Light Rail Transit ImplementationPerspectives for the Future: LessonsLearned in Silicon Valley

Robert L. Bertini, Parsons Drinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.Jan L. Borha, San Jose State UniversityK. Odila Nielsen, Santa Clara County Transit District

The implementation of the Tasman Corridor light R2ilTr.r.nsit (LRT) Project is d=::ribtd from inception throughfinal design. First, the project goals and the sySlem layoutand oper:ning charaete.ristks lire discussed. Subsequently,developments in the physical configuration, cocridor landuse, costs, instirntiona( environmem, and funding arrange­ments are presented, followed by the lessons that may be1carucd from the implementation of the projocr. The Tas­man Corridor i~ a 20-km (l2A-mil SSJO million light railexttnsion of the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system in SantaClara County, California. and is an important part of aOlultimodal regional transportation network that isplanned in Santa Clara CouJlIy. The Tasman CorridorProject's 2.year final engineering pha$( is esscntiaUy com­plete. The California and Bay Afta economic pro6.les havechanged with signiftcam impactS to housing, business, anddefense industries. In addition, the local funding environ­ment has become unttrulin. The Tasman Corridor Projeaoffers valwble perspectives for the implementation of theLRT systems of the 21st cenrury.

Since 1974 the Santa Qara Counry Transit Distria(SCCTD) has played an important role in servingthe transportation needs of the 1.5 million resi­

dents of Santa Clara Count)'. With a 33.8-km (21-millight tail transit (LRT) system and 72 bus routes,scem serves more than 150,000 passengers a daywith light rail that connects residential areas with re­gional employment centers and express and local busservice. As one of three counties forming the PeninsulaCorridor Joint Powers Board, the seem also partici­pates in the 125.6-km {78-mil DITrain commuter railsystem bt:lwecn GiiJ:oy and San Francisco. seem isalso responsible for the implementation of me county­wide transportation plan, which includes a commitmentto an ambilious rail corridor development plan forSanta Clara CountY. A critical link in this regional nilnerwork is the Tasman Corridor LRT Project (TCP).

The objective of Lhis pa~r is to discuss the peespee-­Lives gained and lessons leamed &om the TCP imple­mentation fwm initiation through final design. First, theaccepted goals for the project and the system layout andoperatins characteristics will he discussed. The devel­opmenrs that have taken place in the physical configu­ration. corridor land use, cosrs, funding environment,

23

SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE. ON LIGHT RAil TRANSIT

and insrirnrional arrangements during the period frominception until now will also be presented. Some per­spectives on the developments since the inception of theproiea will be presented, and some comments will bemade regarding the effects of these devclopmcms as re­lated fO the att:ilinmcnt of the projccr goals and objec­tives. 1',nally, somc lessons thar may be kamed fromthe implcmcnr3tion of rhe projecr will be presented.

SVSThM GoALS AND OUJECTIVES

The TCP policy oversiG!lt committee (POC) and tech­nical advisory committee have developed seven majorgoals for the project (1):

1. Mobility. Provide a balanced transportation sys­tem promoting safe and efficicnt movement of people.

2. Environmental considerations. Preserve and en­hance thc environment.

3. LaruJ use and regional developmml. Develop arransporrarion system compatible with adjacmt landuses and cons~"tcntwith planned regional development.

4. Economic considerations. Develop a transpom­tion system providing the most efficient and effecriveuse of limited resources while bene6ting the public.

5. Fino.ndal ftaSibility. Develop system on the basisof realistic estimate of resourccs.

6. Equity. Provide a transportation system designedto meet the needs of aU groups.

7. Community and institutional wnsiderations.Maximize community accepnmce and political and in­stirnrional support.

Each goal is accompanied by specific objectives de­veloped by the project ream and the community. Thedevelopment of the TCP layout and o[>Crating charac­teristic.~ have been based Oll these goals and ubjectives.

SV!>TEM LAYOUT AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

A brief desc;:riprion of the rail system eon6gurarion fol­lows. A more extensive description can be found in an­other paper presented at the lnstitufC of TransportationEngineers' Sixth Disuiet Conference in Portland in July1994 (2J.

System Plan

The Santa Oara County Transpottation Plan., known asnOlO (3), provides guidance to the SCCID and allrransportation decision malting in the county. The doc­ument establishes a program for transportation and landuse actions designed to make tht" transportation systemperform more effectively and Santa Qara County a her·

fer place to live and work (3). As a key component ofthe transit e1ernc:nt, the plan includes the long-range railmaster plan as the basis for rail corridor development.

