Project Study Report, October 18, 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
04-SM-101 PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101 PM 0.0/2.0 04-SF-280 PM R4.2/T7.26 Vicinity Map 2 04-SM-101 PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101 PM 0.0/2.0 04-SF-280 PM R4.2/T7.26 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................6 2. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................7 3. PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................................12 A. Purpose .....................................................................................................12 B. Need .........................................................................................................12 4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (TEPA) ..13 A. Existing Conditions Assessment ..............................................................13 B. Collision Data ..........................................................................................15 C. Local Street Opportunities .......................................................................20 D. TEPA Results Summary ..........................................................................21 E. Recommended Scope of Work for Traffic Studies for PA&ED..............21 5. DEFICIENCIES ...........................................................................................23 6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION .......................................24 A. Identify Systems.......................................................................................24 B. State Planning ..........................................................................................24 C. Regional Planning ....................................................................................26 D. Transit Operator Planning ........................................................................26 E. Local Planning .........................................................................................28 7. ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................30 A. No Build Alternative ................................................................................30 B. Build Alternatives ....................................................................................30 8. RIGHT OF WAY .........................................................................................51 A. Right of Way ............................................................................................51 B. Utilities .....................................................................................................51 C. Railroad ....................................................................................................51 9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ..........................................................52 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND DOCUMENTATION53 11. FUNDING................................................................................................53 12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ........................................................................55 13. RISKS ......................................................................................................56 14. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION ...........................................56 15. PROJECT REVIEWS ..............................................................................57 16. PROJECT PERSONNEL.........................................................................58 17. ATTACHMENTS ....................................................................................58 A. Location Map ...........................................................................................58 B. Build Alternatives – Line Diagrams, Layouts, and Typical Sections ......58 C. Other Alternatives Considered .................................................................58 D. Preliminary Cost Estimates ......................................................................58 E. Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) .............................58 F. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA) ...........................58 G. Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet ...............................58 H. Right-of-Way Conceptual Cost Estimate Component .............................58 I. Risk Register ............................................................................................58 J. Not Used ..................................................................................................58 K. Quality Management Plan........................................................................58 4 04-SM-101 PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101 PM 0.0/2.0 04-SF-280 PM R4.2/T7.26 L. Storm Water Data Report.........................................................................58 M. Survey Needs Questionnaire ....................................................................58 N. DES Scoping Checklist ............................................................................58 O. Design Scoping Index ..............................................................................58 5 04-SM-101 PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101 PM 0.0/2.0 04-SF-280 PM R4.2/T7.26 1. INTRODUCTION The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo (C/CAG) propose to provide a Managed Lanes (ML) facility, defined as high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and/or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, in the northbound and southbound directions of United States Highway 101 (US 101) from 1 mile south of the US 101/Interstate 380 (I-380) Interchange in San Mateo County to the US 101/Interstate 280 (I-280) Interchange in San Francisco County. The project continues on I-280 from the US 101/I-280 Interchange to the I-280 terminus at 5th & King Streets in San Francisco. At the south end of the project, the ML facility will connect to the planned San Mateo US 101 Express Lane Project currently in the Design and Construction phases (EA 1J5600, Project Number 0413000206). At the north end of the project, the ML facility will tie into a local project, currently in development, which will provide ML or Transit-Only lanes along King Street and 3 rd Street. The Project would implement approximately 11.4 miles of Managed Lanes in each direction. US 101 is one of the most congested freeways in the region with the segment in San Francisco from the Cesar Chavez Interchange to I-80 (extending to the Treasure Island Tunnel) being ranked as the most congested freeway section in MTC’s 2018 Vital Signs report. Congestion is projected to worsen as a result of continued expansion of commercial and residential development adversely affecting the economic vitality and sustainability of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Project Limits 04-SM-101, PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101, PM 0.0/2.0 04 -SF -280, PM R4.2 /T7. 26 Number of Alternatives: 2 Build Alternatives , 1 No -Buil d Alternative Current Capital Outlay Support $15.1 million Estimate for PA&ED Current Capital Outlay $285 million to $817 million (2025 dollars) Construction Cost Range Current Capital Outlay Right-of- $0 million to $66 million (2025 dollars) Way Cost Range Funding Source: Federal, State , and Local Funds Type of Facility Freeway: Managed Lane s, Widening Number of Structures: Modify 7 Bridges, 1 New Viaduc t, and retaining walls Anticipated Environmental Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Determination or Document: Assessment ( EIR /EA) Legal Description In San Mateo County and the City and County of San Francisco on Route 101 from 1 mile south of Route 101/380 Separation to Route 101/280 Separation and on Route 280 from Route 101/280 Separation to 5 th Street Project Development Category 3 6 04-SM-101 PM 19.2/26.1 04-SF-101 PM 0.0/2.0 04-SF-280 PM R4.2/T7.26 Attachment D contains a preliminary cost estimate for specific work items included in this project. The remaining support, right-of-way, and construction components of the project are preliminary estimates and are not suitable for programming purposes. A Project Report would serve as approval of the “selected” alternative and the programming document for the remaining support and capital components of the project. This PSR-PDS serves as the authorizing document to initiate the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. SFCTA, SMCTA and C/CAG are the sponsoring, funding, and implementing agencies for this Project Initiation Document (PID) phase. Caltrans, SFCTA, SMCTA and C/CAG have formally agreed to divide the Project by County after the completion of the PID phase. SMCTA and C/CAG will be the sponsoring, funding and implementing agencies for the PA&ED phase of the Project within San Mateo County. SFCTA will be the sponsoring, funding and implementing agency for the PA&ED phase of the Project within San Francisco County. 2. BACKGROUND A. Existing Facility US 101 is primarily a north-south freeway with the entire length extending from the City of Los Angeles, California in the south to the City of Olympia, Washington in the north. It is on the Federal Aid Primary System, but is not part of the Rural and Single Interstate Routing System. Within Caltrans District 4, US 101 begins at the San Benito/Santa Clara County line (PM 0.0) and terminates at the Sonoma/Mendocino County line (PM 56.94). I-280 is primarily a north-south freeway that extends from the City of San Jose, California to the terminus in the City of San Francisco, California. To simplify differences