Loading...
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