Attachment 61 - Correspondence (Part 4)Joel Paulson
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw @me.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 6:26 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council
Subject: N. 40
Attachments: I280draft_ final _tcr_signed_07162013_nr_ig.pdf, ATTOOOOI.txt
http: / /www. dot. ca. gov/ dist4/ systemplanning /docs /tcr /1280draft final to signed 07162013 nr ig.pdf
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
INTERSTATE
10. -LFN F
280
INTERSTATE 280 C*
TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT REPORT aA=w*
View of 1 -280 looking north towards San Francisco
The Transportation Concept Report (TCR) is a Caltrans long -range planning document that informs the regional
transportation planning process. The TCR provides information regarding route segments, including high priority
projects for the highway through 2035, and existing and forecasted traffic data. Projects identified in the TCR
will require environmental and engineering studies before final approval and are subject to change.
Approval:
-,z2,L 4L$
LEE TAUBENECK Date BIJAN S V.1e.rtrment Date
California Department of Transportation California of Transportation
District 4 Deputy Director District 4
Transportation Planning and Local Assistance
District 4 acknowledges the time and contribution of the following partner agencies:
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
• City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo (C /CAG)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA)
• San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)
This Interstate 280 TCR was prepared by:
Noreen Rodriguez
Associate Transportation Planner
System Planning North Bay /Peninsula Branch
Office of System and Regional Planning
Caltrans, District 4
Ina Gerhard
Branch Chief, System Planning North Bay /Peninsula
Office of System and Regional Planning
Caltrans, District 4
For questions about this TCR contact:
Caltrans District 4
Division of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance
P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623 -0660
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemiilanning/
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................... ...............................
5
• Corridor Concept ............................................................ ............................... 6
• Concept Rationale ............................................ ............................... 6
• Operational Strategies .................................................. ............................... 6
• Other Strategies ............................................................. ............................... 7
• Transit ............................................................... ............................... 7
• Bicycle ................................................................ ............................... 7
• Pedestrian ......................................................... ............................... 7
I. Corridor Planning Process ......................................................................... ............................... 8
• Purpose and Need for a TCR ......................................... ............................... 8
• State's Interregional Responsibility ............................. ............................... 8
• California Senate Bill 45 ................................................. ............................... 8
• Transportation Concept Report Consistency ............. ............................... 8
• Concept Development ................................................... ............................... 9
II. Corridor Overview ...................................................................................... ............................... 10
• Route Description .......................................................... ...............................
10
• Route Segmentation ...................................................... ...............................
30
• Route Designations ....................................................... ...............................
12
• Geometrics and Terrain ................................................ ...............................
13
• Demographics ................................................................. ...............................
13
• Land Use .......................................................................... ...............................
14
• Trip Information ............................................................. ...............................
14
■ Commuting ........................................................ ...............................
14
• Services and Goods Movement ..................... ...............................
15
■ Recreational ...................................................... ...............................
15
■ Transit & Rail Services ..................................... ...............................
15
■ Bicycle Facilities ................................................ ...............................
16
■ Pedestrian Facilities ......................................... ...............................
17
• Environmental Constraints ........................................... ...............................
17
Ill. Corridor Performance ............................................................................... ............................... 19
• Existing Conditions ......................................................... ............................... 19
• VTA 2011 Monitoring Report ......................... ............................... 19
• San Mateo County 2011 Congestion Monitoring Report ......... 22
• San Francisco County 2011 Congestion Monitoring Report .... 22
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 3
• Forecast Future Conditions ........................................... ............................... 23
IV. Key Corridor Issues .................................................................................... ............................... 25
• Capacity Issues ................................................................ ............................... 25
• Alternative Travelway .................................................... ............................... 25
• Interchanges with Local Road Network ...................... ............................... 25
• Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. ............................... 25
• Pedestrian Movement ................................................... ............................... 25
• Wildlife Crossing ............................................................. ............................... 26
V. Corridor Concept ........................................................................................ ...............................
27
•
Concept Rationale .......................................................... ...............................
27
•
Operational Strategies ................................................... ...............................
27
•
Other Strategies .............................................................. ...............................
30
• Transit ................................................................ ...............................
30
• Bicycle Facilities ................................................ ...............................
30
• Pedestrian Facilities ......................................... ...............................
30
•
Planned and Programmed Projects ............................. ...............................
31
VI. Appendices .................................................................................................
...............................
34
A.
Corridor Segment Data .................................................. ...............................
34
B.
Federal, State, and Regional Transportation Plans ... ...............................
42
Programs, and Directives
C.
Additional Route Data for 1- 280 ................................... ...............................
47
D.
Challenges for Pedestrians at 1 -280 Ramp Intersections .........................
48
E.
Freeway Agreements ..................................................... ...............................
49
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 4
Executive Summary
Interstate 280 (1 -280) is a major south -north freeway connecting the city of San Jose in Santa Clara County and
downtown San Francisco. The route traverses three counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. The
corridor begins in the South Bay at the 1- 280/US 101/1 -680 interchange and ends at Brannan Street in San
Francisco, a distance of about 60 miles. The route intersects State Routes 87, 85, 17, 84, 92,1-380, and US 101
(in San Francisco), and Santa Clara expressways Oregon /Page Mill, Foothill, Lawrence, and San Tomas. 1 -280, US
101, and Caltrain run parallel for around 40 miles, comprising an approximately six to seven -mile wide multi -
modal transportation corridor between San Francisco and the South Bay.
Figure ES 1: 1 -280 Corridor Overview
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 5
1 -280 serves mainly regional travel. It is an officially designated State Scenic Highway for approximately 22 miles
from the Santa Clara County line to the San Bruno city limits in San Mateo County. High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes extend through a section of the 1 -280 corridor in Santa Clara County. A northbound HOV lane exists
between Leland Avenue in the City of San Jose and Magdalena Avenue in Los Altos and there is a southbound
HOV lane between Magdalena Avenue and Meridian Avenue in San Jose.
1 -280 is a highway alternative to US 101 for trips between the South Bay and San Francisco.
Corridor Concept
Table ES 1: Corridor Concept Summary
*I /C= Interchange
** F = Freeway
* * *C = Conventional Highway
Concept Rationale
Although future population, housing, and job growth along this corridor is projected, due to constraints in the
corridor, the concept lane configuration of 1 -280 will remain unchanged from the existing condition. It is the
Department's policy to manage the existing system to the extent feasible to accommodate future demand. This
entails inclusion of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities and Traffic Operation System (TOS) improvements.
Future transit investments in the corridor, such as Caltrain electrification and other upgrades to increase service
frequency and reliability, and the planned High Speed Rail (HSR) service connecting San Francisco via San Jose
with the Central Valley and Southern California, may affect future traffic volumes on US 101 and 1 -280,
especially for trips between San Francisco and San lose.
Operational Strategies
The planned concept for 1 -280 will focus on operational strategies including TOS, ramp metering and HOV lanes.
In lieu of constructing new freeways, alternatives to address congestion are being planned. It is the State's goal
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 6
25 -year
Segment
Existing Facility
County
Description
Concept
by Post Mile
(# of Lanes)
(# of Lanes)
SCL
1- 280 /US101 /1 -680 I /C* to SR 85
8 -101'" (2 HOV)
PM 0.00 to 10.74
HOV /HOT)
B
SCL
SR 85 to SCL /SM County Line
6 -8F (2 HOV)
6 -8F (2 HOV)
PM 10.74 to 20.62
C
SCL/SM
SCL /SM County Line to SR 92 I/C
8 -10F
8 -10F
PM 20.62 to 10.82
SM
SR 92 I/C to 1 -380
8F
8F
PM 10.82 to 21.02
E
SM
1 -380 to SM /SF County Line
6 -10F
6 -10F
PM 21.02 to 27.43
F
SM
SM /SF Co. Line to US 101 1/C
8F
8F
PM 27.43 to R4.34
SF
US 101 I/C to SF (End of freeway)
4 -8F
4 -8F
PM R4.34 to T7.00
H
End of freeway to Brannan /King
SF
4C* **
4C
PM T7.00 to T7.54
Street
*I /C= Interchange
** F = Freeway
* * *C = Conventional Highway
Concept Rationale
Although future population, housing, and job growth along this corridor is projected, due to constraints in the
corridor, the concept lane configuration of 1 -280 will remain unchanged from the existing condition. It is the
Department's policy to manage the existing system to the extent feasible to accommodate future demand. This
entails inclusion of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities and Traffic Operation System (TOS) improvements.
Future transit investments in the corridor, such as Caltrain electrification and other upgrades to increase service
frequency and reliability, and the planned High Speed Rail (HSR) service connecting San Francisco via San Jose
with the Central Valley and Southern California, may affect future traffic volumes on US 101 and 1 -280,
especially for trips between San Francisco and San lose.
Operational Strategies
The planned concept for 1 -280 will focus on operational strategies including TOS, ramp metering and HOV lanes.
In lieu of constructing new freeways, alternatives to address congestion are being planned. It is the State's goal
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 6
to manage its existing system through various system management strategies, including Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS). Examples of ITS include ramp metering, changeable message signs, and camera
monitors. Figure 3 show existing and planned ITS components.
Individual strategies listed may or may not be applied to 1 -280 in its entirety.
• Santa Clara County
- Complete and connect mainline High Occupancy Vehicle system within the corridor
- Complete Ramp Metering network
San Mateo County
- Install Traffic Operations System (TOS) elements
-Ramp Metering
• San Francisco County
- Install Traffic Operations System (TOS) elements
Ramp Metering
Other Strategies
Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian strategies are aimed at integrating and enhancing networks along and across the
1 -280 Corridor.
Transit
Support operations and improvements /expansions of transit service and amenities. Work with transit operators
on planning and implementation of projects to increase people throughput in the corridor such as HOV lanes
and bypass lanes, park -n -ride facilities, bus signal priority, transit stops and shelters.
Bicycle
Incorporate bicycle facility design treatments (bike lanes or wider shoulders, ramp reconstruction to intersect at
a 90- degree angle, bike lane striping to the left of right- turn -only lane, avoidance of dual right -turn lanes) into
interchange reconfiguration /reconstruction projects.
Review and evaluate maintenance projects for the feasibility of incorporating striping and signage
improvements to enhance bicycle access and safety at ramp intersections with local roads.
Pedestrian
Remove barriers to pedestrian circulation by squaring up ramp intersections to slow turning vehicles and
shorten crossing distances, and by striping crosswalks at on and off -ramps along ramp termini to direct
pedestrians and notify motorists of their presence as well as adding countdown signals.
Review and evaluate future interchange configuration /reconstruction projects with regard to the need to
provide and connect sidewalks around ramp intersections, based on pedestrian demand. Analyze lane width of
facility to consider addition of medians to provide a pedestrian refuge and calm traffic.
Work with local agencies on implementing planned and programmed pedestrian and bicycle network
improvements. These may include on- street improvements or grade- separated facilities.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 7
I. Corridor Planning Process
A Transportation Concept Report (TCR) defines the route concept or configuration for a State owned /operated
facility with a 25 -year planning horizon. This Caltrans long -range planning report informs the regional
transportation planning process and provides information on a route's characteristics and its interregional role
in the State Highway System (SHS). This TCR describes corridor characteristics such as the existing
transportation network and land use, and plans for long -range corridor travel needs. It is not meant to be an
encyclopedia of corridor information but, rather a statement by Caltrans on what the future facility should be to
better manage projected travel demand.
TCRs are being developed for all 56 statutorily identified State Routes in District 4. This TCR provides a concept
for 1 -280 which traverses San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties.
While considering the transportation network of the corridor as a whole, including other modes, Caltrans
recognizes that its authority generally lies within the State Highway System. This report's major emphasis is on
State highway facilities.
Purpose and Need for a TCR
California's State Highway System needs long -range planning to guide the logical development of transportation
systems as required by law 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 during a 20 to 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.
State's Interregional Responsibility
The SHS serves interregional, regional, and local travel demand. While this is not to preclude SHS access to
specific destinations such as public facilities or major tourist attractions, development and modification of the
SHS is conducted in the context of the mobility of regional and statewide to- and - through movement of people
and goods.
