Loading...
03-19-2025 Agenda Packet BPC 03-19-2025 1 of 73 CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA lop CUPERTINO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION 10185 North Stelling Road, Quinlan Conference Room Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:00 PM Regular Meeting Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways: 1) Attend in person at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road 2) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at https:Hyoutube.com/ecupertinocitycommission Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person at Quinlan Community Center. 2) E-mail comments by 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19 to the legislative body at bikepedcommission@cupertino.gov. These e-mail comments will also be posted to the City's website after the meeting. Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda item. Members of the audience who address the legislative body must come to the lectern/microphone and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: February 20, 2025 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the February 20, 2025 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes A-Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS Page 1 1 BPC 03-19-2025 2 of 73 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda March 19,2025 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (Schroeder) Recommended Action: Receive Presentation from Alta Planning + Design on the Schedule, Scope, and Process for the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan 3. Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Schroeder) Recommended Action: Receive Presentation and Recommend City Council Accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and Steering Committee Action A-Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 4. Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Recommended Action: Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk's Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section Page 2 2 BPC 03-19-2025 3 of 73 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda March 19,2025 2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. Page 3 3 BPC 03-19-2025 4 of 73 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13824 Agenda Date: 3/19/2025 Agenda #: 1. Subject: February 20, 2025 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Approve the February 20, 2025 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/12/2025 powered by LegistarTM 4 BPC 03-19-2025 5 of 73 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION lul February 20, 2025 CUPERTINO Draft Minutes The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Gerhard Eschelbeck, Ilango Ganga, Herve Marcy (C), Munisekaran Madhdhipatla, Joel Wolf (VC) Absent: None Staff: David Stillman, Staff Liaison Others Present: Chelsea Biklen, Safe Routes to School Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 16, 2024 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minute MOTION: Vice Chair Wolf moved, seconded by Commissioner Ganga to approve the minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Madhdhipatla&Marcy Abstain POSTPONEMENTS No postponements ORAL COMMUNICATIONS John Stauffer, public speaker, spoke regarding pedestrian safety. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Election of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2025 1 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Special Meeting February 20,2025 5 BPC 03-19-2025 6 of 73 NOMINATION: Commissioner Eschelbeck, seconded by Commissioner Madhdhipatla to nominate Commissioner Ganga as Chair of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for 2025. NOMINATION OF COMMISSIONER GANGA AS CHAIR FOR THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION FOR 2025 PASSED:3-0,Marcy&Wolf Abstain NOMINATION: Commissioner Madhdhipatla, seconded by Chair Ganga to nominate Commissioner Eschelbeck as Vice Chair of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for 2025. NOMINATION OF COMMISSIONER ESCHELBECK AS VICE CHAIR FOR THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION FOR 2025 PASSED:3-0,Marcy&Wolf Abstain 3. Bike Event Coordination (Biklen) NO ACTION TAKEN 4. Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Stillman) NO ACTION TAKEN STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 5. Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) NO ACTION TAKEN FUTUTE AGENDA SETTING Work Plan • Bicycle Facilities—In Progress • Active Transportation Plan (FY 24-25) • CIP Recommendations for FY 25/26 (Ganga) Grants • Know/Understand Fed Grant Funding with Caltrans on updated bike-ped planning • Understand/Educate on what funding standards are (Fed/State) Studies/Plans • Kennewick Drive/Homestead Road Study o Stop Gap Measures/Temporary Solutions • Study on McClellan Ave bike lanes in front of Monte Vista High School (October maybe) • Staff update - Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study • Examine Pedestrian Walkways for Safety • Install Bollards at existing buffered bike lanes (Public Request) • Path between Lincoln Elem and Monta Vista HS 2 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Special Meeting February 20,2025 6 BPC 03-19-2025 7 of 73 • Regnart Creek Trail Crossing at Blaney Avenue • Speed Limits Studies (Spring/Summer 2025) • Bollinger Road Corridor Projects • Staff update - Stevens Creek Boulevard, Phases 2B • Staff update- Safe Routes to School (SR2S) • Carmen Road Bridge • I-280 Wolfe Interchange • Vision Zero Next Steps (Ganga) • Staff update on CIP Project updates (6 mo.) Education • Adult Bicycle Education • Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities • Lead Pedestrian Walk Interval (LPI)-Start pedestrian green before vehicles • Bicycle and pedestrian safety Miscellaneous • Bicycle Licensing (Theft Prevention) • Review Progress toward BPC Objectives & Grant Applications (6 mo.) • Status-VTA BPAC Adult Bicycle Education (Lindskog) • Inventory of Traffic Lights (triggering traffic light from a detector)-Staff update • Pedestrian safety on Torre Avenue (Muni) • Before and after data on separated bike lanes and major intersections for improvement-Use of data for future decisions o Combine this data with the data on safety (Muni/Marcy) Is there a sensitivity setting (Fall) ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: David Stillman, Staff Liaison Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website https://www.cupertino.or /og ur-city/agendas-minutes 3 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Special Meeting February 20,2025 7 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 03-19-2025 Bay Area Bike to Wherever Days Commissioner Coordination Chelsea Biklen CITY OF SafeRoutes@Cupertino.or C O P E RT I N O (408)777-76� BPC 03-19-2025 9of73 Bay Area BTWD Bike to Work! 9 BPC 03-19-2025 10 of 73 Bay Area BTW D Bike to Work Wherever Days Advocating Bike To Wherever Days 2025 --l. -—--�— _ .lI.Tl-11- -10.. I I, _ BPC 03-19-2025 Energizer Station Help Energize Local Cyclists' Trips 2025 Dates: Thursday, May 15 r � s Friday, May 16 s- Saturday, May 17 - 11 Energizer Station Hosted by BPC and Walk Bike Cupertino 2019 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host • esponsibilities • Sign Up to Host Energizer Station • Read Energizer Station Host Guide • Encourage as many folx as possible to pledge to ride • Pick Up Tote Bags • Attend one-hour Zoom orientation- Thurs May 8 @ 1 pill • Recruit volunteers to help staff booth • Coordinate table/chairs/canopy with City • Provide refreshments 12 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host • esponsibilities Sign up to Host Energizer Station Sign Up by _�pril 30: nttps://bikesiliconvalley.org/energize Decisions needed to sign up : • Date? • Location ? • Time? 13 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host Responsibilities Read Energizer Station Host Guide Guide p. o 14 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host Responsibilities Encourage as many people as possible to pledge to ride! Santa Clara County Pledge to Ride Link: ,)ttps://www.eve ntbrite.co m ZeZp led q e-to-rid e-bi ke-to- vherever-days-2025-tickets- I 119156359799 15 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host • esponsibilities Pick Up Tote Bags Monday, May 5 12 noon to 3 pm Sports Basement wgiii4i 1 177 Kern Avefrr Sunnyvale, CA 94085 A S ~ 16 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host • esponsibilities Attend one- hour Zoom orientation • Training Date : Monday May 8, 1 pm • Register via links in Energizer Station Host Guide (link in a previous slide) • (if unable to attend the live training, slides are available) 17 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host • esponsibilities Recruit volunteers to help staff booth • Bring friends and family! • Walk Bike Cupertino has historically been a wonderful partner to the BPC 18 BPC 03-1 Energizer Station Host Responsibilities Provide refreshments $ 100 reimbursement from City (fruit, energy bars, coffee, electrolytes, etc.) • Submit receipts to David Stillman 19 -- -- � BPC 03-19-2025 Coordination Questions • Station Details • Date? • Location? • Time? • Who will coordinate this year' s station ? • Fill out form by April 30 • Pick up tote bags May 5 • Attend training May 8 • Who else can staff the table? 20 BPC 03-19-2025 Coordination Questions • Station Details & Staff Recommendations • Date? May 15? • Location? McClellan/Stelling or DB Bridge? • Time? 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.? • Who will coordinate this year' s station ? • Fill out form by April 30 • Pick up tote bags May 5 • Attend training May 8 • Who else can staff the table? 21 BPC 03-19-2025 22 of 73 Thank You ! Bike To Wherever Days 2025 22 Bicycle Facilities Improvements Bicycle Pedestrian Commission CUP o m BPC 03-19-2025 Background / Timeline Bicycle Facilities Work Plan Item approved FY 22-23 • Purpose to increase inventory of bike facilities and amenities throughout City • $50,000 Council allocation • BPC Subcommittee formed to assist City staff in implementing project Rotary Club of Cupertino interested in promoting bicycle usage • Investigating locations for bike racks in front of private businesses, as well as on City property • Coordinating efforts with BPC Subcommittee • Private business locations in progress 24 BPC 03-19-2025 Background / Timeline MOU between City and Rotary Club, executed February 2024 • Addresses locations on City property • Rotary to purchase and install bike racks at locations mutually acceptable to City • City to reimburse $250/bicycle space, up to $50,000 Rotary and BPC Subcommittee completed initial list of 6 recommended locations and rack designs 25 Rotary Proposal Bike Racks in Partnership with the City We are planning to install 6 racks in six locations. 