and from transit is just one of many predictors of obesity among minority groups. In multivariate analysis, transit type also significantly predicted walking 30 minutes to and from transit. Rail users were more likely than bus users to walk 30 minutes to and from transit. It may be that people are willing to walk further or more often to rail stations than to bus stops, which could be a result of the greater demand and preference for rail than bus. 26 Limitations The analyses slightly underestimated the percentage of people walking to and from transit because people who walked and used other modes to and from transit were excluded. Since 5% of all walking trips to and from transit were excluded, the expected effect of these exclusions is small. The exclusion of people claiming that they walked 60 minutes one way to or from transit may have underestimated the percentage of transit walkers or the median total walk time to and from transit. Also, the percentage of low-income indi 278 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Number 4

85 viduals walking to and from transit may have been underestimated since the NHTS only collects information on households with telephones. An additional limitation of the study was the overall low response rate, which was in part a result of the rigorous requirement that 50% of the household adults complete person-level interviews. While the response rate is a limitation of this study, the large sample size and the weighting of the data allow the estimates to more accurately represent the U.S. population. Although the response rate may limit the generalizability of this study, the NHTS provides the best available data with which to estimate how much Americans walk to and from transit. Approximately 72% (9641/11,940) of single-segment walking trips to and from transit were 10 minutes. The Surgeon General currently recommends that Americans obtain physical activity in periods of 10 minutes. 1 It seems likely that physical activity accumulated in periods of 10 minutes would have a positive health benefit compared with no activity. Evidence suggests that men who expend the same total amount of energy during a single episode of physical activity, regardless of whether it was accumulated in durations of 1 to 15 minutes or longer, do not differ in coronary heart disease risk. 27 A related limitation is the lack of data on whether the walking was at least moderately intense. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether the physical activity obtained in this study population qualifies as the Surgeon General s recommended physical activity. Another possible limitation is the accuracy of trip recall after the travel day. To reduce this, diaries were provided for each household member and interviewers only collected data up to 6 days after the travel day. Approximately 62% of the population who walked to and from transit completed their diaries. Inaccuracy of trip reporting was most likely minimized by diary usage and strict interviewing practices. What This Study Adds... Few studies have examined the amount of physical activity associated with use of transit. No estimate exists on the proportion of Americans who achieve the recommended amount of daily physical activity solely by walking to and from transit. This is the first study to examine the physical activity obtained by Americans who walk to and from transit, and the predictors of achieving 30 minutes of transit-related physical activity daily. As obesity rates have increased in the United States, a multidisciplinary approach to promote physical activity has begun that includes targeting aspects of the built environment. 32 Part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention s physical activity recommendations includes environmental policy suggestions that encourage transportation-related physical activity. 33 This study provides some evidence that walking to and from transit can help physically inactive populations (especially minority groups and people of lower socioeconomic status) attain 30 minutes of daily physical activity. Although the exertion level of each walking trip to and from transit was unknown, the walkers in this study obtained physical activity that they may not have otherwise. Improvements to the built environment, such as increased access to public transit, may provide a viable and effective option to promote and maintain active lifestyles. The authors would like to thank Sandra Ham at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention s Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity for her comments and suggestions. No financial conflict of interest was reported by the authors of this paper. Implications and Future Research These results will be helpful for health impact assessment (HIA) studies that look at the impact of proposed public transportation systems on physical activity. HIA is an innovative tool that examines how projects and policies not directly related to health may impact a variety of health outcomes such as obesity, physical activity, injury, health equity, air and water quality, disabilities, mental health, and social capital. 28,29 For example, results from this report are being used to estimate the amount of transit-related walking that would result from a proposed 22-mile, urban light-rail loop in Atlanta. 30 HIA studies may influence choices made by transportation planners and other community decision makers. 31 References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ham S, Yore M, Fulton J, Kohl HI. Prevalence of no leisure-time physical activity 35 states and the District of Columbia, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004;53: Kahn EB, Heath GW, Powell KE, Stone EJ, Brownson RC. Increasing physical activity: a report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50(RR-18): Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity and public health: a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA 1995;273: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Available at: Accessed August 17, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010, vol. II, 2nd ed. Available at: Accessed August 17, Am J Prev Med 2005;29(4) 279

86 7. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 2003;93: Cervero R. Walk and ride: factors influencing pedestrian access to transit. J Public Transportation 2001;3: Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Res Part D 2002;7: Powell KE, Martin LM, Chowdhury PP. Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. Am J Public Health 2003;93: Troped PJ, Saunders RP, Pate RR, Reininger B, Addy CL. Correlates of recreational and transportation physical activity among adults in a New England community. Prev Med 2003;37: Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med 2002;54: Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22: Berrigan D, Troiano R. The association between urban form and physical activity in U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med 2002;23(suppl 2): Huston S, Evenson K, Bors P, Gizlice Z. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot 2003;18: Handy S, Boarnet M, Ewing R, Killingsworth R. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 2002;23: De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis J, Saelens B. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults. Am J Health Promot 2003;18: vanlenthe F, Brug J, Mackenbach J. Neighborhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighborhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 2005;60: Cervero R, Radisch C. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy 1996;3: U.S. Department of Transportation National Household Travel Survey. Available at: Accessed August 17, U.S. Department of Transportation National Household Travel Survey user s guide. Available at: index.shtml. Accessed August 17, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General s call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. Available at: Accessed August 17, Rosenbloom S. Transit markets of the future: the challenge of change. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, Dargay J. The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry. Transportation Res Part A 2001;35: Kenworthy JR, Laube FB. Automobile dependence in cities: an international comparison of urban transport and land use patterns with implications for sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1996;16: Litman T. Rail transit in America: a comprehensive evaluation of benefits. Victoria, BC, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Lee I, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS. Physical activity and coronary heart disease risk in men: does the duration of exercise episodes predict risk? Circulation 2000;102: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Public Health Practice Centre (England). Health impact assessment gateway. Available at: Accessed August 17, Dannenberg AL, Bhatia R, Cole BL, et al. Growing the field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice. Submitted to Am J Public Health (in press). 30. The Beltline Partnership. Friends of the beltline. Available at: org. Accessed May 12, Quigley RJ, Taylor LC. Evaluation as a key part of health impact assessment: the English experience. Bull World Health Org 2003;81: Available at: Accessed August 17, Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Guide to community preventive services. Available at: Accessed August 17, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Promoting healthy eating and physical activity for a healthier nation. Available at: promising_practices/promoting_health/index.htm. Accessed August 17, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Number 4

87 Walkability Audit Tool City: Neighborhood: 1 No facility pedestrians walk on road or dirt path. 1 Major or frequent problems. A. Pedestrian Facilities (High Importance): Presence of a suitable facility, such as a walking path or sidewalk. 3 Paved walkway on one side of road, minor discontinuities that present modest barrier to walking. B. Maintenance (Medium Importance): Buckling pavement, overgrown vegetation, standing water, etc. 3 Occasional 5 Continuous paved walkway on both sides of road or completely separated from roadway. 5 No problems. C. Path Size (Medium Importance): Adequate functional width, taking into account factors such as utility poles and signs within pathway. 1 No walking path or sidewalk 3 Narrow path (<4 width). 5 Wide path (>4 functional width). 1 No buffers from roadway or pedestrians walk in roadway. D. Buffer (Medium Importance): Space separating path from adjacent roadway 3 Moderate buffer (3 from traffic) 5 Not adjacent to roadway. E. Universal Access (Medium Importance): Ease of access for mobility impaired people. Includes ramps for wheelchairs, handrails along steps, etc. 1 Completely impassible to people with impairments. 3 Inaccessible, or inconvenient (e.g., greater travel distance 5 Fully accessible and convenient. F Pedestrian Conflicts (High Importance): Potential for conflict with motor vehicle traffic due to: driveways, high speed and volume traffic, large intersections, poor pedestrian visibility, etc. 1 High conflict potential 3 5 Low conflict potential. G. Crosswalks (High Importance) Presence and visibility of crosswalks at intersecting roads. Traffic signals have functional walk lights that provide sufficient crossing time. 1 Crosswalks not present despite large intersections. 1 Uninviting 3 5 No intersections, or crosswalks are clearly marked H. Aesthetics (Medium Importance): Attractive facilities and conditions create a place that people enjoy. 3 Pleasant neighborhood 5 Very attractive, beautiful neighborhood or in park setting 1 No cover I. Shade/Covering (Low Importance): Amount of shade and rain cover. 3 Moderate cover 5 Full cover Adapted from CDC, Worksite Walkability: Are Your Employees Walking at Work?, Center for Disease Control Page 1 of 2

88 Walkability Audit Tool City: Neighborhood: Calculations Basic Sums Weight Factor Totals Sum of High Importance Factors (A, F, G) x 3 Sum of Medium Importance Factors (B-E, H) x 2 Sum of Low Importance Factor (I) x 1 Total Score /100 Adapted from CDC, Worksite Walkability: Are Your Employees Walking at Work?, Center for Disease Control Page 2 of 2

89 Walkability Checklist How walkable is your community? Take a walk with a child and decide for yourselves. Everyone benefits from walking. These benefits include: improved fitness, cleaner air, reduced risks of certain health problems, and a greater sense of community. But walking needs to be safe and easy. Take a walk with your child and use this checklist to decide if your neighborhood is a friendly place to walk. Take heart if you find problems, there are ways you can make things better. Getting started: First, you'll need to pick a place to walk, like the route to school, a friend's house or just somewhere fun to go. The second step involves the checklist. Read over the checklist before you go, and as you walk, note the locations of things you would like to change. At the end of your walk, give each question a rating. Then add up the numbers to see how you rated your walk overall. After you've rated your walk and identified any problem areas, the next step is to figure out what you can do to improve your community's score. You'll find both immediate answers and long-term solutions under "Improving Your Community's Score..." on the third page. U.S. Department of Transportation Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

90 Take a walk and use this checklist to rate your neighborhood's walkability. How walkable is your community? Location of walk Rating Scale: awful many some good very good excellent problems problems 1. Did you have room to walk? Yes Some problems: Sidewalks or paths started and stopped Sidewalks were broken or cracked Sidewalks were blocked with poles, signs, shrubbery, dumpsters, etc. No sidewalks, paths, or shoulders Too much traffic Something else Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Was it easy to cross streets? Yes Some problems: Road was too wide Traffic signals made us wait too long or did not give us enough time to cross Needed striped crosswalks or traffic signals Parked cars blocked our view of traffic Trees or plants blocked our view of traffic Needed curb ramps or ramps needed repair Something else Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Did drivers behave well? Yes Some problems: Drivers... Backed out of driveways without looking Did not yield to people crossing the street Turned into people crossing the street Drove too fast Sped up to make it through traffic lights or drove through traffic lights? Something else Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Was it easy to follow safety rules? Could you and your child... Yes No Cross at crosswalks or where you could see and be seen by drivers? Yes No Stop and look left, right and then left again before crossing streets? Yes No Walk on sidewalks or shoulders facing traffic where there were no sidewalks? Yes No Cross with the light? Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Was your walk pleasant? Yes Some unpleasant things: Needed more grass, flowers, or trees Scary dogs Scary people Not well lighted Dirty, lots of litter or trash Dirty air due to automobile exhaust Something else Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) How does your neighborhood stack up? Add up your ratings and decide Celebrate! You have a great 2. neighborhood for walking Celebrate a little. Your 4. neighborhood is pretty good Okay, but it needs work It needs lots of work. You deserve Total better than that It's a disaster for walking! Now that you've identified the problems, go to the next page to find out how to fix them.

91 Now that you know the problems, you can find the answers. Improving your community's score Did you have room to walk? Sidewalks or paths started and stopped Sidewalks broken or cracked Sidewalks blocked No sidewalks, paths or shoulders Too much traffic 2. Was it easy to cross streets? Road too wide Traffic signals made us wait too long or did not give us enough time to cross Crosswalks/traffic signals needed View of traffic blocked by parked cars, trees, or plants Needed curb ramps or ramps needed repair 3. Did drivers behave well? Backed without looking Did not yield Turned into walkers Drove too fast Sped up to make traffic lights or drove through red lights 4. Could you follow safety rules? What you and your child can do immediately pick another route for now tell local traffic engineering or public works department about specific problems and provide a copy of the checklist pick another route for now share problems and checklist with local traffic engineering or public works department trim your trees or bushes that block the street and ask your neighbors to do the same leave nice notes on problem cars asking owners not to park there pick another route for now set an example: slow down and be considerate of others encourage your neighbors to do the same report unsafe driving to the police What you and your community can do with more time speak up at board meetings write or petition city for walkways and gather neighborhood signatures make media aware of problem work with a local transportation engineer to develop a plan for a safe walking route push for crosswalks/signals/ parking changes/curb ramps at city meetings report to traffic engineer where parked cars are safety hazards report illegally parked cars to the police request that the public works department trim trees or plants make media aware of problem petition for more enforcement request protected turns ask city planners and traffic engineers for traffic calming ideas ask schools about getting crossing guards at key locations organize a neighborhood speed watch program Cross at crosswalks or where you could see and be seen educate yourself and your child encourage schools to teach walking Stop and look left, right, left before crossing about safe walking safely Walk on sidewalks or shoulders facing traffic organize parents in your help schools start safe walking Cross with the light neighborhood to walk children to programs school encourage corporate support for flex schedules so parents can walk children to school 5. Was your walk pleasant? Needs grass, flowers, trees Scary dogs Scary people Not well lit Dirty, litter Lots of traffic A Quick Health Check point out areas to avoid to your child; agree on safe routes ask neighbors to keep dogs leashed or fenced report scary dogs to the animal control department report scary people to the police report lighting needs to the police or appropriate public works department take a walk wih a trash bag plant trees, flowers in your yard select alternative route with less traffic request increased police enforcement start a crime watch program in your neighborhood organize a community clean-up day sponsor a neighborhood beautification or tree-planting day begin an adopt-a-street program initiate support to provide routes with less traffic to schools in your community (reduced traffic during am and pm school commute times) Could not go as far or as fast as we wanted start with short walks and work up get media to do a story about the Were tired, short of breath or had sore feet or muscles to 30 minutes of walking most days health benefits of walking Was the sun really hot? invite a friend or child along call parks and recreation department Was it hot and hazy? walk along shaded routes where about community walks possible encourage corporate support for use sunscreen of SPF 15 or higher, employee walking programs wear a hat and sunglasses plant shade trees along routes try not to walk during the hottest time of day have a sun safety seminar for kids have kids learn about unhealthy ozone days and the Air Quality Index (AQI)

92 Need some guidance? These resources might help... Great Resources WALKING INFORMATION Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) UNC Highway Safety Research Center 730 Airport Road, Suite 300 Campus Box 3430 Chapel Hill, NC Phone: (919) National Center for Bicycling and Walking Campaign to Make America Walkable st Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC Phone: (800) 760-NBPC WALK TO SCHOOL DAY WEB SITES USA event: International: STREET DESIGN AND TRAFFIC CALMING Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program HSR Georgetown Pike McLean,VA Institute of Transportation Engineers Surface Transportation Policy Project Transportation for Livable Communities WALKING COALITIONS America Walks P.O. Box Portland, Oregon Phone: (503) Partnership for a Walkable America National Safety Council 1121 Spring Lake Drive Itasca, IL Phone: (603) PEDESTRIAN SAFETY National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Programs 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC Phone: (202) National SAFE KIDS Campaign 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202) WALKING AND HEALTH US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Children's Health Protection (MC 1107A) Washington, DC Phone: Fax: President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity Phone: (888) Prevention Magazine 33 East Minor Street Emmaus, PA Shape Up America! 6707 Democracy Boulevard Suite 306 Bethesda, MD ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS US Access Board 1331 F Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC Phone: (800) ; (800) (TTY)

93 Long Range Transportation Planning Study Comment Card 04/14/08 Name: Susan M. Stuart, MA, MPH Address: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Nutrition & Wellness, 976 Lenzen Avenue, Room #1120, San Jose, CA Meeting attended: April 8, 2008, St. James Senior Center The Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Wellness and Nutrition Section recommends that the VTA includes an evaluation of accessibility to mass transit in its long range transportation planning study. There are a number of ways in which a well-designed transportation system can help to create a healthy community and access is a key ingredient of good planning. People who use mass transit and walk and bike to destinations on a regular basis are exercising without being conscious of it. Routine moderate physical activity can help to reduce the level of obesity, an increasingly important health condition that is connected to a number of chronic conditions including: hypertension, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, and some cancers. Physical activity can also help to reduce feelings of depression and anxiety and help to build bones. Well designed and complete sidewalks, safe cross walks, traffic calming measures, pedestrian lighting, bike racks, and covered bus shelters are necessary to encourage walking and increase mass transit ridership. People are more likely to walk and to use mass transit if the barriers to safe walking are reduced. This is true in all neighborhoods, but it is particularly important for low income people, youth, the elderly, and the disabled who are less likely to drive and to be more dependent on public transit. As part of the long-range study, we encourage VTA to sponsor walkability audits to help involve the public, particularly youth, in identifying the barriers to walking and biking (and connecting to mass transit). Audits would serve as a way to educate planners about neighborhood issues as well as educate the public about transportation options Other design issues, which are connected to public health, are access to grocery stores and clinics. Many people live in neighborhoods without easy access to healthy, affordable food and health care. We ask that you consider issues of connectivity to supermarkets, farmers markets, clinics and hospitals when you consider stops and new routes.

94

95 Page 1 ofl Bobadilla, Lauren From: Sent: To: jacob ohlhausen Uakeohlhausen@gmail.com] Friday, June 06, :46 PM LRPTS-Program -EIR Subject: Re: LRTPS Meeting Hello Mr. Fitzwater, I'm writing you concerning the Long Range Transportation Plan public meeting on June 3. I was unable to attend the meeting and I was wondering ifvta planned on having any more in the future or if any minutes from the meeting were kept and will be made available. Also, the first time the meeting came to my attention was May 29th and this didn't provide me with enough time to change my schedule to attend. In the future, may I suggest aruiouncing the meeting time as early as possible to take citizen's time constraints into account. thank you for your time, Jacob Ohlhausen 6/23/2008

96 '0 _ Pagelofl Bobadilla, lauren From: Sent: To: Kathrin Turner [KTurner@valleywater.org) Tuesday, June 10, :38 AM LRPTS-Program -EIR Subject: FW: Notice of Preparation of the Long Range Transportation Planning Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Fitzwater, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff recently senta letter (see attachment) and a spreadsheet indicating which facilities may be impacted by the Draft Long Range Transportation Planning Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please respond to the comments addressed in the letter. If you have any questions. please contact me at the number below. 5-1 Thank you for send the Draft EIR. We look forward to review the Final EIR when it becomes available. Thank you, Kathrin A. kturner@yalleywater.org Assistant Engineer II Santa Clara Valley Water District Community Projects Review Unit 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA if Phone (408) ext ~ Fax (408)

97 =~~-,. 5~EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA TELEPHONE (408) FACSIMILE (408) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Comment Letter 5 File: Various April 28, 2008 Mr. Thomas Fitzwater Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Environmental Programs and Resources Management st 3331 N 1 Street, Building B2 San Jose, CA Subject: Notice of Preparation of the Long Range Transportation Planning Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Fitzwater: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff has reviewed your request for the identification of District facilities to be used in preparation for the Long Range Transportation Planning Strategy Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), received on March 12, Per District Ordinance 06-01, any proposed work which affects a District facility or within any District right of way (easement & fee title), is subject to review and issuance of a District permit. Enclosed for your information are spreadsheets listing District facilities potentially affected by the proposed project areas. Proposed projects not impacting District facilities have been labeled "O.K". For project titles labeled "Not Clear", it could not be determined with the information provided if the project will potentially affect any District facilities or right-of-way. Please provide a clearer description of the proposed locations so that we can properly determine which District facilities or right-of-way are impacted. Please be aware that the District is currently in the planning stages for future improvements to various creeks within the County and cooordination between the District and your agency will be required so that the proposed project will not impact any District projects. Also, any bridge construction work should not negatively alter the existing hydraulics of the channels Please provide the information requested above and copies of the Draft (ErR) when available. If 5-5

98 Mr. Thomas Fitzwater Page 2 April 28, 2008 you have any questions or need further information, please contact Kathrin Turner at (408) , extension Please reference File No on any future correspondence regarding this project. 5-5 Cont. Sincerely, ~/)J. 0~ JIie Garcia Student Intern Community Projects Review Unit Enclosures: Excel Spreadsheets Indicating District Facilities or Right-of-way cc: S. Tippets, B. Goldie, K. Turner, J. Garcia, File (2) 31795_50513kt04-28

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107 Bobadilla, Lauren From: Sent: To: Subject: Thomas Aihie Thursday, June 112,20082:11 PM LRPTS-Program I-EIR Review of CEQAi(File#SCL000193) Hydraulics Branch has reviewed your proposed projects and at this stage of these projects we have no comment. 1

108 Countyof Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department VTA r~1\ 'J 'i. p,nalysis 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, California 95 J J0- J302 (408) June 16, 2008 Mr. Tom Fitzwater Environmental Programs & Resources Mgmt. Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Environmental Programs & Resources Management 3331 N. 1st Street, Building B-2 San Jose, CA Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The Long Range Transportation Planning Strategy (LRTPS). Dear Mr. Fitzwater, Your May 6, 2008 letter along with the attachments for the subject project have been reviewed. We have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at cc: Dawn Cameron, Consultant Colleen Oda, Planner, Santa Clara County AP, MA, WRL, File Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras, Jr.,-<>0'

109 Making San Francisco Bay Better er..... V'JA ""NV. ANAL'r'i,S/:S. June ]7, JUNr q A ro: 54 Tom Fitzwater, Project Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B-2 San Jose, California SUBJECT: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for t]p.e Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan (PEIR) Dear Mr. Fitzwater: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan (PEIR). The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC or Commission) has not reviewed the PEIR, but the following st"ff comments are based on the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) as amended through November , the McAteer-Petris Act, and staff review of the PEIR. Jurisdiction. BCDC jurisdiction includes Bay waters up to!the shoreline, and the land area between the shoreline and the line 100 feet upland and parallth to the shoreline, which is defined as the Commission's 100-foot "shoreline band" jurisdiction. The shoreline is located at the mean high tide line, except in marsh areas, where the sholleline is located at five feet above mean sea level. An essential part of BCDC's regulatory frame"1'vork is the Commission's Bay Plan. The Bay Plan includes findings and policies that direct the Commission's review of proposed projects and priority land use designations for certain areas around the Bay to ensure that sufficient areas around the Bay are reserved for important water-oriented uses such as ports, water-related industry, parks, and wildlife areas. The most relevant findings and policies for the NOP are the Bay Plan's transportation findings and pdlicies. Bay Fill, Public Access and Sea Level Rise. As the PEIR is ell program EIR the comments in this letter will refer to the broader intent of the PEIR and not to the specific projects that may be contained within the Plan. This letter should not be considered an endorsement of individual projects, which will be reviewed separately for conformance with the Commission's laws and policies. Briefly, projects proposed within the Commission's jlllrisdiction should avoid all unnecessary fill in the Bay, include maximum feasible public qlccess consistent with the project and consider the effects of future sea level rise on location anq design of projects. The projects will be reviewed for consistency with the Commission's Bay F,lan and the Bay Plan's transportation policies, which stress the importance of altemajtive forms of transportation to the single-occupant vehicle, and the need for non-motorized acce$s to accompany new transportation projects. Also, the transportation findings state~ in part, that roads are not wateroriented uses and, therefore, cannot be permitted on fill in the Bay. State of California SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 50 California Street, Suite 2600' San Francisco. California (415) Fax: (415) info@bcdc.ca.gov

110 Tom Fitzwater June 17, 2008 Page 2 Comments on the PEIR. BCDC staff has reviewed the PEIl*- and appreciates the VTA's focus on expanding the public transportation opportunities and improving the bicycle and pedestrian connections. The VTA should also consider developing partnerships with other transportation providers and counties to develop a Bay Area wide HOT lane network to ensure the people in the Bay Area have an efficient way to travel in these lanes on Bus Rapid Transit, carpool and by paying to enter the lanes throughout the region. For all projeqts within BCDC's jurisdiction, please refer to the above comments and to the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or any other matter, please contact me by phone at (415) or lindyl@bcdc.ca.gov. :::::LDd Q~ LINDY L. LOWE Senior Planner LL/gg ----._ _.._.

111 Planning Division 2001 LL ~- -" June 19, 2008 Mr. Thomas W. Fitzwater Environmental Programs and Resources Management Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 333 I N. First Street, Building B-2 San Jose, CA Re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) - City of Santa Clara comments on Draft PEIR Dear Mr. Fitzwater, Thank your for including the City of Santa Clara in the review of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for VTA's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Planning Division and Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the document and have the following comments: u: List of Major ($5M+) Projects It appears that the City of Santa Clara could potentially be involved in additional projects listed in the LRTP. Please include the City of Santa Clara in the Jurisdictional Location column in the LRTP List of Major ($5M+) Projects as reflected below. Page # ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 ES-6 ES-7 Project Mineta San Jose International Airport APM Connector U.S. 101lMontague Improvements I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Blvd. Interchange Improvements San Thomas Box Culvert Central - 6 lanes Lawrence to San Thomas and San Thomas - 8 Lanes Williams to El Camino Real z This list of Major Projects is repeated on pages 2-4 through Please update this list appropriate. Biologic Resources, Chapter 5 Chapter 5 discusses Native and Heritage Tree Ordinances on page 5-9. Although the City of Santa Clara does not have an adopted ordinance regarding Heritage Trees, the City does maintain a list of protected trees. It is unclear at this point whether or not the proposed transportation projects could impact any of the protected trees. Please note that the City of Santa Clara would like to review any impacts to trees on the City's list of protected trees at the specific project review stage. as en 1:IPLANNINGlENVIRONIOulside Agency Env DocslVTA LRTP PEIRlcommenl letteldoc 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA [408) FAX (408) WoNW.ci.santa-clara.ca.u5

112 Again, thank you for including the City of Santa Clara in the review process for the Draft Program ErR for the LRTP. We look forward to working with you in the future. City Planner CC: Kevin Riley, Director of Planning Rajeev Batra, Director of Public Works/City Engineer I:\PLANNING\ENVIRON\Outside Agency Env Docs\VTA LRTP PEIR\comment Jetter.doc

113 Bobadilla. Lauren From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillie Ware Thursday, June 1!9, :38 PM LRPTS-Program i-eir City of Santa Clata Draft PEIR SKMBT_C pdf Mr. Thomas W. Fitzwater, Please review attached document of Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Long Range TranspoItation Plan (LRTP) - City of Santa Clara comments on Draft PEIR.. Thank you, Lillie Ware Lillie Ware Office Specialist IV Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA lware@santaclaraca.gov Contractor 1

114 Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNI~G; ; Jun :07PM; Page 1/1,," i ". ' :::ARc;.::-==r!loTU:;~~UoI.:OiWl.l:lilig~AQlQoil.Il"iN/oItl,IoLbyL"~" --'-_...!lat41rnulq.!!or,~d~schi!~ G,9~~GO~lWOl.t a P.O. BOX I OAI\l..AND, CA ! PHONE (510) i!fia- yourpower! FAJ{(610) Bil ensrlti efficient! TTY 711 June 19, 2008 SCL-GEN SCLOOO193 : SCH Mr. Tom Fitzwater I Santa Clara Vaney Transportation tuthority 3331 North First Street, B-2. San Jose, CA I i Dear Mr. Fitzwater: I Long Range Transportation Plan - Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) Thank you for continuing to includethe California Department of Transportation (Depart~~t) in the environmental review procesk for the proposed project. We have reviewed the DPEIR and have the following comments to offer. ' Community Planning,, The Department suggests that the Long Range Tmnsportation Plan (LRTP) include either ~,, distinct pedestrian element ora combined bicycle and pedestrian element a..~ a means of drawing attention to and addressing,ali modes of transportation. Including and clarifying these specific elements in the LRTP will ensure that all modes of transportation are equally represented within Santa Clara County. Highway Operations '.' ' The DPEIR for the LRTP intends to serve the regional mobility needs to year TheLRTP includes over 300 programmatic transportation projects. The Department wou,ld like to receive and review all environmental project documents as they are completed.. Additional conunents, if any. from our other reviewing units will be fotwurded as soon asjhey are received. ' Should you require further infonnation or have any questions regarding this letter. please call Jose L. Olveda of my staff at (510) ' Sincerely. ~~~ USA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovcrnrrfntal Review c: Scott Morgan (State ClearinghOU~e) Ocattrs impro/j~s mdbility acrobb CalifOmi.tJD l

115 Friday, June 20, :26 AM To: Thomas W. Fitzwater From: Eugene Bradley, Page: 2 of 3 SANTA CLARA VTA P,O. Box 39006P, Mountain Vi(!\",', CA phont! (408) \<\', \'lal'i d.['i}!j!ion.nrg/ Jline 20, 2008 Thomas W. Fitzwater Environmental Rl;.'Sources.Plannitng Mgr. VTA Environmental Planning 3331 North First Street, BuildingiB2 San Jose, CA ' Dear Mr. Fitzwater: This letter outlines our group's iljput for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's long range transportation plan, known as VTP One serious cnncern our group hfls on VTP 2035 is the cu rrent doc'ume.nt:ed cost of the proposed BART to Silicon Valley project m~ntioned in VTP It is noted in meetings of VfP 2035 back in May that the project currently co!'ts $6.1 billion. This is a 65'K, increase from the original $3.7 billion cost of the project VTA promised! as part of ~vl'e1ls\lrt' A back in As you know, voters approved Measun~ A back in 2000 by a 70{~;) margin. 1n addition to the BART project, Measure A promised trai!lsit gonls like,1 "75()",bus fk'd" and a light rail extension to Eastridge Mall in San Jose. Yet, despite a state budge't deficit of up to $20 billion, a federal deficit' in trillions of dollars due to the Iraq! war, and gasoline due to be $5!gallon next week, VIA c()ntimt(~s to focus its energy and over $400imilliol1 of OIl r tax do]]a.rs on the BART project since WorSt', I have personally heard from Cou.lHy Supervisor Il1anC<"l Alvarado that VTA plans to cancel the proposed light rail extension to ~stridgemall Gri'lnt\.,d the Eastridge Mall extensi()n, at over $30[) milli(m dollars, would only gene~atean <tdditiona.ll,500 riders so if:; benefit is questionable. However, by breaking promises IJo voters, VTA is setting itself up for future Si.ll(~s tax defeats. To that end, Out' group wants to Sl;'e the following from VTP 2035: Full funding of bus and light rail servke operations. VTA cannot afford another fan; hike and/or service cut just as tidership on buse!i and trains has increased du(' to gas prices. While the cost of diesel for buses has increased, another fare inu'c'i;ls{' and/or service reduction would drive commu.ters right back to solo driving - just as the Valley is discovering it' has buses and trains as an alternative to driving and high gas prin s. Expansion of express an!llocal bus services. Ac:cording to VTA's latest numbers, over 70'Yr. of the Valley's public trantjj, ridership uses the bus. Even with the introduction of t:xpanded express bus service to GiL~ov and I~l'emont fwin San rose as DBrt of VTA's bur restructufrlll!

116 Friday, June 20, :26 AM To: Thomas Wi. Fitzwater From: Eugene Bradley, Page: 3 of 3 S~reIY, leeb back in January, VTA ~emoved nearly 40 nlsh-hour service busi;'s from service. VTA needs to put top priority inf~ expanding express bus service along corridors like San Tomas Expressway. VTA ajsb needs to put tup priority for having rapid bus st!rvice along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Caplitol Expn'ssway, and Monterey liighway, similar to the successful 522 rapid bus line along E~ Camino [{eal. A :reopening of the Mj!jor Investment Study (MIS) process that permits for cheaper alternatives to the prqposed BART extension. Such cheaper alternatives -like the commuter rai11ine fro~ Fremont to San Jose approved by voters as part ofme<lsuri;~ A in 19% but llever materihlized - Ciln give commuters alternatives to solo driving and $5/gallon gasoline faster than t~ 10 years or more to build a BART line, At over $365 million/mile for the proposed BART e#ension to the Vi111ey, one can easily purchase 250 hybrid-fuel buses from Gillig or NABI ~imilar to buses San Francisco recently deployed - and mn. tht~m throughout the count)[ from one year. The money saved from a dwilper alternative to BART can easily fund lall of the above mentioned. Rising gas prkes, state and fe lerai budget deficits, Elnd increasing transit ridership suggest it is time to n think 2000 Measure A and prioritize VIP 2035 <H:cordingLy. Your writt,,~n re,sponse to our suggestions is appreciated C;~~(g~J2v' Eugene Bradley 0 Founder, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union

117 Friday, June 20, :26 AM To: Thomas W! Fitzwater From: Eugene Bradley, Page: 1 of 3 Fax Name: Eugene Bradley Company: Voice Number: Fax Number: Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 Total Pages: 3 Subject: VTP 2035 Input Name: Thomas W. Fitzwater Company: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Author Voice Number: Fax Number: (408) Note: Please forward to Mr. Thomas Fitzwater ASAP. This is input to VTP 2035.

118 Bobadilla, Lauren From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bruce England Friday, June 20, :00 PM LRPTS-Program:-E1R Bobadilla, Lauren; DeRobertis, Michelle Re: VTA's Long R.ange Transportation Plan Draft Program Envlronmentallmpact Report RouteEndPointsOn StreetsNoted.jpg ProposedRGutB,s.Ill MVbikeMlIp.jpg 9 Hello Mr. Fitzwater et al; I like to make a request for an additional project to be considered that does not appear on the curremt libt of major projecte provided with the LRTP materials. Note that this suggestion was raised as part of the Mountain View General Plan update public meeting process and will also be included in recommendations submitted to the Mountain View City Council by the Mountain View Environmental Sustainability Task Force ( currently in Mountain View, adequate bike/pedestrian paths linking the Whisman Road/Whisman Station area to the intersection of Grant Road and &1 Camino Real do not exist (see RouteEndPointsOnMVbikeMap.jpg attached). However, I have identified two potential additions to the networks of paths that could help to improve this situation. In the attached file ProposedRoutes.jpg (see also StreetsNoted.jpg for the same aerial view with streets and other details noted for your reference), the red line shows how a route could run from the Dana Street overpass at Highway 237 (at point 1) along the top of the 237 shoulder southwest past Pioneer Street (where an additional or alternative route, shown in orange) could be established. The route could run under Highway 85 (at point 2) (some space would have to be cleared to accommodate, but it appears to be manageable). Then the route could interch.nge with the Stevens Creek Trail (dotted lines and a solid cyan line show the connections with that trail). From that point, the new route could continue southwest within the cloverleaf and then either an overpass or underpass would allow the route to continue until it reaches Grant Road and EI Camino (at point 3). I'm still working on this recommendation for the Task Force, so the attached mock-ups are rough, and details still need some fleshing out, but I wanted to be sure to get this to you by your deadline for LRTP comments. I also have some photos of the area to show ground-level conditions, but those aren't included here to keep the message size reasonable. Note that the Task Force will be submitting a number of transit related recommendations in August, and several of them will overlap with VTA jurisdictions and processes, so you might want to be in the loop with us, especially as we get closer to the Fall of Thanks for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me for further information, details, or questions, Bruce England 328 Whisman Station Drive Mountain View, CA

119

120

121