California Senate Bill 45
California Senate Bill 45 (SB 45) establishes guidelines for the California Transportation Commission to
administer the allocation of funds appropriated from the Public Transportation Account for capital
transportation projects designed to improve transportation facilities.
Transportation Concept Report Consistency
A listing of Federal, State, and Regional transportation planning efforts and policies related to Transportation
Concept Reports are included in Appendix B.
TCR preparation is guided by several levels of government policy and direction. Applicable Federal and State
guidelines, such as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP 21), the California Transportation
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 8
Plan (CTP) and the State's Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan are considered. The State Highway
Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), a program of maintenance, safety and rehabilitation improvements
and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi -year capital improvement program of
transportation projects are incorporated.
Concept Development
The concept takes into account factors that create interregional, regional, and local travel demand, including
commuting, freight movement, recreational needs, and nearby land use.
The TCR is informed by:
• Current Caltrans statutes, policies, and directives
• Local, regional partnership input and corridor analyses
• California Transportation Plan, Interregional Transportation Improvement Program, Regional
Transportation Plan, Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan and other approved transportation
plans
• Information from Caltrans Traffic Operations plans developed for system -wide strategies
• Caltrans Freeway Agreements
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 9
II. Corridor Overview
Route Description
Interstate 280 (1 -280) is a major south -north freeway connection between the city of San Jose in Santa Clara
County and downtown San Francisco, traversing Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties. The
corridor begins in the South Bay at the 1- 280 /US 101/1 -680 interchange and ends at Brannan Street in San
Francisco, a distance of about 60 miles. The route intersects State Routes 87, 85, 17, 84, 92,1-380, and US 101
(in San Francisco), and Santa Clara's expressways Oregon /Page Mill, Foothill, Lawrence and San Tomas. 1 -280,
US 101, and Caltrain run parallel for around 40 miles, comprising an approximately six to seven -mile wide multi -
modal transportation corridor between San Francisco and the South Bay.
Most of the facility was dedicated as the "Junipero Serra Freeway." 1 -280 traverses one of the region's most
scenic landscapes with views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and San Francisco Bay and the East Bay to
the east. Signage unofficially designates the portion of the route between SR 85 and 1 -380 as the "World's Most
Beautiful Freeway."
1 -280 serves mainly regional travel. It is an officially designated State scenic highway for approximately 22 miles
from the Santa Clara County line to the San Bruno city limits in San Mateo County.
HOV lanes extend through sections of the 1 -280 corridor in Santa Clara County. A northbound HOV lane exists
between Leland Avenue in the City of San Jose and Magdalena Avenue in Los Altos and there is a southbound
HOV lane between Magdalena Avenue and Meridian Avenue in San Jose. Expansion of the network is proposed
to extend to the 1- 280 /US 101 Interchange.
1 -280 is a highway alternative to US 101 for trips between the South Bay and San Francisco
Route Segmentation
To perform an analysis of a transportation corridor, most corridors are divided into smaller segments based on
criteria such as changes in terrain, changes in facility type or function, or county and district boundaries. This
provides a more detailed level of planning and analysis of the corridor by examining its component parts.
Segmentation should produce a consistent referencing system and information for decision - making. The
following are some of the criteria used as a basis for dividing a route into route segments:
• District boundaries
• County boundaries
• Urban /Rural boundaries
• Major changes in traffic volumes
• Changes in the number of lanes
• Significant changes in grade /terrain
• Changes in route function including recreational, trucking, commuting, etc.
• Freeway Agreements
For the purpose of this report, 1 -280 was divided into eight segments, labeled A through H, as illustrated on the
following 1 -280 Corridor Segment map. A detailed description and analysis of the individual segments is included
in the Appendices section.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 10
Figure 1: 1 -280 Corridor Segments Map
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 11
=
9EOMENT
CO 117E I1,1
—
'
A
Sc. 280 R0.0 /10,)4
I -280 Corridor Segments
g
B
WeY
S 290 20.24/20.62
c
sM 290 1100/10.44
0
w 280 10.44/1120.96
1_280 Corridor
101
E
SM 280 R2096/M22.41
F
5f 380 110.0 /R4ML
} Airports
G
sf 280 R4 .341/R6.59
.n
H
5F \ 280 R6.59/r7.54
Major Routes
Major Roads
•�� San
-
—�-- Rail
ranciscot
AB e
6 BART
SF eo
C o U N ry
_�
!- `.�
County Boundaries
^
< }
Water Features
Oaklandlitil Aatjo
/1�
I
1011
Airport
- 41 F1
I city
{
Soth San Son Francisco
and
1
-r Bay
le nton
-� rancisco
San Francisco
I
A Y
I
i
' -1IBternational Airport
}`
N T
O COUNTY
'Tl
;
D `'�y'r_�
Uni
Mat
_
�
qty..
n�
FremA
�1�
l
Re w
>
'i
Ci ; l
` - - - - --
Half Moon
C
P^1
a
Bay
L ^'
Ito
a t
/
an JOU
S A N M A TED
COUNTY
Vie . un
vale Inle 41 1215
l�
T
A
101
i
I
SANTA CLARA
1-- -- -- - - - - --
COUNTY
_I
r�ry yF,AVwrnvrr r.rs
____
LY58rmrM
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 11
The 1 -280 Corridor segment limits A thru H are described as follows:
Table 1: Corridor Segment Limits
Segment
County
Description
A PM 0.00 to 10.74
SCL
1- 280 /US101 /1 -680 I /C* to SR 85
B PM 10.74 to 20.62
SCL
SR 85 to SCL/SM county line
C PM 20.62 to 10.82
SCL /SM
SCL /SM county line to SR 92 I /C*
D PM 10.82 to 21.02
SM
SR 92 I /C* to 1 -380
E PM 21.02 to 27.43
SM
1 -380 to SM /SF county line
F PM 27.43 to R4.34
SM
SM /SF co. line to US 101 I /C*
G PM R4.34 to T7.00
SF
US 101 I /C* to SF @ End of Freeway
H PM T7.00 to T7.54
SF
End of Freeway to Brannan /King Street
9 /C= Interchange
Route Designations
Table 2: Route Designations
Freeway and Expressway system (F &E)
Entire Route
Functional Classification
Interstate
Trucking Designations
STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act ) Route
Trucking Facilities
None (2004 Regional Goods Movement Study, MTC)
National Highway System (NHS)
Yes
Scenic Highway
22 miles officially designated from Santa Clara /San Mateo county line
to the city of San Bruno limit. A portion of 1 -280 in Santa Clara county
is eligible for scenic designation.
Lifeline Corridor
from US 101 in San lose to US 101 in San Francisco
Traffic Operations System (TOS) Facilities
None
Interregional Road System (IRRS)
Non -IRRS Route
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO /Regional Transportation Planning
Agency (RTPA) /Congestion Management
Agency(CMA)
MPO /RTPA: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
CMA: San Francisco County Transportation Authority, City /County
Association of Governments of San Mateo, and Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 12
Geometrics and Terrain
Specific geometrics and terrain information for the 1 -280 Corridor (also see Segments Maps, Appendix A):
Table 3: Geometrics and Terrain
Post Mile
Facility
Description
Santa Clara County
PM 0 -4.64
8 -lane freeway
Flat terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 4.64 -4.96
9 -lane 2HOV freeway
Flat terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 4.96 -11.70
7 -lane 2HOV freeway
Flat terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 11.70 -13.77
6 -lane 2HOV freeway
Rolling terrain (rural /urbanized setting)
PM 13.77 -20.00
7 -8 lane freeway
Rolling terrain (rural /urbanized setting)
San Mateo County
PM0 -10.40
8 -10 lane freeway
Rolling terrain (rural /urbanized setting)
PM 10.40 -17.90
8 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 17.90 -21.07
7 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 21.07 — 21.31
8 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 21.31 -25.64
8 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 25.64— 25.94
9 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 25.94 — 26.90
12 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 26.90 -27.38
6 -lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
San Francisco County
PM 0 -4.05
6 -9 lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 4.05 — 7.20
4.6 lane freeway
Rolling terrain (urbanized setting)
PM 7.20 — 7.54
4 -lane conventional
Flat terrain (urbanized setting)
Demographics
The appeal of an attractive living environment coupled with higher than average employment opportunities in
the technology and aerospace fields fueled the observed economic growth of the mid seventies to early eighties.
More recently, despite some job losses and reports of population movement to neighboring states, the region's
population continues to grow. Natural births, a growing retirement population, and immigration are all factors
which contribute to the region's continued population increase.
The following table includes demographic data for the counties traversed by 1 -280 (Santa Clara, San Mateo and
San Francisco). The data collected from ABAG Projections 2009 show existing and projected (30 -year planning
horizon) growth shows that San Francisco County is projected to increase its population by 22 percent, San
Mateo County by 23 percent and Santa Clara County by 38 percent. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties are
projected to see employment grow by over 40 percent.'
New ABAG projections used in the May 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) /Sustainable Communities (SCS) Preferred Alternative
uses higher household and employment figures for San Francisco and San Jose.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 13
Table 4: Bay Area Population, Households, and Jobs Forecasts
COUNTY
POPULATION
CHANGE
#HOUSEHOLDS
CHANGE
#JOBS
CHANGE
2005
2035
2005
2035
2005
2035
Alameda
1,505,300
1,966,300
31
543,790
707,960
30
730,270
1,039,680
42
Contra
Costa
1,023,400
1,322,900
29
368,310
480,480
30
379,030
555,650
47
Marin
252,600
274,300
9
103,180
112,170
9
135,370
158,280
17
Napa
133,700
148,800
11
49,270
54,640
11
70,690
91,480
29
San
Francisco
795,800
969,000
22
338,920
415,000
22
553,090
806,830
46
San
Mateo
721,900
893,000
24
260,070
322,620
24
337,350
505,860
50
Santa
Clara
1,763,000
2,431,400
38
595,700
827,330
39
872,860
1,412,620
62
Solaro
421,600
506,500
20
142,040
171,290
21
150,520
211,880
41
Sonoma
478,800
561,500
17
181,800
211,290
16
220,460
325,110
47
Total
7,096,500
9,073,700
28
2,583,080
3,302,780
28
3,449,740
5,107,390
48
Source: ABAG
Land Use
Land use along 1 -280 varies between residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. In Santa Clara County,
the freeway serves residential and commercial uses and high -tech industries. In San Mateo County residential,
open space, and wetlands surround most of the corridor. In San Francisco County, residential and commercial
as well as emerging production and industrial uses are found along the corridor as well as access to downtown
and emerging employment centers in the South of Market and Mission Bay areas.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act Senate Bill (SB) 375 requires each region to meet State -
established greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets for automobiles and light trucks for 2020 and 2035. As part
of this Senate Bill, the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) enhances California's ability to reach its California
Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) goals by promoting good planning with more sustainable
communities. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) 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 SB 375 targets, new projects in these regions can be
relieved of certain review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Trip Information
Commuting
1 -280 serves an alternative to US 101. Almost all of 1 -280 serves as a commute corridor between San Jose /Silicon
Valley and San Francisco. The northernmost extension of 1 -280 is a spur directly into San Francisco and provides
access to downtown and emerging employment centers in the South of Market and Mission Bay areas.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 14
Services and Goods Movement
With 1 -280 neither traversing areas of significant freight movement or handling, nor connecting with major
maritime, rail or intermodal based freight facilities, there is limited goods movement demand beyond basic
service and delivery needs throughout the corridor. Also, the lack of a direct connection between 1 -280 and the
Bay Bridge discourages many trucks from using I -280. Industrial uses along the eastern waterfront in San
Francisco rely on the route for freight movement and additional truck traffic is expected with implementation of
the Bayview Transportation Improvements Project, which will connect industrial operations in the Northern
Gateway and South Basin, to local highways. Further south, US 101, given its access to denser and more varied
land uses including freight facilities, Silicon Valley based manufacturing, and both San Francisco and San Jose
International Airports, is the preferred corridor for the intermodal movement of freight.
Recreational
1 -280 serves local, regional, and interregional recreational travel demand. 1 -280 accesses local parks, including
the San Francisco State Fish and Game Refuge and the Crystal Springs Reservoir in San Mateo County, numerous
open space preserves in the Santa Cruz Mountains, as well as destinations to the north in San Francisco.