1 . McClellan Ranch Blacksmith Shop 2. Memorial Park Amphitheater 3. Library Field near the Library 4. Wilson Park Playgrounds 5. Cafe Lattea Street Median 6. Wow Tea Street Median 1 . McClellan Ranch � s 1. McClellan Ranch ; r Blacksmith Shop The city has agreed to pour a concrete pad in the open mom _ area next to the Blacksmith Shop. Approximate max size of the T bike rack including bikes parked there:7'x7' Size:4 bikes Rack design: Wagon wheel BPC 03-19-2025 1 . McClellan Ranch City concerns with proposed location: • Area to be used for nature activities and will have log benches • Part of area dedicated to former staff member • Location needed for water access to ensure safety during use of forge City proposed location: ri �s Ak lot 21 fi 4- r' :r 1, ,. .. ✓ � rrr __ ,ate'�S:l•`-L^ 2. Memorial Park 2. Memorial Park o . Concrete area near the Amphitheater. 3 Approximate max size of the bike rack including bikes parked there: 6'X10'. Size:8 bikes k� �, •;� :. v Rack design:Shark a„''Q '� �. iIfI BPC 03-19-2025 2. Memorial Park City concerns with proposed location: • Area widely used by festivals, Veteran's Day band, other events City proposed location: • Near parking lot/softball field, or next to pathway to gazebo: r , i n i t Fy 30 .L ,y 3. Library Field 3. Library Field r� Add concrete pad in the parking _. lot separator in the north east part of Library Field (near cricket r field). ` Approximate max size of the bike rack including bikes parked there: - 6'x6' Size: 2 bikes Rack design: Chat bubbles ter► �'� 4. Wilson Park 4. Wilson Park k Mid-park between the toddler playground and the bigger kids playground Approximate max size of the bike rack gad including bikes parked there:8'X12' Size: 8 bikes ♦j M; i #F- Rack design:Salmon + = a+ ti 5. Cafe Lattea and Wow Tea 5. Cafe Lattea and cletdlfeo 6. Wow Tea - Put in concrete pads in the grass in front of the restaurants between -lr , the curb and the sidewalk. Approximate max size of each bike rack including bikes parked there: 6'x10' Size: 2 bikes each V: Rack designs: Coffee mug - Ice cream cone • — L_ — s reverts Creek BP1 - - Steven`s Cre-ek Blvd .ems'—.1'" - -•,. �. _ - _ BPC 03-19-2025 Cost Summary Bike City Cost w/Rotary Location Rack design Spaces Contribution I ago McClellan Ranch Blacksmith's Shop Wagon wheel 4 $1,000 $1,474 Wilson Park Playgrounds Picnic Area Salmon 8 $2,000 $6,947 Library Field Chat bubbles 2 $500 $2,130 Memorial Park Amphitheater Shark 8 $2,000 $7,650 Caffe Lattea Ice cream cone 2 $500 $1,364 Wow Tea Coffee mug 2 $500 $1,920 Cost for selected 6 locations 36 $6,500 $21,485 Sales tax $1,960.51 Shipping $1,124.00 Total Cost $24,570 Reimbursement by City $6,500 Net cost to the Rotary $18,070 34 BPC 03-19-2025 Discussion and Next Steps • Staff seeking BPC input on locations and designs • Rotary and BPC Subcommittee to revisit McClellan Ranch and Memorial Park location, submit revised locations to City for review • Following final approval of all designs, staff to proceed with installation of concrete pads 35 Bicycle Facilities Improvements End Slide CUP o m BPC 03-19-2025 37 of 73 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13825 Agenda Date: 3/19/2025 Agenda M 2. Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (Schroeder) Receive Presentation from Alta Planning + Design on the Schedule, Scope, and Process for the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/12/2025 powered by LegistarTM 37 BPC 03-19-2025 38 of 73 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13826 Agenda Date: 3/19/2025 Agenda M 3. Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Schroeder) Receive Presentation and Recommend City Council Accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and Steering Committee Action CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/12/2025 powered by LegistarTM 38 AttaZ" t-A25 39 of 73 December 2024 draft VISION STUDY 0 0 0 0 ' Corridor SANJUSLE ti. F .A.., S e. 7lansporta[i[ rUPERTIN❑ ,-�i•ii..L:�r�iiazlr vaLrk '..�h� F Prepared by Iteris, Inc. and Winter Consulting 39 BPC 03-19-2025 40 of 73 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Corridor Steering The Study was initiated through the hard work of the previous Committee Stevens Creek Corridor Boulevard Steering Committee which Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei,City of San Jose (Chair) included Supervisor Cindy Chavez,Santa Clara County(Vice Chair) Vice Mayor Chappie Jones,City of San Jose (previous Chair) Supervisor Susan Ellenberg,Santa Clara County Council Member Dev Davis,City of San Jose Councilmember Hung Wei,City of Cupertino Council Member Elect, Rosemary Kamei,City of San Jose Council Member Kitty Moore,City of Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul,City of Cupertino Council Member Dev Davis, City of San Jose Council Member Kitty Moore,City of Cupertino Mayor Lisa Gillmor,City of Santa Clara Mayor Lisa Gillmor,City of Santa Clara Council Member Anthony Becker,City of Santa Clara Council Member Anthony Becker,City of Santa Clara Board Member Margaret Abe-Koga,Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Council Member Teresa O'Neill,City of Santa Clara (VTA) Board Supervisor Susan Ellenberg,Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez,Santa Clara County Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Working Group John Sighamony,VTA Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Community Tamiko Percell,VTA Advisory Group David Stillman, City of Cupertino Ofisa Pati,Asian Americans for Community Involvement(AACI) Matt Shroeder,City of Cupertino Maria Ines Ortega,Cadillac Winchester Neighborhood Association Chris Corrao,City of Cupertino Bob Levy, City of San Jose District Neighborhood Leadership Group Ramses Madou,City of San Jose Sheng-Ming Egan,Cupertino 4 All David Gomez,City of San Jose Seema Linskog,Walk Bike Cupertino Jamie Sidhu,City of San Jose Shyam"Sean"Panchal,Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Aaron Zeelig,City of San Jose Pam Grey, De Anza College Administration Natasha Opfell,City of San Jose Manny DaSilva, DeAnza College Wilson Tam,City of San Jose Harry Neil, De Anza College Student Raania Mohsen,City of San Jose Perry Penvenne,Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Alex Dersh,City of San Jose, District 1 Tracie Johnson,South of Forest Avenue Neighborhood Association Michael Liw,City of Santa Clara Cindy Baldenazi,South of Forest Neighborhood Association Nicole He,City of Santa Clara Jennifer Shearin,Walk Bike Cupertino Lesley Xavier,City of Santa Clara Kirk Vartan, Local Business Owner on Corridor Steve Chan,City of Santa Clara Chris Giangreco,Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association Reena Brilliot,City of Santa Clara Ben Aghegnehu,County of Santa Clara We want to send a special thank you for all who participated in the project through online,webinars, surveys, interviews and pop-up events. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY I 40 BPC 03-19-2025 41 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS CorridorVision .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 VisionStatement...........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Valuesand Guiding Principles........................................................................................................................................................................2 ImplementationPlanning Process.................................................................................................................................................. 4 Engagement..................................................................................................................................................................................................4 ImplementationPlan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance.........................................................................................................................................................6 2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and Experience........................................................................................................................................9 3. Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure........................................................................................................................................... 12 4. Walking and Biking Network Connections ............................................................................................................................................ 15 5. Crossings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 7. Implementation Action Summary ........................................................................................................................................................23 Tables Table 1:Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization.......................................................................................................................................................................8 Table 2:Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities(in Miles).................................................................................................................................15 Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions.............................................................................................................23 Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability,and Experience Implementation Actions.......................................................................................................24 Table 5: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range ...........................................................................................................................................24 Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions.................................................................................................25 Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor .............................................................................................................................26 Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions..................................................................................................27 Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions............................................................................................................28 Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions................................................................................................29 Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems................................................................................................30 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY I ii 41 BPC 03-19-2025 42 of 73 Figures Figure 1:The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area..........................................................................................................................................1 Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High-Capacity,Separated Transit in the Corridor .........................................................................2 Figure 3:An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West.............................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision ....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure5: Historic Signs in the Corridor ..................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure6:Wayfinding Signage at Meridian...............................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 8:Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs...........................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 7:Slow Speed Public Education on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose......................................................................................................................7 Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard...............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 10:Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency...............................................................................................................................................10 Figure11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options .........................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 12:Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes,Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor.......................................................................................13 Figure 13:Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation ................................................................................13 Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area........................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ......................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino ............................................................................................................................................17 Figure 17:Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row.............................................................................................................18 Figure 18:Conceptual High-Capacity,Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor............................................................................................19 Figure 19:Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System,West of I-280..................................................21 Figure 20:Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System,West of Winchester Boulevard.........................22 Appendice, A. Engagement Summary and Tracker B. Transit Alternatives Analysis C. Transit Signal Operations D. Planned Conditions E. Parking Survey F. Conditions Report STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 1 III 42 1 I 7 BPC 03-19-Pp FT 43 o CORRIDOR VISION 7. S The nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street corridor (Corridor)from Foothill Boulevard to Diridon Station is vital to Santa Clara �� � '�• Valley. The Corridor currently serves 100,000 residents and 80,000 jobs within • 'h mile of the roadway. By 2040,these populations are expected to increase to 1, 120,000 residents and 100,000 jobs. • One-third of corridor residents are under 18 years old,forecast to rise to over 40 percent by 2040 0 Almost 20 percent of corridor residents have an annual household income under$50,000. 0 65 percent of households speak languages other than English and over ..•� - 30 percent have low English proficiency. - 0 7.5 percent have a disability 0 5.5 percent live in households without an automobile The Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara, and San Jose, Santa Clara County, and the s Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(VTA)—the local government agencies responsible for transportation in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor—are committed to continuous investment for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers.We recognize that to unlock the corridor's full potential, it is essential to have a shared vision for long-term transportation goals. —� Figure 1:The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area Jay 1 Y •y Santa Clara Stevens[reek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd - t� W. arlos StreetCupertino sin Jose � r STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 1 43 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 44 o Recognizing the need for a unified approach,the Cities, County, and VTA partnered to develop this Vision Statement.This Vision will • Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for guide the future of the corridor, ensuring cohesive planning and the connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and coordinated management of transportation improvements. expressways and freeways. A Steering Committee of elected officials from the participating agencies, a community advisory group, residents, businesses, and This Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and community groups provided the necessary leadership in a inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use. cooperative planning process to create a strong and sustainable Vision to guide corridor transportation investments for the next 50 Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High- years. Capacity,Separated Transit in the Corridor Vision Statement The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore,we envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode. Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by: - • A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino,Santa Values and Guiding Principles Clara, and San Jose from Diridon Station and Downtown San Jose to De Anza College within twenty minutes,with The Corridor Vision would be implemented in steps.The committed connection to Foothill Boulevard,for reliable travel to local shared purpose,vision, and values of the Cities of Cupertino, San and regional destinations. Station areas would be well- Jose, and Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara maintained and inviting community assets. Valley Transportation Authority(VTA)will guide the Vision implementation process: • A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle Ongoing Collaboration infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods • Continually engage and collaborate with corridor users and to the corridor within'/2 mile or 20-minute walk of transit decision-makers. stops. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 12 44 BPC 03-19-4 FT 45 oQ�p • Incrementally improve access, comfort, speed, and Figure 3:An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West reliability of transit. • Embrace technological innovations. Safety of All Corridor Users • Eliminate transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries. • Allow safe passage for vulnerable road users along and crossing the corridor. • Reduce the level of stress and increase the accessibility of walking and biking, Create a Sustainable Environment to Prioritize People • Design for all ages, abilities, and incomes of users. • Maintain the corridor as a clean and inviting place. • Provide green space and shade, and support native wildlife and plants. • Foster enjoyable public space. • Support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. A Transit Corridor • Increase transit frequency and speed. • Favor transit travel time over auto travel time in roadway operations. • Improve access and comfort of waiting for transit. • Implement a high-capacity, separated transit service in the corridor. Convenience and Connectivity • Improve the convenience of travel for people. • Ensure access and connectivity for all travelers through investment to meet resident and business needs. • Enhance neighborhood and business access. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 3 45 BPC 03-1 9-4 WFT 46 o I i 90 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS --- � The Vision Implementation Plan serves as a framework for actions to achieve a - shared Vision for the Corridor. Implementation will occur incrementally on separate project development timelines, involving distinct processes and Leadership. Some items will be addressed through routine maintenance or administrative actions at the agency level,while others necessitate months or years of design and development, requiring newly identified funding sources -ll and multijurisdictional cooperation. Regardless of the specific implementation approach, each component of the ` Corridor Vision contributes to the overarching goal of safe and enjoyable travel for people of all ages, abilities, and chosen modes.The implementation planning process aligns with the Vision Statement, assessing various options. Strategies and improvements are drawn from the VTA Community Design and Transportation Manual, refined to match local City and County specifications and standards, ensuring alignment with the area's unique character. AA Engagement a The Vision Statement for the Corridor was developed through extensive community input. Key community needs identified included addressing excessive vehicle speeds, improving safety, enhancing walkability, and p— achieving a better balance of transportation modes.To realize this vision,the community prioritized improved transit service, complete streets, better integration with the local community, and enhanced connections within the .,t Corridor. Implementation efforts focus on key priorities such as upgraded bicycle lanes, improved streetscape design (including shade trees),transit infrastructure and service investments, and safer pedestrian crossings. A STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 4 46 BPC 03-19-�g FT 47 o �� IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Near to Medium Term(actions with about a 10-year development period)—These actions require more development time due to their complexity and cost. Actions within the next five years will initiate The Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and priority projects. inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and 5. Improve intersections and crossings to minimize use. inconvenience and maximize safety for all users. The Vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Long Term(actions with at least a 20-year development period)— Corridor will be implemented cooperatively among Corridor The Vision of a separated, high-capacity transit service in the jurisdictions,transportation agencies, and the Corridor residential Corridor will require considerable time, effort and funding from each and business communities. Corridor agency. The next step in the project development process is to secure funding for preliminary engineering and alternatives Investment in improving the multimodal transportation conditions in analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally the Corridor should not wait for separated high-capacity transit, preferred alternative(LPA). near-term actions can start to improve conditions for today's users 6. Separate transit from other vehicle operations for high- while creating an environment that better leverages future long-term capacity transit service. investments.The six(6) recommended implementation components provide a structure to deliver near-term and long-term benefits of While individual projects would have their own development the Corridor Vision are: process with rigorous public engagement,the Corridor agencies should continue their cooperation at the staff and elected official Near Term(actions with about a 5-year development period)— level to bring the Corridor Vision to reality as shown in Figure 4. These actions can be implemented in short timeframes with near- term benefits. Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision 1. Implement corridor identity and maintenance program(s)to - - support Corridor businesses and neighborhoods. 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 2. Improve bus transit speed, reliability, and experience. Corridor identity and Maintenance 3. Implement walking and bicycling infrastructure on the Transit Speed,Reliability,and Experience < Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor Corridor Pedestrian , Bicycle Infrastructure Ln with an emphasis on physically protected bicycle lanes while Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Connections 0 maintaining access to driveways. Intersection and Crossine 4. Build out and enhance pedestrian and bicycle network ' parallel, across and connecting to the Corridor. Separated The near-term actions would also include the initiation of project development and funding for the high-capacity, separated transit service. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 5 47 BPC 03-19- ftAFT 486 1 . Corridor Identity and Maintenance Figure 5:Historic Signs in the Corridor The Corridor businesses, neighborhoods, civic groups and government agencies will define a Corridor brand identity(ies)as a premier regional destination to live, work, and shop. These '' groups will also collaborate to maintain the historic resources, condition of infrastructure and cleanliness of the Corridor. Transportation infrastructure that complements the community supports environmental, economic, and social considerations to create value to the people who live,work, and shop in the Corridor. Maintenance of an attractive and clean environment to leverage the �. unique corridor identity for the enjoyment of residents,workers, and shoppers requires organization and resources. Transportation Service Signage Corridor Plans The identity of the transportation services and connections of the Corridor have limited visibility. The City of Cupertino Heart of the City and Monta Vista Specific Transit identity can take a larger A Plans, City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus area and role in the Corridor's identity City of San Josh Stevens Creek,Valley Fair/Santana Row, and West through wayfinding signage, San Carlos Urban Villages each envision as streetscape that �— accommodates more walking, biking, rolling and transit activity. The real-time transit information, plans will be implemented through a variety of physical and better identified transit L stops which allow for better • ,f, m infrastructure and placemaking development actions consistent X awareness and utilization of the with the character of a multimodal commercial street. VTA's Corridor transportation assets. P_ Community Design and Transportation Manual further details the Wayfinding signage can be used , relationship of transportation and public life that inform the , recommendations of the Corridor Vision Implementation. to direct travelers from the Corridor to routes which Historic Preservation of Signs provide connections across The Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor is barriers such as the Cypress home to several vintage and historic signs—predominately in the Avenue Bridge over 1-280. Boogie, mid-century style. Current historic signs in the Corridor Figure 6:Wayfinding Signage at Meridian such as the Safeway(former Futurerama Bowl)Sign,Western Appliance Sign, and the Y Not Sign continue to define a future- looking aesthetic. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 16 48 BPC 03-19-Pp FT 49 o ��` District Management and Maintenance Organizations Expresswayto Harold Avenue). In advance of implementing Management of public space is usually conducted by municipalities infrastructure to actively or passively reduce vehicle speeds, or adjacent landowners, however in some parts of the Corridor, enforcement can be an effective near-term action to address vehicle business districts and chambers of commerce were formed to speed in the Corridor. Speeding is the largest primary traffic collision provide business development, clean and maintain public space, factor in the Stevens Creek provide beautification, create a civic forum, and sponsor events and Boulevard Corridor(30%of promotions.These organizations include: collisions),followed by • West San Carlos Street Neighborhood Business District related driver factors of Association failure to heed traffic signals ' ' A • Winchester Neighborhood Business District or signs (19%), improper • Cupertino Chamber of Commerce turning(19%), and violations �v of vehicle right-of-way(12%). Figure 8:Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs Deployment of periodic speed enforcement and vision zero education - n CUPERMO campaigns complement �I 11 BUSINESS physical infrastructure �0�Or_. 4 countermeasures to reduce - � vehicle speeds. �..eL ar Figure 7:Slow Speed Public Education on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose On-Street Parking �i On-street parking can be an important component of a vibrant F _ commercial corridor. A significant portion of the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street has on-street parking in the Cities Source:San lose Business Improvement District, Discover Santa Clara, of San Jose and Santa Clara sections of the roadway. A parking Cupertino Chamber of Commerce utilization survey in May 2024 analyzed the use of 1,736 parking spaces: 885 directly on Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Vehicle Speed Reduction Enforcement and Education Street, and 851 spaces within 200 feet of the Corridor on adjacent Enforcement of speed limits and traffic safety streets. Parking utilization ranged from 30 percent of spaces to 70 education can improve safety and comfort for percent of spaces depending on location and time of day. As shown OR residents,workers and visitors to the Corridor. The in Table 1,the highest utilized section on the Corridor was between physical character of the roadway gives the Lincoln Avenue and Shasta Avenue and the highest utilized side W impression of a higher-than-posted speed limit of 35 streets were in the Saratoga Avenue to Richfield Drive section of the miles per hour(40 miles per hour from Lawrence corridor. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 17 49 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 50 o Table 1:Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization Segment Average Parking • Communicate business resources to Corridor businesses On Corridor Adjacent to Corridor Bird to Lincoln 45% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF 61% • Coordinate street cleaning and maintenance including Lincoln to Shasta 68; 44;t graffiti removal and sidewalk and vegetation maintenance Shasta to I-660 48; 34;t I-080 to Cypress 45; 41;t • Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from Lawrence Cypress to Saratoga 57; 17 , Expressway to Harold Avenue 3a rot ogato Richfield 53; _ 68;t Richfieldto LawrenceExpy 38; 42;t • Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and speed education efforts Overall, on-street parking is well utilized throughout the Corridor, especially in areas where businesses are on small lots with limited • Develop a process for ongoing community input and off-street parking. Preservation of adequate parking is a key engagement for corridor issues through the Stevens Creek consideration for the overall design of the corridor roadway right-of- Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee way, however curbside management which includes consideration of parking turnover, passenger vehicle and transit loading access, commercial loading, bicycle and pedestrian safety as factors should be continued practice to maximize access, mobility, and safety.Any proposed removal of on-street parking in the future should be studied further in coordination with the adjacent land uses/properties. During the course of the study,the use of the median for car hauler Loading and unloading was mentioned as part of the balance of use in the public right-of-way since alteration of this condition would push the activity to neighborhood side streets. Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions • Convene businesses and business groups to explore: o Joint advertising and branding opportunities. o Marketing and special events o Public safety and hospitality o Small business grants/loans STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 8 50 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 51 o 2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and lighting, and associated improvements at VTA Rapid 523 bus stops in 2018. The Rapid 523 service operates approximately 22 percent Experience faster than the Local Route 23 service due to stop consolidation, all- door boarding, and limited signal priority operations. In addition, The Corridor Cities and the County will work with VTA to through VTA's Bus Stop Balancing program six eastbound and four inn the Corridor. speed, reliability and experience improvements ntbus e i westbound low ridership or redundant stops were removed. ho Other transportation services operating in the corridor include the Buses provide the primary transit mode along the Stevens Creek public Silicon Valley Hopper on-demand shared service in Cupertino Boulevard Corridor—the lines serving the corridor are on VTA's and Santa Clara, private employee buses for large employers, and Frequent Network. The improvement of service speed, reliability, private transportation network companies. Efficiency through the and experience is the responsibility of VTA and the Cities and County intersections and access to and quality of the bus stops are the that own and operate the infrastructure utilized by the bus system. focus of the following bus speed, reliability, and user experience Since buses in the corridor share the roadway infrastructure with improvements. other vehicles, designing and operating the roadway with transit vehicles and riders at the forefront can bring better service, Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard encourage more transit riders, and support affordable and environmentally friendly transportation. j t Buses primarily operate in the outside(3rd) lanes of the Corridor with a frequency of about every 10 minutes between the 23 and 523 service. More than 80 percent of the bus stops are locations where the bus stops in the 3rd lane or in a bicycle lane area which blocks zoo the 3rd lane vehicles behind it during stops. The speed limit of ! 4 35mph on Stevens Creek can have safety implications for mixed lane operations: in 2020 a motorist fatally rear-ended a VTA bus which was slowing down for a bus stop. The City of San Jose General Plan designated the Corridor a Grand Transit Signal Priority Boulevard where the needs of transit vehicles and riders are given Traffic signals that adjust signal green time based on transit vehicle priority over other modes of travel. In 2022,the City of San Jose proximity currently have limited implementation in the Corridor, passed a "Transit First Policy"which further motivates San Jose to despite corridor-wide infrastructure and technology in place.An improve transit operations and access on Grand Boulevards. administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the There are 89 intersections and 74 bus stops (both directions) along Corridor(the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose and the the Corridor. The Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, as well as San County of San Jose)to cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor- Jose, partnered with VTA to implement new shelters, seating, wide transit signal priority through a centralized system would be expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 14%and VTA Local STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 19 51 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 52 o 23/51 service by 12%, saving 5.5 minutes and 5.9 minutes for end to Real-Time Information end trips respectively. VTA provides real-time arrival and service alert information through a mobile app called Transit and at stop digital signage at light rail and Queue Jump bus rapid transit stations. Provision of this information on digital A designated waiting areas for buses at the front of an intersection signs at stops in the Corridor would be a major improvement to rider along with leading bus-only green time is referred to as a queue comfort and understanding of vehicle arrival time. jump. This treatment would be effective at the San Tomas Expressway intersection because the intersection is synchronized Transit Experience Improvements north/south to the expressway and therefore could not be a part of VTA and the Corridor municipalities recently made investments in the east/west Corridor transit signal priority. This queue jump transit user experience in the corridor through improved shelters, treatment would be expected to save up to 12 seconds per bus trip lighting, seating, accessibility, and bicycle racks on buses. Corridor through the intersection running east/west or a 0.5%travel time municipalities continue to address fixing cracked sidewalks,tripping savings for Corridor end-to-end trips. hazards, and adding concrete bus pads where asphalt has been impacted by frequent stopping. There will need to be periodic, Figure 10:Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency ongoing capital maintenance activities to maintain the stop areas in a state of good repair. Operated.Agency dim Signals City of Cupertino 18 Curbside Transit/Business Access Lanes City of Santa Clara 7 Transit lanes use pavement markings to prioritize buses for County of Santa Clara 1 improvement to transit speed and reliability. Curbside bus lanes are City of San Jose 21 accessible to emergency vehicles and any other vehicle for right- turns at intersections, driveways, parking maneuvers. Curbside transit lanes can also enhance the visibility and branding of transit Bus Boarding Islands service, and provide better visibility for vehicles entering and exiting Bus boarding islands allow in-lane boarding and remove bus stops the roadway from driveways and neighborhood side streets and can from bicycle lanes while providing additional safety protection for also be signed as Business Access and Transit Lanes. Given the cyclists. Implementation of bus boarding islands reduces the width of the roadway and predominately three-lane in each direction amount time of buses spend at a stop and would move bus loading configuration, curbside transit lanes could be implemented with out of bicycle lanes along the Corridor. Full implementation in the limited change to current on-street parking. Corridor is expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 2.1 and VTA Local 23/51 service by 6.1%, saving 50 seconds and 3.1 Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability,and Experience minutes for end-to-end trips respectively. The higher travel time Implementation Actions savings for local service is due to the higher number of stops in the Corridor. . Complete an administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the Corridor(the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose and the County of San Jose)to STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 110 52 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 53 o cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-wide transit signal priority through a centralized system. • Design and Transportation Manual(CDT) and VTA's Speed and Reliability Program. VTA will develop a speed and reliability improvement plan for the frequent network routes of 23, 51, and 523 with a Working Group of Corridor Agencies where priorities,funding and phased implementation. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY I 11 53 BPC 03-19-4`'Q�p FT 54 o 3. Corridor Walking and Biking Figure 11:Bicycle Lane Protection Options Infrastructure Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a stress- free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment through L the implementation of protected, buffered, or separated bicycle facilities the length of the Corridor including protection at intersections. Where sidewalks are not to current standard, they will be improved through dedications of new development. u u u u v m vi m � v m vi m Balancing modes in the Corridor requires additional promotion of a m V infrastructure for walking and biking. Investment in walking and bicycling infrastructure supports transit riders by providing easier Source:San Jose Better Bike Plan, City of San Jose and more pleasant stop access. Physical bicycle lane separation would include clear space and The streetscape of Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos clear sight lines for vehicles accessing driveways. It may also Street has remained largely unchanged in the last 50 years, even as include additional safety treatment for vehicle egress/ingress at the communities it serves have grown and diversified. Key driveways. improvements to modernize and transform the roadway into a Buildout Sidewalk Width valuable community asset include upgrading bicycle facilities, While sidewalks are present the entire length of the Corridor, 85 ensuring sidewalks meet current width standards, and installing and percent of the sidewalks are narrower than the standards within maintaining shade trees. their respective City. Generally,the sidewalks in the Valley Fair/Santana Row area and parts of Cupertino are the widest in the Protection for Bicyclists Corridor. The Corridor has several legacy driveways which slope According to the National Association of City Transportation through the sidewalk area. Each of the Corridor Cities' current Officials(NACTO), protected bicycle lanes should be installed when standards separate the sidewalk area from the driveway apron to vehicles travel at speeds of more than 25 miles per hour on a provide for minimal sloping though the pedestrian walking space consistent basis. Given the speed limit is predominately 35 miles which should be implemented as adjacent buildings are developed. per hour or higher in the Corridor,the physical separation of bicycle lanes is prudent for safety and comfort. The City of Cupertino is Pedestrian Infrastructure Enhancements currently implementing physically separated bicycle lanes along Whether someone is walking to a restaurant, business, or residence Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose from a parked car or bike,from an adjacent neighborhood, or from a plan to implement bicycle separation along the Corridor. transit stop, high-quality pedestrian infrastructure is important. Sidewalk extensions can be used to shorten intersection crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility. Median refuge islands STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 112 54 BPC 03-19-4''Qrp FT 55 o are a treatment at physically large, busy signalized intersections Shade Trees with long crosswalks. These facilities can provide a safe midpoint Shade trees are sparse in the Corridor. Only 45 percent of blocks for two-stage intersection crossings. Leading pedestrian intervals at have any trees present, and only 23 percent of blocks have trees on signalized intersections allow pedestrians to cross at intersections both sides of the roadway. Maintenance of a healthy urban forest before vehicles are given a green signal and gives pedestrians and green infrastructure lowers the temperature at ground level, priority over turning-vehicles. While conventional street lights are reduces glare, reduces stormwater run-off, and provides for native intended to illuminate the roadway for vehicles, pedestrian-oriented wildlife. Lighting illuminates sidewalks and crosswalks to enhance the comfort and safety of walking at night. Right-of-Way Constraints The corridor right-of-way varies block-to-block; however,the Figure 12:Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes,Shade Trees Corridor can be characterized by seven generalized segments by the and Bus Island on Corridor types of transportation infrastructure in place: A. Cupertino two to four lanes B. Cupertino six lanes C.San Jose/Santa Clara six lanes �- D.Valley Fair/Santana Row six lanes E.West San Carlos Street four lane no current bicycle lane y o1 G.West San Carlos Street four lane with bicycle lane When applying sidewalk, bicycle lane, and vehicle lane standards to the existing right-of-way, areas with constrained right of way are indicated in several sections of the corridor as shown in Figure 13. Figure 13:Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation CUPERTINO ; SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Sta°o� Key SAN JOSE-� 1 Travel Lane D E F E Bicycle Lane On-Street Parking Right-of-Way Constraint , Raised Median Two Way Left Turn Median Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk and Bike Lane Bike Lane Buffers Median Two-Way Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk Being Installed Left-Turn Lane and Bike Lane No Bike Lane No Bike Lane STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 13 55 BPC 03-19-Pp FT 56 o �� While these constraints do not limit the feasibility of implementing improvements in the current corridor right-of-way,they do indicate some deviation from standard design may be necessary to meet mobility goals without impacting adjacent land use. Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Recommended Implementation Actions • Physically protect/separate/buffer bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street to provide separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining access to driveways. • Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards through dedications by new land use development. • Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor. This would be developed within an urban forestry framework with sustainable funding for tree maintenance. • Review locations for installation of median refuge islands • Review the potential for leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections (LPIs). • Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting when street lighting is installed or replaced in the corridor. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 14 56 BPC 03-19-Pp FT 57 o �� 4. Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Each Corridor agency has plans to design,fund, and construct Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by high- projects to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure prioritized to are also supplemented by safety planning such as Local Roadway connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk Safety Plans, Safety Action Plans, Safe Routes to School,Vision Zero of transit stops through the implementation of bicycle and Programs, and the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines. pedestrian plans. Implementation of active transportation improvements should The Vision of the Corridor as a multimodal roadway is to be consider the accommodation of electric powered bicycle, scooters, supported by strong connections to walking and bicycling networks. and other micromobility to ensure emerging modes support, not This allows non-motorized travel for access to transit services and conflict with walking and bicycling. commercial and residential areas. Priority Implementation Actions Each Corridor agency provide improvements to walking and The following is a sample of the 70+ parallel and connecting walking bicycling infrastructure in the Corridor area (within'h mile of the and biking network improvements prioritized by the Community Corridor). The current and planned status of bicycle infrastructure Advisory Committee: based on each of the Corridor City's bicycle plans is shown in Table • Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Project(City of Santa 2. Overall,the bicycle network is planned to be expanded by 50 Clara) percent-from approximately 80 miles of facilities to 120 miles of • Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project(City of San Jose) facilities. This expansion includes a major investment in 68 miles of • De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes (City of Cupertino) new or converted trails and protected, buffered, or separated • Lawrence Mitty Park Trail(City of Cupertino) bikeways. This would bring the proportion of the separated bikeway network from 11 percent to 63 percent in the Corridor area. Figureg y Network in the Corridor Area m Bic cle p Existing �. Table 2:Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities(in Miles) --- „ - ------------ r7 -- Bicycle Facility Type Current Planned Trail 4.5 12.6 '� , �— _ = ------- ----------------M------- I ------------- , Buffered/Separated Bikeway 4.6 64.5 Unbuffered Bike Lane 52.6 14.3 Bicycle Boulevard/Route 18.9 30.2 Figure 15:Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area Subtotal-Protected Network 9.0 77.0 Total 80.5 121.5 1_ Legend —-- 71 Class I-Trail 1 __ __ _ - — "= k —r— Class II Buffered/Separated Bicyrl2 Ldne 2 � � 1 Glass II Blcyde Lane Class III Route/Bike Boulevard STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 15 57 BPC r� 03-19- FT 58 o 5. Crossings Vehicle Code requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in any crosswalk,whether marked or unmarked. Crossings in the Corridor Area will be upgraded for accessible, Streetscape design should prioritize crosswalks as an essential consistent infrastructure that protects vulnerable users, element of the pedestrian environment, rather than interruptions to considers transit access, and ensures direct connections. Safe vehicles. Due to the low approach angle at which drivers view and efficient vehicle travel would also be accommodated for pavement markings, incorporating parallel stripes alongside or connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways instead of standard perpendicular markings can greatly enhance the and freeways. visibility of crosswalks for oncoming traffic. Therefore,to improve Crossings of the Corridor whether at intersections, at midblock crosswalk visibility`standard' crosswalks delineated by two lines Locations or across natural barriers, are important to maintain perpendicular to the vehicle lanes should be replaced with connectivity among neighborhoods, parks, commercial areas and `continental' crosswalks with lines parallel to the roadway or access to corridor transit services. `ladder' crosswalks with both the standard perpendicular delineation lines and the parallel continental lines or`zebra' From 2016 to 2022 there was an average of 188 collisions per year in crosswalks with diagonal lines. the Corridor overall and 23 collisions per year involving bicycles or pedestrians-75 percent of which occurred within 250 feet of an Currently 79 percent of crosswalks across Stevens Creek intersection. Half of vehicle/vehicle collisions resulted in injuries, Boulevard/West San Carlos Street are high-visibility continental or while 93 percent of collisions involving bicycles and 97 percent of ladder crosswalks,while only 47 percent of crosswalks along collisions involving pedestrians resulted in an injury. Collisions (across side streets) are high visibility crosswalks. involving a bicycle or a pedestrian were also five times as likely to result in a serious injury or fatality.Therefore, special attention to Other enhancements for crossings include pedestrian-oriented the treatment of vulnerable road users at these crossings should be lighting, audible cues announcing roadway location (as installed at made to ensure conflicting movements do not become collisions. the Kiely Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection) ,tactile or colored waiting areas and crossings, automatic detection of The Corridor Cities and the County are conducting Local Roadway pedestrians and bicyclists and adjusted crossing times that vary Safety Plans (LRSPs), Safety Action Plans and Vision Zero Plans with with the crosser. specific actions to address intersection and systemic safety. For example,three Corridor intersections for recommended Curb Extensions and Protected Intersections improvements identified in the City of Cupertino's LRSP: Stevens Intersections are primarily designed for processing vehicles and Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Blaney managing vehicle conflicts. Bicycle and pedestrian oriented Avenue. intersection treatments narrow the crossing length and provide dedicated intersection space for vulnerable users. Enhanced Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles Marked and highly visible crosswalks help define where pedestrians • Curb Extensions widen the sidewalk area into the can conveniently and predictably cross streets.While the California intersection, narrowing the roadway, decreasing the speed STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 1 16 58 BPC r� 03-19- FT 59 o of right-turning vehicles, and creating shorter crossings for parallel roadway which makes the full connection from Cupertino to pedestrians.They also improve the visibility of pedestrians to San Jose in the study area. drivers. The physical barriers in the Corridor, both natural and man-made • Protected Intersections for bicycles create additional from west to east are: space on the sides and through intersections for bicyclists • Stevens Creek and pedestrians. Buffers,generally raised curbs, separate • Union Pacific Rail Tracks bike lanes on the sides and corners of the intersection and • State Route 85 bicycle lanes are striped next to crosswalks through the • Calabazas Creek intersection. Similar to curb extensions,these treatments • Saratoga Creek create waiting areas while making vulnerable users more • Lawrence Expressway visible to slower right-turning vehicles. • San Tomas Expressway • 1-880/State Route 17 Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino • Los Gatos Creek • VTA Green Line and Blue Line Light Rail Tracks Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street cross over or under each of these physical barriers. Other facilities which cross barriers in the Study Area are: • Saratoga Creek Pedestrian Bridge in Santa Clara ® • Cypress 1-280 Overcrossing in San Jose • Tisch 1-280 Overcrossing in San Jose • Midtown-Fruitdale 1-280 Crossing in San Jose ` • Los Gatos Creek Trail 1-280 Undercrossing in San Jose • Parkway Park San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing in Santa 1 Clara ' Improved wayfinding and identifying signage of these important crossings can enhance their usage and access among Corridor area Source:City of Cupertino routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Connections Across Barriers Planned crossings in the study area for pedestrians and bicycles are: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is the longest continuous • SR-85 Overcrossing from Grand Ave to Mary Ave in Cupertino east/west roadway in the study area: other than 1-280,there is not a • Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart Park and create a feasible pedestrian and bicycle connection design STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 117 59 BPC 03-19-4 FT 60 oQ�p to Stevens Creek Boulevard under 1-280 and adjacent to Figure 17:Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Lawrence Expressway connecting the cities of Cupertino, Santana Row San Jose, and Santa Clara • San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing(Greenlee Drive to Coakley Drive/Constance Drive) in San Jose • Carmen Road Bridge in Cupertino Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions - Initiate priority intersections and crossings projects to minimize - J' inconvenience and maximize safety for all users. These include: • Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. -�-" -- - - - • Implement curb extensions and protected intersections. • Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians and bicycles • Review key hot spots for crossing improvements such as Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard at 1-880 for potential reconfiguration to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 18 60 BPC r 03-19- FT 61 o � 6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit opportunities to meet these needs while delivering high-quality Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by high- service that aligns with principles of human-scale design, universal capacity transit system supported by station access accessibility, and support of activity centers. enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, a This system could provide reliable and safe connections among and San Jose from Diridon Station and Downtown San Jose to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill major connections in the South Valley with short travel times in an Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations. environmentally friendly way without adding to traffic congestion. Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting community The high initial capital cost is the primary barrier to implementation. assets. However long-term cost savings to users and value to supporting neighborhoods and businesses with a sustainable, high-quality Ahigh-capacity transit system separated from the roadway would transportation service bring enduring benefits to the community. allow for a 20-minute connection from De Anza College in Cupertino At-grade separated transit could be side or center running transit to Diridon Station and/or Downtown San Jose. Potential stations separated/delineated either with hardscape(i.e., concrete curbs or could be at Diridon Station or Downtown San Jose, Meridian, plantings) or quick-build materials such as paint and plastic posts. Bascom,Winchester, Saratoga. Lawrence,Wolfe, and De Anza College. Preliminary analysis included in Appendix B indicates elevated The key components of the system would be easy access to a transit in the Corridor would cost approximately$1.7 billion while underground transit in the Corridor would cost about$2.8 billion. system to carry large numbers of people quickly along the Corridor. Combined with bus speed, reliability, and experience The vibrant public spaces and central hubs characteristics of a improvements,the number of transit users in the Corridor would be separated, high-capacity transit system highlight the tradeoffs expected to double over current conditions. between transit and personal automobile travel.While automobiles While the placement of guideway and type of vehicle used is not will continue to play a significant role in the transportation system, specified in this Vision Study,there was a clear community they cannot address future transportation demands without preference for an elevated fixed-guideway transit service. increasing congestion. In contrast, a high-capacity system offers unique Figure 18:Conceptual High-Capacity,Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor e nza Diridon otential 1-280 Alignment 280/Wolfe Station De Anza CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA SAN LM College Wolfe Lawrence Saratoga Winchester Bascom eridian SAN JOSE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 19 61 BPC r� 03-19- FT 62 o Alternate Alignment Along 1-280 Implementation Approach In response to the City of Cupertino's Resolution No. 19-089, an Implementing a new transit line is complex and requires sustained alternate high-capacity transit alignment along 1-280 is being effort by champions at the agency staff and elected official levels. considered.This alignment aims to address concerns regarding As the County's transit agency,VTA is best positioned to be the lead potential traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard that may result agency for the project. However, partnership with the Corridor from Plan recommendations,while meeting the goal of enhancing municipalities is necessary for successful implementation as major regional connectivity.The 1-280 corridor offers unique opportunities improvements such as any grade separation would need Council or for integrating a high-capacity transit system that minimizes Board approval by individual agencies. disruptions to surface street operations. The project would likely be a part of the Federal Transit The proposed 1-280 alignment would complement, rather than Administration (FTA)'s Capital Investment Grant/Expedited Project replace,the Stevens Creek Boulevard route.While the Stevens Delivery(CIG/EPD) Pilot program. Fortunately,VTA,the County of Creek Boulevard alignment focuses on connecting key local Santa Clara, San Jose and Santa Clara have experience with this destinations with frequent stops,the 1-280 route could provide a program as the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project was part of the faster route between De Anza College and Diridon Station.This dual- CIG/EPD pipeline. corridor approach allows for a more flexible system that meets both Local and regional transportation needs. Paraphrasing FTA's key factors for successful project implementation' of a major transit capital program involves Key connections will be established through Cupertino's well- adequate project management and project control practices to manage: developed bicycle and pedestrian network, including the 3-mile off- street Tamien Innu Trail stretching from Mary Avenue to Vallco Input during planning, design and scoping phases Parkway. Separated bikeways along Mary Avenue will offer a direct north-south route from the Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza College. • Right-of-way acquisition Additionally, Class IV bikeways surrounding the Wolfe Road • Schedule interchange modernization project will provide convenient access • Cost Estimating and budget for both shoppers at Main Street Cupertino and visitors to the • Public engagement, information and communication redeveloped Vallco Shopping Center. • Fair and comprehensive contracting documents Further analysis is recommended to evaluate the feasibility and • Adequate underground investigation during preliminary potential benefits of a high-capacity transit alignment along 1-280. engineering Including this alignment in future studies could enhance the • Successful coordination with public utilities Corridor Vision by providing additional options to meet • Realistic and independently determined constraints and transportation demands. expectations. ' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/key-factors- successful-project-implementation STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 20 62 BPC 03-19-�g! FT 63 o �� Figure 19:Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of • Spacing between pillars/footings should be adequate to Elevated High-Capacity Transit System,West of 1-280 maintain a two-way left turn lane in the shared Santa Clara/San Jose section of Stevens Creek Boulevard for the loading and unloading of car carriers serving car dealerships. • Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service models should be explored. • Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector project which could be expanded into the corridor. • Review potential connections options to Diridon Station and r, Downtown San Jose. • Collaborate with Corridor partners to study the feasibility of M. . a parallel high-capacity transit alignment along 1-280. • Assess how the 1-280 alignment could integrate with the _ primary Stevens Creek Boulevard route through various connections, offering a variety of transit options for local access. �r Specific considerations for implementation of an elevated transit service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor based on engagement are: • Elevated transit stations could also provide crossings above Stevens Creek Boulevard for bicyclists and pedestrians. 2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/transportation/transit/airport-connector STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 21 63 BPC 03-19-�g! FT 64 o �� Recommended High-Capacity Transit Implementation Actions Example Project Development Timeline The next phase of project development consists of preliminary A project development timeline was developed based on the engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector'timeline: selection of a locally preferred alternative(LPA). This would be • Preliminary Engineering of three years(2025-2028) followed by the funding commitments to complete engineering and . Design and Engineering of two years (2029-2030) final design and then a full funding grant agreement from outside . Environmental Clearance of five years (2031-2036) funding partners (generally FTA)for construction. • Utility Relocation of two years (2037-2039) • Construction of five years (2040-2045) As a new project, securing funding for development and construction will be vital to implementation.The high-capacity, Figure 20:Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of separated transit concept was included in Plan Bay Area 2050 (as a Elevated High-Capacity Transit System,West of Winchester Boulevard placeholder light rail service expansion)through the joint cooperation of Corridor agencies. It is currently being evaluated for inclusion in the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2050+. However, inclusion in these documents does not guarantee funding. Furthermore, Santa Clara County Measure A funds likely could not be used for further development of a separated transit option as the funds for transit - are focused on bus speed and efficiency improvements. Therefore,the best option is to secure competitive state or federal _- grant funds through programs such as: SB 1 programs of Solutions for Congested Corridors Program or Local Partnership Program ` administered by the California Transportation Commission or the Federal Transit Administration Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning or Accelerating Innovative Mobility Program or US Department of Transportation Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Program. 7 It is recommended a cooperative grant funding strategy be pursued _ ,-______ by the Corridor agencies to place the high-capacity, separated transit service project forward for multiple competitive grant funding programs. 3 https://www.vta.org/projects/eastridge-bart-regional- connector#accordion-environmental-documents STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 22 64 BPC 03-19- FT 65 o 7. Implementation Action Summary 1 Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions Responsible • � Corridor Business Forum Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Convene Corridor Business Forum Josh,and the County of Santa Clara Street cleaning and maintenance coordination Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Staff-level coordination of maintenance Jose,and the County of Santa Clara activities Set the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose Conduct Engineering and Traffic survey Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue Communicate business resources to Corridor Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Develop summary of eligible grants and loan businesses Jose,and the County of Santa Clara programs for businesses Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Implement Vision Zero and Speed Reduction speed education efforts Josh,and the County of Santa Clara Public Education STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 23 65 BPC 03-19- FT 66 o 2 Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability,and Experience Implementation Actions Action Responsible •p Administrative policy for the four agencies Complete an administrative policy for corridor- operating signals in the Corridor(the Cities of wide transit signal priority through a centralized Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Jose and the system Jose,County of Santa Clara,and VTA County of San Jose)to cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-wide transit signal priority through a centralized system. Develop a program of Corridor bus speed, Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Work with VTA to develop improvement plan reliability and experience improvements Jose,County of Santa Clara,and VTA in partnership with a Working Group composed of Corridor agencies Table 5:Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range Potential Capital ComponentResponsible Develop Transit Signal Priority Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Jose Implemented through staff coordination Policy with VTA Queue Jump at San Tomas San Tomas County of Santa Clara with VTA) $1.25m-$1.5m $1.25m-$1.5m Expressway ExpresswayBus Bulbs/islands Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San $270k-$400k Twenty 523 stops $5.4m-$8m Jose,and the County of Santa Clara Real-Time Information VTA $40k-$75k per Twenty 523 stops $800k-$1.5m stop Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San $5k-$50K per Twenty 523 stops $470k-$4.7m Its I loll Jose,and the County of Santa Clara with VTA stop and 74 23/51 stops 2.5 miles in San Jose $1.25m-$2.5m Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San $500k-$1m per 2.5 miles in Santa Jose,and the County of Santa Clara with VTA mile Clara/San Jose $1.25m-$2.5m 4 miles in Cupertino $2m-$2m STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 24 66 BPC 03-19- FT 67 o 3 Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions Responsible - Physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Street to provide physical separation of bicyclists from Jose,and the County of Santa Clara Implement corridor improvements vehicle while maintaining access to driveways. Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Require sidewalk widening as part of Jose,and the County of Santa Clara development dedications as needed Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Develop urban forestry framework with Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor Jose,and the County of Santa Clara sustainable funding for tree maintenance Install median refuge islands Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Review locations for installation of median Jose,and the County of Santa Clara refuge islands Install leading pedestrian intervals at signalized Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Reviewthe potential for leading pedestrian intersections Jose,and the County of Santa Clara intervals at signalized intersections Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting Install Pedestrian-oriented lighting Jose,and the County of Santa Clara when street lighting is installed or replaced in the corridor. The ongoing implementation of physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor will be completed through incremental projects and funded through a variety of sources, for most projects the funding is not identified as shown in Table 7. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 125 67 BPC r� 03-19- FT 68 o Table 7:Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway City General Fund,One (Phase 2A)Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard $1.6m Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant Program Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway City General Fund,One • (Phase 213) De Anza Boulevard to Mary Avenue $1.6m Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant Program Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway TBD TBD (Phase 3) Stevens Creek Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected TBD TBD(development Intersection project) Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes- TBD TBD-Better Bike Plan-5- Winchester Boulevard to Monroe Street Year List Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes- TBD TBD-Better Bike Plan-5- Monroe Street to Macarthur Avenue Year List Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes- TBD TBD-Better Bike Plan-5- Macarthur Avenue to Bascom Avenue Year List • West San Carlos Street Protect Bicycle Lanes- TBD TBD-Better Bike Plan-5- Bascom Avenue to Woz Way Year List West San Carlos Urban Village Streets $10m TBD Improvements from 1-880 to McEvoy Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike Lanes(south side)-Winchester Boulevard to $2m TBD Lawrence Expressway Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike • Lanes(north side)-Winchester Boulevard to $2m TBD Lawrence Expressway STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 26 68 BPC 03-19-4' FT 69 o 4 Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions Responsible Support the continued development and Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and San Continue to develop,fund,and implement implementation of walking and biking network Jose,and the County of Santa Clara priority projects(over 70 identified in the improvements in parallel and connecting study area)such as: corridors to the Stevens Creek Boulevard • Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Project(City of Santa Clara) • Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (City of San Jose) • De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lane(City of Cupertino) • Lawrence Mitty Park Trail(City of Cupertino) STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 27 69 BPC 03-19-�gA FT 70 o �� 5 Corridor Crossings Implementation Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions Action Responsible Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and Identify and implement enhanced, high-visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. San Jose,and the County of Santa crossings Clara Implement curb extensions and protected Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and Identify and implement curb extensions and San Jose,and the County of Santa protected intersections such as the Stevens Creek intersections. Clara Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected Intersection in Cupertino Continue to develop,fund,and implement priority projects such as: • Safety improvements at the intersections of Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue(City of Cupertino) • Crossing of SR-85 from Grand Avenue to Mary Avenue(City of Cupertino) Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and • Crossing of 1-280 at Mitty Park(John Mise Park) and bicycles San Jose (City of San Jose) • Crossing of San Tomas Expressway at Greenlee Drive/Coakley Drive/Constance Drive(City of San Jose) • Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard under 1-280 and adjacent to Lawrence Expressway(Cities of Cupertino,San Jose,Santa Clara, and the County of Santa Clara) Review key hot spots for operational and Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara,and Review the intersection of Monroe Street and Stevens San Jose,and the County of Santa Creek Boulevard at 1-880 for potential reconfiguration crossing improvements Clara to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 128 70 BPC 03-19- FT 71 o 6 Separated, High-Capacity Implementation Table 10: Recommended Separated,High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions Respo • � Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara, Advocate for project inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+ Include project in Plan Bay Area 2050+ and San Jose,the County of Santa and future Plan Bay Area cycles Clara,and VTA Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara, Secure funding commitments and San Jose,the County of Santa Develop framework funding strategy Clara, and VTA Obtain resources to initiate preliminary engineering Work with VTA to initiate project development Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara, and alternatives analysis,environmental review and process and San Jose,and the County of the selection of a locally preferred alternative(LPA)in a Santa Clara community engagement process Include the following in the project development process: • Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service models should be explored Cities of Cupertino,Santa Clara, • Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector Include corridor-specific considerations in and San Jose,the County of Santa project which could be expanded into the corridor project development process Clara, and VTA • Review potential connections options to Diridon Station and Downtown San Jose • Analyze an alternative alignment along the 1-280 corridor in Cupertino • Review coordination of corridor transit connections for local and regional access Preliminary estimates of the capital costs for various separated, high—capacity systems and service types are shown in Table 11. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 29 71 BPC r� 03-19- FT 72 o Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated,High-Capacity Transit Systems � I 111111p p I ' Current peak hour conditions for • average VTA Lines 523 and 23 in the _ 39.4 minutes for Line 523 9,800 corridor 50.4 for Line 23 Early action option as part of Bus Transit/Business Access Lane "0 Speed, Reliability and Experience $13.4m-$27.7m 30.4 minutes 12,600 Improvements At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit Includes development of 10 side $53m 29.3 minutes 12,950 kLane station areas Includes development of 10 side SeparatedGrade Side Running station areas—with limited $29m 31.9 minutes 12,650 e-Excluding Cupertino Section improvements at non-separated lane sections At-Grade Center Running Transit Lane Includes development of 10 center $95m 27 minutes 12,600 station areas Includes development of 8 stations fevated Transit Line including Downtown San Jose or $1,750m 20 minutes 20,200 Diridon Station Includes development of 8 stations ,FLevated Transit Line-1-280 alignment in Cupertino including Downtown San Jose or $1,750m 20 minutes 19,250 Diridon Station Includes development of 8 stations nderground Transit Line including Downtown San Jose or $2,800m 20 minutes 20,200 Diridon Station STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY 130 72 BPC 03-19-2025 73 of 73 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13827 Agenda Date: 3/19/2025 Agenda M 4. Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/12/2025 powered by LegistarTM 73