• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Light Rail Transit Implementation Perspectives for the Future: Lessons Learned in Silicon Valley Robert L. Bertini, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Jan L. Botha, San Jose State University K. Odila Nielsen, Santa Clara County Transit District The implementation of the Tasman Corridor Light Rail ince 1974 the Santa Clara County Transit District Transit (LRT) Project is described from inception through (SCCTD) has played an important role in serving final design. First, the project goals and the system layout S the transportation needs of the 1.5 million resi• and operating characteristics are discussed. Subsequently, dents of Santa Clara County. With a 33.8-km (21-mi) developments in the physical configuration, corridor land light rail transit (LRT) system and 72 bus routes, use, costs, institutional environment, and funding arrange• SCCTD serves more than 150,000 passengers a day ments are presented, followed by the lessons that may be with light rail that connects residential areas with re• learned from the implementation of the project. The Tas• gional employment centers and express and local bus man Corridor is a 20-km (12.4-mi) $530 million light rail service. As one of three counties forming the Peninsula extension of the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system in Santa Corridor Joint Powers Board, the SCCTD also partici• Clara County, California, and is an important part of a pates in the 125.6-km (78-mi) CalTrain commuter rail multimodal regional transportation network that is system between Gilroy and San Francisco. SCCTD is planned in Santa Clara County. The Tasman Corridor also responsible for the implementation of the county- Project's 2-year final engineering phase is essentially com• wide transportation plan, which includes a commitment plete. The California and Bay Area economic profiles have to an ambitious rail corridor development plan for changed with significant impacts to housing, business, and Santa Clara County. A critical link in this regional rail defense industries. In addition, the local funding environ• network is the Tasman Corridor LRT Project (TCP). ment has become uncertain. The Tasman Corridor Project The objective of this paper is to discuss the perspec• offers valuable perspectives for the implementation of the tives gained and lessons learned from the TCP imple• LRT systems of the 21st century. mentation from initiation through final design. First, the accepted goals for the project and the system layout and operating characteristics will be discussed. The devel• opments that have taken place in the physical configu• ration, corridor land use, costs, funding environment, 23 24 SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT and institutional arrangements during the period from ter place to live and work (3). As a key component of inception until now will also be presented. Some per• the transit element, the plan includes the long-range rail spectives on the developments since the inception of the master plan as the basis for rail corridor development. project will be presented, and some comments will be In addition to specific corridor goals, T2010 calls for made regarding the effects of these developments as re• the development of activity center systems (such as lated to the attainment of the project goals and objec• transit-oriented developments and shuttle service) at key tives. Finally, some lessons that may be learned from locations to support the rail plan and includes a pledge the implementation of the project will be presented. to assess whether rail development plans adequately ad• dress systemwide operating issues, intermodal facilities, feeder bus service, and coordination of land use plans. SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The studies and modeling performed during the prep• aration of the T2010 plan indicate that transit use The TCP policy oversight committee (POC) and tech• would rise substantially if the recommended improve• nical advisory committee have developed seven major ments were made. By 2010, between 6 and 10 percent goals for the project (1): of work trips would be made using transit, more than 1. Mobility. Provide a balanced transportation sys• doubling the present transit share. tem promoting safe and efficient movement of people. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has 2. Environmental considerations. Preserve and en• predicted up to 33 percent growth in employment in Santa hance the environment. Clara County between 1990 and 2010. In addition, ABAG 3. Land use and regional development. Develop a has predicted as much as 8 percent population growth in transportation system compatible with adjacent land Santa Clara County between 1990 and 2000. It is clear uses and consistent with planned regional development. that this growth in population and employment will in• 4. Economic considerations. Develop a transporta• crease the demand on the transportation network. As a tion system providing the most efficient and effective result of the prospect of this increasing demand, the region use of limited resources while benefiting the public. has commited to improving the public transit system. 