skip to main content skip to related links skip to website navigation links
VTA Home
Customer Service Phone: (408) 321-2300


   Related Links


   Board of Directors

   Standing Committees

   Advisory Committees

   Policy Advisory Boards

   Government Affairs

       Legislative Programs
       Policy Updates
       Transportation Funding








Agenda Item # 6

  Date: February 27, 2006
  Committee Meeting Date: March 8, 2006
  Board Meeting Date: April 6, 2006
  ACTION    ___      DISCUSSION   ___ INFO   X

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
 Board of Directors
  
THROUGH:Michael T. Burns
 General Manager
  
FROM:Carolyn M. Gonot
 Chief Development Officer
  
SUBJECT: Draft 2005 Monitoring and Conformance Report and Conformance Findings


For Information Only

State legislation requires urbanized counties to implement Congestion Management Programs (CMP).   As the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, VTA is responsible for implementing the CMP.   One of the CMP requirements is to determine annually whether Member Agencies are conforming to the adopted CMP standards.  Nonconformance places Member Agencies at risk of losing local gas tax subventions included as part of the 1990 Proposition 111 legislation.

As part of the CMP Monitoring Program, Member Agencies must comply with the following requirements:

  1. Monitor and submit level-of-service reports on CMP Roadway Network intersections;
  2. Prepare and submit land-use monitoring data to the CMP on all land-use projects approved from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005; and
  3. Prepare transportation impact analyses (TIAs) for projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips and submit the TIA at least 15 calendar days before the project is up for approval or is “recommended for approval.”

For the 2005 monitoring period (July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005) VTA did not request Member Agencies to submit level-of-service reports on CMP Roadway Network intersections.  State Statute requires that this data be collected biennially.  Level of Service data was collected for the 2004 monitoring period and will be collected for the 2006 monitoring period.

Roadways and intersections are evaluated by level of service (LOS), a measure of driving conditions and vehicle delay.   Levels range from A (best) to F (poorest).   Each Member Agency must maintain the CMP traffic LOS standard—LOS E—on CMP system facilities.  Roadways and intersections that operate at LOS F are considered non-conforming.  However, if a roadway or intersection was operating at LOS F in 1991, the baseline year, it is exempt from the CMP standard and conformance requirements when found to be operating at LOS F in subsequent monitoring periods.

Until the Countywide Deficiency Plan is adopted, a Member Agency whose jurisdiction has a non-conforming intersection, freeway segment or rural highway, should develop a local deficiency plan or require a new development’s project sponsor to implement the “Immediate Implementation Action List” in VTA’s “Requirements for Local Deficiency Plans.

The Draft 2005 Monitoring and Conformance Report presents the results of the monitoring program.   A brief discussion of the results is presented below.

Freeways.  In 2005, approximately 61 AM and 61 PM directional miles of the County’s freeway system operated at LOS F during the peak hours.   However, due to 1991 baseline exemption, only 41 AM and 35 PM miles are considered deficient— that is they have deteriorated to LOS F from LOS E or better since monitoring began in 1991.  This represents an increase in congestion since 2004 when 37 AM and 34 PM miles were considered deficient.  In 1991, 36 AM and 37 PM miles operated at LOS F.

Table 1 shows the percentage of directional miles that each freeway operates at LOS F during peak hours.   Reviewing the total directional miles of freeway at LOS F by facility reveals that State Route 85 has the highest percentage of facility at LOS F at 52%.   This is an increase from 2004 when 46% of the facility operated at LOS F.  The seemingly low percentages for SR 17 and U.S. 101 are influenced by the less urbanized nature of long stretches of these facilities.

Table 1.

Percentage of Freeway Facilities

at LOS F During Peak Hours

Freeway

2005 Directional Miles

Miles of LOS F

2005 Percentage

SR 85

48

25

52%

I-880

21

10

49%

I-280

44

20

46%

SR 87

18

8

45%

SR 237

20

8

39%

I-680

20

7

37%

SR 17

28

8

29%

U.S. 101

115

26

23%

Eighteen freeway carpool lane segments totaling about 16 miles were determined to operate at LOS F, compared to eleven freeway segments totaling about eight miles were operating at LOS F in 2004.  As reported in monitoring reports from previous years, the conclusion is that these LOS F conditions in carpool lanes are not due to lack of capacity.  Rather, the LOS F carpool lane segments are at the beginning or end of a carpool lane or near a major interchange where there is heavy weaving traffic between the carpool lane and the adjacent mixed-flow lanes.  Such situations could benefit from direct carpool lane connectors between freeways or a direct carpool lane to off-ramp connector.

Rural Highways.   All twelve rural highways were determined to conform to CMP LOS standards in 2005. 

Land-Use Submittals.  All Member Agencies have complied with the CMP land-use submission requirements.   A net total of 9,063 residential units were approved during the 2005 monitoring period.  Analysis shows that an estimated 11,381 new jobs will be created by project approvals at commercially and industrially zoned sites.  In 2004, residential unit approvals and estimated new jobs totaled 5,052 and 21,047, respectively. The land use data is incorporated in the countywide transportation model database and used in analysis of development trends related to major transit facilities.

Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. All Member Agencies have met the TIA requirement, supplying VTA with a combined total of 32 TIAs during the 12-month monitoring period.

 

Prepared by: Adam Burger, Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning Manager

Click here to return to the Board Agenda Index