Attachment 61 - Correspondence (Part 3)Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:15 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council
Subject: N. 40 (Caltrans 85)
Attachments: rcr rteO85.pdf; ATTOOOOl.txt
http: / /www. dot. ca .gov /dist4 /systemplanning /docs /rcr /rcr rte085.pdf
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT
ROUTE 85
APRIL 1986
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
FINAL
SUMMARY APR 2 2 1986
SCL PM R0.00 to R23.87
This report defines the concept for development of Route 85 in District 4,
for a 20 -year planning period. (1985 -2005)
Route Concept
Segment A: SCL R00.00 to R18.45 Jet Rte 101 northwesterly to Jet I -280.
Unconstructed; facility type to be determined by current
study.
This segment also includes designated Route 85 (Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road /De Anza Blvd.)
Segment B: SCL R18.45 to R23.87 Jet I -280 north to Jet Rte 101.
Widen and upgrade existing 4/6 -lane freeway. Ultimate
facility type to be determined by current study.
t • •�
At the present time, most of the routes located in the South Bay are at
or near capacity. The construction of the southern portion of Route 85
will greatly relieve the congestion that is now experienced in Santa
Clara County during peak periods.
Concept Rationale
The entire length of Route 85 was adopted and declared a freeway by
the California Highway Commission in 1956 -57. Santa Clara County has
approved a local 1/2 cent sales tax increase, "Measure A" with the
proceeds dedicated to the completion of Routes 85, 101 and 237 and their
ultimate freeway development. Environmental and design studies now
underway for these routes will determine the scope of development. All
work is scheduled for completion by 1995.
When Route 85 is entirely completed, the route will serve as a commuter
and commercial route.
improvements (Post 1984 STIP)
The entire route will be constructed or reconstructed as rapidly as design
and Measure A funds become available.
LOCATION MAP
Route 85
N
CC)
c�
LO
lit
c6 o
N
*- O
V
U U
co
co co
B
A
LEGEND
Contra portion of Legislative Route 85
Dissipated Route 85
mmis sa m se se ve sesse Unoonstrnoted portion of Legislative Route 85
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT
ROUTE 85
SCL R0.00 to SCL R23.87
Prepared under the direction of:
CECIL L. SMITH, Chief Date
Transportation Planning
District 4
Recommended Approval:
1JJ (;J,t z -c. -st,
hn 0 Date
puty District Director
Planning and Programming
I approve this Route Concept Report as the guide toward which
today's decisions and /or recommendations should be directed.
Approved:
1 / ('/(J� ?446
NCH C. BACFftOLD 11atO
District Director
District 4
Approved:
ALLAN HENDRIX, Chief Date
Division of Highways
and Programming
Approved:
D. L. WIEMAN, Chief Date
Division of Transportation
Planning
Approved:
VINCE PAUL, Chief Date
Division of Project
Development
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT
ROUTE 85
SCL R0.00 to SCL R23.87
Description
Legislative Route 85 is a Federal -Aid Urban state highway and is
functionally classified as a principal arterial in an urbanized area.
The constructed portion of Legislative Route 85 is used primarily by
commuters and commercial traffic, with congestion arising during the
morning and evening commute periods.
Designated Route 85 includes both Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and De Anza
Blvd. these are municipal thoroughfares with traffic of a local
nature.
Legislative Route 85 is approximately 23 miles long and lies entirely
in Santa Clara County.
The Legislative description of Route 85 is as follows:
"Route 85 is from Route 101 near Ford Road to Route 101 near
Mountain View."
a. Segment A: This segment is presently unconstructed; it begins at
the Route 101 interchange and Bernal Road in south San Jose. This
unconstructed portion proceeds through San Jose, Monte SerenO,
Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Cupertino. The segment ends at the
junction with I -280 located in Cupertino.
The segment also includes designated Route 85; this section of Route
85 is commonly known as Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from the junction
with Route 9 to Bollinger Road in Cupertino. North of Bollinger Road
Route 85 is known as De Anza Blvd. The remaining portion of the
segment proceeds north on I -280 for approximately one mile where the
constructed portion of Route 85 begins. Consult location map for
further clarification.
b. Segment B: This segment of Route 85 begins at the Junction of
I -280 in Cupertino and terminates at the Route 101 interchange near
Moffett Field Naval Air Station in the City of Mountain View.