In addition to specific corridor goals, nOlO calls forthe developmenr of activity center systcms (such as~nsit-oricnted developmcnts and shuttle service) at keylocations to support the rail plan and includes a pledgeto assess whether rail development plans adequately ad­dre.~s sysremwide operating issues, i.nrermodal facilities,feeder bus service, and coordination of land use plans.The studies and modeling performed during the prep­aration of the nOlO plan indicate thar transit usewould rise substantially if the recommended improve­ments werc made. By 2010, between 6 and 10 percentof work trips would be made using transit, more thandoubling thc present transit share.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAGI haspredicted up to 33 PCra:tlt growth in employment in SantaClara County bctwtttl 1990 and 2010. in addition, ABAGhas predicted as much as 8 pcrcmt population growth inSanta Oara County between 1990 and 2000. It is clearthat this growth in population and employment will in­creast: the demand on the transpottanon network. As aresult of the: prospect of this incru.sing demand, the regionbas conunitcd to improving the public transit system.

The system as originally forcsee:n according to thenOlO plan and approved by the transit district board ofsupervisors in 1992 is shown in Figure 1. The GuadalupeCorridor system was aheady in operation at that rime.

The T2010 rail corridor priorilies wt:re establishedto define dearly the region's priorities for rail corridorplanning, design, and implementation. The rail dementincludes spccific corridur completion goals for the years2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). For 2000, the T2010 planenvisages the completion of the CalTrain Gilroy exten­sion and upgrade, the Tasman Corridor, the Fremont­San Jose Cotridor, the Vasona Corridor, and the Capi­tol/Downtown·Evergreen Corridor (in priority order).As of 1995, the Can'rain project" is complete; the Tasmanproject has completed final design; the Fremont-San Josecorridor has wldergone preliminary environmental re­view; the Vasona project is undergoing environmental reoview and conceptual engineering; and a preliminarysrndy of the Capitol Corridor segment of the CapitoVDowntOwn-Evergreen project has been completed.

For 2010, the T2010 plan calls for completion (norin priority order) of four additional rail corridor pro­jects: DcAnza, South San Jose, Stevens Creek/AlumRock, and SunnyvalelCupenioo. To date, no studieshave been completed on these corridors.

Existing Rail System

The existing 33.8-km (21-mi) Guadalupe Corridor LRTsystem includes 33 stations, 50 light ra.il vehicles, a.nd

BERTINI ET AL.

T2010 RAilCORRIDOR PRIORITIES

(20 Yellr Pl,n)

_ Year 2000 Goals

rtIIJJ Year 2010 Goals

SANTA CLARACOUNTY

•NTasman

<­FlGURE 1 nolO Rail corridOl" priorities.

11 park-and-ridc lots (Figure 2). TIle first segment,opened in December 1987 (service was exrended to thedowntown San Jose Transit Mall in June 1988), linksdowntown San Jo.o;e and businesses along North First:Street to the industrial cemers of north San JOI«: andSanu. Oara.ln 1990 LRT service was extended 3.2 Ion{2 mil south lO the Tamien Srarion, providing a link toCalTrain, buses, parlcing. and :1 new counry child carefacility under construetion. In 1991 service was ex­tended the final 13 km (8 mi) to south San Jose.

Tasman Corridor Project

M recommended in the T2010 plan, a Fremom-SouthBay Corridor study was initiated in 1984 by sccrDand the Metropoliran Transportation Commission, themerropoliun planning organir..arioo for the Bay Mea.This study included consideration of an extension of meGuadalupe Corridor LRT in what became known as the

Tasman Corridor. The TCI' POC was formed; it is madeup of elected representatives of SCCTD and the five cor­ridor cities.

In 1988 the POC determined that the Tasman eo,...ridor should cuntinue to be studied under the federalalrematives analysislcnvironmenral imp.acr statement(AAlEIS) process, separate from the Fremunt-San JoseCorridoc. The Tasman AAldratt £IS (DElSVdxah envi­ronmental impact report was issued in May 1991. Finaldesign is now essentially complete, but because of avariety of factors the project may not be fully imple­mented by the year 2000, as originally envisaged in theTZ010 plan.

Corridor Overview

The Tasman Conidor is a ZO-km (l2.4.mij ea5(-westextension of the Guadalupe Corridor, wirh 18 new stOll'

tions, fivc new park-and-ride lors, and three iotcrmooalbus transfer a:nters. The corridor extends through the

" SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON I.IGHT RAil. TRANSIT

,N

"""''''''

'...."'-..SUNNYVALE

" !. _ I i

-'=""'- =-....-+-++-~•••• _l/fOI...._Ill e.m.....,.s.r_- s. _

_ __l/IIlI ...."-

... bIoIlo,.l.Irf_. --­o '-UtI'_• UIIf I_1oo

a _un_..hIll_lo<--

..

