Attachment 61 - Correspondence (Part 2)Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:36 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council
Subject: N. 40 (Caltrans TCR SR 9)
Attachments: SR9- TCR- Final.pdf,, ATT00001.txt
http: / /www dot ca. gov /dist4 /systemplanning /docs /tcr /SR9 -TCR -Final pdf
Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:46 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council
Subject: N. 40 (Caltrans Metering SR 85)
Quoting from
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/prowects2/85rampmetering /
The Route 85 experiences heavy congestion during peak periods. Some of the congestion and breakdown in traffic flow
on Route 85 is caused by platoons of vehicles entering at unmetered on -ramps and merging with the mainline traffic.
Since installation and implementation of a ramp metering system on freeway is an effective operation tool of overall
efficiency of a transportation corridor, the expansion of the ramp meter program is needed.
John Shepardson
Sent from my Whone
Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:55 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council
Subject: N. 40 (Caltrans info SR 17)
Attachments: c1la_ 880_17_tcr_map_5_25_02_h20.pdf; ATT00001.txt
http:lZwww.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanningZdocs/maps/cila 880 17 to map 5 25 02 h20 .pd
� 4
UN
J qty
U �
Q W
ZN y
a gg
Z i
UO
Q yy�
a g�
a� $
NO
Z cQ�°y
c
W
N
9
T
W T
Ila RIB 81
C FIR BI
g
ZI I.
s
2
80
5 995 �_.
3 _ B
cA
e
N
E
1
m
`lqie
'6C2
ANd
A�
k�
Yd
rd
kd
A�
'id
iS
F
F
� 4
UN
J qty
U �
Q W
ZN y
a gg
Z i
UO
Q yy�
a g�
a� $
NO
Z cQ�°y
c
W
N
9
T
W T
OJ t 1�4�yJ
Q rn � ova
?w
�o
9
°
U
¢a
0
U^
1) U
F 's
6
Hilt 1!
I M1 I if 11
i
i�_ R1 F5 fiAAO 8
I� I§
Ila RIB 81
C FIR BI
g
ZI I.
s
2
80
5 995 �_.
3 _ B
cA
e
N
E
1
m
OJ t 1�4�yJ
Q rn � ova
?w
�o
9
°
U
¢a
0
U^
1) U
F 's
6
Hilt 1!
I M1 I if 11
i
i�_ R1 F5 fiAAO 8
I� I§
Ila RIB 81
C FIR BI
I
80
5 995 �_.
3 _ B
cA
e
1�
♦8� 3Q)0
A.'
LL
Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:16 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector, Council; Matt Morley
Subject: N. 40 (I -880)
litti)://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systenit)lanning/docs/csnip/1-880 CSMP Fulldoc pdf #zoom =65
Santa Row major traffic generator (p. 38).
JS
Sent from my Whone
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Disclaimer: The information and data contained in this document are for planning purposes only and should not
be relied upon for final design of any project. Any information in this Transportation Concept Report (TCR) is
subject to modification as conditions change and new information is obtained. Although planning information is
dynamic and continually changing, the District 4 Division of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance makes
every effort to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information contained in the TCR. The information in
the TCR does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, nor is it intended to address design policies
and procedures.
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans Improves Mobility Across California
Approvals:
Lee Taubeneck Date
District 4 Deputy District Director
Transportation Planning and Local Assistance
,9-lo-13
Date
!Stakeholder Acknowledgement
District 4 is pleased to acknowledge the time and contributions of stakeholders and partner agencies to this TCR.
Development of System Planning documents such as this one is dependent upon the participation and
cooperation of key stakeholders. This TCR represents a cooperative planning effort for State Route 9.
Representatives of the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Town of Los Gatos, the City
of Monte Sereno, the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara provided essential information, advice and
feedback for the preparation of this document.
This TCR will be posted on the Caltrans District 4 System Planning website at:
http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /dist4 /system planning
Document Preparation
This SR 9 Transportation Concept Report was prepared by:
ZHONGPING "JOHN" XU, AICP
Associate Transportation Planner
Office of System and Regional Planning
System Planning East Bay /Santa Clara County Branch
CAMERON OAKES
District Branch Chief
Office of System and Regional Planning
System Planning East Bay /Santa Clara County Branch
Please contact below for any questions about this TCR:
Caltra ns District 4
Division of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance
P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623 -0660
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/"systemplanning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Transportation Concept Report ..................................................................................
..............................3
StakeholderParticipation .............................................................................................................
..............................3
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ..................................................................................................................
..............................4
ConceptSummary ....................................................................................................................
..............................4
ConceptRationale ....................................................................................................................
..............................4
ProposedProjects and Strategies .............................................................................................
..............................5
CORRIDOROVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................
..............................6
RouteSegmentation .................................................................................................................
..............................6
RouteDescription .....................................................................................................................
..............................7
CommunityCharacteristics ......................................................................................................
..............................9
LandUse ...............................................................................................................................
............................... 10
SystemCharacteristics ..........................................................................................................
............................... 13
BicycleFacility .......................................................................................................................
............................... 14
PedestrianFacility ................................................................................................................
............................... 15
TransitFacility .......................................................................................................................
............................... 17
Freight...................................................................................................................................
............................... 18
EnvironmentalConsiderations .............................................................................................
............................... 19
CORRIDORPERFORMANCE .........................................................................................................
.............................22
KEYCORRIDOR ISSUES .................................................................................................................
.............................24
CompleteStreets ..................................................................................................................
............................... 24
Relinquishment.....................................................................................................................
............................... 24
CorridorOperations ..............................................................................................................
............................... 24
RoadDiet ..............................................................................................................................
............................... 24
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road East ..............................................................................................
............................... 25
CORRIDORCONCEPT ...................................................................................................................
.............................25
ConceptRationale ................................................................................................................
............................... 25
Planned and Programmed Projects and Strategies ..............................................................
............................... 26
Projects and Strategies to Achieve Concept .........................................................................
............................... 26
Appendices..................................................................................................................................
.............................27
APPENDIXA ..........................................................................................................................
............................... 27
APPENDIXB ..........................................................................................................................
............................... 32
APPENDIXC ..........................................................................................................................
............................... 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Corridor Concept Summary ........................................................................................... ..............................4
Table 2.
Proposed Projects to Help Achieve Route Concept ....................................................... ..............................5
Table3.
SR 9 Segments ................................................................................................................ ..............................6
Table 4.
Route Description by Segment ...................................................................................... ..............................8
Table 5.
Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos Demographics Compared to Santa Clara County .........................9
Table 6.
Smart Mobility Framework Place Type by Segment .................................................. ...............................
12
Table 7.
Existing and Future System Characteristics by Segment ........................................... ...............................
13
Table 8.
Bicycle Facilities by Segment ..................................................................................... ...............................
15
Table 9.
Pedestrian Facilities by Segment ............................................................................... ...............................
16
Table10.
Freight Facilities ....................................................................................................... ...............................
19
Table11.
Environmental Factors ............................................................................................. ...............................
20
Table 12.
Corridor Performance by Segment .......................................................................... ...............................
23
Table 13.
Planned or Programmed Projects along SR 9 .......................................................... ...............................
26
Table14.
Future Projects along SR 9 ....................................................................................... ...............................
26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. SR 9 Segment Map ........................................................................................................ ..............................6
Figure 2. Major Roadways near SR 9 ....................................................................................... ............................... 10
Figure3. Transit Routes around SR 9 ....................................................................................... ............................... 17
Figure 4. Environmental Factors Map ..................................................................................... ............................... 21
ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT REPORT
System Planning is the long -range transportation planning process for the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). The System Planning process fulfills Caltrans' statutory responsibility as
owner /operator of the State Highway System (SHS) (Gov. Code §65086) by evaluating conditions and proposing
enhancements to the SHS. Through System Planning, Caltrans focuses on developing an integrated multimodal
transportation system that meets Caltrans' goals of safety, mobility, delivery, stewardship, and service.
The System Planning process is primarily composed of four parts: the District System Management Plan (DSMP),
the Transportation Concept Report (TCR), the Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP), and the DSMP Project
List. The district -wide DSMP is strategic policy and planning document that focuses on maintaining, operating,
managing, and developing the transportation system. The TCR is a planning document that identifies the
existing and future route conditions as well as future needs for each route on the SHS. The CSMP is a complex,
multi - jurisdictional planning document that identifies future needs within corridors experiencing or expected to
experience high levels of congestion. The CSMP serves as a TCR for segments covered by the CSMP. The DSMP
Project List is a list of planned and partially programmed transportation projects used to recommend projects
for funding. These System Planning products are also intended as resources for stakeholders, the public, and
partner, regional, and local agencies.
TCR Purpose
California's State Highway System needs long range planning documents to guide the logical development of
transportation systems as required by CA Gov. Code §65086 and as necessitated by the public, stakeholders, and
system users. The purpose of the TCR is to evaluate current and projected conditions along the route and
communicate the vision for the development of each route in each Caltrans District during a 20 -25 year planning
horizon. The TCR is developed with the goals of increasing safety, improving mobility, providing excellent
stewardship, and meeting community and environmental needs along the corridor through integrated management
of the transportation network, including the highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, freight, operational improvements
and travel demand management components of the corridor.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Stakeholder participation was sought throughout the development of the State Route 9 TCR. Outreach involved
internal and external stakeholders including District 4 functional units, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA), City of Saratoga, City of Monte Sereno, Town of Los Gatos and County of Santa Clara. Initial
outreach meeting was conducted to verify information and collect ideas from stakeholders. As the document
was finalized, stakeholders were asked to review the document for comments and for consistency with the
intent of existing plans, policies, and procedures. The final document was presented to stakeholder groups as a
method of information sharing. Stakeholders have provided valuable inputs that have been incorporated into
the TCR to help build consensus and strengthen public support.
CONCEPT SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1. Corridor Concept Summary
• The 20 -25 Year System Operations and Management Concept for segments 1(b), 2, 3 and 4 was developed in anticipation of the
potential uncertainty posed by the relinquishment process.
** "C' stands for conventional highway.
The State Route 9 (SR 9) corridor discussed in this report is located entirely in southwest Santa Clara County.
Starting at Post Mile (PM) 0.000 from the Santa Clara /Santa Cruz County line and SR 9 /SR 35 junction, the route
proceeds in an east /southeast direction for over 11 miles and terminates at the SR 9 /SR 17 interchange (PM
11.448). The western portion of SR 9 is rural, surrounded by open space and recreational land uses in a mostly
mountainous area. Between 6"' Street and just beyond the Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
intersection, SR 9 serves as the main street for downtown Saratoga, also known as the Saratoga Village. Further
east, the route travels through suburban residential areas within the City of Saratoga, unincorporated Santa
Clara County and the City of Monte Sereno, followed by the commercial areas within Downtown Los Gatos.
With the exception of Segment 1, which mainly serves interregional traffic, the route largely provides for local
traffic in adjacent communities. SR 9 serves a substantial amount of recreational traffic, and is also a popular
choice for motorcyclists and bicyclists. The base year and horizon year for this TCR are 2010 and 2035,
respectively. The future concept represents a 25 -year planning horizon.
CONCEPT RATIONALE
District 4 is generally supportive of recent relinquishment inquiries for some portions of the route. Segments 2,
3 and 4 mainly carry local traffic, and there are no major developments expected along these segments. As a
result, the future concept for Segments 2, 3, and 4 is relinquishment. While Saratoga and Monte Sereno have
expressed interest in route relinquishment within their respective city boundaries, discussion still needs to occur
with Los Gatos and Santa Clara County. For relinquishment purposes, Segment 1 has been divided into two sub -
segments: Segment 1(a) in unincorporated Santa Clara County and Segment 1(b) in Saratoga. While Segment
1(b) may be relinquished to Saratoga, Segment 1(a) may be retained under Caltrans' ownership and operation.
This is due to Segment 1(a) serving an important interregional link between the Bay Area and the Santa Cruz
Page- 1 4
20 -25 Year
20 -25 Year System
Existing
Capital
Operations and
Segment
Sub - Segment
Segment Description
Facility
Facility
Management
Concept
Concept*
1(a)
State Route 35 to Saratoga city
• Maintain
• Monitorfor
(PM 0.000 - 5.653)
limits
2C **
2C
operational
1
improvement needs
(PM 0.000- 7.090)
1(b)
• Maintain
(PM 5.653- 7.090)
Saratoga city limits to 61h Street
2C
Relinquish
• Multimodal
improvement needs
2
6'h Street to Oak Place in
• Maintain
(PM 7.090- 7.551)
R/A
Saratoga
2C
Relinquish
• Multimodal
improvement needs
3
Oak Place to Monte Sereno /Los
• Maintain
(PM 7.551- 10.830)
N/A
Gatos city limits
2 -4C
Relinquish
• Multimodal
improvement needs
• Maintain
4
N/A
Monte Sereno /Los Gatos city
3 -4C
Relinquish
' Multimodal and
(PM 10.830 - 11.448)
limits to State Route 17
operational
improvement needs
• The 20 -25 Year System Operations and Management Concept for segments 1(b), 2, 3 and 4 was developed in anticipation of the
potential uncertainty posed by the relinquishment process.
** "C' stands for conventional highway.
The State Route 9 (SR 9) corridor discussed in this report is located entirely in southwest Santa Clara County.
Starting at Post Mile (PM) 0.000 from the Santa Clara /Santa Cruz County line and SR 9 /SR 35 junction, the route
proceeds in an east /southeast direction for over 11 miles and terminates at the SR 9 /SR 17 interchange (PM
11.448). The western portion of SR 9 is rural, surrounded by open space and recreational land uses in a mostly
mountainous area. Between 6"' Street and just beyond the Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
intersection, SR 9 serves as the main street for downtown Saratoga, also known as the Saratoga Village. Further
east, the route travels through suburban residential areas within the City of Saratoga, unincorporated Santa
Clara County and the City of Monte Sereno, followed by the commercial areas within Downtown Los Gatos.
With the exception of Segment 1, which mainly serves interregional traffic, the route largely provides for local
traffic in adjacent communities. SR 9 serves a substantial amount of recreational traffic, and is also a popular
choice for motorcyclists and bicyclists. The base year and horizon year for this TCR are 2010 and 2035,
respectively. The future concept represents a 25 -year planning horizon.
CONCEPT RATIONALE
District 4 is generally supportive of recent relinquishment inquiries for some portions of the route. Segments 2,
3 and 4 mainly carry local traffic, and there are no major developments expected along these segments. As a
result, the future concept for Segments 2, 3, and 4 is relinquishment. While Saratoga and Monte Sereno have
expressed interest in route relinquishment within their respective city boundaries, discussion still needs to occur
with Los Gatos and Santa Clara County. For relinquishment purposes, Segment 1 has been divided into two sub -
segments: Segment 1(a) in unincorporated Santa Clara County and Segment 1(b) in Saratoga. While Segment
1(b) may be relinquished to Saratoga, Segment 1(a) may be retained under Caltrans' ownership and operation.
This is due to Segment 1(a) serving an important interregional link between the Bay Area and the Santa Cruz
Page- 1 4
region, and traffic on this sub - segment being more interregional in nature. Segment 1(a) will remain a two -lane
conventional highway. Continuous monitoring and study should be performed to evaluate if additional passing
lanes and turnouts are needed to help facilitate the operation of the road and to accommodate bicycle travel.
PROPOSED PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES
The future concept for Segments 1(b), 2, 3 and 4 is relinquishment to the respective local jurisdiction. However,
relinquishment, to a great extent, is a locally driven process and implementation may not happen immediately.
Caltrans will continue to maintain, operate and manage all segments of the corridor while they remain under
State ownership. The future corridor management strategies are focused on maintenance, operational
improvements and additional multimodal infrastructure development. No roadway capacity increasing projects
are programmed, planned or proposed for SR 9. A new bus service is proposed along Segments 3, 4 and possibly
2, based on demand for transit service. VTA is responsible for the planning, implementation and operations of
bus services in Santa Clara County. Coordination will need to occur between Caltrans, VTA and local jurisdictions
along the route to bring transit service to the SR 9 corridor. A SR 9 /SR 17 interchange reconstruction project has
also been proposed in this TCR, which would help reduce vehicle /pedestrian /bicycle conflict points within the
interchange and promote a better environment for walking and biking along SR 9. This is consistent with other
non - motorized modes of transportation improvements proposed in the corridor. The interchange
reconstruction project may have the added benefits of improving traffic operations on SR 17.
Table 2. Proposed Projects to Help Achieve Route Concept
Segment
Description
Location
1(a)
Passing lanes and turnouts as needed
PM' 0.000 -5.653
1(b),2,3,4
Route relinquishment
PM 5.653 - 11.448
2,3,4
Develop bus service along SR 9 (based
on demand for transit)
PM 7.09 - 11.448
3
Improve /develop pedestrian crossings
PM 7.551. 10.830
3,4
Provide continuous pedestrian paths on
both sides of the road
PM 7.551- 11.448
4
SR 9 /SR 17 Interchange Reconstruction
PM 11.448
'PM = Post Mile.
ROUTE SEGMENTATION
CORRIDOR OVERVIEW
Table 3. SR 9 Segments
s
w
Saratoga 1
0
CGUnty_ROUte_
County_ROUte_
E
Location Description
Beg. PM
End PM
1
Santa Clara /Santa Cruz County line to 6 Street in
SCL_009_0.000
SCL_009_7.090
Saratoga
•,
Nbpte Serene
2
6`b Street to Oak Place in Saratoga
SCL_009_7.090
SCL_009_7.551
3
Oak Place to Monte Sereno /Los Gatos city limits
SCL_009_7.551
1 SCL_009_10.830
4
Monte Sereno /Los Gatos city limits to State Route 17
SCL_009_10.830
11.448
SEGMENT 1(a)
PM 0.00015.657
Legend
L: _ 1 Cry BW�•fI
_ CaM�BwMry
Nap IwJMIxaY
II o uts Bs i,
Figure Figure 1. SR 9 Segment Map
�I
µE
a° uj
a, • „�.., • pLLENDEEEPV
N ,
ISANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
Source: District 4 GIS and Technical Support Branch, Jan 2013.
1"j L C
w
Saratoga 1
tt
u
••• r.1
,...., - •••
•,
Nbpte Serene
SEGMENT l(b)
PM 6.66317.090
... SEGMENT I
'•�y'1
PPPPPP
PM 7.09017.557 ?
SANTA CLARA
SEGMENT?
PM 7.551110.600
••,•N••
^ /7$
COUNTY
-�
41
•••
N ,
ISANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
Source: District 4 GIS and Technical Support Branch, Jan 2013.
1"j L C
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
SR 9 at South Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, looking east.
State Route 9 (SR 9) begins in Caltrans District 5 in the City of Santa Cruz near SR -1. It winds through the Santa
Cruz Mountains and continues into District 4 for over 11 miles until terminating at SR 17 in the Town of Los
Gatos in Santa Clara County. A section of SR 9 also meanders in and out of the Santa Cruz and San Mateo
County line. Agreement has been reached between District 4 and District 5 that the San Mateo portion will be
covered in District 5's SR 9 TCR. For the purpose of this TCR, the SR 9 corridor is located entirely in southwest
Santa Clara County, traveling from the junction of SR 9 /SR 35 (PM 0.000) to SR 9 /SR 17 interchange (PM 11.448).
The corridor is divided into four segments for the purpose of analysis and concept development. Table 3 and
Figure 1 on page 6 show the limits and post mile of each segment.
SR 9 is Congress Spring Road between the Santa Cruz County line and downtown Saratoga, the Saratoga Village.
In Saratoga Village, it is known as Big Basin Way. After Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
intersection, SR 9 becomes Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and continues until the SR 9 /SR 17 interchange. Locally, SR
9 is also referred to as "Highway 9 ".
Although officially designated as a south -north route, SR 9 travels mainly in an east -west direction traversing the
open space and recreational areas in unincorporated Santa Clara County and southwest Saratoga. The mostly
mountainous terrain then descends and transitions into more flat lands as the route enters developed urban
areas. Between 6th Street and Oak Place, SR 9 serves as the main street of historic Saratoga Village. The route
turns southeast at Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road intersection and then travels through
predominantly semi - rural /suburban residential areas in southeast portion of Saratoga, unincorporated Santa
Clara County and Monte Sereno. The last section of the route travels through downtown Los Gatos. SR 9
terminates at SR 9 /SR 17 interchange, a full cloverleaf interchange with SR 9 traveling over SR 17.
In 1998 Caltrans developed the first Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) to recommend
improvements to the Interregional Road System (IRRS) originally identified by the following Statutes: Assembly
Bill (AB) 471, Senate Bill (SB) 300 and AB 973. The ITSP identifies SR 9 as one of the 93 Basic IRRS routes in the
State, as the route (especially Segment 1) provides an interregional [ink between the Bay Area and Santa Cruz
County. The route is not currently classified as one of the IRRS High Emphasis or Focus Routes, which are routes
of critical interregional importance and are considered most eligible for Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program (ITIP) funding. For people who commute in their cars, SR 9 mainly accommodates local
traffic movements heading to and from adjacent communities. SR 9 also serves a substantial amount of
recreational traffic. The route not only provides access to recreational uses in the Santa Cruz Mountains and
attractions further south, but also serves as a recreational destination that draws motorists and bicyclists to its
scenic and winding mountain road in Segment 1. SR 9 is officially designated as a California Scenic Highway.'
Please see Table 4 below for a description of each segment.
Table 4. Route Description by Segment
Segment#
1
2
3
4
Freeway & Expressway
No
No
No
No
National Highway
No
No
Yes
Yes
System
Strategic Highway
No
No
No
No
Network
Scenic Highway
Officially Designated
Officially Designated
Officially Designated
Officially Designated
Interregional Road
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
System
High Emphasis
No
No
No
No
Focus Route
No
No
No
No
Federal Functional
Major Collector [1(a)],
Minor Arterial /Other
Other Principal
Other Principal
Classification
Minor Arterial[1(b)]
Principal Arterial
Arterial
Arterial
Goods Movement
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Route
Truck Designation'
CA Legal Advisory
CA Legal Advisory
CA Legal Advisory
CA Legal Advisory
Rural /Urban /Urbanized
Rural /Urbanized
Urbanized
Urbanized
Urbanized
Metropolitan
Metropolitan Planning
Transportation Commission
MTC
MTC
MTC
Organization
(MTC)
Regional
Transportation
MTC
MTC
MTC
MTC
Planning Agency
Santa Clara Valley
Congestion
Transportation Authority
VTA
VTA
VTA
Management Agency
(VTA)
City of Saratoga,
Local Agency
Santa Cl
Clara County,
City of Saratoga
Santa Clara County,
Town of Los Gatos
City Saratoga
City of Monte Sereno
Tribes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bay Area Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality
Air District
Management District
Management District
Management District
Mana ement District
Terrain
Mountainous /Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Please see "Freight" section on page 18 for explanation.