C. Designated Route 85: This portion of Route 85 extends from the
junction of Route 9 near Saratoga to the junction of I -280 in
Cupertino. Designated Route 85 is approximately five miles long, and
traverses Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and De Anza Blvd.
Upon completion of the presently unconstructed portion of Route 85,
designated Route 85 will be relinquished to the appropriate local
agencies, upon approval of all concerned parties. Thus, designated
Route 85 will not be discussed within this report.
-1-
Background
The alignment of Route 85 was adopted by the California Highway
Commission (now the California Transportation Commission) in 1956 and
1957. Freeway agreements were executed with local agencies in 1967.
The acquisition of right of way was initiated by Caltrans, but was
halted in 1972 due to fiscal constraints. Approximately 608 of the
right of way has been acquired, the remaining right of way is
presently being purchased.
In November of 1984, the voters of Santa Clara county passed a 1/2
cent sales tax increase which was termed "Measure A". This measure
will provide funding for improvement to three Routes: 101, 237 and
85. Over 1 billion dollars is expected to be generated over the ten
year period that "Measure A" will be in effect. The Santa Clara
County Traffic Authority was formed to administer the distribution
of funds.
re Growth
Population growth projections from the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) released June 1983, concerning growth in Santa
Clara county state the following:
1) From the year 1980 to the year 2000, ABAG projects the population
of Morgan Hill to grow 3808 and the population of Gilroy will
increase by 3178.
These growth projections are the highest in the entire Bay Area.
2) Between 1980 and 2000, San Jose will add a total of 141,000 new
jobs and its population will increase by 218.
3) Santa Clara County's population will increase by 209,000 (168)
between 1980 and 2000, employment will increase by 343,000 jobs
(49%).
4) The growth patterns indicate a major shift of growth in the
county, from a predominance of growth in the northwest and northeast
to rapid growth in the southern portion.
5) Of the 131000 new units added to the housing supply of the county
between 1980 and 2000, 758 of this growth will be located in San
Jose, Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
-2-
+� L'
Segment A
04- SCL -85, PM R0.00 to R18.45
Route 101 (San Jose) - Route 280 (Cupertino)
1. Existing Facilities
This segment is unconstructed.
b) 1984 STIP Projects (Within the area of influence)
FY 84/85
PM 0.0 to T17.4 Route 87 to I -280,
West Valley Transportation Corridor
Right of Way Acquisition
PM 0.0 to 9.3 Route 85- 101/87, Route 87- 85/101,
Route 101 -87 /Lawrence Expressway,
Guadalupe Corridor
Construct Expressway
FY 86/87
PM 1.2 to 4.9
PM 1.2 to 4.9
c) Public Transit
Miyuki Drive to Pearl Avenue,
Guadalupe Corridor
Construct Expressway
Miyuki Drive to Pearl Avenue,
Guadalupe Corridor
Construct Interchange
This segment is unconstructed.
d) Bicycles
This segment is unconstructed.
e) Park and Ride
This segment is unconstructed.
f) Rail Transit
This segment is unconstructed.
2. Current operating Conditions
Segment A is unconstructed.
-3-
3. Accident Rate
Segment A is Unconstructed.
4. Future Operating Conditions
A traffic model has been prepared by Caltrans based on the
Santa Clara County Guadalupe Corridor model to estimate the
future traffic demand on the unconstructed portion of Route
85 by the year 1990. The facility type and the number of
lanes needed will be determined by the current study.
5. Route Concept
The preferred alternative will be determined upon the comple-
tion of the EIR.
The ultimate improvements will be determined by the current
study.
7. Status and Future Development
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been
completed by Caltrans. Construction on this segment is
scheduled to commence in 1988 or 1989. It is anticipated
that construction will take approximately five to six. years.
Public hearings on the construction of segment A have
already begun, the final Environmental Impact Statement is
scheduled for completion in late 1986.
The following is a list of alternatives concerning the
construction of segment A, the final selection will be made
in mid 1986.
a. No Protect Alternative - No transportation facility in
the corridor other than those currently proposed in the
1984 STIP.
b. Transportation System Management - Low cost projects
to improve and upgrade the existing transportation
facilities, both roadway and transit.
c. Light Rail Transit - A grade separated light rail
facility which would extend from the Route 85/87 (Guada-
lupe Corridor) interchange northerly to a terminus in the
vicinity of Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino to the
northwest. This alternative would extend the Route 85
roadway element portion of the Guadalupe Corridor project
from Miyuki Drive to Route 101 in south San Jose. The
total 1985 cost is estimated to be $300 million dollars.
-4-
d. 4 -Lane Freeway with LRT - A grade separated access
controlled four lane freeway with LRT in the median. The
1985 estimated capital cost for this alternative is $480
million dollars.
e. 4 -Lane Freeway with LRT and HOV Lanes - A grade
separated access controlled four lane freeway with LRT in
the median and a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
between the LRT and first mixed flow traffic lane. The
1985 estimated capital cost for this alternative is $530
million dollars.
f. 4 -Lane Freeway with Bus /HOV Transit -way - A grade
separated access controlled four lane freeway with a
Bus /HOV transit -way in the median. The 1985 estimated
cost is $470 million dollars.
g. 6 -Lane Freeway with Sus /HOV Transit -way - A grade
separated access controlled six lane freeway with a
Bus /HOV transit -way in the median. The 1985 estimated
cost for this alternative is $490 million dollars.
h. 8 -Lane Freeway - A grade separated access controlled
eight lane freeway with a median wide enough for either a
Bus /HOV transit -way, LRT system or future freeway
widening which could be added at a later date. The 1985
estimated cost is $400 million dollars.
i. 8 -Lane Freeway with LRT - A grade separated access
controlled eight lane freeway with LRT in the median.
The 1985 estimated cost is $530 million dollars.
Segment B
(04- SCL -85, PM R18.45 to R23.87)
Route 280 (Cupertino) - Route 101 (Mountain View)
1. Existing Facilities
a) Highway Facility
A six lane freeway (PM 18.45 to 19.48) begins at the
junction of I -280 and proceeds to The Dalles Street
Pedestrian O/C (Bridge $37 -243). The shoulders are 10 to
13 feet wide with a 22 -foot median. The remainder of
Route 85 is a four lane freeway (PM 19.48 to 23.87) with
an 8 foot wide shoulder and 46 foot wide median. The
terrain is flat, grades range from 0 to 38.
b) 1984 STIP Projects: (For fiscal year)
FY 86/87
PM R23.0 to R24.0 Stevens Creek Bridge to Route 101
Roadway Reconstruction
-5-
2.
3.
4.
c) Public Transit
One express bus route operated by the Santa Clara County
Transit runs along this segment between I -280 and Route
237. Number E117 express bus connects the residential
areas in Campbell with the industrial areas near Moffett
Field in Mountain View. Service is provided only
during commute hours with 30 minute headways.
d) Bicycles
Bicycle riding is prohibited along this segment due to
its freeway status. However, numerous city streets are
available to bicyclists wishing to use a parallel route.
There are no park and ride facilities located along this
segment.
f) Rail Transit
The Route 85 corridor is not served by rail transit.
Caltrain serves the Route 101 corridor.
The 1982 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for this segment
ranges from 76,000 south of Fremont Avenue to 43,000 south of
the Route 101 interchange. The northbound AM peak hour
volumes range from 2,400 to 4,300, the southbound AM peak
hour volumes range from 2,400 to 4,300.
The Volume to Capacity ratio (V /C) is .74 with a level of
service (LOS) of C -40.
Accident Rate (1/81 to 12/83)
The total accident rate for the segment was .59 /MVM (Million
Vehicle Miles) the statewide average total accident rate for
similar facilities was 1.21 /MVM. The fatality rate was
.005 /MVM. The statewide average fatality rate was .016 /MVM.
Future Operating Conditions
The projected 1995 (2005) AADT ranges from 81,000 (89,000)
south of Fremont Avenue to 52,000 (56,000) at Route 101.
The 1995 AM peak hour volumes for the northbound direction
range from 2,900 to 4,500 vehicles, the southbound AM peak
hour volume for the southbound direction is the same as the
northbound direction. The 2005 AM peak hour volumes for the
northbound direction range from 3,100 to 4,900 vehicles, the
southbound volumes are the same as the northbound.
-6-
5.
9N
The Demand to Capacity ratio (D /C) for 1995 is .87 with a
Level of Service of D -35. The D/C ratio for 2005 is .94 with
an LOS of E -25.
The concept for this segment is to widen and upgrade from the
present four to six lane freeway. The final concept will be
determined upon completion of the current triangle study.
The study is expected to be completed by March 1988. The
ultimate concept will be determined by the triangle study.
The lead agency for this study is Caltrans in association
with local authorities. The study includes Route 85 from the
Jct. of 85/280 to the Jct. of 85/101 (PM 17.7 to 23.9) the
second route is Route 101, the limits are Fair Oaks Ave. to
the Jct. of 101/237 (PM 44.9 to 46.8) the last route included
in the study is Route 237, from the beginning of the route to
Mathilda Ave. (PM R0.4 to 3.33).
Route Improvements
Widen existing facility.
determined by current study.
-7-
Ultimate improyements to be
gg gnoy paleu9lsa4
99 ahoy anllelslBel to uoll+od paleml —up
99 alnoy anllepl6al to uolilod PBMJIW03
ON3031
EXHIBIT A
LEGEND
Constructed portion of Legislative Route 85
Designated Route 85
ve em m ve m m as as m Unwnsvuo:ed portion of Legislative Route 85
SN
N A
9N
E7
SEGMENT
010r
B
A
s
u°r
0
0
H a
1 9 8 2
43 -76
O o
19951
52 -81
a o
20051
56 -89
a
H
> -
1982
38
V
1995
42
= 0
2005
45
a "
cc
AVE. HWY SPEED
55
OPERATING SPEED
46
z
Q
1 9 8 2
.74
U
1995
()
.87
2005
.94
YEAR CAPACITY
WILL DE REACHED,
LEGEND
Constructed portion of Legislative Route 85
Designated Route 85
ve em m ve m m as as m Unwnsvuo:ed portion of Legislative Route 85
EXHIBIT B
. +I nlvra , J.,•" ltd A110 fAS11 ..
MOUNTAIN I / i'o ,1 �` • /�`^
VIEW\ // it a PApe.' T t� 11 \Bnryr /
:> LOS ALTOS o
\ �'\ ��
\ n \
s \ o SUNNYVALE I 1\
/\ �''�' \ \�\ � \ 101 l i•C
SANTA CLARAI
SAN JOS
[ A CUPERTINO /,
5!nvas ` � . ^� •1 � /pest+ ( :_' O \ L_` .:.
G res 1 V S \
CAMPSE! Lp, R p SL \l
5 S, SARATOGA/ 0 O -\
\OO MONTEN`e ft %'
ew
S....
ERENO
5
Og T s
/J \
m:An..A LOS CATOS
��fn f.• fminy ��
LEGEND
Constructed Portion of Legislative Route 85
Designated Route a5
. . . . . . Unconstfaeted Potion of Legislative Route 85
SEGMENT
B
m
A
mOf
PRESENT
4 -6F
3
LU
1995
4 -6F
1,
(j
2005
4 -6F
PRESENT
C -40
c W
� Y
1995
D -35
H
(n
2005
E -25
TERRAIN
F
Z
Q
U
Z
GRADES
F
J
Accidents
Per MVM
'S9
VFatalities
005
Q
Per MVM
. +I nlvra , J.,•" ltd A110 fAS11 ..
MOUNTAIN I / i'o ,1 �` • /�`^
VIEW\ // it a PApe.' T t� 11 \Bnryr /
:> LOS ALTOS o
\ �'\ ��
\ n \
s \ o SUNNYVALE I 1\
/\ �''�' \ \�\ � \ 101 l i•C
SANTA CLARAI
SAN JOS
[ A CUPERTINO /,
5!nvas ` � . ^� •1 � /pest+ ( :_' O \ L_` .:.
G res 1 V S \
CAMPSE! Lp, R p SL \l
5 S, SARATOGA/ 0 O -\
\OO MONTEN`e ft %'
ew
S....
ERENO
5
Og T s
/J \
m:An..A LOS CATOS
��fn f.• fminy ��
LEGEND
Constructed Portion of Legislative Route 85
Designated Route a5
. . . . . . Unconstfaeted Potion of Legislative Route 85
W
tY
a H
v w
ro
3
d H
Y ro
ro Y
�nw
0
✓ F
a�
Y +
a w
d
ro
U H
Q JroJ
ro
w
z
'� N
Q m
z v
a
z o
z m
z N
4 0
2 O
0
m ro
K d
Z O H Ft M
m 7 z
w
a H
m
co
co
W
E
0
a
m
0 ro
O N
m H
N H
W.",
m +
Y W
C
v
'O
U C
a"
0
o ro
Y
O W
Z W
< N
z
a
2
a
z
cC N
2
CD
Z M
N
a m
0
O v Y ID
Y v m
oco vin
N
O of
C7 ✓ r! .'s v 0 v
z_
_ a _
M L:
n Z a
u n
z CN -.
LLI _
C r ee m m M E'•i
C Y Y
— CL Z.
Li S Ir C K r M r; ;J
ii
LL N 0 ca
a Q L n ca � m N n 10 -3 V) ti
.`L• Q u _ _ _
O O O 6
cL
Li �.• :Y iii fti - a Cti C"! "(
cc
w oz or, rtwr� inns ;'�C4 N -+
r z= m 5 c� M w > o
o _oni q. a s
Ltf
-a cc • r • cc -
cu� ocnox> o o_oL,:o
z u n= m= N L: N N :> N LL C' E.j
_ 2 S
u. x '
x w o r
c a � r r m M r<; c�
C ?- t: Ifi n 0 M rr;
X.
le fL ^i C 0 10 10 n L^.
u CL2
ti M u: M .. . .� ,..
'En CC en
LO, J.
EXPLANATION TO TRAFFIC VOLUME TABLES
COLUMN ASCRIPTION
SEGMENT Route Segment
CO County Abbreviations
POST MILE Post Mile in County
DESCRIPTION Description of the route segment
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic (Thousands)
AM PK Morning Peak Hour Traffic
AH Volumes Ahead Direction (Hundreds)
SK Volumes Back Direction (Hundreds)
NO
L Number of Lanes (Existing) One Directicn
V/C Volume /Capacity: Ratio Volume to Max. No. of Vehicles /Hr.
for Peak Direction During Peak Period
D/C Demand /Capacity: Ratio Volume of Projected Demand to
Max. No. of Vehicles /Hr.
LOS Level of Service According to Functional Classification
of the Route Relative to the Terrain and Facility
LN Number of Lanes Needed to Meet the Conceptual LOS
% TRUCK
AADT Truck % of the Average Annual Daily Traffic Count
% TRUCK
PK HR Truck ° - -_ at Peak Hour
Route
m
COMPARISON OF FUTURE LOS WITH ROUTE CONCEPT
NO. LANES /LOS
ROUTE CONCEPT
NEEDS
SEGMENT
1982
1995
2005
Proposed
Lanes
LOS
7
Lanes
Targat
Los
A
SC1 R0.00
TO BE DE
ERMINED
to R18.45
UNCO
STRUCTED
BY CURRE
T STUDY
B
SCl R18.45
4 -6F/
4 -6F/
I
4 -6F/
TO BE DE
ERMINED
I
to R23.87
C -40
D -35
i
E -25
I
BY CURRE
T STUDY
i
I
I
This chart indicates the relationship between the Level of Service
and minimum operating speed for a given facility type.
Assigned
Minimum
Level of
Operating
Service
Facility Type
Speed
B
Freeways, Expressways, or multi -lane
55 MPH
Conventional Highways
B
Two -lane Conventional Highways
50 MPH
C
Freeways or Expressways
50 MPH
C
Multi -lane Conventional Highways
45 MPH
C -45
Two -lane Conventional Highways
45 MPH
C
Two -lane Conventional Highways
40 MPH
D
Freeways or Expressways
40 MPH
D
Conventional Highways
35 MPH
D
Conventional Highways with
15 -30 MPH*
controlling traffic signals
* This condition is shown on the tabulation of route segments under
the "LOS" headings as D -35.
Operating Level of Service on a roadway is a measure of the
speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver,
safety, driving comfort, convenience, and operating cost. A
roadway designed for a certain Level of Service will actually
operate at different levels throughout the day. The Level of
Service on a roadway varies inversely as some function of the
traffic volume.
