COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY...COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY Wednesday, April 13, 2016...

COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

1:00 PM

VTA Auditorium

3331 North First Street

San Jose, CA

AGENDA

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300

COMMITTEE MISSION:

The VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility provides guidance and perspective to the Board of

Directors on VTA transit and transportation accessibility matters to help ensure complete access

to all users in Santa Clara County, doing so by facilitating dialogue with, representing and

advocating the needs of the disabled and senior communities.

CALL TO ORDER

1. ROLL CALL

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

3. INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS

4. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:

This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on

any matter not on the agenda, within the Committee’s jurisdiction. Speakers are limited

to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any

item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is

requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a

response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.

5. Receive the Board of Directors Report. (Verbal Report)

CONSENT AGENDA

6. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2015.

7. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2015.

8. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2016.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Committee for Transit Accessibility April 13, 2016

9. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations

Performance Report.

10. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a report on the April 11, 2016 Transit Service Changes.

11. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the Chief Operating Officer's Report.

12. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive an update on the rebranding of VTA's Paratransit

Services Program.

13. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive an update on the Next Network Light Rail Service

Plan.

REGULAR AGENDA

14. ACTION ITEM -Conduct voting to determine the Committee's chairperson, first vice

chairperson and second vice chairperson for 2016.

15. ACTION ITEM -Review progress and provide input on Envision Silicon Valley. Provide

a recommendation to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of

Directors on a potential sales tax ballot measure to support transportation.

16. ACTION ITEM -Review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors amend the

bylaws for the Committee for Transit Accessibility.

17. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the Transit Ridership Improvement Program's draft

Transit Choices Report.

18. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive an information item on the draft project list for

Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan.

19. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive workplan update.

REPORTS

20. Receive the Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report)

21. Receive the Citizens Advisory Committee/Citizens Watchdog Committee Report.

(Verbal Report)

22. Receive the Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report)

OTHER

23. ANNOUNCEMENTS

24. ADJOURN


Committee for Transit Accessibility April 13, 2016

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its

meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who

need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should

notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring

language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the

meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or

[email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is www.vta.org

or visit us on www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 /

한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.

All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board

Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the Monday,

Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website

at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.


Wednesday, June 10, 2015

MINUTES


CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at

1:03 p.m. by Chairperson Morrow in the Auditorium, Building A, Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San José, California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Status

Cam Acker Member Present

Roseryn Bhudsabourg Representative/Board Member

Kalra CTA Ex-Officio

Present

Kathy Bonilla Member Present

Christine Fitzgerald Member Present

Katie Heatley Ex-Officio Member Present

Troy Hernandez Member Present

Jeffery Jokinen First Vice Chairperson Absent

Lupe Medrano Member Present

Laura Michels Member Present

Aaron Morrow Chairperson Present

Lechi Nguyen Member Present

David Robinson Member Absent

Mark Romoser Member Present

Larry Saltman Member Absent

Dilip Shah Member Present

Barbara Stahl Member Present

Chaitanya Vaidya Second Vice Chairperson Present

Lori Williamson Member Present

3BA quorum was present. 4B

2. Orders of the Day – Approve the Consent Agenda

Chairperson Morrow requested Agenda Item #9, Receive the FY 2015 Third Quarter

Transit Operations Performance Report, be removed from the Consent Agenda for

comment.

M/S/C (Medrano/Vaidya) to approve the Orders of the Day and the Consent Agenda, as

amended.

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

6

Committee for Transit Accessibility Minutes Page 2 of 5 June 10, 2015


Patrick Griffin, Manager, Public Affairs and Customer Information; Paul Tatsuda,

OUTREACH; Chris Augenstein, Deputy Director, Planning; John Sighamony, Senior

Transportation Planner; Steve Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner; Lalitha Konanur,

Operations Systems Supervisor; and David Ledwitz, Management Analyst.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

REGULAR AGENDA

9. Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2015 1st Quarter

Chairperson Morrow questioned the factors that go into calculating on-time performance.

He stressed the importance of the Community having a reliable transit system and

suggested VTA set a higher threshold.

On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee

received the FY 2015 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report.

Member Williamson arrived at the meeting and took her seat at 1:07 p.m.

4. PUBLIC PRESENTIONS

There were no public presentations.

5. Board of Directors Report

There was no Board of Directors Report.

CONSENT AGENDA

7. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2015

M/S/C (Medrano/Vaidya) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2015.

8. Chief Operating Officer's Report

M/S/C (Medrano/Vaidya) to receive the Chief Operating Officer’s Report.

REGULAR AGENDA (continued)

10. US Department of Transportation’s Reasonable Modification of Policies and

Practices for Persons with Disabilities Final Rule

David Ledwitz, Management Analyst, provided a brief overview of the report,

highlighting: 1) Reasonable modifications final rule; 2) Modification exceptions;

3) Reasonable accommodation processes; 4) Required reasonable accommodations;

5) Accommodations not required; and 6) Next steps/In progress by July 13, 2015.

Chairperson Morrow noted several changes need to be made to the Paratransit Rider’s

Guide and requested staff return to the Committee with the updated version.

Member Michels questioned why calling out of stops was not listed as it is an ongoing

issue. She also indicated drivers are not waiting for students to be seated before they take

off.


Chairperson Morrow noted inconsistencies in the automated stop annunciation system

and requested Mr. Unites research and provide follow-up.

Jim Unites, Deputy Director, Operations and Staff Liaison, requested specific data from

Member Michels so her concerns can be addressed and indicated he will look into

automated system issues.

Mr. Ledwitz indicated the draft guide can be found in the packet and requested the

Committee review it and email him any comments or suggestions.

Chairperson Morrow requested staff highlight additional changes and new items added to

the guide. Mr. Ledwitz indicated he would provide a mark-up copy.

Roseryn Bhudsabourg, Representative for Ex-officio Member Kalra, arrived at meeting

and took her seat at 1:20 p.m.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee

received US Department of Transportation’s Reasonable Modification of Policies and

Practices for Persons with Disabilities Final Rule and VTA/OUTREACH Paratransit

Rider’s Guide update.

11. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Dedicated Lane Section

Steven Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a brief overview of the Bus Rapid

Transit (BRT) project and a map of Routes 22 and 522 in dedicated lane configuration.

The Committee discussed the following: 1) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR);

2) support and opposition to dedicated lanes; 3) boarding a bus in the center lane;

4) Accessibility and compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards;

and 5) safety.

Mr. Fisher indicated the project will comply with ADA standards and noted staff would

like to work with Committee on add-ins and extras with the design.


received a report on operation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and dedicated lane section.

12. Subscription/Demand Response Bus Pilot Project

Aiko Cuenco, Transportation Planner III, provided a brief overview of the staff report

and a presentation, highlighting: 1) New transit service models; 2) Problem statement:

Market share of public transit; 3) Analysis of new service delivery models; 4) Possible

service features; 5) Where will this service provide the most benefit; 6) Planning study

inputs examples; 7) Planning study outcomes; 8) Demand response/description bus pilot

story board; 9) Key considerations; and 10) Next steps.

The Committee discussed the following: 1) concern with other companies who have

shown an unwillingness to serve people with disabilities and seniors being highlighted in

the presentation; 2) specialized training for drivers of this new service; 3) the type of

vehicles that will be used; 4) the conceptual timeline noting some concern around the

tight implementation schedule; 5) the accessibility of the project including ADA

accommodation for wheelchairs and customers' ability to pay without a smartphone; and

6) suggested staff make a distinction between this new service and paratransit service to

avoid confusion amongst users.

Mr. Unites stressed this is a pilot project for a new service which will enable staff to learn

and make modifications as it moves forward.



received information on the approach to implementing the Subscription/Demand

Response Bus Pilot Project.

Roseryn Bhudsabourg left the meeting at 2:16 p.m.

13. Veteran’s Transportation and Community Living Initiative (VTCLI) Grant

Paul Tatsuda, OUTREACH, provided a presentation on the Veterans Transportation and

Community Living Initiative (VTCLI) Project highlighting: 1) VTCLI goal; 2) How to

meet the goal; 3) One-Call/One-Click service, database, and center; 4) Phone and

technology upgrades; 5) In-vehicle equipment upgrades; 6) Coordinated transportation

solutions; 7) Populations assisted and partner organizations; and 8) veteran programs at

Outreach.

Members of the Committee expressed their appreciation for OUTREACH working with

and within the military community.


received OUTREACH’s Presentation on Veteran’s Transportation and Community

Living Initiative (VTCLI) Grant.

6. Envision Silicon Valley

John Sighamony, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a brief update on Envision

Silicon Valley (ESV), highlighting the following: 1) approval of the ESV goals at the

June 4, 2015, Board of Directors meeting; 2) discussion and development of the metrics

by the working groups and the Ad-hoc ESV Committee; and 3) call for projects.

Chairperson Morrow questioned the date of next meeting.

Mr. Sighamony indicated he would send the Committee information on the upcoming

stakeholder meetings.


received update on Envision Silicon Valley.

14. Work Plan Update

Chairperson Morrow requested the following be added to the work plan: 1) update on

Real-time Program and dynamic signage; 2) Calling of stops and automated stop

annunciation system; and 3) Wi-Fi connectivity issues on trains.

Chairperson Morrow suggested convening a workshop if there are major issues

discovered that need to be addressed before the October Committee meeting.

Member Heatley noted the challenge of charging electric power chairs. She suggested

having a way to charge them at transit stops and requested staff research the issue.


received the Work Plan update.

REPORTS

15. Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.


16. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)/Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) Report

Chairperson Morrow provided a brief report on the Citizens Watchdog Committee

(CWC) public hearing held in May on the 2000 Measure A Program. He noted Macias

Gini & O’Connell, LLP (MGO) is in the last year of their contract and the CWC will be

looking for a new firm to perform the next audit. Chairperson Morrow indicated the

Committee expressed some concern that VTA may be overextending some obligations

swapping 2000 Measure A funds and borrowing against sales tax receipts.

17. Chairperson's Report

Chairperson Morrow reported he is in the process of scheduling a meet and greet with

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and CTA chairpersons to discuss

each committee’s role and how to better work together on accessibility and pedestrian

issues.

Chairperson Morrow indicated he toured OUTREACH’s new facility. He thanked

Ms. Heatley and staff for their work and commented on their ability to leverage

non-profit funds and give the disabled and senior population a voice and a seat at the

table.

OTHER

18. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Member Romoser announced the 25th Anniversary of the ADA youth forum being held

on August 14, 2015.

Chairperson Morrow thanked Operations staff for their response with helping passengers

get where they needed to go after an accident disabled power along the light rail line in

downtown San Jose

19. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the meeting was

adjourned at 2:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Menominee L. McCarter, Board Assistant

VTA Office of the Board Secretary


Wednesday, October 7, 2015

MINUTES

3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1927 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:03 p.m. by Chairperson Morrow in the Auditorium, Building A, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San José, California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Status Roseryn Bhudsabourg Representative/Board Member

Kalra CTA Ex-Officio Present

Kathy Bonilla Member Present Christine Fitzgerald Member Present Katie Heatley Ex-Officio Member Present Troy Hernandez Member Absent Jeffery Jokinen First Vice Chairperson Absent Lupe Medrano Member Present Laura Michels Member Absent Aaron Morrow Chairperson Present Lechi Nguyen Member Present David Robinson Member Absent Mark Romoser Member Present Dilip Shah Member Present Barbara Stahl Member Absent Chaitanya Vaidya Second Vice Chairperson Absent Lori Williamson Member Absent

3B A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.


3. 4BINTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS

David Ledwitz, Management Analyst; John Sighamony, Senior Transportation Planner; Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator; Gary Miskell, Chief Technology Officer; Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager; Adam Burger, Senior Transportation Planner; Patrick Griffin, Customer Relations Manager; Robin Garcia, Operations Service Planning; Manolo Gonzalez - Estay, Public Communications Specialist II; Ken Ronsse, Deputy Director, Construction; and, Alberto Lara, Director of Business Services.

Young_T

Text Box

7

Committee for Transit Accessibility Minutes Page 2 of 6 October 7, 2015

2. Orders of the Day

Jim Unites, Deputy Director, Operations and Committee Staff Liaison, informed the Committee of the passing of CTA Member, Larry Saltman. He indicated the meeting would be adjourned in memory of Mr. Saltman.

Mr. Unites announced Cam Acker retired from the Committee. He also indicated Member Vaidya is on medical leave and plans to be back for the January 2016 meeting.

Chairperson Morrow and Ex-Officio Member Heatley shared kind words and fond memories of Mr. Saltman and the work he did while on the Committee.

On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Orders of the Day.


There were no Public Presentations.


There was no Board of Directors report.

General Manager’s Report

Mr. Unites indicated Nuria I. Fernandez, General Manager, was unable to attend the meeting.

Mr. Unites introduced Alberto Lara, Director of Business Services. Upon inquiry of Chairperson Morrow, Mr. Lara provided an overview of his areas of responsibility within VTA.

Mr. Unites announced Inez Evans was appointed as the new Chief Operating Officer, replacing Michael Hursh who accepted the General Manager position at AC Transit.


Chairperson Morrow indicated the Envision Silicon Valley report would be heard with Agenda Item #12., Envision Silicon Valley List of Projects.

CONSENT AGENDA

7. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2015

On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole deferred the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2015.


On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Chief Operating Officer’s Report.

9. Transit Operations Performance Report

On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Transit Operations Performance Report.


10. October 2015 Service Changes

On Order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the October 2015 Service Changes.

REGULAR AGENDA

11. Nomination Subcommittee for the Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons for 2016

Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator, provided a brief overview of the nomination subcommittee process.

Member Medrano and Ex-Officio Member Heatley volunteered to serve.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, Member Medrano and Ex-Officio Member Heatley will serve as the Nomination Subcommittee to identify members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson for 2016.

12. Envision Silicon Valley List of Projects

John Sighamony, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a brief overview of the staff report and briefly discussed the preliminary list of projects.

The Committee of the Whole discussed the following: 1) amount of the projects included in the list: 2) process of paring the list; and 3) timeline.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Unites indicated the item will be brought back to the Committee.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole recommended that the VTA Board of Directors approve the List of Projects received from VTA's Call for Projects and direct staff to submit the complete list to the Metropolitan Transpiration Commission for consideration of inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan.

13. One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2

Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the report and an overview of the OBAG II structure proposal.

The Committee of the Whole expressed the need for additional bus shelters and fully accessible bus stops.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole recommended that the VTA Board of Directors approve the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 2 program structure.

14. Transit Ridership Improvement Program

Adam Burger, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Changing our approach; 2) Transit network design guidance; 3) consultants - Jarrett Walker and Associates; and 4) Project timeline.

The Committee of the Whole suggested the following: 1) add a component specifically for people with disabilities and the elderly; 2) strategies to address accommodations for mothers with strollers; 3) address the schedule frequency, adding schedules to bus stops, and notifying customers sooner of any changes; and 4) increase number of free passes.


On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a presentation on the Transit Ridership Improvement Program.

15. Santa Clara-Alum Rock Project Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Status

Ken Ronsse, Deputy Director, Construction, provided a brief report and presentation, highlighting: 1) Overview; 2) Project alignment and station locations; 3) Typical media bus lane; 4) Typical median BRT station on Alum Rock; 5) Typical station shelters; 6) Art enhancements; 7) Background; 8) Current conditions; 9) Construction plan; and 10) Summary schedule.

The Committee of the Whole expressed concern with the impacts of the construction shutdown to the community and businesses in the surrounding area. Staff indicated the new contractor is already working in the field and has made vast improvements.

The Committee of the Whole suggested the following: 1) more planning beforehand so consumers are less impacted; 2) include electric outlets at bus stops; and3) provide support to local merchants during transportation inconveniences to help them stay in business.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a presentation on Santa Clara-Alum Rock Project BRT Project Status.

16. Transportation Assistance Program (TAP)

Manolo Gonzalez-Estay, Public Communications Specialist II, provided a brief overview of the staff report.

In response to the Committee of the Whole’s request to make the forms more readily available, Mr. Gonzalez-Estay stressed that it is a pilot program and that more information will be distributed as the program goes forward and funds are secured for its continuance. He noted staff will look into getting the information to senior centers to disseminate program details.

Member Shah requested staff to forward to the Committee the program brochure.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received an update on the Transportation Assistance Program (TAP) for Low Income patrons.

17. Dynamic Transit Service Pilot Program Implementation

Aiko Cuenco, Transportation Planner III, provided a brief overview and a presentation, highlighting: 1) Background; 2) First pilot – Tasman; 3) Tasman zone details; 3) Tasman zone FLEX stops; 4) Proposed fare structure; 5) Priorities in service design; 6) FLEX vehicles; 7) Opportunities for public-private partnerships; 8) Measure results and improve service design; 9) VTA FLEX vs. other ridesharing services; 10) Future pilot applications; and 11) Next steps.

The Committee of the Whole made the following comments and suggestions: 1) utilize corporate resources for promotion of program; 2) ensure FLEX app is vetted for accessibility features; 3) cautioned against charging "no-show" fees; 4) consult Federal Transit Administration (FTA) amendment language on provision for demand response transit to provide curb-to-curb assistance upon customer request; 5) advertise new FLEX service on the bus and in the media; 6) inability to use transfers and passes; and 7) concern over credit card payment only option.


Mr. Unites responded the fare structure is one of the key areas that staff will continue to evaluate and monitor throughout the pilot.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received information on the Dynamic Transit Service Pilot Program Implementation.

18. Real Time Transit Information (RTI) Project

Gary Miskell, Chief Technology Officer, provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Real time data; 2) Vehicle safety innovation; 3) Pedestrian collision avoidance system; and 4) Pedestrian and bike collision avoidance pilot.

The Committee of the Whole discussed audio signage features and the continuous feed of information.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received an update on the Real Time Transit Information (RTI) project.

19. Bus Stop Improvement Program Status Report

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole deferred the Bus Stop Improvement Status Report.

20. Workplan Update

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Workplan update.

REPORTS




There was no Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)/Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) Report.


There was no Chairperson’s Report.

OTHER

24. ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

25. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m., in memory of CTA Member, Larry Saltman.


Respectfully submitted, Menominee L. McCarter, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary


Wednesday, January 13, 2016

MINUTES

3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1927 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:03 p.m. by Chairperson Morrow in the Auditorium, Building A, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San José, California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Status Kathy Bonilla Member Present Christine Fitzgerald Member Present Katie Heatley Ex-Officio Member Present Troy Hernandez Member Present Jeffery Jokinen First Vice Chairperson Absent Lupe Medrano Member Present Laura Michels Member Present Aaron Morrow Chairperson Present Lechi Nguyen Member Absent David Robinson Member Absent Mark Romoser Member Present Dilip Shah Member Present Barbara Stahl Member Absent Chaitanya Vaidya Second Vice Chairperson Present Lori Williamson Member Present Hope Cahan Representative/Board Chairperson

Chavez CTA Ex-Officio Present

A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

2. Orders of the Day – Approve the Consent Agenda

There were no Orders of the Day.


Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager; Patrick Griffin, Customer Experience Manager; Mohammed Basma, Program Manager, Project Delivery; Kathleen Podrasky, Public Communications Specialist II; Steve Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner; David Ledwitz; Management Analyst; Tamiko Percell, Transportation Planner II; John Sighamony, Senior Transportation Planner ; and Jay Tyree, Transportation Planning.

Young_T

Text Box

8

Committee for Transit Accessibility Minutes Page 2 of 5 January 13, 2016


There were no Public Presentations.


6. General Manager’s Report

Nuria I. Fernandez, General Manager, provided a brief overview of 2015 noting VTA was able to achieve the priorities set by the Board at the beginning of the year. Ms. Fernandez provided a presentation highlighting the following: 1) Stand up for Transportation participation; 2) VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project update; 3) New Eastridge Transit Center opening celebration; 4) I-280/I-880 Stevens Creek Interchange Improvements Project completion and ribbon cutting event; 5) Super Bowl 50 activities and operations plan; 6) Super Bowl 50 light rail train wrap; 7) New 60 ft. articulated bus on display; 8) Mountain View double track project completion; 9) FLEX pilot program launch; 10) New Board leadership of Cindy Chavez as Chairperson and Jeannie Bruins as Vice Chairperson; 11) Envision Silicon Valley project evaluation; and 12) Strategic plan.

The Committee of the Whole discussed the following: 1) extra spaces for wheelchairs and the disabled persons aboard new buses; 2) Super Bowl 50 additional security measures; and 3) future of the Berryessa Flea Market.


John Sighamony, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a brief report on Envision Silicon Valley (ESV), highlighting: 1) ESV overview; 2) stakeholder groups; 3) evaluation of projects; 4) VTA Board Workshop in April; 5) fund estimates and funding sources; and 6) grouping of projects. Mr. Sighamony indicated projects will be brought to the Committee for feedback as they are being evaluated.


Hope Cahan, Policy Aide, representing CTA Ex-Officio Board Chairperson Chavez, introduced herself to the Committee and indicated she will be attending meetings on her behalf. She welcomed the Committee to share with her any thoughts and concerns and noted her willingness to provide assistance.

5. Election of the Committee's Chairperson, First Vice Chairperson and Second Vice Chairperson for 2016

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole deferred the Election of the Committee's chairperson, first vice chairperson and second vice chairperson for 2016.

CONSENT AGENDA

9. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2015

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole deferred the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2015.


10. Transit Operations Performance Report – First Quarter

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Transit Operations Performance Report.


On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Chief Operating Officer’s Report.

12. January 2016 Service Changes

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the January 4, 2016 Transit Service Changes report.

REGULAR AGENDA

13. Rapid 523 Berryessa BART to DeAnza College

Tamiko Percell, Transportation Planner II, provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Introduction; 2) Rapid 523 route; 3) Plan features; 4) Example shelter; and 5) Next steps.

The Committee of the Whole discussed the following: 1) other bus service to BART; 2) outlets to charge electric wheelchairs; 3) coordination with DeAnza College (DeAnza) on improving the transportation facility; 4) requested express buses from Mountain View and other areas to connect to Milpitas BART; and 5) having a clear and well defined travel path at DeAnza.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a report on Rapid 523 Berryessa BART to DeAnza College.

14. FLEX Service Pilot

Jim Unites, Deputy Director, Operations, and Committee Staff Liaison, provided a brief update on the launch of the FLEX pilot program, noting this is a dynamic on-demand transit service.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a report on the FLEX Service Pilot.

15. Santa Clara-Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Update

Mohammed Basma, provided a brief overview of the staff report.

Mr. Unites suggested the Committee be invited to take a look at some of the stations before they are opened to the public and provide comment on accessibility.

Public Comment

James Wightman, Interested Citizen, questioned when the BRT project will go to Palo Alto.

Mr. Unites indicated the El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board has given staff direction to conduct a pilot program in the El Camino corridor and several possibilities are being considered.


The Committee of the whole expressed appreciation for VTA’s support of small businesses in the Alum Rock corridor.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Santa Clara-Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit Status Update.

16. Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP)

Jay Tyree, Transportation Planning, provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) TRIP purpose, 2) TRIP elements; 3) Assessment of current system; 4) Policy development; 5) Partner education and involvement; and 6) Development of next network.

The Committee of the Whole encouraged staff to keep the disabled and low income community involved and engaged in the discussion. Committee members suggested staff break down the information regarding TRIP so it can be better understood.

Ms. Fernandez assured the Committee that the process is inclusive, which will give staff a better opportunity to go into details to help build ridership on the existing network.

Mr. Unites commented on the level of outreach planned for the project and requested members attend the outreach sessions.

Member Romoser offered the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center as a place to hold sessions.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley indicated regularly used fixed route information can be gleaned from the Outreach card. She also expressed the need to get paratransit information on frequent locations served into the mix as all locations are not close to fixed routes.

Mr. Unites indicated the data would be helpful as routes are being mapped out and changes discussed. He noted the information can be brought back to the Committee.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received an update on the Transit Ridership Improvement Program workplan for 2016.

17. One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2

Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the staff report.

The Committee of the Whole discussed the following: 1) benefits for the disabled community; 2) importance of proximity to transit stations; 3) more housing for disabled and seniors who are unable to afford to live in the region; 4) jobs for people with disabilities; 5) inclusion of and accessibility to grocery stores and other necessities; 6) street paving needed in less affluent areas for easier travel; 7) safety statistics and disabled populations not emphasized; and 8) scoring of affordable housing for senior/disabled.

Upon inquiry, Ms. Rensi provided clarification on the focus of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and the requirements for approval. She invited the Committee to send comments in on the next round, noting the specific challenge with fitting mobility management into the PDA growth objective.

Member Michels left the meeting at 2:40 p.m.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received and discussed information about One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2 Criteria.


18. Super Bowl 50 Transit Service

Mr. Unites provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Safe and successful transit for Super Bowl 50; 2) VTA light rail and bus service plans for Super Bowl Sunday; 3) Marketing and communications; and 4) Light rail vehicle train wrap.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a report on Super Bowl 50 Transit Service.

19. Work plan update

Chairperson Morrow stressed the need for more collaboration with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and suggested the leadership team from both committees meet during the year to look at strategic planning activities.

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Work plan update.

REPORTS




Chairperson Morrow indicated the CAC did not meet in December 2015. He noted his participation on the subcommittee to evaluate current Measure A Auditor, Macias, Gini, and O’Connel, LLP (MGO), as their contract comes to a close.


Chairperson Morrow indicated he is going to be working with Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator, and Mr. Unites on quorum requirements for the Committee.

OTHER

23. ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

24. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Morrow and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Menominee L. McCarter, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary

Date: February 29, 2016

Current Meeting: April 13, 2016

Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCommittee for Transit Accessibility

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Inez Evans

SUBJECT: Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2016 Second Quarter

3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report presents the second fiscal quarter's year-to-date (July 2015-December 2015) key performance information for VTA Operations. This report is routinely produced after each quarter and at the end of the fiscal year. A summary of the FY2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report follows.

DISCUSSION:

Ridership (page 9 of the report)

Bus ridership through the second quarter of FY2016 totaled 16.71 million, an increase of 4% compared to the second quarter of FY 2015. Average weekday ridership was 107,061, up 3.1 % compared to FY2015’s second quarter.

Light rail recorded 5.61 million boardings during the second quarter of FY2016, a decrease of 5.2% compared to the prior fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 34,316, down 3.9% compared to the same period in FY2015.

Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.5% at 22.32 million. Average weekday ridership increased 1.3%, from 139,529 last year to 141,377 this year.

9

of 3

Special Event Service: A total of 34 stadium events occurred by the end of the second quarter -fifteen at Avaya and nineteen at Levi’s. Events at Levi’s Stadium included nine ‘49ers football games and two college championship/bowl games. Of the 248,622 total riders to Levi’s Stadium events, 75,678 riders were on weekdays, 74,900 riders were on Saturday and 98,044 riders were on Sunday. Bus service ridership to Avaya Stadium averaged 1,295, with a total of 19,425 riders from the fifteen events.

Levi’s Stadium eventsYear Month Riders Events Average per event2015 July 30,300 3 10,1002015 August 54,100 6 9,0172015 September 37,118 2 18,5592015 October 57,600 3 19,2002015 November 31,482 2 15,7412015 December 38,022 3 12,674Totals 248,622 19 13,085Avaya Stadium eventsYear Month Riders Events Average per event2015 July 6,510 6 1,0852015 August 3,465 3 1,1552015 September 6,300 4 1,5752015 October 3,150 2 1,575Totals 19,425 15 1,295

Key Performance Indicators (page 8 of the report)

Service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) in the second quarter of FY2016 was 99.63%. Bus on-time performance was 84.3%, down slightly from 84.5% last year. Light rail on-time performance was 73.9%, down from last year’s 76.7%.

Bus recorded 9,520 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 5.3% improvement from 9,042 miles in the second quarter of FY2016, and exceeding the goal of 8,000 miles. Light rail recorded 23,685 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 17.6% improvement from 20,142 miles in the second quarter of FY2016. It did not, however, meet the goal of 40,000 miles.

Absenteeism goals were met for all personnel.

Paratransit (page 24 of the report)

9

of 3

Through the first six months of FY 2016, ADA paratransit ridership decreased 4.3% from 362,965 in FY 2015 to 347,337 this year.

The net ADA paratransit operating cost during the first six months of FY 2016 was $9.81 million, up 13.7% compared to the same period last fiscal year. The net operating cost per paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2016 was $28.25, 18.8% more than the $23.78 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2015. Through the first six months of FY 2016, the net cost per trip is 5.3% more than the established goal of $26.75.

The net operating cost increase is due to the vendor contractual rate increase that took effect July 1, 2015 and the impact of a living wage of $15.00/hour for the prime vendor’s drivers.

San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) under a separate contract with the prime paratransit vendor, MV Transportation stopped providing trips in February 2016. Demand for services from persons once transported on MV Transportation/ SARC vehicles is predicted to drive up future ADA paratransit trips and costs.

Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 9 of the report)

Most of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases, with the exception of Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express:

• Dumbarton Express ridership was 145,159, down 8.9%. • Highway 17 Express ridership was 175,043, down 7.0%.• Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 13,730, down 10.7 %. • ACE ridership was 645,280, up 8.3%.• Caltrain ridership was 9,595,459, up 3.0%.• ΑCE shuttle ridership was 213,089, up 2.8%.• Capitol Corridor ridership was 760,455, up 3.9%.

Prepared By: Lalitha KonanurMemo No. 5276

9

Transit Operations Performance Report

2016 Second Quarter Report (July 1, 2015-December 31, 2015)

9.a

Transit Operations Performance Report

Second Quarter FY 2016 Report (July 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015)

9.a

Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

Executive Summary

Summary of Performance 1Event Highlights 3

Key Performance Indicators 8

Ridership Summary 9

Route details 10

Route Performance

Boardings Per Revenue Hour 11Average Peak Load (Express) 15Route Productivity 16

Paratransit Operating Statistics 24

Glossary

Prepared by: Operations Analysis, Reporting & Systems

9.a

Executive Summary

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Ridership (page 9 of the report)

Bus ridership through the second quarter of FY2016 totaled 16.71 million, an increase of 4% compared to the second quarter of FY 2015. Average weekday ridership was 107,061, up 3.1 % compared to FY2015’s second quarter. Light rail recorded 5.61 million boardings during the second quarter of FY2016, a decrease of 5.2% compared to the prior fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 34,316, down 3.9% compared to the same period in FY2015. Overall, system ridership (bus and rail) was up 1.5% at 22.32 million. Average weekday ridership increased 1.3%, from 139,529 last year to 141,377 this year. Special Event Service: A total of 34 stadium events occurred by the end of the second quarter - fifteen at Avaya and nineteen at Levi’s. Events at Levi’s Stadium included nine ‘49ers football games and two college championship/bowl games. Of the 248,622 total riders to Levi’s Stadium events, 75,678 riders were on weekdays, 74,900 riders were on Saturday and 98,044 riders were on Sunday. Bus service ridership to Avaya Stadium averaged 1,295, with a total of 19,425 riders from the fifteen events.

Levi’s Stadium events Year Month Riders Events Average per event 2015 July 30,300 3 10,100 2015 August 54,100 6 9,017 2015 September 37,118 2 18,559 2015 October 57,600 3 19,200 2015 November 31,482 2 15,741 2015 December 38,022 3 12,674 Totals 248,622 19 13,085 Avaya Stadium events Year Month Riders Events Average per event 2015 July 6,510 6 1,085 2015 August 3,465 3 1,155 2015 September 6,300 4 1,575 2015 October 3,150 2 1,575 Totals 19,425 15 1,295

1

9.a

Key Performance Indicators (page 8 of the report)

Service reliability performance for the system (both bus and light rail) in the second quarter of FY2016 was 99.63%. Bus on-time performance was 84.3%, down slightly from 84.5% last year. Light rail on-time performance was 73.9%, down from last year’s 76.7%. Bus recorded 9,520 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 5.3% improvement from 9,042 miles in the second quarter of FY2016, and exceeding the goal of 8,000 miles. Light rail recorded 23,685 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 17.6% improvement from 20,142 miles in the second quarter of FY2016. It did not, however, meet the goal of 40,000 miles. Absenteeism goals were met for all personnel. Paratransit (page 24 of the report) Through the first six months of FY 2016, ADA paratransit ridership decreased 4.3% from 362,965 in FY 2015 to 347,337 this year. The net ADA paratransit operating cost during the first six months of FY 2016 was $9.81 million, up 13.7% compared to the same period last fiscal year. The net operating cost per paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2016 was $28.25, 18.8% more than the $23.78 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2015. Through the first six months of FY 2016, the net cost per trip is 5.3% more than the established goal of $26.75. The prime contractor, MV Transportation, has reduced the number of trips it provides under contract to the San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) and will stop providing these trips in February 2016. Demand for services from persons once transported on MV Transportation/SARC vehicles is predicted to drive up future ADA paratransit costs. Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 9 of the report) Most of VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases, with the exception of Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express:

Dumbarton Express ridership was 145,159, down 8.9%. Highway 17 Express ridership was 175,043, down 7.0%. Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 13,730, down 10.7 %. ACE ridership was 645,280, up 8.3%. Caltrain ridership was 9,595,459, up 3.0%. CE shuttle ridership was 213,089, up 2.8%. Capitol Corridor ridership was 760,455, up 3.9%.

2

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EVENT HIGHLIGHTS FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015) This section shows events that can affect normal service operations and system ridership. Ridership historically follows employment trends in the Valley, for example. Weather, public events, strikes, traffic, construction, new service, area gasoline prices, and other changes to our operating environment also affect system ridership and service conditions.

July 1, 2015 – Severe heat warning issued by the National Weather Service.

July 1, 2015 – San Jose Earthquakes vs. Los Angeles soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 4, 2015 – VTA featured increased light rail service to the downtown Rotary Club fireworks show at Discovery Meadow. Bus service was rerouted to accommodate the downtown fireworks, the Morgan Hill 4th of July Car Show and parade, the Fremont 4th of July Parade, and the San Jose Rose, White, and Blue Parade and Festival.

July 5, 2015 – Atlas vs. Leon soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 7, 2015 – BART train fire closes down five East Bay BART stations and stops BART service during morning commute, causing severe delays.

July 10, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Houston soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 11, 2015 – One Direction concert held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 12, 2015 – Light rail service shut down through July 19, 2015 between Mountain View and Whisman Stations and July 18-19 between Mountain View and Lockheed Stations for double-tracking work. Bus Bridge replacement service provided.

July 14, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Club America soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 18, 2015 – VTA provided expanded bus service to Avaya Stadium for the Pacific Nations Cup rugby tournament.

July 21, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Manchester United soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

July 25, 2015 – Manchester United vs. Barcelona Soccer match held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 27, 2015 – Cisco Rocks! Corporate event held at Levi’s Stadium.

July 28-29, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

3

9.a

July 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to police activity, Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series in Mountain View; construction in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Milpitas; the Garlic City Fun Run and Car Show in Gilroy; a gas leak in San Jose; Sunnyvale Music in the Market; accidents; and mechanical issues.

July 2015 – There was no measurable rainfall during the month.

July 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.2%.

July 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.46 per gallon during the month.

August 1, 2015 – Monterey-Salinas Transit debuts new service between King City and San Jose, including an airport connection to Mineta San Jose airport.

August 1, 2015 – Wedemeyer High School Football event held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 2, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Portland soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 5, 2015 – Training Camp Day event held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 14, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Colorado soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 14-15, 2015 – Two Taylor Swift concerts held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 15, 2015 – Line 254, serving Levi’s Stadium on game days from Eastridge Transit Center, is discontinued due to low ridership.

August 15-16, 2015 – Heat advisory issued by the National Weather Service.

August 16-17, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

August 23, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Dallas Cowboys game at Levi’s Stadium.

August 26, 2015 – Intuit, in Mountain View, announces layoffs of 249 employees following June layoffs of 399 employees.

August 27, 2015 – Amazon lays off engineers at Silicon-Valley-based Lab126.

August 28, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Galaxy soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

August 29, 2015 – Luke Bryan concert held at Levi’s Stadium.

August 31, 2015 – McCandless Drive in Milpitas re-opens for Line 77 service and VTA’s Montague light rail station re-opens for service following 5-month BART construction closure.

August 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to the Silicon Valley Pride Parade and Festival; Levi’s Stadium events; the FroYo Run; South First Fridays in San Jose; the

4

9.a

San Jose Jazz Summer Fest; Thursday Night Live Summer Concert Series; National Night Out event in Morgan Hill; mechanical issues; and construction in Mountain View and San Jose.

August 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4.0%.

August 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 100% of normal.

August 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.33 per gallon during the month.

September 3, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. San Diego Chargers Thursday night game at Levi’s Stadium.

September 5, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Philadelphia soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 5-13, 2015 – Light rail service between Mountain View and Middlefield is replaced with bus bridge service for double-tracking project.

September 8-10, 205 – Spare the Air days.

September 9-10, 2015 – Whisman light rail station was closed, with substitute bus service provided, for the double-tracking project.

September 12, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Seattle soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 14, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Minnesota Vikings Monday Night Football game at Levi’s Stadium.

September 16, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Impact soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 19-20, 2015 – Light rail service was replaced by a bus bridge between the Mountain View and Whisman stations due to the double-tracking project.

September 20-21, 2015 – Spare the Air days.

September 27, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Real Salt Lake soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

September 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and service delays due to medical emergencies/ police action; accidents; track repair; South First Fridays Street Market; Morgan Hill Auto Show; SoFa Street Fair; Willow Glen Founders Day Parade; A Taste of Morgan Hill; and an SAP event in San Jose.

September 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 3.7%.

September 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 6% of normal.

September 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $3.01 per gallon during the month.

October 3, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Vancouver soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

5

9.a

October 4, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Green Bay Packers football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 16, 2015 – Earthquakes vs. Kansas City soccer match held at Avaya Stadium.

October 18, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Baltimore Ravens football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 22, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Seattle Seahawks Thursday night football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

October 28, 2015 – Cisco Systems lays off 899 employees in San Jose.

October 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes, bus bridges, and service delays due to special events on October 3rd and 8th in downtown Mountain View, double-track work near Whisman station in Mountain View, the Tournament of Bands parade in Cupertino, Viva Calle in San Jose, an accident near Fruitdale Station in San Jose, a water main break in Palo Alto, fires in Sunnyvale and San Jose, a weekday Levi’s Stadium event, the Zombie Run in San Jose, the Morgan Hill Marathon, the Chardonnay Run in San Jose, and the Morgan Hill Safe Trick-or-Treat event.

October 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 4%

October 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 6% of normal.

October 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.84 per gallon.

November 8, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Atlanta Falcons football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

November 14-22, 2015 – Substitute bus service replaced light rail service from Tasman Station to Mountain View to accommodate the double-track project.

November 17, 2015 – Citrix Systems in Santa Clara announced 1,000 job cuts.

November 25, 2015 – New second light rail track in Mountain View is opened for revenue service.

November 29, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Arizona Cardinals football game at Levi’s Stadium.

November 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes due to the Firehouse Run, police activity, construction, and the Turkey Trot race, all in San Jose.

November 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 3.9%

November 2015 – Rainfall during the month was 144% of normal.

November 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.73 per gallon.

December 5, 2015 – PAC-12 College Championship football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

6

9.a

December 20, 2015 – ‘49ers vs. Cincinnati Bengals football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

December 26, 2015 – Foster Farms Bowl college football game held at Levi’s Stadium.

December 2015 – VTA experienced reroutes and bus bridges due to police activity, construction, Christmas Tree Lighting in Sunnyvale, the Holiday Lights Parade in Morgan Hill, the Procession to Our Virgin Mary in San Jose, the Gilroy Holiday Parade, the Children’s Holiday Christmas Parade in Los Gatos,

December 2015 – The Santa Clara County unemployment rate was

December 2015 – Rainfall during the month was

December 2015 – Unleaded gas averaged $2.65 per gallon.

7

9.a

Key Performance

Indicators

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYKEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

FY 2013 Annual

FY 2014 Annual

FY 2015Annual

FYTD 2016 Q2

Met Goal?

Q2 2016 Goals

SYSTEM (Bus & Light Rail)Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 43.15 43.43 43.94 22.32 No 22.50>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 140,402 140,965 141,149 141,377 No 144,600>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 31.9 29.6 30.5 32.8 YES 29.5>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.73% 99.67% 99.67% 99.63% YES 99.55%>=

Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 13,110 10,839 9,890 10,172 YES 9,000>= Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 88,300 80,812 78,449 179,063 YES 110,800>= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 13.7 16.2 18.4 20.8 No 10.6<=

BUS OPERATIONSTotal Boarding Riders (in millions) 32.40 32.48 32.62 16.71 YES 16.70>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 106,161 105,969 106,214 107,061 No 108,500>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 26.7 26.0 25.1 27.4 YES 25.0>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.70% 99.64% 99.64% 99.59% YES 99.50%>=

Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 12,080 9,964 9,890 9,520 YES 8,000>= Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 80,608 73,702 78,449 162,675 YES 100,000>= On-time Performance 87.4% 85.9% 85.6% 84.3% No 92.5%>= Operator Personal Time-off 8.5% 8.1% 7.2% 7.4% YES 10.0%<= Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.4% 8.2% 6.0% 5.3% YES 8.0%<= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 17.1 20.2 21.3 22.1 No 11.8<=

LIGHT RAIL OPERATIONSTotal Boarding Riders (in millions) 10.74 10.95 11.32 5.61 No 5.80>= Average Weekday Boarding Riders 34,241 34,996 34,935 34,316 No 36,100>= Boardings per Revenue Hour 78.3 78.8 80.4 80.6 No 82.3>= Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.98% 99.97% 99.96% 99.96% YES 99.90%>=

Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss1 40,723 37,381 20,292 23,685 No 40,000>=

Miles Between Chargeable Accidents2 366,503 367,582 558,019 1,113,216 YES 1,113,216>= On-time Performance 88.5% 84.5% 77.4% 73.9% No 95.0%>= Operator Personal Time-off 5.9% 7.2% 7.3% 7.5% YES 10.0%<= Maintenance Personal Time-off 7.3% 8.1% 5.2% 3.3% YES 8.0%<= Way, Power, & Signal Personal Time-off 6.3% 4.0% 8.6% 7.8% YES 8.0%<= Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 3.3 4.3 10.0 16.9 No 2.8<= Fare Evasion Rate 3.9% 3.1% 3.0% 2.5% YES 5.0%<=

PARATRANSITPassengers per Revenue Hour³ 2.50 2.40 2.60 2.40 YES 2.40>= Net Cost per Passenger $22.69 $23.16 $24.22 $28.25 No $26.75<= Ontime Performance ³ 96.9% 96.5% 93.4% YES 92.0%>= Complaints per 1,000 passenger Trips³ 0.51 0.47 0.74 YES 1.0<= Schedule Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.36 1.36 1.70 YES 2.0<= Days of Service Calls Response Time (minutes)³ 1.09 1.14 1.30 YES 2.0<= ADA Eligibility Certification within 21 Days³ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% YES 100.0%>= Preventative Maintenance Inspections Ontime³ 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% YES 95.0%>= Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips ³ 0 0 0 YES 1.0<= Non-Major Accidents and Incidents per 85,000 Passenger Trips³ 0.1 0.47 0.00 YES 2.0<=

Note: Ridership goals were developed using budget projections.1 Mechanical failure that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled service due to limited vehicle movement or safety concerns.2 Goal is no more than one chargeable accident in a year.3 New ADA Paratransit Performance Indicators for Paratransit effective FY 2014

9.a

Ridership Summary

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYRIDERSHIP SUMMARY(Directly Operated, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services)FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD 2016 FYTD 2015 % Change

Directly Operated Services

Bus 16,710,220 16,067,147 4.0% Average Weekday Riders 107,061 103,833 3.1%

Light Rail 5,612,161 5,923,019 -5.2% Average Weekday Riders 34,316 35,696 -3.9%

Total Directly Operated Services 22,322,381 21,990,166 1.5% Average Weekday Riders 141,377 139,529 1.3%

Inter-Agency Partners

Dumbarton Express 145,159 159,365 -8.9% Average Weekday Riders 1,134 1,245 -8.9%

Highway 17 Express 175,043 188,142 -7.0% Average Weekday Riders 1,081 1,172 -7.8%

Monterey-San Jose Express 13,730 15,381 -10.7% Average Weekday Riders 68 82 -17.1%Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 645,280 595,988 8.3% Average Weekday Riders 5,041 4,719 6.8%

Caltrain 9,595,459 9,318,395 3.0% Average Weekday Riders 59,853 58,383 2.5%

Caltrain Shuttles (in Santa Clara County) 816,638 800,395 2.0% Average Weekday Riders 6,331 6,110 3.6%Contracted ServicesParatransit 347,337 362,965 -4.3% Average Weekday Riders 2,415 2,558 -5.6%

ACE Shuttles 213,089 207,257 2.8% Average Weekday Riders 1,678 1,645 2.0%

Total Contracted / Inter-Agency 5,860,714 5,699,744 2.8%

Combined Total Ridership (in Santa Clara County) 1 28,183,095 27,689,910 1.8%

1 These figures are based on estimated ridership in the VTA service area for Caltrain, ACE, Highway 17 Express, Dumbarton Express, and Monterey-San Jose Express. Paratransit, Light Rail Shuttles, ACE Shuttles, and Caltrain Santa Clara County Shuttles are operated wholly within the service area, therefore, 100% of the ridership is included.

9

9.a

Route Destination Route Destination

10Santa Clara Transit Ctr.-San Jose International Airport-Metro Airport LRT Station

68 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.

12 San Jose Civic Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via San Jose Flea Market 70 Capitol LRT Station-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.

13* Almaden Expwy. & McKean-Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station 71 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. via White Rd.

14* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to St. Louise Hospital 72 Senter & Monterey-Downtown San Jose

16* Morgan Hill Civic Ctr. to Burnett Ave. 73 Snell/Capitol-Downtown San Jose

17* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to St. Louise Hospital 77 Eastridge Tran Ctr-Great Mall/Main Trans Ctr via King Rd

18* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Gavilan College 81Weekday-Vallco-San Jose State University; Sat-Vallco-Santa Clara Tran.Ctr

19* Gilroy Transit Ctr. to Wren & Mantelli 82 Westgate-Downtown San Jose

22 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. via El Camino 88* Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital-Middlefield & Colorado

23 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Stevens Creek 89 California Ave. Caltrain Station-Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital

25 DeAnza College-Alum Rock Transit Ctr. via Valley Medical Ctr. 101 Camden & Hwy 85-Palo Alto

26 Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 102 South San Jose-Palo Alto

27 Good Samaritan Hospital-Kaiser San Jose 103 Eastridge Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto

31 Evergreen Valley College-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 104 Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr.-Palo Alto

32* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Santa Clara Transit Ctr. 120 Fremont BART-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park-Shoreline

34* San Antonio Shopping Ctr.-Downtown Mountain View 121 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park

35 Downtown Mountain View-Stanford Shopping Ctr. 122 South San Jose-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park

37* West Valley College-Capitol LRT Station 140 Fremont BART-Mission College & Montague Expwy.

39* The Villages-Eastridge Transit Ctr. 168 Gilroy Transit Ctr.-San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.

40Weekday/Sat-Foothill College-La Avenida & Shoreline Sun-San Antonio & Lyell-La Avenida & Shoreline

180 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr/Aborn&White-Fremont BART

42*Weekday-Kaiser San Jose-Evergreen Valley College Sat-Santa Teresa LRT-Monterey & Senter

181San Jose Diridon Transit Ctr.-Fremont BART via Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr. late evenings & weekends

45* Alum Rock Transit Ctr.-Penitencia Creek Transit Ctr. 182 Palo Alto-IBM/Bailey Ave.

46 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Milpitas High School 201 DASH SJ Diridon Stn-Downtown SJ LRT Stations

47 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-McCarthy Ranch 231 Avaya Stadium-Downtown San Jose (Event Service Only)

48* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Winchester Blvd. 251 Fremont BART-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only)

49* Los Gatos Civic Ctr.-Winchester Transit Ctr. via Los Gatos Blvd. 252 Vallco-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only)

51 De Anza College-Moffett Field/Ames Ctr. 253 Gilroy/Morgan Hill-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only)

52 Foothill College-Downtown Mountain View 255 Almaden-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only)

53 West Valley College-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. 256 Ohlone-Chynoweth-Levi's Stadium (Event Service Only)

54 De Anza College-Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Trans Ctr. 304 South San Jose-Sunnyvale Transit Ctr. via Arques

55 De Anza College-Great America 321 Great Mall/Main Transit Ctr.-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park

55X Fremont High School-Lakewood Village (School Days Only) 323 De Anza College-Downtown San Jose

57 West Valley College-Great America via Quito Rd. 328 Almaden Expy/Via Valiente-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Pk

58 West Valley College-Alviso via Fruitvale 330 Almaden Expy. & Via Valiente-Tasman Drive

60 Winchester Transit Ctr.-Great America 522 Palo Alto Transit Ctr.-Eastridge Transit Ctr.

61 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Bascom LRT Line 902 - Mountain View-Winchester

62 Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont via Union Line 901 - Alum Rock-Santa Teresa

63 Almaden Expy & Camden-San Jose State University Line 900 - Ohlone/Chynoweth-Almaden

64 Almaden LRT Station-McKee & White via Downtown San Jose

65* Kooser & Blossom Hill-13th & Hedding

66 Kaiser San Jose-Milpitas/Dixon Rd. via Downtown San Jose

Route Listing

*Community Bus

10

9.a

Route Performance

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Weekday Boardings per revenue hourFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

26.2

19.6

32.2

32.0

26.9

25.2

25.7

23.0

30.0

27.8

21.2

22.8

24.3

24.2

28.8

26.2

31.9

33.2

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22

CoreStandard: 26.7 boardings

per rvenue hour

17.9

22.3

14.9

17.6

15.2

21.7

24.9

26.5

17.2

21.6

26.0

26.0

21.5

16.1

19.4

16.8

23.6

89

82

81

63

58

57

54

53

52

51

47

46

40

35

31

27

10

Local Standard: 20.5 boardings

per revene hour

34.6

11.5

12.9

16.5

13.6

18.2

15.9

13.8

21.8

13.6

10.3

19.8

18.4

20.4

9.5

13.5

14.4

13.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

201

200

88

65

49

48

45

42

39

37

34

32

19

18

17

16

14

13

Community BusStandard: 16.3 boardings

per revenue hour

24.3ACEShuttles

Note: ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the Community Bus standard, which is VTA‐based only.

119.a


Weekday Boardings per revenue hourFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

75.2

91.8

51.9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

ExpressStandard: is 60% Maximum Load

Factor

Light RailStandard: 73.0 boardings

per revenue train hour

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line

* Line 901 is the Alum Rock ‐ Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View ‐Winchester Line.

13.0

9.9

13.3

13.7

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

LimitedStandard 15.0 Boarding Per

Revenue Hour

129.a


Saturday Boardings per revenue hourFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

88.1

66.2

53.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

902*

901*

900*Light Rail

Standard: 69.3 boardingsper revenue train hour

17.1

11.9

16.6

17.3

17.6

20.5

15.0

15.2

15.4

14.1

16.6

22.6

29.3

82

81

63

57

54

47

46

40

35

31

27

12

10

14.7

13.8

11.0

12.4

20.0

14.7

17.5

10.3

11.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

200

49

48

42

39

32

19

18

14


per revenue hour


per revenue hour

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line * Line 901 is the Alum Rock ‐ Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View ‐ Winchester Line.

23.5

13.8

46.2

27.4

26.2

25.1

25.9

25.7

30.3

20.9

19.4

18.0

20.1

19.6

23.8

24.8

28.4

32.8

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

139.a


Sunday Boardings per revenue hourFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

74.7

63.4

44.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

902*

901*

900*Light Rail

Standard 60.7 boardingsper revenue train hour

20.1

10.2

32.2

25.0

25.9

26.7

23.0

23.7

27.7

19.9

16.9

14.6

17.5

19.6

21.0

24.1

26.3

31.8

522

323

77

73

72

71

70

68

66

64

62

61

60

55

26

25

23

22


per revenue hour

17.0

14.0

13.6

13.3

27.8

18.0

17.0

12.1

14.4

23.5

34.9

82

63

57

54

47

40

35

31

27

12

10


per revenue hour

8.4

9.8

10.7

25.3

17.1

11.1

10.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

200

49

48

39

19

18

14


per revenue hour


* Line 901 is the Alum Rock ‐ Santa Teresa Line * Line 902 is the Mountain View ‐Winchester Line

149.a

Saturday / Sunday


Express Routes Average Peak Load

FY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Weekday

38.9%

52.4%

55.5%

44.2%

50.5%

46.3%

51.1%

62.4%

58.9%

47.6%

57.6%

37.6%

30.9%

42.2%

14.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

101

102

103

104

120

121

122

140

168

180

181

182

DB

Hwy 17

MST 55

ExpressStandard: 60% Peak Load

Note: HWY 17, MST and DB are not considered in the calculation of the standard which is VTA‐ based only.

Saturday, 67.9%

Sunday, 72.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

181

181

159.a

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time PeriodFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Core Routes

WEEKDAYROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL

22 25.6 50.2 27.6 33.223 28.2 39.4 22.8 31.9 Weekday Service Periods25 23.0 32.2 17.0 26.2 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &26 23.6 41.0 20.7 28.8 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM55 21.7 30.5 19.6 24.2 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM60 19.2 37.0 17.8 24.3 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM61 18.5 34.6 9.1 22.862 18.4 26.3 14.8 21.264 24.8 35.3 11.9 27.866 22.9 46.5 18.5 30.068 17.1 36.6 13.9 23.070 21.0 34.1 18.2 25.771 20.6 37.3 13.1 25.272 18.7 40.6 19.5 26.973 23.4 44.9 18.8 32.077 22.7 49.3 18.9 32.2

323 18.4 22.8 13.1 19.6 Legend:522 20.7 35.7 24.0 26.2 Below standard

Standard 21.6 37.5 17.7 26.7 No Service

16

9.a


Core Routes

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

22 31.1 36.2 30.1 32.823 27.1 27.9 32.7 28.4 Saturday Service Periods25 22.3 26.5 28.5 24.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM26 24.8 20.3 40.5 23.8 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM55 17.8 18.7 36.3 19.6 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM60 13.7 13.1 77.5 20.161 16.6 21.0 10.1 18.062 17.6 22.0 13.3 19.464 16.9 23.5 24.3 20.966 24.3 40.2 22.1 30.368 23.4 29.0 23.9 25.770 19.7 34.6 10.3 25.971 25.2 25.7 21.7 25.172 23.7 28.1 29.4 26.273 28.5 26.1 31.7 27.477 41.1 49.6 63.6 46.2

323 13.2 15.1 10.3 13.8522 21.8 24.7 24.2 23.5

Standard 22.7 26.8 29.5 25.1

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

22 20.7 31.5 53.9 31.8 Sunday Service Periods23 30.5 22.1 28.5 26.3 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM25 19.1 33.0 13.1 24.1 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM26 17.1 23.0 33.4 21.0 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM55 16.6 22.8 17.3 19.660 16.1 18.3 20.7 17.561 11.2 20.2 8.6 14.662 15.2 18.7 15.1 16.964 17.4 23.5 14.9 19.966 18.0 43.8 13.9 27.768 20.1 29.6 21.0 23.770 16.8 31.9 9.3 23.071 27.3 24.7 32.5 26.772 20.0 33.0 21.2 25.9 Legend:73 19.2 30.5 25.4 25.0 Below standard

77 20.9 42.5 17.8 32.2 No Service323 9.8 10.5 0.0 10.2522 19.9 20.2 0.0 20.1

Standard 18.7 26.7 21.7 22.617

9.a


Local Routes


10 22.8 26.6 18.6 23.627 14.0 21.7 14.2 16.8 Weekday Service Periods31 17.8 24.6 7.5 19.4 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &35 13.9 19.1 15.8 16.1 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM40 21.1 22.4 19.3 21.5 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM46 27.0 23.9 0.0 26.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM47 22.7 31.6 19.1 26.051 22.3 20.5 0.0 21.652 18.9 16.8 11.7 17.253 23.3 31.6 0.0 26.554 25.4 22.7 33.7 24.957 18.9 27.8 12.3 21.758 14.7 16.9 16.1 15.263 15.5 20.8 20.2 17.681 13.5 17.7 6.0 14.9 Legend:82 18.8 28.7 14.8 22.389 25.1 11.1 0.0 17.9 Below standard


18

9.a


Local Routes

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

10 25.2 42.0 19.1 29.312 18.3 25.3 0.0 22.627 16.2 18.5 5.2 16.6 Saturday Service Periods31 13.1 15.1 0.0 14.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM35 13.6 16.4 17.4 15.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM40 16.2 14.5 0.0 15.2 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM46 9.3 17.9 0.0 15.047 18.6 21.3 35.9 20.554 14.1 18.4 36.7 17.657 14.4 19.2 19.4 17.363 15.2 17.8 0.0 16.681 10.4 12.3 0.0 11.982 17.0 17.6 13.0 17.1

Standard 15.5 19.7 21.0 17.6

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL

10 27.9 49.4 27.3 34.912 22.8 24.0 0.0 23.527 14.7 14.3 0.0 14.4 Sunday Service Periods31 10.8 12.8 0.0 12.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM35 16.8 17.2 17.3 17.0 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM40 14.5 19.8 0.0 18.0 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM47 26.0 28.7 36.0 27.854 10.9 15.2 0.0 13.357 11.7 15.1 0.0 13.663 17.1 12.7 0.0 14.0 Legend:82 16.3 17.5 0.0 17.0 Below standard


19

9.a


Community Bus


13 10.2 18.4 7.5 13.8 Weekday Service Periods14 11.5 16.3 0.0 14.4 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &16 14.9 7.9 0.0 13.5 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM17 9.3 9.6 0.0 9.5 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM18 18.9 22.2 0.0 20.4 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM19 18.2 19.5 7.0 18.432 16.1 30.5 13.2 19.834 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.337 13.5 15.4 5.6 13.639 18.7 29.4 11.6 21.842 12.0 16.4 5.9 13.845 16.2 15.6 0.0 15.948 17.4 19.3 0.0 18.249 13.3 15.3 4.7 13.665 14.6 18.6 0.0 16.588 15.0 9.8 0.0 12.9200 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5201 37.8 30.7 32.6 34.6

Standard 16.1 18.0 15.0 16.3

20

9.a


Community Bus

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods

14 11.5 16.3 0.0 14.4 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM18 18.9 22.2 0.0 20.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM19 18.2 19.5 7.0 18.4 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM32 16.1 30.5 13.2 19.839 18.7 29.4 11.6 21.842 12.0 16.4 5.9 13.848 17.4 19.3 0.0 18.249 13.3 15.3 4.7 13.6200 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5

Standard 15.8 21.1 15.0 17.6

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods

14 7.7 11.9 0.0 10.6 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM18 8.6 11.9 0.0 11.1 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM19 12.0 21.0 0.0 17.139 19.6 28.1 0.0 25.348 10.7 10.7 0.0 10.749 8.6 10.2 0.0 9.8 Legend:

200 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.4 Below standardStandard 15.0 15.6 15.0 15.0 No Service

21

9.a


Limited Stop Routes

WEEKDAY Weekday Service PeriodsROUTE PEAK Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &

304 13.7 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM321 13.3328 9.9 Legend:330 13.0 Below standard

Standard 15.0 No Service

22

9.a


Light Rail

WEEKDAYROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL Weekday Service Periods

900* 57.3 61.6 24.3 51.9 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM &901* 89.0 141.9 31.2 91.8 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM902* 68.1 119.3 54.1 75.2 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Standard 71.5 107.6 36.5 73.0 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM

SATURDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods

900* 52.9 59.3 44.0 53.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM901* 57.8 84.3 50.4 66.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM902* 69.3 99.9 105.9 88.1 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM

Standard 60.0 81.2 66.8 69.3

SUNDAYROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods

900* 42.1 51.3 33.3 44.1 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM901* 52.6 91.0 37.0 63.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM902* 60.6 120.3 43.3 74.7 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM

Standard 51.8 87.5 37.9 60.7Legend:Below standard No Service


* Line 901 is the Alum Rock to Santa Teresa Line

* Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line.

23

9.a

Paratransit Operating

Statistics

9.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYPARATRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICSFY 2016 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

FYTD 2016Jul' 15-Dec' 15

FYTD 2015Jul' 14-Dec' 14

Percent Change

RIDERSHIPClients 266,018 255,590 4.1%Attendants 48,085 60,910 -21.1%Companions 33,234 46,465 -28.5%

Total Ridership 347,337 362,965 -4.3%Average Weekday Trips 2,415 2,558 -5.6%Average Weekday Client Trips 1,867 1,794 4.1%Active Clients 6,246 6,175 1.1%Average Trips per Client 42.6 41.4 2.9%PREMIUM SERVICESSame Day Trips 1,244 699 78.0%Second Vehicles 65 88 -26.1%Open Returns 110 149 -26.2%Service Area Surcharge Trips 1,600 1,474 8.5%Subscription Trips 43,232 46,367 -6.8%

Total 46,251 48,777 -5.2%LEVEL OF SERVICERevenue Miles 3,094,384 2,981,643 3.8%Revenue Hours 142,428 141,233 0.8%Passenger Miles (NTD) 3,370,060 3,486,502 -3.3%ELIGIBILITYTotal Data Cards Received 3,374 3,396 -0.6%New Applicants Certified 1,234 1,101 12.1%New Applicants Denied 227 275 -17.5%Clients Recertified 1,296 1,217 6.5%Clients Denied Recertification 232 344 -32.6%Total Eligibility Assessments 2,989 2,937 1.8% Denial Rate 15.4% 21.1% 0.0%EXPENSES AND REVENUES

EXPENSESEligibility Certification Costs $303,437 $310,541 -2.3%Broker Costs $3,037,763 $3,137,228 -3.2%Vendor Costs $7,945,245 $6,846,043 16.1%

Total Operating Costs $11,286,445 $10,293,812 9.6%REVENUES

Client Fare $1,001,551 $971,238 3.1%Other Fare $468,249 $682,609 -31.4%Non-VTA Broker Revenue $2,488 $7,571 -67.1%

Total Revenue $1,472,288 $1,661,417 -11.4%Net Expenses $9,814,157 $8,632,394 13.7%

Fare Recovery Rate 13.0% 16.1% -18.9%Capital Expenses $55,810 $46,040 21.2%

Total Expenses $9,869,967 $8,678,434 13.7%COST PER PASSENGER TRIP (excludes capital expenses)Total Reported Costs $32.49 $28.36 14.6%Fare Revenue $4.23 $4.56 -7.2%Non-fare revenue $0.01 $0.02 -50.0%

Net Cost $28.25 $23.78 18.8%

24

9.a

Glossary

9.a

GLOSSARY

AVERAGE FARE PER BOARDING – This measure is calculated by dividing the total fare revenue (cash, passes, tokens, and Eco Pass) by total boarding riders. It measures the rider contribution towards the farebox recovery ratio. AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS – The average number of persons who board the transit system on a day that normal weekday revenue service is provided. BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR – This is a productivity measure comparing the number of boardings to the number of revenue hours operated. It measures service utilization per unit of service operated. The Revenue hours is the time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadheads. BRT (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) ROUTES – The BRT route is a multi-component transit improvement that includes preferential treatment at traffic signals to improve bus operating speed and on-time performance. It operates in mixed traffic and relies on priority for buses at traffic signals to provide much of its time advantage over conventional buses. COMMUNITY BUS ROUTES – Community Bus service is characterized by weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more in both the peak and midday periods. Service span is 14 hours or less, usually 12 hours for weekdays. Community Bus services operate seven days per week or less. These routes are defined as neighborhood-based circulator and feeder routes that travel within a limited area .They may be distinguished from Core and Local service by a unique and smaller vehicle. CORE ROUTES – Core network routes are defined as bus routes or shared corridors that feature weekday frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans of 18 hours or more. Core routes operate seven days per week. They typically travel on long distance corridors, which connect major trip generators such as universities, regional shopping malls and high-density housing and employment sites. Multiple core routes will sometimes operate on the same corridor where demand warrants, providing additional service frequency and transfer opportunities. Core network corridors are typically large arterial streets and intersect with freeways and expressways. DEADHEAD: Time during movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from the operating division to the start of the route. EXPRESS & LIMITED SERVICE ROUTES – Express routes generally operate during peak periods and are primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on regional express lines. Express routes emphasize direct service, use freeways and expressways to reduce travel time, and make few stops. Limited Service routes are characterized by limited stops. FEEDER ROUTES – Feeder routes are short-length lines, usually less than 10 miles in length, that provide feeder or distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers or rail stations. This classification of service includes neighborhood lines, which link residential areas to rail stations, activity centers, and/or transit centers; and shuttle lines, which serve industrial areas from nearby rail stations or transit centers.

9.a

LAYOVER: Break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its reverse route, or if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip LIMITED STOP ROUTES – Limited-stop service generally operates during peak periods and is primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on limited-stop lines. Limited-stop routes use major arterials, freeways, and/or expressways; and make fewer stops than grid routes, but more stops than express routes. LOCAL ROUTES – Local network routes are defined as bus routes or corridors that feature weekday frequencies of thirty minutes or more during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans less than 18 hours. Local Network routes operate seven days per week or less. They typically travel on medium distance corridors, serving minor trip generators such as schools, hospitals and medium-density housing and employment. They also provide feeder service to the core network or to rail stations and transit centers. MILES BETWEEN CHARGEABLE ACCIDENTS – Safety measure that captures the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each occurrence of a preventable accident. A preventable accident is defined as accidents in which the transit driver is normally deemed responsible or partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident. MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL SERVICE LOSS – Service quality measure capturing the number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of service to the public. SPECIAL SERVICE ROUTES – Special services routes only operate on certain days of the week or on a seasonal basis to address a specific service need. NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) – The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) primary national database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) grants are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Each year, NTD performance data are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service and safety data. The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the Secretary of Transportation to administer department programs. The data consist of selected financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The legislative requirement for the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). ON-TIME PERFORMANCE – A reliability measure capturing the percentage of transit vehicles departing or arriving at a location on time. On-time performance is measured only for specific locations called timepoints for which a schedule is published. A bus transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within three minutes before and five minutes after its published scheduled time. A light rail transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within one minute before and three minutes after its published scheduled time. At the last timepoint location of a trip, early arrival is considered on-time. PASSENGER CONCERNS PER 100,000 BOARDINGS – A customer service measure that captures the number of passenger complaints/concerns per 100,000 boardings. This measure reports the amount of customer complaints received on the service that is attributed to an operating division.

9.a

PEAK LOAD (Express) - The Express bus standard is 60 percent of the seated vehicle loading capacity. This singular standard is needed due to the special characteristics of Express Bus lines where seat turnover is low. PERCENT SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATED – This service reliability measure indicates the percent of service hours completed based on published schedule. A service is considered not completed when scheduled service hours are lost due to equipment failure, missed or late pull-outs caused by operator absenteeism, pullouts, accidents/incidents, or natural causes. PERSONAL TIME OFF (PTO) – This is defined as time off for non-scheduled absences such as: sick, industrial injury, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act.), excused/unexcused leave, union business, and suspensions. REVENUE HOURS: Time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadhead. STANDARD (Boardings per revenue Hour): This is the average boardings per Revenue Hour and applies to Community Bus, Local, BRT, and Light Rail. The minimum standard is 15 boardings per revenue hour. TOTAL BOARDINGS – The total number of boarding riders using VTA directly operated bus service and light rail service. Riders are counted each time they board a bus or light rail vehicle.

9.a

Date: March 21, 2016


Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Transit Service Changes - April 11, 2016



BACKGROUND:

VTA implements transit service changes on a quarterly basis in January, April, July and October. Major changes are typically planned for January and July, while minor changes are implemented in April and October. Proposed “major” service changes must be submitted to the VTA Board of Directors for review and approval. For Title VI compliance purposes, all “major” service changes also require that VTA staff perform a Service Equity Analysis.

The following modifications are considered “major” service changes as adopted by the VTA Board of Directors.

• Establishment of a new transit line or service.• Elimination of a transit line or service.• Route change that impacts 25 percent or more of a line’s route miles.• Span of service or frequency changes affecting 25 percent or more of a line’s revenue

vehicle hours.• Series of changes on a single route which are included in the two-year Transit Service

Plan and cumulatively meet any of the above criteria. • Proposed changes that are anticipated to be controversial with a particular community

or interested parties based on public feedback.• System-wide change concurrently affecting five percent or more of the total system

revenue hours.

Service change proposals that do not meet the criteria for ”major” service changes are handled at the staff level and are still subject to an appropriate level of public and community review and comment.

10

of 3

DISCUSSION:

The following transit service changes will take effect on Monday, April 11, 2016, and were approved by the VTA Board of Directors in May 2015 as part of the two year FY16-FY17 Transit Service Plan. The Transit Service Plan also included the required Title VI Service Equity Analysis.

MAJOR CHANGES

CALTRAIN- Major weekday schedule changes will be made to improve on-time performance (effective April 4). The following three routes are in part timed to meet Caltrain service and will undergo major schedule adjustments.

• Line 10 (Santa Clara Transit Center-Metro Airport LRT Station) • Line 89 (California Ave. Caltrain Station-Palo Alto Veteran's Hospital)• DASH - Line 201 (San Jose Diridon Station-San Jose State University)

Line 60 (Winchester Transit Center-Great America): Major weekday schedule changes will be made. An additional vehicle will be added on weekday mornings to improve layovers.

Lines 61 & 62 (Good Samaritan Hospital-Sierra & Piedmont): Major weekday schedule changes will be made to restore a true 15 minute frequency. Additional buses will be added to both Lines 61 and 62 all day on weekdays to improve overall layover time and restore frequency.

Rapid 522 (Eastridge-Palo Alto): Major weekday and Saturday schedule changes will be made. Two additional vehicles will be added on weekdays (one all day and one in the p.m. peak) and one on Saturdays to improve overall layover time. Minor Sunday schedule changes will also be made.

OTHER CHANGES

Minor weekday schedule changes will be made on the follow routes:

Line 25 (De Anza College-Alum Rock Transit Center): Weekend schedule changes also.Line 35 (Mountain View-Stanford Shopping Center)Line 40 (Foothill College-La Avenida & Shoreline)Community Bus Line 42 (Kaiser San Jose-Evergreen Valley College)Line 52 (Foothill College-Mountain View)Line 54 (De Anza College-Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin)Line 55 (De Anza College-Great America)Line 57 (West Valley College-Great America)Line 81 (Moffett/Ames-San Jose State University) Express Line 120 (Fremont BART-Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park-Shoreline)Express Line 168 (Gilroy-San Jose Diridon Station)

STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:

10

of 3

The Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) committee reviewed this item at its March 17, 2016 meeting. The Committee endorsed the item and recommended placing it on the Board of Directors’ Consent Agenda for April 7, 2016.

Prepared By: Jim UnitesMemo No. 5465

10



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Chief Operating Officer's Report



BACKGROUND:

The Chief Operating Officer provides the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) with an

update on items of relevance to the CTA at each monthly meeting. In keeping with Chairperson

Aaron Morrow’s request to have agenda items in writing and in the agenda packet, we will make

every effort possible to comply with his request. Since this report is timely and reflects up-to-the

minute information a written report for the agenda packet may not always be available.

DISCUSSION:

Events that have occurred since January 2016:

Super Bowl 50

Levi’s Stadium hosted Super Bowl 50 on Sunday, February 7, 2016. Over 71,000 fans from all over the country attended and VTA successfully carried over 9,700 passengers to and from the big game. VTA assigned over 200 Ambassadors throughout the county to help answer questions and give directions to those using our Bus and Light Rail Service to get them to the game on time. VTA used all 99 Light Rail Vehicles for passengers attending the Super Bowl, and deployed 172 extra buses for direct stadium service and to support two bus bridges that helped our regular passengers navigate around the stadium and get to their destinations. Overall, Super Bowl 50 was an overwhelmingly successful event for VTA!

11

of 3

Bus Roadeo

The Operations Division held its first Bus Roadeo, since 2008, on Saturday, March 5, 2016 at the Chaboya Bus Division. During the competition, Bus Operators showed off their skills by maneuvering 15-ton “broncs” through obstacle courses. The Maintenance teams displayed their skills in a forklift competition. Qualifying winners will be representing VTA at the 2016 APTA International Bus Roadeo May 13-17, 2016 in Charlotte, NC. The winners in each category are as follows:

Place Operators Maintenance

1 Harnam Sindhu Thomas Loproto

2 Jasbir Bains Jeff Poyer

3 N/A John Cavanaugh

11

of 3

Joint Workforce Investment

The Joint Workforce Investment (JWI), established in 2006, is a partnership between the VTA and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 265 (ATU) that is dedicated to creating a work environment that supports the long term professional development and the health and wellness of employees.

JWI is a unique and innovative program that has achieved a wide level of recognition in the community and within the transit industry. Key community organizations, including but not limited to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Regional Occupational Program, and Santa Clara County Work2Future, have supported JWI through a variety of collaborative efforts. The JWI program was recently included in a Transit Cooperative Research Program (TRIP) study entitled, “Labor-Management Partnerships (LMP) for Public Transportation. One of the findings in the study included the following: “VTA has the most advanced and functional LMP of all the transit properties we studied and, perhaps, throughout the entire public transportation industry.”

JWI has received a number of awards and grants, currently in excess of $1.5 million since 2007. And, just recently, JWI was awarded a new $1,000,000 grant through the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office at Mission College to support existing training programs as well as two new apprenticeship opportunities for skilled positions in light rail system maintenance.

Prepared By: Steve JohnstoneMemo No. 5518

11



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Rebranding Paratransit Services



BACKGROUND:

In accordance with federal regulations, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit services to persons who are unable to independently ride or travel to or from VTA’s bus or light rail system due to a disability. VTA’s responsibility to provide ADA paratransit service is administered under contract by Outreach & Escort, Inc. (OUTREACH). The contractual relationship between VTA and OUTREACH for ADA paratransit service has been in existence since 1993.

The service is widely known throughout the community as OUTREACH paratransit. It has been a very effective and strongly supported service. VTA and OUTREACH have worked cooperatively over the years to invest in the service to make it one of the leading paratransit programs in the nation. During times of economic challenges, OUTREACH worked with VTA to ensure that paratransit service quality would be maintained.

DISCUSSION:

The new name for the ADA paratransit service will be VTA Access Paratransit. The name of the service is being changed to emphasize VTA’s responsibility for this service. VTA Access Paratransit will continue to be administered by OUTREACH. The attached diagram shows how the new VTA Access Paratransit name will look on a Prius sedan. Of note is that the OUTREACH logo will remain as part of the rebranded name on vehicles.

VTA establishes and enforces the rules and procedures for paratransit service in Santa Clara County. The service is provided primarily on VTA owned vehicles, paratransit drivers work for companies that contract with OUTREACH. These drivers, as well as OUTREACH’s ADA paratransit employees follow and enforce these procedures and rules.

12

of 2

VTA is rebranding our ADA paratransit service in order to emphasize to the community that the service is VTA’s responsibility to persons with disabilities who are not able to use our fixed route system. VTA takes pride in the provision of all our transportation services. VTA Access Paratransit is one of many transportation options available to assist persons in Silicon Valley access services at venues throughout Santa Clara County.

During an extended transition period for the VTA Access Paratransit name, paratransit drivers will introduce themselves as being from OUTREACH/VTA Access Paratransit. Driver identification cards will still have the OUTREACH logo printed on them. OUTREACH paratransit employees will answer the telephone OUTREACH/VTA Access Paratransit staff. This is the first step in a series of efforts to rollout the new VTA Access Paratransit name.

VTA and staff will work with community agencies, workshops, medical and dialysis centers, and senior care/Alzheimer centers to advise them about the ADA paratransit service’s name change. VTA will issue a news release, post information on vta.org and utilize social media to inform the public and disabled community about the new name for this well-established service for persons with disabilities.

Prepared By: Aaron VogelMemo No. 5529

12



Board Meeting: May 5, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM



FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow

SUBJECT: Next Network: Light Rail Service Plan



BACKGROUND:

In 2017, the BART to Silicon Valley Phase I extension will be complete and VTA will adjust both Light Rail and Bus services to better serve the VTA-BART connections at the Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations. The VTA Light Rail to BART connection will be at the Montague Light Rail station, and VTA will modify the light rail service plan to better serve this connection as well as the ongoing needs of Santa Clara Valley residents and workers.

As part of the 2010 Light Rail Systems Analysis, a new service plan was recommended that had a number of changes including a new line of service from Mountain View to Alum Rock Light Rail Stations, turning a portion of trains around in downtown San Jose, and an expansion of the Commuter Express service on Highway 87.

VTA had received a lot of feedback concerning the original 2010 recommendation, and in early 2015 staff re-examined the service plan. The new analysis focused on serving expected future travel patterns and improving service for existing riders. Considering both the updated knowledge on the near term 2017 land use projections and community feedback, staff began to develop a new service plan.

DISCUSSION:

The Next Network: Light Rail Service Plan is being developed to best serve new light rail trips to and from the BART connection at the Montague Light Rail Station and improve existing light rail trips within Santa Clara County. Staff analyzed existing ridership patterns and utilized VTA’s travel demand model to estimate the strongest potential travel patterns using the light rail system. This data was used to develop a number of potential operating plans for the Next Network. These operating plans considered many different service changes including but not limited to:

13

of 5

• New Tasman Line from Mountain View to Alum Rock • A Tasman Express service between Mountain View and Santa Clara, different

combinations of stops (Middlefield, Lockheed Martin, and Fair Oaks) have been examined

• Expanding the existing Commuter Express service on Highway 87• An all-day Commuter Express service on Highway 87• Routing trains from Almaden up through Downtown San Jose• Turning back Winchester trains in Downtown San Jose• Turning back Winchester trains at Civic Center • Turning back Winchester trains at Baypointe

Scenario Descriptions

Each service change was then assessed based on ridership, operating cost, and operating feasibility. The highest performing service changes were then packaged into a final set of three Scenarios (Attachment A) which are being carried forward into a final analysis.

Various express services and frequency increases were evaluated as part of this process and three enhancements were considered to be both operationally feasible and improve ridership. Depending on available budget and service needs, each Scenario below can also include up to three of these service enhancements:

• Expansion of the Commuter Express on Highway 87 - This would change the existing service, which is currently three trips each peak period between Santa Teresa and Baypointe, to a shorter service which only travels between Santa Teresa and Downtown San Jose. Shortening this service would allow the frequency to be increased to six trips per peak period, for an operating cost similar to the existing express service. Analysis of the existing express service has found that approximately 75% ons and offs on the express service occur between the Santa Teresa and St. James stations.

• Tasman Express service - This would operate an express service from the Mountain View Light Rail Station to the Old Ironsides Light Rail Station, with three stops in between, Middlefield, Lockheed Martin, and Fair Oaks. These stations were chosen because they offered a high ridership potential with only a small impact to running times. This express service would only be operated during peak periods.

• 15 minute midday frequency on the Winchester Line - This would take the service originating from the Winchester Station, which is currently running at 30-minute frequency during midday, to 15-minute all day frequency. The Winchester line has shown strong midday ridership potential, and this increase in service could be implemented with a relatively low operating cost increase.

The three scenarios are described below in their base form, without any of the enhancements above. Which enhancements can be added to each scenario will also be noted.

Scenario 1 would maintain our existing service but would also add a new line from Mountain View to Old Ironsides. This would increase the service to the BART connection at the Montague

13

of 5

light rail and would allow for a direct trip between BART and Levis Stadium. Scenario 1 could include both the expansion of the Commuter Express, Tasman Express, and 15 minute off peak frequencies on the Winchester line. The Tasman Express would be added to the end of the new Alum Rock to Old Ironsides line. Scenario 1 is estimated to have a medium ridership increase and a medium estimated operating cost increase.

Scenario 2 is similar to Scenario 1 but with one major difference. Scenario 2 would feature a new line from Alum Rock to Mountain View, operating all day and making every stop. The Existing Winchester to Mountain View line would then be changed to a Winchester to Old Ironsides Line. There would be no changes to the existing Santa Teresa to Alum Rock service and the existing Almaden Service. Scenario 2 could include both the expansion of the Commuter Express, Tasman Express, and 15 minute off peak frequencies on the Winchester line. The Tasman Express service could be added to the Winchester to Old Ironsides line. Scenario 2 would have a higher estimated ridership increase than Scenario 1, but would have approximately the same operating cost.

Scenario 3 is similar to scenario 2. It includes a new line of service from Alum Rock to Mountain View, and it changes the existing Winchester to Mountain View line, but unlike scenario 2 which changes the terminus to Old Ironsides, the northern terminus of the Winchester line would now be Baypointe. There would be no changes to the existing Santa Teresa to Alum Rock service and the existing Almaden Service. Scenario 2 could include both the expansion of the Commuter Express and 15 minute off peak frequencies on the Winchester line, but could not include the Tasman Express because there is only one Line of service serving the light rail System between Mountain View and Old Ironsides. This scenario would also not have a direct connection between Downtown San Jose and Levi’s Stadium and would require passengers to transfer at Baypointe to make that trip. This service would have a lower estimated ridership than Scenario 2, but higher than Scenario 1, but would also have a low estimated operating cost.

Next Steps

Staff will carry all or some of the above three scenarios forward and in the spring and begin an extensive community outreach program as part of the Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP). Community input will be used to assess each scenario as well as determine which express and frequency options each should include. Staff will return to the Board and Committee later this year to report on this outreach effort and to decide on how to proceed. The goal is to have the Board adopt the Next Network in early 2017, with revenue service beginning with the opening of the BART to Silicon Valley Phase I extension.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION

The Citizens Advisory Committee received this information item at the February 10, 2016 meeting. Members of the Committee had the following questions and comments: 1) The original Plan showed one stop on the express service between Mountain View and Old Ironsides, the current Plan shows three stops 2) Some of the land uses near some of the stations on the Tasman West line are not really conducive to transit, has VTA considered Station closures? 3) The Stations along the Vasona line have healthier ridership than they realized, it may be beneficial to consider the light rail extension to Vasona 4) There are three extension items on Measure A (Vasona Extension, Eastridge Extension, and Airport Connector) and we have not started construction on any of them.

13

of 5

Staff responded with the following: 1) Staff had looked at the express service on Tasman and found that adding Fair Oaks and Middlefield would improve ridership without significantly adding additional running time to the service; 2) This specific effort focused on the near term service plan and Station Closures were not considered as part of this plan; and 3) This specific effort focused on the near term service plan and long term extensions were not considered as part of this plan.

The Technical Advisory Committee received this information item at the February 11, 2016 meeting. Members of the Committee had the following questions and comments: 1) The original Plan showed one stop on the express service between Mountain View and Old Ironsides, the current Plan shows three stops 2) When the Mountain View Double Track was constructed, VTA promised to do a traffic analysis if the number of trains crossing Central Expressway increases, will VTA conduct a traffic analysis?

Staff responded with the following: 1) Staff had looked at the express service on Tasman and found that adding Fair Oaks and Middlefield would improve ridership without significantly adding additional running time to the service 2) some scenarios do not include a second line along Tasman West, and if there is not a second line it would not increase the number of trains crossing Central Expressway.

The Policy Advisory Committee received this information item at the February 11, 2016 meeting. Members of the Committee had the following questions and comments: 1) how many of the new jobs in Sunnyvale do we expect to take Light Rail? 2) What is the high ridership occupancy of our system and what are our ridership goals? 3) What is the timeframe for these improvements? 4) PAC would like to have input on what the goals are for our system? 5) How is this service getting people from BART over to jobs more quickly, are there bus routes on Highway 237 and would it be faster to take a bus from BART rather than light rail? 6) How close are the Vasona line estimates to existing ridership, and what is the purpose of increasing the frequency and purpose of turning back trains around before Tasman? 7) How do people currently get to Light Rail 8) have we done any analysis on farebox recovery? 9) The no project number shows a lot of growth by doing nothing.

Staff responded with the following: 1) Staff does not have an estimate at this time, but the Lockheed Martin Light Rail Station is the closest station to the Moffett Park Area, and the Lockheed Martin station is estimated to have a large ridership increase. Staff confirmed that near-term developments were accounted for in the modeling analysis; 2) Our express trains aresome of the fullest trains on our system but we do not have any set goals for the ridership; 3) The new service plan will be implemented when the BART to Berryessa extension opens; 4) comment was noted; 5) The new line of service would be a direct connection from BART over to western job centers and staff believes taking Light Rail would still be faster; 6) Staff believes the future estimates are pretty close to existing ridership, the increase in frequency is to promote ridership on that line, and turning back trains in the Tasman vicinity would save on operating costs; and 7) People currently take all modes to get to light rail stations and all of our end of line stations have park and ride lots 8) Staff have not done any analysis on farebox recovery for these operating plans.

13

of 5

STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION

The Transit Planning and Operations Committee received this information item at the March 17, 2016 meeting. Members of the Committee had the following questions and comments: 1) What is the current time savings of the express service? 2) Which alternative is staff recommending? 3) Will there be any changes to service with the opening of the Warm Springs BART station?

Staff responded with the following: 1) On the Express it takes about 15 minutes to go from Ohlone/Chynoweth to Downtown San Jose, a savings of about 4 minutes; 2) Staff is recommending Scenario 2, and enhancements will be recommended pending operating cost considerations; and 3)There will be no changes to Light Rail service with the opening of the Warm Springs BART Station.

Prepared By: Jason KimMemo No. 5425

13

Scenario 1

Commuter Express OptionPeak Period Only

Tasman Express Option(Peak Period Only)

‐ New Tasman Line connecting Mountain View to Alum Rock ‐ 15 minute frequencies all day ‐ Express Service between

Mountain View and Old Ironsides in peak periods

‐ Turns back at Old Ironsides during off‐peak periods

‐ Commuter Express service change…‐ Loops around Downtown San

Jose and returns to Santa Teresa,

‐ Peak Period only, 30 minute frequencies

‐ No additional changes to Santa Teresa – Alum Rock, or Alamadenlines

1

13.a

Scenario 2

‐ New Tasman Line connecting Mountain View to Alum Rock ‐ 15 minute frequencies all day ‐ No Express service

‐ Winchester Mountain View line changes.. ‐ Express route in peak periods

between Mountain View and Old Ironsides

‐ Turns back at Old Ironsides in the off‐peak

‐ Commuter Express service change…‐ Loops around Downtown San

Jose and returns to Santa Teresa,


Tasman Express Option(Peak Period Only)

Commuter Express Option(Peak Period Only)

13.a

Scenario 3

‐ New Tasman Line connecting Mountain View to Alum Rock ‐ 15 minute frequencies all day ‐ No Express service

‐ Winchester Mountain View line changes.. ‐ Reroute Winchester trains to

Baypointe all day‐ Commuter Express service change…

‐ Loops around Downtown San Jose and returns to Santa Teresa,


13.a



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM



FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine Baltao

SUBJECT: 2016 CTA Leadership Election Process: Conduct Elections


Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct voting to determine the Committee's chairperson, first vice chairperson and second vice chairperson for 2016.

BACKGROUND:

The Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) bylaws require that the committee elect from its membership a chairperson, first vice chairperson and second vice chairperson annually to serve as the committee leadership for the upcoming calendar year. The bylaws also provide that these positions serve one-year terms and are eligible for election to multiple terms. Only voting, not ex-officio, members are eligible to serve in these positions. The elections for the CTA chairperson and vice chairperson positions are conducted during the committee’s first meeting of the calendar year (usually January), if practical.

The duties of the chairperson are to preside at all meetings of the committee and represent the committee before the Board of Directors. The duty of the first vice chairperson is to perform the duties of the chairperson when that individual is absent. The duty of the second vice chairperson is to perform the duties of the chairperson when neither the chairperson nor first vice chairperson is present. It is the responsibility of all advisory committee chairpersons and vice chairpersons to participate in periodic coordination meetings between themselves and the VTA Board chairperson. In addition, all committee leadership positions are normally requested to attend a brief training and orientation session on advisory committee meeting management prior to the commencement of their terms.

14

of 3

DISCUSSION:

The election process for chairperson and vice chairperson is comprised of three distinct steps. The first step is appointing the nomination subcommittee. The second is presentation of the nomination subcommittee’s report. The final step is conducting elections to select the chairperson and vice chairperson. Each of these components is conducted during the committee meeting.

Appointing the Nomination Subcommittee

The chairperson requests volunteers to serve on the nomination subcommittee, which is typically comprised of two or three members. If there are no volunteers or an insufficient number, it is the chairperson’s prerogative to appoint committee members to serve on it. It is required that the committee vote to approve the appointment of members to the nomination subcommittee. This step normally takes place two meetings prior to conducting the elections.

The nomination subcommittee identifies members interested in serving in the chairperson or vice chairperson positions. This is done by soliciting nominations from members, either for themselves or other members, and is done at a time other than during the committee meeting. Additionally, it is the nomination subcommittee’s responsibility to determine that members who have been nominated are willing to serve. The nomination subcommittee may also make a recommendation as to its recommended candidate for each position.

At its October 2015 meeting, the CTA approved the appointment of member Lupe Medrano and ex-officio member Katie Heatley to serve on the nomination subcommittee.

Report from the Nomination Subcommittee

At the meeting immediately preceding the elections, the nomination subcommittee provides a verbal report to the advisory committee identifying committee members who have confirmed their willingness to serve. This establishes the initial list of candidates for the elections to be held at the next meeting. The nomination subcommittee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the committee. No action is required of the committee other than to receive the report.

Due to the CTA’s next meeting not being until January 2015, the nomination subcommittee submitted its report in writing, which was emailed to CTA members on January 5, 2016 in order to provide the membership sufficient time to consider the candidates. This report indicated that the following individuals had been nominated and had confirmed their willingness to serve:

Chairperson: Aaron Morrow

First Vice Chairperson: Jeffrey Jokinen

Second Vice Chairperson: Christine Fitzgerald; Chaitanya Vaidya

The nomination subcommittee’s report and its recommendation for each position, if any, will be reiterated immediately prior to the elections being conducted.

14

of 3

Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson

These elections, which are held at the bylaw-specified meeting whenever possible, are conducted for the chairperson and vice chairperson positions individually and in sequence. Immediately preceding the vote, the nomination subcommittee’s report and recommendation for each position, if any, will be reiterated and the chair will verify that the named candidates still wish to be considered for the position. The chairperson will next ask whether there are any nominations from the floor, then close the nomination process to establish the final list of candidates for each position. For instances of multiple candidates for the same position, the order of voting for each candidate is alphabetically by last name.

The CTA requires the affirmative vote of nine members or a majority of the quorum present, whichever is greater, to elect each of the leadership positions. The term of office for the 2016 CTA committee leadership commences immediately following the completed vote for each specific office.

ALTERNATIVES:

There are no alternatives since the Committee’s bylaws specify the election process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

Prepared by: Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee CoordinatorMemo No. 5290

14

Date: April 7, 2016


Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

VTA Advisory Committees



SUBJECT: Envision Silicon Valley Update


Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Review progress and provide input on Envision Silicon Valley. Provide a recommendation to

the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors on a potential sales

tax ballot measure to support transportation.

BACKGROUND:

Over the last year and a half, VTA has been working with our advisory committees, stakeholder

groups, policy makers, and the public on Envision Silicon Valley - a dynamic visioning process

to discuss current and future transportation needs, identify solutions and craft funding priorities.

As part of this process, VTA is considering placing a transportation sales tax measure on the

November 2016 ballot to help fund our transportation priorities.

Through this robust process, we have identified overarching goals for the program and

evaluation criteria to help measure how well each transportation project meets the goals. Our

next steps include: a) identifying funding categories; b) determining funding amounts; and c)

detailing policies for the measure.

DISCUSSION:

At the April 2016 Committee meeting, staff will present and seek input on the following:

Categories and Funding Levels Recommended by VTA’s Stakeholder Group

VTA’s stakeholder group conducted a group exercise at their March meeting. Members gathered

Baltao_E

Text Box

Revised CTA Item #15 Revised CAC Item #15 Revised BPAC Item #9 Revised PAC Item #14 Revised TAC Item #14

of 3

into four groups and worked together to determine the categories and funding levels that they

recommend for the ballot measure. Once completed, each group presented their recommendation

to the larger group. Afterward each member voted for which recommendation they felt was best.

Each of the four recommendations, and the vote totals, are included in the presentation as

Attachment A. At the April Committee meeting, staff will be seeking the committee’s input on

the four recommendations and any direction they may have for VTA staff.

Potential Policies

With a decision by the VTA Board of Directors to move forward with a sales tax measure, the

ordinance should include policies regarding how the funds generated will be allocated. Below is

a summary of staff’s initial recommendations for how potential categories would be organized

and administered.

1. BART - The revenue generated by the tax will be used as the local match for the funding

structure of BART Phase II. This should be provided with a level of certainty as it will

provide the critical local match for state and federal funding.

2. Bicycle/Pedestrian Program - Staff is recommending a competitive grant program to fund

capital projects and programs. Staff is also recommending requiring a 20% local match to

maximize the measure’s funding potential and assure local commitment. Bicycle and

pedestrian educational program would be eligible for funding.

3. Caltrain - This program would fund capacity improvements in Santa Clara County.

4. Caltrain Grade Separations - This program would fund grade separations along the

Caltrain corridor. Caltrain would lead each project with a city or county sponsor. Similar

to the Bike/Pedestrian Program, staff is recommending a 20% match to maximize the

measure’s funding potential and assure local commitment.

5. County Expressways - This program would fund the Tier 1 improvement projects

contained in the County’s Expressway Plan. The program would be administered by the

County of Santa Clara. Similar to the other grant programs, a 20% match would be

required to maximize the measure’s funding and a complete streets requirement would be

included to maximize opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access.

6. Highway Interchanges - This program would fund candidate highway projects through a

competitive grant program. Similar to the other programs, staff is recommending a 20%

match to maximize the measure’s funding potential and assure local commitment. It

would also have a complete streets requirement to maximize opportunities for bicycle and

pedestrian access.

7. Local Streets and Roads - These funds would go to the cities and county on a formula

basis. The recommended formula mirrors the existing formula VTA uses for the Vehicle

Registration Fee. These funds would be used to repair streets and would include a

complete streets requirement to maximize bicycle and pedestrian access. Cities and the

county must demonstrate that these funds would be used to enhance their current

activities for road repair. Should a city or the county have a Pavement Condition Index

of 3

score of over 70 (i.e., good condition), they could use the funds for other congestion

relief projects and programs.

8. SR 85 - This category would fund a project or projects in the Highway 85 corridor.

Currently the Highway 85 Policy Advisory Board is studying this corridor and working

to identify the most effective and efficient transportation projects for this corridor.

9. Transit Operations - This category would provide additional funding for bus operations.

Currently, VTA is conducting a major study of its bus operations and routes. These funds

would help fund recommendations that result from the study. Regional bus services

would also be eligible for this funding.

ALTERNATIVES:

The committees may choose to support a different set of priorities for Envision Silicon Valley.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to requested action. The implementation of these recommendations

will result in fiscal impacts that will be studied at that time.

Prepared by: John Sighamony

Memo No. 5547

ATTACHMENTS:

Advisory Committees for April 2016 (PDF)

VTA Advisory Committees April 2016

2

Presentation

• Stakeholder Group Proposals

• Review Potential Policies

• Receive Committee’s Input

3

Stakeholders

• Meeting Since Fall 2014

• Provided Key Input on

• Goals

• Criteria

4

Stakeholders

• Meeting Since Fall 2014

• Provided Key Input on

• Goals

• Criteria

5

Stakeholder Groups

6

March Meeting

• Group Exercise• Potential Sales Tax Measure

• Vote for Favorite

7

Group #1

8

Group #1 Summary

Category Percentage

BART Phase II 25%

Local Streets and Roads 25%

Highways/Interchanges 12.5%

Bikes/Pedestrians 12.5%

Caltrain 10%

Expressways 10%

Local Transit 5%

• Local Streets and Roads should require a

Complete Streets element.

• Local Transit can include improved transit

access and connections.

9

Group #1 Notes

• Geographical equity should be considered.

• Received 5 of 18 votes.

10

Group #1 Notes

11

Group #2

12

Group #2 Summary

Category Percentage

Transit 43%

Auto 20%

Bike/Ped 8%

Unresolved 29%

• Could not reach consensus on unresolved

section.

• Majority should go to transit, such as improved

light rail service, frequent bus service, and

general transit enhancements. BART and

Caltrain should also be considered.

13

Group #2 Notes

• Auto category would go to local jurisdictions

for city infrastructure and expressways.

• Bike/Pedestrian category would go towards

gap closures and innovative projects.


14

Group #2 Notes

15

Group #3

16

Group #3 Summary

Category Percentage

Transit 30%


Bus Transit 17%

Highways/Expwys 10%

Affordable Housing 10%

Bikes 8%

Grade Separations 5%

• Transit category should be for regional transit

such as BART and Caltrain.

• Affordable housing is to be located close to

transit.

• Grade separations should be for Caltrain and

other transit.

17

Group #3 Notes

• Bike/Pedestrian improvements should be for

gap closures and enhancing existing bikeways.


18

Group #3 Notes

19

Group #4

20

Group #4 Summary

Category Percentage


Highways 23%

Expressways 19%

BART 5%

Buses 4%

Caltrain 4%

LRT & Road Grade Sep 4%

Light Rail Enhancements 3%

Transit Mode Shift 3%

Bikes 2%

Pedestrian 2%

Caltrain Grade Sep 1%

• Local streets and roads would be determined

by individual city. Specifically for pavement

management and widening.

• The highways category would go towards

interchanges and operational projects.

21

Group #4 Notes

• Expressway program would be set aside for

maintenance, grade separations, widening and

interchanges.

• Focus on roadway infrastructure.


22

Group #4 Notes

23

Potential Category Policies

• BART

• Local Match for State and Federal Funding

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Program

• Competitive grant program

• 20% Local Match

• Education Programs Eligible

24


• Caltrain

• Capacity Improvements in Santa Clara County

• Caltrain Grade Separations

• Caltrain Project with a Local Sponsor

• 20% Local Match

25


• County Expressways

• Tier 1 Projects

• 20% Local Match Requirement

• Complete Streets Requirement

26


• Highways

• Competitive Grant Program

• 20% Local Match Requirement

• Complete Streets Requirement

• List of Candidate Projects

27


• Local Streets and Roads

• Returned to cities on formula basis

• Enhancement of Current Activities

• Complete Streets requirement

• Funds may be used for other transportation purposes

per PCI score

28


• SR 85

• Policy Advisory Board is Working to Identify a Project

for Consideration

29


• Transit Operations

• Serve all – including seniors, low-income and disabled

• Coordinate with system redesign (TRIP)

• Regional Bus Service Eligible

30

Next Steps

• Continue to take input from public.

• Present staff recommendation at April 22 Board

Workshop.

• Public meetings in May.

• Board adoption in either June or August.

Date: April 12, 2016


Board Meeting: August 4, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Committee for Transit Accessibility


FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine Baltao

SUBJECT: Amend the Bylaws for the Committee for Transit Accessibility


Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and recommend that the Board of Directors amend the bylaws for the Committee for

Transit Accessibility.

BACKGROUND:

The Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) is a 23-member committee comprised of 21

voting members and two ex officio, non-voting members. The voting membership consists of 12

persons with disabilities and nine representatives of human service agencies within the county.

One ex-officio member each represents the VTA Board of Directors (Board) and VTA’s

paratransit broker. The committee advises the Board on bus and rail accessibility issues,

paratransit service, public facilities and programs, and VTA’s efforts to fully comply with the

federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The VTA Administrative Code (“Admin Code”) prescribes the governance, administrative and

financial provisions of VTA. This includes establishing the membership of its advisory

committees, including the CTA.

Advisory committee bylaws govern the proceedings of the committee and its meetings and must

be consistent with the Admin Code. All amendments to advisory committee bylaws require

Board approval.

16

of 5

The CTA’s total membership of 23 (21 voting and two (2) non-voting members) is significantly

larger than VTA’s other four advisory committees. The total membership of the other advisory

committees ranges between 16 and 19 total members, generally with 16 voting positions.

The quorum requirement, which is the number of voting members required to be present at the

meeting in order for the committee to conduct business, is normally over half of the defined

voting membership (for example, the quorum for a 16 member committee is normally nine).

However, there have been instances where the Board has approved adjustment of the quorum

requirement to below half in response to specific conditions or priorities.

DISCUSSION:

The CTA has had challenges consistently achieving a quorum for the last three to four years. It is

due to multiple factors including inconsistent member attendance, difficulty filling vacant

positions, and a steep quorum requirement that may not reflect the specific conditions of the

committee and the challenges of its membership.

In addition, several existing universal provisions of the CTA bylaws are out-of-date and do not

correspond to those of VTA’s other four advisory committees.

To address these issues, submitted for Committee consideration are recommended modifications

to the CTA bylaws to address the aforementioned issues (Attachment A shows the specific

proposed modifications using insert/overstrike while Attachment B is a clean version). The most

significant modifications are:

1. Revising the Committee’s Name to “Committee for Transportation Mobility &

Accessibility.” [§1-1, §1.2 and §2.1, starting on Page 1]

This change would accurately reflect the Committee’s scope and mission that is broader

than just transit accessibility and that includes all forms of mobility for transportation for

seniors and the disabled community.

2. Minor Revisions to the Membership Structure [§3-1 and §3.1.1, starting on Page 2]

This change would provide alternates members for most positions, slightly reduce the

overall number of voting members, and make the appointment process more simplified and

efficient.

A) To help make meetings more efficient and productive, it is recommended that the

overall size of the committee be slightly reduced from 23 to 19 total members,

consisting of 17 voting members and two ex-officio, non-voting positions.

Specifically, the number of membership seats in the Individuals with Disabilities

category would be reduced from 12 to eight (8), all of which have been vacant during

the last few years. The nine seats in the Agencies/Businesses (Human Service

Organizations) category would remain unchanged.

of 5

Individuals

with

Disabilities

Human

Service

Organizations

Total

Voting

Ex

Officio

Total

Membership

Current 12 9 21 2 23

Proposed 8 9 17 2 19

Difference (4) -- (4) -- (4)

This change would bring the size of the Committee into alignment with VTA’s four

other advisory committees, which range in size between 16 and 19 members, which

has proven historically to be at the far upper limit for meeting manageability and

efficiency. It will also allow for more efficient meetings and enhanced opportunity for

member input and bilateral communication without diminishing the voice or

effectiveness of the Committee.

B) Adding alternate members for the nine (9) positions in the Human Services category

would help provide for consistent representation for voting positions at all meetings.

This change would allow for another staff member or designated representative to

attend the meeting, provide input, gather information and communicate any concerns of

their organization, should the primary member be unable to attend.

C) Adding two (2) floating alternate positions to the Individuals with Disabilities category

would also help provide for consistent representation of voting positions at all

meetings. Each floating alternate would serve in place of any vacant position or absent

member in the Individuals with Disabilities category, but may only vote in place of one

position. As opposed to most alternate member positions, these are expected to

regularly attend all Committee meetings, sit at the meeting table and participate in the

discussion. However, they may only vote when representing a vacant position or

absent member.

D) To simplify and expedite the review process for candidates in the Individuals with

Disabilities category, applications would be reviewed and evaluated by a panel

comprised of: (1) Committee Chairperson; (2) Committee Staff Liaison; and (3)

Advisory Committee Coordinator. This panel would then make a recommendation to

the Board of Directors on candidates that, in its collective estimation, would best serve

the Committee.

E) No longer specifically listing the Human Service Organizations in the CTA bylaws

would eliminate the need and associated administrative burden of amending them

whenever one of these organizations is added or removed from the CTA membership.

However, Board approval is still required for any organization being added to the CTA

membership structure.

3. Extending the membership term for voting positions from two (2) years to four (4).

[§3-2, Page 5]

This change would provide for more stable membership, increase consistency, and reduce

the administrative burden required for processing requests for Board ratification of

appointments (this change would make it every other year instead of every year).

of 5

4. Increasing Scheduled Regular Meeting from Four to Six Annually [§5-1, Page 8]

Modifying the meeting schedule to six meetings per year (every other month) would allow

items to receive Committee input in a more timely fashion. It would also help reduce the

overall size of each meeting agenda and the corresponding meeting length since the items

could be spread over two more meetings. It should be noted that the need to conduct the

July meeting will be made annually by the Committee Chairperson and Committee Staff

Liaison after reviewing the Committee work plan to determine if the quantity, importance

and urgency of items scheduled warrants gathering Committee members.

5. Reducing the Quorum and Affirmative Vote Requirement from 11 to Eight (8)

[§5-4, Page 8]

This change will allow the Committee to conduct business with less voting members

present and also forward a recommendation to the Board with the affirmative vote of

slightly less than half of the Committee’s total authorized voting membership (proposed to

be 17). This action, which somewhat negates the effect of vacant positions, will allow the

Committee to conduct business and also send a collective recommendation to the Board

with close to, but not over half, of the authorized voting membership.

6. Revised Allowable Absence Provision/Addition of Temporary Attendance Waiver

[§5-6, Page 9]

This change will adjust the number of allowable absences. Members will be allowed three

(3) absences in any 12-month period (50% of regular meetings).

In addition, a temporary waiver of the attendance provision would be added to provide

members, under certain instances such as serious medical condition, maternity, or urgent

family care, and subject to certain requirements, to miss more than the allowed number of

meetings. This provision is based on one contained in the Citizens Advisory Committee

bylaws for several years and that has proven effective in retaining committed, reliable

members that encountered an temporary attendance issue.

7. Matters Not Listed on Agenda Requiring Committee Action; Agenda Format

[§5.7 and §6.1, Pages 9 and 11, respectively]

These sections have been modified to conform to the same provisions in the bylaws for the

four other advisory committees.

If approved by the Committee, these changes would be forward to the Governance & Audit

Committee and the Board of Directors at their May and June meetings, respectively, for required

Board approval. If approved by the Board, the changes would take effect immediately.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Committee could recommend that the Board reject or modify any of the recommended

modifications.

of 5

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with this modification.

Prepared by: Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator

Memo No. 5523

ATTACHMENTS:

A--CTA_Bylaws_Proposed_Mods-Spring2016 (PDF)

B--CTA_Bylaws_Proposed_Mods-Spring2016_CLEAN (PDF)

BYLAWS FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION

MOBILITY & ACCESSIBILITY

Article I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1.1 Purpose

These Bylaws govern the proceedings of the Committee for Transit Transportation

Mobility & Accessibility (CTMA), an advisory committee established by the Board of Directors

of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

§1.2 Construction of Bylaws

Unless the provisions or the context of these Bylaws otherwise require, the general

provisions, rules of construction and definitions set forth in Chapter 1 of the Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority Administrative Code shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. As

used in these Bylaws, “Committee” means the Committee for Transportation Mobility & Transit

Accessibility. These Bylaws shall govern the Committee’s proceedings to the extent they are not

inconsistent with the VTA Administrative Code or law.

§1.3 Definitions

a. As used in these Bylaws, “secretary” means the secretary of the

Committee.

b. As used in these Bylaws, “chairperson” means the chairperson of the

Committee.

bc. As used in these Bylaws, “first vice chairperson” means the first vice chairperson

of the Committee.

d. c. As used in these Bylaws, “secretary” means the secretary of the

Committee. As used in these Bylaws, “second vice chairperson” means the second vice

chairperson of the Committee.

Article II

DUTIES AND AUTHORITY

§2.1 Mission and Duties

The CTMA is an advisory committee to the Board of Directors. The mission and duties

of the Committee shall be:

mccarter_m

Typewritten Text

16.A.

of 16

MISSION:

The CTMA provides guidance and perspective to the Board of Directors on VTA transit

and transportation accessibility matters to help ensure complete access to all users in

Santa Clara County, doing so by facilitating dialogue with, representing and advocating

the needs of the disabled and senior communities.

DUTIES:

It shall be the duty of the Committee to perform the functions of a paratransit

coordinating council and to advise the Board of Directors, the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (with Board concurrence), and staff on all matters pertaining

to paratransit services in Santa Clara County. The Committee shall also advise the Board

of Directors and staff onconcerning mobility matters, accessibility of all VTA transit

services, vehicles, equipment, facilities, programs, as well as other matters including

service and program policies pertaining to accessibility for senior citizens and persons

with disabilities, and compliance of such elements with the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) and other laws which pertain to access to VTA services and programs.within

VTA’s purview for persons with disabilities. The Committee shall perform such

additional duties as may be assigned by the Board of Directors.

§2.2 Limitations on Authority

The Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors. It shall have no

independent duties and no authority to take actions that bind VTA or the Board of Directors. No

expenditures or requisitions for services and supplies shall be made by the Committee and no

individual member thereof shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel or other expenses except

as authorized by the Board of Directors.

Article III

MEMBERSHIP

§3.1 Membership

The Committee shall be composed of 2117 voting members with 11 alternates and two

ex-officio, non-voting members. VTA employees are not eligible for membership. Membership

shall consist of the following appointed by the Board of Directors as follows:

a.

a. Persons with Disabilities: [12Eight (8) voting Mmembers with two (2) alternates]

Applications and/or - Each member of the Board of Directors shall nominate one

individual. Nominees shall be appointed to the Committee by an affirmative vote of the

Board of Directors. These nnominations for these voting positions are taken from the

community at-large. Nominees should be representative of various kinds of disabilities as

much as possible and should be familiar with both fixed route public transit services, and

of 16

paratransit services, and transportation and mobility issues in general. The nNominees

should be balanced as much as possible between persons who are users of fixed route

services and users of paratransit services as much as possible.

Candidates for vacant positions will be evaluated by a panel comprised of: (1)

Committee Chairperson; (2) Committee Staff Liaison; and (3) Advisory Committee

Coordinator. Candidates will be evaluated based on factors including, but not limited to:

qualifications; knowledge and/or experience using local both fixed route public transit

services and/or and paratransit services; familiarity with transportation and mobility

issues, especially in Santa Clara County; civic/community service; perceived ability to

work constructively and productively in a committee setting; and disabilities not currently

represented on the Committee. The evaluation process may include an interview of the

candidate. Members in this category shall be residents of Santa Clara County throughout

their terms of membership. The panel will then recommend to the Board of Directors the

candidate(s) that, in its estimation, would best serve the Committee.

Alternate members in this category may serve in place of any vacant Persons with

Disabilities position or for a representative from that category not present at the meeting,

but may only vote in place of one (1) position per meeting. Alternate members in this

category shall regularly attend Committee meetings and shall sit at the meeting table, but

may only vote when representing a vacant position or absent member.

Members in this category shall be residents of Santa Clara County during their

term of membership. All nominations in this category require approval by the Board of

Directors.

b. If a member of the Board of Directors fails to nominate a person with a disability as

provided in this section, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors may nominate any

qualified applicant to fill the position.

c.

b. Agencies and/or Businesses: [Nine (9) voting mMembers with alternates])

– The Chairperson of the Board of Directors shall nominate agencies and

businesses from a list of applicants. Nominees shall be appointed to the Committee by an

affirmative vote of the Board of Directors. Nine (9) agencies and/or businesses serving

seniors and/or persons with disabilities shall serve as voting memberson the Committee.

Each organization and shall each designate one individual each to serve as the

representative and alternate. These individuals, preferably employees, should an

employee who is kbe knowledgeable about and/or haves job duties related to Committee

duties or transportation or mobility matters pertaining to persons with disabilities or

of 16

seniors. Each organizationagency or business may change its designated representatives

no more than one time during each calendar year.

To be eligible, the agency or business shall serve seniors or persons with

disabilities, or both, or make accommodations specific to the access needs of seniors and

persons with disabilities, and demonstrate an interest in public transit. In addition,

preference shall be given to agencies and businesses which:

1. Serve the majority of the county area or provide services county-wide, or

represent specific regional areas.

2. Represent persons not represented by other appointees.

Appointment of a human services agency or business to the Committee membership

structure requires approval by the Board of Directors. The designation by each human

services agency or business of its representative and alternate to the Committee does not

require Board of Director approval. Representatives appointed to the Committee by

human services agency or business must live and/or work in Santa Clara County during

their term of membership.

The nine (9) Agency and/or Business membership seats are:

Silicon Valley Independent Living Center

Vista Center for the Blind & Visually Impaired

Hope Services

Barbara Lee Senior Center

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

[TBD]

If a Committee member from this category is absent from all or a portion of a

meeting, the alternate shall be seated in that Committee member’s seat and vote in the

place of the absent member. An alternate shall be counted as part of the Committee

quorum only when seated in the place of an absent member. When not serving in place

of the absent member, the alternate is a member of the public and accordingly shall sit

with the audience and follow the procedures for the public to address the Committee, as

provided under Sections 5.8 and 6.2.

§3.1.1 Membership (Ex-Officio)

The Committee shall also include two (2) ex-officio (non-voting) members as follows:

Paratransit Broker: One (1) Ex-Officio Member

of 16

VTA’s contract paratransit broker shall designate one ex-officio, non-voting member. If the

member is unable to attend a Committee meeting, the member shall designate a substitute to

attend the meeting. Designation of the Paratransit Broker’s representative does not require

approval by the Board of Directors.

of 16

VTA Board of Directors: One (1) Ex-Officio Member

The Chairperson of the Board of Directors or his/her designee shall designate one member of

the VTA Board of Directors to serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member.

§3.2 Members’ Terms

The term of membership of each Committee member shall be fourtwo years, commencing

on January 1, in accordance with the adopted schedule for staggered terms adopted by the

committee. Members may be re-appointed for successive terms.

§3.3 Vacancies

Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the body which made the

original appointment.Chairperson of the Board of Directors from nominations made by him or

her or by the Board Member who nominated the original appointee or that Board Member’s

successor, as the case may be.

However, if a membership position designated for persons with disabilities becomes

vacant and remains vacant for three consecutive months, the Chairperson of the Board of

Directors may appoint any qualified applicant to fill the position for the remainder of the

unexpired term.

of 16

§3.4 Representative to Citizens Advisory Committee

The Committee shall also appoint one individual from its membership to serve as a

voting member on VTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), to provide the connection for

communication and collaboration between the two committees. Appointment of this position is

subject to the following provisions:

a. The representative must be a voting CTA member and must be in good standing.

Alternate members are not eligible to serve in this position.

b. The representative must meet all established CAC membership requirements

during their term on the CAC.

c. The term of appointment shall be two four years, commencing on January 1 of

even-numbered years. The CAC representative may be reappointed for successive

terms.

d. The representative shall serve on the CAC until resignation from the position or

the CTA, or removal by the Committee or the Board.

e. Appointment by the Committee requires approval by a majority of the

membership as provided under Section 5.4.

f. Appointment requires Board of Directors ratification.

g. Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the Committee

following the established appointment process and meeting all established criteria

for this positional.

of 16

Article IV

OFFICERS

§4.1 Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons

The Committee shall elect from its membership a chairperson, a first vice chairperson and

a second vice chairperson at its last meeting of the calendar year, to serve for one-year terms

beginning with the first meeting of each calendar year. The chairperson shall preside at all

meetings of the Committee and represent the Committee before the Board of Directors. The first

vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson is absent. The

second vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson and

first vice chairperson are absent. In the event of a vacancy in the chairperson’s position, the first

vice chairperson shall succeed as chairperson for the balance of the chairperson’s term, the

second vice chair shall succeed to the first vice chair and the Committee shall elect a successor to

fill the vacancy in the second vice chairperson’s position as provided below. In the event of a

vacancy in the first vice chairperson’s position, the second vice chair shall succeed to the first

vice chair, and the Committee shall elect a successor from its membership to fill the second vice

chairperson’s position for the remainder of the second vice chairperson’s term. In the event of a

vacancy in the second vice chairperson’s position, the Committee shall elect a successor from its

membership to fill the second vice chairperson’s position for the remainder of the second vice

chairperson’s term.

The Committee shall appoint a nominationg subcommittee to nominate identify members

interested in serving as Committee members for in the positions of chairperson, first vice

chairperson and second vice chairperson positions. Members willing to serve in these positions

may submit their names to the nominationg subcommittee for nomination. Members may also

submit names of other members for nomination. The nominationg subcommittee shall verify that

members whose names have been submitted are willing serve in those positions. The

nominationg subcommittee shall submit to the Committee the names of those members whom

have expressed their willingness to serve. The nominationg subcommittee may also it has

nominated and its recommendeds for electi candidateson. Notwithstanding these procedures, any

member may nominate a member from the floor.

§4.2 Secretary

The Secretary of the Board of Directors shall furnish clerical services to prepare and

distribute the Committee’s agendas, notices, minutes, correspondence and other documents and

shall assign an employee to attend each meeting of the Committee to serve in the capacity as the

Committee’s secretary. The secretary shall maintain a record of all proceedings of the

Committee as required by law and shall perform other duties as provided in these Bylaws.

of 16

Article V

MEETINGS

§5.1 Regular Meetings

Six (6) regular meeting of the Committee will scheduled each year. Regular meetings of

the Committee shall be held on the second Wednesday of each month commencing at 1:00 p.m.

The Committee shall meet at least once every three months, unless the Committee’s activities are

suspended.

Regular meetings shall generally be held every other month (January, March, May, July,

September and November) on the Wednesday following the first Thursday of that month

commencing at 1:00 p.m. Meetings shall be held at the Transportation AuthorityVTA

Administrative Offices, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California. Whenever a regular

meeting falls on a holiday observed by VTA, the meeting shall be held on another day or

canceled at the direction of the Committee. A rescheduled regular meeting shall be designated a

regular meeting

Prior to the July meeting each year, the Committee Chairperson, in consultation with the

Committee Staff Liaison, shall review the Committee’s work plan to determine if the quantity,

importance and urgency of items scheduled for that meeting warrants gathering Committee

members to conduct the meeting.

§5.2 Special Meetings

A special meeting may be called by the Committee Cchairperson with the approval of the

General Manager. The meeting shall be called and noticed as provided in Section 5.3 below.

(For a general description of the noticing procedures, see the Rules of Procedure of the Board of

Directors.)

§5.3 Calling and Noticing of Meetings

All meetings shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with the applicable

provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government

Code). The General Manager and General Counsel shall be given notice of all meetings. The

Committee shall meet at least once every three months, unless the Committee’s activities are

suspended.

§5.4 Quorum; Vote; Committee of the Whole

The presence of eight (8)11 members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of

business. All official acts of the Committee shall require the affirmative vote of eight (8) 9

members. or a majority of the members present whichever is greater. At any regularly called

meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, the members present may constitute themselves

a “committee of the whole” for the purpose of discussing matters on the agenda of interest to the

of 16

committee members present. The committee of the whole shall automatically cease to exist if a

quorum is present at the meeting.

of 16

§5.5 Thirty Minute Rule

If a quorum has not been established within thirty minutes of the noticed starting time for

the meeting, the secretary and clerical support staff shall be excused from further attendance at

the meeting.

§5.6 Absences

A member is allowed to be absent from three regular Committee meetings in any twelve-

month period. The position shall automatically be vacated upon a fourth absence unless a waiver

is granted by the Committee Chairperson. If a member is absent from six Committee meetings in

any twelve-month period, the position shall automatically be vacated and a successor shall be

appointed to fill the remainder of that member’s term. Absences in any twelve-month period

shall apply to all voting members and to alternate members from the Persons with Disabilities

category.

A member may request a temporary waiver of the absence limitation for significant

reasons such as maternity, serious medical condition, or urgent family care. A written request

must be sent to the VTA Board Secretary prior to the fourth absence and indicate the reason for

the requested waiver and the expected duration of absence.

The Chairperson shall, in consultation with the Committee Staff Liaison, grant or deny the

request. The Chairperson may grant a waiver for a maximum of four (4) additional, but not

necessarily consecutive, regular meetings. No member shall be granted more than one absence

waiver in a 36-month period.

The decision to grant or deny the request shall be announced at the next scheduled Committee

meeting. The requestor or any member of the Committee may appeal the Chairperson’s decision

to the Committee. If appealed, the decision shall be made by Committee vote at the next

scheduled meeting. This vote shall be governed by the provisions of §5.4.

§5.7 Matters Not Listed On the Agenda Requiring Committee Action

Except as provided belowin the following, a matter requiring Committee action shall be

listed on the posted agenda before the Committee may act upon it. The Committee may take

action on items not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the following conditions:

a. Upon a determination by an affirmative vote of the Committee that an emergency

exists, as defined in Section 54956.5 of the Government Code.

b. Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the Committee, or if less than two-

thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, there is a need to

take immediate action and the need to take action came to the attention of VTA subsequent to the

agenda being posted.

of 16

c. The item was properly posted for a prior meeting of the Committee not more than

five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item

was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.

d. By directing staff to place an item of business for discussion and/or action on a

subsequent agenda. (This is an appropriate action for issues raised under Public Presentations.)

only upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the Committee, or if less than two-thirds of

the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take

immediate action AND the need to take action came to the attention of the Committee

subsequent to the agenda being posted.

§5.8 Time Limits for Speakers

Each member of the public appearing at a Committee meeting shall be limited to two

minutes in his or her presentation. The amount of time allocated to speakers may vary at the

discretion of the Chairperson., unless the chairperson, at his or her discretion, permits further

remarks to be made. Any person addressing the Committee may submit written statements,

petitions or other documents to complement his or her presentation.

of 16

Each member of the Committee shall be limited to five minutes for his or her presentation

on each agenda item, unless the chairperson, at his or her discretion, permits further remarks to

be made. The Committee, by a majority vote of its membership as provided in Section 5.4, may

grant additional time for a member to speak.

§5.9 Impertinence; Disturbance of Meeting

Any person making personal, impertinent or indecorous remarks while addressing the

Committee may be barred by the chairperson from further appearance before the Committee at

that meeting, unless permission to continue is granted by an affirmative vote of the Committee.

The chairperson may order any person removed from the Committee meeting who causes a

disturbance or interferes with the conduct of the meeting, and the chairperson may direct the

meeting room cleared when deemed necessary to maintain order.

§5.10 Access to Public Records Distributed at Meeting

Writings which are public records and which are distributed during a Committee meeting

shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by VTA or a member of

the Committee or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.

Writings prepared by a Committee member or staff and distributed to the Committee in

connection with the transaction of Committee business shall be prepared and presented to the

Committee in an accessible format that is usable by persons with disabilities, or made available

in an accessible format to those who request it after the meeting. Members who distribute

general informational materials at a Ccommittee meetings, which are not for discussion by the

Committee, are encouraged to comply with the foregoing provisions.

Article VI

AGENDAS AND MEETING NOTICES

§6.1 Agenda Format

The agenda shall specify the starting time and location of the meeting and shall contain a

brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.

The description shall be reasonably calculated to adequately inform the public of the subject

matter of each agenda item. The agenda may include recommendations for Committee action as

appropriate.

Items may be referred for inclusion on an agenda by: (1) the Board of Directors; (2) the

General Manager; (3) the Committee Chairperson (in consultation with the Committee Staff

Liaison); and (4) the Committee, with a quorum present and upon the required number of

affirmative votes of members present specified in Section 5.4. The order of business shall be

established by the secretary with the approval of the chairperson.

of 16

§6.2 Public Presentations

Each agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public

to address the Committee on matters of interest to the public either before or during the

Committee’s consideration of the item, if it is listed on the agenda, or, if it is not listed on the

agenda but is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, under the agenda item heading “Public

Presentations.” The Committee shall not act upon an item that is not listed on the agenda except

as provided under Section 5.78. Each notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity

for members of the public to directly address the Committee concerning any item that has been

described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.

§6.3 Agenda Preparation

The secretary shall prepare the agenda for each meeting in consultation with VTA staff

and the chairperson. Material intended for placement on the agenda shall be delivered to the

secretary on or before 12:00 Noon on the date established as the agenda deadline for the

forthcoming meeting. The secretary may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which

is not timely received, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review and report prior to

Committee consideration.

Any member of the Committee may request that such withheld matter be placed on the

agenda by contacting the secretary in advance of the meeting.

of 16

§6.4 Agenda Posting and Delivery

The written agenda for each regular meeting and each meeting continued for more than

five calendar days shall be posted by the secretary at least 72 hours before the meeting is

scheduled to begin. The written agenda for every special meeting shall be posted by the secretary

at least 24 hours before the special meeting is scheduled to begin. The agenda shall be posted in

a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. The agenda together with

supporting documents shall be delivered to each Committee member, the General Manager and

General Counsel at least five days before each regular meeting and at least 24 hours before each

special meeting.

§6.5 Meeting Notices

The secretary shall mail notice of every regular meeting, and every special meeting which

is called at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, to each person which has filed

with the DistrictVTA a written request for notice as provided in Section 54954.1 of the

Government Code. The notice shall be mailed at least one week prior to the date set for the

meeting. Notice of special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the

meeting shall be given, as the secretary deems practical.

of 16

Article VII

MISCELLANEOUS

§7.1 Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws

These Bylaws shall be adopted and amended by the Committee by with a quorum present

and upon the required number of affirmative votes of members specified in Section 5.4 the

affirmative vote of a majority of its total authorized membership and with the approval of the

Board of Directors.

§7.2 Rosenberg’s Rules

All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, latest edition.

Adopted by Board of Directors: February 14, 1996

Amended by Board of Directors: May 2, 1996

Amended by Board of Directors: August 1998

Amended by Board of Directors: September 3, 1998

Amended by Board of Directors: December 2001

Amended by Board of Directors: February 7, 2002

Amended by Board of Directors: May 2005

Amended by Board of Directors: August 4, 2005

Amended by Board of Directors: June 3, 2010 (1)

Amended by Board of Directors: March 7, 2013

Amended by Board of Directors: December 11, 2014 to take effect January 1, 2015

(1) In 2010, the Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee Enhancement

Process, approved converting two existing VTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) positions to two voting

members appointed by the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory

Committee (BPAC). These representatives will be from the respective committee’s current membership and

must meet established CAC membership requirements, including Board of Directors approval.

BYLAWS FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR TRANSPORTATION

MOBILITY & ACCESSIBILITY

Article I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1.1 Purpose

These Bylaws govern the proceedings of the Committee for Transportation Mobility &

Accessibility (CTMA), an advisory committee established by the Board of Directors of the Santa

Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

§1.2 Construction of Bylaws

Unless the provisions or the context of these Bylaws otherwise require, the general

provisions, rules of construction and definitions set forth in Chapter 1 of the Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority Administrative Code shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. As

used in these Bylaws, “Committee” means the Committee for Transportation Mobility &

Accessibility. These Bylaws shall govern the Committee’s proceedings to the extent they are not

inconsistent with the VTA Administrative Code or law.

§1.3 Definitions

a. As used in these Bylaws, “secretary” means the secretary of the

Committee.

b. As used in these Bylaws, “chairperson” means the chairperson of the

Committee.

c. As used in these Bylaws, “first vice chairperson” means the first vice chairperson

of the Committee.

d. As used in these Bylaws, “second vice chairperson” means the second vice

chairperson of the Committee.

Article II

DUTIES AND AUTHORITY

§2.1 Mission and Duties

The CTMA is an advisory committee to the Board of Directors. The mission and duties

of the Committee shall be:

mccarter_m

Typewritten Text

16.B.

of 11

MISSION:

The CTMA provides guidance and perspective to the Board of Directors on VTA transit

and transportation accessibility matters to help ensure complete access to all users in

Santa Clara County, doing so by facilitating dialogue with, representing and advocating

the needs of the disabled and senior communities.

DUTIES:

It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Board of Directors, the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (with Board concurrence), and staff on all matters pertaining

to paratransit services in Santa Clara County. The Committee shall also advise the Board

of Directors and staff on mobility matters, accessibility of all VTA transit services,

vehicles, equipment, facilities, programs, service and program policies pertaining to

accessibility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities, and compliance of such

elements with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other laws which pertain

to access to VTA services and programs. The Committee shall perform such additional

duties as may be assigned by the Board of Directors.

§2.2 Limitations on Authority

The Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors. It shall have no

independent duties and no authority to take actions that bind VTA or the Board of Directors. No

expenditures or requisitions for services and supplies shall be made by the Committee and no

individual member thereof shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel or other expenses except

as authorized by the Board of Directors.

Article III

MEMBERSHIP

§3.1 Membership

The Committee shall be composed of 17 voting members with 11 alternates and two ex-

officio, non-voting members. VTA employees are not eligible for membership. Membership

shall consist of the following:

a. Persons with Disabilities: [Eight (8) voting members with two (2) alternates]

Applications and/or nominations for these voting positions are taken from the

community at-large. Nominees should be representative of various kinds of disabilities as

much as possible and should be familiar with fixed route public transit services,

paratransit services, and transportation and mobility issues in general.

of 11

Candidates for vacant positions will be evaluated by a panel comprised of: (1)

Committee Chairperson; (2) Committee Staff Liaison; and (3) Advisory Committee

Coordinator. Candidates will be evaluated based on factors including, but not limited to:

qualifications; knowledge and/or experience using local fixed route public transit services

and/or paratransit services; familiarity with transportation and mobility issues, especially

in Santa Clara County; civic/community service; perceived ability to work constructively

and productively in a committee setting; and disabilities not currently represented on the

Committee. The evaluation process may include an interview of the candidate. The

panel will then recommend to the Board of Directors the candidate(s) that, in its

estimation, would best serve the Committee.

Alternate members in this category may serve in place of any vacant Persons with

Disabilities position or for a representative from that category not present at the meeting,

but may only vote in place of one (1) position per meeting. Alternate members in this

category shall regularly attend Committee meetings and shall sit at the meeting table, but

may only vote when representing a vacant position or absent member.

Members in this category shall be residents of Santa Clara County during their

term of membership. All nominations in this category require approval by the Board of

Directors.

b. Agencies and/or Businesses [Nine (9) voting members with alternates]

Nine (9) agencies and/or businesses serving seniors and/or persons with

disabilities shall serve as voting members. Each organization shall designate one

individual each to serve as the representative and alternate. These individuals, preferably

employees, should be knowledgeable about and/or have job duties related to Committee

duties or transportation or mobility matters pertaining to persons with disabilities or

seniors. Each organization may change its designated representatives no more than one

time during each calendar year.

To be eligible, the agency or business shall serve seniors or persons with

disabilities, or both, or make accommodations specific to the access needs of seniors and

persons with disabilities, and demonstrate an interest in public transit. In addition,

preference shall be given to agencies and businesses which:

1. Serve the majority of the county area or provide services countywide, or

represent specific regional areas.

2. Represent persons not represented by other appointees.

Appointment of a human services agency or business to the Committee membership

structure requires approval by the Board of Directors. The designation by each human

services agency or business of its representative and alternate to the Committee does not

require Board of Director approval. Representatives appointed to the Committee by

human services agency or business must live and/or work in Santa Clara County during

their term of membership.

of 11

If a Committee member from this category is absent from all or a portion of a

meeting, the alternate shall be seated in that Committee member’s seat and vote in the

place of the absent member. An alternate shall be counted as part of the Committee

quorum only when seated in the place of an absent member. When not serving in place

of the absent member, the alternate is a member of the public and accordingly shall sit

with the audience and follow the procedures for the public to address the Committee, as

provided under Sections 5.8 and 6.2.

§3.1.1 Membership (Ex-Officio)

The Committee shall also include two (2) ex-officio (non-voting) members as follows:

Paratransit Broker: One (1) Ex-Officio Member

VTA’s contract paratransit broker shall designate one ex-officio, non-voting member. If the

member is unable to attend a Committee meeting, the member shall designate a substitute to

attend the meeting. Designation of the Paratransit Broker’s representative does not require

approval by the Board of Directors.

VTA Board of Directors: One (1) Ex-Officio Member

The Chairperson of the Board of Directors or his/her designee shall serve as an ex-officio, non-

voting member.

§3.2 Members’ Terms

The term of membership of each Committee member shall be four years, commencing on

January 1, in accordance with the adopted schedule for staggered terms. Members may be re-

appointed for successive terms.

§3.3 Vacancies

Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the body which made the

original appointment.

of 11

§3.4 Representative to Citizens Advisory Committee

The Committee shall also appoint one individual from its membership to serve as a

voting member on VTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), to provide the connection for

communication and collaboration between the two committees. Appointment of this position is

subject to the following provisions:

a. The representative must be a voting CTA member and must be in good standing.

Alternate members are not eligible to serve in this position.

b. The representative must meet all established CAC membership requirements

during their term on the CAC.

c. The term of appointment shall be four years, commencing on January 1 of even-

numbered years. The CAC representative may be reappointed for successive

terms.

d. The representative shall serve on the CAC until resignation from the position or

the CTA, or removal by the Committee or the Board.

e. Appointment by the Committee requires approval by a majority of the

membership as provided under Section 5.4.

f. Appointment requires Board of Directors ratification.

g. Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the Committee

following the established appointment process and meeting all established criteria

for this positional.

of 11

Article IV

OFFICERS

§4.1 Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons

The Committee shall elect from its membership a chairperson, a first vice chairperson and

a second vice chairperson at its last meeting of the calendar year, to serve for one-year terms

beginning with the first meeting of each calendar year. The chairperson shall preside at all

meetings of the Committee and represent the Committee before the Board of Directors. The first

vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson is absent. The

second vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson and

first vice chairperson are absent. In the event of a vacancy in the chairperson’s position, the first

vice chairperson shall succeed as chairperson for the balance of the chairperson’s term, the

second vice chair shall succeed to the first vice chair and the Committee shall elect a successor to

fill the vacancy in the second vice chairperson’s position as provided below. In the event of a

vacancy in the first vice chairperson’s position, the second vice chair shall succeed to the first

vice chair, and the Committee shall elect a successor from its membership to fill the second vice

chairperson’s position for the remainder of the second vice chairperson’s term. In the event of a

vacancy in the second vice chairperson’s position, the Committee shall elect a successor from its

membership to fill the second vice chairperson’s position for the remainder of the second vice

chairperson’s term.

The Committee shall appoint a nomination subcommittee to identify members interested

in serving as in chairperson, first vice chairperson and second vice chairperson positions.

Members willing to serve in these positions may submit their names to the nomination

subcommittee for nomination. Members may also submit names of other members for

nomination. The nomination subcommittee shall verify that members whose names have been

submitted are willing serve in those positions. The nomination subcommittee shall submit to the

Committee the names of those members whom have expressed their willingness to serve. The

nomination subcommittee may also its recommend candidates. Notwithstanding these

procedures, any member may nominate a member from the floor.

§4.2 Secretary

The Secretary of the Board of Directors shall furnish clerical services to prepare and

distribute the Committee’s agendas, notices, minutes, correspondence and other documents and

shall assign an employee to attend each meeting of the Committee to serve in the capacity as the

Committee’s secretary. The secretary shall maintain a record of all proceedings of the

Committee as required by law and shall perform other duties as provided in these Bylaws.

of 11

Article V

MEETINGS

§5.1 Regular Meetings

Six (6) regular meeting of the Committee will scheduled each year. The Committee shall

meet at least once every three months, unless the Committee’s activities are suspended.

Regular meetings shall generally be held every other month (January, March, May, July,

September and November) on the Wednesday following the first Thursday of that month

commencing at 1:00 p.m. Meetings shall be held at the VTA Administrative Offices, 3331 North

First Street, San Jose, California. Whenever a regular meeting falls on a holiday observed by

VTA, the meeting shall be held on another day or canceled at the direction of the Committee. A

rescheduled regular meeting shall be designated a regular meeting

Prior to the July meeting each year, the Committee Chairperson, in consultation with the

Committee Staff Liaison, shall review the Committee’s work plan to determine if the quantity,

importance and urgency of items scheduled for that meeting warrants gathering Committee

members to conduct the meeting.

§5.2 Special Meetings

A special meeting may be called by the Committee Chairperson with the approval of the

General Manager. The meeting shall be called and noticed as provided in Section 5.3. (For a

general description of the noticing procedures, see the Rules of Procedure of the Board of

Directors.)

§5.3 Calling and Noticing of Meetings

All meetings shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with the applicable

provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government

Code). The General Manager and General Counsel shall be given notice of all meetings.

§5.4 Quorum; Vote; Committee of the Whole

The presence of eight (8) members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of

business. All official acts of the Committee shall require the affirmative vote of eight (8)

members. At any regularly called meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, the members

present may constitute themselves a “committee of the whole” for the purpose of discussing

matters on the agenda of interest to the committee members present. The committee of the

whole shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum is present at the meeting.

of 11

§5.5 Thirty Minute Rule

If a quorum has not been established within thirty minutes of the noticed starting time for

the meeting, the secretary and clerical support staff shall be excused from further attendance at

the meeting.

§5.6 Absences

A member is allowed to be absent from three regular Committee meetings in any twelve-

month period. The position shall automatically be vacated upon a fourth absence unless a waiver

is granted by the Committee Chairperson. Absences in any twelve-month period shall apply to

all members and to alternate members from the Persons with Disabilities category.

A member may request a temporary waiver of the absence limitation for significant

reasons such as maternity, serious medical condition, or urgent family care. A written request

must be sent to the VTA Board Secretary prior to the fourth absence and indicate the reason for

the requested waiver and the expected duration of absence.

The Chairperson shall, in consultation with the Committee Staff Liaison, grant or deny the

request. The Chairperson may grant a waiver for a maximum of four (4) additional, but not

necessarily consecutive, regular meetings. No member shall be granted more than one absence

waiver in a 36-month period.

The decision to grant or deny the request shall be announced at the next scheduled Committee

meeting. The requestor or any member of the Committee may appeal the Chairperson’s decision

to the Committee. If appealed, the decision shall be made by Committee vote at the next

scheduled meeting. This vote shall be governed by the provisions of §5.4.

§5.7 Matters Not Listed On the Agenda Requiring Committee Action

Except as provided in the following, a matter requiring Committee action shall be listed on the

posted agenda before the Committee may act upon it. The Committee may take action on items

not appearing on the posted agenda only upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the

Committee, or if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those

members present, that there is a need to take immediate action AND the need to take action came

to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the agenda being posted.

§5.8 Time Limits for Speakers

Each member of the public appearing at a Committee meeting shall be limited to two

minutes in his or her presentation. The amount of time allocated to speakers may vary at the

discretion of the Chairperson. Any person addressing the Committee may submit written

statements, petitions or other documents to complement his or her presentation.

of 11

§5.9 Impertinence; Disturbance of Meeting

Any person making personal, impertinent or indecorous remarks while addressing the

Committee may be barred by the chairperson from further appearance before the Committee at

that meeting, unless permission to continue is granted by an affirmative vote of the Committee.

The chairperson may order any person removed from the Committee meeting who causes a

disturbance or interferes with the conduct of the meeting, and the chairperson may direct the

meeting room cleared when deemed necessary to maintain order.

§5.10 Access to Public Records Distributed at Meeting

Writings which are public records and which are distributed during a Committee meeting

shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by VTA or a member of

the Committee or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.

Writings prepared by a Committee member or staff and distributed to the Committee in

connection with the transaction of Committee business shall be prepared and presented to the

Committee in an accessible format that is usable by persons with disabilities, or made available

in an accessible format to those who request it after the meeting. Members who distribute

general informational materials at a Committee meeting, which are not for discussion by the

Committee, are encouraged to comply with the foregoing provisions.

Article VI

AGENDAS AND MEETING NOTICES

§6.1 Agenda Format

The agenda shall specify the starting time and location of the meeting and shall contain a

brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.

The description shall be reasonably calculated to adequately inform the public of the subject

matter of each agenda item.

Items may be referred for inclusion on an agenda by: (1) the Board of Directors; (2) the

General Manager; (3) the Committee Chairperson (in consultation with the Committee Staff

Liaison); and (4) the Committee, with a quorum present and upon the required number of

affirmative votes of members present specified in Section 5.4. The order of business shall be

established by the secretary with the approval of the chairperson.

of 11

§6.2 Public Presentations

Each agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public

to address the Committee on matters of interest to the public either before or during the

Committee’s consideration of the item, if it is listed on the agenda, or, if it is not listed on the

agenda but is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, under the agenda item heading “Public

Presentations.” The Committee shall not act upon an item that is not listed on the agenda except

as provided under Section 5.7. Each notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for

members of the public to directly address the Committee concerning any item that has been

described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.

§6.3 Agenda Preparation

The secretary shall prepare the agenda for each meeting in consultation with VTA staff

and the chairperson. Material intended for placement on the agenda shall be delivered to the

secretary on or before 12:00 Noon on the date established as the agenda deadline for the

forthcoming meeting. The secretary may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which

is not timely received, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review and report prior to

Committee consideration.

§6.4 Agenda Posting and Delivery

The written agenda for each regular meeting and each meeting continued for more than

five calendar days shall be posted by the secretary at least 72 hours before the meeting is

scheduled to begin. The written agenda for every special meeting shall be posted by the secretary

at least 24 hours before the special meeting is scheduled to begin. The agenda shall be posted in

a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. The agenda together with

supporting documents shall be delivered to each Committee member, the General Manager and

General Counsel at least five days before each regular meeting and at least 24 hours before each

special meeting.

§6.5 Meeting Notices

The secretary shall mail notice of every regular meeting, and every special meeting which

is called at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, to each person which has filed

with VTA a written request for notice as provided in Section 54954.1 of the Government Code.

The notice shall be mailed at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting. Notice of

special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting shall be given as

the secretary deems practical.

of 11

Article VII

MISCELLANEOUS

§7.1 Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws

These Bylaws shall be adopted and amended by the Committee with a quorum present

and upon the required number of affirmative votes of members specified in Section 5.4 and with

the approval of the Board of Directors.

§7.2 Rosenberg’s Rules

All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, latest edition.

Adopted by Board of Directors: February 14, 1996

Amended by Board of Directors: May 2, 1996

Amended by Board of Directors: August 1998

Amended by Board of Directors: September 3, 1998

Amended by Board of Directors: December 2001

Amended by Board of Directors: February 7, 2002

Amended by Board of Directors: May 2005

Amended by Board of Directors: August 4, 2005

Amended by Board of Directors: June 3, 2010 (1)

Amended by Board of Directors: March 7, 2013

Amended by Board of Directors: December 11, 2014 to take effect January 1, 2015

(1) In 2010, the Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee Enhancement

Process, approved converting two existing VTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) positions to two voting

members appointed by the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory

Committee (BPAC). These representatives will be from the respective committee’s current membership and

must meet established CAC membership requirements, including Board of Directors approval.



Board Meeting: April 7, 2016

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Transit Ridership Improvement Program Choices Report



BACKGROUND:

The Transit Ridership Improvement Program (TRIP) is a two-year policy and planning effort to redesign VTA’s transit service network. The Program seeks to accomplish the goals of increasing transit ridership, improving VTA’s farebox recovery rate, and integrating VTA’s transit network with BART service to Milpitas and San Jose. The program’s four major components are an assessment of VTA’s current service, development of transit service policies, partner education and involvement, and the development of VTA’s next transit network. These efforts will culminate in a redesigned transit network for implementation coincident with the extension of BART service in 2017. Development of that network will rely on policy guidance from VTA’s Board of Directors as well as input from VTA’s advisory committees, policy boards, municipal partners, and the community. Transit service design specialist Jarrett Walker + Associates has been hired to assist with this effort.

The VTA Board of Directors was introduced to the TRIP in late 2015 and was presented with a project update in February 2016.

DISCUSSION:

The first of TRIP’s four major components is an independent assessment of VTA’s current transit service, and this memorandum presents the culmination of this work in the form of a draft Transit Choices Report. The Report, written by Jarrett Walker + Associates, contains an analysis of VTA’s current transit service and presents a series of policy choices that will need to be navigated during the development of VTA’s Next Network. The Transit Choices Report is included as Attachment A.

17

of 5

Purpose of the Program

The need for the TRIP arises from two converging factors -- falling ridership and population growth, both illustrated in the draft Choices Report’s assessment of existing service. Highlighting a key challenge for VTA, the report illustrates the amount of transit service provided by VTA has declined 15% over the past 15 years, while the County’s population has increased more than 10% during the same period. This means that the quantity of service provided per capita has been shrinking, and presents a policy choice of what level of transit service should be provided into the future as the County continues to grow.

Increasing Ridership through Increased Productivity

The draft Choices Report details the factors that influence transit ridership and presents these factors as policy choices for the VTA Board and community to consider. Because a principal goal of the TRIP is to increase transit ridership, it will be important to understand how policy choices influence transit ridership.

The most obvious way to increase transit ridership is to simply devote more resources to transit and increase the level of service provided. Less obvious is how to increase ridership given a fixed budget; the only way to increase ridership given a fixed budget is to increase productivity, which is the subject of much of the report.

Roles of Transit Service

The report describes transit productivity as a three-legged stool with three factors that work together to produce productive transit service -- street design, land use, and transit service design. Because VTA has little or no control over two of the factors, a key theme of the program is the need for local governments to be aware of their extraordinary control over transit ridership through their role in planning land use and street design.

VTA’s role is to provide transit service that is useful. To this end, the program will utilize best practices in transit service design to develop VTA’s Next Network. One strategy would be to create an all-day frequent network that makes a wider array of transit trips possible.

Key Choices

The report outlines a number of key policy choices for the VTA Board and the community to navigate during development of the Next Network. Chief among these choices is the purpose of public transit. Transit operators are tasked with achieving two competing goals: productivity (carry the maximum number of riders possible per dollar spent) and coverage (provide some level of transit service to everyone, regardless of productivity). Each transit operator must decide how much in terms of resources to devote to each goal. Therefore, a fundamental policy choice will be to decide the extent to which VTA allocates resources to the ridership goal as opposed to the competing coverage goal.

Assessment of Existing Service

The report details VTA’s current transit service performance. Most significantly, service is most

17

of 5

productive where service is most frequent. For example, the high frequency of VTA's Core routes offers riders easy transfers and a diversity of trip purposes for which the network is useful. This explains why frequent routes tend to be more productive per hour of service, despite their higher cost. A number of other findings are detailed:

• VTA’s all-day frequent network (routes with a headway of 15-minutes or less) is comprised of 12 routes.

• The east side of VTA’s service area has a very rich network of frequent services, and correspondingly high productivity, which is possible only because of its transit-supportive street network and dense land uses.

• The lower service levels and lower productivity on the west side of VTA’s service network can be largely attributed to street design and land uses that are not transit supportive.

• VTA offers significantly more service during the weekday peak commute periods, though VTA’s ridership is only slightly higher during the peaks. Productivity is actually higher during the mid-day than during the PM peak.

Service Branding

To attract riders, transit service must be easy to understand and use. To that end, the report discusses the role transit service branding plays in conveying information to the potential rider, because potential riders will need to understand what services are available and how to use them. The key to clear communication about a local bus network is a well-designed system of service classes, manifested across the information system and also in policy. These service classes become transit service brands, conveying key characteristics of the class such as frequency, span, speed, and stop spacing. VTA’s transit service types are branded with names such as local, rapid, limited, community and express, though some of these classes do not necessarily convey key service characteristics that are important to transit riders. The report outlines opportunities for VTA to make its services easier to understand and use by strengthening the branding of its services.

Early Deliverables

The draft Transit Choices Report is the first product in the process to develop VTA’s Next Network. However, the TRIP encompasses a number of other efforts that will work concurrently to further the goals of TRIP. Among them, the program has identified two efforts that could be completed in the short term to deliver a meaningful improvement in transit information delivery:

• Real-Time Information. Urban transit riders today expect to be able to monitor the movement of transit vehicles in real time so that they can know when their bus or train is going to arrive. VTA is currently installing the necessary hardware and software to enable real-time information, which will provide significant benefits for riders.

• Redesigned Transit Map. VTA’s current system map is a professional piece of graphic

17

of 5

design, but the principles on which it is designed are dated and inconsistent with VTA’s current goals. Accordingly, VTA has begun a process to redesign its system map to reflect the modern trend in transit map design. Most importantly, the new frequency-based system map will proudly highlight VTA’s core network of frequent services.

Network Concepts

The consulting team is currently working with VTA staff to develop three Santa Clara County transit network concepts that illustrate different points along the ridership-coverage spectrum, and each network concept will be budget neutral (no increase in service hours from the Board-adopted FY17 transit network). The concepts are not proposals, but are intended to serve as a basis for discussion with the community and the VTA Board over the Summer of 2016. The three network concepts will be:

• Network Concept A: Will allocate approximately 70% of resources to a ridership goal and 30% of resources to a coverage goal. This network will mimic VTA’s existing allocation between ridership and coverage services, though the transit routes in this network will be redesigned to increase ridership, connect to BART, and improve farebox recovery where possible.

• Network Concept B: Will allocate approximately 80% of resources to a ridership goal and 20% of resources to a coverage goal.

• Network Concept C: Will allocate approximately 90% of resources to a ridership goal and 10% of resources to a coverage goal.

Since the ridership goal and coverage goal are both admirable, there is no “correct” choice in terms of the ridership-coverage balance, just a recognition that different points along the spectrum define different goals of the transit service and lead to different ridership and farebox outcomes. Deciding on that balance is a policy choice for the community and Board of Directors to make based on its vision for VTA transit service. As such, these network concepts will form the basis of community and VTA Board discussions over the Summer of 2016. The input received will be instrumental in the development of VTA’s draft Next Network plan (early 2017).

Next Steps

This memorandum presents the draft Transit Choices Report and a preview of the transit network concepts, which are the first steps in developing VTA’s Next Network. The policy choices as presented in the Choices Report and network concepts will form the basis for discussions by the VTA Board and community over the Summer of 2016.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Citizens Advisory Committee received this item on March 9th and made the following comments:

1) Funding for transit operations is a concern and VTA should consider increasing

17

of 5

funding levels to be commensurate with population growth.

2) The land use-transportation connection is important for understanding why transit productivity is low in certain parts of Santa Clara County. Furthermore, generating more transit ridership or making transit more productive will rely on cities adjusting their land use planning to consider transit.

3) Street design is an important element of how appealing a transit trip is.

4) Should VTA consider not serving cities (or areas) that are designed in ways that are auto-oriented at the expense of transit?

The Technical Advisory Committee received this item on March 10th and made the following comments:

1) In addition to the discussion on city design, demographics such as income, car ownership and vehicle access per person are important considerations.

2) Consider the transit to Caltrain connection as well as express bus service to Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University.

The Policy Advisory Committee opted to defer this item at their March 10th meeting.

STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Transit Planning and Operations Committee received this item at its March 17, 2016 meeting and made the following comments:

1) Discussed the importance of the influence of land use on transit ridership.

2) Inquired whether schools would be involved in the community outreach process. Staff responded that they would be involved in multiple ways.

Prepared By: Jason TyreeMemo No. 5472

17


Transit Choices ReportFEBRUARY 3, 2016

Attachment A

17.a

Table of Contents

ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Recent Historical Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Recent Historic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Key Chapter Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Market Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Population and Employment Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Residential Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Employment Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Zero-Vehicle Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Transit Commuting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Market Factor Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Key Chapter Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Transit Service and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Transit Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Current Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Capital vs Operating Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Service Branding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

VTA’s Existing Service Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Overview of Useful Branding Distinctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Frequent Network Branding and

VTA’s Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Branding Service Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Conclusion and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56


Key Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

The Ridership / Coverage Tradeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

How to Serve the Peak? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Network Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Service Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Resource Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

17.a

| 3Transit Choices ReportSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority

EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive SummaryWhat is TRIP?The Transit Ridership Improvement Program is a two-year study of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) services designed to iden-tify ways to improve ridership . A key output of this study, but not the only one, is the 2017 Next Network Plan, which will review the structure of the VTA network and propose improvements for implementation in 2017 . The planned changes will occur in time for the opening of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Berryessa, including those required to integrate BART into the VTA network .

This report, the first of the study, analyzes the existing system and shows how certain choices will need to be thought about at the policy level .

What is the need for this study?The need for this study arises from two converging factors—falling rider-ship and population growth—that pose important new questions for transportation in Santa Clara County . The County is projected to surpass 2 million residents by 2030 . Combined with a rapidly growing economy throughout all parts of the Bay Area, this means more people will be traveling to more places throughout the region .

Figure 1 shows a simplified graph of these trends since 2001. Population has grown steadily, but ridership is more than 20% below its year-2001 level . Transit service quantity, measured in revenue hours, is nearly 15% lower, despite an overall level of transit expenditure that has returned to its early-2000s level when adjusted for inflation. (A revenue hour is one transit vehicle operating for one hour .)

This means that the quantity of service, as the average resident would perceive it, has been shrinking . The relevant measure here is revenue hours /capita . A key question to be discussed is what this curve should be doing . Should transit be growing with population, or faster, or slower?

Why focus on local transit?The main focus of this study is the local transit network and especially the bus network . This network, bus and rail, constitutes 86% VTA’s service costs . Other programs, including support for Caltrain/ACE, shuttles to these services, special event services, express services, and intercounty programs, are comparatively small parts of the budget . Paratransit costs, mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, are also quite low by industry standards .

Figure 1: Santa Clara County population, VTA Ridership and Revenue Hours, cumulative change 2000 - 2013

Figure 2: VTA Operating Expense by Mode, FY15

Bus (Non-Express) 63%

Bus (Express) 4%

Light Rail 23%

ADA Paratransit 5%

Caltrain 2%

Special Events 1% ACE

1% Other 1%

VTA Operating Expenses by Mode, FY15

17.a


EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive SummaryHow to get more ridership for a fixed budget?Ridership means how many people use a transit service, while productiv-ity is ridership divided by the amount of service provided . If you have a fixed budget for providing service, then the only way to increase rider-ship is to increase producitivity -- that is, growing ridership at a higher rate than the quantity of service grows .

Productivity is not the only purpose of transit, so it is not the only measure of transit’s success . Virtually all transit agencies run some service for non-ridership purposes, fully aware that low productivity will result . These “coverage” services, and the arguments for them, are dis-cussed later in this summary . However, increasing ridership is the focus of this study, so it is important to understand how high-ridership services work .

The next sections of this summary review the key elements of high-rider-ship service. These assertions are confirmed both by experience in other cities and by VTA’s own performance data, as Chapter 3, Transit Service and Performance, explores in more detail . The reliability of these insights is not surprising because they arise from simple geometric facts about what a transit line is and how it relates to the geometry of cities .

High productivity transit service has two elements: First, the service is useful for many purposes, and second, this service is focused on places where the geography is favorable for transit to succeed . Four features of the geography matter in particular .

• Density -- There are many residents, jobs, and activity destinations close to each transit stop . Note that because the valley is largely built out, most growth from now on will have the effect of increasing density .

• Walkability -- It is easy to walk between those places and the stop .

• Linearity -- Transit can operate in paths that feel straight and direct to the customer .

• Proximity -- Distances that transit needs to cover are relatively short .

Another term often mentioned in the literature is the mixture of land uses along a line. Transit is more efficient if jobs, housing, and retail are interspersed, rather than having, say, only jobs at one end and only residents at the other . This diverse mix generates a more even two-way demand pattern that uses transit capacity more efficiently.

As we look look closely at ridership patterns throughout this report, the

close link between ridership and these built environment features will be apparent . All of these factors help explain, for example, why El Camino Real, Stevens Creek and Alum Rock Ave are some of the most productive corridors at VTA . They have all of these features, to an adequate degree, including a mixture of land uses .

Other areas like these will arise as the County continues to grow, and grow more dense, especially if there is a conscious desire for land use to evolve to forms that are more favorable to transit . (This also means fahvorable to cycling and walking . Linearity is the only transit need that does not also benefit cyclists and pedestrians.)

The Municipal RoleThe key features of the built environment that govern transit demand are obviously not in VTA’s control . They are the result of decisions by past generations, and to the extent that they can still be changed, the power to do so lies with the municipal governments within the County .

These local governments -- along with Caltrans -- also control the street environment in which VTA operates, largely determining the travel time and reliability of transit service .

In short, VTA service is only one leg of a three-legged stool that

Figure 3: The Ridership Recipe: Density, Walkability, Linearity, and Proximity

17.a


EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive Summarydetermines transit ridership . The other two are land use and street design, both of which are largely under the control of the cities and towns . A key theme of this study is the need for local governments to be aware of their extraordinary control over transit ridership through their role in planning land use and street design .

VTA’s Role: ServiceMuch is known about how service determines ridership . While many people focus on subjective features such as comfort and aesthetics, these only become relevant if the service is useful . So an understanding of usefulness is critical to deploying transit service productively .

Across the transit industry, when we look at the most productive services in any network, we usually find they are one of two kinds:

• Commuter express service over long distances, bypassing severe congestion and operating into a dense employment center where parking is difficult and expensive.

• High frequency service -- usually every 15 minutes all day -- running in places where all the built environment conditions are favorable, yielding an intense, two-way, all-day market . VTA’s services of this type are called the Core Network, and include major corridors like El Camino Real, Stevens Creek, and Alum Rock Avenue .

The first group is specialized around “nine to five” commuters, but of course the second group serves many such commuters too . The differ-ence between the two is that the second group serves a greater diversity of trip purposes, while the first group is only for commuters traveling at rush hour . BART, for example, belongs to the second group, because its availability and frequency at any time of day is a crucial part of its offering, while Caltrain and ACE, with their low frequency and limited off-peak service, belong to the first group..

Peak Commute ServiceThe most successful examples of commuter express service in the Bay Area are express buses into San Francisco across the Bay Bridge . Another is Caltrain, especially for travel into San Francisco . Because these services appeal mostly to people who have a car readily available, a very strong disincentive to driving is needed to make these services succeed .

For that reason, VTA express service is less productive than expresses into dense cities like San Francisco or Seattle, as shown in Figure 5 . This is because although the levels of congestion are similar, the disincen-tives to driving into the employment center are not . Santa Clara County’s

employment is mosty in a business park format with abundant free parking .

However, express service is a tiny share of what VTA does, and is therefore not a major focus of this study . Express service is also a small part of the commuter market; most commuting is over shorter distances and happens on local services . This is why the overwhelming majority of VTA’s invest-ment -- including all of its most productive investments, arises from more locally-serving routes, some peak-only but mostly running all day .

Figure 4: Route Frequency and Productivity (Data from VTA and 16 agencies)

Figure 5: High Productivity Express Routes

17.a


EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive SummaryFrequent Service: The Core NetworkBecause of the geographic limitations on the ridership poten-tial of express service, VTA’s most productive services tend to be frequent and all-day . Like most agencies, VTA shows a correlation between frequency and ridership . Where the correlation is weak, it is because of the effects of land use pat-terns and street design . The same land use factors (density, walkability, linearity, proximity) matter here too .

Frequency is an expensive investment, but the payoff is usually high if land use and street design are sufficiently favor-able . Service that is always coming soon -- usually every 15 minutes or better, has not only higher ridership but higher productivity . How can this be? After all, high frequency means a large quantity of service . Productivity is ridership divided by quantity of service, so intense levels of service should pull the ratio down . In fact, though, the correlation between high fre-quency and high productivity is well established in virtually all of the transit agencies we have studied and it’s geometrically obvious why:

• Waiting is the most onerous part of a transit trip, and fre-quency reduces waiting . (Note that waiting is not just time spent at a bus stop, but more generally time spent not where you want to be . For example, if an hourly bus gets you to work at 7:05 or 8:05, and you must be there at 8:00, then you will wait 55 minutes at your destination .)

• High frequency is the foundation of easy connections . From a ridership perspective, easy connections between lines vastly increase the potential market for each indi-vidual transit line, by making it useful to go many more places .

• Frequent service is more reliable, because you are less likely to be stranded during a disruption .

Again, the unusual power of frequency is apparent from VTA’s own performance data, as this report explores . This does not mean that any route would be productive if it ran frequently . Rather, it’s the com-bination of high frequency and the built environment factors (density, walkability, etc .) that really gives us the “recipe” for the most productive transit services .

An important thing that frequent services can do is form a high-fre-quency grid . This pattern, routine in cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland and recently installed successfully in Houston, achieves

an especially high level of usefulness because it is easy to travel between any two points with an L-shaped trip and a single trans-fer, so a huge range of potential trips are served . VTA operates this kind of network very successfully in eastern San Jose but it is not clear that it should be confined to there. While east San Jose is certainly extremely favorable transit territory, there may be other areas in the Valley that could support high frequency grid services, especially those where urban-style nodes of density and walkability are emerging .

Figure 6: Radial and Grid Network StructureFigure 7: VTA Route Productivity by Frequency

17.a


EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive SummaryKey ChoicesIn the face of these trends and geometric facts, and with some under-standing of possible solutions from a network design perspective, several key choices for VTA become apparent . This report is called a Choices Report because its ultimate goal is to help citizens and leaders think about these choices .

Ridership or Coverage?As we’ve seen, some places are better for transit productivity than others, because of their built form . This means that a transit agency that was “thinking like a business,” focused on maximizing the number of customers, would focus on the highest ridership places and not serve other places, just as an airline feels no obligation to fly into towns that are too small to fill its planes.

This helps to clarify the critical difference between transit agencies and businesses. Transit is expected to both maximize its riderhip and be available everywhere, but these are conflicting goals. If transit runs into areas where the development pattern implies low ridership potential, then it is doing so for a non-ridership purpose . Let’s call this purpose coverage . Coverage encompasses all the reasons that people expect transit to go everywhere in the county, even though the maximum rider-ship would result from a narrower focus on higher-demand areas .

Most goals for transit imply either a ridership focus or a coverage focus .Goals arising from high ridership include:

• Maximum fare revenue / minimum subsidy .

• All environmental benefits, including vehicle trip reduction, reduced emissions, reduced pollution, reduced parking needs .

• Support for high-density urban styles of development .

• Other important goals arise from coverage services:

» Lifeline access to all residents in need, for reasons of income, age, disability, etc .

» upport for lower-density suburban styles of development .

» The ability to say that every municipality or electoral district is served .

This is the most fundamental question a transit agency seeking to improve ridership must face: to what extent should we allocate resources towards that ridership goal, as opposed to the competing coverage goal?

The planning of VTA services, and the evaluation of outcomes, will be much clearer if VTA could adopt a policy about the split of its resources between the two goals . To take one example, Houston’s recent “System Reimagining,” which led to a productive redesign of service imple-mented in August 2015, began with a Board decision to devote about 80% of the budget to high-ridership services and only 20% to cover-age services, a big shift from a previous split of around 60-40 . At VTA, the current ratio is about 70% ridership, 30% coverage . This should be reviewed to determine if it still reflects the balance of priorities desired by the community .

Peak or All Day?Another signficant trade-off at VTA is the high expectation that the agency focus intensely on the “rush hour” commute, combined with the fact that this is not always the cost-effective thing to do .

While ridership is certainly much higher during the peak, service that runs only during the peak is much more expensive for VTA to operate, for three reasons:

• The high cost of buying, storing and maintaining vehicles that are used only briefly each day.

• The higher cost of driver time due to short shifts . (VTA’s labor con-tract has no provision for part time drivers, who are the most efficient way to staff peak-only service .)

• The tendency of peak-only service to be busy in only one direction, which requires all the vehicles and drivers to return empty in the other direction .

Another way of saying this is that all-day, evening, and weekend service is relatively cheap to operate compared to peak service, which is why focusing on all-day markets is often the better path to high ridership overall . The key to the all-day market is that it’s so diverse . It includes most commuting by lower-income people, whose work and training com-mitments rarely require them to travel only at rush hour . It also includes a wide array of trip purposes which tend to use capacity more evenly .

In general, then, we expect the study to feature a robust discussion about the relatively importance of peak-only services for the “rush hour” commute as opposed to all-day, all-direction service . (Note, of course, that all-day service is used at rush hour too) . While the rush hour is the time of highest demand, that does not necessarily make it the time of highest productivity, because of the high marginal cost of peak-only service .

Resource LevelAs we observed above, VTA service quantity per capita has been shrinking for some time, as the agency’s resources fail to keep up with population growth . A key question is what this trend should be . Transit demand tends to grow rapidly with density, so as the Valley becomes denser, a transit system that is growing only with population is likely to fail to meet demands .

While the allocation of existing service could be adjusted to increase rid-ership, this will mostly take the form of shifting resources from coverage service to ridership service, with negative impacts on the people who depend on coverage service . Expanding resources, of course, can make this trade-off less painful, by allowing ridership service to grow even as basic coverage is maintained .

The later phases of this study will consider options for both the current budget and possible quantitative growth, understanding that the latter would require new funding sources .

Overview of this ReportThis Transit Choices report covers the topics of a typical existing condi-tions report, in that it reviews the network in the context of patterns of development and demographics to determine if it is still a good fit.

As we have observed, however, the correct design of a network is not just a technical judgment, as it is often necessary to weigh competing goals of transit service. These “key choices,” summarized above, become apparent in the course of this report and are explored in more detail in Chapter 5 . The most important choice is the need to balance ridership goals with coverage goals, where “coverage” refers to services designed to provide access to all parts of the County regardless of low ridership .

Chapter 1 provides an overview of VTA service over the last 15 years . It shows that ridership tracks closely with the quantity of service pro-vided . Both fell steeply during 2001-05, remaining relatively stable since, moving in parallel and rising slightly in recent years . Growth in the quan-tity of service has been limited partly by a lack of growth in the resource base, and by a 15% increase in the average cost per revenue hour of VTA service over the period 2001-2015 .

Chapter 2 explores the features of the Santa Clara Valley that indicate transit need or transit demand . In addition to the common barriers of walkability and linearity noted above, we note the primary problem pre-sented by the Valley’s development pattern: the centroid of population

17.a


EX

EC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

Executive Summaryis well south of the centroid of jobs, requiring a general pattern of south to north commuting that uses both road space and transit capacity inef-ficiently. There is also a general pattern of east to west commuting for lower income persons . While there are low-income areas in many parts of the county, the greatest concentration is in east San Jose where there are relatively few jobs or activity destinations .

Other barriers to high transit ridership include the absence of disincen-tives to driving other than congestion and the costs of car ownership and operation . Parking is free at most destinations . Urban centers dense and walkable enough to trigger high transit demand are in relatively early stages, though they are now emerging in the form of major projects like Santana Row, and also in the rapidly densifying historic centers such as downtown Sunnyvale .

Chapter 3 explores the fit of current service to the pattern of demand and how this generates ridership or fails to do so . VTA generates its highest productivities (ridership per unit of cost to VTA) when it runs frequent service following existing favorable development patterns (density, walkability, linearity, proximity) .

Chapter 4 reviews VTA’s system of service categories, which are an important tool for both public information and for policymaking . Existing categories are logical but could benefit from more precise definition. In other agencies, branding of frequent services (generally every 15 minutes or better all day) has been an effective means of calling atten-tion to the most attractive and liberating part of a transit network . Thus, service branding builds ridership around the high level of investment in service . VTA’s Core Network category roughly corresponds to this . The growth and refinement of this Core Network will be a key strategy for expanding transit’s usefulness and thus its ridership .

Finally, Chapter 5 expands on the key trade-offs outlined above, which are likely to be key points of discussion during the project .

17.a

Transit Choices ReportSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority | 9

1 Recent Historical Trends

17.a


RE

CE

NT

TRE

ND

S

Recent Trends

-‐30%

-‐20%

-‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cumula&ve Change in Total Annual Revenue Hours (Bus and Rail only)

King County Department of Transporta@on -‐ Metro Transit Division(King County Metro)

Santa Clara Valley Transporta@on Authority(VTA)

San Francisco Municipal Railway(MUNI)

Utah Transit Authority(UTA)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta@on Authority dba: Metro(LACMTA)

Alameda-‐Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit)

Denver Regional Transporta@on District(RTD)

Tri-‐County Metropolitan Transporta@on District of Oregon(TriMet)

-‐

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Annual Revenue Hours -‐ Bus and Light Rail 2000-‐2015

Bus

Light Rail

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is a large transit agency serving San Jose, Silicon Valley, and the other valley commu-nities of Santa Clara County . This Transit Choices Report reviews the transit network’s existing performance, market, and potential in order to develop a set of key policy-level questions that VTA may wish to consider in the design and evaluation of its service in the future .

This section provides a brief overview of the broad trends in VTA’s service and ridership over the past 15 years . It then dives into a more detailed assessment of VTA’s ridership, productivity, and reliability data, including route-level analysis . A market assessment follows in section two, connecting today’s existing service and outcomes to the people and places being served .

Recent Historic ContextTo get a sense of VTA’s current condition, it is instructive to examine past service trends . We examined key indicators of service quantity, productivity, and cost to assess how the agency’s service offering has performed since 2000 .

Service Quantity – Vehicle Revenue HoursAnnual revenue hours are the basic measure of how much service a transit agency provides . One revenue hour is one bus or train operating and available to customers for one hour . It puts the two requirements of the definition right next to each other. Because a revenue hour is a unit whose object does not change in value year-to-year, it is a useful bellwether to understand the total quantity of service VTA has provided . Simply put, how many hours each year do VTA services spend in service on the road picking up passengers?

VTA operated fewer total revenue hours of service in 2015 than in 2000.

Over the past 15 years, VTA’s total quantity of service has declined sub-stantially, from a high of 1 .65 million revenue hours in 2001 of combined bus and light rail (LRT) to a low of 1 .32 million in 2012—a 20% overall decline . Since 2012, service quantity has steadily increased, and as of 2015 stands at 1 .4 million revenue hours, 13% below 2001, but substan-tially higher than the level coming out of the most recent recession .

Fewer revenue hours means that fewer resources are available for things like frequency, longer hours, or new lines responding to growth of

population and employment centers . Ultimately, this results in a limited ability to target high-potential markets and useful coverage services .

Fluctuation in total service quantity is not uncommon among large city transit agencies . They must contend with variable returns from funding sources as they attempt to maintain or grow service year-to-year . Figure 9 compares the cumulative change in annual revenue hours across a range of western and west coast agencies during the same period, using National Transit Database (NTD) data . Currently, this dataset covers only the period up to 2013 . While many of these peer agencies exhibit a similar trend, experi-encing a major decline in the 2009-2011 period related to the recession, only VTA and AC Transit operated fewer total revenue hours by 2013 than in 2000 .

Data Source: National Transit Database 2013

Figure 8: VTA Annual Revenue Hours (Bus and LRT) 2000 - 2015

Figure 9: Peer Comparison, change in Revenue Hours 2000 - 2013

Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

17.a


RE

CE

NT

TRE

ND

S

Recent Trends

RidershipWe generally count ridership by counting boardings : the event of one person getting on a transit vehicles . This roughly indicates total utilization of the network, though it double counts trips that require transferring . Unfortunately, the ideal measure, total individual journeys, is still too difficult to measure reliably without near-total smartcard adop-tion .

Total boardings have declined substantially from a high in 2001 of over 57 million annual passenger trips . While the lowest year during this period was 2006, ridership has not fully recovered to its early 2000s level . With a total of 44 .1 million trips in 2015, annual passenger trips have dropped 23% from 2001 . Since 2011, steady growth in ridership is apparent .