California Scenic Highway Program: htto : / /www.dot.ca.gov /ha /LandArch /scenic highways /scenic hwv.htm. accessed Oct
2012
Page £
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
SR 9 travels through three incorporated communities: the City of Saratoga, the City of Monte Sereno, and the
Town of Los Gatos. Please see Table 5 below for more demographic information. Compared to the county
average, these three communities have higher household median income but smaller household size. This may
also explain why there is higher home ownership rate and more people who drive alone to work.
Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos value their small- town /semi -rural character and have all adopted policies
in their General Plans to protect and preserve such charm. No major population increase or employment
growth is expected in these communities as they are mostly built -out. In the Circulation Elements of their
respective General Plans, all three jurisdictions have recognized how a balanced, well planned transportation
network can help preserve community character while meeting existing and future mobility needs. They all
have adopted policies to promote walking, bicycling and public transportation as alternative modes to driving a
car.2
A few unincorporated pockets exist along the corridor that fall within the Sphere of Influence of one of these
three jurisdictions. Most of these areas share similar characteristics with adjacent communities and could be
annexed into adjacent jurisdictions someday in the future.
Table 5. Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos Demographics Compared to Santa Clara County
Source: Data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau. http: / /www.census.gov, accessed July 2012.
2 The City of Monte Sereno, General Plan, adopted 2009, Housing Element 2010
htto: / /www.montesereno. ore /cl ientuDloads /On I ine %20Documents/ Planning /Fi nalGenera I Pla n032010. Ddf
The City of Saratoga, General Plan , Housing Element 2007, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element 2010
htto: / /www.saratoga.ca.us /citvhall /cd /general Dlan.asD
The Town of Los Gatos, 2020 General Plan, adopted 2010
htti):/Iwww.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx?nid=27
Page 1 9
Saratoga
Monte Sereno
Los Gatos
Santa Clara County
Total Population
29,926 (100%)
3,341(100 %)
29,413 (100 %)
1,781,642 (100 %)
Non - Hispanic White
15,431 (51.6 %)
2,578 (77.2 %)
22,657 (77.0 %)
626,909 (35.2 %)
Non - Hispanic Asian
12,331 (41.2 %)
462(13.8%)
3,177 (10.8 %)
565,466 (31.7 %)
Hispanic or Latino
1,034 (3.5 %)
162(4.8%)
2,120 (7.2 %)
479,210 (26.9 %)
Other
1,130 (3.8 %)
139(4.2%)
1459(5.0%)
110,057 (6.2 %)
Language Spoken at Home —
English Only
59.80%
82.40%
79.20%
49.30%
Population Density
(people/square mile)
2,417
2,068
2,636
1,400
Number of Household
10,734
1,211
12,355
604,204
Average Household Size
2.77
2.76
2.35
2.90
Number of Housing Unit
11,123
1,287
13,050
631,920
Owner- Occupied Housing Unit
86.2%
90.0%
63.0%
57.6%
Median Household Income
(Estimate, 2006 -2010 American
Community Survey)
$145,023
$139,145
$120,971
$86,850
Drive Alone to Work
84.60%
82.20% 1
83.20%
76.80%
Mean Travel Time to Work (min)
25
25.1
23.4
24.2
Source: Data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau. http: / /www.census.gov, accessed July 2012.
2 The City of Monte Sereno, General Plan, adopted 2009, Housing Element 2010
htto: / /www.montesereno. ore /cl ientuDloads /On I ine %20Documents/ Planning /Fi nalGenera I Pla n032010. Ddf
The City of Saratoga, General Plan , Housing Element 2007, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element 2010
htto: / /www.saratoga.ca.us /citvhall /cd /general Dlan.asD
The Town of Los Gatos, 2020 General Plan, adopted 2010
htti):/Iwww.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx?nid=27
Page 1 9
LAND USE
Segment 1 is mainly surrounded by open space and recreational areas including Castle Rock State Park, Saratoga
Gap Open Space Preserve and Sanborn - Skyline County Park. Low density residential areas are scattered around
in a few hillside pockets. The Mountain Winery, located off of Pierce Road and 0.4 miles north of Segment 1, is a
cultural activity venue that hosts concerts mostly during the summer. Segment 2 represents the main street in
Saratoga Village. The village is of historic importance to Saratoga, as this is where the early development
occurred in the city. Today, the village is the city's economic center and attracts people from both within and
outside the city to a variety of shops and restaurants. Land use along Segment 3 is predominantly
suburban /semi -rural residential. West Valley College is located about a mile north of Segment 3 along Fruitvale
Avenue. Segment 4 bisects downtown Los Gatos near the SR 9 /SR 17 interchange. Most businesses and offices
are clustered along Main Street south of SR 9 and North Santa Cruz Avenue which intersects with SR 9.
SR 85 is a freeway route located approximately 2 miles north of SR 9. SR 85 begins at US 101 in South San lose
and ends at US 101 in Mountain View. It has junctions with SR 17, SR 82, SR 87, 1 -280 and SR 237. SR 85 is
generally parallel to Segments 3 and 4, which helps divert traffic away from the SR 9 corridor. Between Saratoga
Village and SR 17, several north -south arterials intersect SR 9 and provide access to SR 85, Silicon Valley and
other employment centers to the north. These arterials include South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (PM 7.400),
Saratoga Avenue (PM 7.400), Fruitvale Avenue (PM 8.840), Quito Road (PM 9.880), North Santa Cruz
Avenue /Winchester Boulevard (PM 11.060) and SR 17 (PM 11.448). SR 17 also provides access to Santa Cruz
County to the south. Figure 2 below shows the location of these roadway facilities.
There are no major development projects proposed along or in the vicinity of SR 9. Population and employment
growth is expected to be moderate in areas surrounding the route. Traffic volumes along SR 9 are not expected
to increase significantly in the future and there is no need for major capacity increasing projects. Further
information on traffic data is provided in the "Corridor Performance" section on page 21.
Figure 2. Major Roadways near SR 9
PaEr 110
Legend
o FreeweY�npwy
— AlapeflnaCs
the 8 Segments
_ S IP
�spls N
$pz
� seu5
0 035 05
0 Nil.
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Monte Serene
Priority Development Areas and Priority Conservation Areas
Beginning in 2006, the Bay Area's four regional agencies (the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)) jointly sponsored a regional planning
program called "FOCUSi3. FOCUS is a regional development and conservation strategy that links land use and
transportation by encouraging the development of complete, livable communities in areas served by transit, and
promotes conservation of the region's most significant resource lands. The program directs existing and
future incentives to Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs). PDAs are
defined as locally - identified, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities that are near
existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service. PCAs are defined as areas of regional
significance that have broad community support and an urgent need for protection. PCAs provide important
agricultural, natural resource, historical, scenic, cultural, recreational, and /or ecological values and ecosystem
functions.
Saratoga Village in Segment 1 and a portion of downtown Los Gatos north of Segment 4 have both been
identified as a PDA. In Segment 1, most of the land areas surrounding the three parks have been identified as
PCAs. Figure 3 - Environmental Factors Map on page 20 illustrates where these locally identified PDAs and PCAs
are currently located.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
In support of linking land use with transportation, 2008's Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was passed and signed by then
Governor Schwarzenegger. The bill requires the State's Metropolitan Transportation Organizations (MPO) to
meet State - mandated greenhouse gas emission targets for automobiles and light trucks for years 2020 and
2050. MPO's must accurately account for the environmental benefits of more compact development and
reduced vehicle miles traveled. If regions develop integrated land use, housing and transportation plans that
meet the emission reduction targets, new projects in these regions can be relieved of certain review
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The emission reduction targets apply to the
18 designated MPO regions in the State.
3 See http: / /www.bayareavision.org/
Pr:Fc 1 1 1
The recently approved Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), also known as Plan Bay Area (adopted July 18, 2013)
by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) includes a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) as
required by SB 375. The legislation synchronizes the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process with
the RTP process, requires local governments to rezone their general plans consistent with the updated housing
element within three years of adoption, and provides that RHNA allocations must be consistent with the
development pattern in the SCS. The SCS lays out how Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets will
be met for cars and light trucks. This represents a dramatic change in how land use, transportation and future
project selection will be prioritized.
California Transportation Plan
2009's Senate Bill 391 (SB 391) requires Caltrans to update the statewide California Transportation Plan (CTP) by
December 31, 2015 and every five years thereafter. The UP shall identify the integrated multimodal
transportation system needed to achieve maximum feasible greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 1990 levels
by 2050 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (as required by AB 32). In addition, SB 391 requires the CTP
to incorporate transportation policies and system performance objectives from approved Regional
Transportation Plans produced by the MPOs. Caltrans must also consult, coordinate, and make drafts of the CTP
available for review and comment to the: California Transportation Commission, Strategic Growth Council, State
Air Resources Board, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, air quality
management districts, public transit operators, and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies.
Smart Mobility Framework
In 2010 Caltrans introduced the concept of smart mobility to its transportation planning process and established
the Smart Mobility Framework (SMF) in the State 4. Smart Mobility is defined by moving people and freight while
enhancing California's economic, environmental and human resources by emphasizing convenient and safe
multi -modal travel, speed suitability, accessibility, management of the circulation network, and efficient use of
land. The SMF is built on six principles: Location Efficiency, Reliable Mobility, Health and Safety, Environmental
Stewardship, Social Equity, and Robust Economy. SMF is essentially a tool for planners to respond to the
mobility needs of all users while balancing economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. It
helps achieve the goals of reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled and addressing climate change challenges
presented in AB 32 and SB 375.
Based on the Location Efficiency principle, the SMF introduces seven "Place Types" to help inform transportation
decision making. Each of the seven place types represent a distinct context where implementation of certain
transportation investments, along with planning and management strategies, will help improve location
efficiency and achieve Smart Mobility benefits. Table 6 below identifies the Place Types for each segment along
the SR 9 Corridor and offers potential transportation programs and appropriate project ideas for each of them.
Table 6. Smart Mobility Framework Place Type by Segment
Segment
Plate Type
Transportation Programs and Projects
• Capacity and connectivity increase only when required
Protected Lands
• Bicycle facility and trail projects where public access and recreational
use is permitted
1
• Investments that improve operational efficiency of existing arterials
Suburban Communities - Neighborhoods
' Connectivity improvements leading to shorter trip lengths and
increased non -auto mode share
• Investments in Complete Streets
• Pedestrian facilities with high amenity levels
2
Compact Communities
• Extensive network of bicycl ¢facilities
° Smart Mobility 2010 — A Call to Action for the New Decade, Caltrans, 2010
Page 1 12
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The following sections will discuss various system characteristics of the SR 9 corridor, including physical
characteristics, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, freight facilities and environmental
considerations. Table 7 on the following page presents existing and future physical characteristics of SR 9. The
future concept of each segment of the corridor is briefly discussed in this section. Please see the "Corridor
Concept' section on page 24 for further information and conceptual vision for the corridor.