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
EXPLANATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE A VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO = 00 - .40
Free flow conditions
Low volumes
High operating speed
Uninterrupted flow
No restriction on maneuverability
Drivers maintain desired speeds
Little or no delays
LEVEL OF • y T. RATIO
Stable flow conditions
Operating speeds beginning to be restricted
LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO - .59 - .80
Stable flow but speed and maneuverability
restricted by higher traffic volumes
Satisfactory operating speed for urban conditions
Delays at signals
LEVEL OF SERVICE n VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO = 81 - 90
Approaching unstable flow
Low speeds
Major delays at signals
Little freedom to maneuver
LEVEL OF SERVICE E VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO = 91 - 1.00
Lower operating speeds
Volumes at or near capacity
Unstable flow
Major delays and stoppages
LEVEL OF SERVICE F VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO = 1.01 OR NO
Forced flow conditions
Low speeds
Volumes below capacity, may be zero
Stoppages for long periods because of
downstream congestion
TRAVEL DEMAND. PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY (ABSTRACT)
1995 & 2005 Demand Person Trips Projections
34 X 34 ABAG /MTC Region Sdperdistricts Matrix
Computer- Assisted Four -Step Conventional Gravity Model.
(Housing a Employment based on ABAG's "Projections 83 ")
December 1983
INTRODUCTION: This modeling procedure developed traffic volume
expansion factors and applied them to "census" volumes ( "1980
Traffic Volumes on California State Highways ") of State Highway
segments at ABAG /MTC superdistrict (SD) borders (screenlines).
These projected 1995 and 2005 volumes were the basis for
projecting volumes on all mainline segments for the 1983/84
"Route Concept Reports."
In essence, this methodology is consistent with the elements of
the conventional "four- step" procedure for travel demand
forecasting' as summarized in the FhWA /UMTA outline for UTPS
models and as described in the NCHRP guide for urban travel
estimations ( "Quick Response ").
SUMMARY: Criteria and methods used in each one of- the four
"steps ":
1. Trip Generation: Based on ABAG projections per 34 MTC
"superdis trict." Productions per MTC - observed person trips
produced and households; attractions per employment (and
housing), adjusted to observed attractions.
2. Trip Distribution: Based on zonal trips produced and
attracted, distribution factors based on travel times, and
calibration factors derived from MTC- observed vs. simulated
1980 trip interchanges.
3. Assignment: Based on zonal trip interchanges, "fastest
path" criteria and experience of travel patterns.
4. Modal Split: Implied; it was assumed that, on the segments
evaluated, modal percentages and occupancy rates would
remain essentially unchanged.
ASSUMPTION: The following parameters would remain essentially
unchanged between 1980 and 2005:
1. Trip production rates, as functions of the number of
households and their superdistrict of location.
2. Trip attraction rates and adjustment factors, as functions
of jobs, housing units and superdistrict of location.
3. Speeds: Change in corridor speeds may be proportional to
regionwide speed changes, or may differ without
significantly affecting distribution or assignment.
4. Time vs. Distribution Factor Functions, and Calibration
Factors. Increased socio- economic densities vs. higher
fleet efficiencies and /or real earnings would have
compensatory effects on trip lengths.
STATEMENT OF PLANNING INTENT
The Route Concept Report (RCR) is a planning document which
expresses the Department's judgment on what the characteristics
of the state highway should be to respond to the projected
travel demand over the 20 -year planning period. The RCR
contains the Department's goal for the development of each
route in terms of level of service and broadly identifies the
nature and extent of improvements needed to reach those goals.
The RCR then provides the basis for the preparation of Route
Development Plans (RDP) and the system analysis which indicates
the level of service provided on the system at a given level of
funding.
Route concept reports are prepared in the districts and
represent the combined expertise of district staff. Facility
dimensions (e.g., roadway widths or number of lanes on a
multi -laned facility) discussed in the RCR represent an initial
planning approach to scoping candidate improvements and
determining estimated costs.
All information in the RCR is subject to change as conditions
change. and new information is obtained. Consequently, the
nature and size of identified improvements may change as they
move through the project development stages, with final
determinations made at the time of project planning and
design. If the nature and size of improvements change from
that included in this report during later project development
stages, this will be cause to review the RCR for this route.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank