Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 466-07
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 10 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNqNG AND COMML~ITY EVIRONrM]~NT DATE:DECEMBER 17, 2007 CMR: 466:07 SUBJECT:PLAN~ING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LOCAL TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE SERVICE CHANGES IN PALO ALTO RESULTING FROM THE VTA PALO ALTO CO~X~NITY BUS STUDY RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council: 1)Endorse the proposed elimination of Community Bus line 89 in the Stanford Research Park and the reinvestment of service hours into a modified Community Bus line 88. 2)Endorse the proposed July 2008 modification of Community Bus line 88 route to serve both the Midtown and South Palo Alto neighborhoods and expanded peak period service to Gunn High School during school commute hours. Direct staff to work cooperatively with VTA staff to explore a long-term solution for community transit needs in the City, including potential changes to the Palo Alto shuttle progam, and report back to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council prior to October 2008. 4)Request that VTA staff pursue establishment of student and adult monthly passes for Community Bus fares. 5)Request that VTA staff evaluate the feasibility of converting bus line 35 to a Community Bus route. 6)Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the VTA Board of Directors summarizing the Council’s action. CMR:466:07 Page 1 of 5 The Planning and Transportation Commission made more specific suggestions for follow-up issues for staff and the VTA to pursue in conjunction with these recommendations which are discussed under Board/Commission review and recommendations. BACKGROUND In May 2007, the VTA issued a draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), the first major evaluation of the bus service structure undertaken by VTA since the existing bus service system was implemented in the 1980s. The COA plan for Palo Alto called for a major rerouting and overall service reduction on line 88. Instead of retaining service to neighborhoods and destinations in Palo Alto, the route was reoriented to terminate at the San Antonio transit center in Mountain View. Service would be provided to Gunn High School and to the Meadow/Fabian area, but service was eliminated to Midtown, Channing Avenue and the Palo Alto Caltrain station. On August 6, the City Council voted unanimously to oppose the VTA COA changes to bus service in Palo Alto until a full community bus plan could be developed (See Attachment D). On August 30, the VTA Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the COA, including all of the changes proposed in Palo Alto. The bus route changes will be implemented in January 2008. However, the Board further directed VTA staff to work with Palo Alto staff, policy makers, and community representatives to develop a Community Bus Plan for Palo Alto and to report back by January 2008. VTA and City staff initiated the Palo Alto Community Bus study in mid-September. Two community meetings, including two community workshops, were held in October and November to solicit community input on service needs and alternative bus route concepts. The study process resulted in a recommendation for a revised Community Bus service plan to be implemented in July 2008 as well as identifying several additional action items for further study. The July 2008 service plan calls for the discontinuation of line 89 and reallocation of these VTA resources to provide an enhanced and reconfigured line 88 that would better serve the residential neighborhoods in south Palo Alto (Attachment A). The regular Community Bus line 88 would operate between the Midtown area on the east and Gunn High School and the Veterans Administration Medical Center on the west at 30-minute peak and 60-minute midday frequencies. In addition to this all day service, extra buses would serve Gunn High School at bell times from the Midtown and Ventura neighborhoods, along the East and West Meadow corridor. The new line 88 service replaces all extended Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle services to Gunn High School with larger capacity vehicles. The Crosstown Shuttle route extension to Gunn High School in the morning and afternoon would be discontinued, at a substantial cost-savings to the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District. The Crosstown Shuttle would continue to operate between Downtown and East Charleston Road. CMR:466:07 Page 2 of 5 The study identified several areas that could not be fully analyzed during the time frame for the current study. These are issues both the City and VTA staff believe merit further consideration: Two concepts were developed by VTA staff and consultants for an expanded community bus service connecting South Palo Alto and Downtown while also addressing the school commute (Attachments B and C). Both concepts would replace the City’s free Crosstown Shuttle with VTA Community Bus routes. VTA and the City would need to pursue these concepts further and reach ageement on a selwice plan by October 2008 in order to implement a change in January 2009. This study highlighted the need for VTA to consider instituting a new Community Bus monthly pass fare. The VTA does not currently offer a reduced-cost adult or student monthly pass for Community Bus lines. For frequent riders, such as middle and high school students, a pass would be more convenient than paying cash for each ride. Line 35 is a regular route, with higher fares than the proposed line 88 Community Bus. Members of the community suggested converting line 35 to a Community Bus route, which would allow for reduced fares for any trips involving transfers between lines 88 and 35. The study highlighted the cost inefficiencies of express bus service to the Stanford Research Park. VTA plans to conduct an Express Bus Service Plan in the near future that could explore more efficient alternatives to the current service. VTA staff has expressed a strong interest in looking into the long-range facility and capacity needs at the Palo Alto transit center. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On December 12, 2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission Commissioner Burt absent) recommended that the City Council: unanimously (6-0, 1. Approve staff’s recommendations. 2. Direct staff to work cooperatively with VTA to address the following issues and options: a. Continue to study the extension of the City’s Crosstown Shuttle and the VTA shuttle to Gunn High School to determine if the City should maintain its service, particularly at times the VTA shuttle is not operating. b. Include among future study efforts the extension of the VTA shuttle to California Ave. and the Caltrain station and explore the costs of the extension. c. Continuing to use the Louis Road route between Charleston and East Meadow for the VTA shuttle until the Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD projects are occupied. d. Collect data regarding ridership relative to the VTA operation ahead of VTA’s annual system evaluation. e. Develop a process of annual engagement between the City and VTA to review potential system improvements in advance of any changes. CMR:466:07 Page 3 of 5 o f.Develop a City/VTA marketing program specific to Palo Alto. ,,Establish baselines for VTA’s funding investment in Line 88 and the community bus program, beginning with the year 2000, and including 2006 and the January 2008 and July 2008 efforts. h. Review the greenhouse gas and congestion impacts of the various options in future programs. Request that: a. VTA report quarterly on its progress and ridership indicators and on how the City is to be engaged in the identification of annual modifications. b. VTA provide exceptions to allow paratransit service in areas no longer served by Line 88 or new community shuttles. The Commission’s draft verbatim minutes will be provided to the Council by e-mail and at places on Monday. Six members of the public addressed the Commission and expressed general support for the July 2008 service plan as a good first step and interest in further study of the concepts for expanded community bus service included in the staff report. Some speakers requested that further study of an extension of the Line 88 to the California Avenue business district and Caltrain station from Midtown be explored.Correspondence received by the Commission is included as Attachment F. RESOURCE IlVlPACT The recommended July 2008 VTA service plan would eliminate the need for the City’s Crosstown Shuttle to serve Gunn High School and the VA Hospital, with resulting cost savings to the General Fund. The current cost of the Crosstown Shuttle is approximately $344,000. This includes approximately $260,000 for the two shuttles that operate from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. along the core Crosstown route between downtown and East Charleston Road, and $84,000 for the extra shuttle that is needed to provide 30-minute service in the afternoon to Gunn High School. Since the cost of the extra shuttle to Gunn is shared equally by the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District, under the proposed VTA service plan, the General Fund expense of approximately $42,000 for the extra shuttle would be eliminated beginning in FY 2008/09. The resource impact of the future service concepts have not been fully analyzed, but would be thoroughly evaluated during the course of further discussions with VTA staff. Under Concept 1, the City’s expense for the Crosstown Shuttle would be completely eliminated, but in Concept 2, the cost to buy-in with the 25% of the operating cost to make the shuttle free to the rider could equal or exceed current costs for the Crosstown Shuttle. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy T-6: "Improve public transit access to reNonal destinations, including those within Palo Alto;" and Policy T-9: "Work towards integrating public school commuting into the local transit system." CMR:466:07 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS A. July 2008 Service Recommendation B. Alternative Concept 1 for further study C. Alternative Concept 2 for further study D. Letter dated August 6, 2007 from Mayor Kishimoto to VTA E. Planning and Transportation Commission Report dated 12-12-07 F. Correspondence to the Planning and Transportation Commission G. Draft Minutes of the December 12, 2007 Planning and Transportation Commission ( to be provided at places) COURTESY COPIES Michael Burns, VTA General Manager Kevin Connolly, VTA Transportation Planning Manager Brodie Hamilton, Stanford University PREPARED BY: @~kYLE LIKENS Transportation Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment --~MILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:466:07 Page 5 of 5 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ August 9, 2007 ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto Department of Pianning and Community Environment .Mr. Dean Chu, Chairperson Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Re: VTA Comprehensive Operations Analysis Plan Dear Mr. Chu: On August 6, 2007, the City Council discussed the VTA Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) Plan with particular regard to existing and proposed bus service levels in Palo Alt0 and voted unanimously to oppose the plan as currently proposed. The Council cannot support or endorse a plan that further reduces VTA resources in Palo Alto and establishes new community bus routes without undertaking a comprehensive transit analysis similar to the community planning process undertaken by VTA in Los Gatos and South County. The Council understands and supports the Board’s goals of transforming the bus service model into one that creates greater ridership and better serves our economy and community. We also support the use of smaller community buses and limiting the use of large buses to peak periods. We acknowledge and appreciate that VTA staff partially responded to PaW Alto and community concerns regarding the original COA proposals for Lines 35 and 88, but the changes still are not sufficient to address Palo Alto’s pave COrlcerns. The City is concerned that the changes proposed in the VTA plan further erode transit service to Pa]o Alto residents and workers (see attached staff report). Further, the proposedplan would .severely impede Pa]o Atto’s comprehensi-v-e strategy to a walkable community with access to transit along key corridors, at neighborhood centers and employment districts. Given Palo Alto’s high employment density (second only to San Francisco) and its commitment to a pedestrian, bike and transit network that connects to schools, jobs, shopping districts and transit hubs, it is reasonable to expect a thorough community bus service study of this City’s transit use to determine the appropriate level of VTA transit resources in Palo Alto. In other words, we welcome the change to more efficient and community-friendly community buses, but must insist on the opportunity to re-deploy the savings to improve transit service in our community. Our school-age commuters, seniors, and many hospital employees and visitors are among those who will suffer from a service reduction. 250 Ha_milton Avenue PO. Box ] 0250 PaloAlto, CA 94303 The Council acknowledges General Manager Michael Bums’ offer to immediately begin a comprehensive transit analysis of the entire transit network in Palo Alt0 in the coming year, including VTA and Palo Alto shuttle services. The City is willing to assign staff to. assist the VTA in that analysis to ensure its completion within the next year. Until a comprehensive transit analysis of the area has been completed, however, the City remains strongly opposed to the proposed VTA service reductions to Palo Alto. It makes no sense to implement changes in January 2008 and then again 4-6 months later. Palo Alto looks forward to participating in further discussions regarding the analysis at the earliest possible time. Sincerely, /or KISHL~-IOTO City Council .Michael Bums, ~TTA General,Manager Jim Lawson, VTA Community Relations Manager Kevin Connolly, VTA Transp,.ortation Planning Manager PLANNING Attachment E & TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLAN2qING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Gayle Likens, Transportation Manager DEPARTMENT: Plarming & Community Environment DATE:December 12, 2007 SUBJECT:Palo Alto Community Bus Study - Review proposed changes and improvements to local transit and shuttle service in Palo Alto developed through the VTA Palo Alto Community Bus Study and formulate Commission recommendations to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the proposed changes to the VTA transit service in Palo Alto and recommend that the City Council take the following positions: 1) 2) Endorse the proposed elimination of Community Bus Line 89 in the Stanford Research Park and the reinvestment of service hours into a modified Community Bus Line 88. Endorse the modification of Community Bus Line 88 route to serve both the Midtown and South Palo Alto neighborhoods and expanded peak period service to Gunn High School during school commute hours, as presented in Attachment B. 3)Direct staffto work cooperatively with VTA staffto explore a long-term solution for community transit needs in the City, including potential changes to the Palo Alto shuttle program and report back to the Commission and City Council before October 2008. 4)Request that VTA staffpursue establishment of student and adult monthly passes for Community Bus fares. 5)Request that VTA staff evaluate the feasibility of converting Line 35 to a Community Bus route. City of Palo Alto Page 1 BACKGROUND In May 2007, the VTA issued a Draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), the first major evaluation of the bus service structure undertaken by VTA since the existing bus service system was implemented in the 1980s. The last service modifications that impacted bus routes in Palo Alto occurred in 2002 and 2003, when countywide service reductions of 5% and 9% were implemented respectively, due to declining VTA revenues. The COA was initiated to address VTA Board concerns about the performance of countywide bus service, including low farebox recovery and low transit usage. The COA recommended investing the same resource level in a more efficient, but cost-neutral, ser¥ice. The plan focuses VTA services in a core service area with the ~eatest potential for increased ridership, while discontinuing or consolidating underperforming routes with poor ridership. Core routes, located largely in the mid- county, and central and east San Jose areas would offer service every 15 minutes, while buses on non-core and communitybus lines would run every 30-60 minutes. Line 22 on E1 Camino Real is in the Core route system. The COA plan for Palo Alto called for a major rerouting and overall service reduction on Line 88 (See Attachment A). Instead of retaining service to neighborhoods and destinations in Palo Alto, the route was reoriented to terminate at the San Antonio transit center in Mountain View. Service would be provided to Gunn High School and to the Meadow/Fabian area, but ser¥ice was eliminated to Midtown, Channing Avenue and the Palo Alto Caltrain station. On August 6, the City Council voted unanimously to oppose the VTA Comprehensive Operations Analysis changes to bus service .in Palo Alto until a full community bus plan could be developed. On August 15, the VTA Transit Planning and Operations Committee (TP&O) voted unanimously to approve the January 2008 COA implementation plan as recommended by VTA staff, but further recommended that VTA staff return with the results of a comprehensive community bus plan for Palo Alto by December 2007. On August 30, the VTA Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the COA Plan including all of the changes proposed in Palo Alto. The bus route changes will be implemented in January 2008. However, the Board further directed VTA staff to work with Palo Alto staff, policy makers and community representatives to develop a Community Bus Plan for Palo Alto and to report back by January 2008. Community Bus Study Process VTA and City staffinitiated the Palo Alto Community Bus study in mid-September. The objective of the study was to determine the best routes for transit in Palo Alto regardless of which operator runs the services. The study working group consisted of representatives from VTA, Palo Alto, Samtrans!Caltrain, Stanford Marguerite, the Stanford Research Park TDM Coordinator and VTA transit consultants. VTA staff hired Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates, a transportation consulting firm specializing in transit and multi-modal transportation planning, to work on the project. Nelson Nygaard Associates has a long involvement with Palo Alto transit issues. The firm was hired by the City in 1998 to conduct the Palo Alto shuttle feasibility study, which resulted in the implementation of the Crosstown and Embarcadero shuttle routes. VTA staff also retained City of Palo Alto Page 2 Cambridge Systematics, a transportation consulting firm that had done the market analysis for the COA, to analyze the Palo Alto transit market in more detail for the community bus study. The ambitious schedule for the study, mandated by the VTA Board action, called for three community meetings before presenting recommendations to the City Council on December 17 and to the VTA Board of Directors on January 3. The table below details the meetings that occurred or have been scheduled throughout the course of the study. City-VTA Project Plann,!ng Meet!~g ..... Team Meeting, Kick-off Team Meeting Public Workshop 1 Team Meeting Public Workshop 2 TP&O Status Report Team Meet,!ng ,, Mayor’ s Briefing Joint Public Workshop 3 & Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting City Council Recommendation VTA TP&O Committee Recommendation VTA Board Action September 4, 2007 September 25, 2007 October 18, 2007 October 23, 2007 November 6, 2007 November 13, 2007 November 14, 2007 November 20, 2007 November 29, 2007 December 12, 2007 December 17, 2007 December 20, 2007 January. 3, 2008 DISCUSSION The study process started with a detailed market analysis, development of initial service concepts, community meetings, further analysis and refinement of the service proposals over the course of the 3- month study process. VTA Market Analysis Cambridge Systematics conducted a more detailed analysis of the Palo Alto transit market, using survey data Collected during the COA study to determine which areas of Palo Alto/Stanford are most conducive to successful transit service. The methodology identified seven key transportation factors that influence riders: price sensitivity, transit tolerance, time sensitivity, travel flexibility, stress sensitivity, social sensitivity and pro-environment attitude. The analysis found that there are several locations and corridors that would qualify as "transit competitive" because of the level of congestion, density of development, and quantity of transit amenable travelers. VTA staff acknowledged that the market analysis survey did not include survey of minors, so the results do not address the school commute market per se. Key findings of the market analysis include: ¯Downtown Palo Alto, the Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and Town and Country shopping center were identified as the most transit competitive destinations. ¯Transit competitive origins included the Downtown, (and adjacent Downtown North and SOFA City of Palo Alto Page 3 neighborhoods), Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center, and the south E1 Camino Real corridor (including Ventura neighborhood). The California Avenue business district is a moderate transit market but the detailed transit analysis indicates that most trips are short distance trips from areas within short walking distance and, therefore, transit is less competitive. The Middlefield Road corridor is a less intense transit market that is currently well served by Line 35. The Stanford Research Park, which has close to 20,000 jobs, is not a competitive transit destination because of the abundance of free parking and low-density development patterns. This result is comparable to conclusions in VTA analyses of other high tech areas such as North First Street in San Jose or Moffett Park. The transit riders in these areas desire a high level of amenities, schedule flexibility and travel times competitive to the automobile. Nevertheless, a sig-nificant level of transit serves the Research Park, including Caltrain and Marguerite shuttles, Samtrans KX Line and the Dumbarton Express Bus. The VTA Express Bus services to the Stanford Research Park (Lines 101,102 103 and 104) are very costly to operate and are not strong performers. NelsonkNygaard suggested that VTA reconsider options to the low productivity express service, including VTA or employer sponsored vanpool prog-rams, which other large transit agencies have implemented as more cost- effective alternatives. This was the subject of discussion by the project team early in the study, however, VTA staff recommended that any solution to VTA Express Buses needed to be made countywide and that these services should be revisited when VTA develops its future Express Bus Business Plan. First Community Workshop Using the market analysis findings and the input of the project team, the consultants led the first of three community workshops aimed at brainstorming ideas for an ideal routing in the South Palo Alto area. Approximately 14 members of the public attended. The consultant team presented five service concepts which they and asked participants to critique (See Attachment E). Several issues arose at the first workshop (see Attachment F, Workshop #1 summary): ¯Schoo! service, especially to Gunn High Schoo!, was judged extremely important to residents because it can provide a safe and reliable alternative for middle and high school students for getting to school and will help reduce localized congestion during peak periods on the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor. ¯There is a strong desire for evening peak period service to Gunn High School to accommodate students involved in extracurricular activities. ¯The existing City Crosstown Shuttle service to Gurm does not have sufficient capacity to meet demand, especially at bell times. ¯Line 88 duplicates service to the San Antonio/Showers Drive transit center. City of Palo Alto Page 4 ¯Connecting residential areas and community activity centers to downtown and the Do~vntown Caltrain station are very important. Of lesser importance are connections to San Antonio Transit Center, the California Avenue retail district and train station and the Midtown retail district. ¯Any service that integrates VTA and City shuttles needs to have a uniform fare. Overlapping service needs to be seamless in terms of cost and identity to the rider for a reasonable chance of success. Second Community Workshop The second community workshop was attended by approximately 25 community members. At the second community workshop, four revised alternatives based on community input and analysis following the first workshop ’ were presented (See Attachments G and H). The alternatives approached transit options from two perspectives: 1) routes that preserved the City Crosstown Shuttle and introduced a revised version of VTA Community Bus Line 88, and 2) routes that attempted to inte~ate the operations of the City Crosstown Shuttle with a new VTA route connecting South Palo Alto to downtown. Further, VTA staff introduced the concept of VTA assuming responsibility for all bus service to Gurm High School from south Palo Alto neighborhoods east of E1 Camino Real. In both sets of alternatives, the team assumed that Community Bus Line 89, cormecting the Stanford Research Park to either University or California Avenue Caltrain Station, would be discontinued, as discussed later in this report. Proposed July 2008 Community Bus .Service Plan As a result of the community planning process, VTA staff have developed the following recommendations to the VTA Board of Directors for VTA Community bus service in Palo Alto, to be implemented in July 2008. 1. Discontinuation of Line 89 The Stanford Research Park is served by a significant level of transit service, including Marguerite shuttles (Hanover Shuttle and VA Line), VTA Express Buses 101,102, 103 and 104, Samtrans KX Line and the Dumbarton Express Bus. VTA staffhave concluded that Line 89 would likely not be competitive against the free shuttles already operating in the SRP. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure TR 4.1 of the Palo Alto/Stanford Development ageement for the Mayfield project will require Stanford to expand the Hanover shuttle to the south Research Park. Stanford has initiated an °interim’ extension.this fall and will expand the service in July 2008, after acquiring additional vehicles. This free service will provide a direct connection between the SRP and the Baby Bullet service at the Palo Alto University Avenue station. The study team concluded the resources allocated to Line 89 could be better utilized on an expanded Line 88 in light of these expanded free shuttle services. 2. Reroute and Enhance Line 88 VTA staff have recommended a revised routing for Community Bus Line 88 as depicted on Attachment B. The route will be classified as a Community Bus route with a standard Community Bus fare. The core route is depicted as a solid line, with dotted lines indicating special school bell time service to Gunn, Terman and Jordan. The regular Community Bus Line 88 would operate City of Palo Alto Page 5 between the Midtown Area on the east and Gurm High School and the Veterans Administration Medical Center on the west at 30-minute peak and 60-minute midday frequencies, an improvement over the January 2008 Line 88 which will have hourly service all day. This proposal increases VTA service from 5,500 annual operating hours for the service that will go into effect in January 2008 to 6,000 annual hours for the July 2008 plan. The service replaces all City Crosstown services to Gunn High School with larger capacity vehicles. Two branches of the main route are deployed to serve Gunn High School bell times from the Midtown and Ventura neighborhoods, along the East and West Meadow Corridor. Due to the larger sized vehicles, service to the Ventura neighborhood will be via bus stops on West Meadow instead of Curtner/Park. In addition, the main route will serve Gunn High School all day, addressing the need for regular 30-minute afternoon service, post bell time, which would accommodate students staying for after school sports and other on-campus activities. The plan also provides for service from the area south of Oregon Expressway to Jordan Middle School during school commute periods to supplement Crosstown shuttle service to Jordan. On balance, this plan is far superior to the adopted COA plan for January 2008. This proposal addresses three major issues identified during the public input process, namely the need to enhance transit service to Gunn Hi~ School, restoration of a!l day service to the Louis Road corridor, and connecting service to the Midtown shopping district. However, this plan does not include service from Midtown to the California Avenue business direct, which staff believes would be a more successful anchor to the route and provide access to the Caltrain service. However, VTA was reluctant to increase headways or add additional bus resources to make this connection. Under this plan, the City’s Crosstown Shuttle service to Gunn High School will no longer be required. The Crosstown route extension to Ounn High School in the morning and afternoon would be discontinued, at a substantial cost-savings to the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District. However, this plan will introduce a community bus fare to student riders currently receiving free sela, ice on the Crossto~vn shuttle. The trade-off is that the VTA will be able to accommodate many more student riders in larger vehicles that the City shuttle was able to offer. Additional Issues for Further Study The following issues were discussed by the project team as important issues that merit further exploration and evaluation by VTA and or City staff in the coming year. Alternative Future Community Bus Service Concepts for Palo Alto Attachments C and D present two concepts VTA staff and their consultants have developed for an expanded service connecting South Palo Alto and Downtown while also addressing the school commute. Both concepts would replace the city’s free Crosstown shuttle with VTA Community. bus routes. VTA and the City would need to pursue these concepts further and reach ageement on a service plan by October 2008 in order to implement a change in January 2009. Concept 1 is less costly, requiring 6,400 annual operating hours as compared to 7,700 hours for Concept 2. For this reason, VTA staff have assumed different funding strategies for the two concepts. Concept 1 assumes VTA Community Bus service with a standard community bus fare City of Palo Alto Page 6 while Concept 2 would require the City or a third party to contribute 25 percent of the operating costs. VTA staff have indicated they feel the free fare would offer the most realistic chance of meeting productivity standards. The two concepts also differ in routing and service frequency, with Concept 1 featuring frequent service between Downtown and Midtown witha one-way loop serving South Palo Alto. Concept 1 would operate with 30 minute peak and 60 minute midday service. Concept 2 employs two separate routes that operate on a shared "trunk" section between Dow~ntown and Midtown and then branch off to serve different areas of South Palo Alto. Concept 2 would have 60-minute service on each route throughout the day. However, by staggering the schedules of the two routes, the overlapping segment of the route north of Colorado would effectively have 30-minute service between Downtown and Midtown. Concept 2 would retain more of the existing Crosstown shuttle routing in the Midtown, Meadow/Charleston super-block, with stops at JLS Middle School, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Stevenson House, while expanding direct service to the East Meadow Circle area. Both concepts appear superior to the July 2008 recommendation in that they link South Palo Alto to Downtown in a cost-effective mariner. Both concepts preserve al! of the school bell time service to Gunn High School with high capacity vehicles. Further evaluation and discussions with VTA staff could lead to refinements in these concepts. These proposals would fundamentally change the nature of the City’s shuttle program and, therefore, would n~ed to be vetted by the community and City Council before any changes in the Palo Alto shuttle progam are contemplated. Both conc.epts assume VTA buses replace the existing Crossto~n Shuttle. Under Concept 1, the City’s expense for the Crosstown shuttle would be eliminated, but in the cost to buy in with the 25% of the operating cost to make the shuttle free to the rider, could equal or exceed current costs for the Crosstown shuttle. Both concepts suggest an alternative routing (in ~een solid line) for a City Shuttle that would address the Midtown-Califomia Avenue-Gunn market but not compete with VTA services. Staff notes that this alternative City shuttle route has not been discussed and is merely shown on the VTA maps as a concept. (VTA staff were unaware of traffic calming measures in the Ventura neighborhood which would make this exact alig-nrnent infeasible). Community Bus Monthly Pass With VTA assuming more school commute oriented service, the need for a reduced monthly pass for the community bus fare has been identified by community and school representatives. Many Gunn High students now purchase $40 monthly student bus passes at the school for the regular VTA bus fare; however, there is no comparable reduced cost monthly pass in the Community Bus program for students based on the $.50/ride, to alleviate the need for students to carry cash fares for each community bus trip. Conversion of Line 35 to a Community Bus Route During this study process, staff and the community have raised the issue of converting Line 35, a standard local bus route, to a Community Bus route, with smaller vehicles and a reduced fare. Line 35 operates between Downtown Palo Alto and Downtown Mountain View. This would allow for reduced fares for any trips involving transfers between Lines 88 and 35. VTA staff have indicated the City of Palo Alto Page 7 most productive section of the route is in Mountain View between San Antonio transit hub and downtown Mountain View. VTA will monitor ridership to determine if the route could be served by smaller community buses. Stanford Research Park Express Bus Service The study highlighted the cost inefficiencies of express bus service to the Stanford Research Park. VTA plans to conduct an Express Bus Service Plan in the near future that could explore alternatives to the current service. Further, the study could include looking at the need for a more centralized transit hub in the research park for express bus and shuttle services. Palo Alto Transit Center Capacity Constraints The study confirmed the importance and sig-nificance of the Palo Alto Transit Center, but also acknowledged that the facility does not accommodate a number of shuttles, including the Stanford Marguerite, Pato Alto and East Palo Alto shuttles. These shuttles stop on University Circle or in Downtown Palo Alto, creating difficult connections for transit riders. VTA staff have expressed a strong interest in looking into the long-range facility and capacity needs at the transit center. Project Information on City -website All of the study materials discussed in this report and the full VTA Market Analysis Report for Palo Alto can be found on the Community Bus Study page on the City’s website at www.citvo fpaloalto.or~iknowzone/city_proj ects/transportation_/default.asp ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS The City Council will consider this item on December 17 and the VTA Board of Directors is scheduled to consider the Palo Alto Community Bus Study on January 3, 2007. If adopted, the proposed Line 88 service changes would be initiated in July 2008 and further changes could be implemented in January 2009. Prepared by:Gayle Likens, Transportation Manager Reviewed by:Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. January 2008 Service Plan July 2008 Service Plan Future Service Concept 1 Future Service Concept 2 October 23, 2007 Community Workshop materials City of Palo Alto Page 8 F G. H. October 23, 2007 Community Workshop Summary November 14, 2007 Community Workshop materials November 14, 2007 Community Workshop Summary COURTESY COPIES: Kevin Connolly, VTA Michael Bums, VTA Brodie Hamilton, Stanford University City of Palo Alto Page 9 ATTACHMENT A January 2008 Line 88/89 Service Plan ./ P~to Alto & VTA ~-~C rosstown GunnVA Extension Embarcadero Jordan Run ~Caltrain Deer Croek Marguerite RP ~-:Marguerite VA ~VTA Line 22 ==~==VTA Line 35 =VTA Line 88 =VTA Gunn Extension VTA Line 89 VTA Rapid 522 ~VTA Express Se~ice Alte~ate Proposal C H.~’,N NIN G THE HARBOR ATTACI-~IENT B £ > O ATTACHM-ENT E 0 ~0 ~0 JnoH enueA~ Jed s~u!pJ~o~ E ,~ E E E i -~ -~ o lie O 00 0 00 0 0 o 0 LO 0o E c 0 00 0 o_ ~W.~ ~o E E o | ~eSu~ss~1 ~ed ~p!sqns I 0 0 0 t"- oo 0 U X 0 U 0 © .’o 0 0 ! ,.._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT F Palo Alto Community Transit Study Workshop I Summary Minutes I’uesday, October 23, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. .... ~ ~.~ Middle 5caool Dance S~udio 750 )-; California Ave ~orkshop Attendees: 14 3Iedia Fresent: none ~:,t.ected Officials Present: Yoriko Kishimoto, City of Palo A!~o Mayor [~roject Team Staff Present: B~:~ C.ap, i~,~ mg Smith, Jody btt~nm~s, GallVTA: t’~evm Com~u~y," -~ K~mmt Cut’f; "": - Coilim~, S~eve Fisher, Ann Carey L ~y of ?a!o A~to: Oa2[e [ikens S~aagord University: Brodie H~mm~<,n, An.~u~._=. ~ Davol Consukan~s: Andrew Tang (Cambridg~ Systema~ics); Jeffrey Nelson, Jessica ter Schure Summary Pa!o A!to Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto opened the workshop with some background inibrmation on transit and land use planning in Palo Alto and the importance of a success.~.fl transit network. a...wn Connoily, VTA, briefly presented the results of the Comprehensive Operations A_nalysis (COA) with focus on VTA’s Palo Alto service. Andrew Tang, Cambridge Sy[tematics, introduced the audience to the recently completed travel market analysis for Santa Clara County with more in-depth results for the Palo Alto service area. Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard, discussed that the travel market analysis is a great tool for VTA to focus on the major transit generators, whereas the focus of this meeting is more on local community service in Palo Alto. Five concepts for rerouting the proposed VTA routes 88 and 89 along with potential rerouting of the Crosstown shuttle were presented. The presentation transitioned into a breakout group session, where participants were given the opportunity to share their ideas and concerns regarding local transit service. After the breakout group session, Jeffrey Tumlin summarized the workshop and informed the attendees the next steps the project team is going to take to conclude the study. Comments from Group Sessions and General Discussions: 1.Concepts III, IV and V were somewhat preferred by the participants. No participant preferred concepts I or II. 2.A major concern is that the new route(s) must connect South Palo Alto to Gunn High Schoo! in mornings and aRernoons. "For every kid not on a bus, there wi!! be one more car." If possible, school trips should not only run to meet bell times, but also to pick up children at after-school activities. If necessary, split route 88 to meet bell times at Gurm and with other destinations in off-peak. School trips should also be published in the timetable. 3. Several participants recommended timed transfers between shuttles, VTA, Samtrans and Marguerite. With half-hour services on many of these routes, trav_sfers are a hassle. If there is a timed transfer between route 22 and Marguerite at California Avenue for instance, then employees in the Stanford Research Park may be more inclined to take the bus. 4.It was highly recommended that the Embarcadero shuttle is extended or rerouted to downtown Palo Alto rather than the Caltrain station. 5. Some participants were more eager to keep the local routes within Palo Alto city limits. Another participant would like to see better connections to the IKE ’A/Home Depot/Best Buy shopping center in East Palo Alto, and the Costco shopping center along Charleston in Mountain View. 6. One pm,-ticipant suggested that the proposed route 89 could be operated by Stanford as part of the Marguerite shuttle system, rather than by VTA. This would remove the fare on the route. 7. Since route 22 is terminating at the Palo Alto Ca!train station rather than in Menlo Park, VTA’s accessible service progam OUTREACH does no longer cover trips to medica! offices along E1 Camino Real in Menlo Park. 8. Group 3 developed a potential sixth concept for rerouting 88 and the Crosstown shuttle, and showed potential rer0uting of the Embarcadero shuttle (to cover downtown Palo Alto). 9. Concepts I, II and III provide duplicate service to San Antonio Transit Center (since 35 goes there), which is not needed. 10. There is high demand to go to the Stanford Medical Center. Although the Marguerite provides connections to the Medical Center from the Palo Alto Transit Center, transfers are not convenient. ATTACHMENT G I/ ATTACHMENT H Palo Alto Community Transit Study Workshop II Summary Minutes Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Jordan Middle Schoo! 750 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 Workshop Attendees: Appr0x. 25 Media Present: Stanford Daily Project Team Staff Present: VTA: Kevin Cormoily, Jody Lirtlehales, GaiI Collins~~ ??? City of Palo Alto: Gayle Likens S tar~’,ord r r.: ..... : .... ¯ ~a~lit,.,,~, Angus Davol Consultants: Bonnie Nelson, Steve Boland (Nelson\Nygaard) Meeting Summary Bonnie Nelson and Gayle Likens opened the workshop with some background information on the Community Bus Study. Kevin Connolly, VTA, briefly presented the results of the Comprehensive Operations .Analysis (COA) with focus on VTA’s Palo Alto service. Bonnie Nelson, Nelson\Nygaard, reviewed the original five Community Bus Study concepts and discussed three of the four concepts developed since or being carried forward for further study (I/COA, IB, V, and VI, which was discussed in general terms using N\N’s School Routes map). Comments from Genera! Discussion: 1.Homeless veterans need transit service between Downtown Palo Alto and the V.A. 2.Stanford has "mastered the art of’’ shuttle service. Why isn’t the Marguerite system being expanded? 3.Any service to Gunn should not encourage students to leave before last period tutorials on Tuesdays. 4. Evening and weekend service is also needed. 5. _Might it be possible to save money by reducing service when school is out? 6. In Concept IB, it might make sense to route buses down California rather than Oregon Expressway, in order to provide additional neighborhood service. 7. Would school service be free, or would a community bus fare be charged? 8. Any savings that are generated shouid be invested in weekend service. 9.Transit service in Palo Alto is provided by too many different operators. Combining services under a single operator would aliow more efficient allocation of resources by time of day (e.g., morning corc~nuter and school service, then buses are used for community service mid-day). t 0. Concepts seem overly focused on lower-density areas that would require a cross- subsidy from riders in higher-density areas. 11. Is the point of the COA 88 actualty to reduce its productivity, and thereby make it a candidate for future elimination? 12. Wouldn’t the city be able to provide service more cost-effectively than VTA? 13. Focusing service on schools wouidn’t just benefit students; by encourage students not to drive, it would reduce congestion. 14. Planners should remain conscious of Gurm’s "open campus" policy and irregular schedules. 15. South Palo Alto might be a low-density area now, but many new and relatively high-density housing projects are plmmned. J~ 61 Th~e i~i’~’ ~ij 0~ i.~mpl0~.i~(~) ~:Ealsi~M~ii~ c~r~i~ in S 0{lthPai~:i~it0~:~ 17. Perhaps some Route 89 service should be routed to University Avenue Ca!train, and some to California Avenue in order to better coordinate schedules with arriving trains. ! 8. In Concept V, Route 88 (Crosstown II) duplicates much of the alignment of not just the existing Crosstown Shuttle, but VTA Route 35. 19. A show of hands was taken: Vv2-~ich Caltrain station should most service connect to? Results: University Avenue 9, California 5, San Antonio 0. 20. If a Route 88 alignment like that in Concept V is chosen, with initial service to Mitchell Park, then to the future Jewish Community Center once it opens, boarding at stops along both alignments should be tracked and the alignment ~dth more boardings made permanent. 21. The Jewish Community Center wi!l provide a downtown shuttle; however, it will not serve residents of the attached affordable housing. 22. There is a great need to serve Stanford Medical Center. 23. Another show of hands was taken: Which is more important, all-day neighborhood service or school-oriented service? Results: Schools 7, neighborhoods 5. 24.Concept V best serves Midtown. 25.The earlier comment that a focus on school service would benefit the entire community- was reiterated. Gurm creates its own grid!ock. 26. Moreover, if students learn how to take transit when they’re young, they will grow into adult transit users, which benefits the whol~ society. 27.A final show of hands "*as taken: Should any Route 89 be routed to California or University Ca!train? Results: University 5, California 2. Attachment F Correspondence to the Planning and Transportation Commission Planning & Transportation Commission RE: December 12 Agenda Item 2 -- Palo Alto Community Bus Study December 12, 2007 Commissioners, We, the undersigned, support the 5 recommendations made by staff, with the following comments. Although the July 2008 Recommendation is a good start while Alternative Concepts 1 and 2 are being refined, it is important to ensure that service to California Avenue is included. Because the Community Bus Line 88 would connect with Line 35 at the Midtown Center, those wishing to go to downtown or to the University Avenue Transit Center could transfer from Line 88 to Line 35. Line 88 should, therefore, continue on to California Avenue to provide south Palo Alto residents with a connection to this shopping area and CalTrain station. While a lot of attention is being paid to school routes and employment centers, we need to remember that Palo Alto residents (who pay taxes for the VTA service) also use these routes. Part of the mitigation for the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life was that it would be served by VTA buses. This will be critically needed when that project is completed to get its residents to shopping and other community services. A start date for service to this locale needs to be specified now. Although we understand these are works in progress, we believe that Concept 2 in general would most efficiently and fully serve the various needs of South Palo Alto residents, while reducing their need to drive to key areas: Students could get to Gunn, JLS, Terman and Jordan Residents could reach the Mitchell Park Library/Community Center New residents of the TKCJL, Echelon and Classic Communities development could reach local shopping opportunities at the Charleston Center and Midtown Center ,~ Residents could connect to CalTrain at California Avenue for further connection to BART and SFO Those at Stevenson House would have access to services both downtown and on California Avenue As both residents and taxpayers in Palo Alto, we applaud staff, and Gayle Likens in particular, for actively pursuing a more equitable solution to the VTA’s proposed cuts, and to VTA for being willing to work with Palo Alto to ensure continuation of bus service to the community. We ask that you support their efforts in refining the routes to best serve Palo Alto. Regards, Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association Chair Pam Radin, MIRA Traffic Chair Marta Reines, Midtown Merchants Association Chair Ronna Devincenzi, California Avenue Area Development Association President From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LOUISE LYMAN [Iouiselyman@sbcglobal.net] Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:57 PM Planning Commission Likens, Gayle Fate of #88 buses Dear Commission Members I want to bring to your attention the need for the #88 bus to go to at least one Cal Train station, l~lease take that into consideration when setting the route for #88 and #89. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Thank You, Louise Lyman 3945 Louis Palo Alto, CA 943o3 (650) 493-1o53 Statement re: VTA Proposal on I am Penny Ellson, 513 E1 Capitan Place, speaking for the PTA Council Traffic Safety Committee. We v~_nt to thank City of Palo Alto and VTA staff, Stanford, other transit providers, and Nelson!Nygaard. They have worked at break-neck speed to meet the over-ambitious end- of-year deadline. We have some comments and questions, 1). The staff report (page 6) says that the proposal "... increases VTA service from 5,500 armual operating hours for the service that will go into effect in January 2008 to 6,000 annual hours for the July 2008 plan." We would like to know the difference in operating hours between the proposal and the 2007 plan. This is important because the proposal is not ideal and could be improved. Restoring hours that were cut in the January 2008 plan would help with that. Regional transit should support grow-th as the region presses Palo Alto to massively expand housing infill and Stanford Medical Center, notcut operating hours in our city. Our starting point for evaluating operating hours should be the 2007 plan, not the January ’08 plan. 2). The July 2008 Recommendation does a good job of providing school commute service to Ounn, Terman, Jordan, and JLS. It is exciting to see that change and it will greatly help to reduce morning peak hour trips. 3). We see the lack of an anchor for this line as a serious flaw. We wholeheartedly agree with CPA staff’s argument that a connection to California Avenue is needed to anchor the line. Ridership will dramatically drop off during the summer and other school vacation times, or any time other than school commute times throughout the day. The core line would he more useful to bus users other than students if it were redrawn with a connection to the California Avenue area. Given that ridership and farebox recovery is going to be a key concern in evaluating the success of this line, it is critical that an anchor be provided. 4). This plan introduces a community bus fare for VTA buses and the Crosstown Shuttle...a good idea that eliminates the problem of competition between the lines. Community Bus Service passes are also a good idea. We would like to suggest an experiment with 1-month and 3-month Community Bus Service passes. Some students have reported that making time to gd to the Student Activities Center to regularly get a new pass has been a barrier to bus use. Lower fares might make a 3-month pass more affordable. Would it be possible to try this? 5). A frequent comment about VTA from parents and students is that the buses are often late. Students need to be on time for school. In order to encourage ridership, please work on maintaining schedules! We also heard this several times in the community outreach meetings. 6). The Alternative Concepts 1 & 2 both contain interesting elements that merit farther study, but they need a lot of refinement. The mandated deadline for this project made it impossible to thoroughly explore these options. Connecting south Palo Alto to downtown via VTA and the California Ave. Station via Shuttle is an interesting idea. However, we would like to know- if the VTA south PA service to Gurm and Terman in the Alternative Concepts would only run during belt times. If so, that would not be an adequate schedule to serve the needs of students who attend after school programs and sports. Further, it leaves the southernmost part of Palo Alto with very limited bus service throughout the day. Please clarif)7. 8). VTA’s continuation of service has been unpredictable, so it is difficult to support turning over Shuttle funds to VTA. We would like to understand what happens if VTA cuts service after the Shuttle has been eliminated. How easy or difficult would it be to resume Shuttle service? 9), When schedules change there usually is a reduction in ridership. This year the Line 88 will undergo two schedule changes in a six month period. Given that, it would be very helpful if VTA would work with the PTA Traffic Safety Committee to provide publicity materials specifically addressing the Gunn fare and schedule changes to help us build awareness and encourage ridership. 10). Concept 2--The loop around E. Meadow- CircIes over serves this small neighborhood compared to other south PA neighborhoods and adds time to the run that might be used elsewhere more effectively. It could be eliminated. 11). Conversion of Line 35 to a Community Bus is a good idea if that change also works for Mountain View. Thank you for giving our comments your usual thoughtful consideration. Planning & Transportation Commission RE: December 12 Agenda Item 2 -- Palo Alto Community Bus Study December 12, 2007 Commissioners, We, the undersigned, support the 5 recommendations made by staff, with the following comments. Although the July 2008 Recommendation is a good start while Alternative Concepts 1 and 2 are being refined, it is important to ensure that service to California Avenue is included. Because the Community Bus Line 88 would connect with Line 35 at the Midtown Center, those wishing to go to downtown or to the University Avenue Transit Center could transfer from Line 88 to Line 35. Line 88 should, therefore, continue on to California Avenue to provide south Palo Alto residents with a connection to this shopping area and CaITrain station. o While a lot of attention is being paid to school routes and employment centers, we need to remember that Palo Alto residents (who pay taxes for the VTA service) also use these routes. Part of the mitigation for the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life was that it would be served by VTA buses. This wilt be critically needed when that project is completed to get its residents to shopping and other community services. A start date for service to this locale needs to be specified now. Although we understand these are works in progress, we believe that Concept 2 in general would most efficiently and fully serve the various needs of South Palo Alto residents, while reducing their need to drive to key areas: o Students could get to Gunn, JLS, Terman and Jordan o Residents could reach the Mitchell Park Library/Community Center New residents of the TKCJL, Echelon and Classic Communities development could reach local shopping opportunities at the Charleston Center and Midtown Center o Residents could connect to CalTrain at California Avenue for further connection to BART and SFO o Those at Stevenson House would have access to services both downtown and on California Avenue As both residents and taxpayers in Palo Alto, we applaud staff, and Gayle Likens in particular, for actively pursuing a more equitable solution to the VTA’s proposed cuts, and to VTA for being willing to work with Palo Alto to ensure continuation of bus service to the community. We ask that you support their efforts in refining the routes to best serve Palo Alto. Regards, Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association Chair Pam Radin, MRA Traffic Chair Marta Reines, Midtown Merchants Association Chair Ronna Devincenzi, California Avenue Area Development Association President Page 1 of I Betten, Z~riah From:Uma Seshadri [umarseshadri@yahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:33 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:VTA bus route change Hi, My daughter takes the bus #88 every day to school and back. We live close to Louis and hence this bus is very convenient for us. Please keep the schedule as is or else we have to drive her to school which will increase the congestion on Arastradero and have a negative impact on the envirora-nent. We deeply appreciate living in Palo Alto and the number of public transportation the city provides. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thanks. Seshadris Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo yottr homepag~ 1 9/1 From: "Michelle Rosengaus" <ntrosengaus@yahoo.com> To: "Karen Sundback" <sundback@sbcglobal.net>; <pellson@pacbell.net>, "Arthur Keller" <ptc@kellers. "Gayle Likens" <Gayle.Likens@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Conm~ents for the VTA Bus Public Hearing December 12 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 200? 14:50:I8 -0800 I have some comments on the VTA proposed changes to Route 88 in January and July: 1. The City of Palo Alto Staff Report says that the resources allocated to the present Route 89 will be passed on to Route 88. How many service hours does Route 89 have now, how many hours does Route 88 have now, and how does the sum compare to the 5500 hours to be allocated to the new 88 in January? I have a feeling it is a lot less. 2. VTA will use "community buses", which means smaller buses. How can that possibly translate into more service capacity on the new Route 88 than we have now? 3. The report says that the Crosstown Shuttle service will be cut. According to attachment B there are many residential areas that will lose service throughout the day if this happens because the buses will only run through these areas at school bell times. 4. Cutting the Crosstown Shuttle is equivalent to losing service in Palo Alto, no matter how VTA words it. 5. School belt time service along Louis is replicated by the regular route and the extra school peak service. It seems one bus could go on Louis and another on Ross or Greer. 6. Does the $0.50 bus fare go into effect in January? 7. There are major changes happening in January, then again proposed for July and even into 2009. Transit ridership drops when changes are made, especially if they entail reductions in service like those proposed for Route 88. The smart move would be to leave Route 88 alone and change it in July to the more favorable option. Another scenario could be to implement the p~an for July in January as a test for 6 months. Page, l of I Betten, Zariah From:Lydia Tan [ftan@bridgehousing.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:25 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Ben Metcalf; Emslie, Steve Subject:Re: Palo Alto Community Bus Study Recommendations Attn: Karen Holman Chair, Pla~xaing and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto B Y EM_aXL Re: Palo Alto Community Bus Study Recommendations Dear Ms. Hob-nan: Imn writing to encottrage the Planning mad Transportation Co~rmission to endorse staff’s recon~mendations as they relate to the Palo Alto Community Bus Study. As you lcnow, BRIDGE Housing Corporation received approvals to move forward with construction of a 56-unit independent living facility for exta-emely low-income se~iors on Fabian Way. Along with Altah-e and the Taube-Koret Campus Jewish Life, wNch are both reader construction, siNaificant new demand for transit options can be expected, tn fact, the project’s Enviromnentat Impact Report estim.ated 2,010 trips daily by residents, employees, and users of these new facilities within this 12 acre development. BR]X)GE Housing Corporation creates and manages a range of affordable, high-quail%* housing for working fanilies and seniors. At Fabian Way, BRIDGE is developing this new conmaumty in partnership with the City of Palo and. Santa Cla-a County. BRIDGE plans to coordinate a range of services with local service organizations and providers .for its residents to assist them Jn aging m place. BRIDGE expects many residents wil! not own vehicles or will prefer to use pablic transit for accessing medical services, groceries, recreation options, employment and other amenities. So ser~-h~g Fabian Way with a dedicated bus stop - mad ensuring that the bus provides direct connections to important locations like Guzm High School and the VA medical center with reasonable levels of service - is critically important We appreciate the significant work the VTA and the CitT of Palo have put into studying appropriate solutions. Although we regret that Staff’s preferred alternative does not include one seat se~wice to downtown from South Palo Alto, we believe the preferred alternative ("Attachment B") is an excellent step in the right direction and a strong improvement over many other options that we have seen. We strongly encourage you to endorse it. The VTA provides an important se~w-ice to this part of Palo Alto -- a major cut-back or elimination of Line 88 would pose significant difficulties to our neighborhood and to oar future residents. Please feel free to contact me with any" questions at (415) 989-1111. Sincerely, Lydia Tan Executive Vice President BRIDGE Housing Corporation 345 Spear S~:eet, Ste 700 Sm~Francisco, CA 94105 415.989.1tll ATTACHMENT G Draft Minutes of the December 12, 2007 Planning and Transportation Commission ( to be provided at places)