Despite the decline in total network ridership, total annual ridership on VTA’s light rail lines increased 22% 2000-2015 as the rail system expanded to new corridors:

• Guadalupe: Opened 1987-1991

• Almaden: Opened 1991

• Tasman West: Opened 1999

• Tasman East/Capitol: Opened 2001, 2004

• Vasona: Opened 2005

ProductivityProductivity is a measure of ridership per quantity of service provided . The usual measure of service quantity is the revenue hour, which is one transit vehicle operating in service for one hour . Productivity is an impor-tant metric to gauge how efficiently a transit service generates ridership; simply put, it indicates how many people boarded a bus for every hour a bus was on the road .

The productivity of the bus system displays a similar trend to that of ridership and revenue hours—a decline in the first half of the 2000s, and then a flat line in the period since (for a 21% decline overall). If ridership and revenue hours had declined at the same rate, productivity would be constant from year to year . Declining productivity in the face of declining ridership and service quantity indicates that not only has the overall amount of service dropped, but that the service that remains has

Figure 10: VTA Total Annual Boardings (Bus and Rail) 2000 - 2015

32 Bus 25

71

Light Rail 81

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, Bus and Light Rail 2000-‐2015

Figure 11: VTA Annual Ridership per Revenue Hour (Bus and Rail) 2000 - 2015

Figure 12: VTA Total Operating Expense by Mode 2000 - 2015

$-‐

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Opera*ng Expenses (2015 dollars), Bus and Light Rail

2001-‐2015

Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

-‐

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

VTA Annual Ridership -‐ Bus and Rail, 2000-‐2015

Bus

Light Rail


17.a


RE

CE

NT

TRE

ND

S

Recent Trends

generated ridership less efficiently. LRT productivity, by contrast, has increased (by 14%) .

Operating Costs and ExpensesSo far, we have examined service outcomes and quantity . But in dollar terms, what is the agency spending to deliver that service and produce those outcomes? Figure 12 on page 11 tracks total operating expen-diture from 2000 to 2015 for VTA bus and rail services, adjusted for inflation to 2015-equivalent dollars. Over this span, VTA’s total dollar spending has increased, but when adjusted for inflation, the spend-ing level has been relatively stable, dropping through the 2000s before recovering in the period from 2011 onward .

Figure 13 shows VTA’s cost per revenue hour, the cost of each unit of service it provides, for bus, rail, and the systemwide average . Again, these numbers have been adjusted to 2015 dollars for better compara-bility . During this period, the average cost per revenue hour increased by

Figure 13: VTA Cost per Revenue Hour by Mode 2000 - 2015

$177.62 $184.16

$387.99

$577.60

$194.25 $222.70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Cost per Revenue Hour (2015 dollars), Bus and Light Rail, 2001-‐2015

Light Rail

Bus

Average

15%; for the bus network, costs were relatively stable, increasing only 4% over this span, but light rail costs per revenue hour increased substan-tially, by nearly 50% .

Without a more in-depth forensic accounting, it is impossible to say con-clusively what increased costs, but we can discuss some possible related factors .

The chart shown above shows total operating expenditure based on four components: vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance (including LRT track and station upkeep), and general administration .

The biggest pieces of the cost per hour, and those that have increased the most over this span, are vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance . Some possible related factors that might be worth further investigation are:

• Changes in traffic speeds which require schedules to be written

slower (adding vehicles to routes) in order to maintain schedule headway .

• Changes in labor costs for operation and maintenance personnel, largely as required by the labor contract .

• Expansion of more expensive light rail service .

• Increases in types of service that use labor less efficiently, especially services requiring short driver shifts .

Trend ComparisonWhen we plot service quantity (annual revenue hours), cost per revenue hour, total annual ridership, and total expenses together, a relation-ship between these indicators begins to emerge . VTA’s average cost per revenue hour increased, and while total operating expenses have

Figure 14: VTA Hours, Costs and Ridership since 2000Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit AuthorityData Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

-‐13%

0%

15%

-‐23%

-‐40%

-‐30%

-‐20%

-‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Costs, Ridership, and Service Quan8ty since 2000

Cost per Revenue Hour (2015 dollars)

Total OperaAng Expense (2015 dollars) Annual Revenue Hours

Total Annual Ridership

17.a


RE

CE

NT

TRE

ND

S

Recent Trendsrecovered to their early-2000s level, the combination of increased cost per revenue hour and a greater fraction of those resources put towards more expensive light rail service have been accompanied by an overall decline in the total quantity of service .

An even greater decline in ridership accompanied the service decline, despite a growing population and employment base . In short, though VTA’s operating expenses have been stable when adjusted for inflation, and are now growing, this funding base is buying fewer revenue hours . In turn, it is less able to address the changing travel needs of people in Santa Clara County as the population and economy continue to grow .

In some regards, this tracks with the performance of the economy gen-erally . Tax-funded transit operators typically encounter a need to cut service in difficult economic circumstances. The initial drop in expendi-tures, revenue hours, and ridership took place in 2002-2004, lagging the early 2000s recession, before climbing through the mid-decade as the economy strengthened .

While VTA’s financial situation (in terms of the resources available to it and the cost to provide those services) has been mostly stable in the recent period, the fact remains that the level of service hasn’t kept up with population growth, and that ridership has suffered as a result .

Farebox RecoveryVTA’s total farebox recovery rate (the percentage of costs that are recov-ered through fares paid by passengers) has hovered between 14% - 15% in recent years, though it has dropped to 12 .2% since 2013 . Farebox recovery is an important measure of the overall level of subsidy required to operate a transit system .

Figure 15 shows farebox recovery rates for VTA and western and west coast peers since 2002, the first year for which data is available for all peers . While VTA’s farebox rate has been more stable than that of many of the other agencies examined, it is also the lowest by far . Several of the peer agencies have succeeded in increasing their farebox recovery rates over time; for example, Salt Lake City’s UTA reported fares equal to nearly 25% of operating expenses in 2013, up from just 15% in 2002 .

Two main variables control a transit agency’s farebox rate: the cost of each fare, and the quantity of fares sold (ridership) . There is a compli-cated relationship between these variables; for example, an agency may wish to grow its fare revenue by raising the fare, but a higher fare may create a disincentive that leads some riders to choose other travel options, reducing the number of fares collected . On the other hand, an agency may wish to grow ridership (increasing fare revenue), but

strategies to do so may increase cost, unless a concerted effort is made to redirect resources away from less efficient low-ridership services.

Over the long term, sustained ridership growth in the context of rela-tively stable costs will produce a higher farebox ratio, as long as the fare is not substantially outstripped by the growth of costs . This is an outcome of services that are designed to generate ridership as efficiently as possible . However, services operated for purposes other than rider-ship, such as coverage routes providing lifeline access to low-density areas, typically produce ridership less efficiently. The degree to which a transit agency orients its budget towards either goal can have a major impact on its farebox rate .

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fare

box

Reco

very

Rat

e (a

s per

cent

of T

otal

Ope

ra6n

g Ex

pens

es)

VTA and Peer Agency Farebox Recovery Rates, 2002 -‐ 2015

King County Department of Transporta@on -‐ Metro Transit Division(King County Metro)

Santa Clara Valley Transporta@on Authority(VTA)

San Francisco Municipal Railway(MUNI)

Utah Transit Authority(UTA)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta@on Authority dba: Metro(LACMTA)

Alameda-‐Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit)

Denver Regional Transporta@on District(RTD)

Tri-‐County Metropolitan Transporta@on District of Oregon(TriMet)

Data sources: Na@onal Transit Database 2013 (peer data), VTA Comprehensive peer data unavailable for years more recent than 2003.

Figure 15: VTA and Peer Agency Farebox Recovery

Comprehensive peer data unavailable for years more recent than 2013.

17.a


RE

CE

NT

TRE

ND

S

Recent Trends

Key Chapter Findings • Over the past 15 years, VTA’s total quantity of service declined 20%, from 1.65 million

revenue hours in 2001 to a low of 1.32 million in 2011. Because the population has grown during this period, the level of VTA transit service per capita in Santa Clara County has fallen as well. However, the level of service has begun to grow since 2011.

• During this same period, ridership on VTA bus and rail routes dropped substantially as well, with 2015 annual ridership down 23% from 2000 levels, despite a growing population and a similar level of total expenditure.

• When compared to 7 western peer transit agencies, including Portland’s TriMet, Oakland’s AC Transit and Denver’s RTD, VTA has consistently had the lowest level of farebox recovery, hovering between 14% and 15% for most of the past 15 years.

• The average cost per revenue hour for VTA service (bus and rail, adjusted for inflation to 2015 dollars) has increased moderately since 2000, and as of 2015 stood at approximately 15% above the year-2000 level.

17.a


Market Assessment2

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentWhy Development Patterns MatterTransit service, ridership, and performance are overwhelmingly governed by the pattern of urban development . This pattern largely determines how many people will be near a stop, whether they can walk to it, and whether transit can follow a path that will be useful to many customers . When designing for high ridership, transit agencies will naturally focus service on places where these conditions are favorable .

The image in Figure 16 offers a simple distillation of the key ways that the built environment governs transit ridership . Four facts about the environment are critical:

• Density: how large is the market for transit within a given distance of each stop? This is the first-order measure of transit potential. The more people or jobs are located in the fixed area around a stop, the larger is transit’s potential market .

• Walkability: how easy is it for people near each stop to actually reach it? If there are physical barriers to this access, including poorly con-nected street patterns or difficulties crossing a major street, the market of people who can reach a stop is smaller .

• Linearity: can transit serve an area in straight, efficient paths, or is time-consuming deviation required to reach destinations? Wherever destinations are set far back from the street, or accessed only from circuitous roadways, it is harder to combine its market with other markets to build strong and durable transit lines .

• Proximity: are there long gaps between destinations and strong markets that transit must traverse? For example, linking Gilroy to San Jose is a less productive market than it would be if Gilroy were closer since the distance determines the cost of providing the service .

In some cases, the diversity of land uses can also matter . This helps to determine whether demand is evenly distributed in both directions and throughout the day, both of which use service more efficiently. Mixtures of housing, retail and jobs are generally much better on this score than large areas that are all residential or all employment .

These factors determine both the costs of providing transit in a par-ticular place and how many people are likely to find the service useful. Density and walkability tell us about the overall potential of the market: are there are a lot of people around, and can they get to the place where the product is available? Linearity and proximity tell us about cost: are we going to be able to serve the market with short, fast, direct line or will our costs be higher as we must design service that uses indirect or

Figure 16: The Ridership Recipe: Density, Walkability, Linearity, and Proximity

longer paths?

Transit agencies can influence the level of ridership their services gener-ate, and the efficiency at which they do so, by targeting these sorts of favorable land uses appropriately . However, they cannot directly control the urban form of the places they serve . Without dense, walkable places along linear street patterns, where density is continuous along efficient transit paths, transit service alone is unlikely to support a high ridership outcome . Only local governments have the ability to directly effect these

characteristics of urban form; the transit agency can seek to provide a level of service that can be useful and competitive with other modes, but ultimately without a development context that produces transit-oriented places of all types, the ceiling for transit ridership is constrained .

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentPopulation and Employment GrowthSanta Clara County is the heart of one of the country’s most dynamic regions . It is California’s fastest growing county with an average popula-tion growth rate of 1 .1% annually since 2010 . Figure 17 shows total population estimates from the American Community Survey and projected population from California’s Department of Finance indicating continued growth into the future (at a slower rates than has been observed over the past five years).

Transit Abundance and RelevanceBy comparing ridership and population, we can get an idea of how relevant transit is to the daily lives of people in the region as it has grown . We can examine how much service there is per person and how many trips per resident of Santa Clara County were made on transit each year .

Figure 19 shows per capita transit ridership (based on Census and American Community Survey annual population estimates) for the same 13 year period . In 2015, this number sat at 23 .4—about 2 transit trips per month per person—on average . Figure 20 shows transit abundance as how much service (in terms of revenue hours) there was per resident in the County each year . Based on these indicators, the relevance and abundance of VTA’s service has declined from its dot-com-era highs, but mostly held steady at around its current rate since 2010 .

Note, however, than when revenue hours per capita are constant, it means that on average people are not seeing significant improvement in their transit service . It means only that the agency is not falling behind the needs of popu-lation growth, at least in terms of the quantity of service offered .

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Santa Clara County Labor Force

Figure 17: Santa Clara County Population 2000 - 2015 Figure 18: Santa Clara County Labor Force 2000 - 2015

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Santa Clara County Popula.on

Total Popula0on Projected Popula0on

33.8 31.5

27.0

22.9 22.1 23.3 24.4 24.9 25.7 23.5 23.2 23.5 23.6 23.2 23.4

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Ridership per Capita

Figure 19: Transit Relevance

0.97 0.97 0.95 0.89

0.81 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.76

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VTA Revenue Hours per Capita

Figure 20: Transit Abundance

Data Source: ACS 2013, California Dept of Finance Data Source: California Dept of Finance

Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentResidential DensityAs mentioned earlier, density is one of the most critical indicators for transit’s ability to generate high ridership . Where there are more people of all sorts, there are more people who may choose to use transit for their travel needs .

Residential density is the simplest measure of this . While not all trips start or end at home, nearly everybody makes at least one trip starting or ending at their place of residence every day .

Residential density in the VTA service area is concentrated in central and near eastern San Jose along the Santa Clara Street / Alum Rock corridor . Important secondary pockets of density exist west of downtown San Jose along the Stevens Creek corridor and generally throughout the eastern portion of the service area . Densities are lower across the southwest area than on the east side, but there are pockets of more concentrated develop-ment along Bascom, east of Saratoga between Campbell and Stevens Creek, and in central Cupertino .

Figure 21: Population Density

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentEmployment DensityWhile most people will travel to and from a place of residence in a given day, employment density provides an indica-tor for other trips to destinations such as workplaces, stores, and restaurants . The more people who work in a place, the more work trips must be made to and from that location each day . Likewise, commercial areas will generate trips made by their employees and their cus-tomers . This is part of why employment density tends to be slightly more power-ful than residential density in predicting ridership .

Employment concentrates more than population, as businesses tend to agglomerate into downtown cores, com-mercial strips, industrial parks, or large campuses . The development pattern of Santa Clara County includes a traditional dense downtown core in San Jose . Apart from that location, considerable concen-trations of employment exist all along the El Camino Real and 1st St corridors, as well as throughout north San Jose .

Comparing this map to the previous one reveals a basic transportation challenge created by the pattern of develop-ment . The centroid of jobs in the County is further north than the centroid of residences, generating a heavy south-to-north commuting pattern often involving considerable distances . This pattern is a key limiting factor on transit productiv-ity. People flow mostly one direction at a time . Buses and trains tend to be empty when moving in the reverse-peak direc-tion, as they must to return to base or begin another trip. Where demand flows two-way, as along the Caltrain line and El Camino Real, ridership is easier to gener-ate efficiently.

Figure 22: Employment Density

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market Assessment

MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market Assessment

Figure 23: Total Employment

Total EmploymentTotal Employment looks at current job distribution without taking density into consideration . This view shows us the total distribution of jobs, particularly in places where density is low but overall quantity is high. However, because zone sizes vary (typically based on population), larger zones sometimes have many jobs within them, but which are distributed across a larger area .

Where many jobs are dispersed across a large area, fewer people will be near to any given stop than if they were more concentrated . Additionally, low pedes-trian connectivity within these zones reduces their overall walkability, while superblocks and lack of traditional street grids extends the distance transit must travel to provide services, often requiring less direct and more circuitous paths .

Many of these transit challenges are unin-tentionally created by land-use choices and can be addressed through foresight in design . For example, by orienting office campuses around central nodes, a single transit stop can serve multiple buildings. Additionally, locating office parks in a more traditional street grid can increase walkability and allow transit more direct access .

Transit supportive employment land-uses such as mixed use areas, and traditional main streets allow for higher quality service at lower costs . In turn businesses gain access to larger transit access for employees and customers .

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market Assessment

Figure 24: Activity Density

Activity DensityActivity density maps help us see residential and employment density all at once, and calls out places where there’s a high degree of mixture .

Figure 24 combines them together to provide an indication of total activity . Higher population density is shown in red and employment density in blue . Shades of purple identify areas of mixture . The highest mixed densities are highlighted in yellow, and appear only in very small zones in downtowns. (As always, small zones make it easier for a small high density area to stand out .)

Places with a high density of both pop-ulation and employment are likely to be some of the strongest markets for transit, since they combine residential, employment, commercial, and service destinations . These areas are also more likely to have large shares of people commuting by walking or cycling .

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentZero-Vehicle HouseholdsWhile the sheer quantity of people and jobs, as well as their physical configuration, tend to be the biggest determinants of transit demand, some demographic factors are also of interest .

One of these is the number of people with little or no access to a personal motor vehicle (car or motorcycle) . Since the census produces estimates of the number of households in each area with access to no vehicles, we can use this information to make maps of the density of these households . Obviously people with limited access to personal vehicles must find alter-native methods of traveling, be they ridesharing, cycling, or transit . Which of these they choose has everything to do with availability and convenience . Obviously, if transit is of limited use for the trips a person needs to make, they are less likely to use it, even if they don’t have access to an automo-bile in their household . This person is not transit-dependent; we might say that they have a greater propensity towards transit use by virtue of their constrained set of options .

The VTA area displays large areas of persons without access to cars con-centrated in downtown San Jose and in Mountain View, apart from the expected concentrations at universi-ties . Scattered concentrations in east and southeast San Jose, where walking and cycling are not as easy, indicate some extreme needs for transit .

Figure 25: Zero-Vehicle Household Density

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentPovertyOne goal that transit is often tasked with serving is the provision of afford-able transportation for lower-income people . As such, we want to under-stand where lower-income people are located . One way to do this is by mapping the density of people in poverty . (Some reports show what per-centage of each zone’s residents are in poverty, but this can be misleading because it calls out large percentages of tiny populations .)

The largest concentration of people in poverty is found on San Jose’s east side, with secondary concentra-tions along the Monterey and Senter corridors to the south, and between Stevens Creek and Hamilton west of downtown . In addition, small pockets of high concentrations of people in poverty are located further west espe-cially in Campbell, Mountain View, and northern Sunnyvale . Poverty is often a feature of relatively isolated zones.

It is also important to note the degree to which poverty is not concentrated . Apart from the most affluent communi-ties such as Saratoga, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, all parts of the service area have people who may come to rely on transit for reasons of income .

Figure 26: Density of People in Poverty

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentMedian Household IncomeWhile mapping the density of people in poverty can inform the process of ensuring that the most urgent needs are met, transit is competitive across a range of incomes based on a range of choices that people may make .

A common misconception is that transit, especially all-day transit, is just for very low income people who cannot afford a car . This is a simplistic take on a complex matter . People at many points on the income spectrum make choices about how to travel . They may have disincentives to driving depend-ing on their situations and tastes .

What is true is that people with fewer resources on the whole have fewer resources to devote to each of life’s costs: housing, food, and transporta-tion . The more carefully a person must manage money, the more attractive transit’s value proposition will be .

This doesn’t mean that lower-income people will automatically choose transit because it’s the cheapest option . The service available to them must be useful and reliable for the kinds of trips they need to make . Nor does it mean that a person further up the income spectrum is impossible to attract to transit . Not everyone likes driving, and increasing numbers of people are choosing to own fewer cars, creating voluntary transit dependence .

Figure 27: Median Household Income

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market Assessment

Figure 28: Transit Commute Rate

Transit CommutingDespite the fact that only about 3% of people in Santa Clara use transit as their primary means of transportation to work, in small areas where transit is available and useful, usage rates are much higher as shown in Figure 28 . This is true across the inner eastern area of San Jose where the bulk of VTA’s frequent services are located, as well as along the El Camino Real cor-ridor in Sunnyvale and Mountain View .

It is important to remember that the work commute is only one type of trip, albeit the one that is most measured . But this data source can’t tell us any-thing about the other trips people are making using transit to go shopping, visit friends, see a movie, and all the other possible reasons that exist that someone might have to make a trip .

On the other hand, for many people, the work trip is the most important, time-sensitive trip they make each day, and the one that must be the most reliable . In select areas of the County, especially those near VTA’s most frequent, most reliable services, transit is a realistic choice for more than 5%, and in more limited cases 10%, of commuters .

More information on commute share by mode is available in Figure 29 on page 26 .

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentMarket Factor ComparisonHow do these market indicators relate to each other and to transit demand? By comparing plots of each factor, we can start to tease out ways in which different factors relate, and improve our overall under-standing of the market for transit in Santa Clara County . Each of the factors we have discussed previously has an important relationship to transit; for instance, density of people and jobs signals the size of the total travel market around any given transit stop, while poverty, median income and zero-vehicle households tell us about additional motivations to use transit that certain people may have . Of course, these choice-driving features (poverty, low vehicle ownership) do not indicate transit markets by themselves, but only when they appear together with favor-able development patterns (density, assessed here, but also walkability and linearity) .

Transit Commuting and DensityWhile no single land use factor is solely responsible for people’s travel choices, we can begin to observe a connection between transit commut-ing and population density .

Figure 30 shows population density and transit commute rate (from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)) for block groups within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop . We’ve selected only places where the oppor-tunity to commute by transit actually exists . Here, we can see a clear, moderate correlation between population density and transit . Despite the fact that across the County, only 3% of commuters are using transit to get to work according to 2013 ACS data1, limited areas have much higher rates, something we observed when examining the map on the last page . These areas of higher transit commute rates also tend to be denser; for example, among block groups with greater than 10% transit commute share, the average population density is slightly greater than 14,000 people per square mile .

The match is not stronger in part because of varying levels of walkability and different types of development patterns, as well as the level and usefulness of transit service in each place . For instance, a very dense block group that is only served by 1 trip per hour isn’t going to have a very high level of transit commuting as long as its transit options are so limited .

We can also examine transit use in terms of employment density, although this requires the use of a slightly different measure . The census measures transit commuting rates, and attaches this information to the location of a respondent’s home . However, places with dense

1 ACS commuting data includes only work trips, and does not include school trips .

employment are often not places where many people live, and if a strong mixture of uses is present, there is a good chance that walking and cycling will be attractive options as well .

Instead, we compare the density of boardings in each block group to the density of jobs . Density of boardings is measured by assigning each stop’s boardings to nearby block groups within 1/4 mile of the stop

location, based on the fraction of the area of the walk radius within each block group . A stop entirely within one block group would be assigned 100% of its ridership, while if it were 50% within one group, it would receive half of the ridership .

Figure 31 plots these factors together . A moderate correlation similar to that between transit commute rate and population density is visible .

Figure 30: Transit Commuting and Population Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013)

Figure 31: Boarding Density and Employment Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013, VTA 2015)

Mode Santa Clara County

Cupertino Milpitas Mountain View

Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale

Drove alone 76% 79% 79% 71% 65% 77% 77%

Carpool 10% 9% 13% 10% 6% 11% 10%

Public Transportation 3% 2% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4%

Bicycle 2% 1% 0% 5% 9% 1% 2%

Walked 2% 1% 1% 3% 6% 2% 1%

Other means 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Worked at home 5% 6% 4% 5% 9% 4% 4%

Figure 29: Means of Transportation to Work by Mode (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013)

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentFurthermore, among the top 25% of block groups by boarding density, the average density of employment is 12,000 jobs per square mile .

Population Density and IncomeA common misconception about transit held by many people with less experience riding or thinking about it is that transit is a service for and primarily used by low-income people . This is tied to a social-service understanding of transit, in that its purpose is to provide a basic travel option for people who can’t afford a private automobile, and to a con-ception about where people live that assumes that people with higher incomes don’t live at transit-supportive densities .

Density, however, is a better predictor of ridership than income, because people who choose to live at high densities are choosing places where driving is more of a nuisance and more alternatives to it exist . So it is important to note, first of all, that density and income are less strongly correlated than many people would assume . This is shown in Figure 32 .

While very high income people mostly live at low densities, there are relatively high density places (i .e ., greater than 10,000 people per square mile) with median incomes well over $100,000/year, an indica-tor that some relatively wealthy people are looking for urban lifestyles that require less car dependence . For average incomes below that level, there appears to be no correlation between income and density at all, indicating that for a large spectrum of the population, people are choos-ing to live at high or low density for many reasons that may or may not be directly connected to their income level .

For a large spectrum of the population, people are choosing to live at high or low density for many reasons that may or may not be directly connected to their income level.

Correspondingly, the lower left of this plot shows numerous zones where very poor people live at very low density. These are the most difficult markets for transit, places where ridership potential is low but social-service expectations for transit may be high .

Zero-Vehicle Households and IncomeChoosing not to own a car tends to make you more likely to use transit . Once the car isn’t available, you will consider other options for every trip . It is helpful to note how this is or is not related to income, as shown in Figure 33 .

$-‐

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000

Med

ian Income

Popula0on Density

Median Income and Popula0on Density

Figure 32: Median Income & Population Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013)

$-‐

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Med

ian Family In

come

Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles

Median Income and Zero-‐Vehicle Household %

Figure 33: Median Income & Zero-Vehicle Household Percentage (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013)

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentZero vehicle households are generally low in Santa Clara County, amounting to less than 10% of the overwhelming majority of block groups . Extremely high rates of carlessness (over 25% of households) seem to correlate with relative low income, but rates of 10% are found at incomes up to approximately $150,000 .

It is worth noting that zero vehicle households, a measure provided by the census, is not an ideal metric; a better one would be “cars per person of driving age” in a household . Many people rely on transit and other non-car modes not because their household has no cars but because it has fewer cars than people who could potentially drive them .

Zero-Vehicle Households and DensityThe strongest correlation of all is between zero-vehicle households and density, shown in Figure 34 . Density predicts carlessness much better than income does, which makes sense because people at many incomes live at many densities . You must live at high density for a no-car lifestyle to be practical, since high density means both (a) that good transit is probably viable and (b) that many other destinations of interest are likely to be in walking or cycling distance .

The Bottom LinePeople choose transit as a result of other choices they’ve made, notably the choice of whether to live near good transit (usually at higher density) and whether to own a car (or own enough cars for everyone in the household) . These choices have many motivations other than income, as the broad spread of these scatter plots indicates .

Rather than thinking of transit as being for low income people, it is more precise to say that it’s for people who have made certain choices within the framework of their economic circumstances . These choices, notably the interlocking choices of location and vehicle ownership, are the real drivers of transit demand . This can help to counter the misleading notion that only more affluent riders are “choice” riders. Lower income people also make choices about car dependence that are very consequential for both transit ridership and congestion, as well as for their own economic prospects .

As we outlined at the beginning of this chapter, the location of a resi-dence or job governs how viable transit can be, with the four critical variables being density, walkability, linearity, and proximity . Density is the only one of these that’s easy to describe demographically, but it’s also the most important of the four. High density zones are usually (though not always) favorable for the other conditions and thus places where high quality transit is viable . High density also makes parking more of a hassle

Figure 34: Population and Zero-Vehicle Household Density (ACS 5-Year Summary File, 2008-2013)

and cars less necessary; thus low vehicle ownership naturally correlates with it . This further enhances transit’s potential in those places .

The next chapter explores these relationships further, using VTA’s ridership data . Note again that this data is only about VTA and thus under-counts ridership where other transit agencies are present .

17.a


MA

RK

ET

ASS

ESS

ME

NT

Market AssessmentKey Chapter Findings• Key land use factors governing transit are density, walkability, linearity and proximity.

• Density and walkability tell us about the overall potential of the market: are there are a lot of people around, and can they get to the place where the product is available?

• Linearity and proximity tell us about cost: are we going to be able to serve the market with short, fast, direct line or will our costs be higher as we must design service that uses indirect or longer paths?

• Santa Clara County is California’s fastest growing county with an average population growth rate of 1.1% annually since 2010.

• Most growth in the county will increase density, as there is little room for horizontal growth. This density will increase traffic and also increase transit needs.

• The county’s job/housing distribution is unbalanced, with a majority of housing located to the south and east while the majority of jobs are to the north and west. By contrast, transit is most cost-effective and productive where jobs and housing are more mixed, e.g. along El Camino Real and Stevens Creek.

• While transit is used as a commute mode by only 3% of commuters countywide, the rate is much higher in some locations, typically those served by highly useful transit.

• Density is a better predictor of ridership than income, because people living at high densities are more apt to seek alternatives to driving. For the same reason, car ownership is lower in high density places, to a degree not fully explained by income alone.

17.a


Transit Service and Performance3

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformanceService OverviewVTA operates 3 light rail lines and 77 bus lines of various types, across a service area of 346 square miles inhabited by 1,889,638 people. In fiscal year 2015, more than 32 million trips were made on VTA bus routes, and more than 11 million on light rail . On an average weekday, over 140,000 boardings occur on VTA services .

VTA classifies its bus services into one of five categories: Core, Local, Community, Express, and Limited Stop . Chapter 4 explores these cat-egories in greater detail .

Core routes are generally higher-ridership, more frequent routes in the central part of Santa Clara County . The Local and Community routes are often less frequent lines serving areas where densities are lower . The Express and Limited routes offer long-distance, limited-stop connections often using freeways and expresswaysh between regional destinations .

The two charts shown in Figure 35 display daily weekday vehicle hours2 and ridership by route type . Core services, the most productive, make up 2/3 of VTA’s bus service but account for 3/4 of daily boardings on the bus system . All of the other service types represent a smaller share of boardings than of service quantity . This helps to illustrate the higher rid-ership potential of Core services, which arises from their high frequency, easy connections, and the diversity of purposes for which they are useful .

FrequencyFigure 36 on page 32 displays VTA’s network categorized by the pre-vailing midday frequency of each route . Frequency is critical to focus on because it is an expensive investment that should pay off in much higher ridership, because frequency makes service so much more useful .

We define frequent service as any transit service operating at 15-minute or better headways . Industry experience has shown that this is a thresh-old at which riders start to trust the service to arrive within a reasonable waiting time without consulting a schedule . Frequency reveals where a transit system is focusing its resources . Showing midday frequency points to where those resources and level of convenience are available all day long—places where people can choose to rely on it for all kinds of trips .

2 We use vehicle hours rather than revenue hours to understand the total resource split, because vehicle hours include deadhead, which is the time spent running empty to and from the ends of the run . It is important to use vehicle hours whenever doing comparisons that involve Express service, because these long one-way runs have dramatically higher deadhead than other services, since the bus and driver must deadhead the entire way in the reverse-peak direction before or after each one-way trip . When dealing with local services the difference between vehicle hours and revenue hours matters less, because deadhead does not differ so much across different service types .

From this map, we can make a few key observations:

• VTA operates a frequent network of 12 major all-day routes (includ-ing segments where multiple routes are overlaid to produce a higher frequency) .

• The east side of the service area, particularly within San Jose, boasts a very rich network of frequent services . Many of these routes connect to light rail as well, creating a frequent network grid through the area that enables multidirectional travel with short waiting times .

• The low frequency across the western 2/3 of the county is very striking, especially given the known pockets of density, low car own-ership, and low income that can be found here near El Camino Real and Caltrain . (Caltrain, it must be remembered, is not frequent at all, rarely coming more than once an hour at most stations .) Only two major frequent corridors extend far west of downtown San Jose -- El Camino Real and Stevens Creek .

There are two separate issues here, the coherence or connectivity of the

frequent network and its fit with density.

Community 8%

Local 17%

Core 66%

Limited 1%

Express 8%

Weekday Vehicle Hours by Route Type

Community 6%

Local 14%

Core 75%

Limited 0%

Express 5%

Weekday Average Daily Ridership by Route Type

Figure 35: VTA Bus Service Quantity (Vehicle Hours) and Ridership by Route TypeData Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Data Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

<1%

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformanceCoherence or ConnectivityA basic question about transit networks is not just where they go but where you can get to along them . Transit is useless unless it connects you to many pos-sible destinations, and we use the terms coherence or connectivity to describe how well it does that .

Whatever transit line you live on, you need to get to places that are not on that line . This requires that connec-tions be easy . That is only possible where frequencies are high -- i .e . where red lines intersect on this map -- or where connections can be timed, as is done between some feeders and the commuter rail schedules . Timing of connections, however, only works with relatively short and specialized routes. Most VTA network are too long, and too hard to run reliably, for precise timing of connections to be viable .

This is why a frequent grid pattern of services, such as east San Jose has, is so powerful . Where red lines cross on this map, you can connect in any direction, so you can travel from many possible origins to many possible destinations .

By contrast, where less frequent blue or green lines cross on this map, the connection is very difficult, and may introduce substantial delay .

Across the western half of the county there are three frequent lines (counting LRT to Mountain View) but they do not touch each other, so no frequent con-nections are possible .

Figure 36: VTA Frequent Network Map After Planned 2016 Changes

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformanceFit of Frequency with DensityThe map in Figure 37 shows the Frequent Network (those routes operat-ing at 15-minute headway or better for the peak and midday) overlaid on the map of activity density presented in Chapter 2 .

VTA’s present network aims to concen-trate frequency in its strongest markets, an appropriate design strategy given its imperative from the 2010 Transit Sustainability Policy to “increase transit mode share by focusing resources to target markets where transit can compete effectively”3 . However, apart from the issues of connectivity outlined above, the fit of the network to density is also not ideal .

If we compare this map to the map of poverty density, (see Figure 26 on page 23), we can observe that the current pattern of frequent service seems to be tracking poverty more closely than density . This matters to ridership, because density is a better predictor of ridership than poverty, but it also matters to meeting the needs of low income riders .

Frequent services currently concentrate where poverty is highest, in eastern San Jose, but this is an area with many residences but few jobs or activity des-tinations . The frequent network does not appear adequate to connect East San Jose residents to a sufficiently wide range of opportunities such as jobs, school, retail, and other activity centers . (Note that lower income people are more likely to need to travel at all times of day, so peak-only services have little relevance to them .)

3 VTA Transit Sustainability Policy, 2010, p . 3 .

Figure 37: VTA Frequent Transit Network and 2017 Land Use after Planned 2016 Changes

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformancePeak Frequency MapDoes the issues with the frequent network improve much during rush hour? While the peak service level is substantially higher, the availability of frequent service doesn’t expand dramatically .

Figure 38 shows the frequency of service during the AM peak period, when several routes’ and segments of routes’ frequencies increase for the rush hour .

Comparing this map to the previous one, peak frequency increases consist mostly of 20-minute services rising to every 15 minutes, (orange lines turning red) . Most of these are in San Jose, though they include the line to Gilroy and some service in Milpitas .

Meanwhile, in the west half of the county, only a small area of north-ern Sunnyvale gains high frequency service during the peak period . All of the issues of connectivity and fit with density addressed above continue to exist .

Again, this map does not show the full picture of peak-only service, espe-cially in the main employment areas, because other operators provide significant peak service there. These include the Caltrain and ACE shuttles, Stanford’s shuttle system, and exten-sive private sector services for specific employers .

Figure 38: VTA Peak Frequency Map After Planned 2016 Changes

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformanceGeographic Pattern of RidershipFigure 39 displays VTA’s weekday rider-ship pattern by stop . Each stop in the network is shown, sized by the total cumulative number of average daily boardings that happen at that stop across all routes that provide service there . The data on this map was col-lected in March 2015 .

Note that major transfer points, iden-tifiable on the previous map as places where frequent lines (including rail) intersect, will show high boardings that may not reflect local area demand.

Note how strongly ridership follows frequency by comparing this map to the previous one .

Each of the light rail lines exhibits quite high average daily ridership, with nearly 2/3 of light rail stations seeing over 250 average daily boardings per day . Since light rail investments typically target strong target markets, and gener-ally feature high frequency service, a high quantity of total ridership is to be expected on those corridors .

The areas with the most high ridership stops are in downtown and the eastern side of San Jose, west along El Camino Real, and west along Stevens Creek . These areas, which together make up the bulk of the area served by VTA’s frequent network, have the greatest number of stops with over 100 and over 250 average daily boardings . This holds true along the length of both west side corridors and along Alum Rock, King, McKee, and Story in the east .

There are also several secondary Figure 39: Average Weekday Ridership by Stop

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performancecorridors not presently part of the all-day frequent network (though they do have 15-minute service during peak periods) but which have numer-ous stops in the 10-50 and 50-100 average daily boardings ranges:

• Winchester, particularly the segment south of Stevens Creek

• Bascom between Stevens Creek and Curtner

• Monterey St .

• Senter Rd .

• Oakland Rd . from central Milpitas south to downtown San Jose

Apart from the major frequent network corridors, other important nodes pop out as more isolated locations of high-ridership stops, including:

• Bus stops near the airport, connecting to El Camino Real services and LRT served by route 10 .

• Transit centers where many routes connect, such as Great Mall and Winchester .

• Historic downtowns with dense mixed use, such as Sunnyvale, which also include Caltrain connections .

• Light rail stops connecting to bus routes, such as Lockheed Martin, Capitol Ave, and Santa Teresa .

• Shopping centers, including Westgate at Saratoga and Prospect .

• Community colleges that attract commuter students from a distance, such as De Anza College, Evergreen Valley Community College, Mission College, and Foothill College .

Also of note are areas where we don’t see many high ridership stops on this map, but there are sources of transit demand .

• Palo Alto, Stanford, and the Shoreline area of Mountain View show low boardings, but this partly reflects the abundance of local transit not directly provided by VTA . Stanford has its own extensive shuttle system . Palo Alto and Shoreline are also served by Caltrain shuttles and by SamTrans, apart from frequent services on El Camino Real .

• Infrequent corridors (like Sunnyvale-Saratoga, Wolfe, or Curtner), typ-ically do not have the sustained pattern of high-ridership (50 average daily boardings or above) stops found on the frequent network, and their highest-ridership points are likely to be transfer points or major nodes, rather than long segments where a strong market is matched with a high level of service .

Transit ProductivityProductivity, or boardings per revenue hour, is essentially ridership per unit of service cost, i .e . “bang for the buck .” We discussed this measure briefly for the entire network in Chapter 1. For every hour a transit vehicle is in service, how many people board the bus? Productivity reveals how effective a revenue hour is at generating ridership when invested in one service relative to another .

Productivity is strictly about the goal of ridership . Services that are designed for other goals, like coverage or congestion mitigation, may not perform well on the productivity metric . This does not mean that these services are failing or that the transit agency should cut them . It just means that they are not serving a ridership goal .

Further sections of this report will discuss VTA’s performance relative to other goals .

Productivity by FrequencyWhat do routes that generate ridership efficiently have in common? In examining transit systems in cities around the country, we have found a general correlation between transit route frequency and productivity, as shown in Figure 40 . (Note that this chart excludes peak-only routes and extremely infrequent routes) .

The chart in Figure 41 displays the productivity (boardings per revenue hour) of each VTA route on the y axis, with frequency on the x axis . Each point is colored based on which of VTA’s route categories it falls within .

Since this displays productivity data based on ridership and revenue

Figure 40: Route Productivity and Frequency- Data from VTA and 16 transit agencies

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performancehour numbers from 2015, the 181 is shown in the 30-minute group here . In addition split frequency routes, such as route 25, are grouped into their highest frequency segment . Note that high frequency, which is described as a low number of minutes between consecutive trips, is to the left on the x axis . Services that operate only during limited periods of the day are grouped together in the peak-only pane of the chart .

Frequent services tend to produce more ridership per revenue hour, even though they also have the highest cost.

As observed before, more frequent services tend to produce more productivity (ridership per revenue hour), even though, on the surface, high frequency means more revenue hours which should pull the ratio down . This happens because frequent service is the most useful and convenient service for riders and transit agencies target this most expensive service towards their strongest markets . Most of the highest-productivity services fall into VTA’s Core Network, which includes the majority of its high -frequency routes .

It is important to note that no fare is charged on routes 201 (downtown San Jose shuttle) and 10 (serving the airport), two of the higher productivity routes .

There are other high productivity services that do not operate at high frequency . Among the 30-minute routes, six operate at better than 30 boardings per revenue hour, and three 60-minute routes meet this standard . These routes, which may support higher frequency, are investigated more closely in the next section .

Where are VTA’s most productive services? Figure 42 shows VTA’s most and least productive local routes broken out by productivity quartile (the same number of routes in each category) . The upper quartile are VTA’s most productive routes . The lower quartile are VTA’s lowest-productivity routes . Routes are colored based on which of VTA’s service categories they fall into .

The match between VTA’s frequent network and its most pro-ductive services is immediately evident, as the major frequent corridors (22,23,72) all show up in the top quartile, as do several routes which are either near-frequent (as in the case of the 66 and Figure 41: VTA Route Productivity Chart

Figure 42: VTA Route Productivity Chart

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performance

73) or have shorter frequent segments (as in the case of the 64 and 25) .

Several of the westside crosstown corridors also appear in the upper quartile, particularly those flowing through Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

In the third and lower quartiles, the absolute lowest performers tend to be highly duplicative infrequent routes or circuitous local cover-age routes like the 88, 34, and 35 . Note how these routes, or the areas served, tend to be unfavorable on two or more of the key built environ-ment factors: density, walkability, or linearity . Even setting aside the issue of frequency, a long, straight route is more likely to be useful for a wide range of purposes, compared to a small and squiggly one . No long, straight routes are in the bottom quartile .

Productivity Outliers20-minute routesAmong the four 20-minute routes, the 73 along Senter Road in southern San Jose stands apart, achieving better that 40 board-ings per revenue hour—the second highest productivity among all routes in the network . A detailed map of the 73 is shown above .

Route 73 offers a relatively high level of service (20 minute during the midday, with 15 minute peak service) to a short direct corridor

with pockets of high density housing and employment at both ends and along the route . The southern portion of the route along Senter passes through zones with population densities in excess of 15,000-20,000 people per square mile . Further northwest along Senter, the route serves a dense employment area at Tully before proceeding into downtown San Jose .

The 73 provides a useful example of how routes serving the same area can generate very different ridership outcomes . Compare the map of the 73 to route 42 in Figure 44 . In terms of the ridership recipe:

• The 73 and 42 both serve some of the same relatively dense terrain of southeast San Jose .

Figure 43: 73-Snell & Capitol - Downtown San Jose Route ProfileData Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

Figure 44: 42- Kaiser-Evergreen Valley College Route ProfileData Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performance• While the 73 operates in a straight line on Monterey for nearly

its entire length, the 42 turns east towards its eastern terminus at Evergreen Valley Community College, an important destination and the busiest stop on its route . To get there, it traverses a long stretch of very low density along Yerba Buena Road with only a single-digit number of boardings .

• The 73 stays with Monterey, while the 42 makes two long (one-to-two mile) deviations in this segment . Deviations add time to the route, making it more expensive, but it also means that it can provide direct service to destinations like the Edenview Community Center on Branham (the northeast corner of the northern deviation off Monterey) .

Simply put, the 73 is a highly productive route, generating ridership in a way we would expect with the ridership recipe in mind: a decent level of service to dense locations in close proximity to one another, operating on a very linear path . On the other hand, the 42 serves a dense market for its southern half and is anchored by a strong destination (the college) at its northeast end, but it runs a serpentine path in order to serve some destinations away from the straightest route . It must also traverse a gap in development to get to the college . The lack of linearity means a weak market with weak ridership .

Infrequent Crosstown Routes

Earlier, in our initial examination of the network frequency map, we noted that an interesting characteristic of VTA’s network is the lack of frequent north-south crosstown service in the western portion of the service area. Of note, nearly all of the crosstown services fitting this role in the network are high-ridership, despite running only hourly or half-hourly and often being so close together that their service areas overlap .

Routes 26, 53, 54, 55, and 57 all generate over 30 boardings per revenue hour and fall within the highest quartile of local services operated by VTA . These routes are shown by their productivity in the productivity chart in page 16 .

One of VTA’s most productive corridors is El Camino Real, consisting of Local route 22 and its Rapid overlay, the 522 . The routes serving this corridor record more than 21,000 boardings on an average weekday, operating at high frequencies very productively . The agency’s ongoing work towards BRT on the street further indicates its vital importance for travel in the region . Yet despite this, no all-day frequent connections to the 22 or 522 are available across the entire region west of downtown San Jose other than route 10, which is of limited use for all-direction travel given its focus on the airport .

At first glance, the area between these corridors may not appear well suited to high-frequency transit . From the maps in the market analysis section of this report, we can observe that residential and employment density along Hollenbeck, Sunnyvale-Saratoga/De Anza, Wolfe, and Saratoga/Kelly (as well as Winchester or Bascom) is generally lower than in important regional centers like downtown, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, or Mountain View, or along the two existing radial westside corridors . Some of these street segments, like De Anza, are designed like freeways, hostile to pedestrians, thus difficult to serve with transit.

In isolation from the rest of the network, none of these corridors would seem an ideal choice for frequent transit . However, crosstown segments

are a key element of a multidirectional network, and a crucial link for non-radial trips .

Imagine a person located between Wolfe and Saratoga along Stevens Creek who needs to travel to somewhere around Reed and Wolfe . The first stage of their trip would be simple and reliable - wait just a few minutes (never more than 12) for a 323 or 23, and ride to Wolfe . However, the transfer to the 26 means changing to an infrequent route, and the average wait will be 15 minutes, maybe even longer if you just

Figure 45: Westside crosstown corridors

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Let’s examine one of these routes, the 55 (shown in Figure 46) . The 55 runs every 30 minutes throughout the day with a peak frequent segment north of El Camino Real . Looking at the map in Figure 47, we see that the ridership at stops north of the Caltrain station and El Camino Real is not substantially greater than the southern segment . Boardings on the northern segment are largely in the southbound (red) direction, while boardings on the southern segment are generally northbound (blue) .

missed the last bus .

No frequent all-day routes operate north-south in the portion of the network west of Bascom.

Grid transit networks, like that in east San Jose, solve this problem by making sure a bus is always coming on both legs of the trip . While the unique market of some of the segments in question on the west side may not be as strong as in other locations already served by frequent transit, a frequent grid connection across the west side improves the connection to all sorts of destinations along the dense El Camino Real and Stevens Creek corridors .

Catching an infrequent bus from home, you can wait until the last minute before you leave to go to the stop, but with a transfer, it is difficult for to be sure that you are not going to be left out on the street . This uncertainty is a major detriment to the sense of spontaneity transit can provide .

None of the routes intersecting El Camino Real offer an all-day frequent connection running north-south in the western potion of the service area . This means that any trips involving a transfer between the 22 or 23 and a intersecting route will involve at least one long wait, and two-seat trips across the area that don’t involve either corridor will definitely require long waits during each leg . If we take half the headway of a route as the average wait before arrival, we can see how frequency improves the speed of trips:

• Trip 1: two 15-minute frequent routes: 15 minute total average wait (7 .5 + 7 .5)

• Trip 2: one 15-minute frequent route, one 30-minute route: 22 .5 minute total average wait (7 .5 + 15)

• Trip 3: two 30-minute routes: 30 minute total average wait (15 + 15)

Regardless of how far we are going, trips involving a transfer will always be faster, more convenient, and more reliable the more frequent each connection is .

The high productivity of several routes may indicate a potential market for such frequent service in future. However, it is difficult to say at this time which route or corridor would be the obvious choice for a new frequent grid element, as many of the routes overlap or run quite close together, cannibalizing each other’s markets.

Figure 46: 55-De Anza College - Great America Route ProfileThis suggests that the bulk of northward ridership is collected south of El Camino Real, despite the lower level of service in that segment .

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Figure 47: VTA Weekday Bus Ridership by Hour

PeakingVTA’s bus network serves people making all sorts of trips all day long . While a common assumption is that transit ridership is much higher during morning and evening peaks, VTA’s ridership shows a predomi-nantly all-day pattern with only slight increases during the peaks (even when ridership on peak-only express services is included), as shown in Figure 47 . Average hourly ridership during the morning peak is only 3% higher than midday, and ridership during the afternoon peak is only 10% higher than midday .

VTA’s bus ridership is barely peaked, with average afternoon peak ridership only 10% higher than midday ridership.

Many of VTA’s routes operate at higher frequencies during the peak periods . Many 20- and 30-minute routes run every 15 minutes during the peaks . On average, this increase in service levels does not attract a proportionate increase in ridership . As a result, average productivity is higher in the midday and lower on the p .m . peak .

The lack of big a .m . and p .m . peaks in ridership in a place with so much peak congestion likely arises from the demographics of current VTA bus riders . People go all sorts of places (work, school, home, shopping) throughout the day, no matter their income . Yet low income people have a particularly strong motivation to use transit for these trips, and low-wage jobs are more likely to begin and end at non-peak hours .

Ridership from one hour to the next on any particular route has much to do with the mix of land uses it serves, the types of jobs it provides access to, its midday level of service, and whether it connects with highly peaked services such as Caltrain or ACE . When we look at individual routes, we are able to make specific observations about commonalities among the most heavily- and lightly-peaked routes . Two examples are examined on the following pages .


17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Consider the 64-Almaden LRT - McKee & White, shown in Figure 48 . This is a highly productive route operating at 15-minute headways in its northern segment on McKee and 30 minute headways south of San Jose on Lincoln . Its ridership displays essentially no peaking . In fact, during the afternoon commute, ridership drops from the high levels sustained throughout the midday .

The 64 serves relatively few places where peak commutes dominate the market . Downtown San Jose certainly holds some peaked jobs, but it also has the all-day demand of its mixed use and university . Most of the 64 serves areas where all kinds of demand occurs . It makes many con-nections with other routes to create an even more diverse range of trips possible . This adds up to a route that performs very well despite its small role in rush hour commuting .

Additionally, the northern end of the 64 has a high concentration of people in poverty and low-to-median family incomes . Transit is a more competitive option for all sorts of trips for people with less income to devote to transportation . Many lower-paying jobs start and end at times throughout the day other than the traditional 9-to-5 shift, and many low-income workers have multiple jobs, which they must commute to at different times throughout the day . This relatively dense area has fre-quent service and all the network effects that entails (easy transfers with short waits to access destinations in all directions), ensuring that transit is a more attractive choice for trips throughout the day .

Figure 49: 64- Almaden LRT - McKee & White Map

64

0

100

200

300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Hour

Aver

age

Boar

ding

s

Figure 48: 64-Almaden LRT - McKee & White Ridership by Hour

Data Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority


17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


32

0

30

60

90

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Hour

Aver

age

Boar

ding

s

Figure 50: San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara TC Ridership by Hour

On the other hand, the graph for route 32 (San Antonio Shopping Center in Mountain View to downtown San Jose, mainly serving Monroe and Middlefield) reveals a very highly peaked pattern. This route’s busiest hours are 7:00 a .m ., 8:00 a .m ., 4:00 p .m . and 5:00 p .m ., during the peak periods when its frequency increases from every 45 minutes to every 30 minutes . The 32 serves less dense, and much less mixed, land uses for most of its extent . Given its poor frequency during the midday and limited span (operating only between 5:00 a .m . and 7:00 p .m .), the route is most useful for people whose commutes fall within those traditional peak commute hours .

Figure 51: 32-San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara TC Route ProfileData Source: ACS 2013, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority


17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and PerformanceService / Ridership MatchThe chart at right shows two lines:

• The quantity of service (bus trips, shown in red) provided during each hour of the day, relative to the average service level across all 24 hours of the day . For example, in the hour starting at 12:00 p .m . VTA provides about 45% more bus service than the average across all hours, and in the hour starting at 4:00 p .m . VTA provides about 95% more bus service than the average .

• Ridership (boardings, shown in blue) during each hour of the day, relative to average ridership across all 24 hours of the day . For example, in the hour starting at 12:00 p .m . boardings are about 65% higher than the average across all hours, and in the hour starting at 4:00 p .m . boardings are about 90% higher than the average .

Comparing service levels and boardings for each hour to a daily average allows us to observe each factor’s relative level of peaking, across 24 hours of operations . We can make a few observations about the shapes of these peaks, and their relationship to one another:

• During the a .m . peak period, the ridership line tracks with the service line, instead of rising higher above it . This means that, on average, peak buses are not much more crowded than midday buses .

• Another way of describing this phenomenon is that higher demand during the peaks doesn’t result in higher productivity, as it does in most agencies, because VTA adds so much service on the peaks . This suggests that VTA could achieve higher overall productivity by reducing the quantity of peak service . In addition, peak bus trips are more expensive for an agency to provide than midday bus trips, so even if peak bus trips were to achieve the same productivity as midday bus trips, their cost-per-rider would be higher .

• In the mid-afternoon, ridership rises hours before service quantity rises . This is the time of the day when buses are most crowded, as indicated by the blue line being higher than the red line . Some early-afternoon ridership is surely related to school schedules, but ridership grows out of proportion to service quantity starting at 12:00 p .m, long before students get out of school .

This analysis suggests that VTA is offering more service during peaks than it would if maximizing productivity or minimizing cost per rider were the agency’s primary goals . In other words, there may be more ridership growth potential in all-day service than in peak service .

-‐100%

-‐80%

-‐60%

-‐40%

-‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12:00 AM

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

Hour com

pared to ave

rage

of a

ll ho

urs

Mismatch between service quan9ty and ridership by hour of day

Ridership (Boardings)

Service Quan9ty (Bus Trips)

Figure 52: Hourly Data (trips and boardings per trip) compared to averageData Source: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Community Survey (ACS) and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program, we performed a coverage analysis using spatial interpolation to estimate the number of people within a 1/4 mile buffer around each stop, weighted by the portion of each block group within that area . Figure 53 shows how the proportion of the population or jobs of each block group within walking distance to transit is calcu-lated based on the fraction of those areas within each transit stop’s walk radius. The population of each zone is multiplied by the fraction of the zone within the walk radius of each stop (shown in green) to estimate the covered population .

We also measured the number of people within 1/4 mile of a stop with frequent service using this same methodology, but selecting only stops with frequent service . This provides an indicator about the reach of VTA’s

Coverage & Frequent Network ReachWe use the productivity metric to assess how well a transit route suc-ceeds at the goal of generating high ridership per unit of cost . Transit can be asked to pursue other goals . One of the most common is referred to as the coverage goal: how many people across the agency’s service area are able to access the transit system? VTA’s Transit Sustainability Policy asks the agency to “balance service productivity and service coverage .”4

Coverage is the number of people and jobs near transit stops served by VTA . For this analysis, we considered an area to be served if it is within 1/4 mile of all-day service, a typical industry-standard walk distance . This is a relatively tight standard; some analyses use a longer distance up to 1/2 mile, and others include peak-only services . There is some evidence that people walk further to better service, so being over 1/4 mile from frequent service might still count as being served though this analysis treats such a situation as “no service .” We also do not include peak-only services (or peak service levels), because they are only available for a limited number of hours per day and thus do not represent the most

common condition of the network, or the period in which the majority of boardings per day happen (from approximately 10 a .m . until 4 p .m .) .

Using 2013 population and employment data from the American

4 VTA Transit Sustainability Policy, 2010 . p . 3 .

most useful and competitive service .

Figure 54 shows the results of this analysis . Of the 1 .8 million people in Santa Clara County, 1 .2 million (66%) are within 1/4 mile of a transit stop served by VTA5 . Only 470,000 (26%) people have access to high-frequency all-day service .

Of the 874,000 jobs in Santa Clara County, 760,000 (87%) have some degree of transit access, with 320,000 (37%) near the frequent network .

A network designed to maximize ridership will seek to expand the fre-quent network to more people and jobs, so that the most competitive

5 95% of people in Santa Clara County (1 .7 million) live in block groups where at least some part of the area is within 1/4 mile of a transit stop . However, whether their location within that block is at all close to that stop is unknown, which is why the spatial interpolation method is used as the primary tool for gauging the level of network coverage .

Data enumerationzone with population = 100and Total Area = 1000

Walk radius around transit stop

Covered Area of zone(within walk radius) with area = 300

Transit Stop

Population × ((Covered Area)/(Total Area)) = Population of Zone Covered

How Coverage is calculated for each zone, block group or other enumeration area

Figure 53: Coverage Analysis methodology diagram

Figure 54: VTA Coverage of Population and Employment (ACS and LEHD, 2013)

No Service

No Service

Non-Frequent Service

Non-Frequent Service

Frequent Network

Frequent Network

- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000

Population

Jobs

VTANetworkCoverageandFrequentNetworkReach(within1/4mileofastop)FrequentNetwork Non-FrequentService NoService

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Figure 55: 2016-2017 TSP Network Changes

service type is in more suitable markets . On the other hand, a network designed to maximize coverage will measure its success in part by seeking to grow the total number of people and jobs near service of any kind . If VTA shifted more of its resources to focus on either one, the other would experi-ence a negative shift . This is one way of gauging the impacts of a choice within the ridership/coverage trade off .

Current Plans

2016-2017 Transit Service PlanVTA’s short range plan includes a range of changes to be imple-mented over the next two years . VTA is also preparing a BART Integration Plan (BTIP) that would be implemented in conjunction with Berryessa service . The TSP includes changes to routes to accommo-date the Spring 2016 opening of the Warm Springs station, but does not include any planning related to BART extension to SCC . Our review of this plan focuses on the most important near-term service changes that effect the structure of the network as a whole, particularly changes to weekday service .

CHANGES RELATED TO WARM SPRINGS BART

VTA operates few routes in the vicinity of Warm Springs station, so changes required to serve this station are minor in the context of the network as a whole . Changes to VTA routes operating in the vicin-ity of Warm Springs BART are as

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performancefollows:

• 180 (Great Mall TC - Warm Springs BART) . The 180’s north end ter-minus would be moved from Fremont BART to Warm Springs BART . Service between Great Mall and Eastridge and Aborn (currently three trips per day) would be discontinued . Additionally, midday frequency would be reduced from 30 minute headway to 60 minutes .

• 181 (San Jose Diridon - Fremont BART) . The 181 would operate at 15 minute frequency through the midday, an improvement from its current midday headway of 30 minutes . No changes to the route in order to serve Warm Springs are planned at this time .

• 120 (Fremont BART - Lockheed Martin TC) . The 120 would now deviate to serve Warm Springs before continuing on to Fremont station . Additionally, service west of Lockheed Martin to the Shoreline area would be discontinued, and an additional daily round trip added .

• 140 (Fremont BART - Mission College) . The 140 would deviate to serve Warm Springs in the same way as the 120 .

OTHER MAJOR ROUTING OR FREQUENCY CHANGESOther than changes related to BART, most of the other changes in the TSP are quite minor, effecting single or a small number of trips, or very short route segments . A number of more major changes to the network are planned, which are reviewed in this section . We have created a network map in the same style as the existing system map (which showed several changes from the TSP expected to be implemented imminently, such as the frequency change on the 180), showing the network with all changes implemented .

Four new routes are proposed:

• Line 11, a 30-minute service connecting downtown and the airport .

• Line 56, a new peak-only service running every 30 minutes between Sunnyvale Caltrain and North San Jose via Scott and Trimble .

• Line 354, a 30-minute peak-only limited stop service duplicating segments of the 54 and 55 between Lockheed Martin and De Anza College via Sunnyvale Caltrain . Implementing this route would require moving the 522 stop on at El Camino Real and Hollenbeck one block east to Mathilda, and rerouting the 54 in this vicinity in order to maintain a transfer point between the 54 and 522 .

• BRT 522, an upgrade of the existing 522 using BRT vehicles and infrastructure treatments running every 10 minutes .

When examining frequency changes, we are most focused on changes that effect qualitatively different experience for the rider, rather than minor tweaks that may improve reliability or precisely match demand patterns—essentially, changes that move routes between the frequency classes we have already established in this report .

The following major frequency changes are planned:

• Line 181 - upgrade to 15 minute headway from current 30 .

• Line 22 - reduce to 15 minute headway from current 12 to accompany new 10 minute 522 BRT service .

• Line 522 - increased to every 10 minutes .

• Line 32 - increase frequency from 60 to 45 minute .

• Line 57 - increase peak frequency to 30 minute from current 60 .

• Lines 61 and 62 - Combine on Bascom between Curtner and down-town to achieve combined 15 minute frequency . These routes are currently scheduled in a manner that aspires to this . The July 2016 service change would add sufficient vehicles to restore the combined headway as reliable .

Finally, several significant changes to route structure are proposed:

• In Gilroy, current routes 14 and 17 would run as a loop, adding weekend service to the 17 segment . To offset this cost, weekend service would be discontinued on the 18 .

• The 51 and 81 would be merged into a new route 81, extending from downtown San Jose to De Anza College, then north through Mountain View using the same routing as the 51 . This change would allow the segment currently run as the 51 to operate at 30-minute frequency during weekdays, and add Saturday service to the segment .

• As previously mentioned, route 180’s trips south of Great Mall would be discontinued .

CHANGE ASSESSMENTAll in all, the changes proposed here are mostly quite minor, but several are very important improvements .

• Changes to the 181 and 61/62 will add two extensive frequent network elements, adding a first all-day frequent north-south element on the inner west side of San Jose and greatly improving the connection to BART from San Jose and Great Mall .

• In the El Camino Real corridor, the introduction of Alum Rock BRT and accompanying frequency changes will increase the overall level of service in VTA’s premier transit corridor . The BRT improvements and added frequency on the limited-stop 522 will reduce wait times and increase convenience, particularly for longer trips, but the reduc-tion of the frequency of the 22 from 12 to 15 minutes will slightly reduce its usefulness for short trips .

• Since Warm Springs BART is far from most VTA services, the changes required to address it are quite minor, simply adding deviations to the 180, 120, and 140 to serve the station . These changes are tem-porary until the BART extension to San Jose is opened . These do not substantially impact the portions of the network where most of VTA’s ridership is located—east San Jose, and the major westside radial corridors .

• No major changes are proposed to east side service apart from the two canceled 180 trips between Great Mall and Eastridge .

• Linking the 51 and 81 together into a new route 81 has the positive aspect of closing a coverage gap on Homestead between Wolfe and Hollenbeck, and adds weekend service to the 51 segment . These are unlikely to be high-ridership changes, as the 51 serves a very low density area, and the 81 offers a much longer path east and west from Cupertino towards downtown San Jose than the 23/323 .

Capital vs Operating PrioritiesVTA’s Transit Capital Program comprises a package of transit investments that include a variety of infrastructure projects currently in planning or constructing, such as the Alum Rock and El Camino Real BRT corridors .

The purpose of this report is not to discuss the merits of any of these projects in detail . However, one of the major observations of this report has been to note the substantial decline in total transit service per capita in Santa Clara County over the past 15 years . As we’ve explained, this issue impacts the overall viability of the transit system as a useful travel option for all sorts of trips, as fewer resources are available for all the competing demands placed on transit, whether delivering frequent service to high-density places, extending late night hours or weekend service, or maintaining lifeline coverage service to lower-density places .

If voters approve a transportation sales tax ballot measure in 2016, new funds will be available which VTA could use for a variety of purposes, including the construction of important regional capital projects . Some portion of these resources could also be invested into bus operations, beginning to reverse the recent trend of falling transit service per capita

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Transit Service and Performancein Santa Clara County . Future stages of this study may evaluate alterna-tives which address the decline in service per capita by allocating future sales tax revenue in different ways .

Fare PolicySetting fares correctly is a complex issue that we do not address in this report . However, since this focus of this study is network design, it is important to note how fare policy is affecting VTA’s ability to offer an efficient and attractive network.

VTA’s fare includes three pricing tiers (Adult, Youth, and Senior), within which a range of fare types are available, including single ride, day, and monthly passes . Importantly, fares on Express routes are double that of local routes and light rail . The various VTA base fares are shown in Figure 56 .

This structure imposes an extremely high transfer penalty (100%) on people who have not purchased a monthly or day pass . This means that a simple one-transfer round trip, perhaps within the convenient frequent grid in eastern San Jose, costs $8, or $6 if you have a Clipper card . One of the most important advantages of a grid network design is the ability to make fast, reliable grid movements involving a transfer . While the service is in place to facilitate this, VTA’s fare structure is working at cross purposes with its network design .

VTA’s fare structure is working at cross purposes with its network design.

Free transfers used to be the rule in transit . Passengers would pay their fare and receive a transfer slip to be used on the next bus . Over the last several decades, concern about the way these slips were abused -- by giving or selling them to others, for example -- led to their elimination at many agencies . However, this reason for not offering free transfers does not apply to customers using the Clipper card . Many transfer-dependent transit systems -- including those of San Francisco and Portland -- have retained free transfers because they consider it essential to the efficient functioning of their network .

Further analysis would be required to gauge the ridership and financial impact of removing the fare penalty (by allowing transfers within a set time window), but this is an important step towards a transit system that allows truly multidirectional travel across Santa Clara County .

VTA Fare Structure (Adult Age 19-64)• Single Ride - $2 (Regular & Limited Stop Buses, Light Rail)

• Express Single Ride - $4

• Community Bus - $1 .25

• 8-Hour Light Rail Pass - $4

• Day Pass - $6 (Clipper Only)

• Express Day Pass - $12 (Clipper Only)

• Monthly Pass - $70

• Express Monthly Pass - $140

• Annual Pass Subscription - $770

Figure 56: VTA Fare Structure

17.a


TRA

NSI

T SE

RV

ICE

AN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E


Key Chapter Findings• Productivity (ridership/service provided) is strongest where frequency is highest. This

matches a nationally-observed correlation between frequency and productivity.

• VTA’s most productive routes tend be frequent routes serving dense, mixed-use places.

• VTA’s frequent service is very concentrated in San Jose. There are some indications that a more extensive frequent network could succeed.

• There is relatively little peaking in ridership. Average ridership in the morning and evenign peaks is only 10% higher than the average midday.

• On average, VTA service does not get more crowded during commute peaks, because so much service is added at this time while ridership rises only moderately. This is unusual and suggests that peak service may be inefficient or excessive.

17.a


Service Branding4

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service Brandingits purpose, and thus the logical measures of success, are so different . VTA measures the success of expresses using average load rather than productivity (boardings per revenue hour) . Whereas productivity speaks of ridership per unit of cost, average load does not . Average load is implicitly per bus trip, but the cost of a bus trip varies widely based on length and whether it runs one-way or two-way . Assessing Expresses in terms of productivity would yield very low scores, as these long routes carry few passengers but for relatively long distances .

All-day inter County express service (Dumbarton Bridge, Santa Cruz-San Jose, Fremont-San Jose) is somewhat different because it is the only transit linking its endpoints . For that reason it does have all-day service in addition to intensive peak service, and is not as narrowly specialized as most VTA expresses .

Overview of Useful Branding DistinctionsAre these the right categories? Are they defined in a way that helps both riders and policymakers understand what each one does and how they work together? To assess this, the next section considers the logic of service branding distinctions .

Figure 57 is a matrix showing how coherent brands can arise from two kinds of distinctions:

• Frequency and span . (Is it there when I need it?) .

• Speed vs . Stop Spacing (How far will I walk to a stop? How fast will it go?)

To illustrate the distinctions, the matrix contains examples from VTA or from nearby transit services .

Frequency tends to vary with span; frequent lines have the biggest markets, so they usually also have the longest duration . The relationship between speed and stop spacing, on the other hand, is inverse; wider stop spacing delivers higher speed .

In the figure, we identify four tiers of Frequency and Span:

• Frequent . Every 15 minutes or better all day . This generally cor-responds to what VTA calls its Core Network, although VTA’s Core category includes routes that are less frequent but aspire to be . This is a very distinct product for reasons outlined above .

• Candidate Frequent, also called Local or just Half-Hourly . These lines tend to run every 30 minutes or better all day and often have the

The other three categories generally denote peak-only service:

• Limited: Additional services overlaid on local or core lines, provid-ing faster service with widely spaced stops only during the peak commute period .

• Express: Nonstop links during peak hours, typically for long trips across the County .

• Commuter Rail Feeders . Various shuttles that connect commuter rail stations to worksites, almost entirely in the peak commute period .

A Spectrum from Diverse to SpecializedIn this seven-level hierarchy, the higher categories -- especially Rapid and Core – achieve high ridership through the diversity of purposes and situations in which they are useful . All kinds of people doing all kinds of things at all times of day can benefit from these lines. On these ser-vices, a single bus serves many trip purposes at once, including trips to many origins and destinations. The lack of specialization is the key to the success of these services .

At the lower end of the hierarchy, and especially among the Expresses and Commuter Rail Feeders, the service is very specialized, generally around rush hour commuters . These services must win a high share of this group, because they are not useful to any other trips by design .

This spectrum from diverse to specialized helps to explain why the logical sequence of ridership-oriented network planning is to design services from the top of this list downward, starting with Rapid and Core services and ending with the peak-only services . With their high frequencies and infrastructure needs, Rapid and Core services are big investments that expect big returns of ridership, so other routes can’t be allowed to compete with them. Once these major services are defined, Local and Community service needs are evident from the gaps in the higher-order services, and can be filled in accordingly. Peak only ser-vices, too, should only be introduced where the all-day network is not adequate to the demand or need .

The Special Case of ExpressesExpress service exists in a different dimension from the others . Unlike the other four categories, Express service features a long nonstop segment for use in travelling long distances . Most run in only one direction and are useful only for rush hour commuting . Expresses help connect the geographically separate housing and employment land-use patterns in Santa Clara County .

Express service is difficult to compare to the rest of the network because

To many people, all buses look alike . Bus routes tend to be numerous, so they can also overwhelm people with complexity . It’s often hard to find a service that might be useful to you out of a list of 77 bus routes, or on a map that shows them all on top of each other, and it’s easy to come away from that effort with the feeling that buses are intrinsically confusing .

But bus services are not all alike, and their differences can be made clear . Different types of service have different purposes and are useful for dif-ferent kinds of trips . Transit systems become clearer – to both potential riders and stakeholders – when those distinctions are obvious .

The key to clear communication about a local bus network is a well-designed system of service categories, manifested across the infor-mation system and also in policy . In this chapter, we review the principles behind service categories, the outcomes that these systems are seeking, and VTA’s current position .

VTA already has service categories, and some of them are presented throughout the information system . Express services, for example, are red on the system map, have their own range of line numbers, and have a different fleet. “Community” service indicates lifeline services to low-density areas, usually infrequent and with low ridership expectations . This is the essence of how categories are useful . Service categories help people (both customers and stakeholders) figure out quickly which parts of the complexity matter to them . It may be appropriate to extend the same thinking to other categories .

This chapter reviews the VTA category system and points out ways that it could be clarified and made more useful to both customers and stakeholders .

VTA’s Existing Service CategoriesThe Seven Bus CategoriesVTA divides its bus service into seven main categories . Four of these denote all-day service:

• Rapid: Frequent with widely spaced stops for faster travel .

• Core: Frequent but with local stops to cover all areas along the line .

• Local: Less frequent local stop services .

• Community: Especially infrequent services, focused on low-demand areas .

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service Brandingpotential to grow into Frequent lines in the future .

• Infrequent, running every hour or so . Local services in this category, like VTA’s community routes, have low ridership expectations . Longer lines, such as Caltrain or the Hwy 17 express, can do well despite low frequency because frequency expectations are lower for longer trips .

• Peak-Only . Many services run peak-only because they focus narrowly on the “nine to five” commute market.

There are many ways to manifest and brand these distinctions . Houston, for example, has taught its customers colors for these categories, calling Frequent lines red, half-hourly lines blue, and hourly lines green . The lines obviously appear in these colors on the system map, and the same colors are on signs and throughout the information system . They help everyone remain aware of the critical distinctions that these categories represent . We will use the same color meanings on all network maps throughout this study .

In the same figure, we identify four tiers of Speed vs Stop Spacing:

• Nonstop means “serving a long nonstop segment through which most riders pass .” VTA’s commuter express buses, including the inter County Dumbarton and Highway 17 services, meet this definition.

• Limited or Rapid means “serving widely but regularly spaced stops .” There is obviously a wide range of stop spacing here, from several miles on BART to a half mile on parts of the Light Rail and BRT systems, but this range generally indicates faster speed than locals due to wider spacing, but still a regular pattern of stops along the line, unlike nonstop .

• Local . This typically means stop spacing of 1/4 mile or less, the typical historic behavior of bus routes intended to be continuously useful to all points along the line .

• Flexible . This category includes all transit services where the route varies based on customer demand, including deviated fixed routes, Dial-a-Rides, etc .

No transit agency keeps track of all 12 cells in this matrix, nor should it . A few are naturally empty . But the matrix helps us see how critical dis-tinctions of speed, stop spacing, frequency and span interact to form meaningful categories . They also help show why most existing VTA service categories already make sense, because the distinctions they make line up with these crucial distinctions . They may also be helpful in refining the exact definitions of these existing categories.

Relationship to Trip DistanceThis table also reveals how a customer’s intended trip distance relates to the key distinc-tions shown . The longer a customer’s trip is, the more speed they need (which is upward in the table) but the more patience they have for lower frequency (rightward in the table) . This happens for two reasons:

• In determining how long a total trip will take, frequency (waiting time) is the domi-nant factor for short trips but in-vehicle travel time, governed by speed, is the domi-nant factor for longer trips .

• Demand is lower for longer trips, because (all other things being equal) people try to arrange their lives to minimize trip distances .

Both of these factors explain why Caltrain’s infrequent service is acceptable for very long trips, such as Silicon Valley to San Francisco, but not if you’re just going a couple of stations . It also explains why you might wait an hour for a flight to Los Angeles but a day for a flight to London .

That’s why the upper-leftmost corner of this table (frequent and nonstop) is empty in most cities: relatively few people are going very long distances, so it’s hard to assemble the inten-sity of demand to support very high frequency service without making intermediate stops, unless – as with the BART transbay tube – there is simply nothing to stop for . San Jose - Fremont express service is in this cell now, but it will be more efficient when replaced by BART, which makes more stops and is thus more of a Rapid service .

A Better Frame than “Bus vs. Rail”The table also highlights all the ways that rail and bus services can be more similar than different . Caltrain and Commuter Express buses are in the same cells—high speed but low frequency and span . Light rail and Bus Rapid Transit are in the same area—especially if BRT has exclusive

lanes . If VTA had frequent local streetcars comparable to San Francisco’s F-Market & Wharves service, these would be in the same cell as frequent local buses . In all these cases, rail and bus are two ways of implement a service that has a similar role in the network and a similar range of uses . What’s more, service branding helps make bus service clearer, thus reducing one of the biggest negatives that people cite about buses as opposed to trains – that they are just too complicated and uncertain .

Figure 57: Transit Service Branding Distinctions

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service BrandingDefining vs Secondary CharacteristicsThe definitions of service categories often become confused over time because too many features are cited as part of a category, and this creates confusion over how to categorize a service that has some of these features but no others . The confusion is most obvious in conversa-tions about “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT)6 where some people emphasize the speed and reliability that arises from the exclusive right of way, others emphasize what stations need to look like, while others emphasize the attractiveness of infrastructure or fleet. While all of these features are parts of the best Bus Rapid Transit systems, there is constant disagree-ment7 about the minimal definition: What features must a service have to be called BRT at all?

For this reason, the definition of a category must not just be a long pile of features. It should also clarify which features are definitive of the category. Definitive means that if a service does not have that feature, it should not be in that category .

For reasons outlined below, we recommend that the distinctions out-lined in the last section (first, frequency and span; second, stop spacing vs speed) be the defining features of VTA’s service categories. We especially recommend clarifying, and branding even more strongly, the categories that promise frequent service (every 15 minutes or better) at most times of day .

Relationship to Cost and Ridership ExpectationsAs we explore the table of categories, it is helpful to note that certain services tend to be more expensive to provide than others, and there-fore tend to come with higher ridership expectations . These categories as shown by their ridership expectations in Figure 58 on page 53 .

In particular:

• Frequency and Span (leftward on the chart) are expensive . The cost of service doubles with a doubling of frequency, and also grows in proportion to extensions of the service day . However:

• Peak-only service (far right in the chart) is also expensive, espe-cially long peak runs . The high cost of peak-only service arise from (a) the need to own fleet that is used only briefly, (b) the need to

6 Partly to avoid this debate, VTA and other agencies often use the term “rapid bus” or “rapid” to denote “not in an exclusive right of way, and therefore not really Bus Rapid Transit, but definitely faster than a local bus .

7 See, for example, the Bus Rapid Transit Standard by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) for one attempt to argue for a strict set of definitions. https://www.itdp .org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/ The ITDP BRT standard is controversial in the US, partly because it excludes many projects that would be called BRT by the Federal Transit Administration, largely due to the lack of exclusive lanes .

compensate employees for awkward shifts, and (c) the high cost of serving demand that goes in only one direction at a time, as the driver must be paid to return to their starting point, usually with their vehicle, at the end of each shift .

• Nonstop service (upward) is expensive because a long distance must be crossed to connect the endpoints . Rapid service is not intrinsically expensive as service, but usually comes with infrastructure that needs a rid-ership justification.

As a result of these costs, ridership expectations tend to be higher in the cells marked red . Slightly lower expecta-tions attach to the cells shaded in orange .

Low ridership expectations attach to the cheapest ser-vices – infrequent fixed routes, whose purpose (as we will explore in the next chapter) is not really ridership at all .

Frequent Network Branding and VTA’s Core NetworkMany transit agencies are finding value in identifying and branding all of their services that run frequently all day, where “frequently” almost always means “every 15 minutes or better .” This brand more or less corresponds to VTA’s “Core” category, but with more rigorous stan-dards for inclusion . These “Frequent Networks” offer several kinds of value that make them worth identifying and marketing:

• “Turn up and go .” High frequency means that you experience service as going when you’re going, instead of requiring you to plan you trip around a schedule . This is a major qualitative difference in the experience of transit, and vastly expands the range of situations in which people might find it useful.

• Easy Connections . Where two infrequent lines cross, the untrained eye may imagine that the lines connect with each other, but the experienced rider knows that they really do not . Low frequency means long waits for connections, often prohibitively long . By con-trast, wherever high-frequency lines cross, the connection is easy . Frequency thus makes lines work together readily, forming a network that can be used for travel between any two points in the network . The Frequent Network is a network in a way that the collection of

infrequent routes is not .

• Reliability . High frequency is a backstop for reliability problems . Breakdowns and delays matter less if another bus is always coming soon .

• High Ridership . In most transit networks, the Frequent services are among the most productive .

Figure 58: Ridership Expectations by Service Category

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service Branding

• Permanence . Frequency is so expensive that the investment isn’t made in corridors where ridership potential isn’t strong, due to built environment features . As a result, the Frequent Network is generally the most permanent part of any transit system, apart from rail .

• Land Use Synergies . Because of their high usefulness and perma-nence. Frequent Networks are excellent locations for densification, lower parking ratios, etc .

• Affordability. Unlike rail, which tends to inflate property values around its stations, Frequent Networks can be so extensive that land along them remains relatively available at many price points . They are therefore a key tool for getting useful transit to lower income resi-dents, and connecting them to opportunities .

• Full Employment . Transportation is one of the leading barriers to low income persons trying to hold jobs, and the Frequent Network is a particularly effective tool for that purpose . It runs long hours, comes soon, and can be relied on, both critical for workers who punch time clocks and whose shifts are rarely “nine to five.”

• A Focus for Infrastructure and Priority . As Frequent Networks grow, and grow more permanent, they are obvious top-priority places for infrastructure investment and transit priority. Some cities recognize frequent network streets in their street classification systems, so that appropriate priority can be given to transit there .

VTA has an emerging Frequent Network brand, called the “Core” Network, which seeks to foster many of these values . It includes major lines that run every 15 minutes or better at least on weekdays . As such, Core is currently an aspirational term, not a term that strictly describes the existing system .

One question for VTA is whether the term “Core” is sufficiently self-explanatory . The term has useful connotations such as “fundamental,” “at the center of things,” etc ., but it does not tell a potential rider what the value proposition is for them .

This is why the emerging practice, in North America and to some extent overseas, is to use the word “frequent” in some form as the name of the service . This is understood as “frequent most of the time,” includ-ing long evening and weekend spans, because the whole point is that service is coming soon, whenever you need it .

A brand like “Frequent Network” is introduced to signal high frequency and a long span . The exact guarantee that the term will signify needs to be refined as the brand is developed, but it usually means service running every 15 minutes or better at least 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, with some service continuing in the evening or early morning for a total service day of 18-20 hours. These definitions obviously vary based on the intensity of the transit market, so the guarantee will be higher in San Francisco than in most other parts of the region .

Unlike aspirational brands, it must also signify a guarantee of service

now, to the customer of today . The term Candidate Frequent can be helpful in identifying – to the public and to stakeholders – the intention to introduce Frequent service in the future . Frequent service can also be used to leverage desired outcomes from municipal partners . For example, it may make sense, as a VTA investment, to introduce Frequent service only if certain speed and reliability improvements are achieved, or if development reaches a certain level .

Figure 59: LA Metro branding distinguishing Metro Rapid service (Red) from Metro local (orange)

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service BrandingBranding Service CategoriesService categories are most effective when they are presented both to the public and to stake-holders using the same language . While some agencies use one set of categories for policy-making and another for presenting service to the public, this yields a much weaker effect .

Once service categories are presented to the public, they can be called brands . VTA cur-rently has some strongly branded services, like the Expresses, but it also has many categories that it keeps track of internally but that are not presented to the public very forcefully, such as the Core Network .

Branding a product within the network is obvi-ously different from agency branding, but the plethora of two-word brands shows that everyone knows the difference . When we hear two-word brands like “Microsoft Excel,” or “Google Maps” we immediately understand two things:

• The first word is the company, while the second is the product, and .

• This product is one of a series that are all designed to work together, as part of a larger whole .

Service categories work exactly like tech brands in this respect . Los Angeles Metro, for example, distinguishes between Metro Rapid and Metro Local buses, a stop spacing distinction .

These brands do not represent competitors, but rather different and complementary tools all brought to you by a single organizing entity. The key is that to use the tools together, it’s best to be clear on how they’re different from each other . Figure 60 shows a selection of maps and other Frequent Network brand elements from Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Portland, three cities whose transit agencies brand and

SUNSET BL

HOLLYWOOD BL

SANTA MONICA BL

SANTA MONIC

A BL

WIL

SHIRE B

L

MELROSE AV

LA B

REA

AV

SUNSET AV

WIN

DWARD AV

PIER AV

OCEAN PARK BL

PALMS BL

COLORADO AV

ARIZONA AV

NO

RM

AN

DIE

A

V

EXPOSITION BL

CEN

TRA

L A

V

CENTRAL AV

SEP

ULV

EDA

BL

SAN

PED

RO

ST

STAT

E S

T

OLYMPIC BL

DOZIER ST

GARVEY AV

SAN

TA A

NIT

A A

V

RO

SEM

EAD

BL

WA

LNU

T G

RO

VE A

V

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

MAY

CR

EST

AV

THO

MA

S ST

BOYLE AV

EAST

ERN

AV

MED

NIK

AV

NEW

AV

DEL

MA

R A

V

SAN

GA

BR

IEL

BL

ATLA

NTI

C B

L

FAIR

OA

KS

AV

WHITTIERWHITTIER BL

MONTEBELLO BL

OLYMPIC

TELEGRAPH RD

FRUITLAND AV

4TH ST 3RD ST

BEVERLY BL

FLOTILLA ST

FIRESTONE BL FIRESTONE BL

FLORENCE AV

IMPERIAL HWY IMPERIAL HWY

103RD ST

SANTA ANA ST SANTA ANA ST

TWEEDY BL

LON

G B

EAC

H B

L

ATLA

NTI

C

AV

CH

ERR

Y AV

LAK

EWO

OD

BL

LON

G B

EAC

H B

L

WIL

CO

X A

V

EAST

ERN

AV

CADILLAC AV

GAGE AVGAGE AV

FLORENCE AV

MANCHESTER AV

CENTURY BL

MANCHESTER AV

IMPERIAL HWY

120TH ST

COMPTON BL

CARSON STSTEARNS ST

ARTESIA BL

PACIFIC COAST HWY

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

LAK

EWO

OD

AV

PASS

ON

S B

L

GR

EEN

WO

OD

AV

PO

PLA

R A

V

LAK

E AV

LOS

RO

BLE

S AV

CALIFORNIA BL

DEL MAR BL

GLENARM ST

MONTEREY RD

MISSION ST

OR

AN

GE

GR

OVE

BL

FIG

UER

OA

ST

FIG

UER

OA

ST

EAG

LE R

OC

K B

L

HA

RVE

Y D

R

SIER

RA

VIL

LA D

R

VER

DU

GO

RD

GLE

ND

ALE

AV

VAN NUYS

B

L

COLORADO ST

BROADWAY COLORADO BL

BR

AN

D B

LB

RA

ND

BL

CEN

TRA

L AV

PAC

IFIC

AV

EAG

LE R

OC

K B

L

LOS FELIZ B

L

RIVERSIDE DR

MISSIO

N

MAIN ST

MARENGOST

GO

OD

RIC

H B

L

LOR

ENA

IND

IAN

A S

T

HER

BER

T ST

AR

IZO

NA

AV

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

7TH ST

ANAHEIM ST

OCEAN BL

ATLA

NTI

C A

V

VERNON AV VERNON AV

SLAUSON AV

M L KING JR BL

RODEO RD

MAGNOLIA BL

VICTORY BL

VENTURA BL

BURBANK BL

NORDHOFF STNORDHOFF ST

CHASE ST

PLUMMER ST

KESWICK ST

SHERMAN WYSHERMAN WY

VANOWEN ST

EMPIRE AV

VANOWEN ST

VICTORY BLVICTORY BL

LAUREL CANYON BL

FOOTHILL BL

GLENOAKS BL

SAN FERNANDO RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

1ST ST

ARLETA AV

WOODMAN AV

ROSCOE BL

SUNLAND BL

BURBANK BL

MAGNOLIA B

L

OLIVE AV

SONORA AV

FLETCHER DR

GRANDVIEW

AV

BROADWAY

TUXFORD ST

4TH ST2ND ST

4TH ST

MAIN ST

OCEAN AV

14TH ST

BUNDY DR

SEPULVEDA BL

SAWTELLE BL

BUNDY DR18TH ST

STEWART STLINCOLN BL

LINCOLN BL

WALGROVE AV

CENTINELA AV

INGLEWOOD BL

BEETHOVEN ST

OVERLAND AV

MOTOR AV

BAGLEY AV

NATIONAL BL

SEPULVEDA BL

COTNER AV

WESTW

OOD BL

BARRINGTON AV

BONSALL AV

HUSTON ST

SAN VICENTE BL

VAN

NU

YS B

L

WIN

NET

KA

AV

BA

LBO

A B

L

WO

OD

LEY

AV

SEP

ULV

EDA

BL

WO

OD

MA

N A

V

LAN

KER

SHIM

BL

HO

LLYW

OO

D W

AY

LIN

CO

LN S

T

CO

LDW

ATER

CYN

AV

LAU

REL

CYN

BL

VIN

ELA

ND

AV

HIG

HLA

ND

AV

FRANKLIN AVR

OB

ERTS

ON

BL

ROBERTSON BL

BEV

ERLY

DR

RIM

PAU

BL

RIMPAU B

LAV OF THE STARS

BEV

ERLY

GLE

N

CANON DR

SAN VICENTE BL

SWEE

TZER

BL

FAIR

FAX

AV

HA

USE

R B

L

RED

ON

DO

BL

LA C

IEN

EGA

BL

LA CIENEGA BL

RO

SSM

OR

E AV

LA B

REA

AV

LA B

REA

AV

NO

RM

AN

DIE

AV

VIN

E ST

WES

TER

N A

V

VER

MO

NT

AV

BEVERLY BL BEVERLY BL

WILSHIRE BL

3RD ST 3RD ST

OLYMPIC BL

PICO BLPICO BL

PICO B

L

WASHINGTON BL

ADAMS BL

VENICE BL

VENICE B

L

VENICE B

L

CR

ENSH

AW

BL

WES

TER

N

AV

VER

MO

NT

AV

JEFFERSON BL

ALVARADO ST

RENO ST

ECHO PARK AV

ELYSIAN

PARK AV

UNION AV

UNION AV

WESTLAKE AV

SILVER LAKE B

L

RAMPART BL

HYPERION

AV

SANBORN A

V

SCOTT ST

GLE

ND

ALE

BL

CHEVY CHASE DR

1ST ST3RD ST

RO

WA

N A

V

CESAR CHAVEZ

4TH ST

4TH ST5TH ST

WILSHIRE

3RD ST6TH ST

TEMPLE ST

WIT

MER

W SUNSET BL

PICO BL

7TH ST8TH ST

WHITTIER BL

6TH ST

N BROADWAY

SAN BERNARDINO FWY

HO

OVE

R S

T

ADAMSBL

FIG

UER

OA

ST

CR

ENSH

AW

BL

EL SEGUNDO BL

ROSECRANS AV

ARTESIA BL

MANHATTAN BEACH BL

HA

WTH

OR

NE

BL

LA BREA AV

FIGUEROA ST

HA

RB

OR

F

WY

BR

OA

DW

AY

AVA

LON

BL

ATLANTIC B

L

SOTO ST

VALLEY BL

DA

LY S

T

HUNTINGTON D

R

BEVERLY BL

RES

EDA

BL

RES

EDA

BL

CO

RB

IN A

V

WIL

BU

R A

V

PARTHENIA ST

SAN

TA F

E AV

WILLOW ST

WIL

MIN

GTO

N B

L

L ST

FIG

UER

OA

ST

AVA

LON

BL

BEL

LFLO

WER

BL

2ND ST

WASHIN

GTON BL

WASHIN

GTON BL

JEFFERSON BL

MELROSE AV

HUNTINGTON DR

MA

REN

GO

AV

ATLA

NTI

C B

L

MAIN ST

DEVONSHIRE STDEVONSHIRE ST

ROSCOE BL

NORDHOFF ST

SHERMAN WY

ROSCOE BL

SATICOY ST

WH

ITE

OA

K A

V

SLAUSON AV

REDONDO BEACH B

L

CYPRESS AV

IDELL ST

AV 26

AV 26

AV 28

AV 2

8

COLISEUM ST

110

110

10

605

110

M40

LB61

LB-C

LB-A

LB21LB-D

LB22

LB51

LB171LB172LB173

LB91 LB92LB94LB93

LB45LB46

M40

M40

M10

M40

M20

M20

M10

M10

745

BBB1

BBB7R7

BBB7R7

R6C6

C1

C1

C1

BBB7 R7

LDF

BBB7 R7

BBB1

BBB1

20720

720

3161631616 31616

18

70

603794

9490 91

794

PUEP

PUEP

PUEP

60394

76 76

919081

31616

35252

51

73333

73333

200

200

200

200

81

81

74545

35

66

7044 7044

30223022

7043024

2

5135252

4540

40 40

51

53

53

35252

20 720

720

312 780

761233

233 761

260

260

111 311111 311

G GC

C

111 311

18 720

70 770 70 770

770762

45

8483

76218720

217780

105705

105705

105705

105705

40740

40740

212312

212312

212312

111740

40311

217780

207757 14

14

204754

207757

204754

181180

780

780181180

181180

780

181180

780

181180

780

180780 181180 780 181180 780

207757

3525251

204754

30 330

73333

35

37 37

37

R730 330

105 705105

705

28 72828 728

33733

28728

207757

204754

68770

68770

204 754

207 757

4704

4704

704

704705

4

20 720

BBB8BBB12

BBB8

BBB8

66

BBB1BBB8BBB12

200

81

81

81

BBB3

R3R6

C6

BBB3R3

1414

7978

378

78717079 378

LDNOR

LB45

LB191LB192 LB101

LB102LB103LB104

LDWLM

LB91 LB92LB93 LB94

LB22LB21LB22

LB-ALB-D

BBB3R3

720

BBB12

BBB12

R6C6

BBB2

BBB2

BBB1BBB8 BBB12

R6C6

210710

210710

76060

60 760

60 760

251 751

252251

751

251751

94794

94794

94794

20

210

210

710720

18

741240

741240

750240150

750240150

260762

260762

260762

260 762

R7

210710

251 751751

108 358 108 358 108 358

108 35871040 210

740

212 217

LDNOR

450550

FT SILVER STREAKFT SILVER STREAK

HOLLYWOOD

HANCOCKPARK

SILVER LAKE

LOS FELIZ

PASADENA

GLENDALE

BURBANK

ECHOPARK

KOREATOWN

UCLA

WESTWOOD

VENICE

PALMS

OCEANPARK

SANTA MONICA

BEVERLYHILLS

WESTHOLLYWOOD

CULVERCITY

REDONDOBEACH

Cal StateLong Beach

QueenMary Catalina

Landing

LA CityCollege

DodgerStadium

LONGBEACH

SOUTH GATE

HUNTINGTON PARKCUDAHY

EAST LA

DOWNEY

COMMERCE

PICO RIVERAMONTEBELLO

MONTEREY PARK

BELLFLOWER

CENTURYCITY

RANCHOPARK

INGLEWOOD

LEIMERTPARK

LOS ANGELESINTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

BOB HOPE AIRPORT

SHERMANOAKS

VALLEYVILLAGE

GRIFFITHPARK

NORTHHOLLYWOOD

GLASSELLPARK

HIGHLANDPARK

CITYTERRACE

SOUTHPASADENA

ALHAMBRA

EAGLEROCK

STUDIOCITY

CARSON

USC

GARDENA

PACOIMA

ARLETA

PANORAMA CITY

LA ValleyCollege

Van NuysGov’t Ctr

HAWTHORNEHAWTHORNE

EL SEGUNDO

ROSEMEAD

UniversalStudios

TARZANAENCINO

VAN NUYS

NORTHRIDGE

WILMINGTONSouth BayGalleria

PICO/RIMPAUTRANSIT CENTER

INGLEWOODTRANSIT CENTER

LONG BEACHTRANSIT GALLERY

LAX CITYBUS CENTER

CULVER CITYTRANSIT CENTER

WARNERCENTER

WASHINGTON/FAIRFAXTRANSIT HUB

HARBOR FWY

ROSECRANS

ARTESIATRANSIT CENTER

MANCHESTER

SLAUSON

37TH ST/USC

LAC + USCMED CTR

CSULAEL MONTE

VAN NUYSVAN NUYS

NORTHRIDGENORTHRIDGE

GLENDALE

BURBANK-BOB HOPE AIRPORT

DOWNTOWN BURBANK

SUN VALLEY

CAL STATE LA

MONTEBELLO/COMMERCE

EL MONTE

Santa Monica Pier

East LACommunity

College

Santa MonicaCollege

CSUNTransit CenterNorthridge

Fashion Center

LA PierceCollege

LAX

BUR

M E T R O S I LV E R L I N EEl Monte Busway

Harb

or Tr

ansi

tway

METRO ORANGE LINE

METRO PURPLE LINE

METRO G

OLD

L

INE

METRO GOLD LINE

METRO GOLD LINE

MET

RO R

ED

L

INE

MET

RO

RED

L

INE

MET

RO

B

LUE

LI

NE

MET

RO

SILV

ER

L

INE

METRO EXPO LINE

METRO GREEN

LINE

METRO GREEN LINE

HOLLYWOOD/HIGHLAND

WILLOWBROOK

HOLLYWOOD/VINE

HOLLYWOOD/WESTERN

VERMONT/SUNSET

VERMONT/BEVERLY

WILSHIRE/VERMONT

WILSHIRE/NORMANDIE

WASHINGTON

VERNON

SLAUSON

FLORENCE

FIRESTONE

103RD ST/WATTSTOWERS

REDONDO BEACH

DOUGLAS

EL SEGUNDO

MARIPOSAAVIATION/LAX

FARMDALE

HAWTHORNE/LENNOX

CRENSHAW VERMONT/ATHENS

AVALON LONG BEACH BL NORWALKLAKEWOOD BL

LINCOLN/CYPRESS

HERITAGE SQUARE

SOUTHWESTMUSEUM

HIGHLAND PARK

SOUTHPASADENA

FILLMORE

DEL MAR

MEMORIAL PARK LAKE ALLENSIERRA MADRE

VILLA

COMPTON

ARTESIA

DEL AMO

WARDLOW

WILLOW ST

ANAHEIM ST

5TH ST

1ST ST

PACIFIC AV

TRANSIT MALL

DE SOTOCANOGA PIERCECOLLEGE

RESEDA

WOODLEYVAN NUYS

VALLEYCOLLEGE

TAMPA

BALBOA

SEPULVEDA

UNIVERSAL CITY

NORTH HOLLYWOOD

WOODMAN

LAURELCANYON

WILSHIRE/WESTERN

CULVERCITY

LA CIENEGA/JEFFERSON EXPO/

LA BREA

EXPO/CRENSHAW

EXPO/WESTERN

EXPO/VERMONT

EXPOPARK/USC

JEFFERSON/USC

VERMONT/SANTA MONICA

SOTO

PICO/ALISO

INDIANAMARAVILLA

ATLANTIC

EAST LACIVIC CENTER

MARIACHI PLAZA

WESTLAKE/MACARTHUR PARK

PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAY

SEE DOWNTOWNLOS ANGELES INSET

WHITTIER BL

BEVERLY BL

FLOTILLA ST

PASS

ON

S B

L

605

PICO RIVERA

MONTEBELLOMONTEBELLO/COMMERCE

NORWALK

BELLFLOWER

DOWNEY

MET

RO S

ILVER

LINE

MET

RO S

ILVER

LINE

MET

RO S

ILVER

LINE

MET

RO S

ILVER

LINE

METRO SILVER LINE

MET

RO S

ILVER

LINE

MET

RO

S

ILVER

LINE

MET

RO

PUR

PLE L

INE

MET

RO

RED

LINE

METRO GOLD LINE

METRO GOLD LINE

MET

RO EX

PO LI

NEM

ETRO

EXPO

LINE

MET

RO EX

PO LI

NE

MET

RO B

LUE L

INE

METRO PURPLE LINEMETRO RED LINE

METRO BLUE LINE

MET

RO S

ILVER

LI

NE

FT SILVER STREAK

330

4045

745

2 4302 704

531816

M40

55 62 316720355

531816

M4055 62 316

720355

18165553

62 316355 720

181653 5562 355

720

18 720 1816720316

16316

16316

6253M40760

68733

M40

M40M40

M40M40 M40

LDE LDELDE

LDF

LDF

LDE

LDE

LDD

LDE

70 7176 7879 378

770 LDA

LDA

LDB

LDB

LDB

LDB

LDB

LDD

LDD

LDD

LDD

LDDLDD

LDD

LDD

LDD

LDD

355925533

28728

770

6666

66

4810

10 9248

1092

LDA14 3714

81 9091 94

794

81 9091 94

794

4583 84

4584

83

733728704

770745

745

83704

LDA77068 33030 40

40

40

6892

733 3040

330

30 40LDA

4

71 7668 70

78 79

378 728733 770

9683

4542

74574083 84 302

7042 302

68 70 717978 378

770

40 4542

745302

7137 7076 78 79

37896 770

7114 7076 78 79

37896 770

7014

14

797896 378

71 76

770

7037

37 37

78 7996 378

71 76

770

701471 7678 7996 378

770

33 733

30 330

35 35

603

603 603

2872828 728

20

51 52 60352 760

720625318

720625318

770

33733

10 48

90 9181

42

83

79472894 302

728 794

838190 91

2 42810

94 302

8128 48102 4

728 794

83 90 9191 94 302

LDE

LDA

92733

LDF

LDE

LDB

LDB

LDA83

728733

92733

LDBLDB

83728733

92733

733

83728733

LDALDE

60

LDF

LDF

LDA

60760

LDF

60

LDE

LDA

LDA

20 LDA

LDB5251

352 LDA

LDA

LDD

LDDLDD

83302

83 9091 94

42

302

42 10LDB

LDB

30248

81

LDF81

73383

3310

3555548

LDE3525251

3525251

3525251

66352

5251

48 5592

355 733

3310

83

73333

73333

66

66

3810

66

386666

38

81

81

81LDF81

LDF81

66

66

66

66

LDA

LDA LDALDF

3556055

3556055

3556055

355302

426055

70430260 355

2 4 55

6253

760M40

42

30233

7170

733

30 4042

74533045 302

30 4042

74533045 302

30 4042

74533045 302

PUEPPUEP

PUEP

LDDLDD

LDE

LDD

703771 7678 7996 378

770 LDB

LDB

LDA LDBLDF

LDF LDF

ARCADIA ST

ALISO ST

4TH ST

4TH ST

3RD ST3RD ST

4TH PL

2ND ST

TEMPLE ST

4TH ST

1ST ST

1ST ST

CESAR CHAVEZ AV

TEMPLE ST

TEMPLE ST

ORD ST

ALPINE ST

COLLEGE ST

COMMERCIAL ST

1ST ST

CHICK HEARN CT

2ND ST

OLYMPIC BL

PICO BL

11TH ST

VENICE BL

ADAMS BL

JEFFERSON BL

8TH ST

7TH ST

9TH ST

8TH ST

9TH ST

17TH ST

16TH ST

17TH ST

16TH ST

12TH ST 12TH ST

OLYMPIC BL

8TH ST

7TH ST

PICO BL PICO BL

21ST ST

21ST ST

23RD ST23RD ST

22ND ST

WASHINGTON BL

6TH ST

BIX

EL S

T

WIT

MER

ST

BEA

UD

RY

AV

GR

AN

D A

V

HO

PE

ST

GR

AN

D A

V

OLI

VE S

T

HIL

L ST

BR

OA

DW

AY

SAN

PED

RO

ST

LOS

AN

GEL

ES S

T

SAN

PED

RO

ST

CEN

TRA

L AV

MA

PLE

AV

TRIN

ITY

ST

SPR

ING

ST

LOS

AN

GEL

ES S

T

MER

RIC

K S

T

MA

IN S

T

MA

IN S

T

HIL

L ST

OLI

VE S

T

GR

AN

D A

V

HO

PE

ST

L.A

. LIV

E

WAY

FLO

WER

AV

FIG

UER

OA

ST

FIG

UER

OA

ST

FIG

UER

OA

ST

BR

OA

DW

AY

N H

ILL STN

BROADWAY

ALAMEDA ST

ALAMEDA ST

SANTA FE AV

HEW

ITT ST

VIGNES ST

CENTER ST

CENTRAL AV

N M

AIN

ST

N S

PR

ING

ST

VIGNES ST

STADIUM WAY

FLOW

ER S

T

5TH ST

SUNSET BL

2ND ST

7TH ST

WILSHIRE BL

6TH ST

ADAMS BL

HOOVER STJEFFERSON BL

WASHINGTON BL

23RD ST

VERMON

T AV

DOWNTOWNLOS ANGELES

ARCADIA ST

ALISO ST

GoodSamaritanHospital

PacificStockExchange

RiordanCentral Library

DWP

CityHall

FederalBuilding

LoyolaLawSchool

STAPLESCenter

L.A. LIVE

NokiaTheatre

TrafficCourt

LA Trade Tech

OrthopaedicHospital

Mt St Mary’s College(Doheny Campus)

Automobile Club ofSouthern California

LA ConventionCenter

LA CenterStudios

WaltDisneyConcertHall

JANM

MOCAMusicCenter

LA Cathedral

JapaneseVillage Plaza

LA FlowerMarket

PATSAOURASTRANSITPLAZA

DodgerStadium

AngelsFlight

JEWELRY DISTRICTJEWELRY DISTRICT

BUNKER HILLBUNKER HILL

CIVICCENTER

TOY DISTRICT

FASHIONDISTRICT

USC

CITY WEST

SOUTHPARK

LITTLETOKYO

CHINATOWN

7th St/Metro Centeroooo

PershingSquare oo

Pico oo

Grand o

23rd Street o

Jefferson/USC o

Expo Park/USC o

San Pedro St o

Civic Centeroo

Little Tokyo/Arts District o

Chinatown o

Union Stationooon

101

101

110

110

10 10

10

110

110

110

Subject to Change

Service every 15 minutes (or less)on Metro Local andMetro Rapid Line

Service every 15 minutes (or less)at Metro Rapid stops

FlyAway

Metrolink Station

Amtrak Station

Greyhound

Metro Rail Line& Station

Transfers

Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus

LAX Shuttle

Long Beach Transit

Montebello Bus Lines

Santa Monica & Culver CityBus Rapid

BBBC G

LBMR 110 Interstate Freeway

State Highway or Freeway134

US Freeway

Metro Orange Line& Station

Metro Silver Line& Station

JUL 2012

MunicipalBus Line

(Local and Rapid)

M40 R740 740

AUG 2012 Subject to Change 12-2317 ©2012 LACMTA

Metro Silver LineStreet Stop

Metro Orange Line& StationMetro Silver Line& Station

Every 15 Minutes (or Less)metro.net

The service shown on this mapusually runs every 15 minutes during daytime hours – and often more frequently.

Figure 60: Frequent Network brand

elements

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service Brandingpromote a distinct Frequent Network .

Conclusion and RecommendationVTA’s system of service categories is already broadly logical . Our sug-gestions are largely matters of clarification and branding, namely:

1 . Be clear that the defining features of a brand are frequency, span, and stop spacing, and that other features – for example, levels of amenity or types of infrastructure – are secondary features that follow from the defining features but never substitute for them. There is no evidence that this has actually happened at VTA, but it is a perennial caution because there are many situations where the temptation to do this is high .

2 . Consider replacing the term Core with Frequent, which is more explicit about what the distinguishing feature of that service is and why people should care about it .

3 . Consistent with the previous point, move the downtown San Jose shuttle, Line 201, from the Community category to the Core or Frequent category . It was placed in the Community category because it is very short, but to customers and stakeholders, the fre-quency is the more important defining feature.

4 . Strengthen the relevance and public understanding of the catego-ries by making them more explicit in branding and information . In particular, strongly brand the Frequent Network across the informa-tion system, including by making it one of the most prominent visual layer on the network map .The data reviewed in this report provides insights but is not sufficient to tell VTA what to do. Network planning decisions arise from the combination of facts and values . Value judg-ments—choices about how to balance different goals—will also be needed, and the next steps of the study will encourage discussion on these . This short chapter outlines the major ones .

17.a


SER

VIC

E B

RA

ND

ING

Service BrandingKey Chapter Findings• Transit services can be classified based on multiple attributes, but the most relevant to

customers focus on usefulness.

• Classification is reflected in customer information (maps, apps, schedules, infrastructure, vehicles), and in goals and outcomes.

• The most important categories to communicating the usefulness of a transit service are frequency and span: when is the service available, and how long is the wait to access it likely to be?

• Frequent Network Branding is focused on quickly communicating what level of service is available in which places, and where transit is most useful.

• VTA’s current classification is already broadly logical, but the connection to frequency could be made more explicit by renaming the “Core” class to “Frequent,” and reclassifying a few routes based on this distinction.

17.a


Key Questions5

17.a


KE

Y Q

UE

STIO

NS

Key QuestionsThe Ridership / Coverage TradeoffVTA’s performance data—like that of most agencies—reveals that not all services are justified by ridership. Many services exist despite not just low ridership, but despite any reasonable prospect of high rider-ship in the future . These services run in areas where the development pattern—especially the transit-critical features of density, walkability, linearity, and proximity—largely ensure low ridership potential . All of VTA’s Community services are in this category, as are some segments of other lines .

Rather than judging such services as failing, it is more accurate to describe them as having a non-ridership purpose .

Every transit network is a mixture of services designed for high ridership and those designed for a competing goal, which can be called coverage . This trade-off arises unavoidably from the nature of the transit product . This is not an either-or choice; no transit agency is at either extreme; every transit agency operates services geared towards either goal, and identifying them clearly is necessary to translate policy-level direction on the purpose of transit into service planning .

Ridership Goal: “Maximize Ridership”Do you want transit to be designed for maximum ridership for the budget? This goal serves several common intentions for transit, including:

• Low subsidy, because more of the revenue comes from fares .

• Vehicle trip reduction and emissions benefits.

• Support for dense urban development, because a focus on ridership tends to serve these areas well .

The Ridership goal is often what is meant by “running transit like a busi-ness .” Unlike government services, businesses are motivated by the goal of maximum profit. In the case of local transit, where the fare paid by each customer is reasonably constant, this would mean maximizing the number of customers at a given cost .

Government services have a more complex set of motives, but they do resemble businesses when they are trying to maximize the number of users . So it is important to understand both why transit sometimes runs like a business and why it sometimes, intentionally, does not .

Every private business chooses which markets it will enter based on where it believes it can realize the strongest return on investment. If Santa Clara County wanted its transit to work in this way, this would

mean deploying all of the service in places where the greatest number of people are the most likely to use it .

If VTA’s network were designed for maximum ridership, it would focus only on serving areas where the built environment meets the necessary conditions for high ridership, places where many people (and thus many potential transit customers) are present, and which can be easily served by efficient transit paths linking important destinations . The system would have far fewer routes, but they would be much more frequent . Large parts of the County’s area would have little or no service at all, just as a private business feels no obliga-tion to offer its product in places with low demand for it .

Coverage Goal: “Access for Everyone”It’s very common to hear that the goal of our transit ser-vices should be “access for everyone.” This goal reflects desires such as:

• Service to every city and every part of the service area .

• Lifeline for people with severe mobility limitations, no matter where they live .

• Support for suburban and rural styles of development .

When you say “for all,” you implicitly say “every last one, no matter how expensive it is to get to them .” The resulting network would run less service in high demand areas so that it can run more service in low-demand areas, to ensure that everyone has some access . Service is spread out, which also means that it is spread thin . The resulting frequencies are low, and service may not run long hours . Because the service is not very useful, even in areas of high transit demand, ridership is typically poor .

But while the Coverage goal is not what would motivate a private busi-ness, it has played an important role in the shaping of every North American public transit system . Excluding so much of a service area tends to be politically unacceptable . Concerns about lifeline access—not high demand, but extreme needs experienced by small numbers of people—are also a reason to devote resources to the coverage goal .

The Two Goals in PracticeWhy does a Ridership goal cause service to be concentrated in the highest-demand areas? Because as we noted in Chapter 3, frequency correlates with high productivity (ridership per unit of cost) . High-frequency service, serving a favorable built environment, consistently generates the highest “bang for buck,” that is, ridership per unit of cost .

High-ridership planning therefore starts with high all-day frequency and extends it as far as it will go, focusing on the places where the most people will benefit from it. That, in turn, means dense and walkable places where many people are near the stops and can get to the stops . A transit line along an already-busy corridor can also stimulate some new

A

B

B

A

H I

G C

F

AE

B D

F

C

Imagine you are the transit planner for this fictional town. The dots scattered around the map are people and jobs; the streets shown are ones on which transit can be operated. The buses are the resources the town has to run transit.

Before you can plan transit routes, you must first decide what you want transit to do.

This transit network is designed to generate high ridership as efficiently as possible. The transit agency has thought like a business, in-vesting its resources only into the best transit markets.

This network is designed to provide some access to the transit system for all people. The transit agency has divided its resources among many routes throughout the town, none very frequent.

Ridership Goal Coverage Goal“Think like a business” “Access for all”

Figure 61: How Ridership and Coverage Goals Produce Opposite Kinds of Network

17.a


KE

Y Q

UE

STIO

NS

Key Questionsgrowth along that corridor, encouraging new retail, employment activity and residential growth .

When coverage is the goal, service is spread out so as to maximize the number of people who are near any service . The result is always low fre-quencies, because low frequency allows a limited resource to be spread over more area . Most coverage services run every hour, and for shorter hours than other services do . The Community service category at VTA typifies coverage services: hourly routes, often circuitous, because the goal is a little service over a large area .

The Current BalanceSo throughout this study, we will ask: What percentage of resources do you want to devote to the goal of Ridership, and what percentage to Coverage?

We estimate that approximately 70% of VTA’s non-express bus service is where it would be if ridership were the agency’s only goal, while the other 30% serves coverage purposes . (We have excluded the Express services from this calculation because the measures of ridership are so different for them .) Moving towards ridership would mean shifting resources from service providing coverage to low-density areas and investing it in frequent service to dense places, while moving towards coverage would entail the opposite . The next phase of this study will develop some conceptual alternatives to help people consider this tradeoff, and to decide whether VTA should revise the current balance, increasing ridership at the expense of coverage or vice versa .

One important note is that all current performance standards (as set forth in the Transit Sustainability Policy) are ridership-based; that is, they are based on measures of how effectively each route generates rider-ship given investment . However, as mentioned in the section on service branding, these measures alone may not be appropriate for low-cost, infrequent services serving primarily the coverage goal . A clear choice to allocate some portion of VTA’s resources towards the coverage goal may also invite a discussion of additional service standards that could be used to assess those routes’ performance towards non-ridership goals .

How to Serve the Peak?Another significant trade-off at VTA is the high expectation that the agency focus intensely on the peak or “rush hour” commute, combined with the fact that this is not always the cost-effective thing to do .

While ridership is certainly higher during the peak, service cost also rises very dramatically at that time . Service that runs only during the peak is

much more expensive for VTA to operate, for three reasons:

• The high cost of buying, storing and maintaining vehicles that are used only briefly each day.

• The higher cost of driver time due to short shifts . (VTA’s labor con-tract has no provision for part time drivers, who are the most efficient way to staff peak-only service .)

• The tendency of peak-only service to be busy in only one direction, which requires all the vehicles and drivers to return empty in the other direction .

Another way of saying this is that all-day, evening, and weekend service is relatively cheap to operate compared to peak service, which is why focusing on all-day markets is often a better path to high ridership overall . The key to the all-day market is that it’s so diverse . It includes most commuting by lower-income people, whose work and training com-mitments rarely require them to travel only at rush hour . It also includes a wide array of trip purposes which tend to use capacity more evenly .

In general, then, we expect the study to feature a discussion about the relative importance of peak-only services for the “rush hour” commute as opposed to all-day, all-direction service . (Note, of course, that all-day service is used at rush hour too) . While the rush hour is the time of highest demand, that does not necessarily make it the time of highest productivity, because of the high marginal cost of peak-only service .

Network DesignVTA’s most intensive services are very concentrated in San Jose, with two major frequent lines extending westward but no frequent north-south service in the western half of the County . San Jose is a strong market, generating a tremendous amount of the agency’s ridership . Further improvements to routing or frequency could likely make it even better, but the key driver of ridership that the agency controls, useful high-fre-quency service, is already in place .

If the agency is to grow its ridership and increase transit mode share, as mandated by the Transit Sustainability Policy, it must expand its frequent network to replicate the successes of the eastside grid . It has found success in radial frequent routes along El Camino Real and Stevens Creek, the two strongest westside radial corridors, but has so far not seriously directed resources towards a set of frequent grid services similar to that in place west of downtown .

Such a service design would be expensive, but some of it could be potentially forged out of existing duplicative services, especially the

complex braid of partly overlapping routes that flow north-south through Sunnyvale and Cupertino . Further west, Mountain View has poor fre-quency for such high density and low income, and here the problem may also be that service is offered by too many overlapping routes, in this case routes generated by a multitude of operators and arrangements . Some efficiencies may also be possible in the northeast, in the context of BART’s opening to Berryessa . But the route pattern covering most of the rest of the County shows little sign of easily re-allocated wasted service .

The next step of this study, the conceptual service alternatives, will explore these possibilities in more detail .

Service HierarchyIn Chapter 4, we discussed VTA’s current service hierarchy, and the idea of branding service based on the mobility outcomes they can provide . VTA current groups in services into several categories: Core, Local, Community, Express and Limited, but these categories do not necessar-ily match to easily explained service outcomes . For instance, the Core network includes services like the 22 and 23, routes which deliver a high level of frequency to key markets . It also includes the 55, a 30-minute route serving Sunnyvale-Saratoga road, far outside the “core” of the network in a geographic sense, and offering a lower level of service to the customer .

As discussed in Chapter 4, VTA may wish to consider its options around service branding in the future, in order to better communicate actual attributes of the network to customers more easily .

Resource LevelPerhaps the most fundamental question about transit in this region is “how much”? We opened this report with the observation that many of the key indicators for the richness and impact of transit (quantity, rider-ship, relevance, productivity) have fallen or flatlined for VTA’s network over the past 15 years . The population, with an average population growth rate of 1 .1% annually since 2010, has been growing faster than the transit service (as measured in terms of revenue hours, the basic transit service unit) . The choice for policymakers and voters may be whether transit should be an important and viable mode the get around in the heart of Silicon Valley .

If the County continues to grow, it will do so mainly by increasing density within the already developed area . This will increase both demand and ridership potential for VTA, as more people will live on its busiest lines . Frequent network branding can also help insure that people who want

17.a


Key Questions

KE

Y Q

UE

STIO

NS

to rely on transit can located where transit will serve them well, further increasing ridership potential .

Growth in demand will use existing capacity to a degree, but will soon need new capacity . New destinations will also arise—housing develop-ments, corporate campuses, shopping centers—and with them, new demands on transit to provide more service to satisfy all the trips those sorts of places generate .

Chapter 1 showed that in general, ridership has tracked with the quantity of service. This means that if higher ridership is desired—with benefits including less reliance on cars, higher fare revenue, and support for more energy- and emissions-efficient urban form, more service will be needed as well .

Some of this increase could be achieved by cutting coverage services, but this would sacrifice other values, including lifeline access and the inclusion of every member city . So if the current balance of ridership and coverage services is desired, and the needs of population growth are to be met, overall resources will eventually need to grow .

17.a


Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage AnalysisTo get a sense of the current mix of priorities in VTA’s existing bus network, we performed a basic accounting of the extent to which dif-ferent routes service each of the ridership and coverage goals . The route-by-route accounting is shown in the tables on the next few pages, a summary on the chart on this page .

Methodological DescriptionThis ridership/coverage analysis is not designed to identify ridership potential, or routes which serve places where high ridership indicators are present . Instead, it is intended simply to gauge the extent to which each route (and the network at large) is oriented towards either goal . In other words, given the “three-legged stool” of transit ridership (land use, street network and service provision), how focused is the transit service element on ridership?

An analysis of this sort can be performed through a variety of methods, but we prefer to simplify it to the greatest extent possible . Thus:

• All Frequent routes (operating every 15 minutes or better during the peak and midday periods) are initially considered to be 100% rider-ship routes, since it is assumed that the investment in such a high level of service is generally not warranted without the expectation of a favorable ridership outcome .

• All 60 minute routes are assumed to be operated for 100% cover-age purposes, because such a low frequency is very rarely rewarded with much ridership as it is the least useful, most inconvenient sort of all-day service . Fittingly, most of VTA’s 60-minute services are feeders routed through low-density, peripheral areas .

• All 30 minute services are initially considered to be 50% ridership, 50% coverage oriented, since this moderate service level is some-times a capacity-driven coverage solution, but at other times a precursor to the establishment of a future high-ridership frequent route .

• Limited and Express services were assigned to their own category, since these routes serve other goals in addition to the ridership/cov-erage outcomes, such as connecting outlying areas to job centers, taking advantage of HOV infrastructure and available external funding, and providing a congestion reduction element .

Starting from this initial classification and goal allocation, each route was examined in isolation, and its goal orientation adjusted if a com-pelling rationale to do so was found . The tables on the next page include some information used for this assessment, including productiv-ity, total average daily ridership, frequency by time period, and span .

Additionally, we used interactive data visualization tools to examine the pattern of ridership on routes .

To provide an example of how such a judgement might be made, con-sider route 26 (Sunnyvale/Lockheed - Eastridge) . This is a very long route operating at 30 minute frequency during the peak and midday, with a limited segment between Lockheed and El Camino Real that runs every 15 minutes during the peak periods . Of all bus routes in the network, it generates the 8th most average daily boardings, and is the 8th most productive as measured by boardings per revenue hour . By examining its ridership pattern as shown at right, we can see that its highest-ridership segments are on its frequent segment, and also in the portion of the route that traverses the east side of San Jose along Tully .

As a 30-minute route, its ridership/coverage split was initially set to 50/50, but based on its performance relative to other routes in its class, and even to more frequent routes, its clear that this is an example of a route that is substantially more focused on ridership than its class base-line . While its clearly not a 100% ridership route since it mostly operates at 30-minute headways, the great majority of its revenue hours are where they would be if ridership were the only goal . Thus, we adjusted its rider-ship coverage split to 80% ridership, 20% coverage, and its daily revenue hours are allocated as such .

We went through the same process for each route, resulting in the eventual split shown in the table . It should be noted that the precise split of local resources shown here is approximately 66% ridership, 34% coverage, but understanding that this is a process based on professional judgement and multifactor assessment, we have reported the result rounded to the nearest 10% .

Entire Bus Network Local Bus NetworkLocal System 93% Ridership 70%

Coverage 30%

Express 7%

Figure 62: Ridership / Coverage Split Table

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage AnalysisFrequency

# Type Name AM Mid PM Span Rev Hrs Avg . Daily Boardings

Productivity Ridership% Coverage% Notes Ridership Hrs

Coverage Hrs

10 Local SANTA CLARA TRANSIT- METRO AIRPORT

15 15 15 5a-1130p 37 .87 1355 .1 35 .79 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 37 .87 -

13 Community ALMADEN & MCKEAN- OHLONE/CHYNWTH

60 60 60 630a-730p 10 .05 193 .4 19 .24 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 10 .05

14 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - ST . LOUISE HOSP


- 9 .42

16 Community M .H . CIVIC CTR - BURNETT AVE 60 60 630a-9a, 2p-530p

5 .63 100 .1 17 .77 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 5 .63

17 Community GILROY TRNS CTR - MNTRY & LS ANIMAS


- 4 .88

18 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - GAVILAN COLLEGE

30 40 45 7a-6p 6 .35 201 31 .65 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 6 .35

19 Community GILROY TRANS CTR - WREN & MANTELLI

45 40 45 530a-7p 8 .92 286 .7 32 .15 0% 100% Coverage service far outside the core dense area of the network .

- 8 .92

22 Core PALO ALTO - EASTRIDGE 12 12 12 24 hrs . 356 .20 14178 .7 39 .81 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 356 .20 -

23 Core DE ANZA COL - ALUM ROCK TRANS CTR

12 12 12 530a-1a 207 .90 8397 .2 40 .39 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 207 .90 -

25 Core DE ANZA COL - ALUM ROCK TRANS CTR

10/30 10/30 10/30 5a-12mid 224 .57 7269 .5 32 .37 75% 25% Important connection east-west across the city . Frequent segment west of Bascom very high ridership . Low density market generates little ridership in the long segment between Bascom and Cupertino .

168 .43 56 .14

26 Core SUNNYVALE/LOCKHEED - EASTRIDGE

15/30 30 15/30 530a-11p 113 .95 4005 .1 35 .15 80% 20% High productivity crosstown grid element with frequent segment in east .

91 .16 22 .79

27 Local GOOD SAM HOSP - KAISER SAN JOSE


- 36 .47

31 Local EVERGREEN VALLEY COL - EASTRIDGE

30 30 30 6a-10p 24 .17 689 .9 28 .55 10% 90% 2 .42 21 .75

32 Community SN ANTONIO SHOP CTR - STA CLARA TC

30 45 30 6a-730p 44 .27 1093 .6 24 .70 50% 50% Low-productivity coverage route serving moderately dense areas, may be important E-W grid element, but perhaps better market north on Arques/Scott for segment west of Sunnyvale?

22 .13 22 .13

34 Community SN ANTONIO SHOP CTR - DOWNTOWN MV

60 930a-3p 4 .55 69 .6 15 .30 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 4 .55

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis35 Local DNTN MTN VIEW - STANFORD

SHOP CTR

30 30 30 6a-930p 54 .08 1123 .8 20 .78 0% 100% Short, infrequent coverage route duplicating high-tier service on El Camino Real or longer trips .

- 54 .08

37 Community WEST VALLEY COLLEGE - CAPITOL LRT

30/60 30/60 30/60 630a-10p 30 .62 698 .6 22 .82 30% 70% Short, low ridership, low frequency route, but some connection between the college/TC and rail station may be desirable in ridership-only network .

9 .19 21 .43

39 Community THE VILLAGES - EASTRIDGE 30 60 30 630a-730p 14 .53 458 .5 31 .55 0% 100% - 14 .53

40 Local FOOTHILL COL - LA AVENIDA & SHOR

30 30 30 630a-1030p 35 .25 1040 .4 29 .51 50% 50% 17 .63 17 .63

42 Community KAISER SJ - EVERGREEN VALLEY COL

45 45 45 630a-7p 30 .73 641 20 .86 10% 90% Infrequent route with many deviations, only serves one major destination .

3 .07 27 .66

45 Community ALUM ROCK TC - PENITENCIA CK TC


- 8 .15

46 Local GREAT MALL - MILPITAS HIGH SCHOOL

30 60 30 6a-630p 17 .38 604 .2 34 .76 0% 100% Coverage route . Low ridership at low cost . Highest ridership stop other than Great Mall is a high school .

- 17 .38

47 Local GREAT MALL - MCCARTHY RANCH

30 30 30 6a-930p 27 .95 847 .7 30 .33 50% 50% 13 .98 13 .98

48 Community LOS GATOS - WINCHESTER LRT 45 60 45 6a-7p 14 .20 366 .8 25 .83 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 14 .20

49 Community LOS GATOS - WINCHESTER LRT 45 60 45 630a-730p 15 .77 298 .1 18 .91 0% 100% Local coverage route serving low density area .

- 15 .77

51 Local DE ANZA - MOFFETT/AMES CTR 30/60 60 30/60 630a-630p 25 .78 766 .5 29 .73 0% 100% - 25 .78

52 Local FOOTHILL COLLEGE - DWNTOWN MTN VIEW

30 30 30-60 7a-930p 19 .33 480 .3 24 .84 50% 50% Ridership-only network would have some connection between college and downtown Mountain View, but unclear whether El Monte or San Antonio is a better street . Both low density, coverage territory .

9 .67 9 .67

53 Local WV COLLEGE- SUNNYVALE TRANS CTR

60 60 60 7a-630p 20 .87 676 .9 32 .44 0% 100% Low-frequent, low-ridership, low-cost route, direct connection between WV College, Cupertino and El Camino Real, but the 57 is a more frequent, direct and shorter way to get to the college from El Camino Real from most places east of Sunnyvale . Low-density area around route other than around Sunnyvale downtown and Cupertino . .

- 20 .87

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis54 Local DE ANZA COLLEGE

- LOCKHEED

30 30 30 6a-9p 29 .02 1092 .2 37 .64 100% 0% Critical direct westside connection between De Anza and Sunnyvale, but infrequent, and lower density north of downtown Sunnyvale . A 100% ridership network would likely have a route on either Sunnyvale-Saratoga or Hollenbeck between De Anza and Sunnyvale.

29 .02 -

55 Core DE ANZA COLLEGE - GREAT AMERICA

15/30 30 15/30 530a-1030p 76 .52 2416 .7 31 .58 75% 25% Critical direct westside connection between De Anza and Sunnyvale, but infrequent, and route follows a looping path through low density area north of downtown Sunnyvale . Strong anchors at both ends . A 100% rider-ship network would likely have a route on either Sunnyvale-Saratoga or Hollenbeck between De Anza and Sunnyvale.

57 .39 19 .13

57 Local WEST VALLEY COLL - GREAT AMERICA

30 30 30 530a-1030p 53 .43 1604 .1 30 .02 100% 0% 53 .43 -

58 Local WEST VALLEY COLLEGE - ALVISO

30 60 30 6a-730p 42 .13 756 .8 17 .96 0% 100% Duplicates route 57 for almost entire length; other segments local coverage .

- 42 .13

60 Core WINCHESTER TC - GT AMERICA 15/30 30 15/30 530a-1030p 77 .63 2259 .3 29 .10 75% 25% 58 .23 19 .41

61 Core GOOD SAM HOSP - SIERRA & PIEDMONT

30 30 30-40 6a-9p 59 .95 1784 .4 29 .76 75% 25% South of Curtner this route performs a cov-erage function, but serves strong Bascom and somewhat dense E San Jose Mabury corridors .

44 .96 14 .99

62 Core GOOD SAM HOSP - SIERRA & PIEDMONT

30 30 30-40 6a-1030p 60 .75 1717 .4 28 .27 50% 50% South of Curtner this route performs a cov-erage function, and its north end in NE San Jose is low density relative to other routes' markets to the south . However, Bascom is a strong corridor .

30 .38 30 .38

63 Local ALMADEN EXPY - SAN JOSE STATE

30 45 30 630a-10p 38 .27 942 .3 24 .62 25% 75% Low productivity service to low-density area . However, as a grid element, some service might be present on Meridian in ridership-only network .

9 .57 28 .70

64 Core ALMADEN LRT - MCKEE & WHITE

15/30 15/30 15/30 530a-11p 100 .53 3714 .6 36 .95 50% 50% Very strong eastern side on McKee, but Almaden segment is low-ridership, serving low density area, until southern terminus .

50 .27 50 .27

65 Community KOOSER & BLOSSOM HILL- DNTN S .J .

45 45 45 630a-7p 31 .40 620 .4 19 .76 50% 50% Infrequent route, but serves moderately dense Blossom Hill and Fruitdale, so potential grid-element in ridership only system .

15 .70 15 .70

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis66 Core KAISER SAN JOSE - MILPITAS/

DIXON

15 20 15 5a-1130p 181 .30 6314 .1 34 .83 70% 30% Productive route, generates strong rider-ship in moderately dense but low-income market . However, ridership drops off south of Monterey and Senter .

126 .91 54 .39

68 Core GILROY TC - SAN JOSE DIRIDON

15 20 15 4a-1230a 198 .58 5276 .3 26 .57 40% 60% Segment within San Jose is high ridership route; in Gilroy and Morgan Hill, performing non-ridership express function .

79 .43 119 .15

70 Core CAPITOL LRT STN - GREAT MALL/MAIN

15 15 15 5a-11p 162 .03 4860 .6 30 .00 100% 0% 162 .03 -

71 Core EASTRIDGE- GREAT MALL/MAIN

15 30 15 530a-10p 64 .72 2074 .4 32 .05 50% 50% 32 .36 32 .36

72 Core SENTER/MONTEREY - DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE

15 15-20 15 530a-1030p 73 .70 2556 .3 34 .69 75% 25% High productivity element of the SE San Jose frequent network grid, but ridership and density is greatest north of Curtner . Monterey and Senter better corridors south of Curtner .

55 .28 18 .43

73 Core SNELL & CAPITOL - DOWNTWN SAN JOSE

15 20 15 530a-930p 61 .82 2627 .5 42 .50 100% 0% Major all-day frequent or 20 minute corridor . 61 .82 -

77 Core EASTRIDGE - GREAT MALL/MAIN

15 20 15 6a-930p 74 .00 2293 30 .99 30% 70% 22 .20 51 .80

81 Local VALLCO - SAN JOSE STATE 30 30 30-60 630a-830p 47 .75 1051 .8 22 .03 0% 100% Low productivity service to low-density area . - 47 .75

82 Local WESTGATE - DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE

30 30 30 6a-9p 47 .98 1349 .5 28 .12 50% 50% Somewhat productive, strong anchors, poten-tial grid element, but doesn’t serve a dense east of highway 87 market, and carries few total riders .

23 .99 23 .99

88 Community VETS HOSP - MIDDLEFIELD & COLORADO


- 10 .12

89 Local CALIFORNIA AVE CTRN-VETS HOSPITAL

30 30-40 30 630a-630p 7 .33 118 .4 16 .15 0% 100% - 7 .33

101 Express CAMDEN & HWY 85 - PALO ALTO

2 trips each direction

5 .27 84 .6 16 .06 0% 100% Express route- serves purposes other than ridership primarily .

- 5 .27

102 Express SOUTH SAN JOSE - PALO ALTO 7 trips each direction


- 17 .25

103 Express EASTRIDGE - PALO ALTO 4 trips each direction


- 8 .77

104 Express PENITENCIA TRANS CTR - PALO ALTO



- 5 .58

120 Express FREMONT BART - LOCKHEED MARTIN



- 12 .60

17.a


AP

PE

ND

IX A

: R

IDE

RSH

IP /

CO

VE

RA

GE

AN

ALY

SIS

Appendix A: Ridership / Coverage Analysis121 Express GILROY TRANS CTR -

LOCKHEED MARTIN9 trips each direction


- 25 .38

122 Express SOUTH SAN JOSE - LOCKHEED MARTIN

1 trip each direction


- 2 .12

140 Express FREMONT BART - M .COLLEGE & MONTAGUE



- 6 .53

168 Express GILROY TRANS CTR - SAN JOSE DIRIDON



- 13 .90

180 Express GREAT MALL/MAIN - FREMONT BART

30 30 30 530a-10p 31 .23 781 .3 25 .01 0% 100% Duplicates multiple other services traveling north to connect to BART; express service serves purposes other than ridership .

- 31 .23

181 Express SAN JOSE DIRIDON - FREMONT BART

15-30 15 15 530a-12mid 91 .12 2368 .9 26 .00 50% 50% Most productive freeway express route, soon to be upgraded to FTN .

45 .56 45 .56

182 Express PALO ALTO - IBM/BAILEY AVE 1 trip each direction


- 2 .10

200 Local BAYPOINTE LRT - MOUNTAIN VIEW LRT

2 NB pm trips

0 .77 - 0% 100% - 0 .77

201 Community DOWNTOWN AREA SHUTTLE (DASH)

10 15 10 630a-9p 23 .02 1019 .9 44 .31 0% 100% High productivity, but duplicates a lot of other frequent service . Same service could likely be provided with incoming routes .

- 23 .02

304 Limited S . SAN JOSE - SUNNYVALE TRANS CTR



- 10 .68

321 Limited GREAT MALL/MAIN - LOCKHEED MARTIN

1 trip each direction

1 .30 24 .7 19 .00 0% 100% - 1 .30

323 Core DE ANZA COL - DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE

15 15 15 630a-1030p 87 .85 2411 .1 27 .45 80% 20% Ridership-oriented nonstop service, but duplicates high-ridership 23 .

70 .28 17 .57

328 Limited ALMADEN VALLEY - LOCKHEED MARTIN



- 5 .32

330 Limited ALMADEN VALLEY - TASMAN DRIVE



- 10 .57

522 Core PALO ALTO - EASTRIDGE 15 15 15 5a-1030p 218 .63 7034 .3 32 .17 100% 0% Frequent, limited stop service on critical cor-ridor, will be upgraded to BRT-lite soon .

218 .63 -

17.a



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan - Draft Project List



BACKGROUND:

Providing safe, comfortable, and convenient pedestrian infrastructure is key to supporting transit, providing mobility choices for those who do not or cannot drive, improving quality of life, and improving the safety, health, and economic vitality of our County. Recognizing the importance of pedestrian access improvements, VTA is developing a Countywide Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan. The Plan will inventory and evaluate pedestrian-related access improvements within 11 Focus Areas (Attachment A). The Plan also will include implementation strategies for funding and delivering identified improvement projects.

Since our last update to VTA committees in July 2014, VTA hired a consultant for the Plan, conducted outreach to customers, and developed a draft list of recommended pedestrian access improvements within the Focus Areas. This memo summarizes the results of the outreach and describes the draft recommended projects.

DISCUSSION:

Existing Conditions Report

The Existing Conditions Report for the Plan was presented at VTA committees in July 2014, and the VTA Board of Directors in August 2014. The Existing Conditions Report includes a summary of local pedestrian plans, demographic data relevant to walking, and pedestrian access and safety data relevant to Santa Clara County. The report also identified preliminary Focus Areas where field work would be conducted to identify improvements. Focus Areas were selected based on various criteria such as pedestrian collisions, transit ridership, socio-economic characteristics, and land use factors. Prior to field reviews, VTA consulted with Member Agency staff to refine and finalize Focus Areas and discuss pedestrian issues within and around these areas.

18

of 5

Needs Analysis and Project Identification

During October and November 2015, field reviews, walk audits, and a barrier analysis were conducted to identify deficiencies in each Focus Area. Focus Area field reviews were conducted within a ½ mile walk of high-quality transit stops and ¼ mile walk of regular, high ridership bus stops. High-quality transit stops are defined as rapid bus stops, rail transit stations, and regional bus services such as Highway 17 Express bus stops. The barrier analysis identified roadways that may create an uncomfortable or unsafe pedestrian walking and crossing environment. Barriers were identified by using speed limit and number of lanes.

The field reviews were conducted with an eye to the following criteria:

• Connectivity (continuous sidewalk, presence of marked crosswalk, etc.)

• Safety (collision history, traffic speed, etc.)

• Quality (sidewalk width, pedestrian scale lighting, etc.)

• Accessibility (missing curb cuts, adequate clear space on sidewalk for wheelchair, etc.)

• Activity (pedestrian volume, etc.)

Results from field reviews and needs analysis show that while pedestrian activity is high in all Focus Areas, each of them have pedestrian deficiencies. Some of the major pedestrian deficiencies identified in Focus Areas are:

• Fifty-five locations need intersection improvements. Intersection improvements may include both traffic signal and crosswalk improvements.

• Nine freeway on/off-ramps locations need pedestrian accommodations.

• Τwelve corridors were identified as having gaps in the sidewalk and 25 locations need streetscape and sidewalk improvements.

• Areas around Diridon and Tamien Transit Station need wayfinding improvements.

• Several locations in Gilroy and downtown San Jose need railway crossing improvements.

• Fourteen locations need new or modified pedestrian crossings.

Public and Member Agency Outreach

To complement the needs analysis and help identify needed pedestrian improvements, VTA developed and published a customer survey. The survey asked customers about their walking experience to transit stops, and type of pedestrian improvements they would like to see around their transit stops.

The survey was published in two formats; hard copy and online. The hard copy format was translated into Spanish and Vietnamese and distributed at the VTA Downtown Customer Service Center. The online survey was published on the VTA website, advertised in the August Take-One and on VTA social media accounts, and sent out to 2,600 VTA email subscribers. During ten weeks of collecting responses, from August to October 2015, VTA received 475 responses.

18

of 5

Additionally, comment cards, which included a shortened version of the survey and a link to the longer online survey, were produced and distributed on major routes that run through the Focus Areas (Routes 14, 19, 22, 23, and 25). The comment card was also translated into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Findings from the customer survey include:

• Nearly 10% of respondents indicated they have a disability that affects their ability to get

to or use transit, with nearly 5% reporting “serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.”

• While the majority of respondents (80%) had a sidewalk the entire way to their transit

stop, 17% reported sections where the sidewalk was missing and 3% reported no

sidewalk the entire way.

• About 58% respondents reported they felt unsafe - either from crime or from cars at least

some of the time while walking to or from transit.

The top six improvements/concerns respondents identified are:• Install shade at the bus station or stop (41.6%)

• Better lighting (25.7%)

• Less crime (23.9%)

• Cleaner streets (20.7%)

• Less time waiting at the traffic signal (20.5%)

• Safer street crossings (20%)

Attachment B of this memo provides a summary of survey results. An online map of public comments related to specific locations can be found at <http://tinyurl.com/PublicCommentsonPedPlan>.

Draft Recommended ProjectsAttachment C provides detailed description of identified deficiencies, recommended improvement projects, opportunities and challenges of addressing pedestrian issues in each Focus Area. In total, approximately 141 capital improvement projects are identified in 11 Focus Areas of the Plan. The recommended improvements vary from small scale such as curb ramp modification to large scale like corridor streetscape improvements.

VTA received preliminary input from Member Agencies on the draft list of recommended projects in February 2016. VTA continues to work with Member Agencies to finalize the list of projects, and anticipates a final list by end of April 2016. In addition to projects identified through field reviews at the Focus Areas, the Plan will include Member Agencies’ and other

18

of 5

pedestrian projects that provide access to transit.

VTA and Member Agencies can use the recommended project list to apply for upcoming grant funding opportunities such as One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), and Active Transportation Program (ATP), to develop locally funded projects, or to link projects with new development or redevelopment.

NEXT STEPS:

VTA will finalize project list shortly after VTA advisory committees have reviewed and commented. The next step is developing an implementation strategy for the identified projects with cost estimates and funding options. The implementation strategy will be based on evaluation criteria and project scores. Implementation of the Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan is on the list of projects to be considered for Envision Silicon Valley/Valley Transportation Plan 2040 update, with a funding estimate of $35 M.

VTA committees will continue to receive updates during development of the Plan. The plan is scheduled for adoption by the VTA Board of Directors in fall 2016.The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) received this information item at their March 9, 2016 meeting. Members of the committee had the following comments and questions: 1) Suggested staff include the Plan’s recommended projects in the potential countywide vision zero program that is included in the list of projects submitted to Envision Silicon Valley 2) Suggested staff include a pedestrian educational program in the plan. 3) Requested clarification of how VTA staff have coordinated with Member Agencies in developing the project list, and asked how VTA staff will coordinate with Member Agencies to implement the plan. Staff responded that the initial project list was reviewed by Member Agency staff, and that most Member Agency comments were incorporated into the draft project list presented at committees. Member Agency staff will be consulted when VTA develops an implementation plan. 4) Inquired if the Plan considers future modifications to transit stations. Committee member used the Mountain View Transit Center as an example. Staff responded that the Plan will include local plans’ recommended projects into the final project list if Member Agencies request it. Staff noted that plans for the Mountain View Transit Center were included in the draft project list at the City’s request. 5) Noted that the $55 Million in the call for projects for Envision Silicon Valley is for first-last mile pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations may not be sufficient to implement all projects that are recommended in this plan. 6) Requested that VTA staff share the raw data and results of the Plan's customer survey with committee members. 7) Inquired if residential density was a factor in selecting the Focus Areas. Staff responded that residential density and some other influential factors such as transit ridership and collision history were used to identify the Focus Areas. 8) Inquired if results of the public survey and field reviews were consistent. The committee member specifically asked about needs for better lighting and shelter at transit stops, which were the most requested improvements in the customer survey. Staffresponded that the customer survey responses were considered when determining the recommended projects.

The item was on the consent agenda for the March 10, 2016 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting and deferred to the April TAC meeting.

18

of 5

Prepared By: Malahat OwrangMemo No. 5209

18

A

H

B

K

D

G

F

E

I

L

Focus Areas

C

N

Attachment A- Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan-Focus Areas

Gilroy

0 1Miles0 0.5Miles

L

Sunnyvale

0 0.5Miles

18.a

Attachment B- Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan-Public Survey Results Summary

Page 1 of 10

Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan

When you walk to and from the bus stop or train station, is there a sidewalk the entire way?

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Yes, there is a paved sidewalk the entire way 79.7% 370

No, there are sections where the sidewalk is missing

17.5% 81

No, there is no sidewalk the entire way 2.8% 13

answered question 464

skipped question 11

When you walk to and from the bus stop or train station, is there a sidewalk the e ntire way?

Yes, there is a paved sidewalkthe entire way

No, there are sections wherethe sidewalk is missing

No, there is no sidewalk theentire way

18.b


Page 2 of 10

Think about your walk to or from the bus stop or train station. How true are these sentences for you?

Answer Options Always Sometimes Never N/A Response

Count

It is easy to cross streets on my way to the bus stop or train station

191 224 44 8 467

There are crosswalks where I need them 281 134 41 9 465

There are traffic signals where I need them 290 109 41 21 461

I only wait for a short time before the walk signal turns on for me

141 193 74 56 464

I have enough time to cross the street before the “Don’t Walk” signal turns on for me

233 128 31 56 448

I have to walk a long way before I get to a crosswalk 115 146 139 48 448

Cars will stop and let me cross the street 116 256 54 37 463


skipped question 7

18.b


Page 3 of 10

Do you feel safe from cars when you walk to and from the bus stop or train station?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Almost always 42.3% 198

Sometimes 47.2% 221

Never 10.5% 49


skipped question 7

18.b


Page 4 of 10

Do you feel safe from crime when you walk to and from the bus or train?


Response Count

Almost always 39.9% 188

Sometimes 45.0% 212

Never 15.1% 71


skipped question 4

18.b


Page 5 of 10

If you could change THREE THINGS about your walk to and from the bus stop or train station what would you change? (Check only three.)

Install shade at the station or stop that protects me from rain and sun

41.6% 181

Other (please specify) 32.9% 143

Better lighting 25.7% 112

Less crime 23.9% 104

Cleaner streets 20.7% 90

Less time waiting at traffic signal 20.5% 89

Safer street crossings 20.0% 87

Slower cars 15.4% 67

Build a sidewalk where there is none 15.2% 66

Install bench or seat along the way that I can rest on 12.2% 53

New crosswalk to cross the street 12.2% 53

More people and activities on the street 11.3% 49

More places to visit/shop on the way 9.9% 43

Fewer cars 9.7% 42

Nothing, the walk is fine 9.2% 40

The walk signal gives more time to cross the street 9.2% 40

Wider sidewalk 5.3% 23

Ramps at corners for wheelchairs and strollers 4.8% 21


Response Count


skipped question 40

18.b


Page 6 of 10

18.b


Page 7 of 10

Do you have a disability that affects your ability to get to or use transit? (You may choose more than one.)


Response Count

No 84.4% 362

Yes, I am deaf or have serious difficulty hearing 0.7% 3

Yes, I am blind or have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses

0.5% 2

Yes, I have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs

4.7% 20

Yes, I have a cognitive disability 0.7% 3

Yes, I have another disability that is not listed here 3.3% 14

Prefer not to answer 7.7% 33


skipped question 46

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

No Yes, I amdeaf orhave

seriousdifficultyhearing

Yes, I amblind or

haveseriousdifficultyseeing,

even whenwearingglasses

Yes, I haveseriousdifficulty

walking orclimbing

stairs

Yes, I havea cognitivedisability

Yes, I haveanotherdisabilitythat is notlisted here

Prefer notto answer

Do you have a disability that affects your ability to get to or use transit? (You may choose more than one.)

18.b


Page 8 of 10

I identify my gender as:


Response Count

Male 44.1% 189

Female 48.7% 209


Other (please specify) 0


skipped question 46

18.b


Page 9 of 10

What is your age?


Response Count

13 and under 0.2% 1

14-17 1.2% 5

18-24 30.1% 129

25-34 22.6% 97

35-44 11.4% 49

45-54 8.6% 37

55-64 11.0% 47

65 or older 7.2% 31



skipped question 46

18.b


Page 10 of 10

What is your race/ethnicity? (You may choose more than one.)

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Hispanic/ Latino 14.2% 61

African American/ Black 3.3% 14

Asian 31.2% 134

White/Caucasian 38.1% 164

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

1.9% 8

Native Indian or Alaska Native

1.4% 6

Racially mixed 4.7% 20



skipped question 45

18.b

Proposed Focus Area ImprovementsDRAFT Pedestrian Access to Transit February 29, 2016

Authors:Fehr & PeersCommunity Design + Architecture

18.c

Owrang_M

Text Box

Attachment C

VTA Pedestrian Access to Transit - Draft Proposed Improvements 1

Project Identification ProcessThe purpose of this document is to present pedestrian improvement projects identified in the Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan. An initial review of existing conditions in Santa Clara County identified eleven Focus Areas that combine high transit ridership with other variables likely to influence pedestrian demand. The projects identified in this document will be evaluated for their potential to improve pedestrian conditions. Within the eleven key Focus Areas, projects were identified through a three-stage process:

1. Focus Area Refinement, Walkshed and Walking Access Barrier Analysis2. Virtual and Field Review3. Individual Project IdentificationEach step is described in greater detail below.

1. Focus Area Refinement, Walkshed, and Walking Access Barrier Analysis

Fehr & Peers evaluated eleven Focus Areas previously identified by VTA staff and VTA member agencies for this memorandum. Where applicable, we recommended that Focus Areas be refined or expanded to include the following locations:

• Top ridership locations for VTA buses, VTA light rail stations, and Caltrain stations

• Areas of high employment density

• Areas of high residential density

After evaluating the Focus Areas, we conducted a GIS analysis as a first step in identifying deficiencies in pedestrian facilities. The analysis identified walksheds around transit stops within Focus Areas and identified “soft” barriers to walking access.

• Transitwalkshedidentification: A transit stop’s walkshed is the area within a reasonable walking distance, such a ¼ mile for local bus stops, or ½ mile for rail stations and rapid bus stops. After identifying walksheds around local and regional transit stops, these walksheds were merged and displayed as gradients to better show the area served by transit stops located within each Focus Area.

• “Soft”barrierstowalkingaccess: High auto speeds and volumes detract from the quality and comfort of the walking environment. This analysis identified streets within Focus Areas walksheds where high traffic speeds and/or high numbers of lanes create a “soft barrier” to pedestrian crossings. These streets are identified in the Focus Area Summaries as “Major Barriers to Walking Access” (which have speed limits equal to or greater than 35 mph and more than four vehicle travel lanes) and “Minor Barriers to Walking Access” (which have speed limits of 30 or 35 mph and up to four vehicle travel lanes).

2. Virtual and Field Review

The deficiencies and barriers identified in the GIS analysis were further evaluated by a “virtual” inventory of the Focus Areas using Google Earth followed by an on-the-ground field review of each Focus Area. The virtual and on-the-ground field reviews were conducted with an eye to the following criteria:

Connectivity• Locations with missing sidewalks and crosswalks

• The presence of pedestrian signal heads and crossing restrictions

• Uncontrolled marked crosswalks of major and minor barrier streets

• Absence of marked crosswalks

• Substantial (~1 mile) distances between crossings of major or minor barriers

Safety• Collision history (hotspot analysis, using most recent available data)

• Average traffic speed (major/minor barriers)

• Visibility of pedestrians at crossings

• Intersections with uncontrolled right turns and/or large curb radii

• Intersections with long crossing distances and/or skewed crosswalks

18.c


Quality• Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (where available)

• The presence of on-street parking or landscaped buffer

• Sidewalk width

• Presence or absence of pedestrian–scale lighting

• Presence of graffiti and/or trash

• Pedestrian “dead zones”: blank space adjacent to pedestrian environment, such as a blank wall, abandoned building or parking lot) Legibility

• Legibility: Unclear or unsigned pedestrian route to transit stops

Accessibility• Missing curb cuts and/or truncated domes at pedestrian crossings

• If adequate space is available on sidewalk and near transit stops to comfortably maneuver a wheelchair, walker or other assistive device

• Accessibility of pedestrian signals to people using a wheelchair, walker or other assistive device

Activity• Pedestrian counts (where available)

• Qualitative assessment of pedestrian volumes during virtual/physical fieldwork

Published and draft guidelines, including Pedestrian Technical Guidelines (VTA, 2003) and Transit Passenger Environment Plan (VTA, forthcoming), were used to identify specific standards for sidewalk widths and pedestrian design.

3. Individual Project Identification

The virtual and field review results were reviewed to identify a list of opportunities and deficiencies, along with a list of potential pedestrian improvements. We also reviewed VTA’s maps of proposed projects from existing plans to determine whether they address any of the deficiencies identified in the virtual and field review tasks.

18.c


Pedestrian Improvement MeasuresMeasure Description Benefits Application PhotoTraffic Control CountermeasuresPedestrian Hybrid Beacon (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk, or Hawk Signal)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) are pedestrian-actuated signals that combine a beacon flasher and a traffic control signal. When actuated, HAWK displays a yellow (warning) indication followed by a solid red light. During pedestrian clearance, the driver sees a flashing red “wig-wag” pattern until the clearance interval has ended and the signal goes dark.

Reduces pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and slows traffic speeds. Can be combined with curb extensions where parking lanes are present.

Useful in areas where it is difficult for pedestrians to find gaps in automobile traffic to cross safely, but where normal signal warrants are not satisfied. Appropriate for multi-lane roadways with vehicle daily traffic over 10,000.

1

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (Stutter Flash)

Rapid flashing LED lamps are installed on overhead signs, in advance of the crosswalk or at the entrance to the crosswalk. The beacons may be push-button activated or activated with pedestrian detection.

Initial studies suggest the stutter flash is very effective in increasing driver yielding behavior. Solar panels reduce energy costs associated with the device.

Appropriate for multi-lane roadways. 2

High-Visibility Signs and Crosswalks

High-visibility markings include a family of crosswalk striping styles including the “ladder” style. High-visibility fluorescent yellow green signs are posted at crossings to increase the visibility of a pedestrian crossing ahead.

Multi-stripe treatments provide greater visibility than traditional crosswalks

Beneficial in areas with high pedestrian activity, as near schools, and in areas where travel speeds are high and/or visibility is low.

3

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs

This measure involves posting regulatory pedestrian signage on lane edge lines and road centerlines. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. The legends YIELD TO may be used in conjunction with the pedestrian crossing symbol

This measure is highly visible to motorists and has a positive impact on pedestrian safety at crosswalks.

Mid-block crosswalks, unsignalized intersections, low-speed areas, and two-lane roadways are ideal for this pedestrian treatment.

Advanced Yield Lines Standard white yield limit lines and “shark’s teeth” are placed in advance of marked, uncontrolled crosswalks.

This measure increases the pedestrian’s visibility to motorists, reduces the number of vehicles encroaching on the crosswalk, and improves general pedestrian conditions on multi-lane roadways. It is also an affordable option.

Useful in areas where pedestrian visibility is low and in areas with aggressive drivers, as advance limit lines will help prevent drivers from encroaching on the crosswalk. Addresses the multiple-threat collision on multi-lane roads.

This Toolkit describes typical pedestrian improvements recommended throughout the Focus Areas.

18.c


Pedestrian Improvement MeasuresMeasure Description Benefits Application PhotoGeometric TreatmentsRoad Diet (aka Lane Reduction)

The number of lanes of travel is reduced and replaced with a combination or wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, vehicle parking, or converting parallel parking to angled or perpendicular parking.

This is a good traffic calming and pedestrian safety tool, particularly in areas that would benefit from curb extensions but have infrastructure in the way. This measure also improves pedestrian conditions on multi-lane roadways. Wider sidewalks can be used to improve comfort and quality of the pedestrian realm by accommodating trees, landscape buffers, and potential street furnishings.

Roadways with surplus roadway capacity (typically multi-lane roadways with less than 15,000 to 20,000 ADT) and high bicycle volumes, and roadways that would benefit from traffic calming measures.

Median Refuge Island Raised islands are placed in the center of a roadway, separating opposing lanes of traffic with cutouts for accessibility along the pedestrian path.

This measure allows pedestrians to focus attention on each direction of traffic separately as it provides pedestrians with a better view of oncoming traffic as well as allowing drivers to see pedestrians more easily. It can also split up a multi-lane road and act as a supplement to additional pedestrian tools.

Recommended for multi-lane roads wide enough to accommodate an ADA-accessible median. VTA’s Pedestrian Technical Guidelines provide additional design specifications.

Curb Extension Also known as a pedestrian bulb-out, this traffic-calming measure is meant to slow traffic and increase driver awareness. It consists of an extension of the curb into the street, making the pedestrian space (sidewalk) wider.

Curb extensions narrow the distance that a pedestrian has to cross and increase the sidewalk space at corners and mid-block crossings. The additional space can be used for landscaping, seating, or bicycle parking. Curb extensions also encourage drivers to turn more slowly.

Due to the high cost of installation, this tool would be most suitable on streets with high pedestrian activity, on-street parking, and infrequent (or no) curb-edge transit service. It is often used in combination with crosswalks or other markings. VTA’s Pedestrian Technical Guidelines provide additional design specifications.

4

Reduced Curb Radii The radius of a curb can be reduced to require motorists to make a tighter turn.

Smaller curb radii at street corners narrow the distance that pedestrians have to cross; increase space available to pedestrians and streetscape elements. Like curb extensions, reduced curb radii reduce traffic speeds and increase driver awareness, but can be less difficult and expensive to implement.

This measure would be beneficial on streets with high pedestrian activity and on-street parking. It is more suitable for wider roadways and roadways with low volumes of heavy truck traffic. VTA’s Pedestrian Technical Guidelines provide additional design specifications.

18.c


Pedestrian Improvement MeasuresMeasure Description Benefits Application PhotoCurb Ramps ADA –compliant curb ramps are sloped ramps

that are constructed at the edge of a curb (normally at intersections) as a transition between the sidewalk and a crosswalk. Truncated domes shall be included whenever curb ramps are added or rebuilt.

Curb ramps provide easy access between the sidewalk and roadway for people using wheelchairs, strollers, walkers, crutches, handcarts, bicycles, and also for pedestrians with mobility impairments who have trouble stepping up and down high curbs.

Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections and mid-block locations where pedestrian crossings exist, as mandated by federal legislation (1973 Rehabilitation Act and 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code-Title 24). Where feasible, separate directional curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp at a corner for both crosswalks.

Raised Crosswalk A crosswalk whose surface is elevated above the travel lanes.

Attracts drivers’ attention; encourages lower travel speeds by providing visual and tactile feedback when approaching the crosswalk and crossing the street.

Appropriate for multi-lane roadways, roadways with lower speed limits that are not emergency routes, and roadways with high levels of pedestrian activity, such as near schools, shopping malls, etc.

Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design

Right-turn slip lanes (aka channelized right-turn lanes) are separated from the rest of the travel lanes by a pork chop-shaped striped area. This measure separates right-turning traffic and streamlines right-turning movements. Improved right-turn slip lanes would provide pedestrian crossing islands within the intersection and be designed to optimize the right-turning motorist’s view of the pedestrian and of vehicles to his or her left.

This measure increases pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrians’ crossing distance and turning vehicle speeds.

Appropriate for intersections with high volumes of right-turning vehicles.

Pedestrian Access and AmenitiesMarked Crosswalk Marked crosswalks should be installed to

provide designated pedestrian crossings at major pedestrian generators, crossings with significant pedestrian volumes (at least 15 per hour, per California MUTCD), crossings with high vehicle-pedestrian collisions, and other areas based on engineering judgment.

Marked crosswalks provide a designated crossing, which may improve walkability and reduce jaywalking.

On multi-lane roads with more than 10,000 vehicles per day, marked crosswalks should be installed in conjunction with enhanced crosswalk treatments such as bulb outs, raised medians, RRFBs, or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.

18.c


Pedestrian Improvement MeasuresMeasure Description Benefits Application PhotoContrasting or Special Paving Materials

Pavers and colored concrete treatments or patterned thermoplastic asphalt inlays can be constructed to create a contrasting or patterned pedestrian crosswalk that is visually conspicuous to drivers and pedestrians alike.

Highly visible to motorists, this measure provides a visual cue to motorists and creates a clearly delineated space for pedestrians. It also aesthetically enhances the streetscape and can be used to create district identity.

Appropriate for areas with high volumes of pedestrian traffic and roadways with low visibility and/or narrow travel ways, as in downtown areas, commercial districts, main streets and the centers of smaller cities.

Accessibility Upgrades

Treatments such as audible pedestrian signals and accessible push buttons should be installed at crossings to accommodate disabled pedestrians. To comply with ADA requirements, truncated domes should also be included whenever curb ramps are added or rebuilt.

Improves accessibility of pedestrian facilities for all users.

Accessibility upgrades should be provided for all pedestrian facilities per citywide ADA programs.

Pedestrian Countdown Signal

Displays a “countdown” of the number of seconds remaining for the pedestrian crossing interval. In some jurisdictions the countdown includes the walk phase. In other jurisdictions, the countdown is only displayed during the flashing don’t walk phase.

Increases pedestrian awareness and allows people the flexibility to know when to speed up if the pedestrian phase is about to expire.

The 2014 California MUTCD (Revision 1) requires that new signals include a pedestrian countdown phase. When upgrading existing facilities with countdown signals, new signals should be prioritized for areas with pedestrian activity, roadways with high volumes of vehicular traffic, multi-lane roadways, and areas with elderly or disabled persons (who may walk slower than other pedestrians).

5

Pedestrian Access to Commercial Parking Lots

Dedicated pedestrian paths through landscaping and parking lots at commercial areas

Designated pedestrian walkways through parking lots improve safety and comfort by separating pedestrians from vehicles using site driveways. Walkways are made more legible and parking lots more sustainable if they are accompanied by tree planting and other landscaping.

Appropriate for existing commercial development where destinations are separated from sidewalk by parking lots and accessed via driveways.

6

Pedestrian Adaptive Signal

Pedestrian adaptive signals extend the walk phase when a pedestrian is detected in the crosswalk.

Allows longer crossing time for pedestrians entering during the walk phase or countdown phase. T

Appropriate for crosswalks where pedestrians must cross long distances across high-volume multi-lane roadways.

Streetscape Improvements

Landscaped Buffer/Rows of Trees

Planting strip, preferably including a row of shade trees, between the clear walking space of sidewalks and vehicle travel lanes.

Provide a physical separation between the pedestrians and moving traffic and increases pedestrian comfort. Trees provide additional comfort by providing shade on hot days.

Landscaped buffers and rows of trees are especially beneficial on streets with high vehicle volumes and high traffic speeds.

18.c


Pedestrian Improvement MeasuresMeasure Description Benefits Application PhotoSpecial CasesPedestrian Access at Interchanges

Best practices for pedestrian access at interchanges include high-visibility crosswalk striping and pedestrian crossing signage, advance yield lines, pedestrian-scale lighting, designing ramp geometries to encourage slower vehicle speeds at crosswalks, and orienting on-and off-ramps at right angles to local streets.

Enhanced pedestrian access at freeway on- and off-ramps improves pedestrian safety and comfort at interchanges.

Appropriate at freeway on- and off-ramps on streets with existing pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian Access at Rail Crossings

Best practices for pedestrian access at rail crossings include visual and audible warnings, swing gates and crosswalks, fencing along the tracks to restrict pedestrian access and safe refuge areas at wide crossings.

Formalizing and channeling pedestrian access at rail crossings reduces the risk of collision and makes walking more comfortable.

These treatments can be adapted for use at light rail and heavy rail tracks.

7

Tactical/

Interim Design Treatments

Design interventions that can be implemented in little time and at low cost. Examples: moveable planters, parklets, roadway striping.

Tactical or interim design treatments allow communities to test streetscape and roadway improvements and make design changes before committing substantial funds to the project.

Appropriate for streetscape improvements, some unsignalized crossings, road diets, curb extension and minor intersection improvements.

Public art Public art (sculptures, murals, light installations, and visual interest added to street furniture such as planters, benches, etc.) can be incorporated into pedestrian and streetscape improvements.

Public art can add visual interest and human scale to spaces used by pedestrians and act as landmarks that define locations in the public realm.

Public art can be integrated into street-adjacent open spaces, paving materials, parklets, freeway underpasses and overpasses, traffic circles, roundabouts and medians.

Wayfinding Wayfinding improvements include both active wayfinding elements, such as signs and maps, and passive wayfinding elements, which are design elements (paths, landscaping, etc.) that help to orient users toward destinations.

Wayfinding improvements help pedestrians to orient themselves in new spaces and find their destinations quickly, improving the pedestrian experience and making walking more attractive.

Wayfinding is especially appropriate in complex environments and around transit hubs.

18.c


1

2

3

4

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk, or Hawk Signal)

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (Stutter Flash)

High-Visibility Signs and Crosswalks Curb Extension

18.c


5 6

7

Pedestrian Countdown Signal

Pedestrian Access to Commercial Parking Lots

Pedestrian Access at Rail Crossings, Credit: ZGF, VTA Light Rail Enhancement Best Practices draft memorandum, November 2015.

18.c


Summary

Focus Area A is located in East San Jose between Alum Rock Avenue, White Road, McKee, Capitol Avenue, and Jackson Avenue. It includes several schools and shopping centers, and is served by VTA Light Rail (Line 901), the 522 Rapid/future Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT, and several local bus routes, including Lines 23, 25, 64, 70, and 71.

Focus Area A:Alum Rock (San Jose and Santa Clara County)

A

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Opportunities• High pedestrian demand throughout Focus Area from housing, schools, commercial centers, and transit

• High-quality pedestrian environment along Alum Rock east of White Road

• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program implementation underway in Focus Area

• Alum Rock and White Road identified as Safety Priority Streets in Vision Zero San Jose

• Focus Area included in Santa Clara County East San Jose Regional Pedestrian Improvement Program

• Future BART station west of focus area (28th/Santa Clara) may increase transit use

Pedestrian-friendly shopping district at Alum Rock/White intersection

People walking to commercial uses near Capitol/McKee intersection

High pedestrian demand at Capitol/Alum Rock

Issues

• Missing sidewalks throughout residential neighborhoods and along Alum Rock

• Unmarked crosswalks of major and minor barrier streets (White Road, Capitol Avenue)

• Several pedestrian collisions on major and minor barrier streets

• High speed vehicle turns at several major intersections

• Poor quality walking environment along corridors

• Intermittent pedestrian access to commercial centers

• High-density housing creates need for on-street parking in residential areas

Pedestrian crossing White Road near Florence Avenue

Missing sidewalks near White Road “Porkchop” pedestrian island at McKee/Capitol

18.c


Barriers to Pedestrian Access and Pedestrian Infrastructure Deficiencies

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

") Rapid & Regional Transit Stops

!( Other High-ridership Stops

!( Missing Pedestrian Signal Head

!( Missing Sidewalks

!( Missing Curb Cuts

GF Pedestrian Collision 2008-2012

Pedestrian Over Crossings

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain

Major barrier to walking access

Minor barrier to walking access

Class I Bike Path

Focus Area

Transit Stop Walkshed

County has identi�ed missing sidewalks in this area.

Miles0.3

N

* VTA Light Rail, Caltrain, Long Distance Bus Stops, Bus Rapid Transit Services

**Not all pedestrian deficiencies are mapped.

Transportation

Rapid & Regional Transit Stops*

Other High-ridership Stops

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain

Class I Multi-Use Trail

Pedestrian Issues**

Missing Pedestrian Signal Head

Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts

Pedestrian Collisions, 2008-2012


Minor barrier to walking acess

Focus Area


Pedestrian Overcrossings

!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

I-680

McKee R

d

Wh

ite Rd

Alu

m R

oc

k A

ve

Story

Rd

Jackson

Ave

Cap

itol A

ve

Florence Ave

Gay Ave

Focus Area A: Alum Rock (San Jose and Santa Clara County) 18.c

Potential Improvements by Project Type




Focus Area


!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

4

5

9

14

15

16

12

13 13

10

6

7

8

1

2

3

11 11

14

17

Miles0.3

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Potential Improvement Area

Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

I-680

McKee R

d

Wh

ite Rd

Alu

m R

oc

k A

ve

Story

Rd

Jackson

Ave

Cap

itol A

ve

Florence Ave

Gay Ave

Focus Area A: Alum Rock (San Jose and Santa Clara County) 18.c


Project Improvement Summary

Sub Area # Name Description Type

McKee VTA Station 1 Complete & upgrade crosswalks around McKee VTA LRT Station

• Stripe ladder crosswalks at intersections around McKee VTA LRT Station• Complete all four legs of each crosswalk, add pedestrian refuge on either side of rail tracks.

Intersection Issues• High pedestrian volume near the station and commercial areas• High vehicle speeds on Capitol Ave

Challenges• Rail signal timing may be a challenge• Potential safety challenge due to high vehicle speeds

-

McKee VTA Station 2 Signal retiming around McKee VTA station

• Consider double-cycle/half-cycle operation at signalized crossings to improve pedestrian access and reduce crossing delay


Challenges• Rail signal timing may be a challenge

-

McKee VTA Station 3 McKee/Capitol pedestrian access to commercial development

• Add pedestrian access to commercial areas near McKee Station as properties redevelop

Streetscape Issues• High pedestrian volume near the station and commercial areas• Desire lines through landscaping between sidewalks and parking lots

Opportunities• Existing access at Chipotle a model

-

Project Issue or Project Noted in Previous Plan

Existing Conditions Addressed







-





-





-



Focus Area A: Alum Rock (San Jose and Santa Clara County)

18.c








-





-





-







McKee/Capitol 4 McKee/Capitol intersection improvements

• Redesign porkchops and curbs at NW & SW corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce the angle of approach, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Tighten curb radius at SE corner, widen sidewalk• Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at dedicated right turn lanes• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection• Retime signal to synchronize with arriving trains

Intersection Issues• High-speed right turns, high pedestrian demand and limited pedestrian waiting area• Multiple pedestrian-involved crashes

-

McKee/White 5 McKee/White intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops and curbs at NW, NE & SW corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Tighten curb radius at SE corner, widen sidewalk and pedestrian waiting area• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection• Add advanced yield pavement markings at dedicated right turn lanes

Intersection Issues• High-speed right turns, high pedestrian demand and limited pedestrian waiting area• Multiple pedestrian-involved crashes

-


18.c








-





-





-







White Road/Alum Rock

6 White Road/Alum Rock intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at NW, NE & SW corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• High pedestrian volumes, nearby school• High speed turns

-

White Road 7 White Road mid-block crossing

• Consider adding uncontrolled or PHB-controlled pedestrian crossing at White/Rose or White/Florence: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates• Add curb extension at SE corner of Florence and White to reduce curb radius and slow turning vehicles

Other Crossing

Issues• Unsafe walking environment for pedestrians who need to cross the street to access bus stops • Multiple pedestrian-involved crashes

Opportunities • No median or hardscape obstruction

-

White Road 8 White Road streetscape improvements

• Widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines • Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings.

Streetscape Issues• Narrow sidewalks with little clear walkway width

Opportunities• Identified as Safety Priority Street in Vision Zero San Jose

Challenges• Widening sidewalks could require a taking of ROW

•Vision Zero San Jose


18.c








-





-





-







White Road 9 White Road neighborhood sidewalk completion

• Complete sidewalks in neighborhood bounded by White Road, Wilbur Ave, S. Capitol Ave, and Alum Rock Ave

Gap Closure Issues• Incomplete sidewalks


•Vision Zero San Jose

Alum Rock station 10 Alum Rock VTA LRT Station crosswalk improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks to intersections around Alum Rock VTA LRT Station.• Complete all four legs of each crosswalk, add pedestrian refuge on either side of rail tracks.

Intersection Issues• Incomplete crosswalk access; high volume of pedestrian crossings from adjacent Transit Center

Opportunities•Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

•Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program•Vision Zero San Jose

Alum Rock station 11 Alum Rock Transit Center pedestrian path improvements

• Stripe crosswalks or otherwise designate pedestrian routes from Capitol Ave to bus bays

Wayfinding Issues• High pedestrian volume through Transit Center

Opportunities•Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

•Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

Alum Rock/Capitol 12 Alum Rock/Capitol intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at NW & SE corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Stripe ladder crosswalks to all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• High-speed right turns, high pedestrian demand and limited pedestrian waiting area

Opportunities• Identified as Safety Priority Street in Vision Zero San Jose• Intersection redevelopment included in Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

• Vision Zero San Jose• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program


18.c








-





-





-







Alum Rock/Capitol 13 Alum Rock streetscape/sidewalk improvements

• Complete sidewalks along north side of Alum Rock east of Capitol between Pala Ave and Cedar Lane. Sidewalks and landscaping can replace existing landscaping strip along frontage road or sidewalks can be added inside of existing landscaping strip • Widen existing sidewalks on south side of Alum Rock between bus stops, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum total sidewalk width of 13' per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

StreetscapeGap Closure

Issues• Narrow sidewalks with little clear walkway width• Incomplete sidewalks

Opportunities• Identified as Safety Priority Street in Vision Zero San Jose• Potential to narrow frontage road and add sidewalk between Pala Ave and Cedar Lane• Potential to reallocate space from 20' outside vehicle travel lanes on Alum Rock to sidewalk space

Challenges• Sidewalk widening may require ROW take• Improvements will require coordination with San Jose Fire Department to ensure fire trucks have adequate access

• Vision Zero San Jose

Alum Rock/Capitol 14 Alum Rock neighborhood sidewalk improvements

• Complete sidewalks in neighborhoods bounded by Alum Rock Ave/Capitol Ave/Mueller Ave/I-680 and Madeline Dr/Fleming Ave/ E. Hills Dr/White Rd

Gap Closure Issues• Incomplete sidewalks in neighborhoods in and around Focus Area

Opportunities• Sidewalk completion in County Sidewalk Improvement Program

-


18.c








-





-





-







Alum Rock/280-680 15 Alum Rock/280-680 Ramps improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks, advanced yield lines, and add high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage at ramp crossings• Tighten curb radii where possible• Consider signalizing pedestrian crossing of NB on ramp at NE corner of Alum Rock/680 NB ramp• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles and consolidate intersections and pedestrian crossings when interchanges are reconstructed • Install pedestrian-scale lighting on overpass• Consider additional long-term pedestrian improvements with implementation of proposed I-680 Median Express Bus Station (identified in Draft I-680 Corridor Study)

Intersection Issues• Low-visibility crossings of ramps • High-speed turns to on ramps

Opportunities• Approach lanes for on ramps have excess ROW• Identified as Safety Priority Street in Vision Zero San Jose• Long-term improvements possible with implementation of proposed Median Express Bus Station redesign (identified in I-680 Corridor Study)

• Vision Zero San Jose• I-680 Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming)

Alum Rock/Jackson 16 Alum Rock/Jackson intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at NW, NE & SE corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• Wide turning radii, high pedestrian volumes

Opportunities• Intersection redesign will be included in Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program • Identified as Safety Priority Street in Vision Zero San Jose

•Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program• Vision Zero San Jose


18.c








-





-





-







Capitol Expy/I-680 Ramps

17 Capitol Expressway sidewalk and crosswalk improvements

• Complete sidewalks on south side of Capitol Expressway between S. Jackson Ave and S. Capitol Ave• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings of I-680 ramps• Consider additional long-term pedestrian improvements with implementation of proposed diverging diamond interchange redesign (identified in Draft I-680 Corridor Study)

Intersection Issues• Missing sidewalks between S. Jackson Ave and S. Capitol Ave

Opportunities• County-identified project to add sidewalks between Jackson Ave and Massar Ave• Crosswalk improvements identified in I-680 Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming) • Interchange redesign identified in I-680 Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming)

• I-680 Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming)


18.c


Summary

Focus Area B is located in East San Jose around the intersection of Capitol Avenue/Capitol Expressway. It includes three schools, two parks and several major commercial developments along Story Road, and is served by VTA Rapid 522 and several local bus routes, including VTA Lines 25, 70, and 71.

• Excess right-of-way at many intersections

• Capitol Expressway and Story Road identified as “Safety Priority Streets” in Vision Zero San Jose

• Commercial and residential uses generate pedestrian demand

• Babb Creek provides opportunity for off-street pedestrian access

Excess right-of-way along corridor

Focus Area B:East San Jose

B130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Many intersections with restricted pedestrian access

• Long distances between marked crosswalks (Capitol Avenue/Capitol Expy, Story Road)

• Several pedestrian collisions


• Pedestrian “dead zone” along Capitol Expressway, general poor quality walking environment along corridors

• Pedestrian access to neighborhoods blocked by sound wall on Capitol Expressway

Wide curb radius at Capitol/Story Restricted pedestrian access on Capitol Expressway

Incomplete pedestrian access at signalized intersections along Story Road

Opportunities

18.c



GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")








VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path

Focus Area


!(

Miles0.3

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Story

Rd

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

S Jackso

n A

ve

S W

hite R

d

Murtha Dr

Focus Area B: East San Jose 18.c





Focus Area


Story

Rd

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

S Jackso

n A

ve

S W

hite R

d

Murtha Dr

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

2

34

5

6

1 1

7

Miles0.3

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

Focus Area B: East San Jose 18.c








-





-





-



Focus Area B: East San JoseProject Improvement Summary




Capitol Expy/Capitol Ave

1 Capitol Expy/Capitol Ave intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops and curbs at all four corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at right turns• Stripe ladder crosswalks on all four legs of intersection• Add landscaping to islands/hardscape at NE & SE corners to improve pedestrian quality and channel pedestrians away from restricted crossing areas. Ensure that landscaping does not restrict sight lines

IntersectionStreetscape

Issues• Wide crossing with little shade at corners• Poor pedestrian visibility • Restricted access on E leg •Unpleasant walking environment, high traffic exposure


Challenges• High vehicle traffic volumes• Landscaping and ladder crosswalks generate additional maintenance costs

• Vision Zero San Jose

Story Rd Corridor 2 Story Rd Corridor signalized intersection improvements

• Provide marked pedestrian crossings (signal heads and crosswalks) on all four legs of intersections • Stripe ladder crosswalks • Tighten wide curb radii via curb extensions or porkchop reconstruction• Locations: S. Jackson Ave, Leeward Dr, Galahad Ave, McGinness Ave, Home Depot Driveway, Highwood Dr

Intersection Issues• Incomplete pedestrian access at signalized intersections along Story Rd corridor

• East San Jose Community-Based Transportation Plan (2009)

18.c








-





-





-







Story Rd Corridor 3 Story Rd streetscape improvements

• Widen sidewalks on N side of Story Rd between S. Jackson Ave and White Rd. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• Very narrow sidewalks on N. (residential) side of Story Rd

Opportunities• Excess ROW in outside lanes on Story Rd, parking underutilized

Challenges• On-street parking along this corridor• ROW take may be required to widen sidewalks

• East San Jose Community-Based Transportation Plan (2009)

Story Rd/Capitol Rd 4 Capitol Expy/Story Rd intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops at NE and SW corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space • Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at NE and SW corner dedicated right turns• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Consider landscaping at NW, SW and NE corners to improve waiting experience and provide shade

Intersection Issues• Wide intersection lacks shade• Poor pedestrian visibility

Opportunities• Platforms under construction as part of Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT

Challenges• High vehicle traffic volumes• Landscaping and ladder crosswalks generate additional maintenance costs

• East San Jose Community-Based Transportation Plan (2009)• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

Story Rd/White Rd 5 White Rd/Story Rd intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at SW and SE corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection • East San Jose Community-Based Transportation Plan (2009)

18.c








-





-





-







Capitol Expy Corridor

6 Capitol Expy streetscape and neighborhood access improvements

• Consider streetscape improvements along W side of Capitol Expressway S. of Story Rd: widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffer strip• Consider adding "punch-thru" pedestrian access path at Logsden Way. Access through sound walls must include sound-dampening features

Streetscape Issues• Limited transit access along this stretch of Capitol

Challenges• "Punch thru" pedestrian access likely to require land purchase or easement from existing homeowners• Limited transit access along this stretch of Capitol Expy• Soundwalls restrict ROW that can be used to widen sidewalks

-

Capitol Expy Corridor

7 Silver Creek Trail Extension

• Extend Silver Creek Trail between Cassell Park and Lake Cunningham Park

Streetscape Issues• Silver Creek Trail ends at Cassell Park

Opportunities• City of San Jose and Santa Clara Valley Water District have identified trail extension as a future project

-

18.c


Summary

Focus Area C is located in downtown Gilroy and is bounded by Highway 101, Princevalle Street, W. 10th Street, and Leavesley Road. It is served by Caltrain and several local bus routes centered on the Gilroy Transit Center. Major bus routes within the Focus Area are VTA Lines 14, 18, 19, 68, and 121). The Focus Area includes four schools, three parks, and commercial districts along Monterey Road, E. 10th Street, and 1st Street.

Focus Area C:Central Gilroy

C

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Highway 101 and Caltrain tracks present major barriers to pedestrian circulation

• Existing at-grade rail crossings do not provide adequate pedestrian facilities

• Several intersections with pedestrian crossing restrictions

• Incomplete sidewalks in neighborhoods

Existing pedestrian crossing at 7th Street-Old Gilroy

Missing sidewalks within Focus Area Highway 101 creates a barrier between residential and commercial areas

Opportunities• Existing pedestrian-oriented retail along Monterey Road and 1st Street

• Excellent streetscape around Caltrain Station and Gilroy Transit Center

• High pedestrian demand throughout Focus Area due to housing, retail, schools and parks

• Excess right-of-way at streets and intersections provides space for pedestrian-oriented improvements

• Pedestrian improvements identified in Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan, including bicycle/pedestrian paths along east side of Caltrain alignment and along Western Ronan Channel

• High Speed Rail Downtown Station Area Plan in progress right now.

High-quality streetscape at Gilroy Transit Center Schools and housing generate pedestrian demand

Unused right-of-way on Monterey Highway

18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")")

")")

")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.3

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain

Class I Multi-Use Trail (planned)

Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Western Ronan Channel Trail (planned)

Gilroy Caltrain and Transit Center

US

-10

1

Leavesley R d

E 10th St

Mo

nterey R

d

Old Gilroy St

W. 6th St

Ioof Ave

1st St/SR 152

Focus Area C: Central Gilroy 18.c






Miles0.3

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

Gilroy Caltrain and Transit Center

Western Ronan Channel Trail (planned)

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")")

")")

")

1

2

3

4

5

9

9

10

11

6

7

8

14

12

13 US

-10

1

Leavesley R d

E 10th St

Old Gilroy St

W. 6th St

Ioof Ave

Focus Area C: Central Gilroy 18.c








-





-





-







Monterey Rd/Leavesley Rd

1 Monterey Rd/Leavesley Rd intersection improvements

• Consider removing or reconstructing porkchop at SE corner to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, expand pedestrian waiting space, and improve driver yielding rates • Tighten curb radius at NE corner• Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at dedicated right turn lane• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Stripe ladder crosswalks at NE and SE corner track crossings to designate pedestrian crossing

Intersection Issues• Wide curb radii and high vehicle speeds• WB trucks regularly collide with railroad crossing sign (crossbuck)• Heavy truck turning movement WB to NB

Opportunities• Identified in Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan

Challenges• Due to proximity to Caltrain tracks, changes will require coordination with California Public Utilities Commission

• Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan

Monterey Rd Corridor

2 Monterey Rd Corridor streetscape improvements

• Add buffer on west side of Monterey Rd through streetscape and pedestrian lighting.•Widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines • Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• Monterey Rd is wide with high pedestrian volumes, high vehicle speeds and poor lighting

Opportunities• Underused parking spaces on both sides of Monterey Road. • ROW can be reallocated to implement streetscape improvements.• Identified in Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan


Focus Area C: Central Gilroy

18.c








-





-





-








3 Monterey Rd/Howson uncontrolled crossing improvements

• Improve existing uncontrolled crossing at Monterey Rd/Howson: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates.• Evaluate possibility of relocating NB bus stop closer to Howson

Streetscape Issues• Poor driver yield rates observed at existing crosswalk• High number of pedestrian-involved collisions at this location• Pedestrians observed crossing Monterey Rd against traffic

-

Caltrain corridor 4 At-grade railway crossing improvements

• Improve at-grade crossings at Ioof Ave, Lewis St., Martin St., E. 6th St., E. 7th St.• Widen or add sidewalks. Recommend minimum 9'6" total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks at track crossings to designate pedestrian crossing• Add pedestrian gates and potentially intertrack fencing to restrict pedestrian access to tracks• Evaluate possibility of adding bicycle/pedestrian path east of Caltrain ROW between 10th St and Leavesley Rd, as identified in Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan

Gap Closure Opportunities• Identified in Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan• Crossing improvements identified in Caltrain safety improvement study conducted by VTA in 2013


• Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan• Caltrain safety improvement study (VTA, 2013)


18.c








-





-





-







E 7th St - Old Gilroy St

5 E 7th St - Old Gilroy St railway crossing improvements

• Add sidewalk and crosswalk to NE side of track crossing• Stripe ladder crosswalks at track crossings to designate pedestrian crossing• Add pedestrian gates to restrict pedestrian access• Add pedestrian refuge between two sets of tracks: raised curb, pedestrian gates, possibly intertrack fencing• Consider reconstructing RR/Old Gilroy intersection to reduce turning radii at NE corner/shorten crossing distance, and bring the two streets together at closer to a 90 degree angle.

Gap Closure Issues• Pedestrian access is unclear• No restrictions to pedestrian access at rail track • No infrastructure to alert drivers to presence of pedestrians• Narrow sidewalk at Old Gilroy Rd. north side• Existing crossings are not ADA-compliant

Opportunities• On Railroad Rd/ Old Gilroy Rd there is space for sidewalks, crosswalks, and lighting

Challenges• Due to proximity to Caltrain tracks, changes will require coordination with California Public Utilities Commission• Design must accommodate truck movement as this is an industrial area.

-


18.c








-





-





-








6 Neighborhood sidewalk completion

• Complete sidewalk networks throughout neighborhood bounded by Monterey Rd, IOOF Ave, Hwy 101, and E. 10th St

Gap Closure Issues• Incomplete sidewalk network in this neighborhood

Opportunities• Space available on Alexander and Old Gilroy for bus waiting area and sidewalk• This area has space for sidewalk and pedestrian lighting

Challenges• Little development anticipated in this neighborhood, presenting few opportunities to complete sidewalks as part of new projects



7 Monterey Road sidewalk completion

• Complete sidewalks between Caltrain Station and W. 10th St• Short-term solution: Install ADA-compliant all-weather asphalt path

Gap Closure Opportunities• Implementation of High Speed Rail provides opportunity to make improvements

Challenges• ROW take, parking and tree removal, and relocation of utility lines would be required and would increase project cost

• Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan• City of Gilroy Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2013)


18.c








-





-





-







Monterey Rd/E. 10th St

8 10th/Monterey crossing improvements and gap closure

• Complete and widen sidewalks at track crossing and on S side of E 10th St. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks at track crossing to designate pedestrian crossing• Add pedestrian gates and potentially intertrack fencing to restrict pedestrian access• Add pedestrian refuge between two sets of tracks: raised curb, pedestrian gates, potentially intertrack fencing• Consider tightening radii at NE corner of Monterey/10th and realigning north leg crosswalk

Gap Closure Issues• Pedestrian access is unclear• No restrictions to pedestrian access at rail track • No infrastructure to alert drivers to presence of pedestrians

Opportunities• Major access point for Caltrain station• City-led traffic calming study of 10th St improvements underway

Challenges• Due to proximity to Caltrain tracks, changes will require coordination with California Public Utilities Commission• ROW take with property redevelopment may be required to widen sidewalks

• Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan• 10th St traffic calming study (City of Gilroy, forthcoming)

Hwy 101 corridor 9 Proposed pedestrian crossings at IOOF Ave, Old Gilroy Street

• Hwy 101 overcrossings proposed at: IOOF St, Old Gilroy St• IOOF overcrossing would include vehicle, bicycle, and transit access• Old Gilroy St overcrossing would be pedestrian-only• Considerations for a new overpass should include: conflicts with overhead utilities, close-in pedestrian overpasses (10th, 6th, Leavesley)

Network Connection

Issues• Proposed overcrossings could connect neighborhood to major commercial areas

Challenges• Bridge at Crocker Ln may conflict with power lines, elevations• May duplicate access provided at E./6th Street/Gilman Road.

-


18.c








-





-





-







101/Leavesley Rd 10 Leavesley Rd/101/San Ysidro interchange improvements

• Reconstruct curb at NE corner and porkchop at SE corner of San Ysidro Ave/Leavesley Rd to tighten right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, expand pedestrian waiting space, and reduce angle of approach• Lane restriping and crosswalk relocations as identified in Gilroy Pedestrian Safety Assessment• Stripe ladder crosswalks and add pedestrian crossing signage at existing ramp crossings• Add pedestrian scale lighting under underpass • Consider adding mural or other public art under underpass• Western Ronan Channel continues across Leavesley. Consider bike ped overcrossing or at-grade crossing at this location to facilitate trail connection

Intersection Issues• Wide curb radii, long pedestrian crossing distance, and high vehicle speeds

Opportunities• Interchange identified as an Across Barrier Connection (Unfriendly interchange) in 2008 Countywide Bicycle Plan

Challenges• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans

-

1st St/Hanna St 11 1st St mid-block crossing at Hanna St or Rosanna St

• Consider mid-block crossing at 1st St/Hanna St or Rosanna St: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, either median refuge or RRFB/PHB

Other Crossing

Issues• High pedestrian volumes


-


18.c








-





-





-







1st St/SR 152 corridor

12 1st St/SR 152 corridor streetscape and crossing improvements

• Evaluate complete streets improvements along 1st St/SR 152 between Monterey Rd and Santa Teresa Blvd. Consider crossing improvements and traffic calming to improve safety at nearby schools


Issues• High pedestrian volumes• School access along corridor


-


13 Swantston pedestrian crossing improvements

• Consider improvements to Swantston pedestrian crossing of Caltrain line. Potential improvements include striping ladder crossings and adding pedestrian gates to restrict access• Consider feasibility of adding pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing

Network connection


-

Hwy 101 Corridor 14 6th St 101 overcrossing improvements

• Add barrier between pedestrians and vehicles on north side of overcrossing• Look for opportunities to expand pedestrian space when bridge is rebuilt or expanded

Network connection

Challenges• Substantial improvements would require structural changes to bridge• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans

-


18.c


Summary

Focus Area D is located in West Mountain View and Los Altos and is bounded by El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, Central Expressway, and S. Rengstorff Avenue. It is served by Caltrain at the San Antonio station, VTA’s 522 Rapid bus, and several local bus routes (including VTA Lines 22, 34, 35, and 40), with a small transit hub just north of the El Camino/Showers intersection. It includes a major commercial development at the El Camino Real/San Antonio Road intersection (the San Antonio Shopping Center), as well as commercial development along the El Camino Real corridor and several multifamily housing complexes.

Opportunities• Excellent streetscape around new

development at NE corner of El Camino Real/San Antonio Road, provides model for new development

• Potential to reallocate right-of-way at streets and intersections to pedestrian-oriented improvements as properties redevelop

• Existing uncontrolled crossings along El Camino Real and San Antonio Road can be upgraded

• Existing pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing at Mayfield

• Planned redevelopment of San Antonio Center Phase II

High-quality streetscape at San Antonio Road and El Camino Real

Focus Area D:San Antonio (Mountain View/ Los Altos)

D

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Pedestrians and transit passengers exposed to high levels of vehicle traffic along El Camino Real, Rengstorff Ave, and San Antonio Road


• Poor pedestrian access to San Antonio Caltrain Station

• Caltrain tracks at Central Expressway present barrier to connectivity for neighborhoods north of Focus Area

Narrow sidewalks along El Camino Real Limited space at bus stop boarding areas

18.c



GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF GF

GFGF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

")")

")

")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.2

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Centra l Expy

Ara

str

ad

ero

Rd

N S

an

An

ton

io R

d

Re

ng

sto

rff

Av

e

A lma St

El C

am

ino

Rea

l

Portola Ave

Del

Med

io A

ve

California St

Show

ers

Dr

Latham St

Los Altos

Mountain View

San Antonio Caltrain Station

Focus Area D: San Antonio (Mountain View/Los Altos) 18.c



")

")




!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

)")" 1

2

3

4

5

5

9

6

12

7

7

8 11

10

Miles0.2

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

Centra l Expy

Ara

str

ad

ero

Rd

N S

an

An

ton

io R

d

Re

ng

sto

rff

Av

e

A lma St

El C

am

ino

Rea

l

Portola Ave

Del

Med

io A

ve

Show

ers

Dr

Latham St

Los Altos

Mountain View

San Antonio Caltrain Station

Focus Area D: San Antonio (Mountain View/Los Altos) 18.c








-





-





-







Mayfield Ave/Central Expy

1 Mayfield Ave/Central Expy intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops and curbs at NE corner to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at dedicated right turn lane (NE corner)• Stripe ladder crosswalks at existing two legs of intersection• Consider reconstruction of San Antonio/Central off-ramp per County conceptual design

Intersection Issues• Poor access to pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain tracks

Opportunities• County has long-term plan to rebuild ramp at Mayfield/Central/San Antonio so it comes down east of Mayfield

-

San Antonio Rd corridor

2 San Antonio Rd/Miller Ave uncontrolled crossing improvements

• Improve existing uncontrolled crossing of San Antonio Rd at Miller Ave: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates.

Other Crossing

Issues• High vehicle volumes, poor pedestrian visibility at uncontrolled crossing

Opportunities• Existing uncontrolled crossing

-


3 San Antonio Rd/Fayette Dr intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks across San Antonio• Tighten curb radius at SW corner and realign S leg of crosswalk to reduce crossing distance

Intersection Issues• High pedestrian demand, skewed S leg of intersection

-

Focus Area D: San Antonio (Mountain View/Los Altos)

18.c








-





-





-







San Antonio Rd/El Camino Real

4 San Antonio Rd/El Camino Real intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at all corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• High speed right turns, low-visibility crosswalks

Opportunities• Noted in Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan• Reduced curb radii and ladder crosswalks recommended in El Camino Real Precise Plan


• Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan• El Camino Real Precise Plan


5 San Antonio Rd corridor uncontrolled crossing improvements and sidewalk completion

• At existing uncontrolled crossings of N San Antonio Rd/Pasa Robles Ave, consider adding RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates at existing uncontrolled crossings

Other Crossing

Issues• Pedestrians must cross five mixed-traffic lanes plus bike lanes at these locations

• Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan


18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real corridor

6 El Camino Real corridor signalized intersection improvements

• Intersections of El Camino Real and Del Medio Ave, Los Altos Ave, Jordan Ave, Ortega Avenue, Distel Drive• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all intersections• Evaluate opportunities to narrow curb radii, remove free right turns, and provide marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads at all four legs of intersections• Evaluate opportunities to improve and relocate bus stops at intersections along El Camino Real

Intersection Issues High speed right turns, low-visibility crosswalks along corridor

Opportunities• Ladder crosswalks across El Camino Real and selected turning radii reductions are included in the Draft EIR for El Camino Real BRT


• El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Draft EIR


7 El Camino Real corridor uncontrolled crossing improvements

• Improve existing uncontrolled crossings El Camino Real/Distel Circle: ladder crosswalks, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, PHB to improve driver yield rates

• Potential to signalize or convert to right-in/right-out with implementation of El Camino Real BRT

Other Crossing

Issues • High vehicle volumes, poor pedestrian visibility at uncontrolled crossing


• El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Draft EIR


18.c








-





-





-








8 El Camino Real corridor streetscape improvements

• Streetscape improvements between Los Altos Avenue and S. Rengstorff Avenue• As property redevelops, widen sidewalks. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Add landscaped buffers (planters as short-term/tactical option) including shade trees• Add pedestrian scale lighting• Consolidate driveways as properties redevelop and examine opportunities to add protected bicycle lane along El Camino Real • Add pedestrian access through parking lots to commercial developments• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• Narrow sidewalks, limited pedestrian access to commercial areas, and multiple driveway conflicts along corridor

Opportunities• Parking lane along El Camino only intermittently used

Challenges• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans• Widening sidewalks may require major drainage work• Some businesses may rely on on-street parking

-


18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/Showers

9 El Camino Real/Showers intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curb at NE and NW corners to narrow right turn radius, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks at existing three legs of intersection (including driveway)• Consider adding pedestrian crossing to E leg of intersection: ladder crosswalk and pedestrian signal heads

Intersection Issues• Worn crosswalks, low pedestrian visibility• Pedestrian access prohibited across E leg of crosswalk

Opportunities• Noted in San Antonio Precise Plan• Noted in Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan• Curb reconstructions and El Camino Real crossing improvements identified in El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR


• San Antonio Precise Plan• Los Altos Pedestrian Master Plan• El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR

California Ave corridor

10 California Avenue uncontrolled crossing improvements

• Evaluate opportunities to provide mid-block and unsignalized crossings along California Ave

Other crossings

Opportunities• Road diet planned for California Avenue

-


18.c








-





-





-







Rengstorff Ave corridor

11 Rengstorff Ave corridor improvements

• Consider improvements to existing uncontrolled ped crossings along Rengstorff Ave between El Camino Real and Central Expy: ladder crosswalks, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, PHB or RRFB to improve driver yield rates

• Evaluate the potential for a road diet on Rengstorff between Central Expy and El Camino Real, to provide widened sidewalks, improvements to pedestrian crossings including ladder crosswalks, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, PHB or RRFB to improve driver yield rates, and median pedestrian refuges. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

StreetscapeOther crossings

Issues• Existing uncontrolled crossings connect bus stops along Rengstorff Ave

Opportunities• County has long-term plan for grade separation of Rengstorff and Central Expy/ Caltrain tracks, which would improve pedestrian connection to Rengstorff Ave north of Focus Area

-

Rengstorff Ave/El Camino Real

12 Rengstorff/El Camino Real intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks on all four legs of intersection• Consider reducing curb radii/adding curb extensions to NE and NW corners and removing free SB right turn • Realign west leg of intersection • Consider possibility of adding marked pedestrian crossing and signal head to east leg of intersection (El Camino Real crossing)

Intersection Issues• Wide curb radii at NE and NW corners (Rengstorff approach) • No pedestrian crossing of south leg of intersection, which restricts access to SB bus stop• Skewed crosswalk on north leg of intersection


-


18.c


Summary

Focus Area E is located in Mountain View on either side of El Camino Real between Escuela Avenue and Lane Avenue. It is served by VTA’s 522 Rapid bus, and several local bus routes, including VTA Lines 22 and 52. It includes both large and small commercial development along the El Camino Real corridor, along with several multifamily housing complexes.

Issues

• Several pedestrian collisions along El Camino Real

• Narrow sidewalks along El Camino Real

• Several major intersections have high speed vehicle turns, long pedestrian crossing distances, pedestrian crossing restrictions

• Intersection configuration at El Camino Real/ El Monte creates potential safety issues

Opportunities• Existing uncontrolled crossings can be upgraded

• Many small businesses in the area provide pedestrian-scale shopping and services

• Existing pedestrian crossing improvements (porkchops, medians)

Focus Area E:Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor

E

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Wide curb radii and underbuilt porkchop at intersections

SW corner of El Camino Real/ El Monte intersection

Narrow sidewalks and driveway curb cuts along El Camino Real

Small businesses and narrow sidewalks along El Camino Real

Pedestrians crossing at Castro/El Camino Real Existing pedestrian crossing improvements at Shoreline-Miramonte/El Camino Real

18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")

")








VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path

Focus Area


Miles0.2

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Mountain ViewCaltrain Station

E l Camino Real

Sh

ore

lin

e B

lvd

El

Mo

nte

Av

e

California St

E l Camino Real

El

Mo

nte

Av

e

Cas

tro

St

Latham St

Church St

Cal

dero

n A

ve

Centra l Expy

Centra l Expy

Focus Area E: Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor 18.c





Focus Area


(

)

(

(

)

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!

!(

!

!

!(

!(

"

"

")

1

2

3 4

5

6 6

7

Miles0.2

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

E l Camino Real

Centra l Expy

Sh

ore

lin

e B

lvd

El

Mo

nte

Av

e

California St

E l Camino Real

Centra l Expy

El

Mo

nte

Av

e

Cas

tro

St

Latham St

Church St

Cal

dero

n A

ve

Mountain ViewCaltrain Station

Focus Area E: Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor 18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/Escuela

1 El Camino Real/Escuela intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curb at NE corner to narrow right turn radius, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks (including driveway)• Retime signal to eliminate conflicts between pedestrian crossing of El Camino Real and permissive left turn movement from Escuela• Add high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage at SB right turn (Escuela approach)

Intersection Issues• Wide turn radii , high-speed vehicle turning movements

Opportunities•Ladder crosswalks across ECR at Escuela included in VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR (dedicated lane option)


• El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR

El Camino Real/El Monte

2 El Monte Ave/El Camino Real intersection redesign

• Consider road diet on El Monte• Evaluate El Monte Ave/El Camino Real redesign: Rebuild island at SW corner: close dedicated right turn from El Camino Real, add lane for right turn at main intersection, stripe ladder crosswalks, install advanced yield sign on SB departure lane, retain right-in/right-out access to driveways at businesses N of Ednamary Way

Intersection Issues• Lack of visibility and high right turn speeds at El Monte Ave/El Camino Real intersection• Pedestrian-involved collisions on El Monte south of this intersection

Challenges• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans• Auto-oriented existing businesses need driveway access• Substantial study of existing and future traffic volumes, capacity, operations, and geometry is required• Full set of improvements only likely with redevelopment of property at this location

-

Focus Area E: Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor

18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/El Monte

3 El Monte mid-block crossing improvements

• Improve existing uncontrolled crossing at El Monte/Marich Way: advance yield lines ("shark's teeth"), high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates

Other Crossing

Issues• Multiple threat and limited treatments at existing uncontrolled crossing; multiple pedestrian-involved crashes

Opportunity• Existing uncontrolled crossing

-

El Camino Real Corridor

4 El Camino Real corridor streetscape improvements

• Streetscape improvements between El Camino Real between Escuela Ave and Castro St•Widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• Very narrow sidewalks given pedestrian volumes

Challenges• ROW take or elimination of parking would be required to widen sidewalks• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans• Many small businesses along corridor, may rely on on-street parking• Widening sidewalks may require major drainage work

-


18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/ Shoreline Blvd

5 El Camino Real and S. Shoreline Blvd intersection improvements

• Remove or reconstruct porkchops at NW, SW & SE corners to reduce right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• Lack of visibility, waiting area and high turning speed creates unsafe environment for pedestrians

Opportunities• Excess space for turning vehicles at existing right turns


-

Central Expressway/Castro St

6 Mountain View Transit Center and Central Expressway improvements

• Pedestrian access improvements to Mountain View Transit Center and across Central Expressway, as outlined in Shoreline Transportation Study (2013), Shoreline Corridor Study (2014), and Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan Study (forthcoming)

IntersectionNetwork Connections

Opportunities• City of Mountain View has identified near-term improvements at Castro/Moffett/Central Expy intersection in its Capital Improvement Plan• Improvements identified in Shoreline Transportation Study (2013), Shoreline Corridor Study (2014), and Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan Study (forthcoming)

• Shoreline Transportation Study (2013)• Shoreline Corridor Study (2014)• Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan Study (forthcoming)

El Camino Real Corridor

7 Signalized pedestrian crossing of El Camino Real at Pettis Ave

• Construct signalized pedestrian crossing with ladder crosswalk at W leg of Pettis/El Camino Real, as proposed in VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR

Other crossing

Opportunities• Project identified in VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR

• VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR


18.c


Summary

Focus Area F is located along El Camino Real in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, between Grant Road and S. Bernardo Avenue. It is served by VTA’s 522 Rapid bus and by local bus routes including VTA Line 22. The Focus Area includes several hotels, a medical office complex, many small businesses along the El Camino Real corridor, and several multifamily housing complexes.

Focus Area F:El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale)

F

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Uncontrolled on-/off-ramps at Highway 85/El Camino Real interchange

• High speed vehicle turns and wide curb radii at several major intersections along El Camino Real

• Long distances between marked crosswalks along El Camino Real

• Narrow sidewalks along El Camino Real

Wide curb radii at major intersections Low-visibility pedestrian crossing of Highway 85 ramps

Narrow sidewalks on the Hwy 85 overcrossing

Opportunities• Excess space at Highway 85 ramps and intersections to permit pedestrian improvements

• Potential high pedestrian demand due to VTA 522 Rapid bus/Future El Camino Real BRT, commercial development, multi-family housing

• Stevens Creek Trail provides pedestrian amenity to area

High pedestrian demand due to multi-family housing and commercial development

Transit service along El Camino Real Stevens Creek Trail provides a recreational amenity for pedestrians

18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

")

")")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.2

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

CA

-85

CA -237

Gra

nt

Rd

E l Camino Real

Dal

e A

ve

S. B

ern

ard

o A

ve

Focus Area F: El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale) 18.c






!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

")

")")

1

2

3

4 56

7

Miles0.2

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#C

A-8

5

CA -237

Gra

nt

Rd

E l Camino Real

Dal

e A

ve

S. B

ern

ard

o A

ve

Focus Area F: El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale) 18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/Grant Road

1 Grant Road/El Camino Real intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at NE, SE, & NW corners to reduce right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• High-speed turns, long crossing distances• Skewed crosswalk on N leg of intersection (across Grant Rd-SR 237)


-

El Camino Real/Grant Road

2 Yuba Dr side-street crossing redesign

• Remove or reconstruct median on Yuba Dr to provide pedestrian refuge and slow right turns from El Camino Real • Add curb extension to NE corner• Stripe ladder crosswalk across Yuba Dr

Intersection Issues• Existing median on N leg of intersection (on Yuba Dr.) creates dedicated right turn lane where drivers turn at high speeds

Opportunities• Median can be removed and replaced with double yellow line and crosswalk

-

El Camino Real/SR 85 Interchange

3 85/El Camino Real interchange improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks, add advance yield lines, add high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage to ramp crossings• Consider reconstructing curbs at ramps to reduce right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles and consolidate pedestrian crossings when interchanges are reconstructed• Install pedestrian-scale lighting on 85 bridge sidewalks

Intersection Issues• Ramp entrance and exits have poor visibility due to curvature

Opportunities• Available space for lighting installation


-

Focus Area F: El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale)

18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/The Americana

4 El Camino Real/The Americana intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at SW & SE corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• Angled crosswalks, long crossing distances• Dedicated turn lanes on ECR and Americana facilitate quick vehicle turning movements and encourage low driver yielding rates • Multiple pedestrian-involved crashes


-

El Camino Real Corridor (E of 85)

5 PHB-controlled crossing between El Camino Real/S. Bernardo and El Camino Real/ Americana

• Consider adding a PHB-controlled crossing between El Camino Real/S. Bernardo and El Camino Real/ Americana: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage• Potential for addition of signalized pedestrian crossing at Crestview Drive with implementation of VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR (dedicated lane option)

Other Crossing

Issues• High vehicle volumes and speeds• Multiple pedestrian-involved crashes• Distance from El Camino Real/S. Bernardo and El Camino Real/ Americana is 0.4 miles, potentially a long walk for pedestrians accessing bus stops or commercial areas on the other side of the road

Opportunities• Signalized crossing project identified in VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR (dedicated lane option)


• VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR


18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real Corridor (E of 85)

6 El Camino Real streetscape and side-street crossing improvements

• Streetscape improvements on El Camino Real between SR 85 and S. Bernardo Ave• Widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings• Consolidate driveways as properties are redeveloped

Streetscape Issues• Long distances between marked crosswalks along El Camino Real, lack of shade, poor visibility at side-street crossings

Opportunities• City of Sunnyvale requires 10' sidewalks with new development along El Camino Real

Challenges• Multi-jurisdiction location; improvements would require coordination with Caltrans• Widening sidewalks may require major drainage work• ROW take may be required to widen sidewalks

-

El Camino Real/S. Bernardo Ave

7 El Camino Real/S. Bernardo Ave intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs at all four corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Stripe ladder crosswalks across all four legs of intersections• Add countdown pedestrian signal heads• Reconfigure NB/Palo Alto bound bus stop when property at NW corner redevelops

Intersection Opportunities• Curb reconstruction and ladder crosswalks across ECR at Escuela included in VTA El Camino Real BRT Draft EIR (dedicated lane option)


• El Camino Real BRT


18.c


SummaryFocus Area G is located in San Jose and extends to either side of Bascom Avenue between W. San Carlos Street-Stevens Creek Boulevard and Fruitdale Avenue. It is served by the VTA Rapid 323 bus on W. San Carlos Street-Stevens Creek Boulevard and by several local bus routes, including 23, 25, 61, and 62. It includes the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and is adjacent to San Jose City College.

Focus Area G:Bascom Corridor (San Jose and Santa Clara County)

G130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Inconsistent sidewalk widths and street frontages along Bascom Avenue

• High speed vehicle turns/wide curb radii along Bascom Avenue, pedestrian crossing restrictions at signalized intersections

• Poor quality pedestrian environment at Highway 280 overcrossing

• Long distances between marked crosswalks along Bascom

• Lack of bicycle facilities throughout Focus Area leads bicyclists to use limited sidewalk space

Opportunities

• Pedestrian-friendly district along W. San Carlos Avenue (east of Bascom Avenue)

• Potential high pedestrian demand due to VTA 323 Rapid bus/Future San Carlos-Stevens Creek BRT

• Includes portions of South Bascom Urban Village (City of San Jose)

• Bascom has excess right-of-way that can be used for pedestrian and bicycle improvements

• Existing mid-block crossing of W. San Carlos works well

• Pedestrian improvements included in Bascom Complete Streets Corridor Plan (VTA, forthcoming) and West San Carlos Street and South Bascom Urban Village Plans (2014)

Pedestrian-friendly shopping district on W. San Carlos, narrow sidewalks

Existing pedestrian crossing on W. San Carlos Incomplete crosswalks and on-street parking along Bascom

Wide curb raii at intersections along Bascom Pedestrian crossing restrictions at Bascom/Parkmoor

Porkchop pedestrian refuge at Bascom/San Carlos-Stevens Creek

18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GFGFGF GF GF

GF

GFGFGF GF!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!( !( !(

!(")")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.2

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

San Jose City College

Santa Clara Valley Medical

Center

I-280

I-88

0

Parkm oor Ave

SW. an C arlos S tStevens C reek B lvd

M oorpark Ave

Ba

sc

om

Av

e

Elliot St

Scott St

Fruitdale Ave

Focus Area G: Bascom Corridor (San Jose and Santa Clara County) 18.c










Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


San Jose City College

Miles0.2

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!( !( !(

!(")")1 234

5 5

10

14

15

12

13

11

6

89

7

16

I-280

I-88

0

Parkm oor Ave

Stevens C reek B lvd

M oorpark Ave

Elliot St

Scott St

Fruitdale Ave

SW. an C arlos S t

Focus Area G: Bascom Corridor (San Jose and Santa Clara County) 18.c








-





-





-







San Carlos-Stevens Creek Corridor

1 Stevens Creek streetscape improvements

• Add landscaped buffers (planters as short-term/tactical option)• Add pedestrian-scale lighting• Consolidate driveways as properties are redeveloped

Streetscape Issues• Parking lots adjacent to street are unwelcoming to pedestrians - multiple curb cuts, no buffer between walkway and parked cars

Opportunities• Streetscape improvements possible with implementation of Stevens Creek BRT Plan (under development)

Challenges• Auto-oriented existing businesses need driveway access

• West San Carlos and Bascom Ave Corridors Complete Streets Report (2012)


2 San Carlos streetscape improvements

• Look for opportunities to add parklets in existing parking spaces

Streetscape Issues• Very narrow sidewalks

Opportunities• Strong street walls, pedestrian scale lighting, high pedestrian activity• Streetscape improvements possible with implementation of Stevens Creek BRT Plan (under development)

Challenges• West San Carlos and Bascom Ave Corridors Complete Streets Report (2012)


Focus Area G: Bascom Corridor (San Jose and Santa Clara County)

18.c








-





-





-








3 Uncontrolled crossing at Vaughn/ San Carlos

• Consider adding an uncontrolled crossing at Vaughn & San Carlos: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, RRFB to improve driver yield rates.

Other Crossing

Issues• High pedestrian demand • Two bus stops on either side of San Carlos at this location

Opportunities• Existing RRFB at Brooklyn/San Carlos works well

Challenges• Stevens Creek BRT may require removal of mid-block crossings


Bascom/San Carlos-Stevens Creek

4 Bascom/Stevens Creek intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops and curbs at NW & SW corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space. • Tighten curb radius at SE corner, widen sidewalk walkway space into existing landscaping • Add advanced yield pavement markings and signage at right turns.• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• High pedestrian demand• High-speed turns• Insufficient pedestrian space at corners

Challenges• High vehicle volumes



18.c








-





-





-







Bascom Corridor 5 Bascom corridor streetscape improvements (N. of 280)

• Complete sidewalks along entire corridor • Add landscaped buffers (planters as short-term/tactical option) including shade trees• Add pedestrian-scale lighting• Consider road diet on Bascom N of 280 to provide additional sidewalk space and bicycle lanes

Streetscape Gap Closure

Issues• Inconsistent curb/ROW, multiple sidewalks/walkways asphalt or unpaved • Cars parked on sidewalks• Lack of shade, high exposure to traffic • Throughout study area, lack of bicycle facilities force bicyclists to share space with pedestrians

Opportunities• Bascom may be overbuilt for current vehicle volumes - potential road diet candidate

Challenges• High-speed vehicles, multiple small businesses with limited off-street parking• Bascom used as detour for auto traffic when I-280 is closed

• Bascom Corridor Complete Streets Study (VTA, forthcoming)


18.c








-





-





-







Bascom Corridor 6 Bascom/Eliot mid-block crossing

• Consider adding marked pedestrian crossing at Bascom/Eliot: ladder crosswalk, advance yield markings/shark's teeth, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates, curb extensions to shorten pedestrian crossing distance

Other Crossing

Issues• Long distance between signalized intersections

Opportunities• Bascom may be overbuilt for current vehicle volumes - potential road diet candidate

Challenges• High-speed vehicles• 6-lane roadway poses additional risks for pedestrians crossing roadway• Ladder crosswalk imposes additional ongoing maintenance costs not covered by current budgets

-

Bascom Corridor 7 Bascom/ Scott intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• low-visibility crosswalks

-

Bascom Corridor 8 Bascom/280 overcrossing improvements

• Evaluate possibility of widening sidewalks on overpass, adding pedestrian-scale lighting

Streetscape Issues• Poor lighting, narrow sidewalks

-

Leigh/280 overcrossing

9 Leigh/280 overcrossing improvements

• Evaluate possibility of widening sidewalks on overpass, adding pedestrian-scale lighting


-


18.c








-





-





-







Bascom/280 Ramps 10 Bascom/Parkmoor intersection improvements

• Add curb extension at SE corner - potential to extend into Parkmoor by narrowing/shifting vehicle lanes, or to extend into Bascom with road diet along Bascom• Stripe ladder crosswalks on all three legs of crosswalk

Intersection Issues• Limited space for pedestrians waiting at SE corner

Challenges• High volume of vehicles accessing freeway

-

Bascom/280 Ramps 11 Bascom/Moorpark intersection improvements

• Add curb extensions to all corners (except SW) to improve pedestrian visibility• Rebuild SW corner porkchop to expand pedestrian waiting area. Add advance yield markings to pavement• Stripe ladder crosswalks

Intersection Issues• Poor pedestrian visibility for turning vehicles

Challenges• High volume of vehicles accessing freeway

-

Bascom/Renova 12 Bascom/Renova intersection improvements

• Add pedestrian crossing to N leg: ladder crosswalk, pedestrian signal, curb cuts• Add curb extensions to all corners to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce crossing distance• Stripe ladder crosswalks at all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• Wide turning radii, no pedestrian crossing on N leg

Opportunities• Bascom Ave has new pedestrian adaptive traffic signal timing

• Draft South Bascom Urban Village Plan (2014)


18.c








-





-





-







Bascom Corridor 13 Bascom corridor streetscape improvements (S. of 280)

• Widen sidewalks on Bascom S. of Moorpark. Recommend 12' minimum width per Draft South Bascom Urban Village Plan (2014)• Add landscaped buffers (planters as short-term/tactical option), including shade trees

Streetscape Issues• Narrow sidewalks, inconsistent tree cover

Opportunities• Draft South Bascom Urban Village Plan (2014) provides design guidance for streetscape improvements.• Could be implemented along with the addition of a cycle track on Bascom, per Draft South Bascom Urban Village Plan (2014)

Challenges• Requires re-allocating space currently dedicated to parking lanes and travel lanes


Bascom/Engborg 14 Bascom/Engborg intersection improvements

• Add pedestrian crossing to S leg: ladder crosswalk, pedestrian signal, curb cuts• Add curb extensions to all corners (except NW) to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce crossing distance. Curb extensions must accommodate bus turning radii• Remove or redesign NW corner porkchop to expand pedestrian waiting area• Stripe ladder sidewalks on all four legs of intersection

Intersection Issues• Wide turning radii, no pedestrian crossing on S leg

Opportunities• Porkchop and dedicated right turn lane at NW corner may not be necessary to accommodate vehicle traffic

Challenges• Curb extensions must accommodate bus turning radii


Moorpark/880 undercrossing

15 Moorpark/880 undercrossing improvements

• Add pedestrian-scale lighting and public art at undercrossing


-


18.c








-





-





-







Valley Medical Center

16 Valley Medical Center Bus Stop Improvements

• Upgrade bus stops within Valley Medical Center to meet Community Destination stop criteria. Amenities should include shelters, seating, transit information, and other amenities as described in VTA's Transit Passenger Environment Plan (forthcoming). • Consider service frequency when determining seating needs and shade structures• Provide rich transit information at bus stops

Streetscape Issues• High-volume bus stops with few amenities

• Draft South Bascom Urban Village Plan (2014)• Transit Passenger Environment Plan (VTA, forthcoming).


18.c


Summary

Focus Area H is located in downtown San Jose and extends from Diridon Transit Center to San Jose State University. It includes a high density of office developments, multifamily residential development, entertainment districts, and San Jose City Hall. It is served by Caltrain, Amtrak, and Capitol Corridor rail at Diridon Station, VTA Light Rail, VTA Rapid 522 and 323 buses, as well as several local and inter-city buses, including VTA Lines 22, 23, 181, 81, 64, and 68, the Highway 17 bus connecting San Jose to Santa Cruz, and Downtown San Jose DASH shuttles.

Focus Area H:Downtown San Jose

H130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• High speed vehicle turns/wide curb radii and long crossing distances along San Carlos Street and Market Street

• Poorly marked pedestrian crossings at SR 87 ramps (Santa Clara Street, Julian Street)

• Long distances between pedestrian crossings along Santa Clara St. near San Jose Diridon

• VTA Light Rail creates barrier for pedestrians using San Fernando Street to access transit

Existing conditions at Delmas/San Fernando near VTA LRT track crossing

Wide intersection and restricted pedestrian access at Notre Dame-Hwy 87 ramp/St. John

Wide crossing at Market/San Carlos

Opportunities• High-density of transit service

• High pedestrian demand throughout downtown, likely to increase with new development

• Fairly high-quality existing pedestrian environment and strong street grid

• New development and transit system improvements planned

• Expansion of Bay Area Bike Share (2016-2017) will improve access to transit

Potential pedestrian scramble at Montgomery/Santa Clara

Existing mid-block crossing at Delmas/Santa Clara

High-quality pedestrian environment on 2nd Street

18.c



GFGFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

")

")








VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path

Focus Area


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

") ")")

")

")")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

I-280

10

th S

t 11

th S

t

1s

t St

Gu

ad

alu

pe

Pk

wy

Julian S t

The

Alam

eda

3rd

St

Colem

an A

ve

4th

St

Taylo

r St

Julian S

t

San C arlos S t

Sain t

Jam es St

Hedd in

g St

Nagle

e Ave

Mo

ntg

om

ery

St

Bird

Ave

Santa C

lara S

t

S. A

lmaden B

lvd

Miles0.3

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

San Jose Diridon Station

College Park Caltrain Station

Focus Area H: Downtown San Jose 18.c



!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

") ")")

")

")")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")



Focus Area


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

") ")")

")

")")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

12

3

26

27

4 4

44

5

9

14

15 15

19 1921

20

22

24

23

16

17

28

18

12

13

10

11

625 7 8

Miles0.3

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

College Park Caltrain Station

San Jose Diridon Station

I-280

10

th S

t 11

th S

t

1s

t St

Gu

ad

alu

pe

Pk

wy

Julian S t

The

Alam

eda

3rd

St

Colem

an A

ve

4th

St

Taylo

r St

Julian S

t

San C arlos S t

Sain t

Jam es St

Hedd in

g St

Nagle

e Ave

Bird

Ave

Santa C

lara S

t

S. A

lmaden B

lvd

Focus Area H: Downtown San Jose 18.c








-





-





-







San Jose Diridon 1 Pathway and uncontrolled crossing to San Fernando Station

• Stripe ladder-style crossing of S. Montgomery St at Crandall St• Designate pedestrian corridor to San Fernando Station with new paving, landscaping, and/or paint on existing walkways • Montgomery Street crossing alternatives: 1. Remove 2-3 parking spaces on east side of Montgomery, stripe two ladder crosswalks, add advance yield lines ("shark's teeth") and pedestrian crossing signs2. Remove 5 parking spaces total (2 west side, 3 east side) to create painted pedestrian walk zone, add advance yield lines ("shark's teeth") and pedestrian crossing signs

Other Crossing

Issues• Pathway to San Fernando Station unclear, blocked by parked vehicles

Opportunities• Ample space near taxi queue; abundant on-street parking

-

Diridon 2 Curb cuts and crosswalk improvements at Diridon Stations

• Add curb cuts and replace existing crosswalks with ladder crosswalks for higher visibility• Consider enhanced crossing striping or stamped asphalt treatment

Other Crossing

Issues• Missing curb cuts and worn crosswalk markings at sidewalks that provide access to station entrance

Opportunities• Improve pedestrian access at main entrance

-

Focus Area H: Downtown San Jose

18.c








-





-





-







San Fernando VTA Station

3 Wayfinding improvements through San Fernando Station

• Improve wayfinding through San Fernando Station through pavement markings and signage• Coordinate design with forthcoming studies: San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program

Wayfinding Issues• Unclear that main route to San Fernando Street is through San Fernando VTA Station

Opportunities• Wayfinding guidance provided by San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (forthcoming) and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program (forthcoming)

• San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (City of San Jose, forthcoming)• Transit Ridership Improvement Program (VTA, forthcoming)

San Fernando 4 San Fernando/Delmas VTA improvement alternatives

Alternatives:1) Restrict and formalize access at Delmas/San Fernando: add public art or low vertical landscaping to NE corner, add landscaping/planters) or improved fence treatment to NW corner, stripe ladder crosswalk on west side of pedestrian crossing of tracks on Delmas, replace bollards with swing gates 2) Woonerf treatment to slow all traffic on San Fernando between Autumn St and 87 undercrossing (assumes VTA LRT speeds will remain at 10 mph maximum)


Issues• No pedestrian access across north side of Delmas

Opportunities• Several pedestrians observed crossing Delmas at intersection near LRT tracks

-


18.c








-





-





-







San Fernando 5 Signalized pedestrian crossing west of 87 underpass

• Add signalized pedestrian crossing immediately east of signal at rail crossing on San Fernando: stripe ladder crosswalk, add pedestrian signal heads, add curb cuts, remove portion of raised median

Other Crossing

Issues • No pedestrian access across north side of San Fernando

Opportunities• Several pedestrians observed crossing San Fernando with no accommodation

-

Santa Clara Street 6 Santa Clara/Cahill intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalk and add pedestrian signal head to W leg • Consider add pedestrian actuation and reducing signal lengths to reduce pedestrian wait time

Intersection Issues• No pedestrian access to west side of intersection• Transit passenger boarding platforms under construction as part of Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

Santa Clara Street 7 Montgomery/Santa Clara pedestrian scramble

• Restripe existing crosswalks to provide pedestrian scramble• Consider raised intersection treatment and signalized pedestrian scramble phase

Intersection Opportunities• Existing all-pedestrian phase in signal timing• Transit passenger boarding platforms under construction as part of Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program

• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program• Diridon Station Area Plan (2014)

Santa Clara Street 8 Delmas/Santa Clara uncontrolled crossing improvements

• Relocate uncontrolled ladder crosswalk to W side of intersection• Add advance yield lines ("shark's teeth") for advance stop lines• Add curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distance• Consider adding RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates • Consider adding median refuge for pedestrians crossing Santa Clara

Other Crossing

Issues• Drivers observed not yielding to pedestrians

Opportunities• Relocation would shorten crossing distance and remove pedestrian exposure to vehicles making WB left turn onto Delmas

-


18.c








-





-





-







Santa Clara Street 9 87/ Santa Clara ramps improvements

• Add marked pedestrian crossings (ladder) to all legs and re-time signal to permit pedestrian crossing of all legs.

Intersection Issues • Inadequate pedestrian facilities at off ramps

-

Santa Clara Street 10 Bus stop improvements on Santa Clara St

• Santa Clara between Market and 2nd St: Opportunity for bus stop improvements with Santa Clara/Alum Rock BRT Program implementation

Streetscape Issues• Limited passenger waiting space, no shelters on north side of street

Opportunities• Identified in Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program


Santa Clara Street 11 3rd/4th Street curb extensions

• Consider adding curb extensions to shorten pedestrian crossing distances of Santa Clara at 3rd and 4th Streets. Realign bicycle lanes through existing buffers.

Intersection Issues• Wide turn radii at 3rd/4th Streets

-

Santa Clara VTA Station

12 Wayfinding improvements at Santa Clara VTA station

• Consider wayfinding signage between stops on Santa Clara Street and on 1st/2nd Streets• Coordinate design with forthcoming studies: San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program

Wayfinding Issues• Unclear connection between stops

Opportunities• Improvements possible with implementation of Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program • Wayfinding guidance provided by San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (forthcoming) and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program (forthcoming)

• Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Program• San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (City of San Jose, forthcoming)• Transit Ridership Improvement Program (VTA, forthcoming)


18.c








-





-





-







Santa Clara VTA Station

13 Add high-visibility crosswalk treatment at crossings of 1st St and 2nd St

• Consider ladder crosswalks or other high-visibility crossing treatments at Santa Clara/1st and Santa Clara/2nd

Other Crossing

-

Notre Dame/E. St James/87 Ramps

14 Hwy 87 ramps/St James/Notre Dame improvements

• Realign crosswalk on south side; widen south side crosswalk and sidewalk under freeway overpass, add pedestrian-scale lighting at undercrossing. Tighten NW corner via a curb extension

Intersection Issues• Incomplete pedestrian facilities

Opportunities• Outside lane on south side of W. Julian St over 15' wide

-

San Carlos 15 Convention Center VTA Station area improvements

• Retime mid-block signal and move bus stops closer to mid-block pedestrian crossing. • Consider pedestrian wayfinding via pavement markings and passive wayfinding (landscaping, etc.) to clarify routes to/through Civic and National theaters• Coordinate design with forthcoming studies: San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program

WayfindingStreetscape

Issues• Long wait to cross at mid-block pedestrian signal• Pedestrian "dead zone" around bus stops• Poor wayfinding/legibility unclear around Civic/National theaters

Opportunities• Wayfinding guidance provided by San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (forthcoming) and VTA Transit Ridership Improvement Program (forthcoming)

• San Jose Downtown Wayfinding Project (City of San Jose, forthcoming)• Transit Ridership Improvement Program (VTA, forthcoming)

San Carlos 16 Almaden/San Carlos intersection improvements

• Remove porkchops where feasible, narrow curb radii via curb extensions, stripe ladder crosswalks, add pedestrian refuge to medians

Intersection Issues• Long crossing distances and wide turning radii

-

Market Street 17 Market/St James intersection improvements

• Add pedestrian crossing on North leg, add curb extension at SW corner into Market St


-


18.c








-





-





-







Market Street 18 Market/St John intersection improvements

Complete crosswalks and sidewalks, stripe ladder crosswalks on all legs


-

Market Street 19 Market/San Carlos intersection improvements

• Cesar Chavez park triangle:1) stripe SB U-turn more narrowly to slow traffic on turns2) add second crosswalk closer to Market St NB lanes; OR convert to stop-control and add crosswalk east of existing yield line3) add raised intersection or raised crosswalk treatment for pedestrian crossings4) stripe ladder striped crosswalks between main Cesar Chavez Park and "triangle" 5) extend sidewalks and landscaping of "triangle" portion of park, extending park to area currently striped out alongside Market St NB lanes

• Market/San Carlos intersection: add curb extension to NW corner, stripe ladder crosswalks at all legs of intersection

IntersectionOther Crossing

Issues• Incomplete pedestrian facilities between Cesar Chavez Park oval and triangle• Long crossing distances across San Carlos St

Opportunities• Unused ROW on east side of Market north of intersection

-


18.c








-





-





-







Diridon 20 Pedestrian access/connection to Diridon Station through Guadalupe Parkway

• Enhanced underpass connection identified in Diridon Station Master Plan• Consider adding lighting, murals and/or other public art to enhance existing underpass at Guadalupe Parkway

Network Connection

Issues• Poor lighting at existing underpass

• Diridon Station Area Plan (2014)

Diridon 21 Pedestrian crossing/access to Cahill Street

Add curb extensions and high-visibility striping (ladder crosswalks) or special paving treatments to improve pedestrian crossings of Cahill St• Identified in Diridon Station Master Plan

Network Connection

Issues• High pedestrian volumes

Opportunities• Identified in Diridon Station Master Plan

• Diridon Station Area Plan (2014)

Santa Clara/7th 22 Santa Clara/7th and Santa Clara/8th improvements

• Add ladder crosswalks to all four legs of 7th St intersection• Add ladder crosswalks to south and north legs of 8th St intersection• Consider signalizing 8th St intersection to provide opportunities for pedestrian crossing of Santa Clara St

Streetscape Issues• High pedestrian volumes and low-visibility crosswalks• No marked pedestrian crossing at Santa Clara/8th


Santa Clara/12th 23 Santa Clara/12th improvements

• Add high-visibility side-street crosswalks• Consider signalizing intersection to provide opportunities for pedestrian crossing

Other crossing

Issues• No pedestrian crossing of Santa Clara St at this location

-


18.c








-





-





-







Santa Clara/14th 24 Santa Clara/14th improvements

• Add ladder crosswalks to side street crossings• Consider signalizing intersection to provide opportunities for pedestrian crossing

Other crossing

Issues• No pedestrian accommodation at this location

Diridon 25 Pedestrian Access from Diridon Station to The Alameda and Stockton Ave

• Enhance pedestrian access to The Alameda/Stockton intersection via White St and Laurel Grove Lane• Identified in Diridon Station Master Plan

Network Connection

• Diridon Station Area Plan

Diridon 26 Laurel Grove Lane/ Park Ave sidewalk completion

• Complete sidewalks around parcel at NW corner of Laurel Grove Lane/ Park Ave when parcel is redeveloped

Network Connection

Issues• Missing sidewalks

• Diridon Station Area Plan

W. Julian St 27 W. Julian St railway undercrossing

• Add pedestrian-scale lighting, mural and/or other public art to existing pedestrian undercrossing of railway tracks• Evaluate possibility of adding pedestrian crossing on south side of W. Julian St

Network Connection

Issues• Poorly lit undercrossing on north side of Julian St

-


18.c








-





-





-







W. Julian St 28 Intersection and streetscape improvements along W. Julian St

• Add high-visibility side-street crosswalks along W. Julian St between Guadalupe Pkwy and N. 1st St• Consider widening sidewalks, adding landscaped buffers (planters as short-term/tactical option) including shade trees. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Add pedestrian-scale lighting• Add curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distance• Consider realigning and signalizing intersection of N. San Pedro St and W. Julian St to provide opportunities for pedestrian crossing


Issues• Long crossing distances, low-visibility crosswalks, and narrow sidewalks along W. Julian St

Opportunities• Future development planned along W. Julian St

-


18.c


Summary

Focus Area I is located in East San Jose along King Road between Tully Road and Alum Rock Avenue. It is within walking distance of five schools and is adjacent to Emma Prusch Farm Park and the Mexican Heritage Plaza cultural center. It includes residential and commercial development clustered around major intersections (Alum Rock Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road). The Focus Area is bisected by Highway 680. It is served by local buses along the King Road corridor (VTA Lines 12, 22, 70, 77) and connects to the Rapid 522 bus at Alum Rock Avenue.

Focus Area I:King Road Corridor (San Jose)

I130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• High speed vehicle turns/wide curb radii and long crossing distances at intersections along King Road and Tully Road

• Long distances between pedestrian crossings along King Road N. of I-280/I-680

• Poorly-lit freeway undercrossing at I-280/I-680 and long crossing distances at I-280/I-680 ramps

• Pedestrian access restricted at several intersections

• Pedestrian “dead zones” and “superblocks”, which require pedestrians to walk long distances through unpleasant or dull environments

Poorly-lit undercrossing and low-visibility sidewalks at 680 freeway

Long crossing distances at intersections throughout Focus Area

Pedestrian “dead zones” along corridor

Opportunities• Bus stops and commercial development are clustered together along the corridor

• High pedestrian demand from schools, transit, and commercial uses

• Located near planned improvements along Alum Rock Avenue (Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT) and at Tully Road/Quimby Road (Eastridge Transit Center)

• Corridor provides bus connection to future BART stations

• Existing pedestrian-scale commercial development

• Corridor identified in San Jose Vision Zero Plan

• King Rd bikeway gap closures programmed for 2016, will reduce pedestrian crossing distances

Existing pedestrian-scale small businesses Schools generate high pedestrian demand Transit service located near commercial development

18.c


Barriers to Pedestrian Access and Pedestrian Infrastructure Deficiencies GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

F

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

")

")")

")

")

")")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Story

Rd

US

-101

I-680

I-280

S Jackso

n A

veE Julia

n St

Kin

g R

d

McKee R

d

McL

aug

hlin

Ave

A lum R

ock Ave

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

E. San A

ntonio

St

E Santa C

lara S

t

Miles0.3

N


**Not all pedestrian deficiencies are mapped. Note: map continued on next page

Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Focus Area I: King Road Corridor (San Jose) 18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


US

101

-

S K

ing

Rd

McL

aug

hlin

Ave

I-280

I-680

Story

Rd

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

Ocala Ave

Tu lly R

d

Miles0.3

N


**Not all pedestrian deficiencies are mapped. Note: map continued from previous page

Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(






Focus Area


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

")

")")

")

")

")")

5

9

6

6

7

8

10Sto

ry R

d

US

-101

I-680

I-280

S Jackso

n A

veE Julia

n St

Kin

g R

d

McKee R

d

McL

aug

hlin

Ave

A lum R

ock Ave

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

E. San A

ntonio

St

E Santa C

lara S

t

Miles0.3

NNote: map continued on next page


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#






Focus Area


!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

1

2

3

4

6

8

US

101

Tu ll

-

y Rd

McL

aug

hlin

Ave

I-280

I-680

Story

Rd

E C

ap

itol E

xp

y

Ocala Ave

Miles0.3

NNote: map continued from previous page


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#









-





-





-







King/Tully 1 King Rd/Tully Rd intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs to narrow right turn radii• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate signal timing to see whether pedestrian crossing wait time can be reduced. Consider leading pedestrian interval• Add signage to right turn lanes stating "Turning vehicles must yield to pedestrians

Intersection Issues• Concentration of pedestrian demand generators: commercial area and bus stops• Pedestrians may cross the street unsafely due to long wait times•Poor pedestrian visibility

-

Huran/Tully 2 Huran/Tully Rd intersection improvements

• Reconstruct curbs to narrow right turn radii• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate signal timing to see whether pedestrian crossing wait time can be reduced

Intersection Issues• Concentration of pedestrian demand generators: commercial area and bus stops• Pedestrians may cross the street unsafely due to long wait times

-

Quimby/Tully 3 Quimby/Tully Rd intersection improvements

• Reconstruct porkchops and curbs to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space• Add advanced yield pavement marking and signage• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate signal timing to see whether pedestrian crossing wait time can be reduced

Intersection Issues• Concentration of pedestrian demand generators: commercial area and bus stops• Pedestrians may cross the street unsafely due to long wait times

-

Focus Area I: King Road Corridor (San Jose)

18.c








-





-





-







Tully Rd Corridor 4 Tully Rd streetscape improvements

• Streetscape improvements on Tully Rd between King Rd and Quimby Dr• Add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting•Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• Concentration of pedestrian demand generators: commercial area and bus stops• High-speed traffic, need for buffer separating pedestrians from traffic

Opportunities• Opportunity to create buffer via reallocation of underused parking spaces along south side of Tully

-






King Road/E San Antonio

5 King/E. San Antonio intersection improvements

• Reconstruct SW and SE curbs to narrow right turn radii. • Add pocket parks/landscaping/rain gardens/public art in space reclaimed at SW and SE corners• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate signal timing to see whether pedestrian crossing wait time can be reduced

Intersection Issues• Wide radii on these intersection prompts drivers to turn at high speeds, creating a unsafe walking environment for pedestrians• School crossing

Opportunities• High pedestrian demand at this location

-

King Road Corridor 6 King Rd Corridor intersection improvements

• Intersection improvements along King Rd at Kammerer, Virginia Pl.-Vollmer, Lido, Story, Marsh, Biscayne, Miami, Ocala, Cunningham, Waverly• Reconstruct curbs to narrow right turn radii• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate opportunities to remove free right turns and add marked crosswalks/pedestrian signal heads at all four legs of intersections

Intersection Issues• Wide radii on these intersections prompts drivers to turn at high speeds, creating a unsafe walking environment for pedestrians• Many drivers block intersections due to limited sightlines

Opportunities• City of San Jose reducing number of left turn lanes at King/Story intersection

-

King Road/Alum Rock

7 King Road/Alum Rock intersection and bus waiting area improvements

• Reconstruct all curbs to reduce right turn radii and reduce crossing distances• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Evaluate signal timing to see whether pedestrian crossing wait time can be reduced• Expand bus passenger waiting areas, add shade

Intersection Issues• Many buses including school buses stop at Alum Rock and King Rd. Waiting area is small, lacks lighting and shade

Opportunities• There is room in the corner of SW of Alum Rock and King for shade and increased waiting area


18.c








-





-





-












-





-

King Road/Alum Rock
















-





-

King Road/Alum Rock










King Road Corridor 8 King Road Corridor streetscape improvements

• As properties redevelop, widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• High-speed traffic, narrow (4-ft) sidewalks, limited shade

Opportunities• Varying street width and excess ROW along corridor provides opportunity to narrow vehicle lanes and expand pedestrian space as properties redevelop

Challenges• ROW take needed to provide continuous pedestrian improvements along corridor

-

280/680 Ramps 9 280/680 Ramp improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks and advanced yield signage to pedestrian crossings of ramps• Tighten curb radii where possible• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles and consolidate pedestrian crossings when interchanges are reconstructed, or provide enhanced pedestrian facilities in median if interchange is reconstructed as diverging diamond per I-680 corridor study• Add pedestrian-scale lighting and mural or other public art under overpass

Other Crossing

Issues• Low-visibility crosswalks, no advance signage

Opportunities• I-680 Corridor study (VTA, forthcoming) recommends reconfiguring SB on ramp and NB off ramp to meet king road at 90 degrees or modifying interchange into a diverging diamond, with pedestrians and bicycles in median

• I-680 Corridor study (VTA, forthcoming)

18.c








-





-





-







King Road Corridor 8 King Road Corridor streetscape improvements

• As properties redevelop, widen sidewalks, add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option), add pedestrian-scale lighting. Recommend minimum 13' total sidewalk width per VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines• Stripe ladder crosswalks along side-street crossings

Streetscape Issues• High-speed traffic, narrow (4-ft) sidewalks, limited shade

Opportunities• Varying street width and excess ROW along corridor provides opportunity to narrow vehicle lanes and expand pedestrian space as properties redevelop

Challenges• ROW take needed to provide continuous pedestrian improvements along corridor

-

280/680 Ramps 9 280/680 Ramp improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks and advanced yield signage to pedestrian crossings of ramps• Tighten curb radii where possible• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles and consolidate pedestrian crossings when interchanges are reconstructed, or provide enhanced pedestrian facilities in median if interchange is reconstructed as diverging diamond per I-680 corridor study• Add pedestrian-scale lighting and mural or other public art under overpass

Other Crossing


Opportunities• I-680 Corridor study (VTA, forthcoming) recommends reconfiguring SB on ramp and NB off ramp to meet king road at 90 degrees or modifying interchange into a diverging diamond, with pedestrians and bicycles in median

• I-680 Corridor study (VTA, forthcoming)

Focus Area I: King Road Corridor (San Jose)Project Improvement Summary




280/680 Ramps 10 680 access road improvements

• Upgrade pedestrian facilities along existing access road under I-680onnect Emma Prusch Park and Police Activities League• Consider pedestrian/bicycle shared-use path with pedestrian scale lighting and public art

Network connection

Issues• Poorly lit existing roadway shared with motor vehicles

Opportunities• Enhance pedestrian access to recreational facilities

-

18.c


Summary

Focus Area K is located in Central San Jose in the area immediately south of Highway 280 bounded by Alma Avenue, S. Almaden Avenue, Keyes Street/Willow Street, and Virginia Street. It includes residential and industrial areas, two elementary schools, and with commercial development along 1st Street/Monterey Highway and in the Calle Willow business district. It is served by Caltrain and VTA Light Rail at Tamien Station and by several local bus routes, including VTA Lines 25, 66, and 68.

Focus Area K:Central San Jose

K130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• High speed vehicle turns/wide curb radii and long crossing distances at several major intersections

• Several complex/non-right angle intersections throughout Focus Area (Willow St/Graham, Graham/Goodyear-Keyes, S. 2nd St/S. 1st St.)

• High pedestrian demand along Willow St., Keyes St., S. 1st St./Monterey Highway

• Freeway undercrossings at northern (I-280) and western (SR 87) edges of Focus Area

• Missing sidewalks along Keyes Street

Long crossing distances at intersections throughout Focus Area

Missing sidewalks along Keyes Incomplete pedestrian facilities at 1st/2nd Streets

Opportunities• Tamien Station provides regional transit hub

• Excess ROW at several intersections can be repurposed as pedestrian/parklet space

• Existing pedestrian-oriented commercial districts (1st Street and Willow Street)

• High pedestrian demand from schools and commercial uses

Tamien Station provides regional transit service Existing public art at Little Orchard Street; Pedestrian-scale shopping district along 1st Street

18.c


Barriers to Pedestrian Access and Pedestrian Infrastructure DeficienciesGF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")








Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.3

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

Tamien Caltrain Station

I-280 S

enter R

d

Gu

ad

alup

e Pk

wy

3rd

St

S tory R d 10

th S

11th

St

San C

arlos S

t

1st St

A lm a Ave

Alm

ad

en

Ex

py

Bird

Ave

Focus Area K: Central San Jose 18.c



")

")



Focus Area


Miles0.3

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

")

")

")

")

")

")

1

23

4

914

15

16

17

18

12

13

10

11

6

788

5 5

19

I-280 S

enter R

d

Gu

ad

alup

e Pk

wy

3rd

St

S tory R d 10

th S

11th

St

San C

arlos S

t

1st St

A lm a Ave

Alm

ad

en

Ex

py

Bird

Ave

Tamien Caltrain Station

Focus Area K: Central San Jose 18.c








-





-





-







280 Ramps 1 1st Street/ 280 Ramp improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks and advanced yield signage to pedestrian crossings of ramps• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles when interchanges are reconstructed

Other Crossing


-

280 Ramps 2 6th Street/ 280 Ramp improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks and advanced yield signage to pedestrian crossings of ramps • Add pedestrian scale lighting and public art under underpass• Consider stop for SB off-ramps at S 6th Street• Consider extending the nose of the raised island separating the off ramp and the driveway of the property to the east of ramps• Realign ramps to 90-degree angles when interchanges are reconstructed

Intersection Issues• No marked pedestrian crossing on NE leg of intersection• Crossing not ADA-compliant

-

280 Ramps 3 7th Street/ 280 Ramp improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks, add pedestrian signal heads at three existing legs of S. 7th St/E. Virginia St• Rebuild SW corner to reduce curb radii and crossing distance

Intersection Issues• Low-visibility crosswalks• Long crossing distance• School crossing location

-

Focus Area K: Central San Jose

18.c








-





-





-







W. Alma Ave/Almaden Rd

4 W. Alma Ave/Almaden Ave -Almaden Expy/Little Orchard St/Vine St intersection improvements

• Redesign crosswalks at Almaden/W. Alma/Little Orchard intersection: 1) restripe all crosswalks to ladder-style2) add curb extensions to NW and SE corners of S. Almaden Ave-Almaden Rd/W. Alma Ave and NE, SW corners of Vine St-Almaden Expy/W. Alma Ave• Consider full intersection redesign to consolidate vehicle access to SB Almaden Expy to existing W leg of Almaden Expy (S. of Vine Street)

Intersection Issues• Long crossing distances and high exposure to vehicles making high-speed turns• Skewed crosswalks at W leg of Vine St/W. Alma Ave and E leg of S. Almaden Ave-Almaden Rd/W. Alma Ave

-


5 Almaden Ave. - Little Orchard St/W. Alma Ave pocket park

• Close 5th leg of S. Almaden Ave north of Little Orchard St, create public park/plaza with landscaping• Potential to retain narrow lane (20 feet) to allow parking in front of multifamily residential complexes

Other CrossingStreetscape

Issues• Confusing intersection, multiple points where pedestrians are exposed to turning vehicles

Opportunities• Excess space on NE corner of intersection, existing public art

-


6 Hwy 87 undercrossing improvements

• Add pedestrian lighting and public art at overcrossings

Streetscape -


18.c








-





-





-







S. Almaden/Graham/Willow/Goodyear

7 Graham & Goodyear intersection improvements

• Consider roundabout at Graham/Goodyear to formalize and slow vehicle maneuvers• Consider realigning Graham Ave and Goodyear St approached to create a T-intersection

Intersection Issues• Confusing intersection with multiple conflicts

Opportunities• Excess space at this intersection• T-intersection redesign recommended in Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)

• Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)

S. Almaden/ Graham/Willow/ Goodyear

8 Graham & Willow pocket park

• Rebuild triangle median at Graham/Willow: 1) Realign Graham Ave and Willow St approached to create a T-intersection, aligning EB/WB lanes on Graham2) extend triangle median southward to permit only bicycle/parking access3) consolidate driveways of corner property at S. Almaden/ Willow/Graham4) add pocket park landscaping and public art


Issues• Confusing intersection with multiple conflicts

Opportunities• Excess space at this intersection

-


18.c








-





-





-







Keyes Street Corridor

9 Keyes Street corridor streetscape and side-street crossing improvements

• Complete sidewalks along Keyes St between 2nd Street and Story Road• Stripe ladder crosswalks at side-street crossings• Consider road diet along Keyes St between 2nd St and Senter Road

Streetscape Issues• Missing sidewalks, unmarked side-street crosswalks, incomplete crosswalks at intersections along Keyes St

Opportunities• Story-Keyes Complete Streets Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming) will identify future improvements in this area• Road diet identified in Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)

Challenges• Sidewalk completion would require ROW take or road diet on some segments • Road diet would require further study, design would need to accommodate industrial traffic between 3rd St and 10th St

• Story-Keyes Complete Streets Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming) • Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)


10 Keyes Street crossing • Consider uncontrolled or PHB-controlled crossing between 3rd and 7th Street: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, RRFB or PHB to improve driver yield rates. This may be more appropriate if housing or higher-density employment is added to the immediate area

Other Crossing

Issues• 1/4 mile between signalized intersections at 3rd and 7th

Opportunities• Story-Keyes Complete Streets Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming) will identify future improvements in this area

Challenges• May be more appropriate if housing or higher-density employment is added to the immediate area



18.c








-





-





-








11 Keyes Street between 7th St and Senter Rd signalized intersection improvements

• Provide pedestrian crossings (signal heads and crosswalks) at all four legs of intersections.• Stripe ladder crosswalks.• Reduce wide curb radii via curb extensions or porkchop reconstruction• Consider road diet along Keyes St between 2nd St and Senter Road

Intersection Issues• Restricted pedestrian access at major intersections, high-speed vehicle turning movements due to wide curb radii

Opportunities• Road diet identified in Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)• Story-Keyes Complete Streets Corridor Study (VTA, forthcoming) will identify future improvements in this area

Challenges• Road diet would require further study, design would need to accommodate industrial traffic between 3rd St and 10th St


Tamien Station 12 Wayfinding and sidewalks around Tamien Caltrain Station

• Install pedestrian wayfinding signs along Alma Ave; add passive wayfinding/streetscape improvements on Lick Ave• Widen and add sidewalks on east and west sides of Lelong St in front of station• Reduce radius at NW corner of Lelong/Alma

Wayfinding Issues• Station is hard to find around the area due to lack of wayfinding signs• Incomplete pedestrian facilities at station entrance

Opportunities• Potential future development and infrastructure improvements of VTA property at Tamien

-

280 Ramps 13 280 undercrossing improvements

• Add pedestrian-scale lighting, public art to 280 undercrossing

Streetscape Issues• Poorly-lit underpass

-


18.c








-





-





-







1st St Corridor 14 1st Street Corridor streetscape improvements

• Consider adding parklets along 1st street corridor• Add landscaped buffer between walkway and travel/parking lane as properties are redeveloped

Streetscape Issues• Limited ROW, narrow sidewalks

Opportunities• Many small businesses, high pedestrian activity• Future development activity can yield funding for improvements

-

1st/2nd/Goodyear-Keyes

15 1st/2nd/Goodyear-Keyes intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Tighten wide curb radii via curb extensions• Eliminate driveway on "island" between 1st and 2nd (N side of intersection) when adjacent property is redeveloped• Consider road diet on Keyes between Goodyear St and 2nd St to accommodate buffered bike lanes and curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances

Intersection Issues• Confusing intersection with multiple conflicts

Opportunities• Road diet recommended in Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)

• Santa Clara County-San Jose NACTO Street Design Workshop Report (2015)

1st/2nd/E. Humboldt St

16 1st St/2nd St merge intersection improvements

• Consolidate pedestrian crossings at 1st/2nd/Humboldt• Stripe ladder striped crosswalk, add high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage• Consider uncontrolled or PHB-controlled pedestrian crossing of 1st St at Humboldt: ladder crosswalk, high-visibility pedestrian crossing signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, pedestrian refuge or PHB/RRFB to improve pedestrian visibility and improve driver yield rates

Other Crossing

Issues• Confusing and incomplete pedestrian access

Opportunities• Park space N of E. Humboldt St between 1st and 2nd

-


18.c








-





-





-







Monterey Rd/Alma Ave

17 Monterey/Alma intersection improvements

• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Consider curb extensions and/or pedestrian refuge on N and S legs

Intersection Issues• Wide crossings, high traffic exposure

Opportunities• Potential to narrow 12' travel lanes to 11' to provide space for curb extensions

-

Alma Ave Corridor 18 Alma Ave Corridor streetscape improvements

• Streetscape improvements between Alma Ave between Lick Ave & S. 7th St.• Widen sidewalk, add/expand planting strips to create landscaped buffer & provide shade. • Stripe ladder crosswalks on side-street crossings• Consider road diet, and/or curb extensions at intersections along Alma Ave corridor

Streetscape Issues• Lack of shade, narrow sidewalks, maintenance issues/trash

Opportunities• On-street parking along corridor, potential road diet candidate

-

Hwy 87/Guadalupe Parkway

19 Guadalupe River Trail/ 87 trail gap closure

• Complete Guadalupe River Trail/ 87 multi-use trail between West Virginia St and Willow St• Consider grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle over Willow Ave

Network Connection

Issues• Gap in existing multi-use trail

-


18.c


Summary

Focus Area L extends along El Camino Real between Cezanne Drive and S. Fair Oaks Avenue-E. Remington Drive, and south along E. Remington Drive to Manet Drive. It is served by the 22, 55 and 522 Rapid VTA buses. The Focus Area includes commercial destinations along El Camino Real and the Sunnyvale Community Center on E. Remington Drive; it includes transit access for several multifamily housing units to the north and south of the El Camino Real corridor, including senior housing north of El Camino Real at Fair Oaks.

Focus Area L:El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks- Remington Drive

L

130

101

82

85

152

9

17

35

237

280

680

880

87

N 5 Miles

Issues

• Long distances between signalized intersections along El Camino Real, with many pedestrians observed to cross at uncontrolled and unmarked locations

• Lack of shade and consistent landscaping strip along El Camino Real

• Limited pedestrian access to commercial development along El Camino Real

• Signalized intersections have wide right turn radii, long crossing distances, and permissive lefts, which create conflicts and potential hazards for pedestrians using crosswalks

Limited pedestrian access to commercial development along El Camino Real

Long crossing distances at Fair Oaks/El Camino Real

Long distances between signalized intersections on El Camino Real encourage pedestrians to cross at unmarked locations

Opportunities• Median on El Camino Real provides opportunity for pedestrian refuge at mid-block crossing

• Existing mid-block crossing at S. Remington Dr. can be improved with additional safety features

• High pedestrian demand (multifamily residential complexes, community center, commercial development)

Existing midblock crossing on S Remington Drive High pedestrian demand due to residential and commercial development

18.c



GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")") Rapid & Regional Transit Stops







Focus Area

VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Class I Bike Path


Miles0.2

N



Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain


Pedestrian Issues**


Missing Sidewalk

Missing Curb Cuts




Focus Area



!(

!(

!(

GF

)

(

S W

olf

e R

d

E E

l Cam

ino Real

S F

air

Oa

ks

Av

e

Su

nn

yv

ale

Sa

rato

ga

Rd

S Math ilda Ave

E R em ington D r

Iris Ave

Old San Francisco Rd

Focus Area L: El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks-Remington Drive 18.c





Focus Area


!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")

1

2

3

4

Miles0.2

N


Transportation



VTA Light Rail

Caltrain



Intersection

Other Crossing

Wayfinding

Streetscape

Gap Closure

Network Connections

Focus Area



)

(

#

#

#

#

#

#

S W

olf

e R

d

E E

l Cam

ino Real

S F

air

Oa

ks

Av

e

Su

nn

yv

ale

Sa

rato

ga

Rd

S Math ilda Ave

E R em ington D r

Iris Ave

Old San Francisco Rd

Focus Area L: El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks-Remington Drive 18.c








-





-





-








1 El Camino Real streetscape and side-street crossing improvements

• Add landscaped planter strip along El Camino Real to provide shade and buffer from adjacent traffic• Stripe ladder crosswalks at side-street crossings along El Camino Real

Streetscape Issues• Lack of shade makes uncomfortable walking environment


-


2 Add pedestrian access to commercial areas on El Camino Real

• As properties redevelop, add commercial access along El Camino Real: create pedestrian access from sidewalk and stripe pedestrian routes through parking lots

Streetscape Issues• Pedestrians must access commercial areas along El Camino Real through parking lots and driveways

Opportunities• New developments along El Camino Real include pedestrian access from sidewalk

-

El Camino Real/ S Fair Oaks

3 El Camino Real/S. Fair Oaks intersection improvements

• Remove or reconstruct porkchops and curbs at all four corners to narrow right turn radii, reduce crossing distances, and expand pedestrian waiting space • Add shade at bus stops on El Camino Real and S Fair Oaks• Realign crosswalks to reduce crossing distances• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Add pedestrian countdown signals

Intersection Issues • Wide turning radii resulting in vehicles making high-speed right turns• No pedestrian countdown signals

Opportunities•El Camino Real BRT Program recommends eliminating pork chops, adding ladder crosswalks and countdown signals

Challenges• Likely high cost of improvements

• El Camino Real BRT Project

Focus Area L: El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks-Remington Drive

18.c








-





-





-







El Camino Real/Cezanne Drive

4 El Camino/Cezanne intersection improvements

• Realign crosswalks to reduce crossing distances• Stripe ladder crosswalks• Add pedestrian countdown signals• Consider retiming signal to provide protected (not permissive) left turn from Cezanne

Intersection Issues• No audio/countdown signal heads at this intersection• High pedestrian volume from retirement home and commercial areas nearby• Unprotected left turn creates conflicts for pedestrians

Challenges• Warrant study required to ensure that protected left turn meets warrants

-

Focus Area L: El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks-Remington Drive

18.c


Appendix: Field Review NotesAfter conducting a virtual review of Focus Areas using Google Earth and Google Streetview, we conducted field observations at selected locations within the Focus Areas to assess on-the-ground conditions and identify additional projects. We conducted a pilot field review of Focus Area A with VTA staff to refine our approach.

Field Work Schedule

Focus Area DateA Alum Rock (San Jose) 10/15/2015B East San Jose 10/29/2015C Downtown Gilroy 10/27/2015D San Antonio (Mountain View/Los Altos) 10/22/2015E Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor 10/22/2015F El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale) 10/22/2015G Bascom Corridor 10/28/2015H Downtown San Jose 10/19/2015I King Road Corridor 10/29/2015K Central San Jose 10/21/2015L El Camino Real & S. Fair Oaks-Remington Drive 10/22/2015

Focus Area A: Alum Rock (San Jose)

Mckee VTA Station

10/15/2015

Observations:• Lack of visibility around station.

• No commercial pedestrian access (visible desired path).

• Poorly maintained nearby streets.

• Lack of bus stop amenities (benches, shade).

Potential Improvements:• Re-evaluate crossing restriction at intersections

surrounding VTA station Platform.

• Align curb cuts on Alum Rock and Mckee intersection.

• Install transit wayfinding signs around the area.

Mckee/ CapitolObservations:• Need better maintenance- trees, litter, and business.

• No civic area, lot of people waiting to use bus/stop Kids (HS) and seniors

• SR. housing and mobile-home park.

• At Ford St- sidewalk narrows

• Inadequate space along sidewalks; uncontrolled right turns at intersections.

• Wide curb radii

Potential Improvements: • Remove pork-chops, narrow drive way grocery

outlet- make parallel to remove slope.

• Potential for curb bulb at McKee and Capitol

Mckee/ N White RdObservations: • Wide curb radii

Potential Improvements: • Potential for curb bulbs at intersection

Alum Rock/ White RdObservations:• Poor sidewalk/no sidewalk between Florence and N

White Rd.

• White/ Florence- Pedestrians observed crossing road away from intersections to access bus stops,

• Lack of visibility, no control or crosswalk at Florence

• White/ East Hill- Narrow sidewalk/clear sidewalk width

18.c


Potential Improvements: • Add pedestrian scale lighting between East Hill/ Alum

Rock

• Extend sidewalk between Florence and N White Rd.

• Add crosswalks with better visibility along McKee

• Add control signal along Florence

Alum Rock and Capitol RdObservations:• Missing sidewalk on the west leg of Alum/ Capitol.

• North and South leg of Capitol Sidewalk should be realigned.

• Incomplete sidewalks in adjacent neighborhoods.

Potential Improvements: • Sidewalk can be added to west leg of Alum and

Capitol.

• Complete sidewalk network in the adjacent neighborhoods.

• Complete sidewalks on North side of Alum Rock and East of Capitol

Alum Rock and Jackson StopObservations:• Poor lighting around the bus stops.

• Need shade along Alum Rock.

• Poor pedestrian visibility at ramp crossings, high-speed turns

Potential Improvements: • Alum Rock/ Jackson- add pedestrian level lighting to

increase pedestrian visibility.

• Ramp crossing- Add visible crosswalks, lighting and yield signage to slow high speed vehicle.

• Alum/Jackson- Construction blocking the bus stop.

• Add shade/buffer from traffic.

• High volume of cars, lack of shade.

Alum Rock VTA Station and Alum Rock Transit CenterObservations:• Transit point, no sidewalk due to construction;

• No lighting around the station

• Bus stop near transit center is not well kept

• Incomplete crosswalks at intersections around VTA station

• Unclear access through Transit Center

Potential Improvements: • Add amenities such as benches, shades to bus stop

near the VTA Station

• Complete crosswalk network around the transit center.

• Add wayfinding signage through transit center.

Focus Area B- East San Jose

10/29/2015Capitol and Story StopObservations:• South of intersection have good pedestrian

accessibility; need shade

• Capitol/ Story-, No sidewalk on north of intersection on both side. Crosswalk should be little further so cars don’t block the sidewalk.

• Very long traffic light

• Need shade on the road

• Pork chops need to have more waiting area. Really high speed

Potential Improvements: • Add shade or traffic along Story.

• Capitol/ Story- align eastbound crosswalk

• Ped-oriented streetscaping along soundwalls; reduce pedestrian crossing distance at White/Story

• Complete crosswalks and adjust signal timing to allow pedestrians to cross on all legs of the intersection Capitol/ Story stop.

• Widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaped buffers to improve. Address maintenance issues.

White/ Story StopsObservations:• Wide curve, need tighter curve for better visibility

• Pedestrian have poor access to commercial area. Ped has to cross the parking lot to get to market

• Crosswalks are missing near bus stop, bus stop needs more lighting.

Potential Improvements:• Widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and

landscaped buffers to improve. Address maintenance issues.

Jackson and Story StopsObservations:• Very fast and high traffic volume. Has good barrier

from traffic.

• Many shops around.

• There are some access to the shops but may need more.

• East of the intersection has narrow sidewalk.

Potential Improvements:• Complete sidewalk network.

• Add more pedestrian lighting

Focus Area C- Downtown Gilroy

10/27/2015Monterey Road and Howson StopObservations:• South of Monterey Rd/ Leavesley Rd should have

mid-block crossings.

• West of Monterey Rd/ 1st- need pedestrian connection. Too long for pedestrian to walk.

• 1st is very wide and there are residential and commercial in both sides. High vehicle speed in this area as well.

• Very wide lane for parked cars on the lane along Monterey. Streetscape, lighting, can be implemented to create buffer from traffic and better traffic visibility.

18.c


Potential Improvements: • Evaluate Monterey Rd and 1st St to implement new

marked crossings

• Install high visibility crosswalks across Monterey Rd.

• Streetscape improvements along Monterey Road.

• Improve pedestrian quality: Consistent tree cover, widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaped buffers.

• Evaluate potential for a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing and/or enhanced facilities on E. 6th Street, E. 10th Street, depending on planned future growth east of 101.

Gilroy Caltrain StationObservations: • Alexander St/ Old Gilroy St needs waiting area for

buses. Curb cuts are facing the roads,

• Proposed location for pedestrian overpass may conflict with surrounding overhead power lines, and complete pedestrian network needed for the area.

• Caltrain- lack of sidewalk, crosswalk, shade and traffic buffer.

• Need sidewalk on Chestnut and Gilroy.

• 10th and Monterey, sidewalks missing or narrow8th/ Monterey- wide ped crossing and no pedestrian countdown.

Potential Improvements:• Forest/ Old Gilroy St- adding bulb out for visibility.

• Both side crosswalks needed along across Caltrain tracks. Shade and lighting needed in that area. Crosswalk area along the tracks should have different pavement for better visibility.

• Install Ped arms on rail tracks.

• Redesign NE corner of Railroad/ Old Gilroy.

• Complete pedestrian infrastructure into residential neighborhoods

• Improved crossing at Caltrain tracks/E 7th street and along at-grade crossings

Focus Area D-San Antonio (Mountain View/Los Altos)

10/22/2015

El Camino Real/ ShowersObservations:• Need crosswalks on all sides of transit stops.

Connect commercial area and residential areas.

• Large pedestrian volume in the vicinity.

• Need pedestrian lighting, improve stops.

• Existing uncontrolled crossing has in-pavement flashers that are not operating well

Potential Improvements: • Improve bus stop by installing pedestrian scale shade

and lighting.

• Strengthen connection to Showers/Latham bus station: improved pedestrian crossing at El Camino/Showers

El Camino Real/ Showers Dr.Observations: • Multiple driveways along El Camino Real -

consolidate as properties turn over

• Expand passenger waiting area around bus stops at El Camino Real

• Potential intersection improvements at Showers/El Camino

• Improve pedestrian access to commercial areas - currently pedestrians access via parking lot driveways

Potential Improvements: • Strengthen walking conditions along El Camino Real:

improved streetscape, consolidated driveways (policy rec as parcels turn over)

El Camino Real/ San Antonio Rd StopsObservations:• Commercial access needed - currently pedestrians

access via parking lot driveways

• Widen sidewalks - current sidewalks too narrow

• Repaint crosswalks for better visibility - continental style

• Pedestrians feel exposed at this location

• San Antonio Rd - improve uncontrolled crossing

• Central Expy/Mayfield - poor intersection access to undercrossing

Potential Improvements: • El Camino Real/N. San Antonio - tighten curbs to

reduce right turn speed. High-speed turns.

• Redesign Central Expressway/Mayfield to increase pedestrian accessibility.

• Improve pedestrian connectivity and safety along El Camino Real

Focus Area E- Mountain View El Camino Real Corridor

El Camino Real/ Escuela Ave. Stop10/22/2015Observations:• Wide Curve along El Camino Real and Escuela Ave.

• Lack of visibility at the intersection El Monte and El Camino Real.

• Right turn movement on El Monte is very fast.

Potential Improvements: • Realign El Monte/EL Camino Real intersection to

increase visibility

• Eliminate dedicated right turn, Install curb extension, Change to more visible crosswalks

• El Monte mid-block crossing - low level of intervention for traffic/# of lanes. Consider RRFB/PHB.

El Camino Real/ Castro St StopObservations:• Need to add ADA ramps

• Long signal

• Install curb bulb

• High visible crosswalk

18.c


Potential Improvements:• Tighten and realign intersection and pedestrian

crossings at El Camino/Miramonte, strengthen connections within neighborhoods

• Improve pedestrian facilities at S. Rengstorff/Central Expressway Intersection

• Enhance wayfinding to Mayfield undercrossing

El Camino Real S Shoreline BlvdObservations:• El Camino Real and Shoreline Blvd crossing is not

aligned properly.

• The porkchop at El Camino Real and S Shoreline Blvd. should be redesigned to achieve better visibility.

Potential Improvements:• Realign El Camino Real and S Shoreline Blvd. crossing

• Redesign porkchop crossings to add pedestrian waiting space, increase crossing visibility

• Narrow clear sidewalk space north of Shoreline Blvd and El Camino Real.

Focus Area F- El Camino Real/Highway 85 (Mountain View/Sunnyvale)

10/22/2015El Camino/ Mtn. View-Alviso StopObservations:• Need pedestrian-scale lighting

• Pedestrians crossing El Camino between Grant Rd and The Americana

• SR 85 ramp crossings need lighting, high visibility crosswalk markings and curb cuts

• Implement advanced yield signs before entering/exiting SR 85 ramps, add high-visibility crosswalks

• Inconsistent sidewalk widths

• Add crosswalk on Yuba and El Camino Real

• Improve wayfinding to Stevens Creek trail

Potential Improvements• Uncontrolled on-/off-ramps at SR 85/El Camino Real

interchange

• Connection to Stevens Creek Trail

• Improve wayfinding to Stevens Creek Trail,

• Add enhanced pedestrian crossings and sidewalks at SR 85 ramps on El Camino Real; reconstruct interchange ramps to promote lower speed vehicle turns and higher pedestrian visibility

El Camino/ Knickerbocker StopObservations:• Streetscape improvements along El Camino

Real: Add high-visibility crosswalks at side-street intersections along El Camino Real, widen sidewalks, add shade

• Long distances between marked crosswalks along El Camino Real, lack of shade, poor visibility at side-street crossings

Potential Improvements• Long distances between marked crosswalks along El

Camino Real

• Add curb bulbs at intersections with wide turning radii

• Add high-visibility crosswalks at side-street intersections along El Camino Real

• Eliminate free right turn lane or expand pork chop islands to improve pedestrian waiting area

• Add marked side-street crosswalks between major intersections and consider additional treatments where appropriate (RRFBs, HAWK signals, etc.)

El Camino/ Bernardo StopObservations:• Small pedestrian waiting area at bus stop

• Ped lighting, shade and crosswalk width

• No pedestrian countdown signals

• Wide curb radii - tighten at corners, add curb bulbs

• Bus shelter and bus bulb at NB/Palo Alto stop

• Install countdown pedestrian signals

• Candidate for curb bulb.

• Poor visibility at driveways

Potential Improvements:• Add curb bulbs at intersections with wide turning

radii



El Camino/Grant Rd.Observations:• Wide curb radii - tighten, add curb bulbs

• Realign crosswalk on N leg

• Add high-visibility crosswalks

Focus Area G- Bascom Area Field Notes

10/28/2015Bascom/San Carlos-Stevens CreekObservations:• San Carlos East of Bascom: Strong street walls,

pedestrian scale lighting, very narrow sidewalks.

• Brooklyn & San Carlos: RRFB works well. Consider this treatment for other midblock/uncontrolled crossings in study area.

• Stevens Creek west of Bascom: parking lots adjacent to street are unwelcoming to pedestrians - multiple curb cuts, no buffer between walkway and parked cars.

• Throughout study areas, lack of bicycle facilities forces bicyclists to use sidewalks

Improvements:• Look for opportunities to add pedestrian space: with

curb cafes/parklets, landscaped curb bulbs between parking spaces

• Stevens Creek/Macarthur/Bellerose: Add E leg of crosswalk; restripe north leg at Bellerose with high-visibility/continental crosswalk; evaluate retiming signal to reduce pedestrian wait times

• Vaughn & San Carlos: midblock crosswalk

18.c


• San Carlos (E of Bascom): add amenities to bus stops: bus bulbs, bus shelters

• Stevens Creek west of Bascom: Add landscaped buffers (planters short-term/tactical option),add pedestrian-scale light, Policy recommendation for San Jose: consolidate driveways as properties redevelop

• Bascom/Stevens Creek: Rebuild porkchop at NW & SW corners, add advanced yield markings to pavement, add “yield to pedestrian signage. SE corner: tighten curb radius, widen sidewalk on curb, trim bushes.

Bascom CorridorObservations:• Inconsistent curb/ROW, multiple sidewalks asphalt or

unpaved.

• cars parked on sidewalks

• Throughout study area, lack of bicycle facilities forces bicyclists to use sidewalks

Improvements:• Potential for road diet on Bascom N of 280: 6 lanes,

landscaped median, center left turn lanes

• Streetscape improvements: widen sidewalks and add tree cover, add buffer between parking/store frontages and walkway

• Bascom/Eliot: Add HAWK or RRFB

Parkmoor/ 280 Overpass/Bascom/MoorparkObservations:• Incomplete pedestrian access across intersections

• Narrow, poorly-lit overcrossing of Hwy 280

• Wide curb radii at intersections

• Throughout study area, lack of bicycle facilities forces bicyclists to use sidewalks

Improvements:• Bascom/Parkmoor: Add crosswalk, ped signals, curb

cuts to south leg, curb bulb at SE corner.

• Bascom/Moorpark: Add crosswalk, ped signals, curb cuts to north leg, stripe high-visibility (continental) crosswalks, add curb bulbs to all corners (except SW) to improve pedestrian visibility, rebuild SW corner porkchop to allow for more pedestrian

waiting area & add advance yield markings to pavement.

• Widen sidewalk on Bascom S. of Moorpark & add consistent tree cover to West side of Bascom

• 280 overpass: Widen sidewalks, evaluate potential for public art and/or pedestrian-scale lighting

Bascom/Engborg-FruitdaleObservations: • Skewed intersections at Bascom/Engborg and

Bascom/Renova

• Wide curb radii at intersections

Improvements:• Bascom/Engborg-Fruitdale: realign skewed

intersection and add crosswalks to all legs of intersection, remove or rebuild porkchops

• Improve sidewalk along hospital frontage on Bascom, tighten curb radii and realign crosswalks at Engborg/Bascom

Focus Area H- Downtown San Jose

10/19/2015San Jose Diridon StationObservations:• Missing curb cuts and worn crosswalk markings at

sidewalks that provide access to Station entrance. Add curb cuts and replace existing crosswalks with Continental crosswalks for higher visibility.

• Unclear connection to San Fernando Station, no marked crosswalks across Montgomery. Recommend project to clarify access and mark crosswalks across Montgomery.

Potential Improvements:• High visibility crossings, provide direct access to

residential neighborhoods from the west

San Fernando VTA StationObservations:• Unclear connection to San Fernando Station, no

marked crosswalks across Montgomery. Recommend project to clarify access and mark crosswalks across Montgomery.

• Unclear that main route to San Fernando Street is through San Fernando VTA Station. Improve wayfinding through San Fernando Station through pavement markings and signage.

• Add curb extension at NW corner of Delmas Avenue/San Fernando Street, permit pedestrian crossing of north leg of intersection, reposition bike lane around curb.

• Widen sidewalk on N side of San Fernando east of Delmas Avenue (reposition bike lane into existing buffer), permit crossing of VTA LRT tracks on N side of street, and add pedestrian gates to control access to N leg.

Improvements:• Wayfinding for pedestrian path from San Fernando

VTA Station to San Fernando Street.

Santa Clara StreetObservations:• Santa Clara near Diridon: Add pedestrian actuation

and shorter signal lengths to reduce pedestrian wait time

• Montgomery/Santa Clara: opportunity to add pedestrian scramble without retiming signal

• Widen crosswalks and curb cuts at Autumn/Santa Clara to accommodate high pedestrian volumes

• Delmas/Santa Clara: Relocate midblock zebra crosswalk to W side of intersection, add sharks teeth for advance stop lines, consider adding RRFB or other safety enhancements

• 87 off ramps/Santa Clara: Add marked pedestrian crossings (Continental) to all legs and re-time signal to permit pedestrian crossing of all legs.

• Santa Clara between Market & 2nd: Pedestrian “dead zone.” Opportunity for sidewalk widening and bus stop improvements with Santa Clara/Alum Rock BRT.

• 3rd/ Santa Clara and 4th/Santa Clara: Add curb bulbs to shorten pedestrian crossing distances.

Potential Improvements:• High visibility crossings at SR 87 off-ramp/Santa

Clara; Add marked crosswalks between major intersections and consider additional treatments where appropriate (RRFBs, HAWK signals, etc.);

18.c


• Add curb bulbs at intersections with wide turning radiiAdd high-visibility crosswalks at side-street intersections; Realign skewed intersections.

San FernandoObservations:• Improve maintenance of street and landscaping strip

east of Montgomery on San Fernando.

• Hwy 87 undercrossing improvements already being implemented during field visit (10/19/2015)

• Hwy 87 Undercrossing: Multiple pedestrians crossing during traffic gaps at Hwy 87 underpass. Add marked mid-block pedestrian crossing at Hwy 87 underpass to consolidate pedestrian crossings.

• Hwy 87 Undercrossing: add wayfinding (pavement markings/signage) indicating Guadalupe River Trail undercrossing.

Potential Improvements:• Hwy 87 overpass: Add pedestrian-scale lighting,

enhanced sidewalks, and potentially public art at undercrossing.

Paseo de San Antonio VTA StationObservations:• Mid-block crossings of 1st and 2nd Streets create

sense of place but do not provide adequate visibility for pedestrians.

• Enhance midblock crossing visibility: Widen crosswalks to match width of curb cuts, add advance stop lines and/or sharks teeth, consider raised crosswalk treatment and/or RRFBs. Recommend redesign of striping that includes white outer lines, sharks teeth and/or Continental crosswalk-style design elements to enhance visibility.

Potential Improvements:• Opportunities to improve lighting, add shade trees

and shelters, provide public art, landscaping, NextBus information, improve maintenance/waste disposal.

Santa Clara VTA StationObservations:• Consider wayfinding signage between stops on Santa

Clara Street and on 1st/2nd Streets.

• Consider raised crosswalk/ raised intersection treatments at Santa Clara/1st and Santa Clara/2nd.

• 2nd Street (north of San Fernando): Tighten curb at South side of driveway into parking lot.

• Potential Improvements:

• High visibility crossings, wayfinding, potential street closure/bike-ped-transit only where 1st St splits and Market St begins, Pedestrian green waves; opportunities to improve lighting, add shade trees and shelters, provide public art, landscaping, NextBus information, improve maintenance/waste disposal.

Notre Dame/E. St. James/87 RampsObservations:• Realign crosswalk on south side; widen south side

crosswalk and sidewalk, widen sidewalk under freeway overpass, add pedestrian-scale lighting at undercrossing. Tighten NW corner (curb extension).

Potential Improvements:• Improve pedestrian crossings of Hwy 87 ramps at W

St James/Julian and W Santa Clara. Add pedestrian-scale lighting, enhanced sidewalks, and potentially public art at undercrossing.

San CarlosObservations:• Convention Center VTA Station: Long wait to cross

at midblock pedestrian signal

• Convention Center VTA Station: Pedestrian “dead zone” around bus stops

• Convention Center VTA Station: Retime midblock signal and move bus stops closer to midblock pedestrian crossing

• Convention Center VTA Station: Wayfinding/legibility unclear around Civic/National theaters.

Potential Improvements:• Consider pedestrian wayfinding via pavement

markings and passive wayfinding (landscaping, etc.) to clarify routes.

• Almaden & San Carlos: Remove pork-chops where feasible, narrow curb radii (curb extensions), stripe continental crosswalks, and add pedestrian refuge to medians.

Market StreetObservations: • Market/St James: Add pedestrian crossing on North

leg, add bulb out at SW corner

• Market/St. John: Complete crosswalks and sidewalks

• Market at San Carlos: Widen “triangle” at southern tip of Cesar Chavez Park east to the existing striped area, add Continental striped crosswalks between main Cesar Chavez Park and “triangle”, add curb bulb to NW corner of intersection, add Continental crosswalks to all legs of intersection

General Recommendation• Reduce signal cycle lengths throughout downtown

San Jose

Focus Area I- King Road (San Jose)

10/29/2015

Tully Road CorridorObservations• Poor pavement conditions make marked crosswalks

hard to see

• Potential midblock crossing between King/ Huran Rd and Tully Rd/ Quimby Rd

• Along Tully Rd need some barriers; traffic is very fast


radii

• Add high-visibility crosswalks at side-street intersections


• Realign skewed intersections

King Road CorridorObservations• Shopping center near King Rd and story has high

pedestrian volume. Ped crossing near in the median does not have sufficient room.

• Along King going toward Story Rd very narrow sidewalk, need shade and lighting

18.c


• Story/ King: high pedestrian volumes; wide RT on NB.

• Lido/ King: Wide RT and bad visibility. Cars block the crosswalk to see oncoming traffic. On/Off Ramp- Crosswalks are fading more and should be repainted. NB off-ramp pedestrian waiting area is very small. There should be lighting under bridge. Very long traffic light

• Along King toward Story many side streets do not have crosswalks. Need better pedestrian lighting.

Potential Improvements:• Add marked crosswalks between major intersections

and consider additional treatments where appropriate (RRFBs, HAWK signals, etc.)

• Add enhanced pedestrian crossings and sidewalks at ramps.

• Add pedestrian-scale lighting, enhanced sidewalks, and potentially public art at highway undercrossings

• Consider reduced curb radius at intersections

King/ Alum Rock AveObservations:• Wide road with high speed incoming traffic

• School on NE; many students use this sidewalk.

• Need shade on south of King/ and Alum Rock Ave.

• Crosswalk needs to be aligned

Potential Improvements:• Improve pedestrian quality: consistent tree cover,

widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaped buffers

Focus Area K- Central San Jose

10/21/2015

1st St and Virginia StObservations• Very high pedestrian activity along 1st St, many small

businesses, potential public space hub at library.

• Narrow sidewalks given level of activity & attractors. Consider parklets?

• Add landscaped buffer between walkway and travel/parking lane properties may need to turn over - opportunity for developer-funded improvements

Potential Improvements• High speed vehicle turns/wide curb radii at several

major intersections

• Add curb bulbs at intersections with wide turning radii




1st and Key StObservations• 1st/2nd/Keyes intersection: Restripe all crosswalks

to continental style. Tighten wide curb radii via curb bulbs/pork chop rebuild. Eliminate driveway on “island” (b/w 1st and 2nd (N side))

• Mini park/”island” south of Keyes (1st/2nd merge): Confusing pedestrian access, not enough crosswalks. Consolidate pedestrian crossings at 1st/2nd/Humboldt; add continental striped crosswalk and high-vis pedestrian crossing sign.

Potential Improvements• Redesign intersections to provide shorter crossing

distances, clearly-designated pedestrian space

• Evaluate potential to add pedestrian plazas and other public space

• Improve pedestrian quality: consistent tree cover, widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaped buffers

Monterey Rd and Alma AveIssues

• Monterey Rd/Alma: Wide crossings, high traffic exposure. Zebra crosswalks, curb bulbs/ pedestrian refuge.

• Alma Ave: Lack of shade, narrow sidewalks, maintenance issues/trash. Streetscape improvements: widen sidewalk, add/improve planting strips to create

landscaped buffer & provide shade. Road diet or curb bulbs at intersections.

Potential Improvements• Add curb bulbs at intersections with wide turning

radii



W Alma Ave and Almaden RdObservations• Redesign crosswalks at Almaden/W. Alma/Little

Orchard intersection: restripe all crosswalks to continental-style, add curb bulbs to NW and SW corners of S. Almaden Ave-Almaden Expy/W. Alma Ave and NE, SW corners of Vine St.-Almaden Expy/W. Alma Ave. Consider full intersection redesign to consolidate vehicle access to SB Almaden Expy to existing W leg of Almaden Expy (S. of Vine Street).

• Close 5th leg of S. Almaden Ave north of Little Orchard St., create public park/plaza with landscaping. Potential to retain narrow lane (20 feet) to allow parking in front of multifamily residential complexes.

• Add pedestrian lighting and public art under Hwy 87 overcrossings.

• Tamien Caltrain: Station hard to find from street. Unclear that neighborhood provides station access. Add active/passive wayfinding.

Potential Improvements• Improve pedestrian lighting and sidewalks under Hwy

87 overcrossings; redesign crosswalks at Almaden/W. Alma/Little Orchard intersection

• Lelong St/ W Alma Ave- Cars turning right off of Alma onto Lelong rarely look for people crossing the street

Keys and 8th StObservations• Incomplete sidewalks along Keyes, maintenance

issues, worn pavement markings for crosswalks, but relatively little transit. Industrial area, may redevelop.

• Mid-block crossing? Potential between 3rd and 7th.

18.c


• Intersections at 7th, 10th, Senter lack complete pedestrian access.

Potential Improvements• High pedestrian demand along Willow St., Keyes St.,

S. 1st St./Monterey Highway

• Improve pedestrian quality: consistent tree cover, widened sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaped buffers.

280 Ramps/ Virginia StObservations• Add continental-striped crosswalks and advanced

yield signage to pedestrian crossings of ramps.

• Consider stop for SB off-ramps at S. 6th Street.

• Stripe continental crosswalks and add pedestrian signal heads on all four legs of S. 7th Street/E. Virginia Street.

Focus Area L: El Camino Real/ S Fair Oaks (Sunnyvale)

10/22/2015

El Camino Real/ Fair Oaks StopObservations• Midblock crossing needed between S fair Oak Ave.

and Cezanne St. ( Many Ped j-walk between these two intersection)

• Many pedestrians (students, children)

• Shade needed at the bus stop and along El Camino Real

• Pedestrian Access to commercial areas are the east side of El Camino Real. Ped access through parking lot of commercial areas.

• Narrow sidewalk to on El Camino Real

• Uncontrolled right turn on El Camino is very unsafe. Drivers are not aware of the pedestrian

• No countdown timer

• Wide intersection


radii




El Camino Real/ Remington StopObservations:• Uncontrolled left turn is creating unsafe environment

for pedestrians

• High pedestrian volume

• Senior housing complex located at the north east of the intersection.

• Wide intersection

• No shade and commercial access along west of El Camino Real

• Realigned crosswalk

• No countdown pedestrian sound

Potential Improvements:• Consider enhanced treatments for uncontrolled

crosswalk at Michelangelo Drive (RRFBs, HAWK signals, etc.)

18.c



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: Workplan Update



BACKGROUND:

Attached is the Committee for Transit Accessibility Workplan Update.

Prepared By: David LedwitzMemo No. 5514

19

March 17, 2016

Effective: March 17, 2016

2016 Committee for Transit Accessibility Work Plan

January 13, 20161. General Ma ) 37682. 2016 CTA Leadership Election Process: Conduct Elections. (S. Flynn) 52903. First Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (Konanur) 52754. January Transit Service Changes (Unites) 47865. FLEX Service Update (Cuenco) 53636. Super Bowl 50 Transit Service (Unites) 53717. OBAG Evaluation Criteria (Rensi) 53808. Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Update (Ronsse/Basma) 53409. Workplan Update (Ledwitz) 498310. Rapid 523 Berryessa BART to DeAnza College - Progress Report (Fisher) 525111. Overview of Transit Service Planning Efforts for 2016 (Tyree) 5253 12. Transit Ridership Improvement Program 2016 Work Plan (Burger) 5360

April 13, 20161. 2016 CTA Leadership Election Process: Conduct Elections (S. Flynn) 52902. Amend CTA Bylaws (S. Flynn) 55233. Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 5276 (Konanur)4. April Transit Service Changes (Unites)5465 5. Chief Operating Officer's Report (Johnstone) 55186. Renaming Paratransit Services (Vogel) 55297. Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan Draft Project List (Ledbetter) 52098. Next Network: Light Rail Service Plan (Augenstein) 5425

9. Transit Ridership Improvement Program Choices Report (Augenstein) 5472

10. Envision Project Evaluation Results (Augenstein) 552211. Workplan Update (Vogel) 5514

June 8, 20161. Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (Konanur)2.3. Workplan Update (Ledwitz)

October 12, 20161. FY 2016 Annual Transit Operations Performance Report (Konanur)2. ADA Survey Status Update (Williams)3. October Transit Service Changes (Unites)4. Bus Stop Improvement Program (Ronsse)5. 2017 AC Leadership Election Process Nomination Subcommittee (Flynn)6. Workplan Update (Ledwitz)

January 11, 20171. 2017 CTA Leadership Election Process: Conduct Elections. (S. Flynn)

2. First Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report (Konanur)

19.a

March 17, 2016

Effective: March 17, 2016

3. January Transit Service Changes (Unites) 4. Workplan Update (Ledwitz)

Future Items1. Joint CTA/BART Access Committee Meeting 2. Coach Operator Training on Accessibility3. Stevens Creek BRT and DeAnza Transit Center project update4. BART Transit Integration Plan5. Light Rail Efficiency Plan6. Warm Springs BART Station tour

Regular Reports1. Board of Directors Report2. Chief Operating Officer's Report3. Staff Report4. Chairperson's Report5. CAC Report6. Envision Update

19.a

COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY...COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY Wednesday, April 13, 2016...

Documents

Transcript of COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY...COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY Wednesday, April 13, 2016...