5. Financial feasibility. Develop system on the basis The system as originally foreseen according to the of realistic estimate of resources. T2010 plan and approved by the transit district board of 6. Equity. Provide a transportation system designed supervisors in 1992 is shown in Figure 1. The Guadalupe to meet the needs of all groups. Corridor system was akeady in operation at that time. 7. Community and institutional considerations. The T2010 rail corridor priorities were established Maximize community acceptance and political and in• to define clearly the region's priorities for rail corridor stitutional support. planning, design, and implementation. The rail element includes specific corridor completion goals for the years Each goal is accompanied by specific objectives de• 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). For 2000, the T2010 plan veloped by the project team and the community. The envisages the completion of the CalTrain Gilroy exten• development of the TCP layout and operating charac• sion and upgrade, the Tasman Corridor, the Fremont- teristics have been based on these goals and objectives. San Jose Corridor, the Vasona Corridor, and the Capi• tol/Downtown-Evergreen Corridor (in priority order). As of 1995, the CalTrain project is complete; the Tasman SYSTEM LAYOUT AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS project has completed final design; the Fremont-San Jose corridor has undergone preliminary environmental re• A brief description of the rail system configuration fol• view; the Vasona project is undergoing environmental re• lows. A more extensive description can be found in an• view and conceptual engineering; and a preluninary other paper presented at the Institute of Transportation study of the Capitol Corridor segment of the Capitol/ Engineers' Sixth District Conference in Portland in July Downtown-Evergreen project has been completed. 1994 (2). For 2010, the T2010 plan calls for completion (not in priority order) of four additional rail corridor pro• System Plan jects: DeAnza, South San Jose, Stevens Creek/Alum Rock, and Sunnyvale/Cupertino. To date, no studies The Santa Clara County Transportation Plan, known as have been completed on these corridors. T2010 (3), provides guidance to the SCCTD and all transportation decision making in the county. The doc• Existing Rail System ument establishes a program for transportation and land use actions designed to make the transportation system The existing 33.8-km (21-mi) Guadalupe Corridor LRT perform more effectively and Santa Clara County a bet• system includes 33 stations, 50 light rail vehicles, and BERTINI FT AL. 25 SANTA CLARA Fremont to COUNTY San Jose N Tasman Sunnyvale^ 1 Cupertino SOUTH COUNTY Stevens Creek/ Alum Rock I Downtown/Evergreen T2010 RAIL \ . V CORRIDOR PRIORITIES South San Jose (20 Year Plan) Year 2000 Goals [m Year 2010 Goals FIGURE 1 T2010 Rail corridor priorities. 11 park-and-ride lots (Figure 2). The first segment, Tasman Corridor. The TCP POC was formed; it is made opened in December 1987 (service was extended to the up of elected representatives of SCCTD and the five cor• downtown San Jose Transit MaU in June 1988), links ridor cities. downtown San Jose and businesses along North First In 1988 the POC determined that the Tasman Cor• Street to the industrial centers of north San Jose and ridor should continue to be studied under the federal Santa Clara. In 1990 LRT service was extended 3.2 km alternatives analysis/environmental impact statement (2 mi) south to the Tamien Station, providing a link to (AA/EIS) process, separate from the Fremont-San Jose CalTrain, buses, parking, and a new county child care Corridor. The Tasman AA/draft EIS (DEIS)/draft envi• facility under construction. In 1991 service was ex• ronmental impact report was issued in May 1991. Final tended the final 13 km (8 mi) to south San Jose. design is now essentially complete, but because of a variety of factors the project may not be fully imple• mented by the year 2000, as originally envisaged in the Tasman Corridor Project T2010 plan. As recommended in the T2010 plan, a Fremont-South Corridor Overview Bay Corridor study was initiated in 1984 by SCCTD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the The Tasman Corridor is a 20-km (12.4-mi) east-west metropolitan planning organization for the Bay Area. extension of the Guadalupe Corridor, with 18 new sta• This study included consideration of an extension of the tions, five new park-and-ride lots, and three intermodal Guadalupe Corridor LRT in what became known as the bus transfer centers. The corridor extends through the 26 SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT To To Sacramento To Oakland/Sacramento To Oakland San Francisco SUNNYVALE Francisco SANTA CURA Stevm CAMPEELL GATOS* To Santa Cniz Morgan Hill M^i Indkalu appniilmak study >id syilani lignmails. Not b I, Gilroy FIGURE 2 Tasman Corridor light rail project schematic. cities of San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and tial portion of Sunnyvale.

Load more

  10

Copy Link