---_...__...-.-HGURE 2 Tasman Corridor light rail project Kher:naric.

cities of San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clar:l, Sunnyvale, andMoulltain View (figure 2). Tne purpose of the TasmanCorridor exrension is to rap extemivf: existing residentialareas in east San Jose and Sunnyvale and existing alldnew residential developments in San Jose and MountainView, incluiling the proposed SSG-unit development onthe GTE site, and to connect these residential areas withmajor Silicon Valley employment cenrers such as Lock­heed, the National Aeronautics and Space Administra­tion (NASA), Hewlett-Packard, and omer research anddevelopment and high-te:ehnology manufacturing facili­ties in the ;uea known as the Golden Triangle.

The east segment of the corridor begins in the estab­lished San Jose residential areas near 1-680 and continuesthrough the indusuial and residential areas of Mjlpi~crossing 1-880 into nonh San Jose's employment arc3S.lbis segment of the Tasman project joins the existingLRT system on Tasman Drive near North FlfSt Street.

Near the Santa aara Convention Center. the corri­dor begins its western extension along Tasma.n Drivethrough Santa Clara's employment areas and a residen-

rial portion of Sunnyvale. Crossing SR-H7 at Fair OaksAvenue, the line continues west to serve Lockheed andadjoining industrial parks. Continuing west, the lineparallels U$-JOl and crosses under the landing path ofthe NASA/Moffett Field main rullway til a depressedSl:L1:ton and serves NASA Ames Research Center.

Crossing under US-tOt, the corridor turns southalong an existing railroa.d right of way, through bur­geoning indusuial and residential areas in MountainView. After crossing Central Expressway. the TasmanCorridor joins the Peninsula Corridor Joint PowersBoard right of way. paralleling the CaITcain tracks intodowntown Mountain View.

AL:assibility Impacts

The requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) of 1990 have necessitated. changes in the Tasmanproject design. The existing Guadalupe Corridot useswayside lifts to provide access for mobility-impairedpassengers. During rbe Tasman Corridor preliminary

BERTINI ET Al. 27

engineering phase, ao::essibiliry options for the TasmanCorridor were reviewed and minihigh platforms wereconsidered as a means to provide level change, basedon ADA's level boarding requirements, the desire to re­rain the existing lIeet of LRVs, and the plan to purcha.'>Cup to 35 new high-floor vehicles. Implementation ofwayside lift.~ similar to those on the Guadalupe Corri­dor would not have satisfied the ADA requirements ifnew vehicles were purchased and therefore was not con­sidered at that time.

The final design documents now include high plat­forms 1 m (39 in.) above the tOP of the rail for the TCP.Recent!}-, the Tasman Corridor poe voted to take amodified approacb to acct'SSibiliry, which is currentlybeing developed_ This approach now includes low 35.6­em (14-in.) station platfonns with minihigb pladonnsfor levd·boording acet:ss, and future acquisition of low­floor vehicles.

Traffic Signal Tntegration

integration with vehicular traffic is all importantachievement for this primarily at-grade LRT system.The corridor consius of several distinct segments withdiffering illlpact.~ on vehicular uaffic. The western por­tion through Mountain View is largely along existingrail corridors. However, the remaining portion of theTasman Corridor includC$ seven grade-separation struC­tures, including four existing structures and a newsingle<olumn aerial structure spanning twO railroads,one expressway, and five anerials. This 2.9-cm (1.8-mi)double-track aerial structure includes (W() aerial stationsand a pedestrian overcrossing. Where not grad~

separated, the project indudes 30 signalized inn~rsec·

rions with LRT crossings, of which 7 are gated LRTcrossings (standard railroad gates) and the remaining 23include LRV control (traffic signals fot vehicular trafficand "T" signals for LRVs).

For signalized intexsectiolls with LRV control (inter­sections without standard railroad gates), the designphilosophy employed on tbe Tasman Corridor has beenmuch the same as that used in the posrimplemenrationretrofit of the Guadalupe LRT system (4). The Guada­lupe system initially experienced accident rates thatwere higher than expected. largely due to leh~tum con­flicts between automobiles and LRVs. Whereas the ac­cident rate decreased as the public became familiar withthe new LRT s}'Stem, additionalleh-turn signal beads,signs, and otht:r traffic control modifications were im­plemeUled during a retrofit project. Continuing with thesuccess of the Guadalupe retrofit in reducing accidents,the SCCfO is maintaining a consistent design philoso­phy for the Tel'. On a systemwide basis, this will helpto strengthen public consciousness with consistent sign-

ing and traffic control patterns. Similar to the c;urrentGuadalupe system, the rcp will include

• Separate traffic signal displays, phases, and timingparameters fot tRVs;

• A flashing warning sign for left-turn movementssimilar to the Trolley Coming sign that was part of theGuadalupe retrofit;

• Traffic signal coordination and LRT priority in or­der to minimize LRT delay, while maintaining accept­able intersection levcl of service; and

• Railroad gates with standard railroad preemption.

The: signal system is being designed with maximumfiex.ibiliry to allow fine·tuning in close coordinationwith the Dlifornia Deparonenr of Transportation andthe five: cities responsible for traffic signal maintenance.As an example, there are du'CC levels of LRV priority(none, partial, and full) that can be varied by rime ofday and can be operated widl or without signalcootdination.

Perspective

The design of an LRT system poses complicated prob­lems regarding integration with ornet modes of reans­ponation and coordination relative [Q operationsamong the cities. Even though corridor planning studiesare procc:c:ding, the implement3rion of the individualcorridor projects that make up the overall rail system isnOt occurring according [Q the original schedule due inpart to the present lack of a local funding program.With schedule and priority modifications, the: goal ofproviding improved mobility may then not be attainedin the pr~ise manner originally envisaged. Should theprojects be completed on a delayed schedule, thenchanges due 10 developing in the corridor with cotre­sponding roadway modifications ineviTably will takeplace. These changes ultimately could necessitate signif­icant changes in the design of the LRT system. For ex·ample, during a 9-month hiarns octween the completionof preliminary engineering and the beginning of finalengin~ring, there were a number of significant changessurrounding the Great Mall in Milpitas. A major ruad­way extension project was placed on an accderatedschedule, necessitating significant modifications to theTasman LRT alignment and station 1000rions. More­over, if the completion of the overall LRT system wereto be delayed for an extended period, then land use anddevelopment changes would Funhet affect the configu­ration and operation of the system itself. For instance,the location of stations would be affected as land uscdensities and configurations change significantly relativeto proposed station locations.

28 SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON I.IGJlT RAIL TRANSIT

INSTTJUTlONAL AND LAND USE IssUES

Institutional Setting

From an institutional standpoint, some significantchanges have occurred in Santa Clara County duringthe planning and design phascs of the TCP. Since 1974the SCCll) had been govuned by the SCCIT> oo.rdof supervisors. This live-member body was also theSanta Qara Coun£)' Bo.rd of Supervisors, responsiblefor all counrywide policy making across the broad spec­trum of planning, health, social. and law en!oIttmentissues. The board of superviso!'Sltra.nsir district boardarrangement functioned effectively for 20 years duringthe development and expansion of the bus, expressway,airport, and LRT systems.

bl 1988 California voters passed ballot Proposition111, :II uansportarion measure dIal mandated the cre­ation of county congestion management agencies(CMAs) in all urban oounries in CaliIoro..i.a. The func­tion of the CMAs is to oversee the coordinatN priori­lization of transportation improvement projects on acountywide hasis, taking into account local land use de·dsions. The CMAs can, for example, prevent a cityfrom approving local development projects unless thereis sufftcicnt capacity on roadways and transit systems.The Santa Clara County CMA had a 12-member boardmade up of elected reprcsc:ntativcs £rom the city coun­cils of the 16 dties ill Santa Clara County, as well asrepresentatives from the county board of supervisors.

There have been many years of discussion regardingthe efficacy of having the coumy board of supervisorsalso serving as the county transit district board of su­pervisors. With the formation of the COUllty CMA in1988, there were two separate governing boards andone advisory commission (the county transportationcommission) dealing with countywide transportation is­sue.~. In 1992 in the effort to eliminate possible overlap­ping responsibilities, the voters of Santa Clara Countypassed a baUot measure advising that the transit districtmerge with the CMA. Therefore, on January 1, 1995,the SCCfD withdrew from the COWlty govenllnent struc­ture and the CMA staff joined the SCCID staff as anintegrated division. Through special state legislation, metransit district board of supervisors and the county trans­portation coll1Il1ission have been eliminated and me CMAboard has become the new transit districi board. Theintem behind mis merger was to sneamline countywidetransportation planning and policy. wim closer ties to theindividual cities and local land IlSl: decision malcing.

11 should be pointed out that the previous countytransit district supervisors were electC'd on a disnictwidebasis, with the districts o\'erlapping city boundaries. Onme other hand, the new transit district board is madeup largely of individual city council members, many of

whom are part-time policy makers (particularly in thesmaller ciries). The new cross secr:ion represented on theboard will probably change the way in which transpor­tation projects, such as the TCP, arc viewed. The newboard may have different rail (;orriJor prioriti~. Thebroad cicy and neighborhood repn:scntation may alsoen(;ourage a project to be de\·e!oped from the bottomup, beginning with neighborhood and city support,within the context of the countywide plan.

LandU5e

All Tasman Corridor cities are projecrcd to experiencesignificant growth in population, number of house­holds, employment, number of employed residents, andhousehold income. SpecifK: growth projection data for1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 are given for Santa ClaraCounty and for eam wnidor city in Table 1. As indi­cated by Table I, Oltrcllt umds in the corridor ciries allfor notable growth in population and employmenr. Table2 presents current and future build-out residential pop­ulation and cmploymem data within a 610-m (2.00Q-ft)radius of specific Tasman LRT st2tion areas. The futureresidential and employment figures are based on zorungas of May 1991 and do not include the intensified zoningthat is described in derail later in the paper. As indicatedby Table 2, even withoul the transit-oriemed projectsthat are now planned, residential population within the'Iasman Corridor would increase more than 100 percentwhile employment in rile corridor would increase ap­proximately 12 percent. As further described, major newresidential, conuncrcial, and industrial developments art:

under way in all corridor cities, contributing to the trendfor new development in lhe Tasman Corridor.

sccrD is working closely with local cities to furtherintegrate land use and transportation. The regional re­lationship betwi.:etl transit and land usc decisions willbe strt:ngthcned by the new board made up of cit)' coun­cil membeC$ and rhe ongoing CMA programs to closelyintegrate local land use and development decisions withlocal and regional transportation decisions. In line withthe projections in Table 2, actual commercial and resi­dential development aloug the Tasman Corridor hasbeen occurring at increased densities. The rail corridorgives planners alld developers the opporrnniry to workrosether to create and approve uansil-oriented landuscs for mutual benefit, eventually contributing to thesuccess of the developments and the cail system. Effonsalready under way in Tasman Corridor cities are de­scribed in following sections.

City of San Jose

The city of San Jose has mablished the Holtsing Initia­tive (5) to encourage development of high-density hollS'

BERTINI ET AL.

TABLE 1 Tasman Corridor Growth Projcctiolll

J......lnio. ,,,, ,,,, - - ,,,..,--s-.Ooro~·...... ,~.. l.»t,m '''I'.s~ 1,6SI,1l1ll ,u......... ll.,l,900 56I,9SIl "'"' '".090 ,,.._li..

'" ,. W 161 ·n-- "1,710 ..... I.O~'Ml0 I,J4S.9SIl .,-- 'IM!Oll nl,lllXl '"-'" ..m '",-- m,. ,..... ~ ..... '"-...... n.. "... ST._ .... ~.......... '4,21' ,~ ,~ ,.... ".-~

1.16 3.10 ,m ,m <.•--, """ ....sIO .... 6O.0ro lU,-- "... N,IOO ".. "... 21.'-- ",... $.lJ.'OIl ..~ ...... 11.,_\~-...... .... ..... "... "..»> "......... ...". 11.110 ,..... ...... .,-~

w '" w '" ."-- ..~ -<• "... .... ,uEmpIoIyt<IR_ ..... 4S..ooo n.. 47,)00 ,.,-,- 5-<1,100 MMOO M9•.ooo ""00 ~...--...... "'"' ",... ~ ...... IH......... no... _m 11'%,n. .",. ~_...

~ ~ '" '" .U-- ...'" JJS.4IO - ...... ~-- 423..000 ..... w.~ ..."" '1.911_1_ .."" SI2.SOO m"" ~J.700 IJ.O

CIIr·fSa.'.~...- 'HOlI .... 101'- ,- ........... IJ._ :It.s10 41,110 ""JIIl 11.4

-~,. ~ ~ = ."- n,,lJIO 1:1t.HIll U1,M ,.... ~..-- ..... .... "... "... lH-- ..... 5-<1.700 I~.- U2.600 "<

-~~...- 1:ZU,OOO .."" JJl,600 112.700 ,u......... .... sue '''''' .... '"-~~ ~ '" = ~- ,..... IO~ ,- 1""'0

,.-- ~ .... "-"" "m u-- ..... ",.. ~"" ...... '"-.' ._.........._(.....~_ ..-~--_ ..............._......._-.,. ....._, ...--_ ... ..., ..-_.....[-_.._, ..----~---_ .._,--

log near U'ansir. A new general plan land use designa­tion known as transit corridor high-deDlity residential,defined as 30 or more dwelling units per hectare (12 ormore unit'S per acre) is applied to sites within 610 m(2,000 ftl of LRT stations. ~mities of at leasr 49dwelling units per hectare (20 units per acre:) arc gen­erally encouragM unless a low-den.sity neighborhoodexists nearby, which might necessitate a less abrupttransition, The ciry has also increased the height limitof high-density residential developmem near LRT sta·tions from 13.7 ro 27.5 m (45 ro 90 h).

The new Cisco headquarterS includes more than74 000 m! (800,000 fr) of industrial and office spacefor 3,000 employees, supporting the growth of the high­technology conmlunications firm, Included at this large

sile are pedestrian-oriented design elements next to aproposed LRT itation along Tasman Drive. The Ren·aissance Village housing project is nearby, with 1,500residential units, a day care facility, and commercial

""'.Passing through a vacant 40-hectare (100-acre) pa.r-eel, the Tasman project is establishing the alignment ofthe future Tasman Drive Connection berwttn San Joseand Milpitas. Studies arc under way to determine thebest possible mixed use development for this site, alongwith accommodation of a future LRT starion. In thisexample, the LRT project is establishing the overalltransportation corridor location before roadwayconmucrion_

City of Milpitas

The city of Milpitas has implemented a major uans­portatiOD improvement program in coojuncrion withthe conversion of a former Ford Automobile uscmblyplant to the 120 OOO-m! (1.3 mill.ion-ftl-) Great Mall ofthe Bay Area. The mall is now a dominant destinationfor shoppers and employees, A pedestrian overcrossingwill lead from the new Great Mall LRT Sbtion directlytoward the main ~ttance of the mall. The city's pro­gram abo includes a Tasman Drive interchange with1·880 and a Tasman Drive connecting anerial betweenlhe interchange and CapitOl Avenuc. This is an exampleof mutually benefJCial coordination among SCCI'D, thecity, and the developer., rdleaed by the fact that twOLRT bridges are being built as JW't of the interchangeproject.

City of Sunnyvale

The city of Sunnyvale's major employers, such as Lock­heed and Hewlcn-Pachrd, will continue ro employthousands of COmmuterS in need of transportation al­ternatives. A comprehensive multimodal transit centerat Lockheed is under design to facilitate efficient LRT,bus, employee shutdec, and automobile transfers. Lod:.~

heed is the county's largest employer, with 18,000 tIn·

ployecs. However, with the downsizing of the defenstindustry, the number of employees will probably belower than foreseen during the initial planning of theLRT S)'Itcm.

City ofMount4Jin View

The LRT system will make a direct connection withCaITrain in downtown Mountain View at a multimodalrnnsit crntu. Construction of a new residential neigh­borhood is under way, and a ntrWork of street connec­tions will combine with the transit hub and recentdowntown redevelopment to create a distinctive transit~

30 SEVENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIGHT RldL TRANSIT

TABLE 2 Tasman Corridor Current and FUlure S12b,mAru Populations- .- w_ -=- e--, .- ""'" e-- .- ~.

~.-- 4,010 "0' _1" ,~ ,~ 0-. •.m ,.... .1U ''''' ''''',-- 1.110 3,1" .~, ''''' - ,

?l , 2.467 - 1,4$0 6.111 _1M.

.'lilpitao_. , ,~ ,," ).<20 oJ).1

~~, ~ "~ .1'2,2 ~ ,... +600.0

"~, ,

~ 1.510 7,010 ':164.2

s••"",..._- HlO 10.'10 +:!OJ.' "", _100.0

hi,OM. ". lL64C _2615 ,."" , 100.0l;",1IIIWl , ,

~ 6.170 12,29ll ~,

,",- , , ., ',6W ,~ +64.2

~, ,

~ 1',1SO ll.lSO +12.7

~I...'.;" V;c.~ASA

,"" - 11,030 10.400 ".1

"~-, U" .. ,,~ .- ·Z'.1- 1.420 1.420 ,

''''' ,.- ,,~" '"

., , ,.... 1.410 ,- ,.... ..... •q .• ,- ,.... ·13.:1

TOTAl. "'",,,,, _116.0 "'" 110.16) -11 •_SCCTtI.T_C"_______,-_........._---- ...._ ............ _ ....~ ...,_..lIrr_---_._---_ .._ ...__ ..........,.e.-_..._,... e-......,.. ...._

oricored neighborhood environment. The city has alsorecently approved a new transit overlay zoning desig­n.a.rion to further integr.ltc future development with ex­isting and futurt rail developments. This new designa­lion has already been applied to se\'eral parcels adjacentto the proposed Middlendd Station. Srud.ies are alsounder way to develop 850 new residential Wlits on theGTE site surrounding the proposed Whisman Stalion.

Perspective

The subiitantial changc in the mal<:eup and possible di­rection of the new transit district board shoulJ affectthe future of the LRT system. Priorities may change,and goals and objectives n~y be reevaluated during tbecourse of projoct implementation.

The importance of looking at the microscopic im­pacts of the LRT system on the individual cities as weUas Ihe macroscopic impactS on the region should be em­phasized. The new transit disttict1CMA board strucntreshould help heighten awareness of dtis key teLationship.

Land usc: decisions and the relative success of a tran­sir synem are inextricably linked. The ongoing dilemmais usually connected to the faa that transit decisiuns aremade in ::II forum separate from loaJ. land = decisions.It is therefore nOlewonhy that the formation of the newtransit districtlC1I.fA board will bolster coordina~d de­cisioll making abour the integration of land use and theLRT configurarion and will likely go farther toward at-

taining the land use and community-related goals estab­lished for the project.

To maximize its efficiency and effectiveness, an LRTsystem must eidH-r be located within densely developedareas or faciliule new development or redevelopmentof relatively dense, mixed use projects at key activitycenters and stations. A proper jobs-to-housing balancemust also be located along the corridor so that the sys­fern goes where people need to go. In r«:ognition tbatmany LRT riders may be dependent on transit, the dem­ographies of the l.:orridor mUST be considered carefullyso that a balanl.:ed l.:((Jss section of riders is served. And,because many new LRT rideu will be former bus riders,a compn:hensive analysis and redesign of bus route-~

must also be included as part of the LRT project so thatbu.~ routes do not duplicaTc new LRT travel panerns.

It mun also be recognized that the implementarionof an LRT system represents a long-range capital­intensive comminnent (0 transportarion infrastructure.In rum, local agencies with land use jurisdiction mustcommit seriously LO making appropriate long-tangeland use decisions, facilitaring the essential types of de­velopment required for a transit system to succeed.These local decisions are often seen as unpopular andrequiN: regional coordination.

The conllguT:ltion of the Tasman Corridor alignmentis largely dependent on the economic success of signif­icant employers, including Lockheed Marrin Missilesand Space, Cisco Systems, and GIC. ~ a result of therecent recession, defense spending CUts, and milirary

TABLE 4 Tasman Corridor CostUpdate, 1995

BERTINI ET AL.

base closures, these types of specific indUStries have 1l0tgrown as origillally forecast. In fact, most defense­oriented firms hav~ :l.cmaHy decreased their workforces. Long-range planning is essential for a capital­intensive, fixed-guideway system such as an LRT sys­tem. However, businesses are driven by shorr-range,results-orienred economic planning. Tills situationarticulateS the difficulty in maintaining a long-rangeview for rransportarioll while the industries that provideridenohip alld justification for the system are driven byshan-range influences. Thus the necd to build flexIbIlityand conlillgenLl' plans into the LRT system isemphasized.

El<iaOoCV<l:litl<~e:;.,~e---r__s,-

SipIoIo(:_ ' "" s_­R;pI...c.Way

"""-'Fi...."".

rom

r_~)-.

".II 13-$In.ll 2*-,nu 42"

= "SIH U11)2.2 2~"'

~.j IS.'I<&~ HISOO H

SI]O,O 100.0

"

RIDERSHIP AND COSTS

Ridenohip projections were pctfonned in 1992 for thehori7.0n year 2005 :when the proiett was assumed to bein full operation. These figures are presented in Table3. The proit:etc:d. COSts for the: T3sman Corridor, as up­dated in 1995, an:: given in Table 4.

Costs for the Tasman Corridor Project have in­creased, but not excessively so. Some of the increasewas due to the ADA requirements, which wae not orig­inally budgcted. AllY increase in cosr, however, presentsa problem in tcrms of financial feasibility. As a result ofthe del:ay in implcmemation of the un system, the ex­penditure will be higher than anticipatcd. As a resulr ofchanges in land use and other inlrasuucture, the pro­jeered ridership and revenue levels may not be realizedas originally projectcd. Consequently, the goal of finan­eial feasibility may be: attained to a Icsser extent thananticipated. It may therefore be prudc.nt to study dif­fercnt scenarios of future land use and infrastructuredevelopments, obtain related cost and revenue ptojcc­tions, and then plan thc layout and operating systemwithin this framework.

FUNDlNG IssUES

Conceptual engineering began in August 1991 uponcompletion of the AAIDElS phase and continuedthrough January 1992. Preliminary engineering was

TABLE 3 Tasman Corridor Alternative OperatingCharacteristics- ,-- .... •• ~- .... ~ ~~...... ~.. ,~ 10.100 • • •, JI.lIJ) :!O.oIlllI 10.100 " " "• n ... ..... .... ~ ~ ~

completed in August 1992. Final engineaing began illMay 1993 and esseotially was completed in May 1995.

Meeting the local funding rcquirements for the Tas·man Corridor remains the top priority for the scemand the TCP team. In November 1992 Santa ClaraCounty votcrs passed Ml!tUure A, to renew an existinghalf-eent sales rax for u:ansportation. Nearly 90 percentof the $3.5 billion in revenuc projected ova tbe 20-yearlife of the measure is pledged for fmancing construction:and operation of an integrated countywide rail system.In addition [Q providing the local matching funds forconstruction of the TCP, six other light rail corridorsare included, as well as express bus, highway, and ex­pressway pruje:eu.

However, this 2()..yc:ar, half-ecnt sales rax measurehas been challenged by opponenrs who believe mal lhemeasure required a two-thirds supermajority and notthe 54 percent vote received. The Sixth District Appel­13te Court has rendered Ml!tUure A invaiJd, and the im­plementation of the tax is now pending a decision bythe California Srate Suprcme Court. The court hasagr«d to hear oral :argumenrs in June 1995 and a fin:aldecision is expt:cteJ in August 1995. Assuming a favor­able decision, it is projected that construction couldSlart by thc end of 1995, with revenue service beginningin April 2000. Due to the local and regional consensusthat light rail is a key e1cmcnt of the transportarion nct­work, funding the TCP rcmains a high priority. Fcdcraland statc funds have been aUQC3.tcd to match the localresources. although the full funding grant agreementwill not be able to be executed until the local fundingis in place.

The court challenge to Measure A is delaying thecompletion of the Tasman Corridor and the rcs[ of rberail systtm significantly. Not only has the local fundingsituation changed significantly, but so has the transpor­ration funding environment. In California, funding pri~

orities now rest with seismic rcuofi[ of existing highwayfacilities, and in the past several years votcrs have re­peared.ly and soundly rejected statewide t;1:il bond, gastax, and other bond financing mcasures. As a result, the

SEVENTH NATiONAL CONFERENCE ON LIGHT RAil TRANSIT

Califomia State Tr.:msporutrion Improvement Program,which 5elS OUt statewide uanspomtion funding priori­ties, is now largely unfunded. It is possible men, matme outcome of the Measure A legal challenge may se­verely affect local funding of ullnspomrion projects.

U=S!'ONS LF.ARNED IN SIlJCON VAU.EY

Some of the perspectives discussed earller in the paperare essentially not new, althouGh some of lile s~cifie

circumstances arc unique. The aulhors believe that it isvaluable to share specific project experiences and .Ies­sons learned with others in the industry. Tn Sant:J ClllfllCounty, it is realized that delays in implementation, in­creases in costs, and changes in the environment are notunusual for uansponation projects and have been han­dled in various ways in the pasr. However, the com­posite effect of a number of issues including a delay inimplementation, a court challenge mat could lead to amajor loss in local funding revenue, changes in the busi­ness cli.mate affeaing defense industries, and a changein the gcn'l'.:rning body is of interest.

As discussed before, the delay in me implementationof the ovenill rail system will probably have the dfectof O"C3.ring a less f.avorable land use environmcm forlr.lIl5it, which will lead to lower revenues., bolsreting theargumentS of those: opposing the funding and hamper­ing me early implementation of the overall rail system.Although there may be advanu.ges in the long term inthe reconstitution of the governing board, it may bespeculated that in the shon term the lack of continuityand perhaps loss of political connections may be a dis­advantage. The impacts of these compound effecrs onthe long-term feasibility of the LRT system have notbeen determined.

It cOIn he concluded thar changes will occur over rheimplemelltOitioll period of II transportation system. Us­ing the Tll-~man Corridor as an example, it can be seenthat many of the extemal factors changed (0 the deui­mellt of me future success of the system. What lessonscan be learned?

Notwithstanding the fact that all changes cannot bepredicted, it appears logical to attempt to predict the

changes as far as possible and plan accordingly. Sincethe changes that occuret'd art' major and happened ardifferent points in rime. planning for a changing envi­ronment should be continuous and, if planning ~sources are consrrained, then smaller but more frequentplanning effortS should be undertaken. Since the coor­dination betw~n land use and the LRT system is soimportant to achieve cffieicnq, it is paniculady impor­tant (0 work continuously with all concerned to createa land use and development environmenr that wiU befavorable to successful future completion of the LRTsystem.

TIle changes in me prediction of the performance ofthe sysrem must be communicated dearly to the public,since the public ultimately must authorizc funds for mesystem. Despite the changing economic and political en­vironment, the participants in the process of inlple­menring the LRT system have learned lessons and re­sponded to make implementation sua:essful. Oneimportant example is the strengthening of me land ulldtransit symbiosis that should come about through theceronsrirurion of the goveming body. The design of theTCP was essentially completed in May 1995, and thereis confidence thar the court ruling on the funding mea­sure will be favorable; if 1I0t, alternative funding ave­nues v.ill be souGht (0 .secure the local funds to marchpledged state and federal funding.

1. TasllfJJn Corridor Pro1W F.nal E..uironmc>tal ImpactStatcmentlFinal EIlVlronmentol Impact K~ort. S;lntaClar.ll C'.ounry Transit DiSTrict, CalifoOl(a, 1992.

2. Dona, R. D., and R.I_ Benini. Light Rail Transit Designin a Changing Econumy, Adversity and Oppornlllity inSanta Clara County. Proc., 6th District AnlJUal Confl:r­ma, [nstilutt of Tran~port;llion Engineers, 1994.

3. TlOJO-S..mmary of Finnl Plan. Sanra Cbra County Tran­sit District, Ulifornia, 1992.

4. Parsons BrinckerhoffIMorrison Km.dsen. Tasman Com·Jor Projt'ct Traffic Operating Analysis". Santa OaraCounry Transit District, Califorma, 1992.

5. Tht' HOILSlOfg ImtitltlW. Department of Planning, San Jose,C:.lifornia, 1993.