Transit and Rail Service
Caltrain provides intercity rail along the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. While the regular
service takes 90 minutes between the two downtowns, Caltrain also provides a 60 minute "baby - bullet' service
with limited stops.
Current High -Speed Rail (HSR) plans call for electrification of rail service between San Jose and San Francisco,
including modifications to rail bridges and grade - separated crossings to allow for higher speeds. Both HSR and
Caltrain would be making use of the improved facilities, which will reduce train travel times in the corridor
significantly.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has received federal funding to extend the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) from the Warm Springs BART Station to Berryessa Station in Santa Clara County. The BART
extension through downtown San Jose to Diridon Station is planned as the second phase. Funding has not been
fully secured for this phase. VTA is the lead agency working in cooperation with BART.
At the northern end of 1 -280, BART currently provides service between Millbrae /SFO and downtown San
Francisco. Here BART travels most of its length near 1 -280.
In Santa Clara County the VTA operates a 42.2 -mile light rail system. A portion of this light rail system intersects
1 -280 at SR 87 (Guadelupe Line) in downtown and the Vasona Segment parallels the beginning of 1 -280 in San
Jose. VTA also operates bus line Rapid 522 paralleling 1 -280 from Palo Alto to the end of 1 -280.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 15
re 2: Santa Clara VTA
Mou,.
Elul la4AM MYNn '
V® yb�• , Goisman IruvSn •
Ynnm
:.. 1% �MeRE hA hI +PJ:s • Reamvevd• Grtlt
+IuN
am.epiry
M.1 1:+
[0
Source: Wikipedia
In San Mateo County, there are transit routes that service the Colma and Daly City BART stations. These transit
routes either utilize the 1 -280 facility or operate parallel to it. Along 1 -280 in San Francisco, SamTrans services the
Balboa Park BART station and has express bus service into downtown San Francisco. In San Francisco, 1 -280 is
paralleled by various San Francisco Muni light rail lines, while Muni also operates express bus services into
downtown.
Increasingly private companies such as Genentech, Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others provide shuttle
services for their employees from various pick -up locations in San Francisco to employment campuses in the
Silicon Valley via US 101 and 1 -280. San Francisco Muni service provides the 14X- MissionExpress, which enters 1-
280 traveling northbound at Alemany Blvd and continuous on 1 -280 to 6 1 Street.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicyclists are permitted on a section of 1 -280 in Segment D between Trousdale Drive and Hillcrest Boulevard (the
local road alternative route on the east side of the freeway consists of a long detour with steep down- and uphill
grades) and from Larkspur Drive to Route 35 (the parallel trail on the west side of the freeway is open from
sunrise to sunset only). Bicycles are prohibited from using the remainder of the freeway.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 16
L
nxtluc 5!+rynt \
® SunnyvaF.
Inur °eme
• u.n "�
\j.\
®
�i/e
Sen•.:�C
a.n Ybm °Mamm.M�r..
7(sbmiv!•tl Arrvt $pRp lol
Mmm
®
Hp
W Lnb Gm
p (dkyevnl �-huode Ln M:oem
Y✓
mn lcm u�daaa,
Gain
ON Diva"
mnY WUnwry NweuM
Rd[e
veem San )mu
C pcq m:
'huiMa4 thnim
!io
&uer
VTA Light Rail
C mphel
Wlnv4pn Gpml
f111iYiililiWlYL'�I
Commuter RailM(=
YapYm
oiriap
r"�em Ma
!tm.da
Las GYWS
[0
Source: Wikipedia
In San Mateo County, there are transit routes that service the Colma and Daly City BART stations. These transit
routes either utilize the 1 -280 facility or operate parallel to it. Along 1 -280 in San Francisco, SamTrans services the
Balboa Park BART station and has express bus service into downtown San Francisco. In San Francisco, 1 -280 is
paralleled by various San Francisco Muni light rail lines, while Muni also operates express bus services into
downtown.
Increasingly private companies such as Genentech, Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others provide shuttle
services for their employees from various pick -up locations in San Francisco to employment campuses in the
Silicon Valley via US 101 and 1 -280. San Francisco Muni service provides the 14X- MissionExpress, which enters 1-
280 traveling northbound at Alemany Blvd and continuous on 1 -280 to 6 1 Street.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicyclists are permitted on a section of 1 -280 in Segment D between Trousdale Drive and Hillcrest Boulevard (the
local road alternative route on the east side of the freeway consists of a long detour with steep down- and uphill
grades) and from Larkspur Drive to Route 35 (the parallel trail on the west side of the freeway is open from
sunrise to sunset only). Bicycles are prohibited from using the remainder of the freeway.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 16
Santa Clara County has established a system of "cross- county" bicycle corridors. One of these is the 1-280
Corridor to San lose Airport", which parallels 1 -280 through the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and
Palo Alto, and extends into San Mateo County (Menlo Park).
In San Mateo County, city streets to the east of the freeway and the more scenic route on the west side along
Canada Road and the Crystal Springs Regional Trail provide travel options for bicyclists in the 1 -280 corridor
roughly paralleling the freeway. A grade separated bicycle /pedestrian overcrossing exists at the 1- 280/SR92
interchange.
Several on- street bike routes (Class III) parallel 1 -280 in San Francisco. While San Francisco has a dense network
of local roads paralleling the freeway, ramp intersections with city streets present challenges to bike
connectivity.
Pedestrian Facilities
Many ramp intersections with local roads throughout the 1 -280 corridor present challenges for pedestrian
movement. They create barriers to walking where housing, employment, and shopping destinations are located
on both sides of the freeway (conflicts at free -flow on- and off- ramps, high motor vehicle speeds, absence of
sidewalks and crosswalks). In order to connect destinations and neighborhoods and destinations in the corridor,
pedestrian overcrossings exist, mostly in urban areas, at the following locations:
Table 5: Existing Pedestrian Overcrossings along 1 -280
Santa Clara County - City
Segment
Overcrossing Location
San Jose
A
Constance Dr. and Moorpark Ave Near San Tomas Expy
San Jose
A
Winchester Blvd. at Tisch Way
San lose
A
Parkmoor Ave and Moorpark Ave Near 1 -880 I/C
Sunnyvale
A
Don Burnett Bicycle /Ped Bridge near 1- 280 /SR 85 I/C
San Mateo County- City
Segment
Overcrossing Location
Unincorporated
D
1- 280 /SR 92 Interchange
San Francisco City and County
Segment
Overcrossing Location
n/o Monterey Blvd ramp
F
Stoneyford Ave and Gladstone Drive
s/o Monterey Blvd ramp
F
Theresa Street and Cotter Street
Near Geneva Ave s/b off -ramp
F
Havelock Street
Environmental Constraints
The following 1 -280 Corridor Environmental Constraints Map illustrates known environmental constraints
identified within the corridor. These may include the presence of hazardous material or facilities, habitats of
threatened or potentially threatened species, wetlands, historic bridges or other structures.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 17
Figure 3: Environmental Constraints Map
ONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
San
FranciSCo`�'Z.,a`U
S F
C O U N
Jy
\ ;
Oak
)� q, �yS
So 'fh San
frantisco San FBay
I
� Frarwluo
IK ���
SAN MATEO
C O U N T Y
1 -280
Environmental Factors
— 1 -280 Corridor
Environmental Factors
C Historical Bridges (pre 1955)
Species of Concern
Wetlands
Priority Conservation Areas
Farmland of
Local Importance
a Potential 4(t) Lands
Basemap
Major Routes
- -- Major Roads
— BART
Rail
Airport Boundary
Water
A
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
aaD
San Jose
Imernaw"
Airport
San
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
ppvNRi
ryprcyRep.ul Pbxneia
ab Araa4
California Department of Transportation, District Page 18
III. Corridor Performance
Existing Conditions
1 -280 has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) ranging from 29,000 to 116,300 vehicles per hour (VPH)
(northbound and southbound), with truck volumes ranging from 0.9 to 3.3 percent. Volume /capacity ratio (V /C)
is shown in Table 6 with the severely congested segments (WC greater than 1) highlighted in red. Traffic
volumes are highest in the Segment A of the corridor (Santa Clara County). Level of service (LOS) data show
extended portions in the Santa Clara County with LOS F during peak hours, as well sections in San Mateo and
San Francisco Counties. In addition, the SB direction approaching the beginning of HOV lane in San Jose is
congested as well.
Table 6: 1 -280 Existing Traffic
2011
Directional
Segment
NB
AM
pk hr
SB
AM
pk hr
NB
PM
pk hr
SB
pct
pk hr
NB
AM
pk hr
WC
SB
AM
pk hr
V/C
NB
PM
pk hr
V/C
SB PM
pkhr
WC
NB
AADT
SB
AADT
Truck
°�
A
8,117
7,023
8,445
8,721
0.97
0.84
1.01
1.04
116,018
108,446
3.1%
B
6,636
6,274
6,002
7,018
0.70
0.66
0.64
0.74
72,976
67,888
3.3%
C
4,757
7,499
7,228
5,048
0.57
0.89
0.86
0.60
59,846
57,386
2.3%
D
5,371
7,330
7,291
4,954
0.64
0.87
0.87
0.59
61,594
58,547
1.7%
E
5,976
7,560
7,669
6,834
0.71
0.90
0.91
0.81
91,405
93,120
0.9%
F
7,466
4,638
4,979
7,586
0.89
0.55
0.59
0.90
85,954
89,144
1.7%
G
7,352
3,040
4,678
5,535
1.17
0.48
0.74
0.88
62,921
53,490
2.5%
H
3,260
1,600
2,200
2,886
0.78
0.38
0.52
0.69
31,375
29,120
2.1%
Source: Caltrans, District
VTA 2011 Monitoring Report
As the responsible Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, the SCVTA undertakes the
analysis of all Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways on an annual basis. Each year, VTA produces a
Monitoring and Conformance Report that documents the CMP conformance findings'. 1 -280 has 44 total
freeway miles in Santa Clara County. In 2011, 52% of these freeway miles operated at LOS' F at some point
during the day as highlighted in red in Tables 7 and 8. The tables show AM and PM peak period LOS for the 1 -280
segments in Santa Clara County.
S Aerial photography is used to collect traffic data to document congestion on all of Santa Clara County's freeway system, including 1 -280.
The photographs are analyzed to determine the peak period vehicle density that is used to determine Level of Service.
' Level of service (LOS) is a measure to determine the effectiveness of highways by categorizing traffic flow with corresponding driving
conditions. The Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ( "Green Book ") list the following levels
of service: A =Free flow; B= Reasonably free flow; C= Stable flow; D= Approaching unstable flow; E= Unstable flow; F= Forced or breakdown
flow.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 19
Table 7: Santa Clara County 1 -280 AM LOS (2011)
1 -280 Freeway LOS - AM Peak Period in Santa Clara County (2011)
Dir
From /To
From /To
Miles
Number of Lanes
Peak Time
LOS
Total
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
EB
Alpine Rd
Page Mill Rd
2.25
4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
C
-
EB
Page Mill Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.73
4
4
-
09:00 -09:20
C
-
EB
La Barranca Rd
El Monte Rd
1.6
4
4
-
09:20 -09:40
C
-
EB
El Monte Rd
Magdalena Ave
0.95
4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
D
-
EB
Magdalena Ave
Foothill Expwy
2.65
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
D
B
EB
Foothill Expwy
SR 85
0.7
4
3
1
08:40 -0900
C
B
EB
SR 85
De Anza Blvd
1.31
4
3
1
08:40 -0900
C
A
EB
De Anza Blvd
Wolfe Rd
1.06
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
D
B
EB
Wolfe Rd
Lawrence Expwy
1.24
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
C
B
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Saratoga Ave
1.19
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
D
A
EB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
1.37
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
D
A
EB
Winchester Blvd
1 -880
0.55
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
C
B
EB
1 -880
Meridian Ave
1.4
5
4
1
08:00 -08:20
C
B
EB
Meridian Ave
Bird Ave
1.07
4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
D
-
EB
Bird Ave
SR 87
0.35
4
4
-
09:00 -09:20
C
-
EB
SR 87
10th Street
1.2
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
C
-
EB
10th Street
McLaughlin Ave
0.92
4
4
-
09:00 -09:20
C
-
EB
McLaughlin Ave
u5101
0.37
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
B
-
WB
us 101
McLaughlin Ave
0.37
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
F
-
WB
McLaughlin Ave
10th Street
0.92
4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
F
-
WB
10th Street
SR 87
1.2
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
F
-
WB
SR 87
Bird Ave
0.35
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
F
-
WB
Bird Ave
Meridian Ave
1.07
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
F
-
WB
Meridian Ave
1 -880
1.4
5
4
1
07:00 -07:20
F
D
WB
1 -880
Winchester Blvd
0.55
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
F
E
WB
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
1.37
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
F
D
WB
Saratoga Ave
Lawrence Expwy
1.19
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
F
E
WB
Lawrence Expwy
Wolfe Rd
1.24
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
F
E
WB
Wolfe Rd
De Anza Blvd
1.06
4
3
1
09:20 -09:40
E
E
WB
De Anza Blvd
SR 85
1.31
4
3
1
08:40 -0900
E
D
WB
SR 85
Foothill Expwy
0.7
4
3
1
08:40 -0900
F
D
WB
Foothill Expwy
Magdalena Ave
2.65
4
3
1
08:00 -08:20
D
D
WB
Magdalena Ave
El Monte Rd
0.95
4
4
-
09:20 -09:40
D
-
WB
El Monte Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.6
4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
D
-
WB
La Barranca Rd
Page Mill Rd
1.73
4
4
-
07:20 -07:40
D
-
WB
Page Mill Rd
Alpine Rd
2.25
1 4
4
-
08:00 -08:20
C
-
Source: VTA, 2011 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 20
Table 8: Santa Clara County 1 -280 PM LOS (2011)
1 -280 Freeway LOS - PM Peak Period in Santa Clara County (2011)
Dir
From /To
From /To
Miles
Number of Lanes
Peak Time
LOS
Total
Mixed
HOV
Mixed
HOV
EB
Alpine Rd
Page Mill Rd
2.25
4
4
-
16:40 -17:00
C
-
EB
Page Mill Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.73
4
4
-
18:00 -18:20
E
-
EB
La Barranca Rd
EI Monte Rd
1.6
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
F
-
EB
El Monte Rd
Magdalena Ave
0.95
4
4
-
18:00 -18:20
F
-
EB
Magdalena Ave
Foothill Expwy
2.65
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
E
B
EB
Foothill Expwy
SR 85
0.7
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
F
B
EB
SR 85
De Anza Blvd
1.31
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
F
B
EB
De Anza Blvd
Wolfe Rd
1.06
4
3
1
16:40 -17:00
F
D
EB
Wolfe Rd
Lawrence Expwy
1.24
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
F
D
EB
Lawrence Expwy
Saratoga Ave
1.19
4
3
1
16:40 -17:00
F
D
EB
Saratoga Ave
Winchester Blvd
1.37
4
3
1
16:20 -16:40
E
D
EB
Winchester Blvd
1 -880
0.55
4
3
1
18:00 -18:20
F
F
EB
1 -880
Meridian Ave
1.4
5
4
1
18:00 -18:20
F
F
EB
Meridian Ave
Bird Ave
1.07
4
4
-
17:00 -17:20
F
-
EB
Bird Ave
SR 87
0.35
4
4
-
17:00 -17:20
F
-
EB
SR 87
10th Street
1.2
4
4
-
16:40 -17:00
F
-
EB
10th Street
McLaughlin Ave
0.92
4
4
-
16:40 -17:00
E
-
EB
McLaughlin Ave
us 101
0.37
4
4
-
16:20 -16:40
D
-
WB
US 101
McLaughlin Ave
0.37
4
4
-
16:40 -17:00
C
-
WB
McLaughlin Ave
10th Street
0.92
4
4
-
16:40 -17:00
D
-
WB
loth Street
SR 87
1.2
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
D
-
WB
SR 87
Bird Ave
0.35
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
F
-
WB
Bird Ave
Meridian Ave
1.07
4
4
-
17:20 -17 :40
D
-
WB
Meridian Ave
1 -880
1.4
5
4
1
17:20 -17:40
C
A
WB
1 -880
Winchester Blvd
0.55
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
D
B
WB
Winchester Blvd
Saratoga Ave
1.37
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
D
A
WB
Saratoga Ave
Lawrence Expwy
1.19
4
3
1
18:20 -18:40
D
A
WB
Lawrence Expwy
Wolfe Rd
1.24
4
3
1
18:00 -18:20
D
A
WB
Wolfe Rd
De Anza Blvd
1.06
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
D
A
WB
De Anza Blvd
SR 85
1.31
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
D
A
WB
SR 85
Foothill Expwy
0.7
4
3
1
17:20 -17:40
C
A
WB
Foothill Expwy
Magdalena Ave
2.65
4
3
1
17:00 -17:20
C
A
WB
Magdalena Ave
El Monte Rd
0.95
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
C
-
WB
El Monte Rd
La Barranca Rd
1.6
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
C
-
WB
La Barranca Rd
Page Mill Rd
1.73
4
4
-
17:20 -17:40
C
-
WB
Page Mill Rd
Alpine Rd
2.25
4
4
-
17:00 -17:20
D
-
Source: VTA, 2011 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report
California Department of Transportation, District Page 21
San Mateo County 2011 Congestion Management Plan
The C /CAG, as the CMA for San Mateo County, is required to prepare and adopt a CMP on a biennial basis. The
purpose of the CMP is to identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to
alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. As part of that effort, the 1 -280 freeway
segments were evaluated to determine the LOS for each segment.
In San Mateo County 1 -280 is a eight -lane freeway from the Santa Clara County line north to the I- 280 /SR 1
interchange except
- Between Edgewood Road and the SR 92 interchange where it is a ten -lane facility for about two miles;
- Through the 1 -380 interchange, northbound 1 -280 has three lanes, while southbound 1 -280 widens to
include a fifth, auxiliary lane.
From the SR 1 interchange (south) to the SR 1 interchange (north) 1 -280 has twelve lanes. North of 1 -280 it is a
six -lane freeway, it widens to eight lanes at the San Francisco County line.
Table 9 below lists the LOS for the 1 -280 segments as reported in the San Mateo County 2011 CMP.
Table 9: San Mateo County 1 -280 LOS (2011)
Source: C /CAG, Final San Mateo County CMP 2011
San Francisco County 2011 Congestion Management Plan
As the CMA for San Francisco County, the SFCTA is responsible for developing and adopting the CMP for San
Francisco, which must be updated every two years.
The Authority conducted roadway LOS monitoring on the designated CMP network in Spring 2011. The report
also defines other performance measures including travel times for transit as well as the ratio of automobile to
transit travel times on a given facility. Regional and local transit use 1 -280.
Table 10 below presents the LOS monitoring results for the 1 -280 freeway segments in San Francisco County.
4 CMP - enabling legislation allows for LOS to be adjusted by accounting for interregional trips (trips that originate from outside the county). For those CMP
segments found with a LOS below the set standard, the county travel demand model is used to determine the proportion interregional trips and LOS is
then adjusted accordingly.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 22
1 -280 Freeway Peak Hour LOS in San Mateo County (2011)
Route
TCR
Corridor
Segment
Roadway Segment Description
LOS
Standard
2011 LOS
Observed
With
4
Exemption
E
San Francisco County Line to SR 1 (north)
E
E
-
E
SR 1(north) to SR 1(south)
E
A/B
-
E
SR 1(south) to San Bruno Avenue
D
F
D
I -28D
D
San Bruno Avenue to SR 92
D
D
-
C
SR 92 to SR 84
D
A/B
-
C
SR 84 to Santa Clara County Line
D
E
A
Source: C /CAG, Final San Mateo County CMP 2011
San Francisco County 2011 Congestion Management Plan
As the CMA for San Francisco County, the SFCTA is responsible for developing and adopting the CMP for San
Francisco, which must be updated every two years.
The Authority conducted roadway LOS monitoring on the designated CMP network in Spring 2011. The report
also defines other performance measures including travel times for transit as well as the ratio of automobile to
transit travel times on a given facility. Regional and local transit use 1 -280.
Table 10 below presents the LOS monitoring results for the 1 -280 freeway segments in San Francisco County.
4 CMP - enabling legislation allows for LOS to be adjusted by accounting for interregional trips (trips that originate from outside the county). For those CMP
segments found with a LOS below the set standard, the county travel demand model is used to determine the proportion interregional trips and LOS is
then adjusted accordingly.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 22
Table 10: San Francisco County 1 -280 LOS (2011)
2011 San Francisco County 1 -280 Peak Hour LOS
Average
2011
Distance
Speed
LOS
Route
AM /PM
Roadway Segment Description
Direction
(miles)
(mph)
(HCM-
2011
1985)
Junipero Serra to Weldon
E
4.29
37.5
E
Weldon to 6th /Brannan
NE
3.35
28.1
F
AM
6th/ Brannan to Weldon
W
3.35
55.1
B
Weldon to Junipero Serra
SW
4.29
60.6
A
I -280
Junipero Serra to Weldon
E
4.29
61.3
A
Weldon to 6th /Brannan
NE
3.35
35.6
E
PM
6th/ Brannan to Weldon
W
3.35
41.5
D
Weldon to Junipero Serra
SW 1
4.29
50.6
C
Source: SFCTA, San Francisco County 2011 CMP
The 2011 CMP indicates LOS F during the AM peak period for 1 -280, for the segment between Weldon to 6`"
Brannan. Although this has dropped two grades from the LOS D (41.6 mph) in the 2009 CMP, 1 -280 measured
LOS F (29.1 mph) during the baseline 1991 monitoring cycle and is therefore exempt from constituting a
deficiency. The sections with LOS F conditions are viewed by SFCTA as having chronic congestion and the city
continues to work on congestion management strategies, especially in light of the challenge of planned future
growth.
Forecast Future Conditions
Future condition forecasts are from MTCs 2009 Travel Demand Model. A WC ratios exceeding 1.0 is equivalent
to LOS F, suggesting traffic demand on a given facility exceeds available capacity.) -280 is anticipated to
experience a significant increase in traffic volumes during both the Year 2035 AM and PM peak hours, with WC
at or exceeding 1.0 in several segments.
'Volume-to-capacity ratio (V /C Ratio): For the purposes of congestion calculations in this regional analysis, congestion levels are defined
as: V/C Ratio greater than 1.0 = Severe Congestion; V/C Ratio of 0.75 to 1.0 = Heavy Congestion; V/C Ratio of 0.5 to 0.74 = Moderate
Congestion; V/C Ratio of less than 0.5 = Low or No Congestion
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 23
Table 11: 1 -280 Future Traffic Projections
Forecast Future Conditions - 2035
Directional
NB
SB
NB
SB
Segment
g
NB
SB
AM
AM
PM
PM
NB
SB
Truck
Tpeakhr
PM
PM
peak
peak
peak
peak
/0
AADT
AADT
peak hr
peak hr
hr
hr
hr
V/C
V/C
/
V/C
V/C
A
10,435
9,029
11,052
10,333
1.24
1.07
1.32
1.23
150,496
133,996
3.1%
B
7,875
7,875
7,088
7,875
0.83
0.83
0.75
0.83
90,625
84,306
3.3%
C
6,235
8,400
8,400
5,979
0.74
1.00
1.00
0.71
74,674
71,604
2.3%
D
6,991
8,400
8,400
5,851
0.83
1.00
1.00
0.70
76,490
72,706
1.7%
E
7,834
8,400
8,400
8,400
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
119,725
125,179
0.9%
F
8,400
5,480
6,016
8,400
1.00
0.65
0.72
1.00
102,705
106,516
1.7%
G
7,350
3,595
5,106
6,043
1.17
0.57
0.81
0.96
71,565
60,838
2.5%
H
3,915
1,921
2,421
3,174
0.93
0.46
0.58
0.76
36,098
33,503
2.1%
Source: Caltrans, District 4
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 24
IV. Key Corridor Issues
Capacity Issues
Future conditions projected for the year 2035 show peak hour congestion in most corridor segments. These
projections do not incorporate growth anticipated to occur with implementation of Plan Bay Area, in particular
in the urban cores of San Francisco and San Jose. Further detailed studies and resources will be needed to
identify long -term impacts on the corridor and develop improvement options together with regional and local
partner agencies.
Alternative Travelway
South of 1 -380 in San Mateo County, 1 -280 has excess capacity while US 101 is often highly congested. Via US 101
the trip between 1 -380 and downtown San Jose is 35 miles long. It is about eight miles longer when traveling on
1-280.1-280 may have some appeal as an alternative for trips between San Francisco and San Jose destinations.
Improvements (real -time traffic info, changeable message signs) should be considered to attract vehicles away
from US 101. For destinations in between, however, the distance between the two freeways is too long in most
parts for 1 -280 to function as a reliever route.
Interchanges with Local Road Networks
The Balboa Park Station Area Circulation Study is one currently ongoing example study along 1 -280 in San
Francisco that aims to identify circulation modifications to the local road network where it intersects with
freeway on- and off - ramps. This includes an evaluation of the need and feasibility to modify ramps in order to
improve station access and reduce conflicts of freeway -bound traffic with pedestrians and buses. Another study,
also in San Francisco, looks at reconfiguring the San Jose Avenue interchange for improved multimodal
connectivity and traffic safety within this key regional -to -local connection.
Bicycle Facilities
San Francisco has a dense network of local roads paralleling the freeway, but many ramp intersections with city
streets still present challenges to bike connectivity. Similarly, Santa Clara and San Mateo County bicycle plans
identify freeway over /undercrossings as major barriers for bicycle (and pedestrian) travel. These crossings were
often not designed with bicycle circulation in mind (conflicts at free -flow on- and off - ramps, high motor vehicle
speeds, absence of bike facilities through intersections, less than four feet shoulder width). The respective
county bicycle plans provide further details regarding the bicycle network as well as critical connections and
issues along and across the 1 -280 corridor.
Pedestrian Movement
Many ramp intersections at city streets along the 1 -280 corridor present challenges for pedestrian movement
and create barriers to walking where housing, employment, and shopping destinations are located in walking
distance on both sides of the freeway. The most common pedestrian movement issues along the 1 -280 Corridor
are conflicts at loop on- and off- ramps, locations with large corner radii and long crossing distances, high motor
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 25
vehicle speeds, and where sidewalks and crosswalks are missing. The table in Appendix D summarizes
pedestrian issues at specific 1 -280 intersections in urban locations of the corridor.
Wildlife Crossing
A federally- funded Transportation Enhancement study is underway to examine wildlife use, habitat connectivity,
and wildlife - vehicle collisions along 1 -280 in San Mateo County with emphasis on a 17 -mile portion between
Hillside Drive in Hillsborough and Woodside Road in Woodside. 1 -280 poses a barrier to wildlife movement and
wildlife - vehicle conflicts. This study assesses the extent and causes of wildlife - traffic conflicts. Recommendations
to improve connectivity and to reduce collisions with wildlife along the 1 -280 corridor will be proposed.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 26
V. Corridor Concept
Table 12: Corridor Concept Summary
Segment
County
Segment Description
Existing Facility
25 -year Concept
A
SCL
1- 280 /US101 /1 -680 I/C to SR 85
8 -10F (2HOV)
8 -10F (2HOV)
8
SCL
SR 85 to SCL /SM county line
6 -8F (2HOV)
6 -8F (2HOV)
C
SCL /SM
SCL/SM county line to SR 92 I/C
8 -10F
8 -30F
D
SM
SR 92 I/C to 1 -380
8F
8F
E
SM
1 -380 to SM /SF county line
6 -10F
6 -10F
F
SM
SM /SF co. line to US 101 I/C
8F
8F
G
SF
US 101 I/C to SF @ End of
Freeway
4 -8F
4 -8F
H
SF
End of Freeway to Brannan /King
Street
4C
4C
* I /C= Interchange
'* F = Freeway
* **
C = Conventional Highway
Concept Rationale
Although future population, housing, and job growth along this corridor is projected, due to constraints in the
corridor, the concept lane configuration of 1 -280 will remain unchanged from the existing condition. It is the
Department's policy to manage the existing system to the extent feasible to accommodate future demand. This
entails inclusion of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities and Traffic Operation System (TOS) improvements.
Future transit investments in the corridor, such as Caltrain electrification and other upgrades to increase service
frequency and reliability, and the planned High Speed Rail (HSR) service connecting San Francisco via San Jose
with the Central Valley and Southern California, may affect future traffic volumes on US 101 and 1 -280,
especially for trips between San Francisco and San Jose.
Operational Strategies
The planned concept for 1 -280 will focus on operational strategies including TOS, ramp metering, and HOV lanes.
In lieu of constructing new freeways, alternatives to address congestion are being planned. It is the State's goal
to manage its existing system through various system management strategies, including Intelligent
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 27
Transportation Systems (ITS). Examples of ITS include ramp metering, changeable message signs, and camera
monitors. Figure 3 shows existing and planned ITS components.
Individual strategies listed may or may not be applied to 1 -280 in its entirety.
Santa Clara County
- Complete and connect mainline High Occupancy Vehicle system within the corridor
- Complete Ramp Metering network
San Mateo County
- Install Traffic Operations System (TOS) elements
-Ramp Metering
• San Francisco County
- Install Traffic Operations System (TOS) elements
- Ramp Metering
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 28
Figure 4:1-280 Traffic Management System Map
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 29
Other Strategies
Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian strategies are aimed at integrating and enhancing networks along and across the
1 -280 Corridor.
Transit
Support operations and improvements /expansions of transit service and amenities. Work with transit operators
on planning and implementation of projects to increase people throughput in the corridor such as HOV lanes
and bypass lanes, park -n -ride facilities, bus signal priority, transit stops and shelters.
Bicycle Facilities`
Incorporate bicycle facility design treatments (bike lanes or wider shoulders, ramp construction to intersect at a
90- degree angle, bike lane striping to the left of right- turn -only lane, avoidance of dual right -turn lanes) into
intersection improvement and interchange reconstruction projects. As part of project development, determine
appropriate bicycle facility in corporation with local agencies.
Review and evaluate maintenance projects for the feasibility of incorporating striping and signage
improvements to enhance bicycle access and safety at ramp intersections with local roads.
Ensure that bicycle improvements projects by others are considered in project development and design. These
may include on- street improvements or grade- separated facilities. The bicycle plans for San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties identify projects of particular importance to the further development of their
respective networks. For specific details regarding the county bicycle plans refer to:
City and County of San Francisco: http:// www. sfmta .com /cros /bi)roi /bikeplan.htm
San Mateo County: http:/ /sanmateocountybikepedt)lan.org/
Santa Clara County: http: / /www.vta.org /proiects /bikeplan 2000.pdf
Pedestrian Facilities
Remove barriers to pedestrian circulation by squaring up ramp intersections to slow turning vehicles and
shorten crossing distances, and by striping crosswalks at on and off -ramps along ramp termini to direct
pedestrians and notify motorists of their presence as well as adding countdown signals.
Review and evaluate future interchange configuration /reconstruction projects with regard to the need to
provide and connect sidewalks around ramp intersections, based on pedestrian demand. Analyze lane width of
facility to consider addition of medians to provide a pedestrian refuge and calm traffic.
Work with local agencies on implementing planned and programmed pedestrian and bicycle network
improvements. These may include on- street improvements or grade- separated facilities.
6 Many of the bicycle and pedestrian treatments presented here are from "Caltrans' Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing
Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians" (2010).
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 30
Planned and Programmed Projects
The following table is a list of planned and programmed projects in the 1 -280 corridor as listed in the Plan Bay
Area (PBA) draft report and the SHOPP'. Not listed here are planned off - system investments that could
potentially affect the 1 -280 corridor.
Table 13: Programmed Projects in the 1 -280 Corridor
Santa Clara County 1 -280 STIP and SHOPP Projects
County
Route
Program
Description
Project
Project
RTP ID#
cost
Type
SCL
280
STIP
Improve 1 -280 downtown access between 3rd
$31 mil
HWY
21704
Street and 7th Street
SCL
280
STIP
Construct second exit lane on 1 -280 to Foothill
$2 mil
HWY
22010
Expressway
SCL
280
STIP
Improve interchange at Oregon -Page Mill /1 -280
$7 mil
HWY
22854
SCL
280
STIP
Improve braided ramps on northbound 1 -280
$102 mil
HWY
240473
between Foothill Expressway and Route 85
SCL
280
STIP
Implement express lanes on 1 -280 between Leland
$60 mil
HWY
240513
Avenue and Magdalena Avenue
SCL
280
STIP
Implement express lanes on 1 -280 between US
$25 mil
HWY
240514
101 and Leland Avenue
SCL
280
STIP
Implement express lanes on 1 -280 between El
$14 mil
HWY
240515
Monte Road and Magdelena Avenue
SCL
280
STIP
Improve interchange at l- 280 /SenterRoad
$52 mil
HWY
240671,
SCL
280
STIP
Implement Lawrence Expressway /1 -280
$3 mil
HWY
240710
interchange project
San Mateo County 1 -280 STIP and SHOPP Projects
County
Route
Program
Description
Project
Project
RTP /EA#
Cost
Type
SM
280
STIP
Improve local access at 1- 280/1 -380 from Sneath
$4.68 mil
HWY
21609
Lane and San Bruno Avenue to 1 -380
SM
280
STIP
Modify and reconstruct 1- 280 /Route 1
$20.00 mil
HWY
21615
interchange in northbound and southbound
directions, including braided ramps
SM
280
STIP
Add auxiliary lane in each direction on 1 -280
$14.00 mil
HWY
22230
between Westborough and Hickey Boulevard
SM
280
STIP
Provide overcrossing at 1- 280 /John Daly
$1.40 mil
HWY
240161
Boulevard
SM
280
STIP
Implement adaptive signal system between 1 -280
$1.85 mil
HWY
240169
and Santa Cruz Avenue
SM
280
SHOPP
Seismic Retrofit Overcrossing
$1.17 mil
HWY
067100
' State Highway Operation and Protection Program
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 31
SM
280
SHOPP
Cold plane and HMA HC
$1.00 mil
HWY
4G4101
SM
280
SHOPP
SM 280 Jack Pipe Backfill
$1.25 mil
HWY
4G5900
SM
280
SHOPP
SM 280 Replacement Landscaping
$1.70 mil
HWY
2708U1
San Francisco County 1 -280 STIP and SHOPP Projects
County
Route
Program
Description
Project
Cost
Project
Type
RTP ID#
SF
280
STIP
Implement Geneva Transit Preferential Streets
improvements on Geneva Ave from Ocean Ave to
Prague (incl. BAT on Geneva Ave)
$81.00mil
Off
System
240328
SF
280
STIP
Widen 1 -280 /Mariposa off -ramp
$7.00 mil
HWY
240349
SF
280
STIP
Construct HOV Ramp on 1 -280 and 6th Street
(Planning, Preliminary Engineering, and
Environmental )
$2.00 mil
HWY
240525
SF
Various
STIP
Manage freeways and expressways in San
Francisco (incl. non -ITS elements, performance
monitoring, and corridor studies)
$3.00 mil
Hwy
240542
SF
280
SHOPP
SF 280 Bridge Rehab
$8.98 mil
HWY
2A490K
SF
280
SHOPP
SF 280 Upgrade Bridge Rails
$16.15 mil
HWY
1A551K
SF
280
SHOPP
SF 280 Reconstruct Bridge Hinges
$9.00 mil
HWY
4A5100
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 32
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 33
V. Appendices
Appendix A
1 -280 SEGMENT DATA
Feesees
Dome
Counly/Crty
Wntacurs,Sanlose
N.RWTYPe
Free
Ea1511 Fa[Ilit
810 Drmfreewa 2H0
25Tearcoax t
Me W. firearver, (ZHOV)
se,re..'a.ressertsfick
5emart Llmds
12NNS 10111 W I /C.5R 85
BeRin/End Port Mile
001010.)4
Length
10.74
Geometric/Terrain
Flat
HOVLar."Isa[opm)
Yes,PM L47 -1074
Truck Welh Statbns
Nmre
Truck P.rin
None
TOSelement
Ramp Meteri ,CMS, CM, HM, EMS
Mu1HMOGl
Bode Fasilems
Sirytles not Wrmufted In Nis segment
TtaMRDalero dDeeeln .ants Tops)
No
ParkeMRWe Lat
None
TleXk DMa
MDT20111AnnualA— aRe DailVTrmq
NO 116.018 SO 108,446
MDT 20351MnualA ap Daily IIaMO
NO 1S0,496 SO 1339%
Peak Hour Volumes 20111ou. /PMI
N38,117/8,445 567,02318,721
Peak Hour Volumes 70351oir AU /nml
NB 10,435111.052 SO 9,@9110j33
V/C Ratb 2013 AM/PM
NO097/1.01 580.84/1.04
V/C Ratio 2035 AM /PM
NO L24/1.32 SO U7/1.23
L20310e e1a�sr. reel
L05M2035
F
Truk VO
NO 3,597 SB 3,362
Truk iraHlcTrv[k Perce of MDT
ffic Tr cIr
3.3%
MINNM Wte
FatalR alms Rate%
027 p faM00es; 668.1se. w/I Y )
Statewide FMali"hiury Rate
0.29
Tetd/ dent Rate
D.95
Statewide Total A[cideM Rate
0.94
ca0bmra.1. mom of Trmrp,ur-. Du—,a Pop.
1 -280 SEGMENT B DATA
Fwhaaa
Data
County, Oty
Santa Clara, 5unowab
fa[i1M1y T,,
Freew
Baiking F.C.16ty
6-e lane lme (2HOV)
SS Ymr Concept
681arc 01D
Se{rrrtna OtnatterlaEa
R,
SR to munty line
FWP.l
m /Ertl Post Mile
1085
20.62
10.11. 63
Length
FlataR
Fla
"M W../Te .
HW LanM IPM tO PMI
Plat Wln[
Yes PM 10.]a tO lOA
Trmk Weigh Stations
Norte
Truck Parking
Note
TOSelement
Ramp foltaxartm CM,Q s, FMS
MuM Muhl
& 6. FaoiN—
Bigler nd pemsBtM in 4MS Ugment
Transit Orknted Oevebpment (TOD)
None
Padand Ride Wt
Pag¢MiIl0.d In loe/J[m XiIIS.lO apam3, 5CLPM 18.4
TcaXk 0.
MOT 3013 tanewl.,aae WW 1..) 4. atWMl
N8]3,9]6 5863,898
MDTW350,z .)
NB 90.635 5884.3W
Peak HOU, V01ume53011 p,un/pw
NB 6b36/6A@ 58 6,3]41],038
Peak HOw VOWmes]035INIAMPml
NB ] }]51],08 5B ],8]5/]A]5
V /CRatio WI1AM /PM
NOOM /0.64 580.66/0]4
V /CRatb3035AM/PM
N80.83/0J5590.83/0.83
105X131 Isrel ut]emoel
CD
1053035
D
Truck VOlumea3011
NB 3,408 58 3,340
TNA TMIIC: Tuck %of MOT
3.3%
M[M6m MH
Malay. Iji Flat. %
OM 11 mta1M: 111x ems with lryunet)
Statewide: Fatal"+ INury RaW
0.33
Wi tRate 10.27
iiToWA
Datewide: Total Amidenl Rate 10,70
41i1o,%a DepnmeMNlrmLO,mIgA UYN[ta Vane 35
1 -280 SEGMENT C DATA
w rt
Data
County, Coy
5an Mateo, Woodside
Facility Type
Freewa
ExIsbog Faallit V
810 lam freewa
25 Year
&III InuIraW
so,ne. aaraRxktlo
3e menilimhs
SM /SCLCO. IIneto5RA21C
Mein/ EM POST Mile
20.62/000 to SM Co. 1092
Len M1
lo.mnes
Geometrid Terrain
Rollin
NOV lanes PM.PM
None
TrmkWoqhRAo,m
None
Truck Porkin
None
TOS element
P.ann meteri ,CMS, CCTV, CMS
MuIN Modal
B. ,,k Fadlifiea
&cycles not Demo In M% sat,nent
Tmrck oriented Devele ment (TOO)
None
PaA and Ride Lot
Woodside Road In Woodsih, 295 s, W. PM 3.3
Edaewood in San CaOOS, M agmae, W. PM 6.7
Radon in Belmont, 25 It., SM, PM 7.9
Tbflkltllombtiao
MDT 2011 pnnwl 4ve,aae oeN TarcdlDI amryiul
NB 59,806 5B 57.385
MDT203510Y.n.)
NR]4,6]458]1.609
Peak NOUr Volumes 20111oi,nm /vml
NS 9257/Z228 5B 7,449/5WB
Peak Nouv Volumes 20351m,nln/msp
NB 62358,40]5811.400 /5.9]9
VCRalio2011 lvewm /CVwuvlvu/vu
NB 0.570.1% 5BO.W /060
VIC Ratio 2035 AM /PM
141110J4 /1.00 5BLD3 /0.73
L0520111tevd ol5ervisel
GD
L052035
D E
Track Volumes 2011
NB 1.3118 Y 3,333
Truck %MDT Total
2.3%
•ceid. DW
to maamyle,Ienux IO
Fabl •In'u Rate%
00811 fatalfty, 9>aaidents with In arks
N[¢
SMlewfde:entR
0.20
,Ina
Toads Rate
0,32
TtalewMe:TdalRMdenl Rab
0.60
Ca"no— oManmenl NT riatnM1 oomnY 4 0aaem
1 -280 SEGMENT 0 DATA
Features
Crum , C',
San Mateo, Redwood City- NnNborm l),
faeil;n Type
Freeway
EFlsum, F.C.I.,
9eme freeway
25yearfamept
ahem oeewa
Segment CFara<taiztla
Segment L,mrs
SR 921/C.1380
Begin / End P.11 Mile
10.02.21.@
Le m
10.s miles
Geomelric/Terraln
Rell6g
HMIumes PMYMI
None
Truck Weigh Stadons
None
Truck Partin
Nan,
TOS element
Ramp met,rmg. CM, CMS, EMS
MuRI Mpla
Bkycie Facilities;
11irydes perm.
TrousGle O[Ipbr rIX.PM 17.17 -10.52
Transit is OeebDment
Hone
Park e nd Ride Lot
Rayne Road, In NiIISGxougM1, 74 spaces PM laR
Traill pn
MDT2o111amuxnrer aaeowryimn4lHrasVartl
NO 62,59() 58 50,547
MDT 20351mrawPNl
NO ]6,69058 )I,J06
Peat Hour Volumes 20111sk M4PNl
4085,371/7,291 SO 7,330/ (),956
Peak Hour Volumes 20351 N, ANP6z1
NO 6,99118,400 0 8,400/5,851
V/C RON. W11 "M
NBO.W /O.B] 5110&710.59
V/C RoNo 2035 AM/PM
NB0.83 /1.00 S81D0 /O.TI
LOS2011
C -0
LOS 2035
M
Truck Volumes 2011
NO IX3 SO 1002
Truck %of MDT
LINK
RMMem Oam
Fme 41.Injury Mete%
0.0912 fataldher: 106 x,Mentz wkM1 lrghissl
5tattwme: FatalRy.Inury Rate
o.z:
Total Accident Rrte
023
Statewide: T. falAaId, ft 1
0.71
OFlemupeputmenlarira ,uFOrarbM PYrrtla HFe3]
1 -280 SEGMENT E DATA
Fedmres
Drtd
County, City
San Matra, Oat, Or - S. San Friuvi
Faaity Type
Freeway
Existing Faciloy
640 lane freewa
25 year Canoe
&W 1m freerl
Segmea Chasd[IarBE1a
Se men, Vmils
-380 to SF /SMCo. Inc
Begin/ End POS, Mile
21M to 2743
Le h
6a mites
ce,mu,o /Terrain
RoIBn
NOV Lanes IPMAM
None
Truck Weigh Stations
None
Truck P.,kinl,
None
TOSelement
Ramp meterI C .C86
Muhl Modal
BI cle F.0111es
Bi[ [lei nor loomnittedrurflanstly M,hkse meM
Tmmit Oriented DeVal mein
Daly Ort, Bart Station
Park and Ride Lot
None
,,,c,mononion
MOT 2011(e.—I n., m; TwMal
NB 91 WS SB 93,120
MDT 2035
NB 119,225 0125,1]9
Peak Nor, VOlume52011 for Am /PU)
NB 5,976/7,669502,%0 /6134
Peak Hour Volumes 2035 ion Arn /rvl
NB 7.834/8,401) 508,9W /B,i
VCIUIi02011AM /PM
NB0.21 /0.915BO.W /D81
V/C RNIO 2035(AM /PM)
NB 093 /1.W SBSW /1.W
LOS 2011
0.E
LOS2035
E
Truk Volumes 2011
NB 832 5B 042
Tuck %of MDT
0.9%
Aoddent 0a1d
m
FNali " Injury Rate %
021131atal0ies; M6 residents w nlrtks
StatwW Na nu fld,e
030
TaaWle. Rate
d
s:aeewid. Toel ACwem Rate
iW
oarnmi. Dres. ,[."Nu.m- ,Penne No.
1 -280 SEGMENT F DATA
wme
all
Gamm'CAY
San Rawisco, An Francisw
Facility Tift
Freesia
blida, Fradlit,
8lane lseewa
2 yadd,C owt
Blare Freear
Se(.Gnatleriatks
S'..., Lama
SF /SM w. Ine t0 US 1011/C
Ill End Post Mae
27A3/0.IXFRAN
L b
4amlks
Geometric /Tenam
WE
HOV[ane5(PM PM)
NOM
TruckaClIme, WarihStatime,
No
Truck Facilitks: Truck Parking
Non
TOS element
CCN, CMS, EMS, MAR
Multi Medal
N, kH[III[ies
fix,,cran nal Permitted mi fireirly In this Moment
Toork OrantM DnNOpment ROD)
Glen Park Bart Statioq Balboa Park Bart Station
Park and Ride lot
Non
Troll bHomraOPa
All 20111anwn —, Lee I.,
NB 85.954 SB 89,140
MOT2035
NB 102,705 SB106,SI6
Peak Hour VObmes 2011 AM/PM
RIB 7.466/4,979 SB 4,638/7,586
PeakHwNalume52035 AM PM
NB 8,411016,016 56 S,W/8.400
V/C Ratio 2013 AM/PM
NB089/0.59580.55 /0.90
WE Raft 2035 AM IPM
N B 1.0010.72 56 0.6511M
LOS 2011
C -D
LOS 2035
C-E
Truck Volumes 2011
NB 1,47(1 SB 1,524
Link, %o1 MDT
1 .7%
AaMMt Data
ktnN 1.Naow)s
Falar ju, Rat e%
03216 AYIIks; 239aatlennwRN injuries)
5[a[eovidau FataldV +In urY Raa
0.30
ToMl ACpdent Rate
0.90
SbtewWe:TrdalAttMen[ Rate
0.96
[aGbmp Rynmenl ra roae entian, AStna4 eyr, 39
1 -280 SEGMENT G DATA
Features
Dw
coumtr. Cm
San Francieco, San Fraush.
Facility Type
Free
Eaistin FacilM
4 8 Wne from
2S Vw come
adleM
Seams. Uarseterisoca
ent Llmlts
OS MI VC to SF 0 6a St
Be iN End Past Mile
Ra.Mta W.W
L. .Oh
Smiles
Geometrk/Termin
Roli
HM lanes J MAM1
Nam
Truck Weigh Starves
None
Tmck Parkin
None
TOS element
CCN,CMS
Mufti Morris
B"de FanfHles
Orscles not rmMeE on freews, In this fement
Transit O—med Drvelo meat TOD1
None
Park aM RMe Lot
None
TrWs, lmormaunn
MOT 20111amvNAVwarcoainrwxel
He M921 SB 53,190
JUAMMS
NB 21,565 SBWAM
Peak Hour olumes 2013 Aral
He 7,352/4,628 SB SWO /5,535
Peak HouNalume52035 AM/PM
No 7.35G/5.1% SO 3,595/6.0s3
V /CRatio2011AM/PM
NB1.1710.74 SBO.08/0.88
V/C Ratio 2035 AM /PM
N111.12 /0.81500.57/096
Los 2011
B -w
LOS 2035
cw
TwAVolumea2011
NB 1,573 Sit 1.337
Torok %of MDT Total
2.5%
AetlEenl Date
M1b ... m
Farrf elak Rate%
03110 Mary, 0 aWdemsw uresl
Statewide: FMal rinu Rate
0.24
Total Aaido Rate
0.59
State W: TOtalAakent Rate
O.M
CaLbmn Depam —ImT rao -In. Pflrala 1.ap
1 -280 SEGMENT H DATA
faaWM
wM
C otyv. City
San Franaisw, San fra
Fai Type
freeway
Enlsliq Fac iW
41..F /Conventional
m Y., force
sbre /Unuentbnal
seOnem ch...
Segmem limb
SF@6 WBrannan 5l.
Be iNEntl Post Mik
T2A -TI.Sa
L.r,tb
0.5mk
Gadretak/T.W.
Flat
fthao, FxiIHy: NdENbnal COn utatioo
foneentgNl
HOV larci PM.PM
None
TNCk WeI Stations
None
Trudoarking
No.
TOSeemem
cmcmS
Mum hill
BigoleFaCtitien,
Bleles . anal on it--, in thilm mem
Transit Ohnted Oey Waent
GBra ' and Muni Station
Park and 011ie lot
None
Traffit MbrnvBM
AMFF2011Wr*NAwNo WiN1n141
NO 31,375SS 29.110
"M2035
NO 36,038 5833.503
Peak Hour Vabma 2011 AM/PM
NO 3,260/2,200 50 1,600/2,886
Peak HOUr VWUmes N235 AM/PM
NO 3,91512,021 SO 1,921/3,126
V/CRatle NI11AM/PM
NO 0.78/0.51 SB 0.38/0.69
V/C RWlo 2035 Ali
NO 0.93/0.585B OA6/0]6
&D
M ms
Truck VMUmei
NO 649 0 603
Trull %of MDT TTo TTaI
2.1%
A idembM Ittlean—t ..n
FMa1 ♦Injury Rate 15
0.27(0 fien ies9 aaMems wilt injuries)
Statewide: Fatality r Injury Rate.
0.71
Tota1M[idem Ratal
OSB
StMewitle:imal p[tidem Rate
175
GYbMa tFpannnntMirwegvlpalbM1gftrcfa a[e 1
Appendix B
The following is a listing of federal, State, and regional transportation planning efforts and policies related
to this Transportation Concept Report.
Federal
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21), P.L. 112 -141, was signed into law in July
2012. This act will provide funding for surface transportation programs for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and
2014. MAP -21 is the first long -term highway authorization enacted since 2005. MAP -21 creates a
streamlined, performance- based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the
U.S. transportation system. These challenges include improving safety, improving and /or maintaining
infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight
movement, protecting the environment, and reducing delays in project delivery.
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) - All federally funded projects, and regionally
significant projects (regardless of funding), must be listed in the FTIP per federal law. A project is not
eligible to be programmed in the FTIP until it is programmed in the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) or in the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). Other types of
funding (Federal Demonstration, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Transportation
Enhancement Activities (TEA), or Surface Transportation Program (STP) must be officially approved
before the projects can be included in the FTIP.
State
California Transportation Plan (CTP) -The California Transportation Plan 2035 focuses on plans,
policies, and processes that address the provisions of MAP 21. It is a statewide, long -range
transportation policy plan that provides for the movement of people, goods, services, and information.
The CTP offers a blueprint to guide future transportation decisions and investments that will ensure
California's ability to compete globally, provide safe and effective mobility for all persons, better link
transportation and land use decisions, improve air quality, and reduce petroleum energy consumption.
An update of the CTP is currently underway and is expected to be finalized in 2015.
Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) —The Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan
(ITSP) provides guidance for the identification and prioritization of interregional State highway projects
with regard to the statutorily- identified Interregional Road System (IRKS) and interregional
transportation modes, in particular intercity passenger rail. The IRKS serves interregional movement of
people and goods. The ITSP is the counterpart to the Regional Transportation Plans prepared by the
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies in California. Caltrans prepared the last ITSP in 1998, an
update of the Plan is currently underway.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) -The State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State
Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding
sources. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) biennially adopts and submits to the
Legislature and Governor a STIP. The STIP is a resource management document to assist state and local
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 42
entities to plan and implement transportation improvements and to utilize available resources in a cost -
effective manner.
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) —The Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program (ITIP) is a state - funding program. Caltrans nominates and the California
Transportation Commission approves a listing of interregional highway and rail projects for 25 percent
of the funds to be programmed in the STIP (the other 75% are Regional Improvement Program funds).
The purpose of the ITIP is to improve interregional mobility for people and goods in the State of
California. As an interregional program the ITIP is focused on increasing the throughput for highway and
rail corridors of strategic importance outside the urbanized areas of the state. The ITIP compliments
regional congestion reduction activities focused within the urbanized areas of the state. A sound
transportation network between, and connecting, urbanized areas, ports and borders is vital to the
state's economic vitality.
State Highway Operation and Protection Program ( SHOPP) - Caltrans prepares the SHOPP for the
expenditure of transportation funds for improvements necessary to preserve and protect the State
Highway System. The SHOPP is a four -year funding program. SHOPP projects are limited to capital
improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation of State highways and bridges.
Senate Bill (SB) 45 (1997) — California's Senate Bill 45 stipulates that the State will nominate
transportation improvements that facilitate the movement of people and goods between the State's
transportation regions as well as to and through the State. The State is responsible for developing
highway system performance standards, that will accommodate interregional travel demand, and
specifying corridor facility concepts that improve interregional travel on the State Highway System. The
corridor concepts included in Transportation Concept Reports reflect the State's vision regarding System
accommodation of interregional, regional and local travel needs.
Senate Bill 375 - California's 2008 Senate Bill 375 requires each of the state's 18 metropolitan areas to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks. It also states that each region must
develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that promotes compact, mixed -use commercial and
residential development that is walkable and bikeable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping,
parks, recreation and other amenities.
California Interregional Blueprint (CIB)
The California Interregional Blueprint informs and enhances the State's transportation planning process.
Similar to requirements for regional transportation plans under Senate Bill 375, 58 391 requires the
State's long -range transportation plan to meet California's climate change goals under Assembly Bill 32.
In response to these statutes, Caltrans is preparing a state -level transportation blueprint to inform CTP
2040 and articulate the State's vision for an integrated, multi -modal interregional transportation system
that complements regional transportation plans and land use visions. The CIB will integrate the State's
long -range multi -modal plans and Caltrans- sponsored programs to enhance our ability to plan for and
monitor the transportation system as a whole, while meeting the GHG - reduction targets resulting from
SB 375.
California Strategic Growth Plan - The Governor and Legislature have initiated the first phase of a
comprehensive Strategic Growth Plan to address California's critical infrastructure needs over the next
20 years. California faces over $500 billion in infrastructure needs to meet the demands of a population
expected to increase by 23 percent over the next two decades. In November 2006, the voters approved
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 43
the first installment of that 20 -year vision to rebuild California by authorizing a series of general
obligation bonds totaling $42.7 billion.
District System Management Plan (DSMP) -The District System Management Plan (DSMP) is a long -
range (20 year) strategic and policy planning document that presents the long range goals, policies, and
programs the district intends to follow in maintaining, managing, and developing the transportation
system. It serves as a resource for informing federal, state, regional, and local agencies, and the public
and private sector of the plans the district intends to follow in its partnership role with local and
regional agencies.
Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) -The Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) was issued by the
California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (Agency) and the California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal EPA) in two phases in 2005 and 2007. It was a major milestone in statewide
policy and planning for freight transportation, trade corridors, and related air quality issues. The GMAP
helped guide project selection for the allocation of funds under the $2 billion Trade Corridors
Improvement Fund (TCIF) program, authorized by the voter - approved Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition iB).
Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 Rl: Complete Streets— Integrating the Transportation System - Caltrans
fully considers the needs of non - motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with
disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project
development activities and products. The intent is to plan for multimodal transportation facilities.
State Assembly Bill 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act - This bill requires the State's greenhouse gas
emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Caltrans' strategy to reduce global warming
emissions has two elements. The first is to make transportation systems more efficient through
operational improvements. The second is to integrate emission reduction measures into the planning,
development, operations and maintenance of transportation elements.
Caltrans - Climate Action Plan - Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the related subject of global
climate change are emerging as critical issues for the transportation community. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes the significance of cleaner, more energy efficient
transportation. On June 1, 2005 the State established climate change emissions reduction targets for
California which lead to development of the Climate Action Program. This program highlights reducing
congestion and improving efficiency of transportation systems through smart land use, operational
improvements, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (objectives of the State's Strategic Growth Plan).
The Climate Action Plan approach also includes institutionalizing energy efficiency and GHG emission
reduction measures and technology into planning, project development, operations, and maintenance
of transportation facilities, fleets, buildings, and equipment.
Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) -The California Transportation Commission adopted
the $4.5 billion Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program, the first commitment of funds
from the $19.9 billion transportation infrastructure bond approved by California voters as Proposition
1B in November 2006. The statewide CMIA program includes nearly $1.3 billion in Bay Area projects,
plus an additional commitment of $405 million through the State Highway Operations and Protection
Program (SHOPP) for replacement of Doyle Drive in San Francisco. This brings the total amount
programmed for Bay Area transportation projects to roughly $1.7 billion. Source: www.mtc.ca.aov
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 44
Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP) - CSMPs were developed for corridors that received
funding from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). They were required by the California
Transportation Commission per resolution adopted in 2007 stating that "...the Commission expects
Caltrans and regional agencies to preserve the mobility gains of urban corridor capacity improvements
over time that will be described in Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs)." The CSMP
incorporated detailed operational analysis into corridor planning through performance assessments,
analysis and evaluation, leading to recommending system management strategies for a corridor.
Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TGIF) - In November 2006, voters approved Proposition 1B, a
roughly $20 billion Transportation Bond. It established the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund that
included a total of $3.1 billion for goods movement - related programs, of which $2 billion was set aside
for infrastructure improvements statewide.
Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI) —This is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's effort to
improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Area's freeway network by deploying
system management strategies, completing the HOV lane system, addressing regional freight issues,
and closing key freeway infrastructure gaps.
Region
Regional Transportation Plan - Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is responsible for adopting a nine - county San Francisco
Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP defines a vision for the region's transportation
network. An update of this plan is performed every four years. The most recently adopted RTP is the
T2035 Plan approved in 2009. A 2013 update, titled Plan Bay Area is currently underway. This RTP
update will be finalized and adopted in the summer of 2013 and will include the SB -375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy. This law requires that the region and other areas throughout California reduce
transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through joint planning efforts.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program is a sub - element of the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is responsible for
developing regional project priorities for the RTIP for the nine counties of the Bay Area. The biennial
RTIP is then submitted to the California Transportation Commission for inclusion in the STIP.
Countv
Santa Clara County
Valley Transportation Plan WP) 2030
VTP 2030 is the long -range countywide transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County, is
responsible for preparing and periodically updating their countywide transportation plan. It is intended
to provide a planning framework for developing and delivering transportation projects and programs
over the next 25 years (2005 to 2030). Santa Clara County is beginning the process to update this plan,
identified as VTP 2035.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 45
San Mateo County
2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan
The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half -cent transportation sales tax, has
provided the County with a resource to meet its multi- faceted transportation challenges during the past
16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation
Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales -tax funds. The
current measure that ended in December 31, 2008 was approved by San Mateo County voters in 2004
and extends the measure until 2033.
1 -280 Wildlife Crossing Study - Caltrans is currently undergoing a Transportation Enhancement project
that will examine wildlife use, habitat connectivity, and wildlife - vehicle collisions along the 1 -280 in San
Mateo County with emphasis on a 17 -mile portion of Interstate 280, between Hillside Drive in
Hillsborough, and Woodside Road in Woodside.
San Francisco County
Countywide Transportation Plan
The San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan (SFTP) is consistent with the policy framework of the
San Francisco General Plan. Its Transportation Element establishes goals, policies, and objectives that
guide transportation planning, which are used to analyze and make recommendations regarding specific
land development proposals. The SFTP is the 25 year investment blueprint for transportation system
development within that policy framework. An update is currently underway.
Proposition K
On November 4, 2003, Proposition K was first approved by 75% of San Francisco voters, simultaneously
with a new 30 -year Transportation Expenditure Plan. The Proposition K plan supersedes, or replaces,
the Proposition B plan that was approved by voters in 1989 to collect a one -half of one percent
transaction and use to finance transportation improvements for the City and County of San Francisco.
Prop K is in effect to date.
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 46
Appendix C
Additional Route Data for 1 -280
Route Characteristics
State Route and Interstate Intersections
SRs 87, 85, 17, 84, and 92,1-380, and US 101
San Jose, Sunnyvale Woodside, Redwood City, Hillsborough,
Cities Traversed
Atherton, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, S. San Francisco, San
Bruno, San Francisco
Parallel Arterials
El Camino Real
Existing Congestion
Top AM Peak Period Congestion: n/b Meridian to 1880, vhd:
Top PM Peak Period Congestion: s/b Moorpark Ave. East to
State of the System 2006
11`h St., vhd: 530
Environmental
Air Quality Basin
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Air Quality District:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Transit Oriented Developments (TODS)
Planned Balboa Park Bart Station
Modal Split # and %
Santa Clara County San Mateo County San Francisco County
Source: 2000 Census Data by County
Bicycle
10,076 =1.2% 2,896 = 0.8% 8,302 = 2.0%
Walked
14,786 = 1.8% 7,609 = 2.1% 39,192 = 9.4%
Drive Alone
641, 113 = 77.3% 256,066 = 72.3% 169,508 = 40.5%
Carpool
101,188 = 12.2 %45,367 = 12.8 %45,152 = 10.8%
Public Transit
29,118 = 3.5% 26,029 = 7.49o' 130,311= 31.1%
Work at Home
25,868 = 3.1% 12,845 = 3.6% 19,376 = 4.6%
Other
4,609 = 0.6% 2,406 = 0.7% 2,761= 0.7%
Summary of Studies in Corridor:
San Francisco County
Mobility, Access, Pricing Study
Bicycle Route Choice Study
Value Pricing Pilot Program
Central Freeway and Octavia Boulevard Circulation Study
Balboa Park Station Area Circulation Study
San lose Avenue Access and Design Study
Bayview Transportation Improvement Project
San Mateo County
Peninsula Gateway Study 2020 Phase 2
Grand Boulevard Study
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara (VTA) Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 47
Appendix D
Pedestrians Issues at 1 -280 Ramp Intersections
Segment/
PM
City
Intersection
Long Crossing
Distance or large
Corner Radii
Loop
Ramp
PPr Prohibited Crowing
Crosswalk Unmarked
No Sidewalks
A
San Jose
1- 280 /McLaughlin Ave
X
A
San Jose
1-280 on- ramp /E. Reed
Street
X
A
San lose
1 -280 off- ramp /E.
Virginia Street
X
A
San Jose
1- 280 /SR 82
x
A
San lose
1- 280 /Saratoga Ave
x
x
x
x
A
Santa Clara
1- 280 /1-awrence Expwy
x
A
Santa Clara
1. 280 /Stevens Creek Blvd
x
A
Cupertino
1- 280/Wolfe Road
x
x
x
A
Cupertino
1- 280 /De Anza Blvd
x
D
Cupertino
1- 280 /Foothill Expwy
x
x
D
Los Altos
1-280/El Monte Rd
x
x
E
San Bruno
1- 280 /Sneath Lane
x
E
S. San Francisco
1- 280/Westborough
x
x
E
Daly City
1- 280 /Hickey Blvd
x
F
San Francisco
1- 280 /Ocean Avenue
x
San Francisco
1- 280 /Geneva Avenue
x
G
San Francisco
1- 280 /Bosworth Street
x
H
San Francisco
1- 280 /Pennsylvania
Avenue near 18th
x
x
California Department of Transportation, District Page 48
Appendix E
1 -250 FREEWAY AGREEMENTS
The Freeway Agreement documents the understanding between Caltrans and the local agency relating to
the planned traffic circulation features of the proposed facility. It does not bind the State to construct on a
particular schedule or staging. In the event that the freeway is fully constructed, it shows which streets
may be closed or connected to the freeway; it shows which streets and roads may be separated from the
freeway; it shows the location of frontage roads; and it shows how streets may be relocated, extended or
otherwise modified to maintain traffic circulation in relation to the freeway. Locations of railroad and
pedestrian structures, as well as those for other non - motorized facilities, should also be shown.
Agreements are often executed many years before construction is anticipated and they form the basis for
future planning, not only by Caltrans but by public and private interests in the community.
The California Freeway and Expressway System has a large financial investment in access control to insure
safety and operational integrity of the highways. The legislative intent for requiring Freeway Agreements is
to obtain the local agency's support of local road closures and changes to the local circulation system and
to protect property rights and to assure adequate service to the community. Access control is necessary on
the freeway or expressway so that current and future traffic safety and operations are not compromised.
The State may, at the State's expense, install signs, signals, and other traffic control devices at appropriate
locations to be determined by the State in order to regulate, warn or guide traffic upon the highways.
Local jurisdictions consent to control and maintenance over each of the relocated or reconstructed
county /local roads and frontage roads and other State constructed local roads. Local jurisdictions will
accept control and maintenance over designated section of the interchange or separation structures
constructed under the agreements except as to any portion thereof which is adopted by the State as a part
of the freeway proper. The agreements may be modified at any time by mutual consent of the parties
involved as may become necessary for the best accomplishment through State, county and local
cooperation of the whole freeway project for the benefit of the people of the State, county and local
I urisdiction.
The following list of Freeway Agreements can be viewed in detail using Caltrans' Project Management
Tracking System:
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 49
Santa Clara County
#1172 5CL- 101 -16 June 30, 1970
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara, including 1 -280 between 1 -101 and McLaughlin Avenue, PM 0.0 -0.4
#1172 SCL- 101 -17 August 17, 1970
Agreement with the City of San Jose, including 1 -280 between 0.2 miles West of 1 -101 and Coyote Creek, PM 0.2 -1.1
#1202 SCL -17-8 October 20, 1969
Agreement with the City of San Jose, including 1 -280 between Winchester Road and Los Gatos Creek, PM 3.3 - 6.0
#1203 SCL -17 -9 October 14, 1969
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara, including 1 -280 between Route 17 and Lincoln Avenue, PM 3.5- 5.4
#1213 SCL -280 -1 April 5, 1968
Agreement with the City of San Jose on 1 -280 between Coyote Creek and Los Gatos Creek, PM 1.1- 3.3
#1214 SCL - 280 -10 January 18, 1965
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara on 1 -280 between 0.4 West of Foothill Boulevard and the San Mateo
County line, PM 11.9 -20.6
41215 SCL- 280 -11 October 1, 1962
Agreement with the Town of Los Altos Hills on 1 -280 between Magdalena Avenue and 0.3 West of Page Mill Road, PM
14.1 -18.8
#1216 SCL -280 -2 December 24, 1962
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara on 1 -280, PM 4.6 -6.0
#1217 SCL -280 -3 January 15, 1963
Agreement with the City of San lose on 1 -280 between Forest Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, PM 4.6 - 7.4
#1218 SCL -280 -4 May 5, 1967
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara on 1 -280 between Saratoga Ave, and Stevens Creek Boulevard, PM 6.0 - 7.4
#1219 SCL -280 -5 July 2, 1962
Agreement with the County of Santa Clara on 1 -280 between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Mountain View - Stevens Creek
Road, PM 7.4 -11.5
#1220 SCL -280 -6 October 30, 1962
Agreement with the City of Santa Clara on 1 -280 between Stevens Creek Boulevard and 0.2 Southeast of Calabazas
Creek, PM 7.4 -7.8
#1221 SCL -280 -7 November 18, 1975
Agreement with the City of Cupertino on 1 -280 between 0.2 miles Southeast of Calabazas Creek and Foothill
Boulevard, PM 7.8 -11.5
#1222 SCL -280 -8 June 13, 1962
Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale on 1 -280 between 0.25 miles East of Blaney Ave. and 0.1 mile West of Rte 114,
PM 8.7 -10.8
#1223 SCL -280 -9 August 27, 1963
Agreement with the City of Los Altos on 1 -280 between Mountain View- Stevens Creek Road and 0.4 miles West, PM
11.5-11.9
#1243 SCL -85 -9 October 15, 1990
Agreement with the City of Cupertino, involving 1 -280 between 0.3 miles east of Route 85 and 0.3 miles West of Route
85, PM 10.4 -11.0
#1246 SCL -87 -3 June 26, 1984
Agreement with the City of San Jose, involving 1 -280 between Almaden Avenue and Bird Avenue, PM 1.9 - 2.6
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 50
San Mateo County
#1299 SM -1 -7 November 13, 1990
Agreement with the City of Daly City, involving 1 -280 between PM25 and the San Francisco County line, PM 25.0 -27.4
#1300 SM -280 -1 September 30, 1965
Agreement with the County of San Mateo on 1 -280 between the Santa Clara County line and the south town limits of
Woodside, PM 0.0 — 2.3
#1301 SM- 280 -10 November 21, 1963
Agreement with the County of San Mateo on 1 -280 between the north city limits of San Bruno and 0.1 mile south of
Chinese Cemetery Road, PM 23.2 — 25.0
#1302 SM -280 -2 August 9, 1966
Agreement with the City of Menlo Park on 1 -280 between Sand Hill Road and 0.2 miles north, PM 1.7 -1.9
#1303 SM -280 -3 December 19, 1966
Agreement with the Town of Atherton on 1 -280 0.6 miles north of Sand Hill Road, PM 2.3— 2.3
#1304 SM -280 -4 February 10, 1966
Agreement with the Town of Woodside on 1 -280 between town limits, PM 2.3 — 5.6
#1305 SM -280 -5 August 10, 1964
Agreement with the Town of Hillsborough on 1 -280 between Crystal Springs Road and Summit Drive, PM 13 —15.8
#1306 SM -280 -6 August 3, 1964
Agreement with the City of Burlingame on 1 -280, PM 17.2 —17.2
#1307 SM -280 -7 August 18, 1964
Agreement with the City of Millbrae on 1 -280 between city limits, PM 17.2 —18.9
#1308 SM -280 -8 July 14, 1964
Agreement with the City of San Bruno on 1 -280 between city limits, PM 19.3 — 21.9
#1309 SM -280 -9 August 3, 1964
Agreement not available for viewing online, PM 21.9 — 23.4
#1320 SM -92 -2 June 1, 1976
Agreement with the County of San Mateo, involving 1 -280 between the north town limits of Woodside to 0.7 miles
north of Route 92, PM 5.6 -11.5
#1321 SM -92 -3 September 1, 1964
Agreement with the County of San Mateo, involving 1 -280 between the north town limits of Woodside and the south
city limits of San Bruno, PM 11.5 —19.3
San Francisco County
#1260 SF -101 -3 July 7, 1958
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco, involving 1 -280 between Mission Street and 1 -101, PM 3.6 — 4.3
#1264 SF -1 -1 November 1, 1962
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco, involving 1 -280 between the south city limits and Orizaba
Avenue, PM 0.0 -0.4
#1265 SF -280 -1 February 20, 1962
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco on 1 -280 between Orizaba Avenue and Havelock Street, PM 0.4 -2.1
#1266 SF -280 -2 March 27, 1961
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco on 1 -280 between Havelock Street and Cambridge Street, PM 2.1 -3.6
#1267 SF -280 -3 January 10, 1962
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco on 1 -280 between Route 68 and Evans Avenue, PM 4.3 —5.1
#1268 SF -280-4 February 25, 1994
Voided agreement with the City and County of San Francisco on 1 -280, PM 5.1— 7.3
California Department of Transportation, District 4 Page 51
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank