Item 14 - VTA and State Route 85 Corridor
PREPARED BY: Matt Morley
Parks and Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/20/2019 ITEM NO: 14
DATE: August 15, 2019
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide direction on a Town position with respect to the Valley
Transportation Authority study of the State Route 85 Corridor
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction on a Town position with respect to the Valley Transportation Authority study
of the State Route 85 Corridor.
BACKGROUND:
Under guidance of the State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board for the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), staff from the VTA have been advancing towards a study of
alternatives for the future use of the median island along SR 85 from US 101 in Mountain View
to SR 87.
Although the original vision for the median island was the continuation of light rail service, the
costs and low ridership of that transit alternative have caused it to fall out of favor. At the last
Advisory Board meeting on July 2, 2019 this option was removed from further study.
DISCUSSION:
VTA staff has been working with the Advisory Board to identify the scope of the study. Over the
course of a number of meetings, that scope has been narrowed significantly.
At the July 2, 2019 meeting, the Advisory Board identified a number of components important
to the project. These include:
• Construct minimal stations – stations have been deemed too expensive and frequent
stops create increased headway.
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: Provide direction on a Town position with respect to the Valley Transportation Authority study of the State Route 85 Corridor DATE: August 15, 2019
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Avoid right of way challenges – procuring property would drive up the costs. This would
limit the addition of park and ride lots and station stops. This goal also allows for care in
impacting private property.
• Prioritize speed over capacity for new lanes – this leads to one option that limits access
to high occupancy or transit vehicles as a trade off to an express lane option.
• Plan limited public transit – due to likely demand and cost challenges, public transit
would run infrequently with the bulk of use in a transit option dedicated to private
shuttles.
• Anticipate long transit routes - Public transit would collect passengers at the beginning
of the route and drop them at the end with few stops in between. This is similar to the
Express Bus Model that VTA currently operates.
At the same Advisory Board hearing three recommendations were made for inclusion in the
study. These are provided diagrammatically as Attachment 1.
No build option – This would maintain the status quo for the corridor with no change. This
option is included in the study to set a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives.
Express lanes – This option would construct express lanes in the median, with one additional
lane southbound and one additional lane northbound from SR 87 to I-280. The existing high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would also be converted to express lanes, resulting in two
express lanes in each direction. The lanes north of I-280 would be converted from HOV to
express lanes with no addition of additional lanes. Express lanes would be open to HOV use
aligned with established standards and to single occupancy vehicles for a fee based on
congestion levels and distances travelled.
Long transit lane – This option would add an additional lane from US 101 in Mountain View to
SR 87 and dedicate it to transit, including VTA Express Bus service and private shuttles. The
existing HOV lane would be converted to an express lane. This option would likely require
freeway widening from US 101 to I-280 to accommodate the additional lane. The need to
widen the freeway and the potential impact would be analyzed through the study.
A further option, called the Short Transit Lane, which would build a transit lane between I-280
and SR 87 was discarded as not desirable as it did not extend northward into the employment
areas near US 101.
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: Provide direction on a Town position with respect to the Valley Transportation Authority study of the State Route 85 Corridor DATE: August 15, 2019
DISCUSSION (continued):
The Cupertino City Council discussed this topic and provided a letter (Attachment 2) to VTA
setting forward their preferences. Note that, although the letter states that an additional lane
should be “closed to public vehicles,” it was meant to say, “closed to private automobiles.”
Staff has provided a draft letter (Attachment 3) for Council consideration to provide input to
VTA leading up to the SR 85 study.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Town Council could provide additional input, change the input as provided, or choose to
not provide input at this time.
CONCLUSION:
Approval of this item will result in the draft letter being sent to the recipients identified in the
letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
COORDINATION:
This report has been coordinated with the VTA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
Attachments:
1. Diagram of Study Options
2. Cupertino Letter
3. Draft Letter
No Project Alternative (Express Lanes)Attachment AI‐280 to SR 87South of SR 87← Express Lane (new)Express Lane (new) →Capital Cost:MediumTimeline:Near‐termPerson Throughput:HighEstimated Transit Lane Speed: Not ApplicableRight‐of‐way Impacts: None ExpectedRevenue Generation: HighMedianMedianGeneral Use →Express Lane (conversion from HOV) →General Use →This alternative would convert the existing HOV lane on SR 85 into an Express Lane and build a new express lane between I‐280 and SR 87. Express lane revenues could be used to fund public transit operations in the corridor.North of I‐280← General Use← General Use← Express Lane (conversion from HOV)ATTACHMENT 1
Long Transit Lane AlternativeAttachment AI‐280 to SR 87 South of SR 87Capital Cost: HighTimeline: Medium‐termPerson Throughput: Medium‐HighEstimated Transit Lane Speed: MaximumRight‐of‐way Impacts: Possible north of I‐280Revenue Generation: MediumTransit Lane (new) →MedianThis alternative would convert the existing HOV lane on SR 85 into an Express Lane and build a new transit lane between US 101 in Mountain View and SR 87. Public transit and shuttles would be able to use the transit lane. Adding two new lanes in north of I‐280 may have right of way impacts. Stations would be located at El Camino Real and Stevens Creek Blvd.North of I‐280← General Use← General Use← Express Lane (conversion from HOV)Express Lane (conversion from HOV) →General Use →General Use →← Transit Lane (new)
Short Transit Lane AlternativeAttachment AI‐280 to SR 87 South of SR 87← Transit Lane (new)Transit Lane (new) →Capital Cost: MediumTimeline: Near‐termPerson Throughput: MediumEstimated Transit Lane Speed: MaximumRight‐of‐way Impacts: None ExpectedRevenue Generation: MediumMedianMedianExpress Lane (conversion from HOV) →General Use →General Use →← General Use← Express Lane (conversion from HOV)This alternative would build a new transit lane between I‐280 and SR 87. Public transit and shuttles would be eligible to use the transit lane. The existing HOV lane would be converted to an express lane. Express lane revenues could be used to fund public transit operation in the corridor.← General UseNorth of I‐280
June 22, 2019
To the members of the VTA Board of Directors and the VTA SR 85 Policy Advisory
Board,
This letter is regarding the work of the State Route 85 Policy Advisory Board (“SR 85
PAB”) on behalf of the City Council of the City of Cupertino (“Council”) to support the
Board’s progress while making recommendations on a preferred alternative.
The Council recently discussed the status of the SR 85 PAB and discussed the various
alternatives presented by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff at
the April 2019 workshop held at Community Hall in Cupertino.
While the Council supports a high-capacity, high-speed transit project along this
corridor, it is concerned with the direction of the initial proposed alternatives, including
the assumption from the Travel Market Analysis suggesting a low projected ridership
due to demographics and land use patterns of the west valley.
This corridor is congested mostly due to the lack of affordable housing near job centers,
with growing employee commute times while employees continue to move further from
job centers in search of adequate housing. Proposed State Laws such as SB-50 and SB330,
if enacted, will exacerbate displacement of low-income workers further from Silicon
Valley job centers to communities with lower housing costs. Demographics of the
neighborhoods immediately surrounding SR 85 are less relevant, as a high-speed and
frequent transit service will attract riders from a greater catchment area if it is time
competitive with driving.
It is worth noting that two Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Communities of Concern are located in close proximity to this corridor, both near SR 85
and US 101 at its southern junction. Also worth considering is that Morgan Hill and
Gilroy are the fastest growing cities in Santa Clara County with the most building
permits issued according to MTC data.
Light rail already exists in the CA 85 median from CA 87 to Santa Teresa. When CA 85
was extended from Stevens Creek Boulevard to US101, space was reserved in the
ATTACHMENT 2
median for light rail. While light rail may not be the most cost-effective solution for the
remainder of this corridor, three of the proposed alternatives presented by VTA staff are
for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) toll lanes or carpool lanes and are not transit project
alternatives. Converting the median of CA 85 into more vehicle lanes does not serve the
long-term transit interests of Santa Clara County.
Specifically, the Council supports the following:
1. A physically separated transit guideway for high-capacity transit vehicles,
with travel speeds comparable to rail, not for use by public vehicles, with the
exception of corporate shuttles, which would pay a fee to use the guideway
to subsidize a public transit service in the corridor. We would also like VTA
to explore bringing corporations into the process early to provide partial
funding for such a guideway in exchange for future fee offsets.
2. Sufficient bicycle capacity to address “the last mile.” Caltrain is a good
example of the need to accommodate large numbers of bicycles because there
is often no public transit alternative for commuters to travel from their home
to the transit station or from the transit station to their destination. This is
even more critical given continued cuts to VTA’s bus service coverage.
3. Fewer stations (3-5) to allow transit service time to be competitive with car
travel during peak commutes, with minimal dwell time at stations. These
stations will allow transfers to/from local ride share and other shuttle
services, as well as to existing and planned bicycle infrastructure such as
protected bicycle lanes and multi-use paths.
The Council opposes the following:
1. Freeway widening for Diamond or Express lanes: adding capacity for low-
occupancy vehicles will not provide adequate capacity to address our traffic
challenges and may lead to increased congestion in neighboring
communities, particularly, for example, if the freeway is widened south of
Cupertino but not to the north; and
2. No stations in the corridor, or too many stations (>5), for the reasons cited
above.
Caltrain serves as a good local example of how a relatively fast, high-capacity transit
service, with peak hour travel patterns can generate a high ridership and high farebox
recovery despite passing through lower density communities, and despite constrained
parking facilities.
A transit guideway service with complimentary scheduling to the Mountain View
Caltrain station would make the system convenient for transit riders. A physically
separated guideway could also serve as a testing ground for autonomous transit
vehicles, which may be of interest to private entities in the region interested in testing
this technology in a controlled environment. Autonomous vehicles could reduce
operating costs of a public transit service significantly.
* * *
We look forward to continuing to collaborate with VTA and the SR 85 PAB to help
address congestion on this critical corridor that supports region’s vibrant and growing
economy, with an eye towards planning for the future.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Mayor
cc: John McAlister, City of Mountain View
Susan Landry, City of Campbell
Howard Miller, City of Saratoga
Johnny Khamis, City of San Jose
ATTACHMENT 3
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
(408) 354-6801
Council@LosGatosCA.gov
Date
VIA: Email
RE: SR 85 Corridor Study
Dear: Members of the VTA Board of Directors, the VTA SR85 Policy Advisory Board, and
VTA staff,
This letter provides input from the Town Council with respect to the future use of the SR 85
corridor and the upcoming study.
The original intent of the median island was to provide light rail service to the West Valley.
Leading up to the construction of SR 85, the Town of Los Gatos had concerns over the future of
that median and entered into a written agreement titled “Route 85 Performance Agreement” with
the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, the predecessor to the VTA, that specified:
The TRAFFIC AUTHORITY agrees that no new freeway lanes shall be constructed in the
Route 85 median or in the shoulders of Route 85 within the geographical limits of TOWN
without prior written approval by the Town Council of the TOWN.
The Town understands that, subsequent to the construction of SR 85, VTA priorities have
pivoted and light rail is no longer considered a viable option for the corridor. The Town of Los
Gatos is interested in seeing the following components addressed through the study:
• Similar to the Cupertino request, a physically separated transit guideway for high-
capacity transit vehicles, with travel speeds comparable to rail, for use by public vehicles
and fee-paying high capacity private shuttles.
• Limited stops, but with one stop at Winchester Boulevard.
• The Winchester stop will have adequate parking infrastructure, including bicycle parking,
to support anticipated high utilization.
• Consideration for local shuttle service to address first mile and last mile needs.
Steve Leonardis, Mayor
Marcia Jensen, Vice Mayor
Rob Rennie, Council Member
Marico Sayoc, Council Member
Barbara Spector, Council Member
The Town of Los Gatos is not interested in additional freeway lanes, including Express Lanes or
Toll Lanes.
Thank you for the continued work towards understanding the needs of Los Gatos and the West
Valley.
Sincerely,
STEVE LEONARDIS
Mayor
SL:jj
cc: Town Council
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\2018 Letters - Mayor\MASTER.Mayor.letterhead (Rev.Nov.21.2018).doc