Segment 1 is currently a two -lane undivided conventional highway. Passing lanes in the uphill (westbound)
direction are found at several locations in this segment, but no truck climbing lanes currently exist. According to
the Caltrans Pavement Condition Report (2009), Segment 1 is the only segment where distressed pavement
conditions are found. Distressed pavement length is 14 percent of the lane miles in the segment and the
distress level is considered Minor. The future concept subdivides this segment into two parts, with Sub - Segment
1(a) remaining under State ownership and 1(b) relinquished to Saratoga. Caltrans will continue to monitor and
study Sub - Segment 1(a) for potential operational improvement opportunities including additional passing lanes
and turnouts.
Segment 2 in Saratoga Village is also a 2 -lane conventional highway. The segment is characterized by short block
length, closely spaced intersections, clearly delineated crosswalks and on street parking. No traffic signals exist
except at the Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road intersection. Side streets intersecting SR 9 are stop
sign controlled and there are also multiple driveways leading to adjacent residential properties or parking lots
for local business. Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities are available along Segment 2. See "Pedestrian
Facilities" on page 15 for further information. Segment 2 is anticipated to be relinquished to Saratoga in the
future.
Segments 3 and 4 are two- to four -lane conventional highway segments. These two segments vary in roadway
width, lane configuration, posted speed limit and median characteristics. For the three -lane highway sections, a
two -way left turn lane is provided in the roadway median. At other locations the median varies in both width
and configuration. Left turn pockets are found at most intersections. Major intersections are controlled by
traffic signals, while smaller side streets are controlled by stop signs. Saratoga and Monte Sereno have both
expressed interest in taking ownership of the route within their respective city boundaries. District 4 in general
is supportive of this idea. However, sections within unincorporated Santa Clara County and Los Gatos should
also be relinquished to local jurisdictions to avoid excessive route fragmentation.
Table 7. Existing and Future System Characteristics by Segment
Segment #
1
• Convenient multi -modal transfers and transit transfers
• On -going reinvestment in existin facilities
3
4
• Investments that improve operational efficiency of existing arterials
3
Suburban Communities- Neighborhoods
. Connectivity improvements leading to shorter trip lengths and
C
C
increased non -auto mode share
2
2 1
• Investments in complete street
3-4
• Complete Streets projects
• On -going reinvestment in existing facilities
4
Close -in Compact Communities- Centers
• High capacity transit linking neighborhoods to employment centers
• Local transit with excellent coverage providing connections to high
capacity transit lines
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The following sections will discuss various system characteristics of the SR 9 corridor, including physical
characteristics, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, freight facilities and environmental
considerations. Table 7 on the following page presents existing and future physical characteristics of SR 9. The
future concept of each segment of the corridor is briefly discussed in this section. Please see the "Corridor
Concept' section on page 24 for further information and conceptual vision for the corridor.
Segment 1 is currently a two -lane undivided conventional highway. Passing lanes in the uphill (westbound)
direction are found at several locations in this segment, but no truck climbing lanes currently exist. According to
the Caltrans Pavement Condition Report (2009), Segment 1 is the only segment where distressed pavement
conditions are found. Distressed pavement length is 14 percent of the lane miles in the segment and the
distress level is considered Minor. The future concept subdivides this segment into two parts, with Sub - Segment
1(a) remaining under State ownership and 1(b) relinquished to Saratoga. Caltrans will continue to monitor and
study Sub - Segment 1(a) for potential operational improvement opportunities including additional passing lanes
and turnouts.
Segment 2 in Saratoga Village is also a 2 -lane conventional highway. The segment is characterized by short block
length, closely spaced intersections, clearly delineated crosswalks and on street parking. No traffic signals exist
except at the Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road intersection. Side streets intersecting SR 9 are stop
sign controlled and there are also multiple driveways leading to adjacent residential properties or parking lots
for local business. Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities are available along Segment 2. See "Pedestrian
Facilities" on page 15 for further information. Segment 2 is anticipated to be relinquished to Saratoga in the
future.
Segments 3 and 4 are two- to four -lane conventional highway segments. These two segments vary in roadway
width, lane configuration, posted speed limit and median characteristics. For the three -lane highway sections, a
two -way left turn lane is provided in the roadway median. At other locations the median varies in both width
and configuration. Left turn pockets are found at most intersections. Major intersections are controlled by
traffic signals, while smaller side streets are controlled by stop signs. Saratoga and Monte Sereno have both
expressed interest in taking ownership of the route within their respective city boundaries. District 4 in general
is supportive of this idea. However, sections within unincorporated Santa Clara County and Los Gatos should
also be relinquished to local jurisdictions to avoid excessive route fragmentation.
Table 7. Existing and Future System Characteristics by Segment
Segment #
1
2
3
4
Existing Facility
Facility Type
C.
C
C
C
General Purpose Lanes
2
2 1
24 1
3-4
Pegc 1 1 S
Lane Miles
14.18
0.922
12.22
2.472
Centerline Miles
7.09
0.461
3.43
0.468
Median Width
n/a
n/a
0-40 ft
0 -20 ft
Median Characteristics
Undivided
Undivided
vary
Vary
BRT Lanes
0
0
0
0
Passing Lanes
2%
0
0
0
Truck Climbing Lanes
0
0
1 0
1 0
Distressed Pavements
14%
0%
0%
0%
ROW
60 ft
60 ft
53 -200 ft
110 -240 it
Concept Facility
Segment#
1(a)
1(b)
2
3
4
Facility Type
C
Relinquish
Relinquish
Relinquish
Relinquish
General Purpose Lanes
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lane Miles
11.306
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Centerline Miles
5.653
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BRT Lanes
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Passing Lanes
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Truck Climbing Lanes
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• "C ": conventional highway.
BICYCLE FACILITY
Table 8 on the next page lists bicycle facilities on SR -9. For discussion purposes, the SR 9 corridor is divided into
four bicycle facility segments which correspond to the
four roadway segments respectively. Segments 1A and 2B
are not designated bike routes, but bicycles are permitted
to share the road with other vehicles. Segment 1A draws
bicyclists to its winding hilly highway
located passing lanes and turnouts provide room for
vehicles to pass slower moving traffic. Segment 2B
provides amenities such as bike racks on the sidewalks to
bicyclists. Vehicle speeds in this segment are slower and
the commercial rich setting serves as a destination for
many bicyclists. In Segment 28, bicyclists share the travel
lane with motor vehicles and have to negotiate with
parked cars on both sides of the road.
and 4D, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and
For Segments 3C
Los Gatos are all
working together on the "Highway 9 Pedestrian /Bicycle
Safety Improvement Project', a multi -phase project to
provide a safe and continuous facility for pedestrians and
bicyclists! Phase I of the project installed Class II striped
bike lanes on both sides of the road in 2009, while bicycle
detection devices at signalized intersections were added
S Caltrans Pavement Condition Reporting software PCRS.1, run in
6 Right of Way Data Center on District 4Intranet, htto: / /d4web /d
http://www.saratolta.ca.us/citvhall/K)w/pro'ects/hwv9.aso acce
as part of the Phase III in 2012. Phase II and Phase IV of the project are currently under development. Both
phases focus on pedestrian facility improvements, which will be discussed in the "Pedestrian Facility" section on
the following page.
SR 9 has been identified as part of the Cross County Bicycle Corridors in ViA's Countywide Bicycle Plana Most
of Segments 1A and 2B (PM 0.000 - 7.400) are part of Corridor 13 - Bowers /Kiely /Saratoga Corridor, while the
remaining Segment 2B, Segments 3C and 4D are part of Corridor 7 - Old Highway 9 Corridor.
Saratoga has also identified two bicycle improvement projects in their General Plan': a) A multi -use path south
of and parallel to SR 9 from city west to Toll Gate Road (PM 5.653- 6.671), and b) A bike facility (possibly Class III
designated bike route) on SR 9 from Toll Gate Road to 4" Street (PM 6.671 - 7.230). Segments 4D crosses over
the Los Gatos Creek Trail (PM 11.298), which is a Bicycle Path on VTA's Countywide Bicycle Plan. There is
currently no access point between SR 9 and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. A connector to link these two facilities
has been included in VTA's Valley Transportation Plan, VTP 204010. There is no parallel bicycle facility in the
vicinity of SR 9.
SR 9 approaching SR 35, looking west.
Table 8. Bicycle Facilities by Segment
PEDESTRIAN FACILITY
Table 9 on the next page lists the pedestrian facilities along SR 9. Similar to the Bicycle Facility section,
pedestrian facilities are also divided into four segments. There is currently no parallel pedestrian facility in the
vicinity of SR 9. Mountainous Segment 1E is less conducive to pedestrian travel, as there are no paved sidewalks
ahhl> p: / /www.vta.org /schedules /bikeways olan.html, accessed Jan 2013
9http://www.saratoga.ca.us/cityhall/cd/eeneral olan.aso. accessed Sept 2012
30 http : / /www.vta.org /vto /i)rovectmap /index.html, accessed Feb 2013
State Bicycle Facility
M t
T11-1.
0
'
ii
s
u
o
Y
o f
0'0004
Santa
Santa Cruz County
No
Shared
Cross County
1
A
7.090
35 to 6th
Roadway
��
Mountainous
n/n
n/a
Bike Corridor
30 mph
Street
Z090-
6th Street to Oak
Shared
>5 ft.
Downtown ped /bike
Cross County
2
B
Na
On street
friendly envimn with
n/a
n/o
25 mph
7551
Place
Roadway
parking
bike racks.
Bike Corridor
Oak place to
3
C
7551-
Monte Serena /Las
No
Class 11
04Jt
Recently developed
n/a
n/0
Cross County
30-50
10.830
Gatos city limits
Bike Lane
bike lanes
Bike Corridor
mph
Monte Serena /Cos
4
D
10.830-
Gatos city limits to
No
Class 11
0-8ft
Recently developed
n/a
n/a
Cross County
35 mph
11.448
Bike Lane
bike lanes
Bike Corridor
SR 37
PEDESTRIAN FACILITY
Table 9 on the next page lists the pedestrian facilities along SR 9. Similar to the Bicycle Facility section,
pedestrian facilities are also divided into four segments. There is currently no parallel pedestrian facility in the
vicinity of SR 9. Mountainous Segment 1E is less conducive to pedestrian travel, as there are no paved sidewalks
ahhl> p: / /www.vta.org /schedules /bikeways olan.html, accessed Jan 2013
9http://www.saratoga.ca.us/cityhall/cd/eeneral olan.aso. accessed Sept 2012
30 http : / /www.vta.org /vto /i)rovectmap /index.html, accessed Feb 2013
or marked crosswalks. Outside shoulders are missing at several locations along Segment 3E with the shoulder
width ranging from 0 to 8 feet. The intersection of SR 9 and SR 35 has no marked crosswalks in front of any of
the four stop signs, with wide corner radii and dedicated right turn lanes at all four corners. Given the physical
constrains of the segment and lower pedestrian usage, no additional future pedestrian facilities are proposed
beyond what has been planned for this segment. Please see Table 13 on page 25 for planned projects.
In Segment 2F the sidewalks have been relinquished to Saratoga. As discussed earlier, this segment is located
within the Saratoga Village which has extensive pedestrian amenities such as well - delineated crosswalks, public
sitting areas on sidewalks, shorter block length, and numerous activities /destinations for pedestrians to access.
Segment 3G has a mostly flat terrain, and
both sides of the road are landscaped. Local
jurisdictions along the corridor have indicated
pedestrian needs along this segment during
outreach meetings. Meanwhile, a significant
portion of the segment lacks pedestrian
facilities and the shoulder width (ranging from
0 to 8 feet) at some locations are not
pedestrian friendly. When a pedestrian path
does exist, the facility is often unpaved or
available only on one side of the road or the
other. These obstacles may discourage
increased pedestrian use in Segment 3G.
Phases II and IV of the Highway 9
Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety Improvement
Project will develop a continuous pedestrian SR 9 near a Street in Saratoga, looking east.
path on one side of the road and provide crossing opportunities wnen the pain alternates sides. Phase II is
currently under construction and is expected to complete in October 2013. Phase IV is currently unfunded and
the construction schedule has yet to be determined.
In Segment 4H sidewalks are available on both sides of the road at most locations. Sidewalks in this segment are
often sheltered from the travel lanes by trees, which provide pedestrians with shade and a buffer from vehicular
traffic. There are frequent driveways on both sides of the road, however, creating multiple potential conflicting
points between motor vehicles and pedestrians. As mentioned earlier, SR 9 crosses over the Los Gatos Creek
Trail at PM 11.298, which is a bicycle and pedestrian shared path parallel to the Los Gatos Creek and SR 17.
However, connections need to be developed to allow access between Segment 4H and the Los Gatos Creek Trail.
A sidewalk gap exists on the south side of SR 9 from Los Gatos Creek to the SR 9 /SR 17 interchange, and
pedestrians have to use sidewalks on the north side to travel through the interchange. The interchange is a full
cloverleaf interchange with SR 9 traveling over SR 17. Pedestrians are required to cross multiple ramps and
negotiate with higher speed vehicles resulting from large turning radii. Improvements such as reconstructing
the interchange can help alleviate this issue. There is strong local support for the consideration of a SR 9 /SR 17
Interchange project to address current conflict points for bicyclists and pedestrians, thereby promoting a better
environment for walking and biking, consistent with Caltrans Complete Streets Directive. For more pedestrian
facility information please see Table 9 below.
Table 9. Pedestrian Facilities by Segment
C
O
N
y 9
C
O
!unction
Y
Y
Y
0
d N
W y
'—
G✓
W
Y
�
m C 9
F O
Y
Y
O
O Y
Y r
P �.
P
-
A Y
0
R
TRANSIT FACILITY
There is no public transportation service running along SR 9. VTA Community Bus Line #48 runs mainly on North
Santa Cruz Avenue. There is a southbound bus stop on North Santa Cruz Avenue just north of SR 9, and a
northbound bus stop on SR 9 between University Avenue and North Santa Cruz Avenue. In addition, VTA Regular
Bus Line #53 runs on South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue and makes a turn at the intersection
of Big Basin Way and South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. There is a pair of bus stops in both directions located on
Saratoga Avenue northeast of the above mentioned intersection. Figure 3 below illustrates where these transit
services are located.
The SR 9 corridor is not located in the vicinity of the VTA Light Rail, Caltrain, ACE, BART or the proposed
California High Speed Rail. There are no Park - and -Ride lots available along the corridor either. VTA is interested
in bringing transit service to the SR 9 corridor, although no such projects have been proposed in current adopted
plans.
Figure 3. Transit Routes around SR 9"
"http: / /www.vta.org /schedules /schedules bvmap.html. accessed Sept 2012
0.000-
SR 35 to
No sidewalks.
At grade,
I
E
Z090
6th Street
No
No
-
30 ft.
Varying /unpaved
SR 35
Minor
stop sign-
Yes
shoulder
controlled
7.090-
6th Street
Yes/
No obstacles. Plenty of
No
2
F
7.551
to Oak
No
Relinquished
4 -8 ft
30 ft.
pedestrian
Interchange
N/A
N/A
N/A
Place
amenities/attractions
Oak Place
Many obstacles:
7.551-
to Monte
Yes,
30 _
unpaved sidewalks,
No
3
G
10.830
Sereno /Los
No
with gaps
0 -8 ft
200 ft
multiple gaps in
Interchange
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gatos city
sidewalks, sidewalk
limits
alternating sides.
Monte
11.448
Sereno /Los
Yes'
42 _
AFew obstacles,
Grade
separated,
4
N
11.448
Gatos city
No
with gaps
4 -8 f[
120 ft
including driveways,
SR 17
Minor
not
Yes
limits to SR
and facility gaps
17
signalized
TRANSIT FACILITY
There is no public transportation service running along SR 9. VTA Community Bus Line #48 runs mainly on North
Santa Cruz Avenue. There is a southbound bus stop on North Santa Cruz Avenue just north of SR 9, and a
northbound bus stop on SR 9 between University Avenue and North Santa Cruz Avenue. In addition, VTA Regular
Bus Line #53 runs on South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue and makes a turn at the intersection
of Big Basin Way and South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. There is a pair of bus stops in both directions located on
Saratoga Avenue northeast of the above mentioned intersection. Figure 3 below illustrates where these transit
services are located.
The SR 9 corridor is not located in the vicinity of the VTA Light Rail, Caltrain, ACE, BART or the proposed
California High Speed Rail. There are no Park - and -Ride lots available along the corridor either. VTA is interested
in bringing transit service to the SR 9 corridor, although no such projects have been proposed in current adopted
plans.
Figure 3. Transit Routes around SR 9"
"http: / /www.vta.org /schedules /schedules bvmap.html. accessed Sept 2012
Source: District 4 GIS and Technical Support Branch, July 2013.
FREIGHT
SR 9 has been designated as a CA Legal Advisory Route which represents highways which allow California Legal
Trucks, defined as a maximum Kingpin -to- Rear -Axle distance (KPRA) of 40 feet, to use these highways.
However, it is recommended that truckers not use advisory routes unless their KPRA is less than the posted
advisory length. For SR 9, the KPRA advisory length is 30 feet. Regarding traffic, trucks accounted for less than
5% of the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume on the SR 9 Corridor. The majority of the truck traffic was
smaller trucks for goods and service related delivery to local residences and business. Heavy truck (5+ axle)
percentage is minimal. SR 9 connects to two other freight movement facilities, SR 35 and SR 17. SR 35 is also a
CA Legal Advisory Route with a 30 -foot KPRA advisory length, while SR 17 is considered a Terminal Access Route.
Fags 1 18
Terminal Access Routes are portions of State routes or local roads that can accommodate larger trucks
designated by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.12 Table 10 below summarizes the freight
facilities on or near SR 9. Additional truck traffic data is provided in the Corridor Performance Section on page
21.
Table 10. Freight Facilities33
Facility Type /Freight Generator
Location
Mode
Name
Highway
SR 9
Truck
SR 9 (C4 Legal Advisory Route)
Highway
SR 35
Truck
SR 35 (CA Legal Advisory Route)
Highway
SR 17
Truck
SR 17 (Terminal Access (STAR))
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Table 11 on page 19 summarizes environmental resources and potential issues along the corridor. Figure 4 on
page 20 also shows where these resources are located. Below is a brief discussion of where environmental
factors have a higher concentration and where potential problems are found within the corridor.
• Segment 1 of the SR 9 corridor is largely surrounded by potential Section 4(f) land and the Region's
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs). No major development is expected along this segment, and the
segment is anticipated to remain in its current state.
• SR 9 is an Officially Designated Scenic Route in California. Local jurisdictions along the route have all
adopted programs /policies to protect the scenic quality of the corridor.
• There are three historic bridges in Segment 1.
• SR 9 is located within a seismically active -area and crosses the San Andreas Fault, a major north -south
fault in California. Several smaller faults are also found near or along Segments 2, 3 and 4.
• Multiple underground storage tanks are located along or near Segments 2, 3 and 4, especially near the
North Santa Cruz Ave in Segment 4.
• The robust spineflower, a species of concern, is found in Segments 3 and 4.
• Several creeks /streams run either along or across SR 9, but none of them have been identified as wild
and scenic rivers.
• Steelhead trout are found in the water bodies around SR 9. There is a total barrier for fish passage near
PM 6.000 in Segment 1, a partial barrier at Los Gatos Creek (PM 11.298) and a few other locations along
the corridor where fish passage status is unknown.
• For habitat connectivity, Caltrans and California Department of Fish and Wildlife jointly sponsored the
California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The project identified all Essential Connectivity Areas
(ECAs) in the state, which are important areas for maintaining connectivity between large blocks of
habitat. Segment 1 and sections of Segments 2 and 3 have been identified as within ECAs. Segment 1
12 See htto: / /www.dot.ca.gov /ha /traffoos /trucks /routes /truck - routes.htm for complete Truck Size and Route definitions
13 Information retrieved from District 4 Truck Networks on California State Highways Map:
htto: / /www.dot.ca.eov /ha /traffoos /trucks /truckmao /truckmao -d04. odf
F,!( ! Li
poses less connectivity threat due to its narrow configuration and lower traffic demand. Areas of
Segments 2 and 3 are more challenging for wildlife to cross due to a wider roadway, greater traffic
demand and higher vehicle speeds.
The entire corridor is within Santa Clara County and is designated as a non - attainment area for ozone
and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 by both State and federal air quality resource management agencies.
Additionally, PM 10 levels in the area are classified as non - attainment by the State.
Table 11. Environmental Factors
14 2010 Fault Activity Map of California http: / /www.guake.ca.gov/ ¢maps /FAM /faultactivitymay.htmi
is FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map http: / /msc.fema.gov
16 Areas Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos: http: / /onramp.dot.ca.goy /hp /maint /roadway rehab /ais /nao.htm
17 Air Resources Board, Area Designation Map: http:// arbis .arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /adm.htm
18 Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS): http: / /imaps.dfg.ca.eov /viewers /biosoublic /aoo.aso
19 Wild and Scenic Rivers: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /ser /volt /sec3/ special/ chl9wsrivers /chaol9.htm #WildAgencies
20 BIOS, Essential Habitat Connectivity layer: http: / /imaps.dfg.ca.aov /viewers /biosoublic /app.asr)
Pair 120
C
=
m C
C
C
~E
?
a
3
v
m vi
m
E
o
p
S
=
an
N Y
N N p V
N
YF
Y Y
9 Y Cc
Y
LL
C
7 Y
N
Y d
G 7
Y O N .y
z
.� t N
� N
K
2
q
V
N
Z
O
O
Z
J
Z
3
N
E
c
4
Q
14 2010 Fault Activity Map of California http: / /www.guake.ca.gov/ ¢maps /FAM /faultactivitymay.htmi
is FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map http: / /msc.fema.gov
16 Areas Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos: http: / /onramp.dot.ca.goy /hp /maint /roadway rehab /ais /nao.htm
17 Air Resources Board, Area Designation Map: http:// arbis .arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /adm.htm
18 Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS): http: / /imaps.dfg.ca.eov /viewers /biosoublic /aoo.aso
19 Wild and Scenic Rivers: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /ser /volt /sec3/ special/ chl9wsrivers /chaol9.htm #WildAgencies
20 BIOS, Essential Habitat Connectivity layer: http: / /imaps.dfg.ca.aov /viewers /biosoublic /app.asr)
Pair 120
SR -9
Environmental Factors
— SR -9 Corridor
Environmental Factors
Hazardous Sites
(underground tanks)
o Historical Bridges (pre -1955)
Species of Concern
Priority Conservation Areas
Priority (Development Areas
Potential 4f Lands
Farmland of Local Importance
Basemap
Major Routes
Major Roads
Rail
�-- County Boundary
Water
Figure 4. Environmental Factors Map
c
0
Pros I R
9.
Ne
ou� e
' Sara a
SANTA C L A R A
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
Source: District 4 GIS and Technical Support Branch, Jan 2013.
Willis Rd.
•ir—ftml Ak - I
Monte, t
Sererio
n.r..rn.
una RTn
Glsbrw.4
1*61M W61114 ' A =90V mains] A
The VTA Travel Demand Model21 was used to obtain vehicle traffic performance data for the SR 9 corridor. The
VTA model uses roadway network links as the unit of analysis, which do not match the segments used in this
TCR. Therefore, link data was first converted into segment data either by aggregation (for Vehicle Miles
Traveled) or by average (for Annual Average Daily Traffic [AADT] and peak hour volumes) and then reported in
Table 12 on the next page.
Among the four segments, Segment 4 carried the most AADT in the Base Year (BY) 2010 and is expected to carry
the most traffic in the Horizon Year (HY) 2035. However, Segment 1 is forecasted to see the largest growth in
AADT, a 133% increase over the same time period. This is due to the model assuming a higher rate of growth in
population and jobs in Santa Cruz County. The VTA model does not provide annual traffic growth rate directly.
Instead, land use data from ABAG, local jurisdictions, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG) are used for existing conditions in the base year 2010 and for projections in future years. Land use
data mainly includes population and employment information that can be used to generate and assign trips to
the roadway network. Annual trip growth rates shown in Table 12 on page 22 were calculated based on existing
and forecast volumes, using the following formula:
Annual Trip Growth Rate = (Horizon Year [HY]) AADT /Base Year [BY] AADT)A(1 /Number of Years)
As mentioned earlier in the Freight section, SR 9 does not carry a very high volume of truck traffic. In 2010,
there was no heavy truck traffic (5+ axles) measured in Segment 1, and heavy truck volumes on other segments
were minimal at only about 0.3 %.
SR 9 did not experience high volumes of traffic during AM and PM peaks in 2010. The general commute pattern
is that people travel from both ends of the corridor toward the middle and then onto one of the major arterials
going north in the morning (such as South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga Ave, and Fruitvale Ave), and
reverse their directions in the evening. This commute pattern will change from 2010 to 2035. As a result of
faster employment growth in Santa Cruz County, it is forecast that more people will be traveling toward both
ends of the corridor and going south toward Santa Cruz County in the morning, then return home in the
afternoon. Therefore, the directional split during peak hours on segments 2, 3 and 4 will generally be less
prominent. Segment 1, on the other hand, will see a significant increase in WB AM traffic (from 498 in 2010 to
1308 in 2035) and in EB PM traffic (from 522 in 2010 to 1277 in 2035).
Neither the VTA model nor Caltrans' travel demand forecasting model calculates roadway Level of Service (LOS)
for SR 9. Alternative ways can be used to examine the traffic conditions of the road, however. For example,
according to the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, two -lane highways have a theoretical capacity of 1,700
vehicles per hour (vph) in one direction, with a limit of 3,200 vph for the total of both directions 22 Under these
capacity assumptions, the two -lane rural roadway in Segment 1 is operating well below capacity in both 2010
and 2035, resulting in no significant needs for road widening. Additionally, according to VTA's 2012 Congestion
Management Program (CMP) Monitoring Report 33, sections of SR 9 east of Big Basin (PM 7.400 - 11.448) have
been identified as a rural highway. The CMP uses the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 to analyze rural highways.
Based on the Percent Time Spent Following (PTSF) other vehicles and average travel speed, this section of SR 9
operated at LOS D with a volume of 1,342 vph for both directions in 2012. Also, all CMP intersections along SR 9
(Big Basin Way /South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, SR 9 /Quito Road, SR 9 /North Santa Cruz Avenue and SR
9 /University Avenue) were at LOS D or better in 2012. However, these operational analyses are not suitable for
21 Communication with VrA's modeling group occurred Dec 2012 to May 2013
n Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Volume 2, page 15 -5
2' htto: / /www.vta.org /cmo /. accessed Feb to June 2013
Page 1 22
long term (25 -year) projections and forecasts, so there is no LOS calculation available for these segments in the
horizon year 2035.
Overall, SR 9 is forecast to have a moderate growth, although some segments (such as eastbound Segment 1
and eastbound Segment 4) may see a more substantial increase in traffic than other segments. Given the fact
that both the existing and forecast volumes are within roadway capacity, no major capacity increasing project is
recommended in the corridor. Meanwhile, the corridor management strategies should focus on maintenance
and operational improvements. Timely maintenance can help preserve roadway capacity, and operational
improvements can help maximize operational efficiency and reliability. Additional multimodal projects including
transit service and non - motorized facilities will also help provide more transportation alternatives and alleviate
impacts associated with increases in vehicular traffic.
Table 12. Corridor Performance by Segment
Segment#
1
1 2
3
4
Basic System Operations
AADT (Base Year 2010 [BY])
7,259
12,587
12,631
20,793
AADT (Horizon Year 2035 [MY])
16,936
15,156
17,522
25,255
AADT: Growth Rate/Year
3.4%
0.7%
1.3%
0.8%
VMT (BY) per day
37,344
3321
36,686
7,075
VM7(MY)per day
90,212
5136
51986
9386
Truck Traffic
Total Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (AADTT) (BY)
101
378
598
934
Total Trucks (% of AADT) (BY)
1.39%
3.00%
4.73%
4.49%
S+ Axle Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (AADTT)(BY)
0
8
33
67
5+ Axle Trucks (as %of AADT)(BY)
0%
0.06%
0.26%
0.32%
Peak Hour Traffic Data
EB AM Peak Hour Vol (BY)
638
528
552
800
WB AM Peak Hour Vol (BY)
498
701
994
1,093
AM Peak Hour Directional Split (BY)
56/44
43/57
36/64
42/58
EB PM Peak Hour Vol (BY)
522
696
1,049
1,207
WB PM Peak Hour Vol (BY)
771
605
782
928
PM Peak Hour Directional Split (BY)
40/60
53/47
57/43
57/43
EB AM Peak Hour Vol (MY)
620
702
1,091 1
1,483
WB AM Peak Hour Vol (MY)
1,308
852
1202
1,374
AM Peak Hour Directional Split (MY)
32/68
45/55
48/52
52/48
EB PM Peak Hour Vol (MY)
1,277
853
1,295
1,554
WB PM Peak Hour Vol (MY)
951
721
1,217
1,348
PM Peak Hour Directional Split (MY)
57/43
54/46
52/48
54/46
Palo �'
KEY CORRIDOR ISSUES
COMPLETE STREETS
Caltrans' Deputy Directive DD -64 -R1 calls for Complete Streets to address the safety and mobility needs of all
users in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products
on the State Highway System. Assembly Bill 1358 (2008) also requires cities and counties to incorporate
Complete Streets concept into the development and update of local general plans. Additional multimodal
projects in the SR 9 Corridor are needed to ensure a complete streets environment. For example, there is a
potential need for transit service along the corridor to aid travelers who do not or are not permitted to drive.
No continuous sidewalks or pathways are currently present in much of Segment 3 and portions of Segment 4,
and there are only limited pedestrian crossings, both creating obstacles for pedestrians. While dedicated bike
lanes have recently been developed in Segments 3 and 4, bicyclists in Segments 1 and 2 still have to share the
road with motor vehicles. The needs of all travelers represent a key issue when determining future
improvements in the corridor.
RELINQUISHMENT
In Segment 2, sidewalks and gutters on both sides of the road were relinquished to the City of Saratoga in 2005.
Saratoga has also contacted Caltrans concerning relinquishment opportunities along the entire route within
their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the City of Monte Sereno is exploring the possibilities of route relinquishment
within their city limits. Caltrans in principle is supportive of these relinquishment requests, given the fact that
SR 9 within these jurisdictions mainly serves local traffic. However, relinquishment has to be implemented with
system continuity considerations to avoid route fragmentation. As part of the discussion, local jurisdictions
would need to better understand how the ongoing operational costs would be covered, both for pavement
maintenance and signal operations.
CORRIDOR OPERATIONS
Corridor operations were raised as an issue during communications with stakeholders. More specifically, local
jurisdictions have voiced access related concerns for vehicles seeking to turn left onto SR 9 from side streets at
unsignalized intersections. Additionally, issues relating to varying speed limits in Segment 3, potentially
affecting access, were also raised. Future monitoring and communication with local jurisdictions should be
carried out to determine whether operational improvements are warranted to ensure full mobility and
accessibility for all users along the SR 9 corridor.
ROAD DIET
Road Diet is a roadway reconfiguration technique to reduce the number of lanes and /or the effective width of
the travel lanes to achieve systematic improvements. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the
typical application of road diet involves converting an undivided four -lane roadway into three lanes made up of
two through lanes and a center two -way left turn lane. The reduction of lanes allows for additional multimodal
facilities and /or on street parking spaces. Road diets can help improve safety and provide room for multimodal
improvements 24 The road diet concept was raised as a possible future consideration for Segments 3 and 4
during Caltrans meetings with local jurisdictions. Additional study is needed to help determine if these
segments are good candidates for a road diet.
29 Federal Highway Administration, Proven Safety Counter Measures: Road Diet.
http: / /safetv.fhwa. dot .gov /provencountermeasures /fhwa sa 12 013.htm, accessed June 2013.
Pak; I [4
SARATOGA -LOS GATOs ROAD EAST
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is SR 9 between Saratoga Avenue and SR 17. After SR 9 terminates at SR 17, Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road continues eastward for approximately 1,000 ft and ends at Los Gatos Boulevard. Although not
part of the State Highway System (SHS), this eastern segment of roadway serves as an extension of the SR 9
corridor and helps connect Los Gatos to the regional roadway network including SR 9 and SR 17. Saratoga -Los
Gatos Road is considered a high - priority bicycle /pedestrian safety improvement corridor by Saratoga, Monte
Sereno, and Los Gatos. There have been several joint bicycle /pedestrian improvement projects including the
aforementioned segment. Improvement projects proposed in Los Gatos' General Plan also include the
installation of bike lanes across the SR 17 bridge which connects to Los Gatos Boulevard and where bike lanes
have already been developed. Future Caltrans projects near SR 9 /SR 17 interchange need to take into
consideration this east segment to ensure system connectivity.
CORRIDOR CONCEPT
CONCEPT RATIONALE
As discussed above, District 4 is generally supportive of recent relinquishment requests for some portions of the
route. Segments 2, 3 and 4 mainly carry local traffic and will continue to play the same role in the future. No
major development is planned along these segments and the Interregional traffic is not expected to increase
significantly. As a result, the future concept for Segments 2, 3, and 4 is relinquishment. While Saratoga and
Monte Sereno are both expressed interest in route relinquishment within their respective city boundaries,
discussion still needs to occur with Los Gatos, Santa Clara County and VTA.
Meanwhile, it is recognized that relinquishment to a great extent is a locally driven process and implementation
may not happen immediately. District 4 will continue to maintain, operate and manage these segments while
they remain under the State ownership. The management strategies of Segments 2, 3 and 4 mainly focus on
maintenance, operational improvements and addressing multimodal transportation needs.
For relinquishment purposes, Segment 1 has been divided into two sub - segments: Segment 1(a) in
unincorporated Santa Clara County and Segment 1(b) in Saratoga. While Segment 1(b) may be relinquished to
Saratoga, Segment 1(a) may be retained under Caltrans' ownership and operation. This is due to Segment 1(a)
serving an important interregional link between the Bay Area and the Santa Cruz region, and traffic on this sub -
segment being interregional in nature. Segment 1(a) will remain a two -lane conventional highway. Continuous
monitoring and study should be performed to evaluate if additional passing lanes and turnouts are needed to
help facilitate the operation of the road and to accommodate bicycle travel.
Table 13 on next page lists planned and programmed projects along SR 9 found in existing plans or programming
documents and Table 14 proposes future projects and strategies to help achieve corridor concept. For Segment
1(a), the strategies focus on maintenance and operational improvements. For Segments 1(b), 2, 3 and 4, these
newly proposed projects may help close existing gaps in multimodal infrastructure, address a major obstacle to
pedestrian movement at SR 9 /SR 17 interchange, and contribute to transforming SR 9 into a complete street.
PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES
Table 13. Planned or Programmed Projects along SR 9"
Seg.
Description
Planned or
Location
Source
PM 0.000 -5.653
1(b),2,3,4
Programmed
PM 5.653- 11.448
2,3,4
1
Improve sight distance & update existing
Programmed
PM 2.5 -7.0
District 42012 SHOPP
3,4
lanes & shoulders
PM 7.551 - 11.448
4
Program
1
Bridge rail replacement
Programmed
PM 0.0 -3.6
District 4 2012 SHOPP
Program
I
Construct tie -back wall
Programmed
PM 0.0 -4.2
District 4 2012 SHOPP
Program
1
Construct soldier pile wall
Programmed
PM 4.6 -4.7
District 4 2012 SHOPP
Program
1
Replace Saratoga Creek Bridge
Planned
PM 4.75 -5.0
District 4 PSSR Document
(2013)
1
Widen paved shoulders
Programmed
PM 0.0 -7.1
District 4 2012 SHOPP
Program
Saratoga General Plan
1
Multi -use path south of and parallel to SR 9
Planned /Conceptual
PM 5.653-
Circulation and Scenic
from city west to Toll Gate Road in Saratoga
6.671
Highway Element 2010
Saratoga General Plan
I
Bike Facility on SR 9 between Toll Gate Rd and
Planned /Conceptual
PM 6.671-
Circulation and Scenic
4`" Street
7.230
Highway Element 2010
Implement pedestrian safety improvements
Phase it: Plan Bay Area /2013
2 3 4
on Route 9 (Phase It and IV of the Highway 9
Programmed
PM 7'09 _
TIP (RTP ID 240427)
Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety Improvement
11.448
Phase IV: Planned
Project)
4
Highway 9 Gateway Enhancement at North
Programmed
PM 11.06
VFA Valley Transportation
Santa Cruz Avenue and at University Avenue
PM 11.17
Plan 2035
4
Highway 9— Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector
Programmed
PM 11.298
VIA Valley Transportation
Plan 2040 (VTP ID B19)
PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE CONCEPT
Table 14. Future Projects along SR 9
Segment
Description
Location
1(a)
Passing lanes and turnouts as needed
PM 0.000 -5.653
1(b),2,3,4
Route relinquishment
PM 5.653- 11.448
2,3,4
Develop bus service along SR 9 (based
on demand for transit)
PM 7.09 - 11.448
3
Improve /develop pedestrian crossings
PM 7.551- 10.830
3,4
Provide continuous pedestrian paths on
both sides of the road
PM 7.551 - 11.448
4
SR 9 /SR 17 Interchange Reconstruction
PM 11.448
25 Project information obtained from the "Santa Clara County SR 9 Projects" map, Feb 2013
Page 126
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS
Acronyms
AADT- Annual Average Daily Traffic
AADTT— Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic
AB — Assembly Bill
ABAG — Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA —Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ADT- Average Daily Traffic
BAAQMD — Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BCDC — Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BY- Base Year
Caltrans — California Department of Transportation
CMA- Congestion Management Agencies
CMP— Congestion Management Plan
CSMP— Corridor System Management Plan
CEQA- California Environmental Quality Act
CSS — Context Sensitive Solutions
CTP — California Transportation Plan
DD — Deputy Directive
DSMP — District System Management Plan
ECA — Essential Connectivity Areas
FH WA — Federal highway Administration
FSR — Feasibility Study Report
FSTIP- Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
FTIP — Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GHG- Greenhouse Gas
GIS —Geographic Information System
HCP- Habitat Conservation Plan
HOT -High occupancy toll lane
HOV -High occupancy vehicle lane
HY- Horizon Year
IGR- Intergovernmental Review
ITIP — Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
ITS — Intelligent Transportation System
ITSP — Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan
KPRA — Kingpin -to- Rear -Axle
LOS — Level of Service
MPO- Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MTC— Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NOA — Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NCCP- Natural Community Conservation Plan
NEPA- National Environmental Policy Act
PCA— Priority Conservation Area
PDA— Priority Development Area
PID- Project Initiation Document
PM — Post Mile
PSR- Project Study Report
PTSF — Percent Time Spent Following
RHNA- Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RTP- Regional Transportation Plan
RTIP — Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTPA- Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
SAFETEA -LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users
SB — Senate Bill
SCS- Sustainable Community Strategies
SHOPP- State Highway Operation Protection Program
SHS — State Highway System
SMF — Smart Mobility Framework
SR — State Route
STIP — State Transportation Improvement Program
TEA -21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TCR —Transportation Concept Report
TDM — Transportation Demand Management
TMS —Transportation Management System
TSN- Transportation System Network
VMT— Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA— Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VPH — Vehicles per Hour
Definitions
AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic is the total volume for the year divided by 365 days. The traffic count year is
from October 1st through September 30th. Traffic counting is generally performed by electronic counting
instruments moved from location throughout the state in a program of continuous traffic count sampling. The
resulting counts are adjusted to an estimate of annual average daily traffic by compensating for seasonal
influence, weekly variation and other variables which may be present. Annual ADT is necessary for presenting a
statewide picture of traffic flow, evaluating traffic trends, computing accident rates, planning and designing
highways and other purposes.
Base Year —The year that the most current data is available to the Districts
Bikeway Class I (Bike Path) — Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians with cross flow by motorists minimized.
Bikeway Class II (Bike Lane) — Provides a striped lane for one -way bike travel on a street or highway.
Bikeway Class III (Bike Route) — Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
Bottlenecks — A bottleneck is a location where traffic demand exceeds the effective carrying capacity of the
roadway. In most cases, the cause of a bottleneck relates to a sudden reduction in capacity, such as a lane drop,
merging and weaving, driver distractions, a surge in demand, or a combination of factors.
Capacity — The maximum sustainable hourly flow rate at which persons or vehicles reasonably can be expected
to traverse a point or a uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing
roadway, environmental, traffic, and control conditions.
Page 1 ZS
Capital Facility Concept — The 20 -25 year vision of future development on the route to the capital facility. The
capital facility can include capacity increasing, State Highway, bicycle facility, pedestrian facility, transit facility
(Intercity Passenger Rail, Mass Transit Guideway etc.), grade separation, and new managed lanes.
Conceptual Project— A conceptual improvement or action is a project that is needed to maintain mobility or
serve multimodal users, but is not currently included in a fiscally constrained plan and is not currently
programmed. It could be included in a General Plan or in the unconstrained section of a long -term plan.
Corridor — A broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow connecting major sources of trips
that may contain a number of streets, highways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit route alignments. Off system
facilities are included as informational purposes and not analyzed in the TCR.
Facility Concept — Describe the Facility and strategies that may be needed within 20 -25 years. This can include
capacity increasing, State Highway, bicycle facility, pedestrian facility, transit facility, Non - capacity increasing
operational improvements, new managed lanes, conversion of existing managed lanes to another managed lane
type or characteristic, TMS field elements, Transportation Demand Management and Incident Management.
Facility Type — The facility type describes the State Highway facility type. The facility could be freeway,
expressway, conventional, or one -way city street.
Freight Generator — Any facility, business, manufacturing plant, distribution center, industrial development, or
other location (convergence of commodity and transportation system) that produces significant commodity
flow, measured in tonnage, weight, carload, or truck volume.
Horizon Year —The year that the future (20 -25 years) data is based on
Intermodal Freight Facility — Intermodal transport requires more than one mode of transportation. An
intermodal freight facility is a location where different transportation modes and networks connect and freight
is transferred (or "transloaded ") from one mode, such as rail, to another, such as truck.
ITS — Intelligent Transportation System improves transportation safety and mobility and enhances productivity
through the integration of advanced communications technologies into the transportation infrastructure and in
vehicles. Intelligent transportation systems encompass a broad range of wireless and wire line communications -
based information and electronics technologies to collect information, process it, and take appropriate actions.
LOS — Level of Service is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their
perception by motorists. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruption, comfort, and convenience. Six levels of LOS can generally be
categorized as follows:
LOS A describes free flowing conditions. The operation of vehicles is virtually unaffected by the presence
of other vehicles, and operations are constrained only by the
geometric features of the highway.
i
LOS B is also indicative of free -flow conditions. Average travel speeds are the same as in LOS A, but
drivers have slightly less freedom to maneuver.
LOS C represents a range in which the influence of traffic density on operations becomes marked. The
ability to maneuver with the traffic stream is now clearly affected by the presence of other vehicles.
LOS D demonstrates a range in which the ability to maneuver is severely restricted because of the traffic
congestion. Travel speed begins to be reduced as traffic volume increases.
LOS E reflects operations at or near capacity and is quite unstable. Because the limits of the level of
service are approached, service disruptions cannot be damped or readily dissipated.
LOS F a stop and go, low speed conditions with little or poor maneuverability. Speed and traffic flow
may drop to zero and considerable delays occur. For intersections, LOS F describes operations with delay
in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered by most drivers unacceptable often occurs
with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Multi -modal — The availability of transportation options using different modes within a system or corridor, such
as automobile, subway, bus, rail, or air.
System Operations and Management Concept— Describe the system operations and management elements that
may be needed within 20 -25 years. This can include Non - capacity increasing operational improvements (Aux.
lanes, channelization's, turnouts, etc.), conversion of existing managed lanes to another managed lane type or
characteristic (e.g. HOV land to HOT lane), TMS Field Elements, Transportation Demand Management, and
Incident Management.
Peak Hour —The hour of the day in which the maximum volume occurs across a point on the highway.
Peak Hour Volume — The hourly volume during the highest hour traffic volume of the day traversing a point on a
highway segment. It is generally between 6 percent and 10 percent of the ADT. The lower values are generally
found on roadways with low volumes.
Planned Project— A planned improvement or action is a project in a fiscally constrained section of a long -term
plan, such as an approved Regional or Metropolitan Transportation Plan (RTP or MTP), Capital Improvement
Plan, or measure.
Post Mile — A post mile is an identified point on the State Highway System. The milepost values increase from
the beginning of a route within a count to the next county line. The milepost values start over again at each
county line. Milepost values usually increase from south to north or west to east depending upon the ee neral
direction the route follows within the state. The milepost at a given location will remain the same year after
year. When a section of road is relocated, new milepost (usually noted by an alphabetical prefix such as "R" or
"M ") are established for it. If relocation results in a change in length, "milepost equations" are introduced at the
Page 1 30
end of each relocated portion so that mileposts on the reminder of the route within the county will remain
unchanged.
Programmed Project— A programmed improvement or action is a project in a near -term programming document
identifying funding amounts by year, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program or the State
Highway Operations and Protection Program.
Route Designation —A route's designation is adopted through legislation and identifies what system the route is
associated with on the State Highway System. A designation denotes what design standards should apply during
project development and design. Typical designations include but not limited to National Highway System (NHS),
Interregional Route System (IRRS), Scenic Highway System,
Rural — Fewer than 5,000 in population designates a rural area. Limits are based upon population density as
determined by the U.S. Census Bureau
Segment— A portion of a facility between two points.
TOM — Transportation Demand Management programs designed to reduce or shift demand for transportation
through various means, such as the use of public transportation, carpooling, telework, and alternative work
hours. Transportation Demand Management strategies can be used to manage congestion during peak periods
and mitigate environmental impacts.
TMS — Transportation Management System is the business processes and associated tools, field elements and
communications systems that help maximize the productivity of the transportation system. TMS includes, but is
not limited to, advanced operational hardware, software, communications systems and infrastructure, for
integrated Advanced Transportation Management Systems and Information Systems, and for Electronic Toll
Collection System.
Urban — 5,000 to 49,999 in population designates an urban area. Limits are based upon population density as
determined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Urbanized — Over 50,000 in population designates an urbanized area. Limits are based upon population density
as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
VMT— Is the total number of miles traveled by motor vehicles on a road or highway segments.
APPENDIX B
FACT SHEET FOR THE INITIAL OUTREACH MEETING
t �n
rte,.
SR -9 Fact Sheet
Trarrsportation Concept
Report (TCR) Lc a-"I-
trans System Planning
Document that,
• Evaluates current and
projected condition
along a route
• Provides a long range
25 -7tar concept or vi.
sion for a mule
• communicates that
vision for future devel.
opmeni Ora route
State Route 9 TCR:
For the purpose of this TCR, SR -9 begins at Santa Clara/Santa Cruz County
line at the junction of SR-9/SR-35 and ends at SR- 9/SR -17 junction. The
southern (western) portion of SR-9 is a two -lane facility that travels generally in
easterly direction, wandering through the mountainous area in unincorpo.
rated Santa Clara County before entering more urbanized area. Shortly after
entering the city Ilmtt, the two -lane facility serves as the main street in historic
Saratoga Vi llage within the City of Saratoga. At the intersection of SR -9/
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd/Saratoga Ave, or Post Mile 7.40, SR -9 turns south
east R continues as a two to four lane facility through the City of Saratoga, the
City of Monte Serene and the town of Los Gatos before terminating at SR -17.
SR -9 is a California Designated Scenic Route and is also a C4 Legal Advisory
truxk route.
Proposed Route Segmentation
Segment A
Begin PM and Street
End PM and Street
1
0.00
7.09
0100
SCL/SCZ County line/SR-35
6th SL In Saratoga
2
7.09
7.55
Sanborn Rd_
6th St. in Saratoga
Oak A. In Saratoga
3
7.55
11.45
390
Oak PI. In Saratoga
SR -17
Conditions — 20n Traffic Volumes*
Peat Mlle
Description
Rack
Peak Hour Peak Month
MOT
0100
Jct- SR-35
-
_
_
4.89
Sanborn Rd_
320
3700
2700
5.71
Pierce Rd.
390
3950
3900
7.09
Sixth SL
640
7000
6700
7.40
narde d
7.350
14400
13900
9.84
T-ruttvale Ave.
790
10100
9600
9sa
Quao Rd.
1050
13300
12900
Santa Cruz
1108
2100
27000
26000
Ave.
17_45
Jct. SR -17
2700
34500
33500
CarVam Trafic Date fkandr
nrvurd aw,M aura
SR -9 Fact Sheet
Planned Projects
VTP wogs local Street Program
Los Gatos: Hwy 9 Gateway Enhancements at University Ave
and North Santa Cruz Ave
VTP sops Bicycle Program
Saratoga. Los Gatos: Hwy 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Los Gatos: Hwy 9 - Los Gatos Creek Trail connector
Saratoga General Plan
Bate
Hwy 9 /Congress Springs Rd (west of Toll Gate Rd) - Mult4
use path extending south of and parallel to Hwy 9 and pro-
viding an east -west connection along Hwy 9 to the west of
the Village
Hwy 9/Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd - Modify the existing striping
to provide continuous bike lanes through the City of Sara-
toga
Hwy 9 /Big Basin Way (4th St to TON Gate Rd) - Provide an
addltlOnal oast -west bike facility on Hwy 9 that provides
access to the Village area and connect to points west
Pedestrian
Hwy 9 /Congress Springs Rd (west of Toll Gate Rd) - Multi-
use path extending south of and parallel to Hwy 9 and pro-
viding an east -west connection along Hwy 9 to the west of
the Village
Proposed City Trail along SR -9, from Frultvale Ave to City
limit Los Gatos
L,oa Getcxv General Plan
Intersection
Hwy 9 and University Aw: Widen University Ave to ado a SO
rlght4um lane and extend NO right -turn two to Boyer Ln.
Install protected left -turn signal phases. modify Intersection
cornem close the median opening, and reconstruct the In-
tersectlon as a Downtown gateway. HSIP project
Hwy 9 and N. Santa Cruz Ave: Add a SO rot turn owriap
phase and prohibit the EB U-turn movement Reconstruct
as a Downtown gatevray.
Roadway
University Ave to Los Gatos Blvd: Construct a pod /bike
bridge connecting to the Los Gatos Creak Trail. H feasible.
Install a bike lane arloss the Hwy 17 bridge connecting to
Los Gatos Blvd.
Bike Lane
Class II bike lanes. I feasible, on Hwy 9 from Los Gatos
Blvd to westerly Town limits (Existing between University
Avenue and westerly Town limits)
Corridor Specific Issues
• Narrow and curvy road in mountain area, resulting
in road sharing challenges between motor vehicles,
motorcycles and bikes
• Gaps in bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the
corridor
For questions regarding the SR -9 TCR, {lease contact D4
AssOClate Transportation Plannor Jelin liu at 510286
5577 or email at zhongping_xuBdotce.gov
i'_: ( ;
APPENDIX C
RESOURCES
Association of Bay Area Governments, FOCUS
http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/index.htmi
Bay Conservancy & Development Commission
httj)://www.bcdc.ca.gov
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, Quickviewer
htto: / /imaps.dfg.ca.gov /viewers /cnddb auickviewer /aoo.asp
California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS)
http://imai)s.dfg.ca.gov/viewers/biospublic/app.asp
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDD)
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pd
California Department of Transportation, 2010 Smart Mobility Handbook, Ch 3: Applying the Smart Mobility to
Place Types
htto: / /www.dot.ca.gov /ho /too /offices /oco /smf tiles /SmMbIty v6- 3.22.10 150DPI.pdf
California Department of Transportation District 4, Highway Operations Division, Park and ride
htto: / /www.dot.ca. goy /dist4 /highwayops /parkandride /documents /park ride lots master list 12 14 09.pdf
California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation System Information, California Road System
(CRS) Maps 05M34, 05M350 OSM45 and 06M41
htto : / /dot.ca.gov /ha /tsip /hseb /crs maps/
California Department of Transportation, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP), June 1998
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ha/transprog/ocip/te/itso.pdf
California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program
htto : / /www.dot.ca.izov /ha /LandArch /scenic highways /scenic hwv.htm
California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Protocol dated March 2011
htto: / /www.dot.ca.pov /ho /env /noise /pub /ca tnao mav2011.Pdf
California, Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division, Traffic Data Branch, Traffic Volumes and Truck Traffic
httg)://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm
California Department of Transportation, Truck Network on California State Highways, District 4 Map 1 of 1,
htto: / /www.d ot.ca. go v/ h a /traffoos /t rucks /truckm a o /truck ma D -d04. Ddf
California Department of Transportation, Truck Map Legend Truck Lengths and Routes,
http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /ha /traffoos /trucks /truckma o /truck- lemend.pdf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) State Area Designation Maps:
Maps, Ozone: htto: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /2011 /state o3.pdf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) State Area Designation Maps,
PM2.5: htto: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /2011 /state pm25.pdf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) State Area Designation Maps,
PM 10: htto: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /2011 /state Pm10.Ddf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) State Area Designation Maps, Carbon
Monoxide: htto: / /www.arb.ca.izov /desig /adm /2011 /state co.odf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) National Area Designation Maps, 8 Hour
Ozone: htto: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /2011 /fed o3.odf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) National Area Designation
Maps, PM 2.5: htto: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig/adm /2011 /fed om25.odf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) National Area Designation
Maps, PM 30: htto: / /www.arb.ca.pov /desig /adm /2011 /fed Dm10.Ddf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Air Resources Board (ARB) National Area Designation
Maps, Carbon Monoxide: htto: //www.arb.ca.gov /desiiz/adm /2011 /fed co.pdf
The California Streets and Highways Code, Division 1, Chapter 2, Article 3; The State Highway Routes, Section 309
http: / /www.l egi nfo.ca.gov /cpi -bin /d isplaycode ?section = she &grou p= 00001- 01000 &file = 300 -635
California Sea -Level Rise Interim Guidance Document
http : / /opc.ca.gov /webmaster /fto /odf /agenda items /20110311/12.SLR Resolution /SLR- Guidance- Document.pdf
The City of Monte Sereno, General Plan
htto : / /www.montesereno.org /clientu ploads/ Online% 20Documents / Planning /FinalGenera lPlan032010. Ddf
The City of Saratoga, General Plan
Page 1 34
htto: / /www.saratoga.ca.us /citvhall /cd /general plan asp
The City of Saratoga, Highway 9 Safety Project
http://www.saratoga.ca.us/citvhall/pw/pro'ects/hwv9.asp
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Bus and Rail Map
http: / /www.vta.oriz/schedules /schedules bvmap.html
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Congestion Management Program
htti)://www.vta.org/cmp /
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Countywide Bicycle Plan
http: //www.vta.org /schedules /bikeways plan.html
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Valley Transportation Plan 2040
htti)://www.vta.org/vtp/index.html
The Town of Los Gatos, General Plan
httr)://www.losizatosca.goy/index.aspx?nid=27
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2010, State & County Quickfacts
http://quickfacts.census.gov/cifd/states/06000.htmi
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2010, Community Facts
http: / /factfinder2.census -Roy /faces /nav /isf /pages /index xhtml
United State Geological Survey, Liquefaction Hazard Map,
htto://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/`cimap/
Page 1 15
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank